Final Exploratory Research Paper

Religious Freedom in America
Jarrett Anderson
ENGL 1010-051
Dr. Paul Anderson
Submitted May 2, 2016
Introduction
One of the biggest debates among scholars of U.S. History is what was the reason this
country was founded, many believe that it was Europeans fleeing religious oppression and
seeking a land of opportunity to worship as they saw fit, yet others dispute this. Regardless of
your point of view on the history of the founding of this great nation, what is irrefutable is that
religious freedom played a major role in it. From the pilgrims, to the bill of rights, continuing
down until today, religious freedom plays an integrate role in American Society and is one of the
factors that makes us stand out as a country in a world where many seek to worship the divine.
Background
I selected this topic because of my belief in God, and my gratitude for my liberty to
worship him as I please here on American soil. As of late, questions have arisen in regards to the
limits of government reach to regulate religion and to what extent religious freedom is
permissible. We see laws being considered and passed in many states under the banner of
religious freedom, despite the already existing first amendment to the constitution that
guarantees the free exercise thereof. The debate consists of whos rights matter? What are the
limits of the reach of ones rights? I decided to research the matter, and to begin I asked myself
two questions, To what extent is religious freedom permissible? and What is the limit of
governmental reach in regards to religion?
Body
Chinese Religious Regulation
I began my research with the extreme opposite of religious liberty, total
governmental oppression or regulation. The most unfriendly form of government to
religion is Communism, so I began to research the allowance of religion in China. I
began by searching the schools online library resource for information on Chinas
sanctions of religion. I undertook this by searching the words China religious freedom.
This brought the result A Broken System: Failures of the Religious Regulatory System
in the Peoples Republic of China, a law review published in May of 2015 by Carl
Hollan in the Brigham Young University Law Review. Hollan was a student of
international law at Brigham Young University Law School with a degree in Asian
studies and Mandarin Chinese. He had lived in Asia (Taipei, Taiwan) and was well versed
in the history of Chinese religious law and governmental structure.
The purpose of Hollans review was to how the system to regulate religion in the
Peoples Republic of China fails to allow for religious freedom, and to describe its
counter productivity in furthering Chinese government interests as it creates an
environment, and allows for illicit underground religious practice. He wrote to students of
international law, and used this article to explain the Chinese legal system in historical
and legal context to his fellow students.
This law review critiqued the one system of government in the world that
suppresses religion, (a governmental ideology with the vision of eventually eliminating
it) in historic and legal context. Laying forth the history of the communist party and its
progression in religious oppression, it explains that the purpose of the Communist party is
first, to teach its own ideals, and force them on Chinese citizens, and second, eliminate
from the citizens all foreign alliances or ties in order to ensure total fidelity and
commitment to the communist party. This includes national ties, allegiances to religious
headquarters outside of china, and could arguably reach as far as a loyalty to a superior
being because in the eyes of the communist party there is no more powerful being than
the party. The three market model of the regulatory system is explained. He shows this
system is counterproductive, and despite the goal to eventually do away with religion,
there is something deep within these people that drive them to continue to practice, even
at risk of indictment. He demonstrates that strict state regulation cannot lead to the
elimination of religion. I agree with the authors argument that its regulatory system is
flawed, and I believe it is because of the deep conviction of the believer. I disagree
strongly with the communist ideology of suppressing religion. I believe strongly in an
environment in which religion can flourish.
I learned that religion is minimally allowed in china. Within this form, total
regulation is used even to the point of the priests being required to attend indoctrinating
conferences and changing the doctrine they teach to fit with communist ideals in order to
be officially and legally recognized. I learned that although it is illegal, there is a large
population of religious adherents. The reason for this is because of the deep conviction of
the believers. As the party seeks to control, religion becomes the great liberator. These
people seek to worship as they please and will do so no matter the cost. Religion, and
adherence to the principles thereof is the great liberator of nations, people, and
individuals.
This article was valuable to my research because it analyzed a contemporary

example, in historical context of the most extreme ideology of governmental allowance
of religion. What is missing from this article that could be relevant to my topic is a
definition of what religious freedom is.
Religious Freedom in Theory and in Practice
Next, I searched in the schools library resource Religious freedom and found
the following article. I selected it because it looked like it would analyze the meaning of
religious freedom. This academic journal is called Religious Freedom in Theory and
Practice and was written and published by Jonathan Fox on July 2, 2014 in the
publication Human Rights Review. The purpose of this article was to analyze the theory
of religious freedom and examine the practice of religious freedom among western
democracies.
He writes for the publication Human Rights Review for those interested in human
rights, specifically those who are interested in the right of religious freedom. His
audience also includes westerners who live in democratic systems, this article serves as
an explanation to them of how free they really are to practice religion.
Fox examines religious freedom among western democracies from the legal
perspective. He did extensive research on the constitution of 177 sovereign states and
what true religious freedom in theory is. His intended audience is anyone interested in
human rights, specifically those who are interested in the right of religious freedom. His
audience also includes westerners who live in democratic systems, its an explanation to
them of how free they really are to practice religion.
In his article, Fox sets forth the theory of religious freedom, explaining that there
are two differing theoretical views of it, the first being, the view focusing on the free
exercise of religion, and the second being the view focusing on treating all religions
equally. Claiming there has never been an official definition given by one of the 177
constitutional democratic governments of what religious freedom is, despite including a
religious freedom clause in all their constitutions, he defines different concepts of
governmental action to religion such as religious persecution, discrimination, repression,
limitations, regulations, official state religions and religious human rights. After
elucidating these terms, he proposes various rights religious people should have and
explains his analysis of how these rights are guaranteed in the 177 constitutional
sovereign states. He finds that democracies are only slightly more likely than nondemocratic states to provide religious freedoms and only 20% of these democratic states
meet his specified standard of religious liberty.
As I reviewed his article, I noted that although there seems to be no direct
correlation between the practice of religious freedom and the presence of a democratic
government, the study was done of a wide variety of democratic governments. If we look
at religious freedom here in America, it has been a land that been permissible to the free
exercise of religion. However, with recent developments in legal issues, this has come
into question.
I learned that there is a lot to do in developing religious freedom worldwide.
Although it is guaranteed through the various constitutions, there is a need to ensure that
this is enforced. The question is how this is possible.
This article helped my research because it gave a point of view opposite to that of
Chinese religious regulation. The point of view of the one form of government that
upholds the internationally accepted principles of religious freedom. After having
analyzed the presence of religious freedom in the context of western democracies in
general, it is necessary to exclusively examine religious freedom in the context of the
U.S. Constitution.
American Religious Freedoms
Once again to continue my research, I searched in the schools library resource
Religious freedom and selected this article because it seemed like something that would help
me better understand the practice of religious freedom in the United States. I found an academic
journal entitled American Religious Freedom Reflections on Koppelman and Smith. This
article was written by Michael J. Perry in March of 2015, and was published in the journal
Review of Politics- University of Notre Dame. Perrys purpose was to review a book written by
Andew Koppelman and Steven Smith which examined the two religious freedom clauses in the
first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the non-establishment clause, and the
free exercise clause. Perry then examines the the fundamental controversies surrounding these
two clauses, the meaning of the non-establishment clause, and the constitutionality of granting
religious exemptions to passed legislation.
After having read this book reviewing constitutional law, the author decides to
summarize the content and law forth the main viewpoints of the two authors of the book.
His intended audience was Students and scholars of U.S. constitutional law, regardless of
political views.
In his article, Perry brings to light the vagueness of the two religious freedom
clauses found in the first amendment to the constitution claiming that it is difficult for the
any branch of federal or state government to determine what constitutes prohibiting the
free exercise of religion, and establishing religion. In regards to the establishment
clause, he brings forth the two differing views. The first view is entire neutrality to
religious views in legislation and the second, the American people should decide, or
through their political representation, what role religious beliefs play in the political
process. Perry argues that the latter is more convincing. Regarding the free exercise
clause, he describes the debate over whether or not religious exemptions to laws are
permissible because of the non-discriminatory nature of the free exercise clause. He
raises the question, is it only a non-discrimination of religion clause, or is it more?
I personally believe that yes, the wording can be disputed. But I believe the
separation of church and state was to ensure that churches had no control of the
government, and the government had no control of churches. Moral ethics are still a vital
part of the public forum, and must not be eliminated from the legislative process. While
reviewing this article I learned that even among American scholars of constitutional law
there are disputes over what the religious liberty clauses imply.
This article was of value to my research because after having studied an overview
of religious freedom among democratic sovereign states, this gave a proper analysis of
the viewpoint of American religious freedom theory. What is now needed is an
understanding these different viewpoints within the United States. I would next seek to
analyze a left wing view of religious freedom in the context of a contemporary issue,
whether that be a current legislative issue or another legal issue with already passed laws.
Everything You Need to Know About the Wave of 100+ Anti-LGBT Bills Pending in
States
To find this liberal point of view, I searched in google news Religious freedom
bathroom laws to find an article dealing with a current legal issue and found a newpaper
article with the title Everything You Need to Know About the Wave of 100+ Anti-LGBT
Bills Pending in States. I selected in because of the intentional use of the term AntiLGBT. I knew this would help me see the non-religious, LGBT point of view. Written
by Jennifer Benderey and Michelangelo Signorile and published in Huffington Post on
April 16, 2016, the purpose of the authors was to explain how the conservative right uses
religious exemption laws to discriminate against the LGBT community. They attempt to
persuade readers that the right has been experimenting with these exemptions in order to
learn how to repeal the gay marriage law passed, and legalize discrimination against the
LGBT community.
Benedery and Signorile wrote this article addressing an American liberal audience
in light of the recent bathroom bill controversies, this article was a response to those bills
to explain why the right is using these laws to legally discriminate against the LGBT
community. They argued that the religious right is using laws to purposefully
discriminate against the LGBT community. Benderey and Signorile use emotive language
to describe the bills pending, and recently passed such as Government-officials-usingyour-taxpayer-funds-against-you bills or No-wedding-cake-for-non-straight-non-whiteheathens bills and finally, God-Doesnt-Want-Gay-People-To-Raise-Kids. They
villainize the right and explain why this is a political strategy to legalize discrimination.
What I noticed while analyzing this article is that there was no legal depth to their
argument. It was a use of emotion to stir up the liberal Huffington Post audience to anger
against the right. They bring up the point, religious conservatives suggested the
ordinance would allow male sex predators entry into womens rest rooms and argue that
this is primarily not a good argument, and that secondly that is not what it is even about. I
personally disagree with the authors perspective. I believe the rights arguments are
based on fact, and legal depth. A heterosexual male could post on social media for
months in advance that he is beginning to feel like a woman, subsequently enter a
womens restroom and prowl on women, yet these laws would leave him with a good
legal defense all based on word of how he claims to feel, and no fact.
I learned from this article that there is a definite balance to be found in
eliminating hate and discrimination, both negative things, from our society. However, we
must be prudent in first, protecting already existing freedoms guaranteed in the
constitution, and second, not allowing the freedoms of one group extend to infringe upon
those of another.
After having studied the theories of the U.S. constitution, this article gives a good
perspective of governmental involvement in both the protection and regulation of
religion. What I am now missing that I want to consider is a religious viewpoint.
The Boundary Between Church and State
To find this religious perspective, I went to the website mormonnewsroom.org and
selected religious freedom under the topics section, the first article that came up was this speech
given by Elder Dallin H. Oaks. I selected it because I was aware of his legal career and his status
as a leader in the LDS church, and I knew his perspective would add to the conversation from the
perspective of a prominent religious leader.
This speech is entitled The Boundary Between Church and State and was given by
Dallin H. Oaks on October 20, 2015 at the Second Annual Sacramento Court/Clergy
Conference, the transcript was then published to Mormon Newsroom.
Elder Oaks purpose was to discuss from a former judge and religious leaders
perspective, the separation between church and state, and to advocate for mutual
understanding and cooperation. As a former judge and was asked to speak at a conference
for clergymen and judges and this was his intended audience; religious leaders, judges
and lawyers.
Using the U.S. constitution as his background, he advocates for the mutual
cooperation of religious adherents and non-believers within the public forum. He argues
that religious beliefs should not have a sway in a judges responsibilities to interpret the
law and the constitution. However, he also argues that religious morals and tenets should
not be avoided or discredited from the other branches of government, adhering and
advocating to religious beliefs is important to public debate and is specially protected in
the first amendment to the constitution.
I agree wholeheartedly with what he said. It was a refreshing perspective. After a
review of the theory of religious freedom in America, Elder Oaks argument and use of
examples to teach that it need not be an us-versus-them issue was completely logical and
constitutionally sound.
I came to understand better the responsibilities of the different branches of

government, and what place religious beliefs have in influencing decisions within the
various branches. I also came to learn that compromise is possible and preferable. It need
not be a polarized issue.
This speech was masterful at representing both views, a religious and nonreligious standpoint in regards to the religious freedom question. It was very credible
coming from a former judge and current high profile religious leader. In regards to more
research that could be done, I believe it was a great summary of how the issue should be
approached here in America, but I would like to know more about the issue on an
international basis. These principles can be utilized in other countries but it would require
more research to better understand what the governmental structure and place of religion
is in foreign lands.
Conclusion
The issue is complex, and is near to the hearts of many, no matter what your point of
view is. Research could continue and extend to such contexts such as legal cases in which a
religious freedom has been made to cover illicit activity, more research in international context, a
religion by religion study of how each religion is accepted depending on the country and
government. Historical context could be useful in understanding not only Chinese religious
regulation but the reception of religion in other empires and countries historically.
Appendix
Article 1
DONOTDELETE
8/17/20158:07PM
ABrokenSystem:
FailuresoftheReligiousRegulatorySysteminthePeoples
RepublicofChina*
ThesystemforregulatingreligioninthePeoplesRepublicofChina(PRC
orChina)hasfacedincreasingdomesticandinternationalcriticismin
1
recentyears. However,therehasbeenlittle,ifany,improvementinthe
regulationorprotectionofreligiousfreedomsinthePRCduringthepast
decades.2Thisfailuretoactinthefaceofincreasedcriticismandinternational
pressurehasbeenattributedtothecontinuedpolicyoftheCommunistParty
ofChina(CPCorParty)tobringreligiousorganizationsunderits
3
control. ThisCommentwillshowthatthecurrentsystemofreligious
regulationnotonlyfailstopromoteinternationallyrecognizedprinciplesof
religiousfreedom,butalsoiscounterproductivetoCPCandPRCinterestsas
itcontributestothe
*AnearlydraftofthisCommentwaspartiallyadoptedforpublicationinanotherworkwiththehelpof
additionalauthors.SeeLiuPeng,BrettG.Scharffs&CarlHollan,Constitutional,Legislativeand
RegulatoryChangeRegardingReligioninChina,inLAW,RELIGION,CONSTITUTION:FREEDOMOFRELIGION,
EQUALTREATMENT,ANDTHELAW247(CristianaCianitto,ColeDurhamJr.,SivioFerrari&DonluThayer
eds.,2013).AlthoughbothworksaddressthehistoryandcurrentissuesofChinaspoliciestoward
religion,thisCommentprovidesanexpandedtreatmentofthoseissuesandChinasregulatorysystem.
Further,thisCommentproposesanalternativesolutiontothoseofferedintheotherwork,onebasedon
Chinasregulatorysystem.ReferenceswillbemadethroughoutthisCommenttothosesectionsthathave
beenpublishedintheotherwork.
1.TheU.S.StateCouncilhasdesignatedChinaasaCountryofParticularConcernsince1999dueto
statesanctionedreligiouspersecution.SeeU.S.DEPTOFSTATE,2011REPORTONINTERNATIONAL
RELIGIOUSFREEDOMCHINA(INCLUDESTIBET,HONGKONG,ANDMACAU)(2012),availableat
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/502105ce50.html.
2.SeegenerallyFukTsangYing,NewWineinOldWineskins:AnAppraisalofReligiousLegislationin
ChinaandtheRegulationsonReligiousAffairsof2005,34RELIGION,ST.&SOCY347(2006).
3.SeeYOSHIKOASHIWA&DAVIDL.WANK,MAKINGRELIGION,MAKINGTHESTATE:THEPOLITICSOF
RELIGIONINMODERNCHINA9(2009).
733
DONOTDELETE8/17/20158:07PM
BRIGHAMYOUNGUNIVERSITYLAWREVIEW2014
growthoftheillegal,underground,andconsequentlyunregulatedpracticeof
religion.
PartIofthisCommentwilloutlinethedevelopmentofthereligious
regulatorysysteminChinasincetheestablishmentofthePeoplesRepublic
ofChina.PartIIwillreviewthecurrentsystemofreligiousregulation.Part
IIIwilladdressCPCandPRCpoliciesonreligiousregulationandthe
interestsandgoalsoftheCPCandPRC.PartIVwillillustratethefailuresof
thecurrentregulatorysystemandpoliciesinachievingtheinterestsofthe
CPCandPRCthroughthehistoryoftheFalunGonginthePRC.Finally,a
solutionwhichtakesintoaccountbothCPCandPRCinterestsand
internationalstandardsofreligiousfreedomprotectionwillbeproposed.
I.APRIMERONTHEDEVELOPMENTOFRELIGIOUSPOLICYINTHEPEOPLES
REPUBLICOFCHINA
Notunlikethehistoriesofreligioninotherregions,thehistoryofreligionin
Chinaiscomprisedofapatchworkoftimelinesofbothbenevolenceand
sordidblunders.AsinEurope,manyofthereligiousphilosophiesthathave
4
flourishedinChinaarenotnativetoChina. However,todrawsimilar
conclusionsaboutChineseattitudestowardsreligionbycomparingChina
withotherregionswouldbeamistake.Perhapsmostinfluentialinthe
developmentofPRCandCPCpolicyhasbeenthehistoryofreligionin
Chinaduringthe150yearperiodimmediatelyprecedingtheascensionofthe
CommunistParty.Duringthistime,organizedreligioussocietieshavebeen
influentialfactorsincivilwars, rebellions, corrupt

4.OfthecurrentofficiallyrecognizedreligionsinChina(Daoism,Buddhism,Islam,Catholicism[Quasi
RomanCatholic],andChristianity[Protestantism]),onlyDaoismisanativeChinesereligion
(ConfucianismisnotrecognizedasareligioninChina,thoughadebatecontinuesastowhether
Confucianismisareligionoraphilosophy).
5.SeegenerallyJONATHAND.SPENCE,GODSCHINESESON:THETAIPINGHEAVENLYKINGDOMOFHONG
XIUQUAN(1996)(describingtheTaipingRebellion,acivilwarlastingfrom1845to1864thatclaimedthe
livesofanestimated20millionChinese;themovementwasrootedinChristianityanditssupporters
promulgatedtheirquasiChristianviewsinconqueredterritories).
6.SeeJONATHAND.SPENCE,THESEARCHFORMODERNCHINA18993(3ded.1990)(providingabrief
overviewofthePanthayRebellion(18561873),whentheHuiMuslimsofwesternChinafoughtagainst
thecentralgovernment,andtheDunganRevolt(18621877),anotherMuslimuprisinginwesternChina
thatthreatenedChinesecontrol);see
734
733ABrokenSystem
7
principles, thespreadofforeigninfluence, andthedeclineofChinese

9
traditionsandculture. WhenthesefactorsarecombinedwithCommunist
ideologyonreligion,thereislittlewonderthattheCPCsinitialpolicieswere
unfavorableandintolerantoforganizedreligiousgroupsand,attimes,even
ofunorganizedreligiouspractice.Duringitssixtyyearhistory,PRCand
CPCpolicyhasvacillatedbetweenattemptstocontrolreligiousorganizations
andattemptstoeradicatereligionfromthelivesofChinesecitizens.
A.19491966:CommunismandReligionwithChineseCharacteristics
Fromtheashesofpoliticalupheaval,instability,foreigndomination,andcivil
war,theChineseCommunistPartyandthePeoplesRepublicofChinarose
10
asMaoZedongproclaimedthatChinahadstoodup. Despiteinitial
promisesthatreligiousfreedomwouldbeprotectedandthatreligious
organizationwouldbeleftunfetteredbythecontinuingCommunist
11
revolutionarystruggle, MaoandtheCommunistsimmediatelyundertookto
alsoid.at23135(describingtheBoxerRebellion(18981901),whichwasaDaoist/Qi
gong/Traditionalistuprisingwithstrongreligiousthemes,andshowinghowthecombinedweaknessof
thecentralgovernmentandthestrengthoftheBoxerseventuallyledtotheEmperorfleeingBeijingand
foreigntroopsquellingtherebellion).
7.Id.at41415(describinghowChiangKaishek,leaderoftheNationalistgovernment,altered
traditionalConfucianPrinciplestodevelopsomeofhisideologies).
8.SeeW.TRAVISHANESIII&FRANKSANELLO,THEOPIUMWARS:THEADDICTIONOFONEEMPIREANDTHE
CORRUPTIONOFANOTHER222(2002).AsWesternnationsengagedingunboatdiplomacyandforcedthe
Chinesetoenterunequaltreaties,theforeignnationscommonlyrequiredtheChinesegovernmentto
allowChristianmissionariesthefreedomtotravelandproselytewithinChina.
9.ChristianmissionariesinvitedorrequiredChinesecitizenstostopancestorworship,theworshipof
idols,polygamy,footbinding,templeemployment,andvegetarianvows.SeeEricReindeers,Blessedare
theMeatEaters:ChristianAntivegitarianismandtheMissionaryEncounterwithChineseBuddhism,12
POSITIONS509,525(2004).
10.DAVIDSCOTT,CHINASTANDSUP1(2007)(ImmediatelypriortotheofficialfoundingofthePRC,on
October1,1949,MaoZedongdeclaredtotheChinesepeoplethatChinahadstoodupandwouldnever
againbeaninsultednation.).
11.SeeJOHNCRAIGWILLIAMKEATING,APROTESTANTCHURCHINCOMMUNISTCHINA:MOOREMEMORIAL
CHURCHSHANGHAI,19491989,at79(2012)(statingthat
735
reformeveryaspectofChineselife,includingreligiousorganizations,
12
dogma,andadherentsbeliefs. Moreover,earlyCPCleaderssaworganized
religionasposingadirectthreattoCommunistidealsofselfdeterminative
Chinesesovereignty(oraChineseruleabsentforeigninterventionorcontrol)
andundividedloyaltytoCommunismbecauseoftheclosetiesbetween
religionandforeigninfluenceandbecausereligiousbelieversopenly
displayedloyaltytoasocialorganizationotherthantheCommunistParty.
Inordertofightthesethreatsofforeigninfluenceanddividedloyalty,the
CommunistPartyrepurposedtheUnitedFrontWorkDepartment(UFWD)
13
in1940. TheUFWDwasfirstformedwhentheCommunistsfound
themselvesnecessarilyalliedwiththeKuomingtangNationaliststofight
warlordgeneralsfollowingthefalloftheQingEmpireandlatertofightthe
14
JapaneseduringWorldWarII. TheUFWDisaPartyDepartmentthatfalls
withinthejurisdictionoftheCentralCommitteeoftheCommunistParty.The
UFWDwasoriginallycreated,asitsnamesuggests,asaPartystructurethat
wouldberesponsibleforcontrollingcontactwithextraParty(Nationalist)
leaders.TheDepartmentwouldensurethatcontactwiththeseleaderswould
beuniform,orunited,therebyguaranteeingthatstruggleswiththeseenemies
viaaunitedfrontwouldresultinCommunistsuccess.In1940,the
DepartmentwasretooledtonotonlycontrolcontactwiththeNationalists,but
alsotocontrolcontactwiththenewCommunistenemy;allextraCommunist
politicalpartiesandgroups;locallypowerfulcliques;friendlyarmies;and
political,economic,andsocialorganizationsandfigures(specifically
15
includingreligions).
WhenthePeoplesRepublicofChinawasofficiallyestablishedin1949,the
CommunistPartyformedthePRCgovernment.ThePRC
missionariesandparishionerswereinitiallyoptimisticaboutrelationswiththePRCgovernment,hoping
tomaintainapeacefulcoexistence).
12.Id.at90;seealsoBeatriceK.F.Leung,ChinasReligiousFreedomPolicy:TheArtofManaging
ReligiousActivity,184CHINAQ.894,899(2005)[hereinafterLeung,ManagingReligiousActivity]
(describinghowregulationsontimeandlocationofreligiousobservancerestrictedthefreeexerciseof
Protestant,Catholic,Buddhist,andDaoistadherents).
13.SeeLYMANP.VANSLYKE,ENEMIESANDFRIENDS:THEUNITEDFRONTINCHINESECOMMUNISTHISTORY
268(1967).
Id.at12.
Seeid.at268.
736
733ABrokenSystem
governmentwascreatedtoruleassovereignoverChina,though,inreality,
CommunistPartyleaderstookupvirtuallyallPRCgovernmentpostsand
usedthePRCgovernmentasameanstoactuatePartyrule.Withthecreation
ofthePRCgovernmentcamethecreationoftheReligiousAffairsBureau
(RAB),agovernmentagencywhichwouldoverseereligiousadherentsand
religiousorganizations.TheRABwascreatedinaccordancewiththePRC
constitutionalrequirementsandfellwithinthejurisdictionoftheState
16
Department. ThoughfallingwithinthejurisdictionoftheStateDepartment,
17
theRABwasprimarilyaccountabletotheUFWD. TheRABwas
responsibleforimplementingthepolicytheUFWDcreated.Thus,religious
organizationsseekinglegalentitystatuswouldneedtoregisterthroughthe
RABaccordingtotherequirementstheUFWDestablished.
Followingtheirrisetopower,oneofthefirstactsoftheCPCandRABwas
toexpelallforeignmissionariesfromChina.18By1952allforeign
19
missionarieshadleftChina. AfterformermissionariesandWesternreligious
societyleadersreturnedhome,theCPCpressedforChinatomovepast
ChristianitytowardstheCommunistidealofscientificatheism.Chinese
scholarssoughttoundermineChinesetiestoChristianitybyequating
Christianitywithforeignimperialism,foreigndomination,theunequal
treatiesofthenineteenthcentury,thedefeatedNationalistgovernment,and
20
culturalimperialism.
TheexpulsionofforeignmissionariesfromChinahadlimitedeffectin
fulfillingCPCinterests.Theconcernofdividedloyalties,aswellasconcerns
abouttheinabilityoftheCPCtocontrolreligiousgroupsloyalties,ledto
another,farmoresweeping,changeinCPCpolicytowardreligioninChina.
Awellintentioned,thoughperhaps
16.SeePHILIPL.WICKERI,SEEKINGTHECOMMONGROUND:PROTESTANTCHRISTIANITY,THETHREESELF
MOVEMENT,ANDCHINASUNITEDFRONT7071(2011)[hereinafterWICKERI,SEEKINGTHECOMMON
GROUND].
17.
Id.
18.
SeeWICKERI,SEEKINGTHECOMMONGROUND,supranote16,at60.
19.
Id.
20.
Id.at62.737
malaligned,ChristianSocialistwithclosetiestotheCommunistParty
providedtheultimatesolutionthatwouldallowtheCommuniststoeliminate
foreigninfluenceoverreligiousbelieversandensurethatreligiousbelievers
primaryloyaltiesliewiththeParty.Revivinganoldexitstrategydraftedby
21
severalWesternmissionariesin1892 becausemanyChristianchurcheswere
facingcertaindissolutionduetotheblockofforeignfinancialassetssentto
22
China, WuYaozong(commonlyreferredtobyhisWesternnameofY.T.
Wu)beganadvocatingastrategytoensurethesurvivalofChristianityin
CommunistChinain1948.23InMay1950,WuandseveralotherChristian
leadersmetthreeseparatetimeswiththepremierofthenewlyformed
PeoplesRepublicofChina,ZhouEnlai,anddiscussedplanstoorganize
whathascometobeknownastheThreeSelfPatrioticMovement(the
24
TSPM). InJuly1950,WuandotherChristianspublishedTheChristian
Manifesto,apoliticaltreatisewiththeprinciplethemeofantiimperialism. 25
TheManifestostressedthefactthatinthepastimperialismhasmadeuseof
Christianity,andthenecessitytopurgeimperialisticinfluencesfromwithin
26
Christianityitself. Toaccomplishthispurgeofimperialisticinfluences,the
movementembracedthreebasicprinciples:selfgovernance,self
27
support,andselfpromulgation. Thistotalseveranceofforeignties
wouldmeanthatChineseChristianscouldonlylooktoChinesenationalsfor
ultimateterrestrialreligiousauthority;theywouldrejectanysupportor
financialaidfromforeignsources;andChineseChristianitywould
28
promulgateitselfwithouttheinputoraidofforeignmissionaries.
21.SeePaulGrant,TheThreeSelfPatrioticMovementinChina,THENETWORKFORSTRATEGICMISSIONS
(Jan.1,2007),http://www.strategicnetwork.org/index.php?loc=kb&view=v&i
d=8345&printerfriendly=Y&lang=.
22.SeeKEATING,supranote11,at89.
23.SeeGAOWANGZHI,CHRISTIANITYINCHINA:FROMTHEEIGHTEENTHCENTURYTOTHEPRESENT344(1999).
24.
Id.
25.
Id.at34344.
26.
Id.at344(internalquotationmarksomitted).
27.
Seeid.
28.
Liu,Scharffs&Hollan,supranote1,at250.
738
733ABrokenSystem
WhileWuandhisChristianManifestofacedsharpcriticismfromChinese
Christiansforbeingtooradical,29halfoftheChineseChristianpopulation
(about400,000ofthe700,000totalChristianbelievers)acceptedthe
30
manifestoandtheunderlyingprinciplesofselfsufficiencyby1952. Wus
resultingpopularityandcloutwithCPCofficialsledtotheemergenceofthe
TSPMasthepremierChristianecclesiasticalauthorityinChina. 31The
numberofChristianswhowouldnotalignwiththePartysponsoredTSPM
dwindledasantiAmericanmovements,motivatedbyAmericaninvolvement
intheKoreanWar,theThreeAntisMovement,andtheCampaignto
SuppressCounterRevolutionariesresultedinpublicaccusationsessions,
laborreformsentences,ortheexecutionofanyoneaccusedofespousingnon
32
Communistideologies. TheTSPMsroleintheChinesereligiousregulation
modelwassolidifiedin1958whentheCPCofficiallydissolvedallProtestant
sectsandunifiedallProtestantchurchesasasinglefaithinanattemptto
collectivizereligiousorganizationsinthesamewayallotheraspectsof
33
Chineselifewouldbecollectivized.
ThechangesintheChineseProtestantChurchwouldsoonspreadtoother
religiousorganizations.NotlongafterthereleaseoftheTSPMsChristian
Manifesto,thePartysoughtoutandtriedtomobilizeCatholicleadersto
endorsethesamethreeselfprinciplesWuandtheProtestantshad
embraced.34LandReformCampaigns
29.
GAO,supranote23,at344.
30.
Seeid.
31.
Id.Wuhasbeenstronglycriticizedbyhiscontemporariesandmoderndayhistorians
alikeforhisroleinthecreationofaCommunistcontrolledChristianchurch.Inthewordsofhis
contemporary:WuhasbeenbrandedbysomeahereticoranantiChrist,whileotherswouldquestionhis
intentionsandintegrityasaChristianandwonderifhehasnotbetrayedhisfaiththroughtheclose
alliancewiththeCommunistgovernment.Id.at338.HishighpositionintheCommunistTSPM
hierarchyservesasconfirmationforsomethathismotivesinleadingtheChineseChristianrevolution
werelessthanpure.
32.SeeSEBASTIANHEILMANN&ELIZABETHJ.PERRY,MAOSINVISIBLEHAND:THEPOLITICALFOUNDATIONS
OFADAPTIVEGOVERNANCEINCHINA145(2011).
33.SeeGAO,supranote23,at347;seealsoLiu,Scharffs&Hollan,supranote1,at25051.
34.SeeBEATRICEK.F.LEUNG&WILLIAMT.LIU,CHINESECATHOLICCHURCHINCONFLICT:1949200184,
8687(2004).
739
reallocatedmuchofthepropertyheldbytheCatholicChurchintoPRCand
35
Partycontrol. TheAntiRightistmovementsofthe1950sandtheanti
foreignersentimentwereusedtofurtherdiscredittheCatholicclergyand
purgetheChineseCatholicChurchofleaderswhowouldnotconformto
36
PRCandPartypolicy.
In1956,theonlyfourChineseCatholicbishopswhowerenottheninprison
wenttoBeijingandmetwithPRCPremierZhouEnlai.Zhoupromisedthatif
theChineseCatholicChurchseveredtieswiththeVatican,ChineseCatholics
37
wouldbefreetopracticetheirreligioninpeace. Thesefourbishops
organizedanationwidemeetingonJuly15,1957,anddeclaredtheformation
38
oftheChineseCatholicPatrioticAssociation(CCPA). Thesebishopstook
uponthemselvestheleadershippositionsintheCCPAandreleaseda
statementseveringanyrelationshipbetweentheCCPAandtheVaticanand
anyloyaltyoftheChineseCatholicChurchtotheHolySee.Thefollowing
year,thePartysUFWDandthePRCsRABauthorizedtheCCPAtoordain
twobishopsandelevenpriestswithouttheVaticansapproval.PopePiusXII
respondedinJune1958bycondemningtheCCPAandtheChineseCatholic
Church,39establishingastrainedrelationshipbetweentheChineseCatholic
ChurchandtheVaticanthathascontinuedforthepastfiftysixyears.
BuddhismandDaoismlackedthestronghierarchicalstructuresofthe
CatholicandotherChristianfaiths;thus,thePartyandthePRChadlittle
troubleinestablishinganoversightorganizationtocontrolreligious
40
believers. ThePartycouldnotrelyonforeigntiesintheirattacksof
BuddhismandDaoism,sotheyinsteadattackedthetwobeliefsystemsas
beingvestigesofthefeudalsocietyChinasoughttoleavebehind,asshelters
41
fortheKuomingtangrebels,andasremnantsofthecapitalistclasssystem. It
wasfairlysimpleforthePartytoestablishboththeChinaTaoistAssociation
andBuddhist
35.
Id.at88.
36.
Seeid.;seealsoLeung,ManagingReligiousActivity,supranote12,at899900.
37.
SeeLEUNG&LIU,supranote34,at89.
38.
Id.at90.
39.
Id.at96.
40.
SeeLeung,ManagingReligiousActivity,supranote12.
41.
Seeid.
740
733ABrokenSystem
AssociationofChinaasoversightbodiestoregulatethereligiouspracticeof
theirbelievers.Theseassociationswereorganizedin1953andsubscribedto
thesamethreeselfprinciplesastheTSPMProtestantChurch.42
TheorganizationoftheChineseMuslimsinwesternChinawasaccomplished
throughaslightlydifferentmethodology.UFWDandPRCleaders
43
establishedtheIslamicAssociationofChina(IAC)in1953. Stateand
PartyfavoritismgavetheIACtheadvantageastheygraduallygrewand
absorbedexistingMuslimassociations,Muslim(shariah)courts,andMuslim
schools.Similartotheregulationslimitingotherfaiths,[t]hestate...
[began]toplayasignificantroleinshapingwhatelementsofIslamwereto
beconsideredlegal,legitimate,andrealandwhatpracticeswereillegaland
subversiveactsofsuperstition,andoutsidethenarrowedscopeoftrue
44
Islam.
