A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 9, 2005, December 9, 2006, December 9, 2007, December 9, 2008, December 9, 2009, December 9, 2016, and December 9, 2019.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. France Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Were they associations culturelles or associations cultuelles? I suspect the latter... AnonMoos 08:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I believe it is culturelles. Raystorm 11:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Found article fr:Association cultuelle... AnonMoos 11:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply

It seems to clearly be cultuelle (no "r").

-- 131.238.109.235 22:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply

The word used in the text of the law is "cultuelle": http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/histoire/eglise-etat/sommaire.asp. My bet is that "cultuelle" was deliberately chosen by republican rhetoricians for its normative, perhaps even inflammatory, value. "Associations de pratiques religieuses" probably would have worked just as well from a descriptive perspective. Ref also http://nouvellelanguefrancaise.hautetfort.com/archive/2006/12/10/cultuel.html (though the comment therein that anthropology invented rascism is perhaps indicative of a specific POV in that article). PeterWhittaker ( talk) 13:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply

In the Politics section, in the following sentence:

representing layment, instead of putting them directly under the supervision of the church hierarchy.

is "layment" supposed to be "laymen" (i.e. lay people)? -- 131.238.109.235 22:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I'd guess that it is a translation issue, but the phrase

when he was still Minister of Interior (and therefore also in charge of the cults) [1]

reads rather oddly. -- Solipsist ( talk) 12:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Basically, the words "cult" and "sect" are reversed between French and English, regarding which one is relatively neutral and which one has strong negative connotations... AnonMoos ( talk) 02:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't know about that: We use pretty much an equal mix of French and English in our house (so perhaps it is a Canadian thing, akin to differences between British and American English), but cult and sect have negative connotations in both languages. When I want to be neutral or diplomatic, I stay away from both, in both languages. PeterWhittaker ( talk) 14:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply

The last sentence of the "Effects" section, a quote from the referenced book, is neither neutral nor verifiable. Rather, it is prescriptive conclusion from a specific point of view. It seems to contradict several points from the "Politics" section, notably the 'freedom' in the second and third paragraphs (free from government influence when choosing bishops, freedom of fundraising, cultural freedom) and the 'support' point in the fourth (effective state subsidization of long-established religious organizations).

Should this last sentence (crippling of religion in public life) be deleted (simplest action); balanced with an alternative POV (please find one!); or moved to a "Criticism" or "Controvery" section, to make it clearer than the reference reflects one, specific POV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterWhittaker ( talk • contribs) 13:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply

References <ref>[http://www.ambafrance-us.org/atoz/secular.asp The Secular Principle by Jean Baubérot]</ref> and <ref name=Chrono> [http://www.eglise-etat.org/chronologie.html Chronology of the 1905 French Law] {{fr icon}}</ref> and external link [http://www.ambafrance-us.org/atoz/secular.asp The Secular Principle by Jean Baubérot] have gone dead and been removed from the article. 75.69.0.58 ( talk) 12:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/label_france/60/gb/10.html
  • In 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State on 2011-05-25 02:35:10, 404 Not Found
  • In 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State on 2011-06-04 15:01:28, 404 Not Found

-- JeffGBot ( talk) 15:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC) reply

This article has long stretches of statements without referencing, but is otherwise well-written and clear. I am planning to add citations to both the sources already mentioned here as well as some additional sources. If anyone has any suggestions I would be happy to hear them. I will have a copy of this page on my Sandbox while I am working with it, and you can leave me messages on that talk page as well. VaDawn ( talk) 18:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I am having trouble sourcing the following paragraph that contains a rather specific and substantive quote. If anyone watching this page has any information about its origin I would very much appreciate it.

Such was the extent of the Roman Catholic Church coming to peace with the law that, upon its 100th anniversary in 2005 the Catholic Church in France supported not amending the law, though it did not wish to "idealize it".
It also supported the fact that the 1905 law provided for State provision of chaplains in "to ensure the free exercise of religion in public institutions such as schools, colleges, schools, hospitals, asylums and prisons "(law of December 9, 1905. 2)."
and that the Church believes "All this considered, for our purposes, we do not think we should change the law of 1905...Therefore, it seems wise not to touch this balance by which was made possible by the easing of our country today."

VaDawn ( talk) 03:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• 1904 - Séparation Eglise Etat.jpg ( discussion)
• La séparation.jpg ( discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC) reply

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• 1904 - Séparation Eglise Etat.jpg ( discussion)
• La séparation.jpg ( discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply