FORIS Policy Report May 2021

America’s International Religious Freedom Policy Must Account for Competing Local Definitions of and the Common Good

Freedom of Religious Institutions in Society Project

1 Furthermore, the report asserts that a purely individualistic view of religious freedom Foreword is not enough. We must work to build institutional freedom of religion or . This is achieved by working collectively through multilateral fora, including the International Religious Freedom of Belief Alliance (IRFBA), the UN Human Rights Council, the I am honoured to be writing this foreword for two key policy reports of the Religious OECD, and other organizations. These partners must cooperate to take decisive action Freedom Institute’s (RFI) Freedom of Religious Institutions in Society Project (FORIS), to hold perpetrators of abuses to account. We have seen this recently with the United which aims to clarify the meaning and value of institutional religious freedom. I Kingdom, United States, Canada and European Union imposing sanctions on Chinese pay tribute to the work of RFI and all other NGOs working to champion freedom of officials over abuses in Xinjiang. In Sudan, international partners, including the religion or belief around the world. United States, United Kingdom, Canada, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Holy See, have worked together to bring about reforms to improve freedom of religion or Religious freedom is a defining part of my life, as someone who came to the United belief, such as the removal of the death penalty for and . Similarly, Kingdom from Pakistan at the age of six to join my father, who was an Imam in the IRFBA worked together in the wake of the pandemic to successfully secure the Gillingham, Kent. Gillingham, a predominantly Christian community, was a place release of prisoners detained for their religion or beliefs in countries including Yemen, where my family and I could practise our Muslim faith freely and openly. Even more, Eritrea, and Uzbekistan. we felt accepted and respected. It is this same community that has elected me to serve as their Member of Parliament for the last ten years. In different parts of the world, we see how rapidly religion-state relations can change, shaped by political actors and global conditions. Over the last year, we have seen a I recognize that my experience is not a reality for most people. According to a Pew worrying uptick in discrimination against religious minorities. While change can be Research Center study in 2018, 83% of the world’s population live in countries where achieved through advocacy and diplomacy, the effectiveness of these efforts depends the right to freedom of religion or belief is restricted or banned. In this context, I on whether the approaches are nuanced and tolerant of different forms of religious believe we have a moral obligation to work towards building a world where everyone regulation. This policy report, and RFI’s work more broadly, set out a number of can freely practise their faith, without undue restrictions or any fear of persecution. guiding principles to ensure that advocacy efforts accomplish the goal of religious liberty for all, in line with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These RFI policy reports provide conceptual clarity and concrete recommendations needed to advance religious liberty. The report entitled, “America’s International A key challenge with this work is understanding how public policies, such as Religious Freedom Policy Must Account for Competing Local Definitions of Religion blasphemy laws, can lead to the persecution of religious minorities. As discussed in and the Common Good” starts by focusing on how a good society is understood and the second policy report entitled, “The Intersection of Blasphemy Laws & Institutional the role religion plays in shaping and advancing that understanding. Policy makers, Religious Freedom: Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Turkey” these laws are often diplomats, and campaigners for religious liberty will be more effective in their work used to target individuals from a minority faith to settle individual conflicts. I saw if they recognize and appreciate differences in how the common good is defined and this firsthand during a campaign with other UK parliamentarians to bring attention advanced. Simply put, there needs to be awareness of how religion or belief impacts to the case of Asia Bibi, which highlighted the devastating effects of blasphemy laws the way people see the world and the way their society’s common life should be in Pakistan. This policy paper from RFI looks at how legislation impacts religious ordered. minorities around the world. It examines how existing laws can be repealed or their enforcement mitigated and how to prevent new restrictive or discriminatory laws Expanding on this theme, the complexity of world , especially the diversity from being introduced. within religions, requires specific training and education efforts aimed at diplomats, advocates, and policy makers alike. During my time as the UK Special Envoy for I want to thank diplomats, policy makers, scholars, and faith leaders around the world Freedom of Religion or Belief, religious literacy was a key focus area, and I led efforts for taking forward this critical work. When we all work together for the common to provide specific training on how religion is defined and the variations within good, we can achieve so much in ensuring religious freedom for all, and these FORIS religions. As the FORIS report states, “it is often the case that religious minorities policy reports will be an important resource for those striving toward this vital goal. within a country’s dominant religion may be even more severely restricted than adherents of other religions. Advocacy for religious freedom, then, necessarily entails advocacy for religious majorities as well (particularly minorities within the majority).” Rehman Chishti MP (Gillingham & Rainham) Understanding these complexities will enable advocates to work more effectively Former UK Prime Minister’s Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief towards cultivating religious liberty. (2019 – 2020)

2 3 Introduction

The Religious Freedom Institute’s (RFI) Freedom of Religious Institutions in Society (FORIS) Project is a three-year initiative funded by the John Templeton Foundation that aims to clarify the meaning and value of institutional religious freedom, examine how it is faring globally, and explore why it is worthy of public concern.

FORIS seeks to advance scholarship, inform policymakers, and influence cultural understandings on institutional religious freedom in the United States and around the world. Religious liberty is not an individual right alone, but rather includes the right of religious communities to gather in synagogues, churches, mosques, temples, and other houses of worship. Freedom of religion also includes the right of faith communities Contents to establish religious institutions such as schools, hospitals, ministries to the poor, universities, and countless others that seek to embody the teachings of their respective religious traditions. Institutional religious freedom encompasses this full range of Executive Summary 1 congregational and organizational expressions of religious faith. FORIS critically engages with both the proper meaning and scope of that freedom as well as its contributions to a society’s common good. Overview 3

About the Religious Freedom Institute Part One: The Nature of the 5 A non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C., RFI is committed to achieving broad Challenge acceptance of religious liberty as a fundamental human right, a source of individual and social flourishing, the cornerstone of a successful society, and a driver of national and Part Two: Guidelines for international security. RFI seeks to advance religious freedom for everyone, everywhere. Promoting Religious Freedom Across Cultural Difference 13 Acknowledgements Policy Recommendations 22 Produced as part of the FORIS Project, this report was co-authored by Chad Bauman, Robert Hefner, Timur Kuran, and Thomas Berg, each of whom is an associated scholar with FORIS. Byron Johnson and Jeremy Barker, both also FORIS scholars, contributed to Endnotes 26 the development of key themes and reviewed and commented on the report. Nathan Berkeley, RFI’s communications director and research coordinator, served as the report’s editor, with the assistance of Michaela Scott, RFI’s development and communications assistant, and Justin Lombardi, RFI’s research assistant. Linda Waits served as the report’s copyeditor.

4 5 Executive 1 Summary

Proponents of religious freedom who and limits of religious liberty. Diverse work in U.S. foreign affairs must carefully peoples imagine the good society consider how conceptions of religion differently and such differences lead to and the common good vary across competing conclusions as to how ideals countries. U.S. diplomats, policymakers, like liberty and social harmony should and advocates for religious liberty will be be balanced. Countries that privilege less effective if they are unaware of these religious harmony as a social ideal are differences across societies or try to inclined to regulate religion in ways that engage at the level of policy only without are not consistent with the relatively addressing these more fundamental open religious market in the United issues. States.

Distinctive local understandings of The following guidelines can help to religion help explain various ways promote religious freedom across governments intervene in internal cultural difference by limiting and religious affairs in order to: 1) promote orienting state regulation of religion progressive (as opposed to regressive or in key ways. Accordingly, religious radical) religion, 2) restrict the political regulation: activities of religious actors, particularly insofar as such activities are perceived Must be evenly and transparently as competing with or undermining constructed and applied. the state, and 3) consolidate religious orthodoxy. Should emanate from the principle that religion and its embodiment In countries where the state intervenes in religious institutions are a public in favor of what it defines as progressive, good. non-political, and/or orthodox religion, the institutions of legally disfavored Executive Summary Should generally avoid regulating groups are especially vulnerable to internal institutional and private discrimination or other maltreatment religious affairs. and merit special consideration. These institutions act in society and can be We encourage policymakers to advocate boldly for the preservation and Must be chastened by formal acted upon. They are inescapably visible expansion of religious liberty for the largest number of religious individuals, recognition of religious freedom and public in nature and, thus, test the “ as a basic human right (counted communities, and institutions possible, while also advocating for the least limits of religious freedom in a manner among an array of other fundamental that is both deeply complex and urgent. intrusive and least coercive forms of religious regulation possible, even in cultural rights), and the goal of ensuring maximum freedom for religious contexts where social harmony is valued as much as, if not more than, religious Local definitions of “the common good” individuals and institutions. liberty. also influence conceptions of the nature

1 1 The following policy considerations follow from the report’s key observations and guidelines:

1. In devising policy recommendations refined in respectful dialogue with for the strengthening of personal citizens and believers across religious and institutional religious freedom, communities, and specifically U.S. diplomats, policymakers, and within those societies to which advocates must always begin by American governmental and non- critically assessing the ways in governmental policy efforts are which different countries and their directed. Overview citizenry define religion. 4. We encourage policymakers to 2 2. Any effort to promote individual advocate boldly for the preservation and institutional religious freedom and expansion of religious liberty in a specific national setting must for the largest number of religious begin with a careful mapping of individuals, communities, and the movements and coalitions institutions possible, while also most intent on and capable of advocating for the least intrusive Proponents of religious freedom among In fact, it is important to stress that the consolidating religious freedom in a and least coercive forms of religious foreign affairs officials in the United United States is an outlier even among socially effective way. regulation possible, even in cultural States and those who work with and Western democracies and among contexts where social harmony is around them (e.g., in diplomatic offices, Christian-majority democracies more 3. The precise policy terms of valued as much as, if not more than, political think tanks, lobbying firms, etc.) generally. No country in the West adopts institutional religious freedom must religious liberty. must carefully consider how conceptions anything like the American libertarian be continuously recalibrated and of religion and the common good vary policy in terms of the legal definition across countries. This variation shapes and recognition of religions. Some public conversations and state policies Western democracies still have a state about which religious communities religion, of course, and the pattern seen deserve recognition and rights, the in countries like Germany, Switzerland, appropriate degree of government Belgium, and elsewhere is to grant full intervention in religious affairs, and— state recognition only to a few long- more generally—the articulation and established religious communities (i.e., Favoritism practice of institutional religious liberty Christians and Jews), extend partial towards one or more (i.e., the freedom of religious institutions recognition and/or state support to in society). Advocacy and diplomacy some additional faith communities, religious traditions, as “ that fails to recognize this dynamic will, and deny equal recognition to those well as strong religious at best, fail to grasp key elements of traditions seen as not meeting long- regulation, restriction, complex international situations and, established norms. at worst, be perceived as culturally or support, is the intrusive or imperialistic. With regard to As Jonathan Fox has shown, favoritism norm rather than the the latter point, if the regnant definitions towards one or more religious traditions, exception even among of “religion” and the “common good” as well as strong religious regulation, prevailing in the United States are restriction, or support, is the norm rather the world’s Christian- presumed, without argument, to be than the exception even among the majority democracies... universally operative or superior, they world’s Christian-majority democracies: will be seen as highly suspect or rejected “[I]n all categories of Christian altogether. democratic states, including Western

2 3 democracies, a significant majority of religion is inimical to religious liberty,”4 states do not practice SRAS [separation and instead prescribes a set of three of religion and state] because some standards by which the legitimacy of religions are privileged over others.”1 religious regulations may be judged. Moreover, Fox states that “… even under the most leniently applied definitions We do not argue for an entirely that take into account only religious relativistic view of national and legislation, a large majority of Christian cultural differences, but rather strive democracies do not practice SRAS to underscore the obvious but often Part One: based on the definition of no preference ignored fact that at the popular level 3 for any religion and of no government people frequently approach issues of The Nature of the Challenge entanglement with religion.”2 religious liberty from the vantagepoint of competing definitions of religion Outliers come in both problematic and the common good. Policy analysts and admirable varieties, of course, and and advocates who understand this there is much to appreciate about reality will inevitably have greater Locally normative definitions of “religion” influence conceptions of how the United States regulates success crafting and implementing the nature and limits of religious liberty, including which religions are religious diversity, as is evident from the effective policies for the promotion of A recognized as legal and deserving of such liberty and when and how it is continued attractiveness of the United both personal and institutional religious appropriate for the state to intervene in internal religious affairs. States as a destination for emigrants freedom. around the world,3 particularly Notions about the nature of religion other religions as false—are viewed emigrants propelled from their natal One final introductory note is necessary. and its purpose contain implicit as intolerant and lacking respect for lands because of religious oppression. This report takes the additional step norms about the nature of good people of other faiths. For all of these However, as we argue below, while of explicitly addressing issues of and desirable religion. For example, reasons, then (and continuing to speak Jeffersonian separation of religion institutional religious freedom, in Hindus often conceive of religion as from this relatively common Hindu and state, as a model, has served the recognition that securing the freedom of the pursuit of spiritual progress and perspective), it may be reasonable to United States well, it is unrealistic and individuals to join one another based on accept that such progress can be regulate or restrict conversion and will likely be counterproductive for U.S.- their shared faith to form congregations, made within any religious tradition. proselytization to encourage tolerance based advocates of religious freedom schools, social service organizations, and Those who understand religion this and preserve social harmony. to approach policymakers abroad with more may require something different way are mystified or even offended an a priori presumption that SRAS is or more, culturally and legally, than by proselytization, particularly in its Views such as these obviously necessarily the only viable (and therefore that which is necessary to safeguard an more aggressive varieties. In this contrast with what, to simplify again, normative) model for regulating individual’s exercise of religion. view, because conversion is not is a common Western Christian view religious diversity. necessarily conducive to spiritual that salvation is available only within growth, proselytization is understood Christianity. This view is generally The first part of this report describes as a superfluous act—more about accompanied by the equally strong the nature of the challenge, and in numbers than true spirituality. If assertion that salvific faith requires doing so makes reference to particular proselytization is unnecessary, it more than mere external conformity; historical and contemporary contexts. is also undesirable because it has rather, salvation is the result of an The second provides recommendations the potential to cause offense or inward transformation that results about how to move forward, carefully disharmony. Moreover, because from the free and uncoerced embrace and effectively, with regard to advocacy conversion is unnecessary in the of the gospel of the Kingdom of . around religious liberty. This section pursuit of “true” spiritual goals, those Thus, in this view, proselytization and argues against the “entrenched who engage in proselytization— conversion are central to religious assumption in some religious freedom which requires the rejection of freedom. discourse that any state regulation of

4 5 Ours is not an argument that based and (in significant part) colonially Locally normative definitions of one“ or the other of financed Christian missions. However “good” and “proper” religion also these competing well-intended some of its aims were, help explain distinctive ways various which often included education and governments intervene in internal definitions of literacy programs, this Western policy religious affairs as well as the purposes religion is superior; neither made comparable state funding such interventions are meant to serve. rather, we make the available to Muslim or other indigenous Here we discern three primary aims religious traditions nor extended of these interventions: 1) to promote simpler and more state recognition to all local religions. progressive (as opposed to regressive or direct observation This latter fact meant that Western radical) religion, 2) to restrict the political that U.S. diplomats, governments were not seen as, and activities of religious actors, particularly in fact did not engage in, promoting insofar as such activities are perceived policymakers, religious freedom for all faith traditions. as competing with or undermining the and advocates for Together these two legacies have led state, and 3) to consolidate religious religious liberty will many in Muslim-majority societies to orthodoxy. look with apprehension at contemporary be less effective if Western policies on religious freedom. Interventions in Favor of they are unaware of Moreover, even where states and “Progressive” Religion the differences... societies subscribe to international norms on religious freedom, they are Interventions in favor of progressive or often reluctant to extend the category of liberal religion can be found throughout “religion” to all faith traditions. the world, particularly where local definitions of desirable religion exclude The point, then, is that different religious traditions and movements Such differences in the definition of differ significantly in the precise ways conceptions of religion lead to divergent deemed “radical,” “regressive,” or even good and desirable religion extend far in which their constitutions and laws formulations of the nature and limits of “activist.” In Egypt, for example, President beyond the issue of proselytization. In characterize religion, most are reluctant religious liberty. These differences have Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has attempted to Muslim-majority countries, religion is to extend formal recognition to all consequences in the realm of policy, pressure and manipulate Muslim leaders often characterized, legally and socially, spiritual traditions, especially those of and help explain, for example, why to undergo a religious reformation that in ways that reflect two historical recent inspiration or those lacking these other governments might consider it would undermine and marginalize legacies that are either absent or less formal and largely Abrahamic qualities acceptable to regulate proselytization varieties of involved in social common in Western, and especially of religiosity. and conversion, while many in the activism or mobilization—not merely American, conceptions of religion. First, United States would consider such those in extremist form, but even those the category of religion is understood A second and quite different, but no less regulation anathema. seeking the expansion of social equality by many Muslims to apply not to any important, legacy that has affected state and justice. He has also pressured and all ethical traditions that recognize policies and societal attitudes toward Ours is not an argument that one or the clerics to legitimize his policies against some transcendent or supernatural religion and religious activity in Muslim- other of these competing definitions of social media freedoms and issue pro- entity. Rather, it applies only to those majority societies has to do with the religion is superior; rather, we make the regime fatwas in favor of regime policies, traditions that specifically recognize memory of Western colonialism. From simpler and more direct observation including policies (relevant to the next a monotheistic deity and a literate the nineteenth to the mid-twentieth that U.S. diplomats, policymakers, and section of this policy paper) making it a scriptural tradition bequeathed by centuries, the great majority of Muslim advocates for religious liberty will be crime to oppose the regime. the Almighty to a prophet or seer, and societies were colonized by Western less effective if they are unaware of the that, on the basis of those traditions, powers. A key feature of imperial rule differences or try to engage at the level Similarly, the “Draft Law to Strengthen prescribe rituals and devotion for the in most (if not all) Western colonies of policy only without addressing these Republican Values,”5 recently proposed regularized worship of the divine. was the forced opening of Muslim more fundamental differences about the by French President Emmanuel Macron, Although Muslim-majority countries lands to proselytization by Western- definition of religion. purports to defend the state’s secular

6 7 values against the putative threat of Even in the United States, disagreements public schools, libraries, and government declared ‘non-Muslim’ by constitutional “Islamist separatism” by restricting about whether desirable religion is by buildings8 may be seen as a similar amendment, despite their own self- foreign funding for mosques, banning definition non-discriminating inform (though less thorough-going) attempt to understanding as Muslims. In this gender segregation in swimming debates about how far the government defend state laïcite from religious rivals. way, Ahmadis have been stripped of pools, prohibiting homeschooling after should go to enforce anti-discrimination protections granted to Muslims and the age of three, and clamping down law. For example, while there is now Two examples from Asia demonstrate placed in an untenable situation— on “fundamentalist” speech online. relatively widespread support for the similar dynamics. The Chinese unwilling to assent to being defined as In combination with calls for Muslim view that the government can and government is among those that non-Muslim, but being forbidden, by the organizations to sign on to a charter should prevent racial discrimination periodically restrict religious institutions government, to identify themselves as of republican values and existing laws within religious institutions, there is far deemed overly political. In 2011, for Muslim, or even (in some cases) to call banning ‘burkinis’ and the conspicuous more contentious debate on whether example, the state-owned Global Times their places of worship “mosques” or display of religious symbols by civil and how it should do so in the case of justified a government crackdown on greet others with the Muslim greeting, servants, the proposed law indicates a gender and sex-based discrimination. the Chinese Shouwang house church “As-Salaam-Alaikum.” While the situation desire not only to prohibit “radical Islam,” These debates concern both which forms (which had publicly protested its legal of Ahmadis is problematic enough, the but also, more generally, to restrict even of discrimination require government inability to purchase property), on the government’s willingness to intervene many mainstream expressions of the intervention, and in what contexts anti- grounds that “[A] church should not to define the limits of Islam is also faith. discrimination law should be enforced become a power which can promote concerning because of the way it opens (e.g., not at all, only in the activity of radical change… Otherwise, the church the door to progressively more exclusive India’s judiciary also intervenes regularly religious individuals and institutions is not engaged in religion but in politics, definitions of Islam. (Movements to in the internal religious affairs of its in the public sphere, or even within which is not allowed for a church.”9 exclude Shi’as and Isma’ilis had begun citizens, both to ensure competent, religious institutions themselves). As Nearby, in Singapore, the Maintenance almost as soon as Pakistan’s constitution non-corrupt management of religious the French, Indian, and U.S. examples of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA) was amended to exclude Ahmadis from institutions (like temples) and to indicate, progressive ideals of freedom prohibits the mixing of religion and the definition of “Islam”.) enforce ideals of non-discrimination in sexual and gender-identity expression politics and allows the government to (e.g., against women and lower-caste often motivate state interventions in restrict and censure religious leaders Similar processes have taken place in communities) under the presumption, internal religious affairs. who speak on political topics in public other Muslim-majority lands. In Malaysia, as one justice put it in a verdict declaring sermons or talks. While such laws are the state has also defined Shi’as and a Hindu temple’s prohibition of women Interventions in Favor of infrequently enforced, as Jaclyn L. Ahmadis as non-Muslims and thus visitors unconstitutional, that “It is a Non-Political Religion Neo argues, they serve an important banned them from the free exercise of universal truth that faith and religion “expressive role” that helps shape public worship. The most populous Muslim- do not countenance discrimination,” In some contexts, local definitions opinion and build consensus around majority country in the world, and its and that, therefore, “the exclusion of of “good” religion (whether widely the idea that desirable religion is non- third largest democracy, Indonesia, women…could [never] be regarded as accepted or enforced by authoritarian political.10 has taken a more accommodating an essential practice” of Hinduism.6 states) exclude religious institutions attitude toward Shi’as, but has drastically The fact that the government is more that engage in politics, advocate for Interventions in Favor of curtailed Ahmadi social freedoms willing to enforce progressive ideals particular policies, or criticize the state. Orthodox Religion without banning the community within Hindu institutions than within In the French Revolution, to provide outright. In Turkey, the Religious Affairs minority institutions is often a cause an historical example, the Roman While thus far we have been discussing Directorate (RAD) refuses to recognize for Hindu consternation; nevertheless, Catholic Church was disassembled and definitions of religion in general, Alevis, about one-sixth of all Turkish the regulation, by various Indian state reconstituted to serve the interests of it is worth noting that definitions Muslims, as a separate branch or sect of governments, of religious proselytization the state and ensure that the Church regarding the limits of particular Turkish Islam. Alevi practices differ from and conversion may be interpreted as an would thereby be unable to challenge religions also influence which religious those of orthodox Sunni Muslims (they intervention in favor of what is perceived the new Republic.7 Contemporary institutions and communities receive don’t fast, they don’t do the pilgrimage, as desirably “tolerant” religion (that is, French prohibitions against displays legal recognition and protection. they don’t do the five daily prayers, etc.) religion which does not engage in the of “religious” symbols like the hijab or Perhaps the most obvious example is and they prefer to worship in their own denigration of other religions). “ostentatious” necklace crucifixes in in Pakistan, where Ahmadis have been temples, which they call Cemevi (as