WiththesePatrioticReligiousAssociationsestablished,theCommunistParty
hadcreatedtheframeworkforthecontrolofreligiousobservanceinthe
PeoplesRepublicofChina.TheUFWDandRABworkedwithinthis
frameworktoattempttobuildasystembywhichtheycouldcontrolall
religiousactivityinChina.45Asidefromafouryearspanfrom1958to1962
whentheIslamicAssociationofChinawasdissolved,46theUFWDandRAB
soughttocontrolreligiousbelieversthroughcontrolofthePatrioticReligious
Associations.Controlwasestablishedbyencouragingturmoilwithinthese
associations,byselectingandpromotingleadershipthatwasloyaltothe
47
Communistcause,andthroughpoliticalindoctrination. Moreover,Chinese
citizensunderstoodthat
42.SeeAndrLalibert,ThePoliticalConsequencesofReligiousRevivalinthePeoplesRepublicof
China,ST.ANTONYSINTLREV.,Jan.2004,at31.
43.StephenE.Hess,Islam,LocalElites,andChinasMisstepsinIntegratingtheUyghurNation,USAK
Y.B.INTLPOL.&L.407,412(2010).
44.
Id.
45.
SeeLeung,ManagingReligiousActivity,supranote12,at899900.
46.
SeeHess,supranote43.
47.
SeeLeung,ManagingReligiousActivity,supranote12,at900(leadership
selection);GEORGEN.PATTERSON,CHRISTIANITYINCOMMUNISTCHINA87(1969)(politicalindoctrination).
741
religiousbelieverswouldalwaysbesecondclasscitizens.Tothequestion,
CanaChristianbelieveintheNewDemocracy?[ChineseCommunist
movement]theanswerwasyes:Yes...buthecannotbeanofficialworker
48
inthepartyorthegovernment.
Figure1:Theframeworkofcontroloverreligiousbelievers.Thepropertitlesofcertaindivisionsmay
varybylocations(e.g.,theShanghaiCitygovernmentoperatesatthelevelofotherprovinces,andintra
citydivisionsexistdowntotheneighborhood/streetlevel).Whileneverfullyrealizedinallprovinces,
thisframeworkshowstherelationshipsofcontrolthatwereestablishedtoregulatereligiousfreedom.
B.19661979:TheDissolutionoftheRegulatorySystem
Beginningasearlyas1963,leftistextremistsbegantopersecutereligious
49
adherentsfortheirdisloyaltytowardsCommunistideals. Followingaformal
noticereleasedbythehighestPartybodydenouncingcertainantiMaoists,
50
theextremeleftwingmovementexplodedacrossChina. ThisGreat
51
ProletariatCulturalRevolution thrustChinaintoastateofanarchyas
groupsof
48.
PATTERSON,supranote47,at59.
49.
SeeKEATING,supranote11,at158.
50.
Seeid.at139.
51.
Id.
742
733ABrokenSystem
studentagedRedGuardsroamedthecountryseekingtodestroythefour
olds:oldcustoms,oldculture,oldhabits,andoldideas.Religionwasone
oftheearlytargetsoftheRedGuards,becauseittypifiedtheproblemofthe
fourolds.52Unlikepreviousantirightistcampaigns,theRedGuards
attackedbothofficialandunofficialreligiousorganizations.InAugust1966,
theRedGuardsshutdownallreligiouscentersthroughoutthecountry,
regardlessoftheirstandingwiththeCommunistParty.TheRedGuards
stormedtheheadquartersofthe[Protestant]TSPM...withaxesand
53
herd[ed]theentirestafftogethertoconfesstheircrimes. TheUWFD,
RAB,andallPatrioticReligiousAssociationsweredissolvedandall
54
religiouspracticesweredrivenunderground.
Anycitizenfoundtobeoraccusedofbeingareligiousbelieverwasin
dangerofpersecutionbytheRedGuard.Scriptureswereburned,relicswere
destroyed,andbelieverswereforcedtoendurepublicaccusationsessionsand
torture.TheRedGuardalsoforcedcelibateleaderstomarry,Muslimstoeat
55
porkorraisepigs,andChristianstodenytheirfaith. Manyreligiousleaders
andreligiousbelieverswereimprisoned,tortured,orexecuted.56Official
57
recordsfromthistimearesparseoninformation; however,personal
historiesindicatethatmostreligiousbelieversinChinaweresignificantly
affectedbytheCulturalRevolution.Religiousleaderswhoavoidedmore
significantpersecutiondidsobyprovingconnectionswiththeCommunist
58
Party. Ironically,manywhosurvivedtheCulturalRevolutionhavesaidthat
thepersecutiononlyservedtostrengthentheirreligiousresolve.59
52.PHILIPL.WICKERI,RECONSTRUCTINGCHRISTIANITYINCHINA:K.H.TINGANDTHECHINESECHURCH171
(2007)[hereinafterWICKERI,RECONSTRUCTINGCHRISTIANITY].
53.KEATING,supranote11,at142.
54.SeeJAMESMILLER,CHINESERELIGIONSINCONTEMPORARYSOCIETIES182(2006);WICKERI,SEEKINGTHE
COMMONGROUND,supranote16,at6970.
55.
SeeWICKERI,RECONSTRUCTINGCHRISTIANITY,supranote52,at171.
56.
Id.
57.
SeeKEATING,supranote11,at145.
58.
Seeid.at14243.
59.
SeeWICKERI,SEEKINGTHECOMMONGROUND,supranote16,at185.743
C.19792004:ReconstructionoftheReligiousRegulatoryStructure
FollowingthedeathofMaoin1976,thenewCPCandPRCleader,Deng
Xiaoping,setabouttorebuildChina.DuringtheThirdPlenarySessionofthe
11thCPCCentralCommittee,Dengbegantoreestablishtheframeworkfor
religiouscontrolthathadbeendissolvedduringtheCulturalRevolution.
60
Duringthissession,theCPCofficiallyrecreatedtheUFWDandRAB. In
1980thePatrioticReligiousAssociationswerereestablished,inlinewith
theresumptionofthestatespolicyofcooptingreligionintopatriotic,state
61
controlledreligiousorders. Religiousadherentssetaboutrebuildingtheir
religiousinstitutionswhiletheCPCsoughtananswerfordealingwiththe
religiousquestioninChina.62Inanswertothereligiousquestion,the
CentralCommitteeoftheCPCreleasedDocumentNo.19in1982.63This
documentacknowledgedthatthelongterminfluenceofreligionamonga
partofthepeopleinaSocialistsocietycannotbeavoided,butalso
continuedtoassertthat[r]eligionwilleventuallydisappearfromhuman
64
history.
TheCentralCommitteeexplainedthattheyhadrestoredtheactivitiesofthe
patrioticreligiousassociationsandthat
thePartysandgovernmentsbasictaskinitsreligiousworkwillbetofirmlyimplement
andcarryoutitspolicyoffreedomofreligiousbelief;toconsolidateandexpandthe
patrioticpoliticalallianceineachethnicreligiousgroup;tostrengtheneducationin
patriotismandSocialismamongthem,andtobringintoplaypositiveelementsamong
theminordertobuildamodernandpowerfulSocialiststate.65
60.Seeid.at6871.
61.Hess,supranote43,at414;seealsoWICKERI,SEEKINGTHECOMMONGROUND,supranote16,at188
89.
62.Cent.Comm.oftheCommunistPartyofChina,Document19,theBasicViewpointontheReligious
QuestionDuringOurCountrysSocialistPeriod,translatedinDONALDMACINNIS,RELIGIONINCHINA
TODAY:POLICYANDPRACTICE826(1989),availableat
http://www.purdue.edu/crcs/itemResources/PRCDoc/pdf/Document_no._19_1982.pdf.
63.Id.64.Id.65.Id.
744
733ABrokenSystem
Inshort,theCommunistPartysoughttorebuildtheframeworkofcontrolthat
hadexistedduringthe1950s,encouragereligiousadherentstosubmittothe
authorityofthepatrioticreligiousassociations,andtousetheinfluenceofthe
CPCoverthesereligiousassociationstofurtherCommunistideologiesand
principles.However,thePartymaintainedthat[t]hebasicpolicytheParty
hasadoptedtowardthereligiousquestionisthatofrespectforandprotection
66
ofthefreedomofreligiousbelief.
67
Itwasalsoin1982thatthePRCadoptedanewconstitution. Includedinthe
newconstitutionwasArticle36,whichpurportstoguaranteereligious
freedomsforcitizensofthePRC.68Thisprovisionstatesthatcitizensenjoy
thefreedomtoeitherbelieveinornotbelieveinreligion;however,the
69
practiceofreligionislimitedtothepracticeofnormalreligiousactivities.
Normalreligiousactivitiesarenotdefinedintheconstitution;therefore,the
normalcyofreligiousactivityhasbeendefinedbyUFWDpolicyandRAB
70
administration. Moreover,theconstitutionreaffirmstheidealsofthethree
71
selfmovementforreligiousorganizations.
ThisregulatoryframeworkultimatelyledtothedevelopmentofChinas
currentuniquereligiousmarket.YangFenggangsinfluentialessayonthe
red,black,andgraymarketsofreligioninChinaoffersanexcellentmodel
forunderstandingthereligiousmarketin
66.
Id.;Liu,Scharffs&Hollan,supranote1,at25253.
67.
SeeWICKERI,RECONSTRUCTINGCHRISTIANITY,supranote52,at212.
68.
XIANFAart.36(1982)(China),availableat
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/constitution/constitution.html.Article36.CitizensofthePeoples
RepublicofChinaenjoyfreedomofreligiousbelief.Nostateorgan,publicorganizationorindividual
maycompelcitizenstobelievein,ornottobelievein,anyreligion;normaytheydiscriminateagainst
citizenswhobelievein,ordonotbelievein,anyreligion.Thestateprotectsnormalreligiousactivities.
Noonemaymakeuseofreligiontoengageinactivitiesthatdisruptpublicorder,impairthehealthof
citizensorinterferewiththeeducationalsystemofthestate.Religiousbodiesandreligiousaffairsarenot
subjecttoanyforeigndomination.69.Id.70.SeeFenggangYang,TheRed,Black,andGrayMarketsof
ReligioninChina,47
SOC.Q.93,101(2006).71.SeeXIANFA(1982)(China).
745
72
China. Yangdescribesreligiousorganizationsasbelongingtooneofthree
separatemarkets:theredmarket,whichconsistsofreligiousorganizations
alignedwiththeCPCsponsoredpatrioticreligiousassociations;theblack
market,whichconsistsofreligiousorganizationsthatthePRCgovernment
hasofficiallybanned;andthegraymarket,whichconsistsofreligious
organizationsthatarenotalignedwiththepatrioticreligiousassociations,but
notofficiallybanned,orreligiousorganizationsalignedwithpatriotic
73
religiousassociationsactingoutsidelegalboundaries. Thismodelfor
understandingreligiousregulationandpracticeishelpfulforthosewhoare
notfamiliarwiththecomplexitiesofChineselawthatisoftenapplied
unequallyaccordingtounspoken,unpublishedprinciplesoutsidersmaynot
know.
WhilethestructureofthereligiousregulatorysysteminChinahasseenlittle
changesincetheearly1980s,thepoliciessurroundingreligionhavechanged
dramatically.Inthe1980s,followingthebeginningofthecollapseofthe
SovietUnionineasternEurope,CPCleadersbecameincreasinglyworried
aboutantirevolutionaryactivitiesthatareundertakenunderthecloakof
religion,andforeignersanddestabilizinggroupsus[ing]religiontoturn
74
[their]youngpeopleagainst[them]. UnfortunatelyfortheCPCleaders
whosoughttotightenthecontrolsoftheUFWDandtheStateAdministration
forReligiousAffairs(SARA)overthesepotentiallysubversive
organizations,oneofthemajoreffectsoftheCulturalRevolutionwasthat
75
religiousorganizationsweredrivenunderground. Inresponse,CPCofficials
vacillatedbetweenliberalallowancesofreligiousfreedomandtightened
policiestogaintheloyaltyofundergroundreligiousgroups,toappease
76
Westerndemands,andtoensurecontroloverreligiousgroups. TheUFWD
andRABalsoapprovedthecreationofseveralnewOfficialReligious
72.
SeegenerallyYang,supranote70,at101.
73.
Seegenerallyid.
74.
BeatriceK.F.Leung,CatholicBridgingEffortswithChina,28RELIGION,ST.&
SOCY185,186(2010)[hereinafterLeung,CatholicBridgingEfforts].75.Id.at187.
76.SeeKEATING,supranote11,at18283;WICKERI,RECONSTRUCTINGCHRISTIANITY,supranote52,at
220.
746
733ABrokenSystem
Associations,raisingthetotalnumberofPartyapprovedreligious
associationstoeight.77
Alongwiththepolicyreformsofthe1980scameanexplosioninreligious
membership,particularlyinCatholicandProtestantmembership.ThePRC
estimatedthattherewereapproximatelythreemillionCatholicsandthree
78
millionProtestantsinChinain1982. By1994,thenumberofCatholicsin
Chinahadincreasedtoovertwelvemillion,withmembershipsplitbetween
theofficialPatrioticReligiousAssociationandundergroundCatholic
79
churches. Protestantchurchmembershipsawalaterbutsteadyrisein
membership,increasingtosixmillionin1993,totenmillionin1997,andto
80
overfourteenmillionin2004. MuchtothedisappointmentofUFWDand
RABofficials,alargepercentageofthesenewreligiousmembersjoined
churchesledbyreligiousclergywhohadbeenimprisonedduringtheCultural
Revolution,whowerereleasedduringtheeraofreform,andwhoignored
CPCdirectivesandchosetooperatewithinthegraymarket.81
InresponsetoincreasedworriesbyCPCleadershipaboutthegrowthof
religiousgroupsandtheirpotentialtoharborsubversiveelementsthatmight
undermineCPCcontrol,restrictionsonreligiousfreedomsawageneral
82
increasethroughouttheearly1990s. Themainthrustoftheseregulations
wastocrackdownonunofficialreligiousorganizationsandtoencouragethe
83
patrioticreligiousassociationstofurtheradapttothesocialistregime.
OfficialclergymenweretargetedbythePartyandStateandweresentto
RABconferencesforindoctrinationseminars,whileunofficial
77.WICKERI,RECONSTRUCTINGCHRISTIANITY,supranote52,at22122;seealsoLeung,Managing
ReligiousActivity,supranote12,at900.
78.
Yang,supranote70,at103.
79.
Leung,ManagingReligiousActivity,supranote12,at905.
80.
Id.
81.
Id.at902;seealsoHongyiHarryLai,TheReligiousRevivalinChina,18
COPENHAGENJ.OFASIANSTUD.40,48(2003)(statingthatintheearly1990sitwasestimatedthatlessthan
onefifthofCatholicsinChinaattendedtheofficiallyrecognizedPatrioticChurch).
82.Leung,CatholicBridgingEfforts,supranote74,at187.83.Id.
747
84
clergywerearrested. JiangZemin,thentheCPCandPRCleader,explained
totheUFWDwhatthisadaptationtothesocialistregimewouldentail:This
typeofadaptationdoesnotrequirereligiousadherentstoabandontheismand
religiousbeliefs....[Rather,][t]heyshouldalterthosereligioussystemsand
85
doctrineswhichdonotgoalongwithsocialism.... Duringthissame
periodtherewereperiodiccrackdownsagainstBuddhistsinTibetand
MuslimsinXinjiang,whichthePRCgovernmentsaidwereinstigatedby
86
religiousactivities[that]threatenednationalsecurity.
Asimilarnationwideregulatorytighteningonunofficialreligious
organizationsoccurredjustafewyearslateraftertheexplosionoftheFalun
GongmovementandthesubsequentcrackdownbyCPCandbyPRC
authoritiestosuppressthemovement.87FenggangYangassertsthatthe
increasedregulationofreligiouspracticeduringthisperiodhasdirectlyledto
theburgeoningofthegrayandblackreligiousorganizationsduringthis
88
sametime. WhetherornotCPCleaderssawthissamecorrelation,in
December2001JiangZeminspoketoagroupofCPCandPRCofficialsand
dramaticallychangedCPCreligiouspolicy.Inhisspeech,Jiangspokeof
religionasaphenomenonthatwillsurviveforalongtimeandrecognized
89
thatreligionmayhaveasignificantsocialstabilizingeffect. Thischangein
religiouspolicywouldleadtoaneweraofreligiousregulation.
D.RecentDevelopmentsinReligiousRegulation
AfterJiangZeminsteppeddownfrompower,HuJintaoassumedthetop
positioninboththeCommunistPartyandPRCgovernment.Hustenurewas
definedbysomeasresponsiveauthoritarianism:amorepopulist,
accountable,andlawbasedsystemofgovernancethatsoughttomaintainthe
statusquowherepossible,butreactedauthoritativelyinresponsetosocial
problems.90
84.
Id.
85.
Id.
86.
87.
88.
Id.at99.
89.
90.
THOMASLUM&HANNAHFISCHER,CONG.RESEARCHSERV.,HUMANRIGHTSIN
CHINA:TRENDSANDPOLICYIMPLICATIONS1(2009).748
733ABrokenSystem
DuringHustenure,religiousactivityinbothregisteredandunregistered
religiousorganizationsincreased.91HuadvocatedforallChinesecitizens,
includingreligiouscitizens,topromotethedevelopmentofaharmonious
societyinanattempttoincreasethesocialstabilityofChinaandthe
92
legitimacyoftheCommunistParty. Communistleadersalsobeganto
acknowledgethepositiverolethatChristianitycanplayinpromotingsocial
development,yetremain[ed]deeplysuspiciousandfearfulofitspotential
93
powerasasourceofautonomousorganization. AsHupreparedtostep
downandappointanewgenerationofleadersin2012,manyscholarsin
ChinawereoptimisticthatXiJinping,thefrontrunnerforassumingHus
position,wouldimplementreligiousreformsthatwouldleadtogreater
religiousfreedominChina.However,followingXiJinpingsappointmentto
power,Chinahasincreased,notdecreased,therestrictionofreligious
practiceinChina.
