This article reassesses the classic corruption thesis—the claim that state involvement inevitably corrupts religion—by bringing empirical analysis into dialogue with political theory. Drawing on Locke, Jefferson, Madison, and contemporary theorists such as Nussbaum and Koppelman, it reconstructs the corruption argument and examines its empirical validity. Using comparative data from the World Values Survey and the Religion and State dataset across 52 Christian-majority countries (1990–2014), the study operationalizes “corruption” through public confidence in religious institutions. The findings qualify the traditional thesis: while exclusive state funding and institutional entanglement tend to reduce confidence among majority believers, general financial support does not, and minority believers display distinct patterns. The article thus refines a foundational argument in political theory and demonstrates how the empirical turn can enhance normative precision and conceptual clarity in debates about religion–state relations.
Perez et al. (Sat,) studied this question.