8 9 opposed to Cami), but the RAD refuses tests the limits of religious freedom in people (particularly religious leaders) consistent with the anomalously to recognize them as separate. State a manner that is both deeply complex with the goal of promoting interreligious libertarian and deregulated religious schools teach RAD’s version of Sunni and urgent. States understandably harmony. The maintenance of religious market found in the United States, Islam, even to children of Alevis. have interests in the configuration and harmony also informs the existence, nor even with the pattern of greater activities of civil society institutions across the Middle East and Asia, of laws regulation and/or support for religion within their jurisdiction, many of which prohibiting blasphemy or insulting found in many European democracies. Interventions and the Unique are religiously motivated. Moreover, other religions with the intent to cause An overemphasis on harmony at the Challenges of Religious religious communities often seek offense. (Many of these laws were expense of liberty is not without cost, Institutions to establish and maintain religious originally drawn by newly independent however, and can lead to enforced institutions as a necessary means of states from British colonial law codes, as orthodoxy or homogenization. In each of these countries in which fulfilling their deepest faith convictions. is evident from the fact that they appear the state intervenes in favor of what it They may be created in response to under the same section number, 295, Securitization represents another defines as progressive, non-political, and/ religious imperatives around communal of the penal codes of Myanmar, India, species of the overemphasis on social or orthodox religion, the institutions of worship, service to the poor, and Pakistan, Singapore, etc.) harmony, which can lead to abuse in the legally disfavored groups are especially educating the next generation—to regulation of religion. Quite frequently, vulnerable to discrimination or other name a few pursuits among many Countries that privilege religious oppressive regulation is couched within maltreatment and merit special others that religious persons are often harmony as a social ideal are inclined or justified as a response to security consideration. These institutions— called by their faith to undertake. Put to regulate religion—e.g., Pakistan, concerns or anti-terrorism efforts, whether worship congregations, in theoretical terms, ultimately, the India, and Indonesia legally restrict whether in the suppression of Muslim faith-based schools, or religious purposes of the state and the priorities proselytization—in ways that are not Uyghurs in China, the Rohingya in organizations—occupy tangible social of religious communities when it comes space. They act in society and can be to religious institutions converge to acted upon by the state and other make institutional religious freedom an social actors. They are inescapably especially fraught, yet indispensable, visible and public in nature. Securing dimension of religious freedom. institutional religious freedom, thus, It is often difficult for those “socialized within Locally normative definitions of “the common good” influence conceptions the United States— of the nature and limits of religious liberty. B where a distinctively strong libertarian Diverse peoples imagine the good dominate among social ideals and goals predisposition cuts society differently, not only cross- as decisively as it does in the United nationally, but even within the context of States. across all political specific countries. Such differences lead parties—to recognize to competing conclusions regarding Anyone who engages in advocacy or how ideals like liberty and harmony are diplomacy in Asia, however, is likely that liberty does not most appropriately balanced. It is often well-aware of the importance given, in elsewhere dominate difficult for those socialized within the many Asian nations, to social harmony among social ideals United States—where a distinctively and communitarian ethics. Perhaps the strong libertarian predisposition cuts best-known case is Singapore, where and goals... across all political parties—to recognize the MRHA, passed in 1990 and recently that liberty does not elsewhere amended, restricts the liberty of religious

10 11 Myanmar, Muslims in France, Christians monolithic—including the United States. in Algeria, or religious teachers in the There are differences of opinion on the United Arab Emirates. nature of religion (and desirable religion) not only between, but also within However, such outcomes are not the countries; and those divergences shape Part Two: necessary result of legal frameworks national debates and policy on matters emphasizing religious harmony, and it pertaining to religious liberty not only Guidelines for Promoting bears mentioning again that no country abroad, but in the United States as well, declines to regulate religion entirely. where these debates in recent years Religious Freedom Across Rather, the differences among countries have been deeply polarized. 4 lie in how thoroughly and to what end Cultural Difference religion is regulated, as well as in who Second, as the United States seeks to is privileged by the regulations (e.g., promote and encourage protection of majority versus minority communities, religious freedom around the world, it individuals versus communities/ must pay attention to its own record institutions, etc.). in order to bolster the credibility of its In the first section we outlined the ways like governments. An institution is assertions. The International Religious that contrasting conceptions of religion, a particular kind of thing—a school, Here again, it behooves those engaged Freedom Act of 1998 makes it American good religion, and the common good mosque, government agency, hospital, in religious liberty and advocacy on policy to promote religious liberty help explain divergent international or something else—and it will also behalf of the U.S. government or throughout the world as a fundamental formations of religious liberty law and pursue a mission based upon certain institutions to recognize that regnant human right and source of stability for practice, and in particular divergent principles, some of which may be notions of religion and the good all countries.12 The United States must practices with regard to government religious. Protecting the freedom of society in the United States are, from follow this lesson at home, too. regulation of institutional religious religious institutions demands proper a globally comparative perspective, an affairs. It is our hope that better recognition of the type and mission of aberration. Moreover, as Jonathan Fox Religious institutions are one key way understanding these contrasting the institutions populating a society. has demonstrated, many countries that a faith community’s tenets take conceptions will lead not only to better To provide an example to illustrate this commonly considered stable liberal form in society and interact with that informed and more effective advocacy point, a government that intrudes on democracies do not practice SRAS, society. Not surprisingly, then, disputes and diplomacy around religious liberty theological matters or the appointment suggesting “that either SRAS is not over how to balance liberty and social issues, but also to a kind of humility and of clergy would be acting like a religious a necessary condition for liberal harmony in order to promote the tolerance in the face of diverse national institution while preventing religious democracy or many states commonly common good will materialize around practices. This is not to say, however, institutions themselves from fully acting considered to be liberal democracies these institutions and the extent of their that all formations are equally desirable, like religious institutions. are not.”11 Divergent conceptions of freedom. or that all regulation of religion should religion and the good society help be tolerated. In this section, then, we From this perspective, Pakistan’s explain differences in the articulation first outline the pitfalls inherent in the constitutional and definitional exclusion and practice of religious liberty around overregulation of religion (with a special of Ahmadis from the fold of Islam is the world. We argue here for humility, focus on institutional religion), before clearly problematic. Farahnaz Ispahani not relativism, and for a willingness to closing with an attempt to provide writes, “the constitutional proviso that make, rather than merely presume, a sort of litmus test for acceptable attempted to define ‘Muslim’ in Article the argument for religious liberty as regulation that remains humble and 260 transformed a theological issue into imagined in the United States. respectful of cultural differences like a question of law. The language of the those described in the first section. second amendment of the constitution In the discussion above, the inclusion put the Ahmadis in a religious of examples from the United States Religious institutions should be free predicament, effectively depriving them should help make two points particularly to act like religious institutions, while of their freedom of religion.”13 clear. First, no country or culture is governments should be free to act