During2014inparticular,itseemsthatanunpublishedpolicychange
originatinginthehighestechelonsofCommunistleadershiphasresultedina
renewedcrackdownonreligiousorganizations.Moretroubling,however,is
thattheserecentwavesofcrackdownshaveresultedinthesuppressionof
blackmarketreligiousorganizations,graymarketreligiousorganizations,
andeventheofficiallyandlegallyrecognizedredmarketreligious
organizations.
Oneblackmarketreligiousgroupthatwasspecificallytargetedin2014isthe
EasternLightningChurch,ortheChurchofAlmightyGod.Althoughthe
churchwasdefinedasahereticalcultduringthemid1990s,suppressionof
thegroupwasrenewedafterMay28,2014.Onthatday,sixmembersofthe
EasternLightningChurchapproachedawomaninaMcDonaldsrestaurant
inShandongProvinceandaskedforherphonenumber.Whenthewoman
94
refused,thebelieversbeatthewomantodeathintherestaurant.
91.Id.at4.
92.Holbig,Heike,RemakingtheCCPsIdeology:Determinants,Progress,andLimitsunderHuJintao,
38J.OFCURRENTCHINESEAFF.35,5051.
93.SeeLUM&FISCHER,supranote90,at13.
94.1,500CultMembersArrestedinPastTwoYears,ChinaSaysAfterMcDonaldsKilling,SOUTHCHINA
MORNINGPOST(June11,2014),
749
However,muchmoretroublinghavebeentherecentcrackdownsagainst
formallyrecognizedorformerlyformallyrecognizedreligiousorganizations
during2014.Thefirstsignificantsuppressionbeganinlate2013,whena
pastorinHenanProvincewastoldbylocalauthoritiesthatofficialsintended
95
torepossessthepropertywherehischurchstood. Whenthepastor,Zhang
Shaojie,refusedtocomplywithgovernmentorders,hewasarrested. 96
AlthoughZhangwasapastorforaTPSMchurchandhadoperatedwithinthe
law,officialsdesignatedthechurchasahereticalcult,disbandedthe
organization,andchargedZhangandseveralfollowerswithcrimesunder
97
Article300forparticipatinginanillegalcult.
ThesuppressionofChristianorganizations,evenlegallyrecognized
organizations,alsotookplaceonagreaterscaleinZhejiangProvinceduring
2014.ThefirstmajorincidenttookplaceinApril,whenthegovernment
demolisheda$4.7millionchapelthatwasrecentlybuiltbyalegally
recognizedTPSMchurch.98Althoughthegovernmenthadpreviously
approvedoftheconstructionofthechurchbuilding,governmentofficials
99
inexplicablydeclaredthebuildingillegalandordereditsdemolition. The
demolitionofChristianstructureshascontinuedsinceJune2014,whenlocal
officialsbegandestroyingcrossesonChristianchurchesanddetainingany
100
religiousbelieverswhodefytheremovalorders. Chineseofficialsclaim
thatthesecrosseswere
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1529931/1500cultmembersarrestedchinasaysafterwoman
beatendeathmcdonalds.
95.TomPhilips,ChristianLeaderJailedfor12YearsamidChineseChurchCrackdown,TELEGRAPH
(July4,2014),
THEhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10945422/Christianleaderjailedfor12
yearsamidChinesechurchcrackdown.html.
300.
96.97.
98.
Id.Id.Seeinfranote169andaccompanyingtextdescribingtheenactmentofArticle
ZoeLi,ChinaDeniesChurchDemolitionIsPersecutionofChristians,CNNWORLD
2,2014),http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/01/world/asia/chinachurch
(Maydemolished/index.html?hpt=hp_t2.
99.Id.100.AndrewJacobs,ChinaRemovesCrossesfromTwoMoreChurchesinCrackdown,N.Y.
TIMES(July28,2014),http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/world/asia/chinamovesagainst2churches
incampaignagainstchristianity.html?_r=0.
750
733ABrokenSystem
removedandbuildingsdestroyedasaresponsetoviolationsofzoning
101
ordinances. Somesourcesstatethatthesecrackdownsarepartofarecently
issuedbutunpublisheddirectivetoeradicateunregisteredgraymarket
102
religiousorganizationswithinthenexttenyears. Arecentlyreleased
statementbyWangZuoan,theDirectorofSARA,whereWangstatesthat
ChinawillsoonredefineChineseChristiantheologytobemorecompatible
withsocialism103confirmsthattherehasbeenarecentshiftinpolicy,although
theexactpurposeoreffectofthischangemaynotbeunderstoodforyears.
Therenewedrepressionofreligiousbeliefsisnotlimitedtorepressionof
Christianreligiousorganizations.Chinaalsoreceivedsubstantialcriticism
whenofficialsintheMuslimmajorityXinjiangProvinceforbadeschool
childrenandgovernmentemployeesfromfastingduringRamadan,the
104
Muslimholymonth. Accordingtosomesources,thosewhorefusedto
complywiththebanfromfastingwereforcefedbygovernmentofficials. 105
Theserestrictionscontributedtoasignificantincreaseinviolenceandunrest
intheregionthatledtothedeathsofhundredsofMuslimsandresultedin
furtherrestrictions,suchasbansagainstbeardsandreligiousclothingon
106
publicbuses.
101.IanJohnson,ChurchStateClashinChinaCoalescesAroundaToppledSpire,N.Y.TIMES(May29,
2014),http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/30/world/asia/churchstateclashinchinacoalescesarounda
toppledspire.html.
102.KatrinaLantosSwett&M.ZuhdiJasser,Commentary:ChinasGrimReligiousFreedomProblem,
WASH.POST(July29,2014),http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/commentarychinasgrim
religiousfreedomproblem/2014/07/29/bf5133e0175611e488f796ed767bb747_story.html.
103.ChinaPlansEstablishmentofChristianTheology,CHINADAILY,
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/201408/07/content_18262927.htm(lastupdatedAug.7,2014).
104.IshaanTharoor,ChinasWaronRamadanSeesMuslimStudentsForcedtoBreakFast,WASH.POST
(July11,2014),http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/07/11/chinaswaron
ramadanseesmuslimstudentsforcedtobreakfast/.
105.KabitaMaharana,Ramadan2014:ChinaForceFeedsMuslimStudentstoBreakFastDuringHoly
Month,INTLBUS.TIMES(July12,2014),http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ramadan2014chinaforcefeeds
muslimstudentsbreakfastduringholymonth1456367.
106.China:96KilledLastWeekinXinjiang,USATODAY(Aug.2,2014),
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/08/02/china96killedlastweekin
751
II.THECURRENTRELIGIOUSREGULATORYSYSTEMOFTHEPEOPLES
REPUBLICOFCHINA
Structurally,therehasbeenlittlechangefromtheregulatorystructurere
establishedintheearly1980s.ThenationallevelReligiousAffairsBureau
hassincebeenrenamedtheStateAdministrationforReligiousAffairs
(SARA),thoughthenameremainsunchangedatotheradministrative
107
levels. Religiousassociationsseekinglegalentitystatusaresubjecttothe
jurisdictionofseveralexecutiveagencies,generallyincludingbothSARAor
theappropriateRABandtheMinistryofCivilAffairs,whichadministersthe
affairsofsocialorganizations.108Additionally,allreligiousorganizationsthat
arenotaffiliatedwithaPatrioticReligiousAssociation(andsomethatare)
receivesomeoversightfromtheMinistryofPublicSecurity,whichisthe
109
publicpoliceadministrationinChina. Thisisbecausereligious
organizationsthatarenotrecognizedassubentitiestoapatrioticreligious
associationdonothaveanylegalentitystatuswithinChina. 110TheMinistry
ofPublicSecurityexercisessomejurisdictionaloversightoverthese
organizationsasillegalgroups.Finally,thePRCStateDepartmenthas
createdtheInstituteofWorldReligions(IWR)asadepartmentwithinthe
ChineseAcademyofSocialSciences(CASS).TheIWRisastate
sponsoredthinktankthatproducesscholarshipandresearchonreligion
111
policiesandpractices. This
xinjiang/13532061/;ChineseCityBansIslamicBeards,Headwear,andClothingonBuses,THE
GUARDIAN(Aug.6,2014),http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/06/chinesecitybansislamic
beardsheadwearandclothingonbuses.
107.SeeCHRISTOPHERMARSH,RELIGIONANDTHESTATEINRUSSIAANDCHINA:SUPPRESSION,SURVIVAL,AND
REVIVAL211(2011).
108.SeeKIMKWONGCHAN&ERICR.CARLSON,RELIGIOUSFREEDOMINCHINA:POLICY,ADMINISTRATION,
ANDREGULATION1011(2005).
109.Id.ForanindepthanalysisofthecurrentChinesereligiousregulatorystructure,seeid.
110.Whileitisnotexpresslyforbiddenforareligiousorganizationtobegrantedlegalentitystatusinthe
PRCwithoutaligningwithaPatrioticReligiousAssociation,therearenosuchgroupswhohavebeen
grantedlegalentitystatus.
111.VINCENTGOOSSAERT&DAVIDA.PALMER,THERELIGIOUSQUESTIONINMODERNCHINA321(2011).
752
733ABrokenSystemsectionwillprovideamoreindepthviewofthecurrent
religious
regulatorysysteminChina.112
A.TheCommunistPartyofChinaandReligiousRegulation
Asdiscussedintheprevioussections,theCPCistherulingpoliticalpartyin
China.CurrentlythePartystructureresponsibleformonitoringand
regulatingreligioninChinaistheUnitedFrontWorkDepartment.Withinthe
UFWD,theSecondDepartmentoftheUFWDspecificallyoversees
ReligiousandMinorityAffairsinthePRC.
TheUFWDisadepartmentthatoperatesunderthedirectsupervisionofthe
CPCsCentralCommittee,113whichoverseesthenationalstructureofthe
114
CPC. WithintheSecondDepartmenttherearethreemajordivisions:one
managingreligion,onemanagingminorityaffairs,andthethirdisa
personneloffice.115Withinthereligiousdivisionthereareseveraloffices
thatspecializeinmanagingthereligiousaffairsofdifferentreligions.Each
officehasbetweenfourandeightcadres.Thisdivision,andeachrespective
office,hastheresponsibilityofcreatingreligiouspolicybasedonthe
116
directivesofPartyleadersintheCentralCommitteeorhigherbodies.
WhilethecontroltheCPChasoverreligiousaffairsismoreappropriately
exploredinthefollowingsectionsthatdealwiththePRCregulatorystructure
andthegovernmentsponsoredprivateorganizations,theroleofthePartyand
theUFWDinregulating
112.ForagraphicalrepresentationofthecurrentreligiousregulatorysysteminChina,seeinfraFigure2.
113.LAWRENCER.SULLIVAN,HISTORICALDICTIONARYOFTHECHINESECOMMUNISTPARTY266(2012).
114.Id.at4344.
115.Chinese: (renshibu).Thoughrenshibuistypicallytranslatedashumanresources
department,therenshibuintheSecondDepartmentfillsaverydifferentrole.Therenshibudoesnot
handletheemployeeaffairsoftheSecondDepartment;instead,therenshibucontrolstheadvancement
andselectionofreligiousleadersandpersonnel.Toavoidconfusion,ithasbeensuggestedthisalternate
translationisappropriate.
116.AllinformationisbasedonpersonalcommunicationswithformercadresoftheUFWD.
753
religiousaffairsoughtnottobeoverlooked.Allcontrolanddecisionmaking
pertainingtothereligiousregulatorysystemisheldbythePartyandthe
UFWD.Thus,theCPCregulatorystructurecouldbethoughtofasthe
brainoftheChineseregulatorysystem.AllactionscarriedoutbythePRC
regulatorystructure,andultimatelyallactionsanddoctrineofofficial
Chinesereligiousorganizations,originateinthepolicystatementsfromCPC
leadershipandtheUFWD.Anyorganizationhopingtoaffectorinfluence
Chinesereligiouspolicyshouldfocuseffortsonthisdecisionmakinglocus
oftheChinesereligiousregulatorysystem.
B.ThePeoplesRepublicofChinaandReligiousRegulation
ThePeoplesRepublicofChinareferstothegovernmentstructureofChina.
ItisnotablethattheconstitutionofthePRCstipulatesthatthePRCisto
operateundertheleadershipoftheCommunistPartyofChinaandthe
117
guidanceofMarxismLeninismandMaoZedongThought. Therefore,
whilethePRCregulatorystructureisthefaceofreligiousregulation,it
mightbeappropriatelythoughtofasthebodyofreligiousregulationinChina
inseparablefromthemind(theCPC),butunabletoactabsentcommand
fromtheCPC.ThePRCgovernmentactsasanagentoftheCPCleadership
andthemethodsofCPCcontrolwillbeoutlinedinthissection.
SimilartothestructureoftheU.S.government,thePRChasseveralbranches
ofgovernment.ItisnotablethattheroleofthelegislativebranchofthePRC,
118
theNationalPeoplesCongress,is[t]oenactandamendstatutes;
however,todate,theNationalPeoplesCongresshasfailedtopassany
legislationprotectingreligiousfreedom.Thisissignificantbecauseitmeans
thatallreligiousregulationthatisdonethroughagencyregulation,whichis
lessauthoritativethanlegislativestatutes,cannotbeappealedthroughthe
judicialsystemuntilaftertheagencyprovidedappealsprocesshasbeen
exhausted,anddependsingreaterpartonagencydiscretionforenforcement.
TheStateDepartmentistheexecutivebranchofthePRCandisthemain
sourceofreligiousregulationin
117.
XIANFAPreamble(1982)(China).
118.
Id.art.67,2.
754
733ABrokenSystem
thePRC.SeveralagencieswithintheStateDepartmenthaveinfluenceon
religiousregulation:SARA,theMinistryofCivilAffairs(MCA),andthe
MinistryofPublicSecurity(MPS).
SARAwasorganizedshortlyaftertheestablishmentofthePRCandis
119
accountabletoboththeStateDepartmentandtheUFWD. Specifically,the
StateDepartmentoverseesbusinessmattersthingslikebudgets,payroll,
etc.whiletheUFWDoverseespolicymattersthingslikeagency
120
regulations,administrativeapprovals,etc. WithinSARAtherearenine
121
departments. Amongthegeneralbureaucraticofficesarethefourbusiness
departments,witheachbusinessdepartmentbeingresponsibleforoverseeing
specificreligiousorganizations.Thefirstbusinessdepartmentoversees
122
123
BuddhismandTaoism; thesecond,CatholicismandProtestantism; the
124
125
third,Islam; andthefourth,otherreligions. Thesebusinessdepartments
areresponsiblefordraftingregulationsandoverseeingtheadministrative
approvalsforreligionswithintheirjurisdiction.
Furthermore,eachbusinessdepartmenthousesaCPCPartyBranchtowhich
allPartymembersbelong.DuringweeklyPartyBranchmeetings,theParty
BranchSecretaryrelayspolicyinformationfromtheUFWDtoSARA
officers.SARAisthenationallevelorganizationforreligiousaffairs.Below
SARAattheprovince,county,city,etc.,levelsaretheReligiousAffairs
Bureaus(RABs).Dependingontheirlocation,theamountoffunding,and
thereligiouspopulation,RABsmayormaynothaveseparate
119.
WICKERI,SEEKINGTHECOMMONGROUND,supranote16,at7071.
120.
InformationisbasedonpersonalcommunicationswithformercadresoftheUFWD.
121.
GENERALAFFAIRSOFFICEOFSARA,http://www.sara.gov.cn/nsjg/index.htm(last
visitedDec.30,2012).122.GENERALAFFAIRSOFFICE
ywys/index.htm(lastvisitedDec.30,2012).123.GENERALAFFAIRSOFFICE
ywes/index.htm(lastvisitedDec.30,2012).124.GENERALAFFAIRSOFFICE
ywss/index.htm(lastvisitedDec.30,2012).125.GENERALAFFAIRSOFFICE
ywss2/index.htm(lastvisitedDec.30,2012).
OFSARA,http://www.sara.gov.cn/nsjg/OFSARA,http://www.sara.gov.cn/nsjg/OFSARA,
http://www.sara.gov.cn/nsjg/OFSARA,http://www.sara.gov.cn/nsjg/
755
businessdepartmentstooverseecertainreligiousgroups.Inotherareaswhere
fundsareinsufficienttooperatetheseparallelentities,theRABdoesnotexist
126
andtheUFWDdirectlyfillstheroleoftheRAB. TheMCAalsoplaysa
127
roleinregulatingreligiousaffairsasitoverseesallsocialorganizations.
WhiletheMCAdoesnotissuereligionspecificregulations,allreligious
organizationsaresubjecttothesameregulationsasallothersocial
organizations.Thus,thePRCmaintainsadualoversightoverlegally
organizedreligiousgroups.Somelegallyorganizedreligiousgroupsarealso
subjecttooversightbyothergovernmentagencieswheretheState
Departmentdeterminesthattheactivitiesofthereligiousorganizationfall
withinthejurisdictionoftheagency.Forinstance,manyTaoisttemples
receiveoversightfromtheChinaNationalTourismAdministration,andnot
128
bySARA. InAugust2014,oneBuddhisttempleseekingtoavoidanedict
bythelocalgovernmenttoopenitsdoorstotouristsinsteadshutdown
operations.129
TheMPSisaPRCagencytaskedwithmaintainingpublicorder.Theroleof
theMPSissimilartotheroleoftheFBIintheUnitedStates;accordingly,the
MPSshouldtheoreticallyinvolveitselfinlegallyorganizedreligiousgroups
affairsonlywhentherehasbeencriminalconduct.However,theMPSs
involvementinreligiousaffairsisfarmoreextensive.Thisisbecausethe
PRCgovernmenthasbeenveryrestrictiveinitsallowanceofreligious
groupstoobtainlegalentitystatus.Todate,onlyeightreligiousassociations
130
haveobtainedlegalentitystatus. Thus,everyreligiousgroupthatexists
outsideoftheseeightassociationsisanillegalgroupthatfallswithinthe
jurisdictionoftheMPS.Manyofthereportsof
126.
