The study of law and religion has exploded around the world. This article, prepared in celebration of the silver jubilee of the Ecclesiastical Law Society, traces the development of law and religion study in the United States. Despite its long tradition of strict separation of Church and state, and despite its long allegiance to legal positivism and intellectual secularisation, the United States has emerged as a world leader of the new interdisciplinary field of law and religion. Hundreds of American scholars, from different confessions and professions, are now at work in this field, and two dozen major research centres and journals have been established at American law schools. After canvassing some of the main themes and trends in American law and religion scholarship today, this article concludes with a brief reflection on some of the main challenges before Christian scholars who work in the field of ecclesiastical law.1

This article examines two interpretations of the process of secularisation that can be traced back through European legal and political thought, and a more recent trend that challenges both of them. It does this through the prism of the public sphere, because in today's Europe one of the most debated issues is the place and role of religion in this sphere, understood as the space where decisions concerning questions of general interest are discussed. The article concludes, first, that the paradigm through which relations between the secular and the religious have been interpreted is shifting and, second, that this change is going to have an impact on the notion of religious freedom and, consequently, on the recognised position of religions in the public sphere.1

In recent years, the relationship between law and religion has been subject to increased scholarly interest. In part this is the result of new laws protecting religious liberty and non-discrimination, and it may be that overall levels of litigation have increased as well. In all this activity, there are signs that the relationship between law and religion is changing. While unable to address every matter of detail, this article seeks to identify the underlying themes and trends. It starts by suggesting that the constitutional settlement achieved by the end of the nineteenth century has often been overlooked, religion only appearing in the guise of inadequately theorised commitments to individual liberty and equality. The article then considers the role of multiculturalism in promoting recent legal changes. However, the new commitment to multiculturalism cannot explain a number of features of the law: the minimal impact of the Human Rights Act 1998, the uncertain effect of equality legislation, an apparent rise in litigation in established areas of law and religion, and some striking cases in which acts have been found to be unlawful in surprising ways. In contrast, the article proposes a new secularisation thesis. The law is coming to treat religions as merely recreational and trivial. This has the effect of reducing the significance of religion as a matter of conscience, as legal system and as a context for public service. As a way of managing the ever-deepening forms of religious diversity present within the United Kingdom, such a secularisation strategy is implausible.1

In the Archbishop of Canterbury's Foreword to the findings of the Anglican Communion Legal Advisers' Network, Rowan Williams argues that law is a way of securing two things for the common good: equity and responsibility. Law is against arbitrariness and for knowing who is responsible for this or that. Law in the Church is also about equitable life in the communion of the Body of Christ and the mutual obligations of our interdependence. As Convenor of the Legal Advisers' Network, Canon John Rees observes that their work, which emerged as The Principles of Canon Law Common to the Churches of the Anglican Communion, is not a quick fix to the contemporary problems of the Anglican Communion. Nor is it a covert device for the introduction of a universal canon law for the whole Anglican Communion with an aim to impose covenantal sanctions for churches which do not toe the line.

Royal Peculiars are an oddity of the Church of England. Churches and chapels that would normally come under the jurisdiction of the local bishop are in fact ‘peculiar’ when they have an ordinary who is not the local bishop but someone appointed by the Crown – and in some cases the Queen herself. In the Channel Islands, the whole deaneries of Jersey and Guernsey rather than individual churches claim to be Royal Peculiars. Whether this claim is valid is not easy to determine. While together with the Isle of Man, but excluding Ireland, they form part of the British Islands, they are not part of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom government is responsible for the defence and international relations of the Channel Islands, but the Crown is ultimately responsible for their good government, and Acts of the British Parliament do not apply to the Channel Islands.

Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) returned to the test of individual sincerity for determining whether there has been an infringement of freedom of religion pursuant to section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter) in SL c Commission scolaire des Chênes. Sincerity of belief or in practice as necessary for religious expression on the part of a complainant has been accepted from some of the earliest Charter cases as the triggering requirement for a section 2(a) claim, and, in itself, sufficient to establish a claim which a court must then balance against conflicting claims pursuant to section 1 (‘reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society’) or section 15 (equality rights). In SL, the court confirmed that mere sincerity is no longer sufficient and that an objective burden of proof now rests on a claimant to show how a state-sanctioned requirement infringes the fundamental right to freedom of religion before competing claims will be assessed. In SL, the court found that the complainants had failed to show how a religious education course mandated for all students without exception by the Government of Quebec interfered with what they argued was their religious freedom as Roman Catholic parents to pass on their faith to their children. This result has also been interpreted to mean that the state has a right prior to parental rights in the religious formation of their own children, and, on this reading, has been highly controversial. The court's new formulation of a sincerity test may be of interest elsewhere. The earlier formulation in Syndicat Northcrest v Anselem was adopted by the House of Lords in R (Williamson) v Secretary of State for Education and Employment, and the subsequent spread of its use has since been subject to consideration in England.

On 27 March the House of Commons debated the policy guidelines of the Director of Public Prosecutions on prosecutions for encouraging or assisting suicide. The debate, introduced by Richard Ottaway (Conservative) and David Winnick (Labour), was broadly supportive of the guidelines. The motion was amended and the House resolved to welcome the policy guidelines and to encourage ‘further development of specialist palliative care and hospice provision’.