12 13 Ahmet Kuru convincingly argues religious institutions to the point where limits of religion) are not merely intellectual, but are often settled at least in part through that, in Europe, what allowed for the governments are tempted to subsume historical accident, as described above. emergence of normative church-state and co-opt them as laborers in the separation was not the particularities nation-building project (as is perhaps In all lands, then, religion-state relations are variable and fluid, shaped by particular of Christian so much as the the case in China). There are potentially political actors and conditions that change (and can be changed) over time. There is strength of the Roman Catholic Church, serious and deleterious consequences, therefore reason to hope that change can be achieved through advocacy and diplomacy. which—because it could rival nations then, of the overregulation of religion, However, for such advocacy to be effective, it must adopt a humble and reasonably in authority and influence, required a not to mention the fact that attempts tolerant approach to nations’ distinctive approaches to the regulation of religion. What, negotiated separation of powers.14 Paul to eliminate particular religious beliefs then, should guide the assessment and work of advocates for religious liberty? We Marshall underscores the point: “[T]he or practices often produce a reactionary recommend three guiding principles: Church...has had the right to own land, backlash that entrenches those very carry out ecclesiastical trials, choose or religious beliefs and practices. French appoint leaders, determine doctrine, and British colonial discouragement grant academic credentials, and perform of Muslim women’s veil-wearing in Religious regulation must be multifarious functions related to the lives the Middle East and North Africa, for evenly and transparently of its members or constituents.” Marshall example, turned the veil into a symbol 4.1 continues, quoting Harold Berman, “The of national identity and resistance constructed and applied. competition between the ecclesiastical to colonization and westernization, and the secular court had a lasting effect arguably thereby provoking more on the Western legal tradition. Plural widespread veiling. Iran’s Unveiling An important principle of religious regulation is that it should jurisdiction and plural legal systems Decree of 1936 had a similar effect. To achieve reject the political dominance of any particular religious group became a hallmark of Western legality what we describe while also ensuring that all religious communities have equal … Underlying the competition … was the Kuru and Marshall remind us, however, “ access to government representation and benefits. So, for here as ‘generous limitation of the jurisdiction of each.”15 that there is a great deal of historical example, if a state offers privileges to one religious community Conversely, for Kuru, the fact that an contingency in the construction and neutrality,’ great (e.g., state-funded clergy, worship space, or religious ideal of church-state separation did not development of normative notions of effort must be made pilgrimage), it should work to ensure other communities develop in a widespread way among the common good, religious freedom, receive benefits in similar (if not always identical) ways. Muslim countries of the Middle East constitutionalism, and liberalism. by governments to is largely the result of Muslim rulers Indonesia, a Muslim-majority country, ensure that their Similarly, if the state offers exemptions from otherwise progressively undermining and usurping deliberately opted not to incorporate generally applicable law to one or some religious the formerly more autonomous role and classical Islamic characterizations country’s dominant communities, it should be prepared to offer them to other authority of the ulema and religious of religion into its constitution and religion(s) do religious communities as well. Since different religious communities will request different kinds of exemptions, the schools, particularly after the 11th state statutes. However, over time, not become the century (but beginning even earlier).16 the resurgence of Muslim observance goal should be a generous neutrality, not absolute uniformity. across most of Muslim society made explicit or implicit One community may request exemptions allowing them These arguments suggest that the the extension of equal citizen rights standard by which to wear religious garb in situations where such garb would existence of strong and substantially to all faith communities increasingly be otherwise prohibited (e.g., in the military). Another may free religious institutions creates a difficult, challenging the country’s proud the reasonability of seek exemption from general education requirements (as certain kind of momentum towards tradition of an equal and religiously exemption requests is the Amish do in the United State). Still another may seek greater freedom, and serves as a undifferentiated citizenship. We must exemption to use generally prohibited substances in ritual judged. bulwark against future encroachments not, therefore, essentialize any religion contexts, or to serve regulated substances to minors when on the freedoms of religious individuals or culture as inherently predisposed for such service would be otherwise prohibited. To achieve what and institutions. Whereas, stringent or against religious liberty and religion- we describe here as “generous neutrality,” great effort must be government regulation of religious state separation. Debates about whether made by governments to ensure that their country’s dominant affairs creates momentum towards religion should be mixed with politics religion(s) do not become the explicit or implicit standard by greater regulation, and risks weakening (again, a matter of how to define the which the reasonability of exemption requests is judged.