CHAN&CARLSON,supranote108,at1112.
127.
Seeid.
128.
XuYunpeng,UnregulatedCommercialization:HowDoesthisLeadtoNirvana?,
CHINAECON.NET(Aug.18,2014,9:18AM),http://views.ce.cn/view/ent/
201408/18/t20140818_3372616.shtml.
129.LuChen,BuddhistTempleinChinaShutsDoorstoAvoidTourists,EPOCHTIMES(Aug.17,2014,
7:25PM),http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/886583buddhisttempleinchinashutsdoorstoavoid
tourists/.
130.WICKERI,SEEKINGTHECOMMONGROUND,supranote16,at22223;seealsoLeung,Managing
756
733ABrokenSystem
infringementsonreligiousrightsspecifythatthepersecutionwasdoneby
agentsoftheMPS.131
InteragencydisputesbetweentheMPS,MCA,andSARAhavebeen
reported,resultinginsomereligiousgroupsreceivingdifferentdirectivesand
treatmentfromdifferentagencies.ThisisinpartduetothestatusofSARAas
agovernmentadministration,ratherthanaministry.Becauseaministryholds
higherpowerwithintheChinesebureaucraticsystem,MPSagentshavebeen
reportedtoignoreSARAdirectivesintheirsuppressionofgroupstheMPS
132
deemsillegal. Thisinteragencyconflictisfurthercomplicatedbywhathas
beenreferredtoasthestovepipingeffect.133Thestovepipingeffectisa
bureaucraticphenomenoninwhichindividualministriesandother
hierarchiesshareinformationupanddownthechainofcommand,butnot
134
horizontallywitheachother. Thus,localPublicSecurity,CivilAffairs,
andRABofficialsarelikelynotawareoftheconflictinpoliciesforthe
treatmentofcertainreligiousgroups.
TheCPCmaintainscontrolovertheseseveralgovernmentagenciesthrough
thePartyBranchesthatexistwithinindividualdepartmentsandoffices,as
135
wellasthroughthenomenklaturasystem. Nomenklaturawasderivedfrom
theSovietmodelofCommunismanddescribesthepracticeoftheCPCof
strategicallyappointingimportantofficialstobothPartyandPRC
136
governmentposts. AstheCPChasexclusivecontrolovertheappointment
ofcertainpositions,PRCofficialsareloyaltotheParty,asopposedtobeing
loyaltothegovernmentorthepeople.Throughboththenomenklatura
systemandthePartyBranches,theCPCmaintainsabsolutecontroloverthe
PRCgovernment.Thus,thePRC
131.
SeeCHAN&CARLSON,supranote108.
132.
Id.
133.
SUSANV.LAWRENCE&MICHAELF.MARTIN,CONGRESSIONALRESEARCH
SERVICE,UNDERSTANDINGCHINASPOLITICALSYSTEM10(2012).134.Id.
135.HonS.Chan,CadrePersonnelManagementinChina:TheNomenklaturaSystem,19901998,179
CHINAQ.703(2004).
136.Id.
757
governmentisineffectanagentoftheCPC,workingonlytoactuatethe
policiesoftheCPCleadership.
Figure2.1AgraphicalrepresentationoftheChineseCommunistPartyandChinesegovernment
structures(inSimplifiedChinese).
758

733ABrokenSystem
Figure2.2AgraphicalrepresentationoftheChineseCommunistPartyandChinesegovernment
structures(inEnglish).
759

C.OfficialPatrioticReligiousAssociationsandReligiousRegulations
ThePatrioticReligiousAssociationsthatwerecreatedinthe1950sand
recreatedinthe1980sremaintheonlyofficiallylegalavenueforreligious
practice.Today,theeightPatrioticReligiousAssociationsaretheonly
137
legallyrecognizedreligiousorganizationsinChina. Therearealsoonlyfive
recognizedreligionsinChina:Buddhism,Taoism,Protestantism,
Catholicism,andIslam.Thesefiverecognizedreligionscoincidewiththe
138
firstthreeofSARAsbusinessdepartments, leavingallothercults,
illegalgroups,ornonrecognizedreligiousgroupstobegovernedbythe
remainingfourthbusinessdepartment.
ThePatrioticReligiousAssociationshavealargefollowing,thoughgenerally
139
notaslargeasthefollowingoftheirundergroundcounterparts. However,
thePatrioticReligiousAssociationsserveanimportantroleinreligious
regulationinChina.SimilartothePRC,thePatrioticReligiousAssociations
aresubjecttoCPCpowerbynomenklatura.LeadersofthePatriotic
ReligiousAssociationsarechosenbythePersonnelOfficeoftheSecond
DepartmentoftheUFWD.Evenafterleadershavebeenappointedbythe
UFWD,theUFWDdispersespolicyanddoctrinalstatementsthatleadersare
expectedtoadhereto.Religiousleadershavealsobeenrequiredtoattend
trainingsessionstolearnabouttheconfluenceoftheirreligionand
Communistdoctrine.Afterthesetrainingsessionstheleaderstakeawritten
140
test,andiftheyfailtheyareremovedfromtheirpost.
ThoughmanyChinesedonotattendtheofficialPatrioticChurches,these
PatrioticReligiousAssociationsestablishalegaloutletforreligious
expressionthattheCPCandPRCcancontrol.CPCandPRCofficialsusethe
existenceoftheseofficiallyrecognizedreligionstodeflectclaimsby
domesticandinternational
137.WICKERI,SEEKINGTHECOMMONGROUND,supranote16,at22223;seealsoLeung,Managing
138.Seesupranotes124126.
139.SeeHongyi,supranote81,at48(statingthatintheearly1990sitwasestimatedthatlessthanone
fifthofCatholicsinChinaattendedtheofficiallyrecognizedPatrioticChurch).
140.ROBERTKUHN,HOWCHINASLEADERSTHINK:THEINSIDESTORYOFCHINASREFORMANDWHATTHIS
MEANSFORTHEFUTURE37172(2010).
760
733ABrokenSystem
humanrightscritics,byclaimingthattheChinesehavethefreedomtojoin
anyreligiousorganization,solongasitisanorganizationthePartyapproves.
Becausethereisalegaloutletforreligiousobservance,officialCPCandPRC
policyhasbeentosuppressanyreligiousgroupsthatdonotbelongtothese
141
officiallyrecognizedassociations. However,itisnotpracticablypossible
fortheUFWD,SARA,orMPStosuppressallillegalgroups;thus,alarge
numberofreligiousgroupsoperateoutsidethelawwithinarangeof
tolerancefromenforcingofficials.Still,therearemanymoregroupsthatare
activelydenouncedinCPCpolicyandsuppressedbyPRCofficials.
D.TheThreeMarketModelandReligiousRegulation
Ina2006article,YangFenggangexplainedthecurrentreligiousmarketin
Chinawithhisthreemarketmodel.142TheChinesereligiousmarket
consistsofthreemarkets:theredmarket,theblackmarket,andthegray
market.Theredmarketisthelegalmarketforreligiousworship.Thisisthe
legaloutletforreligiousobservancethattheCPCandPRChavecreated
throughtheestablishmentofthePatrioticReligiousAssociations,whichis
143
overseenbytheRABs,SARA,andtheUFWD. Theblackmarketisthe
illegalmarket.OftenreferredtoasevilcultsinCPCstatements,theseare
thegroupsthatareactivelydenouncedbytheCPCandactivelysuppressed
144
bythePRCthroughtheMPS. Perhapsthemostwellknownofthese
145
groupsistheFalunGong,discussedbelow.
Yangdefinesthegraymarketnarrowlyassimplythosemembersoflegally
recognizedreligiousgroupsactingoutsidethelaw146forexample,members
ofthelegallyrecognizedProtestantchurchwhoproselytizeoffofchurch
premises.147However,amuchlarger
141.
Leung,CatholicBridgingEfforts,supranote74,at187.
142.
SeeYang,supranote70,at93.
143.
Id.at97.
144.
Id.
145.
SeeLiu,Scharffs&Hollan,supranote1,at256.
146.
147.
Idat109.
761
segmentofreligiousobservanceshouldbecategorizedasoperatingwithin
thegraymarket.Thissegmentiscomprisedofthosereligiousgroupswho
operatewithoutlegalprotection,butwhosepracticeistoleratedbytheCPC
andPRC.ExamplesofthesegroupscouldincludelocalBuddhist,Taoist,or
Shamanistictemples,UyghurMuslims,TibetanBuddhists,certain
undergroundProtestantandCatholicchurches,andreligionsthathaveno
recognitioninthePRC,suchastheEasternOrthodoxChurchandtheBahai.
Thesegroupsshouldbecategorizedasoperatingwithinthegraymarket
becausetheyoperatewithinazoneoflegaluncertainty.Solongastheyruffle
nofeathers,theyareallowedtoholdreligiousservicesand,insomecases,
evenownland.However,theyhavenolegalrights;theyexistbythegrace
148
andtoleranceofenforcingofficials,makingtheirexistencetenuousatbest.
InhisexplanationoftheChinesereligiousmarket,Yangmakesthree
propositions.First,[t]otheextentthatreligiousorganizationsarerestricted
innumberandinoperation,ablackmarketwillemergeinspiteofhighcosts
149
toindividuals. Second,[t]otheextentthataredmarketisrestrictedanda
150
blackmarketissuppressed,agraymarketwillemerge. Andthird,[t]he
151
morerestrictiveandsuppressivetheregulation,thelargerthegraymarket.
Yangdoeswelltoproveeachproposition;however,theremainderofthis
Commentwillproveanadditionalproposition:Totheextentthatadmittance
intotheredmarketisrestricted,alargegraymarketwilleventuallyleadto
theemergenceofalargerblackmarket.152
III.CPCANDPRCPOLICYANDTHERED,GRAY,ANDBLACKMARKETS:A
CASESTUDY
ThehistoryoftheFalunGonginthePRCillustratesthisfinalproposition.
TheFalunGongisaquasireligiousqigonggroupthathasbeenbrutally
suppressedbytheCPCandPRCauthoritiesforthepastdecade.Qigongisa
processformeditation,selfcultivation,and
148.
SeeLiu,Scharffs&Hollan,supranote1,at25657.
149.
150.
Id.
151.
Id.at99.
152.
Liu,Scharffs&Hollan,supranote1,at257.
762
733ABrokenSystem
153
paraphysicalhealing. Itisoftenpracticedthroughmeditation,breathing
techniques,andslowmotionmartialarts.QigonghasexistedinChinalong
beforethepostCulturalRevolutionresurgenceofqigonggroups.Jiang
Weiqiao(18731958)wasaninfluentialleaderofsecularizingtheqigong
154
techniquesthatexistedinTaoism,Buddhism,andConfucianism. Inthe
1950stheCPCwasveryopentothepracticeofqigong,seeingitasascience
155
andtypeofChinesemedicine. In1950alone,overseventyqigonggroups
156
werefoundedandestablishedaslegalentitieswithinthePRC.
Beginningin1979,literallytensofthousandsofChinesedeclaredthemselves
157
qigongmastersandbegantoorganizeqigonggroups. Someofthesegroups
wereratherlarge,buildingeducationcenters,researchcenters,and
158
hundredstothousandsofcultivationpoints. Therewasperhapsnothing
uniqueabouttheFalunGongwhentheyfirstorganizedin1992.TheFalun
GongregisteredwiththeChinaQigongResearchSocietytoformalegal
159
entity. Solongastheyconformedtothelimitsagainstreligiouspractice,
theycouldoperatewithintheredmarketofsocialorganizations.However,as
FalunGongspreadacrossChina,theirmessageadoptedincreasingly
160
religiousovertones. Thus,theFalunGongtransitionedfromtheredmarket
tothegraymarket.ForafewyearstheFalunGongretainedtheirstatusasa
legalsocialorganization,butoperatedoutsidethelawbypracticingreligion.
Practically,theFalunGonghadnochoicebuttooperatewithinthegray
marketbecauseChinaonlyrecognizesfivereligionsandthePatriotic
ReligiousAssociationsdescribedaboveanyotherreligiousgroupis
161
consideredanevilcultandsuppressed. By1996,the
153.
SeeGOOSSAERT&PALMER,supranote111,at117.
154.
Id.
155.
Id.at120.
156.
Id.
157.
158.
Id.
159.
BeatriceLeung,ChinaandtheFalunGong:PartyandSocietyRelationsinthe
ModernEra,33J.CONTEMP.CHINA761,767(2003)[hereinafterLeung,FalunGong].
160.
161.
SeeLeung,FalunGong,supranote159,at764.763
FalunGongsreligiousmessagebecametooovertfortheMCAandthe
ChinaQigongResearchSocietytoignoreandtheFalunGongslegalentity
statuswasrevoked.
TherearetwoimportantobservationstomakeabouttheFalunGongbetween
1996and1999.First,theFalunGonglackeddesignationasalegalentity,yet
162
continuedtofunctionlargelywithoutCPCorPRCinterference. Second,
becauseofthelackoflegalentitystatus,theCPCandPRCwereleftwithout
163
manyoptionsforregulatingtheactivitiesoftheFalunGong. Becausethe
MCAandChinaQigongResearchSocietyhaddissolvedtheFalunGongs
statusasalegalentity,theynolongerhadprerogativetomonitororlimitthe
actionsoftheFalunGong.WhiletheMPScouldbeenlistedtodisbandthe
group,theFalunGongwerenotyetseenasathreattoCPCandPRCpower
orsocialstability,andthenegativeinternationalreactiontotheforceful
suppressionofapeacefulgroupservedasadeterrentforsuchanextreme
measure.Becauseofthesefactors,theFalunGongfellthroughthecracksof
religiousregulationandwereabletooperateessentiallyunregulated.This
existenceinlegaluncertaintyexistingwithoutlegalrights,butwithinthe
scopeoftoleranceofCPCandPRCofficialsisthedefinitionofagroup
operatingwithinthegraymarketofreligiousregulation,whichiswhythese
organizationsshouldalsobeproperlyunderstoodasgroupswithinthegray
marketdefinedbyYang.
Itwasthisoperationwithinthegraymarket,beyondthecarefulwatchof
CPCandPRCstructuresforcontrollingsocialgroups,thatallowedtheFalun
164
Gongtogrowrapidly. By1999,theFalunGonghadgrowntoa
165
membershipofover2.1millionknownmembers. Ofthose,approximately
166
onethird,or700,000,werealsomembersoftheCPC. OnApril25,1999,
anestimated10,000to30,000FalunGongmembersencircledtheCPC
headquartersinBeijingtoprotesttherefusalofSARAtoallowtheFalun
Gongtoregisterasareligiousgroup.PRCPresidentand
162.
163.
SeeLeung,FalunGong,supranote159,at779.
164.
Id.at77980.
165.
THOMASLUM,CONGRESSIONALRESEARCHSERVICE,CHINAANDFALUNGONG3
(2006).166.Id.
764

733ABrokenSystem
GeneralSecretaryoftheCPC,JiangZemin,wasshockedbytheaffrontto
Partyauthorityandorderedacrackdown.167
ThePartyresponsecameonJuly21,1999,whenJiangZeminissueda
168
directivetodissolvetheFalunGongandarresttheleadership. Through
examiningthisPartyresponsetoanexternalthreat,thePartyscontrolover
thePRCgovernmentapparatusandprivateentitiesbecomesglaringly
apparent.TheRenminRibao[PeoplesDaily]istheChinesenational
newspaper,yetreportsdirectlytotheCentralCommitteeoftheCPC.The
RenminRibaowasquicktodescribetheFalunGongmovementasthemost
169
seriouspoliticalincidentsincetheTiananmenIncidentin1989. ThePRCs
legislativebody,theNationalPeoplesCongress,alsorespondedby
amendingananticultlaw,knownasArticle300,thatwaseffective
retroactively,labelingtheFalunGongasanevilcult,andgivingtheMPS
170
authoritytosuppressthegroup. Soonthereafter,severalotherqigong
groupsweresimilarlylabeledasevilcultsandweresimilarlysuppressed. 171
Withinthefirsttwoyearsofthecrackdown,between150and450group
leaderswerearrestedandsentencedtoprisontermsofuptotwentyyears. 172
UnderPartydirection,theMPCalsodetainedbetween10,000and100,000
practitionersandforcedthemtoserveonetothreeyeartermsinlaborre
educationcamps.AccordingtoPRClaw,laborreeducationisnota
criminalpunishment,butanadministrativepunishment,enforcedbytheState
CouncilorministrieswithintheStateCouncil(suchastheMPS).Therefore,
citizensmaybedetainedinlaborreeducationcampsforuptothreeyears
173
withoutbeingchargedwithacrimeandwithouttrial.
167.
Id.at4.
168.
Id.
169.
Leung,FalunGong,supranote159,at763.
170.
LUM,supranote165,at4.SeesupraPartI.D.forabriefdiscussionofrecent
applicationofarticle300inthePRC.
171.
172.
LUM,supranote165,at4.
173.
Id.at5.
765
SincetheCPCsedictthattheFalunGongisanevilcult,therehasbeenan
ongoingstrugglebetweentheFalunGongandtheCPC.TheFalunGonghas
continuedtoreleasereportsaboutarrests,tortures,andexecutionsdoneby
174
orderofCPCandPRCofficials. Meanwhile,reportsarereleased
periodicallyofFalunGongprotestsinthePRC,including,mostnotably,the
stagingofselfimmolationsinpublicplaces.175DespitePartyandStateefforts
tosuppressthemovement,theFalunGonghasnotbeeneradicated.The
176
groupcontinuestooperateinChinawithinthereligiousblackmarket.
177
Gradually,asmoregroupshavebeenaddedtotheCPCslistofevilcults
andhavebeensimilarlysuppressed,thesegroupshavesimilarlymoved
operationsundergroundintotheblackmarket.
IV.MEETINGPARTYANDSTATEINTERESTSTHROUGHAMOREEFFECTIVE
REGULATORYSTRUCTURE
ThedifficultiestheCPCandPRChavehadindealingwiththeFalunGong
andotherevilcultsservesasproofthatthecurrentreligiousregulatory
178
systemhasfailedtomeetCPCandPRCinterests. Themaininterestofthe
179
CPCismaintaining asevidencedbytheincreasedfundingtowards
maintainingsocialstabilityisstrongevidencethattheCPCviewstheirability
tomaintainsocialstabilityasoneofthemostimportantkeysto
174.Id.
175.Leung,FalunGong,supranote159,at779;seealsoJ.DavidGoodman,ASelfImmolationin
TiananmenSquareIsReported,N.Y.TIMES(Nov.16,2011)
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/aselfimmolationintiananmensquareisreported/
(describingtheselfimmolationattemptinTiananmenSquareanddiscussingpastselfimmolationsdone
bymembersoftheFalunGong);ElisabethRosenthal,FormerFalunGongFollowersEnlistedinChinas
WaronSect,N.Y.TIMES(Apr.5,2002),http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/05/world/formerfalungong
followersenlistedinchinaswaronsect.html(describingtheselfimmolationattemptsinTiananmen
SquareofpeoplewhoclaimedtobepartoftheFalunGong).
176.Leung,FalunGong,supranote159,at781.
177.Forapartiallistofgroupsbannedasevilcultsasof2006,seeYang,supranote70,at10708.
178.SeeLiu,Scharffs&Hollansupranote1,at257.
179.SeeRussellLeighMoses,SoMuchforStability:RealityCatchingUpWiththeCommunistParty,
CHINAREALTIMEREP.,WALLST.J.(Nov.5,2012),http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2012/11/05/so
muchforstabilityrealitycatchinguptothecommunistparty/.
766
733ABrokenSystem
retainingpowerovertheChinesepeople.In2009,fundingtowards
maintainingsocialstabilitynearlymatchedthefundingoftheParty
180
military. Since2009,fundingtowardsmaintainingdomesticstabilityhas
increasedby11.5percent.181Traditionally,theCPChasseenreligious
organizations,oranysocialorganizationotherthantheCPC,asathreatto
CPCpowerbecausethesegroupshavetheabilitytoindoctrinateorganization
182
membersandmobilizethesemembersfortheirownpurposes.
Inanattempttopreventreligiousorganizationsfromservingasanincubator
forantiCommunistideologiststouseinbreedingsocialunrest,theCPC
createdthecurrentsystemofcontrolwiththehopethatitwouldcreatea
183
highlyregulatedlegaloutletforreligiousobservance. BycreatingCPC
controlledreligiousassociations,theCPChadhopedtobeabletocontrol
religiouspracticefromthetopdown;bycreatingthePRCsSARAand
RABs,theCPChopedtocontrolreligiouspracticefromthebottomup.
However,theCPCsprimarymethodofmaintainingcontroloverreligious
groupsstrictlylimitingthenumberofreligiousgroupsandcontrollingthe
leadershipofthegroupsisoneofthemaincontributorstothefailureofthis
systemofcontrol.Ultimately,thefailureofthisregulatorysystemisthe
inabilityoftheCPCandPRCtoeffectivelyregulategroupswhodonotfit
184
withinthenarrowlydefinedcategoriesthesystemismeanttocontrol.
UsingYangFenggangsmodel,thecurrentreligiousregulatorysystemis
abletoregulategroupswithintheredmarket,andhasstructuresinplaceto
suppressthegroupsoperatingintheblackmarket.However,thisregulatory
systemhasnomethodtoregulategroupswithinthegraymarketboththose
thatexistasradicalbranches,orredmarket
180.ChengLi,TheEndoftheCCPsResilientAuthoritarianism?ATripartiteAssessmentofShifting
PowerinChina,211CHINAQ.595,61617(2012).
181.
Id.at617.
182.
ThomasDavidDuBois,ReligionandtheChineseState:ThreeCrisesandaSolution,
64AUSTL.J.INTLAFF.344,347(2010);Liu,Scharffs&Hollan,supranote1,at257.
183.Leung,FalunGong,supranote159,at779.184.Id.
767
organizationsactinginviolationofthelaw,andthoseinthegraymarketthat
185
aretoleratedbyofficialsdespitehavingnolegalentity. Ironically,whilethe
CPCsoughttocontrolreligious
organizationstopreventradicalgroupsinfomentingsocialunrest,thegray
marketthathasbeencreatedbythecurrentregulatorysystemhastheeffect
offomentingthisexacttypeofsocialunrest.Underthecurrentregulatory
system,groupsthatexistwithinthegraymarkethavethreeoptions:first,they
canjointhelegalredmarketiftheyarewillingtoappointPartyapproved
leaders,adoptCommunistdefineddoctrine,andbecomeapartofapatriotic
religiousassociation;second,theycancontinuetooperatewithinthegray
marketindefinitely;orthird,theycanradicalizeandjointheblackmarket.
Currently,groupswhoattempttomakethetransitionfromthegraytored
markethaveonlyonechoicetosubmittotheleadershipofaPatriotic
ReligiousAssociationand,ultimately,totheCommunistPartyitself.
Needlesstosay,thisoptionislessthanappealingtothevastmajorityof
religiousgroupsasitwouldrequirethegrouptoacceptCPCinitiated
186
changesinitsleadershipanddoctrine.
Themajorityofreligiousgroupsoperatingwithinthegraymarketnaturally
opttoattempttocontinueoperationswithinthegraymarket.However,the
CPCandPRCsattempttosubstitutetoleranceofthereligiousgroupfor
legalrecognitionofthereligiousorganizationisnotonlytheoretically
187
problematic, butalsopracticallyproblematicfortheCPCandPRCaswell.
First,organizationsthatexistwithinthegraymarkethavenolegalentity
status.Whilethisdoeslimittheabilityofthegrouptoorganizeandoperate,
thisalsoisveryproblematicforreportingandregulation.Asthese
organizationsarealreadyoperatingoutsideofthelaw,theyrarely,ifever,
conformtoreportingproceduresdesignedtoassisttheRABinregulationof
thereligiousgroup.Moreover,evenifagroupweretoobtainthepermission
ofthelocalRABtoassemble,thereisnoreportingprocesswithintheRAB
orcodifiedmethodsofRAB
185.
SeeLiu,Scharffs&Hollansupranote1,at25758.
186.
Seeid.at258.
187.SeeW.COLEDURHAM,JR.&BRETTG.SCHARFFS,LAWANDRELIGION:
NATIONAL,INTERNATIONAL,ANDCOMPARATIVEPERSPECTIVES433(2010)(describingthesetheoretical
problemsinaMoldovancase).
768
733ABrokenSystem
surveillanceorregulationofthesegroupsthatexistwithinthelocalRABs
zoneoftolerance.188
Second,religiousorganizationsthatoperatewithinthegraymarketcannot
operatewithinthegraymarketindefinitely.189TheFalunGongisanexcellent
exampleoftheinabilityofanunregulatedgrouptoexistwithintheCPCs
zoneoftoleranceindefinitely.TheCPCcrackdownontheFalunGonghad
severalmotivations,butamongthemwasthefearofasocialorganizationthe
sizeoftheFalunGongthathadtheabilitytomobilizesomanycitizensto
theircause.However,at2.1millionmembers,theFalunGongwasstill
190
(relativetoChina)asmallgroup. Moreover,thevastmajorityofmembers
participatedinFalunGongoutofcuriosity,forhealthbenefits,orfor
191
socializationandhadnointentiontoparticipateinsocialdisruption. Yet
somehowthisorganizationwasabletoscaretopCPCandPRCofficialsinto
aresponsethatwouldeventuallybecomeeverybitasinfamousasresponses
inTiananmen,Tibet,andXinjiang.Furthermore,religiousorganizationswith
farfeweradherents,suchastheShouwangChurchinBeijing,havebeen
192
blacklistedandpersecutedunderArticle300santicultprovisions. Inthe
caseofboththeShouwangandtheFalunGong,CPCcrackdownscameafter
CPCleadershipbecamesuddenlyawareofawellorganizedgroupthatwas
previouslyunknown.Thesegroupshadbeenabletoexpandandorganize
withoutalertingCPCauthoritiesbecauseoftheexistenceofthegraymarket.
Groupsthatseektocontinuetooperatewithinthegraymarketindefinitely
will
188.
189.
Id.at25859.
190.
TwelveyearsaftertheestablishmentoftheFalunGong,membershiptotaled2.1
million.TheUndergroundCatholicChurchboastedapproximately6millionmemberswithintwelve
yearsofitsestablishment.SeeLeung,ManagingReligiousActivity,supranote12,at905.
191.Leung,FalunGong,supranote159,at76566.
192.Forexample,theShouwangChurchisanUndergroundProtestantChurchwithonlyaround1,000
members,yetthisgroupwasblacklistedin2010whentheCPCdiscoveredthattheShouwangwere
preparingtosendapproximately200leaderstoaninternationalevangelicalconference.SeeUrsula
Gauthier,WhyDoChristianGroupsinChinaPutAuthoritiesonRedAlert?,TIME,June2011,available
athttp://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2075386,00.html.
769
alwaysbeatriskthatCPCauthoritieswillbesuddenlyalertedtothegroups
activitiesandwilllabelthegroupanevilcult,makingthechoicetostay
193
withinthegraymarketimpossible.
Groupsoperatingwithinthegraymarketalsofomentsocialunrestwhen
groupmembersbecomefrustratedwiththeirtreatmentunderthelaw.Asthe
economyhasslowed,manymembersofthemiddleclass,whohavestopped
profitingfromthecountryseconomicsuccess,haveturnedtograymarket
194
religiousorganizationstofulfilltheirbasicneeds. However,theCPCs
currentsystemofregulationsuppressesthesegraymarketorganizations,and
recentstudiesinChinasuggestthatwhenmiddleclassChinesebegintofeel
thattheirvoicesarebeingsuppressed,thattheiraccesstoinformationis
unjustlybeingblockedorthattheirspaceforsocialactionisbeingunduly
195
confined,increasedpoliticaldissentmaybegintotakeshape. Studieshave
alsoshownthatthispoliticaldissentwithinthemiddleclasshasincreasedin
recentyearsastheeconomyhasslowed.196
Thegraymarketdirectlycontributestothesocialunrestthecurrent
regulatorysystemisintendedtopreventasgroupsoperatingwithinthegray
markettransitionintotheblackmarket,whethervoluntarilyorbyedictof
CPCofficials.Bybothmarginalizingandactivelysuppressingthesegroups,
theCPCcreatestheverytypeofoppositiongroupsthereligiousregulatory
systemwasintendedtoobviate.InthecaseoftheFalunGong,suppression
effortsbytheCPCandPRCthatmarginalizedgroupmembershaddrastic
consequences.AdherentswhoinitiallyattendedFalunGongactivitiesfor
197
healthbenefitsorsocialization becameradicalswhobelievedthat[t]o
sufferandevendieforthepromotionofFalunGongisregardedasagolden
198
opportunityforselffulfillmentandshouldbeembracedwithgratitude.
LiketheHolyWarintheIslamicfaith,todieforthereligiouscauseisa
martyrdombec[ome]
193.
194.
195.
Li,supranote180,at606.
196.
Id.;Liu,Scharffs&Hollan,supranote1,at259.
197.
198.
Id.at780.
770
733ABrokenSystem
awaytoobtaintheultimatefulfillmentoflife.199And,sincethecrackdown
ontheFalunGongmovement,therehavebeenmanywhosacrificedtheirlife
fightingagainsttheCPCandPRCsuppressionoftheFalunGong.Thesad
ironyofthesituationisthatthesepeopleandgroupsbecameradicalizedin
responsetothesystemofregulationtheCPCsetuptopreventradicalgroups
200
andpeoplefromdisruptingpublicorder.
ItisalsountenableforthePRCtocontinuetoregulatereligionunderthis
paradigm,eveniftherewereradicalchangesinCPCpolicyandgroupswere
nolongeractivelysuppressedunderArticle300.Theoretically,Chinese
officialscoulddeclinetosuppressgraymarketgroups,evenwhenthey
expandbeyondthecurrentzoneoftolerancetheyoperatewithin.However,
theresultofthissystem,evenifitwasbetterthanthestatusquo,wouldbea
patchworkofdecentralizedandunequalreligiousregulationasofficialsfrom
differentregionswouldenforcetheirownlaws.Whereasthecurrentreligious
regulatorysystemwascreatedinordertocentralizecontroloverreligion,this
developmentwouldonlyundermineChineseinterests.
Therefore,theCPCandPRCwouldbebestservedbyalteringthecurrent
systemofreligiousregulationinsteadofsimplyselectivelyenforcingit.
WhileultimatelymanyhumanrightsadvocatesandwesternChristianshope
thatChinawillultimatelyimplementawidesweepingchangethatwould
grantallcitizensreligiousfreedom,suchadrasticchangeisveryunlikelyto
occurintheforeseeablefuture.However,alessdrasticchangecouldbe
successfulinpreventingadditionalblackmarketgroupsfromundermining
socialstability.Thus,thePRCshouldinsteadaltercurrentpracticeandallow
forgraymarketreligiousorganizationstoreceivelegalrecognitionwithout
submittingtotheauthorityofthepatrioticreligiousassociations.Ifgray
marketreligiousorganizationswereprovidedwithanopportunitytoregister
aslegalorganizations,therewouldbeanincentiveforthesereligious
organizationstoobey
199.Id.200.SeeLiu,Scharffs&Hollansupranote1,at259.
771
religiousregulations.Moreover,aftergrantinglegalentitystatus,SARAand
thePRCwouldhavemoretoolstoregulatethenewlylegalizedreligious
organizationstoolsthatarenotasbluntandheavyhandedasthecurrent
practiceofprosecutingorganizationsandbelieversunderArticle300.
V.CONCLUSION
TherehasbeenmuchcriticismofthereligiousregulatorysystemoftheCPC
andPRC.TheCPChasbuiltaframeworkofcontrollingagenciesand
exercisedpoweroverthelegalredmarketofreligiousactivitythroughthe
useoftheseagenciesandthenomeklaturasystem.ThedesignoftheCPCin
creatingthesedevicesforcontrolhasbeentoensureCommunistcontrolover
religiousorganizationstopreventthesegroupsfromincubatinganti
CommunistgroupsandsubvertingCommunistcontrolovertheChinese
people.
Thissystemofregulationandcontrolhashadsuccessinbringingacertain
segmentofreligiousorganizationsunderCPCcontrol.However,alarge
graymarketofreligiousorganizationsalsoexistswithinChina.These
organizationsexistoutsideoftheboundariesofthereligiousregulatory
systemofthePRC.Becauseofficialsareunwillingorunabletoenforcethe
harshregulationsthePRChasestablishedfordealingwithallgroupsthat
operateoutsidethereligiousregulatorysystem,thisreligiousgraymarkethas
growntobecomeextremelylarge.Whileofficialpolicyhasbeentosuppress
thesegroupsabsolutely,manygroupsoperatewithinarangeoftolerance
establishedadhocbylocalenforcingofficials.Thesegroupsthatoperate
outsideofthereligiousregulatorysystemoftenoperateunderlimitedorno
supervisionbyPRCofficials.
Thisstatusquoofallowances,tolerances,andcrackdownscannotcontinue.
Thecurrentreligiousregulatorysystemhasnomethodsforgroupsoperating
withinthegraymarkettolegalizetheiractivities.Furthermore,ascanbe
shownbythetransitionofreligiousgroupssuchastheFalunGongand
ShouwangChurch,whichwerepreviouslytoleratedbyofficialsandoperated
withinthegraymarket,organizationsthatoperatewithinthegraymarket
cannothopetocontinuewithinthegraymarketindefinitely.Asgraymarket
organizationsexpand,CPCofficialseventuallyforfeittoleranceand
772
733ABrokenSystem
criminalizethesegroupsactivities.Groupsthatareforcedintotheblack
marketcontributetosocialunrest,becomingthetypesofgroupsthatthe
currentreligiousregulatorysystemwasintendedtoprevent.
CPCandPRCofficialsmustaddresstheseproblems,asthegraymarketwill
continuetoexpandandthepotentialforfutureunrestwillincrease.Thebest
wayforCPCofficialstopreventgraymarketreligiousorganizationsfrom
joiningtheblackmarketistocreateamethodforgraymarketreligious
organizationstolegalizetheirorganizationsandjointheredmarketwithout
havingtosubmittocontrolsondoctrineandleadership.IfCPCofficials
implementthischangeintothecurrentsystem,legitimatereligious
organizationswillenterthelegalmarket,allowingforthereligiousregulatory
systemtoproperlyregulatethesegroups,whichwillpreventthesegroups
201
frombeingforcedintotheblackmarket.
AsCPCofficialsoftencitetohistoricalexamplesofunrestandrebellionas
reasonsthatreligionmustbesuppressedandcontrolled,theyshouldalso
hearkenbacktothefailureofpoliciesimplementedbytheQingEmperorin
quellingsocialunrestamongtheMuslims.Then,aManchuofficialwarned
theEmperor:AmongtheMoslems,therearecertainlyevilones,but
doubtless,therearealsonumerouspeaceful,lawabidingpeople.Ifwedecide
todestroythemall,wearedrivingthegoodonestojointherebels,andcreate
202
forourselvesanawesome,endlessjobofkillingtheMoslems. Today,
CPCofficialsoughttonotethattheircontinuedattemptstosuppressreligious
activitieswillonlydrivelawabidingpeopletojointhelawbreakers,creating
anawesome,endlessjobofsuppressingdissidentgroups.