14 15 A related principle is that all religious equal protection to Shi‘as. In Malaysia, personal codes invites different levels The difference is that Christians do not communities should be similarly Sunni Islam is identified as the religion of regulatory intervention in different threaten the government’s standing, affected (positively or negatively) by of state, and neither Muslim nor non- religions and provokes debate about while Alevi autonomy could encourage religious regulation. The problem Muslim religious minorities are accorded who gets to speak for minority religious schisms within Turkish Sunni Islam and with uneven application of religious equal state support or protections. In traditions. In addition, because the generate a backlash within conservative regulations is that they either Indonesia, the practitioners of religions Hindu personal law code is also the Sunni circles. As these examples privilege certain groups or enshrine and spiritual traditions beyond the default national law code for those demonstrate, it is often the case that the dominance of some groups over six officially recognized by the state who are not Christian, Jewish, Muslim, religious minorities within a country’s others. There are a variety of ways in face significant challenges in securing or Parsi (Zoroastrian), political and dominant religion may be even more which the regulation of religion may be access to state services, including the judicial officials have generally been severely restricted than adherents of applied unevenly to different religious registration of births and weddings, more willing to revise it (than they have other religions. Advocacy for religious institutions and communities. Generally, the building of houses of worship, and minority law codes) in the direction freedom, then, necessarily entails however, the uneven application of the securing of passports. In Theravada of progressive values like gender advocacy for religious majorities as religious regulations occurs either in Buddhist Thailand and Myanmar, equity, etc. (for example in matters well (particularly minorities within the situations where there is differential too, the state extends full rights of of divorce and inheritance). Hindus majority). legal recognition of various religions religious freedom only to Buddhists. therefore complain that while religious (i.e., the differential treatment is built In these cases, religious minorities are minorities enjoy the right to retain Differential Treatment Under into the law itself by singling out disprivileged by the legal regulation of their traditional values and practices, Uniform Legal Recognition certain religions for special privileges or religion. Hindus have been forced to accept the burdens), or in situations where there judiciary’s reformist agenda, as in the Disparate application of religious is differential treatment under uniform Such differential treatment often Supreme Court’s 2018 decision (which is regulations also occurs in situations legal recognition (i.e., the law is basically clearly disadvantages the religious currently under review) to strike down where there is differential treatment neutral toward religion or equitable institutions associated with minority as unconstitutional a prohibition against despite uniform legal recognition. across religions, but those administering or disfavored religions. In France, for women of child-bearing age visiting the Indian government interventions and enforcing it selectively apply it to example, state funding subsidizes the famous Sabarimala Temple while similar enforcing gender equity in access to certain religions). academic institutions and places of prohibitions remain in place at some Hindu temples are controversial among worship associated with Catholicism, Muslim and Parsi sites. some Hindus not primarily due to the Differential Treatment Under Protestantism, and Judaism, but not intent of these measures, but rather Differential Legal Recognition Islam. State religious taxes collected A similar dynamic is at play in Middle because they are not universally applied in Germany subsidize Catholic, certain Eastern countries that enforce state- to all religions and religious situations.17 As noted previously, differential Protestant, and Jewish (but again, defined standards of Muslim orthodoxy Similarly, India’s state “religious freedom treatment can be the result of not Muslim) congregations. The (thereby disadvantaging Muslims laws” (deemed “anti-conversion laws” differential legal recognition (or lack aforementioned differential treatment deemed heterodox) while leaving by their critics) restrict conversion and thereof). We have already mentioned in Thailand and Myanmar results in Jewish and Christian minorities largely proselytization, particularly if conducted the case of Pakistan several times, where Muslims having more restricted access to themselves to manage their own through “force, fraud, or inducement.” those deemed “Muslim” (whatever their to state funds for schools, houses of internal affairs related to theology, Theoretically, these laws apply to self-understanding) have a different worship, and hospital chaplaincies. liturgy, and governance. In Turkey, for all religious traditions; however, in legal standing than those groups example, twelve million Alevis are not practice they have been applied almost deemed as non-Muslims. Similarly, Sri In India, different religious traditions free to establish legally recognized exclusively to Christians (and even here, Lanka’s constitution grants Buddhism are granted their own, distinct personal temples using their own liturgy or rather capriciously so), while they have the “foremost place” among all religions, law codes (e.g., governing inheritance, opt out of Islam-oriented educational never been applied to Hindus, even a designation that has been used to marriage, divorce, etc.). On the one institutions, while a hundred thousand in cases where the evidence suggests justify the privileging of Buddhism in hand, this allowance may be understood Turkish Christians are able to move freely Hindus have offered direct bribes to this otherwise self-identified “secular” as protecting the religious freedom of among fifteen recognized churches, induce Muslims or Christians to convert nation. Iran denies equal protection minority communities. On the other alter their liturgy as they desire, and opt to Hinduism. Furthermore, poorly to Sunnis, while Saudi Arabia denies hand, however, the existence of multiple for their own educational institutions. defined terms such as “force, fraud,

16 17 and inducement,” invite abuse of such laws as a tool of harassment.18 These laws are therefore both unevenly and capriciously applied. Many countries regulate or restrict Religious regulation should generally Christian missionizing even more aggressively. Since the “return to democracy” under avoid regulating internal institutional the recently deposed Aung San Suu Kyi, for example, Myanmar has provided support to 4.3 Buddhist missionaries while restricting Christian proselytization. and private religious affairs.

Regulation of religion that favors one or some religious communities over all others, or religious over non-religious citizens (or vice versa), are obviously problematic. The point Drawing upon Paul Marshall’s insistence, discussed above, that religious institutions is not to reject, in an a priori fashion, all regulation of religion, but rather to insist that any should be free to act like religious institutions, we suggest, as a general rule, that regulation be applied clearly, transparently, and evenly both within and among religious government regulation of religion should avoid intervening in internal religious affairs. traditions. In fact, any regulation applied to religion should also apply to all of society, if Here, by “internal affairs,” we refer to matters related to belief and practice; to the relevant. Laws forbidding insulting other religions or causing religious offense, therefore, collection and distribution of funds; to self-understanding and self-identification; and would seem more appropriate if such things were forbidden in more secular contexts as to the appointment, payment, and supervision of religious leaders. By contrast, the well (e.g., politics). regulation of “external affairs” involves the functions of religious institutions one might also find in secular institutions as well as activities religious institutions undertake in social spaces populated by people who overwhelmingly do not belong to their faith Religious regulation should emanate community. Regulation of “external affairs” therefore might include government from the principle that religion and its requirements that religious institutions register themselves, report certain kinds of embodiment in religious institutions institutional information, identify leaders, follow zoning laws and building requirements, 4.2 report income, satisfy safety standards, and pay taxes. Such regulation is generally not are a public good. controversial, if applied transparently and evenly (and without the intent of using it to undermine religion or persecute religious people). It should also be stated that there The regulation of religion may be intended to suppress or eliminate it (or certain may be circumstances in which religious accommodation is warranted even in the forms of it). Such regulation may also have the goal of creating a well-functioning and “external affairs” of religious institutions. harmonious marketplace of religious ideas. The latter is obviously a preferable motive for those who care about religious liberty. Many western forms of secularism, emerging as While religious institutions’ external affairs tend to be more apt for state regulation, they did after the religiously inflected European wars of the 17th-century, presume that their internal affairs are not zones of absolute autonomy. Regulation of internal religious while private religion is a valued freedom and a public good, public religion is prone affairs may be appropriate when justified by some greater goal, such as the eradication towards conflict and even violence, and therefore in need of at least some regulation and of racism or caste discrimination. Few in the contemporary United States, for example, restriction.19 Still, even among western countries one can discern diverse appraisals of would question the appropriateness of government intervention to prevent racism in the contribution of religion to society. The U.S. government is animated by widespread religious institutions. (This example is instructive, however, since it derives from a near social consensus that religion is a public good, whereas in France, a greater proportion of consensus—to return to our earlier definitional discussion—that true and desirable the population considers more conservative and publicly pious forms of faith a challenge religion could not possibly involve racial discrimination, a consensus not yet duplicated to laïcite. in public opinion, or in law, with regard to discrimination based on gender or sexual identity, expression, behavior, and/or relationships.) Not surprisingly, the range of approaches expands even further if we take into account the entire world. Communist China and North Korea suppress religion as a potential Regulation of internal religious affairs may also be appropriate in certain limited adversary of the state, and therefore appear at one end of the spectrum. At the opposite circumstances when guided by well-articulated and widely accepted social ideals end lie nations that evince greater confidence in the value of religion. India’s form considered equal to liberty in significance. In Indonesia, for example, the country has of secularism acknowledges the centrality and value of religion in Indian society— at various times, including the first years of the democracy era (post-1988), experienced the essential publicness of religion—and intervenes to regulate and sometimes outbreaks of severe religiously based communal violence. As a result, state policy and even manage religious institutions, not with the aim of undermining their power public opinion favor efforts to balance the interests of religious freedom with those of and authority but because of the presumption that religious institutions, as public interreligious social harmony. endowments, should be effectively managed for the public good. As Robert Hefner shows, Indonesia’s policy is similar: Indonesia officially defines itself as a religious state, In Singapore, in order to preserve interreligious harmony and promote the state’s and the six religions recognized by the Ministry of Religious Affairs are all regarded as understanding of the ideal of pluralism, religious leaders are prohibited from criticizing providing a vital public and, especially, moral service to the nation.20 or insulting other faiths when speaking publicly. Such restrictions clearly reflect a state-