CarlHollan*
201.Liu,Scharffs&Hollan,supranote1,at26566.
202.WENDJANGCHU,THEMOSLEMREBELLIONINNORTHWESTCHINA18621878:ASTUDYOF
GOVERNMENTMINORITYPOLICY57(1966).
*J.D.,2014,J.ReubenClarkSchoolofLaw,BrighamYoungUniversity. 773
CopyrightofBrighamYoungUniversityLawReviewisthepropertyof
BrighamYoungUniversityLawSchoolanditscontentmaynotbe
copiedoremailedtomultiplesitesorpostedtoalistservwithoutthe
copyrightholder'sexpresswrittenpermission.However,usersmay
print,download,oremailarticlesforindividualuse.
Article 2
HumRightsRev(2015)16:122DOI10.1007/s1214201403235
ReligiousFreedominTheoryandPracticeJonathanFox
Publishedonline:2July2014#SpringerScience+BusinessMediaDordrecht2014
AbstractThisstudyusestheReligionandStateround2(RAS2)datasettoexaminethe
presenceofreligiousfreedomin177countries.Therearemanydifferentconceptionsof
themeaningofreligiousfreedombuttheycanbedividedintotwocategories,those
whichfocusonthefreeexerciseofreligionthatistherighttopracticereligionand
maintainreligiousinstitutionsandthosewhichfocusontreatingallreligionsequally,
alsoknownasthelevelplayingfieldmodel.Theresultsshowthatneitherformof
religiousfreedomiscommonevenamongdemocraciesandstateswhichhave
constitutionalclausesprotectingreligiousfreedom.Thisfindinghasseriousimplica
tionsforourunderstandingofthenatureofliberaldemocracy.
Thequestionofwhatconstitutesreligiousfreedomseemsdeceptivelysimple.Most
peoplehaveaclearideaofwhatreligiousfreedommeans.Yet,evenacursorysurvey
oftheliteraturerevealsthatwhilethetopiciswidelydiscussed,thereisnoagreement
whatsoeveronhowweshoulddefine,understand,orevennamethisseeminglysimple
concept.Itisalternatelyaddressedasreligiousfreedom,religiousrights(withvariations
suchasreligiouscivilorhumanrights),religioustolerance,religiousliberty,religious
equality,thefreeexerciseofreligion,andtherighttoalevelreligiousplayingfield.Its
denialisvariouslytermedasreligiousdiscrimination,religiouspersecution,religious
intolerance,andreligiousrepression.Allofthesetermshavemultipleinterpretations,
definitions,andmeanings.Arguably,theliteraturebuildsatowerofBabelwheremany
seemingdisputesoverthenatureandextentofreligiousfreedomareattributableto
disagreementsoverhowthetermshouldbenamedandconceptualized.
Thesedisputesoverdefinitionaresignificantbecausedefiningwhatismeantbyreligious
freedomiscentraltounderstandingandstudyingtheconcept.Whenwemeasure
religiousfreedom,howweconceiveoftheconceptwillinfluencewhatwemeasure.For
example,asIdiscussinmoredetailbelow,someconceptionsrequirethatallreligionsbe
treatedequallywhileothersrequireonlythatnoreligionberestricted.Thus,theformer
conceptionwouldbanstatesupportforonlysomereligionsbutnotothersandcertainly
banestablishingareligionwhilethelatterconceptionwouldallowthistypeof
differentialsupport.Thus,howweconceiveofreligiousfreedomcan,in
J.Fox(*)DepartmentofPoliticalStudies,BarIlanUniversity,RamatGan,Israelemail:
Jonathan.Fox@biu.ac.il
2J.Fox
practice,determinewhetherornotweconsideragovernmenttorespectreligious
freedom.
Inthisstudy,Idiscussthevariedconceptualizationsrelatedtoreligiousfreedom,
categorizethemandtesttoseewhethertheyarepresentin177statesusingtheReligion
andStateRound2(RAS2)datasetaswellasexaminethecorrelatesofreligiousfreedom.
TheRAS2datasetandthisstudybothfocusongovernmentpolicy.Thisisnotto
downplaytheimportanceofsocialrestrictionsonreligiousfreedombutthequestionof
democracyslinktoreligiousfreedomis,Iargue,bestassessedthroughexamining
governmentbehavior.1Ifindthatwhilediscussionofreligiousfreedomisextensive,itis
anidealthatismoreoftendiscussedthanpracticed,evenamongthosestatewhichin
theorywewouldmostexpecttohavereligiousfreedom,includingliberaldemcoracies.
ReligiousFreedom:OftDiscussed,LessOftDefined
Religiousfreedomisatermthatisparticularlydifficulttonaildownbecauseit
encompassesmanyoftheotherpotentialtermsanddefinitionswhichIdiscussbelow.
Thismakesitdifficulttodefineanddiscussinitsowncontext.Inaddition,manyformal
legaldocumentswhichusethetermneverfullydefineit.Thatis,theywilloftenlistacts
whichviolatereligiousfreedomorrightsthatmustbeincludedinitbutrarelyexplainthe
justificationorcriteriaforarrivingattheselists.Forexample,theUSInternational
ReligiousFreedomActof19982usestheterm173timeswithoutdefiningit.Theyearly
reportsonreligiousfreedomproducedbytheUSStatedepartmentbasedonthislawalso
neverdefinetheterm.Themeaningistakenforgranted.The1998lawdoeslistacts
whichviolatereligiousfreedomsuchas:
(A)arbitraryprohibitionson,restrictionsof,orpunishmentfor(i)assemblingfor
peacefulreligiousactivitiessuchasworship,preaching,andprayer,includingarbitrary
registrationrequirements;(ii)speakingfreelyaboutonesreligiousbeliefs;(iii)changing
onesreligiousbeliefsandaffiliation;(iv)possessionanddistributionofreligious
literature,includingBibles;or(v)raisingoneschildreninthereligiousteachingsand
practicesofoneschoice;or(B)anyofthefollowingactsifcommittedonaccountofan
individualsreligiousbelieforpractice:detention,interrogation,impositionofanonerous
financialpenalty,forcedlabor,forcedmassresettlement,imprisonment,forcedreligious
conversion,beating,torture,mutilation,rape,enslavement,murder,andexecution.
Anditalsolistsparticularlysevereviolationsofreligiousfreedomincluding(A)torture
orcruel,inhuman,ordegradingtreatmentorpunishment;(B)
prolongeddetentionwithoutcharges;(C)causingthedisappearanceofpersons
1
ForadiscussionofsocialrestrictionsonreligionanddemocracyseeGrimandFinke(2011). Fora
copyofthislaw,seehttp://www.state.gov/documents/organization/2297.pdf.
ReligiousFreedominTheoryandPractice3
bytheabductionorclandestinedetentionofthosepersons;or(D)otherflagrantdenialof
therighttolife,liberty,orthesecurityofpersons.3
Whilethislistingprovidessomeinsightsintowhattheactsauthorsconsiderreligious
freedom,itdoesnotexplainhowthislistwascreated.Whyaretheseactions,asopposed
toothers,violationsofreligiousfreedom?Whatcriteriawereusedtomakethislist?A
truedefinitionwouldanswerthesequestions.Farr(2008),thefirstDirectoroftheState
DepartmentsOfficeofInternationalReligiousFreedom,similarlydiscusseshow
religiousfreedommustbeamoreimportantpoliticalpriority,mentioningtheterm23
timesbutneverdefinesit.
Thiscritiqueappliestomanyinternationallegaldocuments.Forexample,the1981UN
DeclarationontheEliminationofAllFormsofIntoleranceandofDiscriminationBased
onReligiousBeliefdefinestherighttofreedomofthought,conscienceandreligionas
thefreedomtohaveareligionorwhateverbeliefofhischoice,andfreedom,either
individuallyorincommunitywithothersandinpublicorprivate,tomanifesthisreligion
orbeliefinworship,observance,practiceandteaching.Italsolistsanumberofacts
whichviolatethisfreedom.4The1966InternationalCovenantonCivilandPolitical
Rightssimilarlydefinestherighttofreedomofthought,conscienceandreligionas
includingthefreedomtohaveortoadoptareligionorbeliefofhischoice,andfreedom,
eitherindividuallyorincommunitywithothersandinpublicorprivate,tomanifesthis
religionorbeliefinworship,observance,practiceandteaching.5Yetbothofthese
documents,aswellassimilarones,relyonlistingactswhichviolatereligiousfreedomor
actsthatshouldbeallowedinordertomaintainreligiousfreedomwithoutdiscussingthe
criteriaforcreatingtheselists.
Manyscholarlydiscussionsofthislawsimilarlydonotaddressthedefinitionofreligious
freedom.Forexample,Richardsom(2007)extensivelydiscussesreligiousfreedom,
mentioningtheterm57times.Hereferstomultiplelawsandinternationaldocumentson
thetopicyetneverdefinesthetermnorevenmentionsadefinitioncontainedinthese
lawsordocuments.GwinandNorth(2004)performanempiricalstudyofthe
determinatesofreligiousfreedomin31countries,mentioningtheterm60times
includinginthetitleoftheirstudy,withouteveractuallydefiningit,thoughtheybase
theirreligiousfreedomvariableonthepresenceofviolationsinanumberofsources
includingtheUSStateDepartmentreports.6Rahman(2013)similarlyanalyzesthe
correlatesofreligiousfreedomwithoutanyformaldefinitionoftheterm,thoughshedoes
empiricallydefinethevariablewhichmeasuresrestrictionsonreligiousfreedomfor
minoritiesasmeasurestheextenttowhichastatespoliciesinanywayrestrictthe
personaland/orpublicpracticeofareligiousdenominationotherthantheonewiththe
highestpercentageoffollowersinagivenstate.(Rahman2013,p.11)7
3
Foramoredetailedlistinganddiscussionofinternationaldocumentsandagreementprotectingreligious
4
rights,seeWitteandGreen(2009). Acopyofthisdocumentisavailableat
5
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/36/a36r055.htm. Acopyofthisdocumentisavailableat
http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx.
Inarelatedstudy,NorthandGwin(2004)similarlyextensivelyanalyzereligiousfreedomwithoutever
7
definingtheterm. Otherstudieswhichmakeextensiveuseofthetermreligiousfreedomwithout
definingitincludeMorgenstern(2012);Philpott(2002,2007);Sarkissian(2010);Spohn(2009)andWitte
andGreen(2009).
4J.Fox
AsIdiscussinmoredetailbelow,evenwhendefinitionsdiscussthejustificationsand
criteriafordeterminingwhatconstitutesreligiousfreedom,thespecifictermwhichis
definedismostoftensomethingotherthanreligiousfreedomandthosedefinitions
whicharelabeledasreligiousfreedomuponexaminationcanbeplacedintothe
categoriesdefinedbythesemorespecificterms.Accordingly,thetermreligious
freedomistooambiguoustoprovideanyrealunderstandingofthetopic.Inthenext
sectionsofthisstudy,Iexamineandcategorizeseveralmorespecificinterpretationsof
theuniverseofactionsthatcomeundertheheadingofreligiousfreedom.
MorePreciseConceptionsofReligiousFreedom
Whiletherearemultipletheoreticalconceptionsofreligiousfreedomaswellasmultiple
termswhichrelatetoitorsomeaspectofit,theseconceptionscanbedividedintotwo
categories:thefreeexerciseofreligionandthatallreligionsmustbetreatedequally.
Whilethecontentofreligiousfreedomdefinedbytheseconceptionsoverlapstheyare
neverthelessdistinct.Idiscusseachconceptindetailbelow.
Also,itisimportanttonotethatItakenostandonwhichisthesuperiordefinition.
Whichtheoryofreligiousfreedomisthecorrectoneistoalargeextentanormative
issue.Rather,mygoalistodemonstratetheexistenceofmultipleconceptionsofreligious
freedomwhichhavepracticalconsequencesindeterminingwhatconstitutesreligious
freedomandtodiscusswhattypesofactionsviolateeachoftheseconceptions.Laterin
thestudy,Iassesshowmanydemocraciesadheretothesestandards.
TheFreeExerciseofReligionandRelatedConcepts
AclassicexampleoffreeexerciseisthefirstamendmentoftheUSConstitutionwhich
statesthatCongressshallmakenolawprohibitingthefreeexerciseofreligion.Whilethe
discussionofwhatthismeansintheUScontextisextensiveinabroadersensethe
conceptoffreeexercisecanbedefinedastheabilitytofreelypracticeonesreligion
andmaintainreligiousinstitutions.Thisisanessentialelementofreligiousfreedom.But
whatisconsideredpartofthisrighttopractice?Ifoneexaminestheworlds
constitutions,mostofwhichenumeratethisrightinfarmoredetailthantheUS
constitution,onecanfinddifferentformulationsofwhatthisincludesincluding:
&Freedomofworship,observance,ortopracticereligiousritualsorrites,bothas
anindividualandingroups,bothinpublicandinprivate.
&Thefreedomtochangeprofessorchoose,onesreligion
&Therightnottodiscloseonesreligiousaffiliationorbeliefs.
&Therighttonotprofessareligionorfreedomfromreligionorbeanatheist.
&Therighttoholdorexpressreligiousopinions.
&Therighttoform,join,orbeamemberofreligiousorganizations.
&Therightofreligiousorganizationstomanagetheirownaffairswithout
interference.
&Therightnottojoinorbeamemberofareligiousorganization.
&Therighttoobtain,hold,andmaintainplacesofworship.
&Therighttopropagateorspreadareligion.
21.
&Therighttoreligiouseducationincludingtherighttoeducateandraiseones
childreninonesreligion.
22.
&Therighttoachaplaininhospitals,themilitary,etc.
23.
&Theprotectionofreligiousrightseveninstatesofemergencyorwar.
24.
&Freedomfromcoercionwithregardtoreligion.Whilenoonedocument
includesalloftheseformulations,allofthemaretheelementsoftheconceptoffree
exercisewhichiscollectivelyincludedintheworldsconstitutions.Whilethese
constitutionsrarelydefinereligiousfreedombeyondlistingrightsincludedinitoracts
whichviolateit,collectivelytheyadheretotheconceptionofprotectingreligious
practicesandinstitutions.Accordingly,restrictionsreligiousfreedomcanbedividedinto
threeoverlappingcategories:restrictionsonreligiousinstitutions,restrictionsongroup
rights,andrestrictionsonindividualrights.Tomakemattersmorecomplicated,free
exercisecanbeinterpreteddifferently.Thedefinitiondiscussedabovebansagovernment
fromrestrictingthefreeexerciseofreligion.However,itcanalsobeseenasa
governmentobligationtoensurethateveryonesrighttofreeexerciseisprotected.This
meansthatitisnotenoughthatgovernmenttakesnoactionswhichrestrictthisright,the
governmentmustalsoactivelyprotectthisright.Thiscaninvolvepolicingsocietal
restrictionsaswellaslegislationtofacilitatepeoplesabilitytopracticetheirreligion
suchasprovidingfundsforreligiousinstitutionsandactivities.Considerthedisturbingly
commonscenariowheremembersofacountrysmajorityreligionsystematicallytarget,
attack,orharassmembersofaminorityreligionoritsinstitutions.Ifthegovernment
takesnoactiontoprotecttheminority,doesitviolateitscommitmenttofreeexercise?
Ononehand,thegovernmentisnotitselfviolatingthisright.Ontheother,bytakingno
actionitisfailstomaintainpublicorderanessentialobligationofgovernmentandas
aconsequence,aminoritysreligiousfreedomisviolated.Evenmoreambiguously,what
happensifagovernmentdoesmakearealefforttostoptheseactivitiesbutfails?Society
basedandgovernmentbasedrestrictionsarelinkedinthatsocietalrestrictionsarea
strongpredictorofgovernmentbasedrestrictionsonreligiousfreedom(GrimandFinke
2011).MostdiscussionswhichfocusonthetermfreeexercisefocusontheUS
context.8Manydiscussionswhichapplymoregenerallyuseothertermssuchasreligious
discrimination,persecution,andrepressionwhichareusuallydefinedaslimitsonthefree
exerciseofreligion.Forexample,Jenkins(2007,p.3)definesreligiouspersecutionas
governmenteffortstorepressmajoractivitiesbyagivenreligiousgroup,commonly
withthegoalofeliminatingthatgroupinthelongorshortterm.Bowen(2010,p.1750)
similarlyarguesthatfreedomfromexternaldiscriminationimpliesequalrightsand
capacitiestopracticereligion.Discriminationexistswhencertainindividualsorgroups
donotenjoythesamerightsorprivilegesasdomembersofotherreligiousgroups(or
nonreligiouspeople)inthesociety.Whilethisconceptcertainlyincludesabanon
limitingthefreeexerciseofreligion,ithasanotherpotentialmeaningdiscriminationon
thebasisofreligion.Thismeaningfocusesnotonthefreeexerciseofreligion,butrather,
onanyrestrictionplacedona
8
See,forexample,Demerath(2001,p.185198)andJelen(2007).
6J.Fox
religiousgroupregardlessofwhetheritlimitsthepracticeofreligionorreligious
institutions.Theselimitationscanincludeanypoliticalsocial,cultural,oreconomic
restrictionpacedonanidentitygroupdefinedbyreligion.Forexample,Farr(2008)
arguesthat
Religiouspersecutionisgenerallyassociatedwithegregiousabusetorture,rape,unjust
imprisonmentonthebasisofreligion.Apoliticalordercenteredonreligiouslibertyis
freeofsuchabuses,tobesure,butitalsoprotectstherightsofindividualsandgroupsto
actpubliclyinwaysconsistentwiththeirbeliefs.Thoserightsinclude,mostimportantly,
thefreedomtoinfluencepublicpolicywithintheboundsofliberalnorms.