18 19 communitarianism orientation that the right of individuals (or even religious initiatives and rituals of apology or of bifurcating one’s life is often self- privileges social harmony as a whole leaders) to express such opinions reparation (rather than through the law’s defeating, since it obscures the actual over the liberties of individuals or privately. This makes the institutional disciplinary provisions).25 state of affairs and encourages attempts even religious institutions. While such regulation somewhat more palatable. to upend the social order. The history an orientation can lead to enforced Still, other laws in Singapore, such as The goal, in the end, is to avoid, as much of many Middle Eastern countries – homogenization or delegitimize the Sedition Act, have been used to as possible, creating situations in which characterized by alternating cycles of criticism of the social order,21 we urge prosecute individuals for proselytizing, religious people are pressured into religious and secular repression that those engaged in religious liberty to and critics may justly point out that the combining public religious (or irreligious) compel people to exaggerate or conceal consider whether such regulations state’s willingness to file suit against behavior that appears to conform to their religiosity – is instructive in this may serve the common good without and jail large numbers of its opponents state-determined norms with a different regard. transgressing some of the three general creates a situation in which the mere kind of behavior in private. This mode principles we articulate here. threat of legal intervention by the state is enough to coerce compliance, While it may in some cases be and the kind of “religious preference appropriate to restrict the activities falsification,” as described by Timur of religious institutions for reasons Kuran.23 Compliance that can be articulated earlier, such regulations achieved without direct legal oppression, These arguments suggest that the existence of strong should avoid impinging upon private therefore, may be more a function of and substantially free religious institutions creates a certain religious practice. As the Indonesian the broader context of widespread kind of momentum towards greater freedom, and serves as legal scholar, Zainal Abidin Bagir, has repression of dissent. “ argued,22 in certain circumstances a bulwark against future encroachments on the freedoms of it may be acceptable for the state to Finally, any religious regulation must religious individuals and institutions. restrict individual rights to defame, be chastened by formal recognition of insult, or otherwise degrade the religious freedom as a basic human practices and beliefs of another right (counted among an array of other community. But such deliberate fundamental rights),24 and the goal denigration of another faith community of ensuring maximum freedom for should always be distinguished from religious individuals and institutions. practices that merely deviate from those As a corollary to this general principle, of the majority faith community. Under we recommend that the regulation of the “Blasphemy Laws” implemented religious affairs be achieved as much in countries such as Pakistan, the as possible through negotiation and practices of religious difference or non- consensus, rather than through the conformity are sometimes subject to heavy-handed or punitive application draconian punishments, including the of law. Here again, the situation in death penalty. The consequence of such Singapore may be instructive. While state meddling in religious ideas and the MRHA allows the government to observance is to severely degrade the discipline religious leaders who speak religious freedoms of all citizens. ill of other religious traditions in their capacity as institutional leaders, it has Singapore’s MRHA provides an never been formally invoked. Threats interesting additional case here. of invoking the Act, however, have While it restricts the right of religious been used to inculcate the norm of leaders to criticize other religions or pluralistic harmony and motivate and the government when speaking in encourage restitution, in cases of social institutional spaces, it does not restrict discord, through community remedial

20 21 POLICY 5 RECOMMENDATIONS

Our shared efforts to recognize the varied circumstances of states and societies around the world with regard to religious freedom lead us to several basic conclusions and policy recommendations.

In devising policy recommendations for the strengthening of personal and 5.1 institutional religious freedom, U.S. diplomats, policymakers, and advocates must always begin by critically assessing the ways in which different countries and their citizenry define religion, and how that definition reflects both the strengths and limitations of certain national traditions. Even in Western democracies, there is no single policy definition of religion, and no country extends full and equal rights and recognitions to all communities that self-identify as religious. Rather, distinctive, and always shifting local definitions of religion, developed discursively and through the sedimented accumulation of legal precedent and bureaucratic procedure, determine the nature of true and desirable religion, as well as which kind of religious communities and institutions are deserving of recognition and full freedom. As a result, a single religion may be treated differently in different national contexts. To take just one example, the Church of Scientology has nearly full freedom to function (with tax-exempt status) in some countries (e.g., the United States and Canada), while being labeled a “cult” and restricted Recommendations in various ways in other countries (e.g., Germany and France), and is nearly completely prohibited elsewhere (e.g., Greece, which at one point liquidated the church’s assets and barred it from operation as a religion).26

We encourage policymakers to advocate boldly for the preservation and Related to this first recommendation, any effort to promote individual and expansion of religious liberty for the largest number of religious individuals, 5.2 institutional religious freedom in a specific national setting must begin “ with a careful mapping of the movements and coalitions most intent on communities, and institutions possible, while also advocating for the least and capable of consolidating religious freedom in a socially effective way. intrusive and least coercive forms of religious regulation possible, even in cultural Although American and other policy analysts do not have to defer entirely to the social and cultural legacies of all countries, all effective policy efforts contexts where social harmony is valued as much as, if not more than, religious must work to understand those legacies so as to scale up their strengths and liberty. neutralize their defects.

22 23 Inasmuch as these contingencies weigh in our policy analyses and 5.3 recommendations, the unexpected but essential truth at the heart of the ideal of institutional religious freedom is that, rather than absolutization, its precise policy terms must be continuously recalibrated and refined in respectful dialogue with citizens and believers across religious communities, and specifically within those societies to which American governmental and non-governmental policy efforts are directed.

Finally, nothing in this report should be taken to encourage the end of U.S. 5.4 advocacy for the ideal of religious liberty, or to suggest that all regimes of religious regulation are equally desirable. We recommend humility, not passivity, and encourage policymakers to advocate boldly for the preservation and expansion of religious liberty for the largest number of religious individuals, communities, and institutions possible, while also advocating for the least intrusive and least coercive forms of religious regulation possible, even in cultural contexts where social harmony is valued as much as, if not more than, religious liberty.

24 25 9 Brian Spegele, “China’s Banned Churches Defy Regime,” Wall Street Journal (July 28, 2011), https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/SB10001424052702304567604 Endnotes 576451913744126214; and Timothy S. Shah, Religious Freedom: Why Now? Defending an Embattled Human Right, ed. Matthew J. Franck (Princeton, New Jersey: Witherspoon Institute, 2012), 21.

1 Jonathan Fox, “Separation of Religion and State in Stable Christian 10 Jacyln L. Neo, “Regulating Pluralism: Laws on Religious Harmony and Democracies: Fact or Myth?” Journal of Law, Religion and State 1, no. 1 (2012): 73. Possibilities for Robust Pluralism in Singapore,” 8. See also, Jaclyn L. Neo, “Dimensions Emphasis added. of Religious Harmony as Constitutional Practice: Beyond State Control,” German Law Journal 20, no. 7 (2019): 966-985; and Cass R. Sunstein, “On the Expressive Function of 2 Ibid., 82. See also, Jonathan Fox, “World Separation of Religion and State Law,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 144, no. 5 (1996): 2021-2053. into the 21st Century,” Comparative Political Studies 39, no. 5 (2006): 537-569. 11 Jonathan Fox, “Separation of Religion and State in Stable Christian 3 See, for example, Neli Esipova, Anita Pugliesem, and Julie Ray, “More Than Democracies: Fact or Myth?” Journal of Law, Religion & State 1, no. 1 (2012): 60. 750 Million Worldwide Would Migrate If They Could,” Gallup, December 10, 2018, https:// news.gallup.com/poll/245255/750-million-worldwide-migrate.aspx. 12 22 U.S.C. §§ 6401-6483.

4 Jaclyn L. Neo, “Regulating Pluralism: Laws on Religious Harmony and 13 Farahnaz Ispahani, “A Cautionary Tale from an ‘Islamic’ Republic,” Possibilities for Robust Pluralism in Singapore,” The Review of Faith & International Cornerstone Forum, no. 269, March 27, 2020, https://www.religiousfreedominstitute.org/ Affairs 18, no. 3 (2020): 3. cornerstone/a-cautionary-tale-from-an-islamic-republic.

5 See James McAuley, “France unveils draft law to boost ‘republican 14 Ahmet T. Kuru, “Islam, Catholicism, and Religion-State Separation: An principles’ as debate over Islamism rages,” The Washington Post, December 9, 2020, Essential or Historical Difference?” International Journal of Religion 1, no. 1 (November https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/france-islamist-separatism/2020/12/09/13c5e43a- 2020): 98-104, https://journals.tplondon.com/ijor/article/view/982/865. 3996-11eb-aad9-8959227280c4_story.html. 15 Paul Marshall, “Rights, Institutions, and Religious Freedom: Toward Clarity 6 Significant excerpts of the decision in Indian Young Lawyers in the Midst of Controversy,” Cornerstone Forum (September 26, 2019), https://www. Association vs. The State of Kerala (2018) can be found at: https://indiankanoon. religiousfreedominstitute.org/cornerstone/rights-institutions-and-religious-freedom- org/docfragment/163639357/?big=3&formInput=thanthri%20%20doctypes:%20 toward-clarity-in-the-midst-of-controversy. Marshall also quotes Harold Berman, Law supremecourt&__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=befb1905d03c9a2ca433f50aaa81e1b204121158- and Revolution: the Formation of the Western Legal Tradition (Cambridge: Harvard 1615226479-0-AQGk3-AKqb0hwWMAQtbrRXpJV_3clMxLUy9IY_DqdLJ9_oejwUAK- University Press, 1983), 393. 2YedXreRLTs9VPTcZYojMBs7jsOAhxQOHJ6jaCuw2UU4QEBSp4Mc_nUN_FSDR 16 Kuru, “Islam, Catholicism, and Religion-State Separation: An Essential or Nnkejw620DUysDudiKf4uLe5DFMo07KTzxCS-6nVhAd2eX41r8DNSxPp4MFn4- Historical Difference?” 100. 9XT7CQjeLLrqZF-R3NYfgIYepTjGDBIrgtQUNkAsq-SNgPHTYkqHxn9NjSWTZRE arYaVEQkd9iYvXLix1qbyPY7Qh0t15y2OoqUpPJSThMWKldLE2hHAZDLZH-JCZ_ 17 K. A. Robertson, “Key Challenges to the Freedom of Religious Institutions j6NMD8yNN0mRhO4__8ikf_-jfaGkZywAR5pbe0-DQDl6ZYALn_8eCUda3i7SjCeagf9 in India,” Providence, May 26, 2020, https://providencemag.com/2020/05/key-challenges- fpS9UzkMrrQn6TKohPGFUI08r1uXDSZDLhsoMuOxDe0BwhMNoRI8ztVsklv1ysHkQ_ freedom-religious-institutions-india/. xNxLUkiM5wbOvT2hWx4jfrzq2y7P1gFiZsxDYwZbbnpxbZS7nXnnegLa7, Accessed August 18 Chad M. Bauman, Pentecostals, Proselytization, and Anti-Christian 14, 2020. Violence in Contemporary India (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015).

7 Timothy S. Shah, “Institutional Religious Freedom in Full: What the Liberty 19 William T. Cavanaugh, The Myth of Religious Violence: Secular Ideology of Religious Organizations Really Is and Why It Is an ‘Essential Service’ to the Common and the Roots of Modern Conflict (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009); and William Good,” Journal of Christian Legal Thought 10 (2020): 29. T. Cavanaugh, “The Invention of Fanaticism,” Modern Theology 27, no. 2 (2011).

8 See “French move to extend ban on religious symbols sparks fears of 20 Robert W. Hefner, “The Clash of Institutional Religious Freedoms ‘radical’ secularism,” France 24, October 30, 2019, https://www.france24.com/en/20191030- in Indonesia,” Cornerstone Forum, no. 292, January 14, 2021, https://www. french-move-to-extend-ban-on-wearing-religious-symbols-sparks-fears-of-radical- religiousfreedominstitute.org/cornerstone/the-clash-of-institutional-religious-freedoms- secularism. in-indonesia.

26 27 21 Neo, “Regulating Pluralism: Laws on Religious Harmony and Possibilities for Robust Pluralism in Singapore,” Op cit., 9. Religious Freedom Institute 22 Zainal Abidin Bagir, “Defamation of Religion in Post-Reformasi Indonesia: Is The Religious Freedom Institute is a 501(c)(3) non-profit Revision Possible?” Australian Journal of Asian Law 13, no. 2 (2013): 1-16. organization committed to achieving broad acceptance 23 On “religious preference falsification,” see Timur Kuran, Private Truths, of religious liberty as a fundamental human right, the Public Lies: The Social Consequences of Preference Falsification (Harvard University cornerstone of a successful society, and a source of national Press, 1995), 6-9. and international security.

24 Jaclyn L. Neo, “Secularism without Liberalism: Religious Freedom and John Templeton Foundation Secularism in a Non-Liberal State” Michigan State Law Review 1 (2017). Providing the funding that made this report possible, the John 25 Neo, “Regulating Pluralism: Laws on Religious Harmony and Possibilities Templeton Foundation (JTF) serves as a philanthropic catalyst for Robust Pluralism in Singapore,” 8-11. for discoveries relating to the deepest and most perplexing questions facing humankind. JTF encourages civil, informed 26 For some examples of the treatment of Scientology, see: Douglas Frantz, dialogue and provides grants for independent research that “Scientology’s Puzzling Journey from Tax Rebel to Tax Exempt,” New York Times, March advances its mission. JTF helps people worldwide engage the 9, 1997, https://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/09/us/scientology-s-puzzling-journey-from- fruits of that research and explore the Big Questions. tax-rebel-to-tax-exempt.html; Clea Calcutt, “France labels Scientology a fraud, not a church,” The World, February 3, 2012, https://www.pri.org/stories/2012-02-03/france- labels-scientology-fraud-not-church; and Lucy Morgan, “Critics public and private keep pressure on Scientology // ABROAD,” Tampa Bay Times, July 6, 2006, https:// Layout & Design www.tampabay.com/archive/1999/03/29/critics-public-and-private-keep-pressure-on- scientology-abroad/. Element Media www.element.ps

Photography Credits

Page iv: Alina Reviakina / Shutterstock Page v: Rawpixel.com / Shutterstock Page 2: benjaminec / Shutterstock Page 6: Abdul_Shakoor / Shutterstock Page 11: Christopher Penler / Shutterstock Page 21: Gwoeii / Shutterstock Page 22: Koldunova Anna / Shutterstock Page 25: Jahangir Alam Onuchcha / Shutterstock

Copyright © 2021 by The Religious Freedom Institute. All rights reserved.

28 29 316 Pennsylvania Ave. SE, Suite 501 Washington, DC 20003 Tel: 202-838-7734 [email protected] www.rfi.org

1