Whilethisconceptionincludesfreeexercise,itfocusesonunequaltreatmentofreligious
minorities.9Thesetypesofpersecutionarenotuniquetoreligiousminorities.Studiesof
ethnicconflict,forexample,focuspreciselyonthesetypesofpersecutionandrepression
(e.g.,Gurr1993,2000;Horowitz1985).Thus,whileanimportantissue,discrimination
onthebasisofreligiondoesnotnecessarilyviolatetherightoffreeexercise.
Anotherwidelyusedsetofconceptsarereligioustoleranceandintolerance.Eisenstein
(2008,p.15)definestoleranceasputtingupwiththoseyoudislikeorwithwhomyou
disagree.Thisdoesnotrequireacceptanceofotherreligions.Ratheritrequires
recognitionthatmembersoftheseotherreligionshavethesamerightsandprivilegesas
everyoneelse.Mostotherdefinitionsofreligioustolerancefollowthispattern.Karpov
(2002,p.267)definespoliticaltoleranceasthewillingnesstoextendcivillibertiesto
politicaloutgroups.Little(1996,p.81)arguesthattobetolerantis,ataminimum,to
respondtoasetofbeliefsandpracticesregardedasdeviantorobjectionablewithout
forcibleinterference.Blake(2007,p.2)definestoleranceasamoralreasontorestrain
frominterveningintheaffairsofanotherpartyevenwhentheinterferencewouldbe
neitheruselessnorcounterproductive.Finally,Stepan(2000)discusseswhathecallsthe
twintolerations,theminimalboundariesoffreedomofactionthatmustsomehowbe
craftedforpoliticalinstitutionsvisavisreligiousauthorities,andforreligious
individualsandgroupsvisavispoliticalinstitutions.10Thus,religioustoleranceisthe
abilitytorefrainfrompersecutionorrepressionofthereligiousother,despitethatyou
objecttotheirreligiousbeliefsoractivities.Thistolerancealso,byimplication,extends
torefrainingfromrestrictingreligiousminoritiesinmattersotherthanthosedirectly
relatedtoreligion.
Anothertermoftenfoundintheliteratureisreligioushumanrights.Likereligious
freedom,itisuseddifferentlythroughouttheliterature.Itcanmeananyofthetypesof
interpretationsdiscussedabove,thoughittendstoimplyagovernmentobligationto
guaranteetheserightsaboveandbeyondabanongovernmentviolationsoftheserights.
Spickard(1999)arguesthatthediscourseonhumanrelightsitselfcanbeseenasa
religionlikebeliefsystem
9
Otherdefinitionswhichfocusondiscriminationasthebasisofreligiousfreedomsimilarlyalsoinclude
10
freeexercise.See,forexample,Marshall(2009). OtherssuchasServinGonzalezandTorresReyna
(1999)andWilson(2010)extensivelydiscussreligioustolerancewithouteverdefiningtheterm.
Forthatiswhatrightsare:sacredideals.Peopletreathumanrightsashallowed
organizingprinciplesforlife:aspriorandsuperiortoordinarylegalandsocialrules.
Theyfeelthathumanrightsaresacrosanct,thattheymustbeprotectedagainst
corruption.Toaccuseagovernmentorapersonofviolatinghumanrightsistoaccuse
themofmorethanacrime;itistoaccusethemofboundlessevil...Thisputshuman
rightsviolationsbeyondmerecriminality;itmakesthemsacrilege.Theconceptofhuman
rightsisthusliterallyiconic:itconnectspeopletosomethingbeyondandgreaterthan
themselves;itinvokesfeelingsofawe,reverence;anditmayevenmotivatepeopletoact
inwaysthatmayendangertheirlives.Allthissuggeststhathumanrightsbeliefsare
essentiallyreligious.
Themesinthisbeliefsystemareveryreligionlike.Theyareheldtobeuniversallytrue,
whichmeansthattheycannotbedeniedortrumpedbyotherbeliefsystems.Theyinclude
thebeliefthatallhumansareequalandhaverightsasindividuals.Thereisalsoasocial
interconnectednesswhichmeansthatthereisanactivemoralobligationtoensurerights
suchasfood,employment,andhealthcare(Spickard1999).
Humanrightsasabelieforvaluesystemcanoftenclashwithreligionbasedbeliefor
valuesystems.Religionsoftendistinguishbetweenbelieversandnonbelievers
consideringthebelieverssuperiortononbelievers.Thisthemecanbefoundwithin
strandsofChristianity,Islam,andJudaism.SomereligionssuchasHinduismgrant
differentrightstodifferentbelievers.Significantstrandsofallofthesereligious
traditionsincludebeliefsonthestatusofwomeninsociety.Allofthiscreatesan
inequalitywhichcontradictsthehumanrightsbeliefsystem.Thisclashbetweenthese
twotypesofbeliefsystemsisbothinevitableandnotfullysolvablebecausethereare
nearlyalwaysaspectsofreligiousbeliefswhichclashwithhumanrightsbasedvalues
systems.Thus,itisoftennotpossibletobebothtolerantofothersasmosthuman
rightsbasedvaluesystemsadvocatewhileatthesametimerequiringreligiousgroups
tomeetstandardssetbyhumanrightsbasedvaluessystems.Intheend,adecision
balancingthesetwoincompatiblebeliefsystemsisinevitable,thoughthereisno
agreementonhowthisbalanceshouldbeachieved(Perez2002).
EqualityandaLevelPlayingField(ELPF)
Sometheoriesandconceptionsofreligiousfreedomrequiremorethananabsenceof
limitationsontherightoffreeexerciseandevenmorethanagovernmentguarantee
againstsuchlimitations.Theseconceptionsrequirethatallreligionsbetreatedequallyor,
putdifferently,thatallreligionsplayonalevelplayingfield.11Liketheconceptoffree
exercise,theELPFconcepthasmultiplepotentialmeaningsandisconsideredbymanyto
beanessentialelementofreligiousfreedom.
Fromthisperspective,ifagovernmentinanywaygivespreferencetooneorafew
religions,theothershaveacompetitivedisadvantage.Suchactsofsupportcaninclude
establishingareligionasastatesofficialreligion,enforcingthelawsofthemajority
11
ThistermfirstappearedinRogerFinkesworkinthecontextofthesupplysidetheoryofreligion
whichfocusesonunderwhatconditionsindividualreligiosityismorecommonandwhichreligious
organizationsaremorelikelytoflourish(StarkandFinke2000,p.252).Itlaterbecamecentralforhis
conceptionofreligiousfreedom(Finke2012;GrimandFinke2011.)
8J.Fox
religion,andfinancialsupportgiventooneoronlysomereligions,amongothers.Thisis
trueeveniftheseactsofsupportforonereligiondonotinanywaylimitthefreeexercise
ofotherreligions.RogerFinke,amongothers,makespreciselythisargumentpositing
thatreligionscompeteformembersbecauseacentralgoalofmostreligionsisto
convinceasmanypeopleaspossibleofthetruthoftheirbeliefs.Statesupportedor
sponsoredreligionshaveanumberofunfairadvantagesovernonsupportedreligions
(Finke1990,2012;GrimandFinke2011;Toftetal.2011).
Thisistrueevenifthegovernmentdoesnotrestrictthesenonpreferredreligions.Take,
forexample,governmentfundingforreligiousinstitutions.Thefundedinstitutions
becomelessexpensiveforcongregantsthanunfundedinstitutions.Membersofnon
fundedreligionsneedtopaythefullcostofthatreligion.Religionisnotfree.Clergy,
placesofworship,andotherreligiousmaterialsallcostmoney.Iftheseresourcesarenot
providedbythegovernment,theymustbeprovidedbythecongregants.Thus,ina
countrywherethegovernmentsupportsonereligionorsomereligionsbutnotothers,
congregantsforthenonsupportedreligionsessentiallypayforreligiontwice,once
throughtaxesandoncethroughcontributionstotheirreligion(Finke1990,2012;Grim
andFinke2011;StarkandFinke2000).
Thiscreatesaninequalityoranunevenplayingfieldbetweenreligionsbecausesome
religionsarebetterpositionedthanotherstocompeteforcongregants.Thisisaresult
similartothatofreligiousdiscrimination.Themembersofnonsupportedreligionscan
bemadetofeellikesecondclasscitizenswhoarerequiredtocarryaheavierburden.Put
differently,peoplecomparethemselvestoothers.Whenthiscomparisonshowsthemto
bedisadvantagedrelativetoothersthiscanresultinresentment.Relativedeprivation
theory,whichisatheorydevelopedtoexplaincivilwarsanddomesticconflict,isbased
preciselyonthisassumption.Whilethetheoryhasseveralformulations,mostvariations
agreethatwhenagroupcomparesitselftoanotherandfindtheirsituationlackingthis
canleadtofrustrationwhichcanleadtoconflict(Brush1996;Gurr1970;Rule1988).
Several,studiesarguethatreligiousdiscriminationhasthiseffect(AkbabaandTydas
2011;Fox2002).Thus,itisreasonabletoarguethatselectivesupportforsome
religionswhichleadtoinequalitycanhaveasimilarresult.
Unlikethefreeexerciseconceptionofreligiousfreedom,ELPFishotlydebated.BythisI
meanthatwhilethereisdebateovertheexactmeaningoffreeexercise,thereisnodebate
thatthisisasignificantelementofreligiousfreedom.Incontrast,ELPFisinandofitself
controversialbecausesupportforonereligiondoesnotnecessarilyentailanyrestrictions
onotherreligions.FundingtheCatholicChurch,forexample,doesnotmeanthatnon
Catholicscannotworshipfreely.Thereisnoreasonthatastatewhichestablisheda
religionorinsomeothermannersupportsoneorafewreligionscannotavoidrestricting
thenonsupportedreligions.EvenAlfredStepan(2012,p.133),whoisconsideredan
advocateofseparationofreligionandstate,arguesthatstateswithestablishedreligions
canstillupholdliberalprinciplesiftheyrespectminorityrights.Inpractice,onlyasmall
numberofstatesaccomplishthisfeat.OnlyPapuaNewGuinea,Slovenia,andthe
SolomonIslandssupportsomereligionsbutnototherswhilenotsignificantlyrestricting
eitherthemajorityreligionorminorityreligions.12
12
Thisobservationisbasedonthereligiousdiscriminationandofficialreligionvariablesdiscussed
below.
Mazie(2004,2006)makespreciselythistypeofargumentwhendiscussingwhetherstate
supportforreligioncanbecompatiblewithliberaldemocracy.Hearguesthatrestrictions
onminorityreligionsarenotcompatiblewithliberaldemocracybutsupportforreligion
canbecompatible.Heconstructsathreetieredcategorizationoftypesofgovernment
supportforreligionwhicharebasedpreciselyontheriskthattheseformsofsupportcan
leadtorestrictionsonminorityreligions.Thefirsttierincludesthedeclarationof
religiousholidaysandtheSabbathasnationalholidaysordayswhichbusinessesor
governmentofficesareclosed.Whilethesetypesofactionsmayinconvenience
minoritiesforexampletheymayhavetousevacationdaysinordertocelebratetheir
ownholidaystheydonotrestricttherighttofreeexercise.Similarly,stateuseof
religioussymbolsonflagsorelsewheremayalienateminoritiesbutmanydemocracies
havereligioussymbolsontheirflags.Refusingtherighttousereligioussymbols,Mazie
(2004:6)argues,wouldtransformliberalismintoadoctrinedenyingindependentstates
themoralrighttoeventhemostrudimentaryformofpoliticalculture.
Mazies(2004,2006)secondtierincludesanymoresubstantialsupport,suchasfunding,
whichsignificantlyadvantagesareligionbutdoesnotinanywayrestrictminority
religions.Maziedoes,however,suggestchecksandbalancestoensurethatthistypeof
supportisnotthefirststeponaslipperyslopewhichwillleadtoreligioustyranny.While
religiousminoritiesmightobjecttotheirtaxesbeingusedtosupportareligionotherthan
theirown,fewtaxpayersagreewitheverygovernmentexpenditure.Democratic
governmentsdonotrequireunanimoussupportfortheirlawsandpoliciesandapolicyof
establishingorsupportingareligionorreligionsisnodifferent.Thefinaltierincludes
actionswhichwouldviolatefreeexerciseforatleastsomecitizenssuchascompulsory
churchattendanceandenforcedreligiousgenderroles.Mazie(2004,2006)considers
theseincompatiblewithliberaldemocracybutallowsthatsuchactionsmaybe
permissibleinextremecircumstancesiftheyareabsolutelynecessarytosolveaserious
socialproblem
Manymakesimilararguments.Driessen(2010)allowsstatesupportforreligion,
includingestablishingareligion,aslongasthegovernmentmeetstwostandards:itmust
guaranteethefreeexerciseofreligionanditmustbeindependentfromreligioninthat
religiousactorscannotoverrulegovernmentdecisions.Infact,Driessen(2010,p.57)
arguesthatundercertaincircumstances,areligionwithstrongpublicrelevance,
institutionalizedinafriendly,democraticchurchstaterelationship,maybedesirableand
usefulfortheconsolidationofnewlydemocratizingcountries.Casanova(2009,p.1063)
arguesthatanestablishedreligionisonlyincompatiblewithreligiousfreedomwhenit
claimsmonopolyoverastateterritory,impedesthefreeexerciseofreligion,and
underminesequalrightsorequalaccessofallcitizens.Smart(1981,p.19)and
Friedland(2002,p.388)arguethattheliberaldesiretoseparatereligionandstatecame
fromthedesiretopromotereligioustoleranceanddefusereligiousconflict.Thisimplies
thatifthistolerancecanbeaccomplishedwithoutseparation,anestablishedreligion
posesnoproblem.
Itisimportanttoemphasizethatmostoftheseargumentsaremadeinthecontextofwhat
isacceptableinademocracyratherthaninthecontextofdiscussionsofreligious
freedomperseandthatthosewhomakethisargumentareintheminority.Mainstream
liberaldemocraticthoughtadvocatesseparationofreligionandstate.Stepan(2000,pp.
3940)accuratelydescribesthissentimentasfollows:
10
J.Fox
Religiousinstitutionshouldnothaveconstitutionallyprivilegedprerogativesthatallow
themtomandatepublicpolicytodemocraticallyelectedgovernments.Atthesametime,
individualreligiouscommunities...musthavecompletefreedomtoworshipprivately.In
addition,asindividualsandgroupstheymustbeabletoadvancetheirvaluespublicallyin
civilsocietyandtosponsororganizationsandmovementsinpoliticalsociety,aslongas
theiractionsdonotimpingenegativelyonthelibertiesofothercitizensorviolate
democracyandlaw...WhendiscussingtheprospectsofdemocracyinnonWestern,non
Christian,civilizations,analystsfrequentlyassumethattheseparationofChurchandstate
arecorefeaturesnotonlyofWesterndemocracy,butofdemocracyitself.
Stepanisnotaloneinhisassessment.Forexample,Demerath(2001,p.2)statesthat
separatingreligionfromthestateisbothpossibleanddesirable.Similarly,Rawls
(1993,p.151)makeswhatis,perhaps,thebestknownversionofthisnormativeplea
whenhearguesthatwemusttakethetruthsofreligionoffthepoliticalagenda. 13
Thereareelementsoftheliteraturewhich,againwhilefocusingontheproperrolefor
religionindemocracies,createamiddlegroundwhichisnotincompatiblewiththe
conceptELPF.Thesemodelsrequirethatthestatebeneutralwithregardtoreligion.
Theyallowgovernmentsupportforreligionandevensomerestrictionsonreligion,as
longasthissupportandtheserestrictionsareappliedequallytoallreligions.Thus,this
approachdefinesELPFasabanonpreferredtreatment,ratherthanarequirementthat
governmentavoidsupporting,orevenrestricting,religionaltogether.Itevenallows
restrictionsonreligionthatwouldviolatefreeexerciseaslongastheyareapplied
equally.
Madeleydiscussestwosuchmodels.Theneutralpoliticalconcernmodelfocuseson
equalityofoutcomes.Itrequiresthatgovernmentactionshouldnothelporhinderany
lifeplanorwayoflifemorethananyotherandthattheconsequencesofgovernment
actionshouldthereforebeneutral(Madeley2003,pp.56).Thusagovernmentmay
supportorrestrictreligionaslongastheoutcomeisequalforallreligions(Kuru2009).
Theexclusionofidealsmodelfocusesonequalityofintentrequiringthatthestatebe
precludedfromjustifyingitsactionsonthebasisofapreferenceforanyparticularwayof
life(Madeley2003,p.6).Thusstatescaninpracticereligionstreatreligionsdifferently
aslongasthereisnospecificintenttosupportorhinderaspecificreligion.14
Whileitisdifficulttofindpracticalexamplesofpoliciesofsupportforreligionwhich
treatallreligionsequally,religiouseducationinpublicschoolscanprovideagood
example.Anumberofdemocraciesprovidereligiouseducationinpublicschools.Some
dosoforallreligionsforwhichthereareasignificantnumberofstudents.Theseinclude
Finland,Iceland,theNetherlands,andSweden.Inthesecases,thegovernmentisin
practiceprovidingthesamelevelofsupportforallreligions.Notalldemocracieswhich
providereligiouseducationinpublicschoolmeetthisstandardofneutrality.For
example,Denmark,Italy,andNorwayprovidereligiouseducationinpublicschoolsin
13
Foradditionalversionsofthisargument,see,amongothers,BrathwaiteandBramsen(2011,p.233),
14
Kuru(2009),andShah(2000). ForareviewoftheWesternintellectualhistoryoftheconceptof
separationofreligionandstate,seeLaycock(1997)andWitte(2006).
onlyonereligiondespitethepresenceofsignificantnumbersofstudentswhobelongto
religiousminorities.
Thesemodelshavetheirdetractorswhoessentiallyarguethattoprefernoreligionis,in
effect,togivepreferencetosecularismoverreligionwhichisaformofdiscrimination
againstreligioningeneral.Forthisreason,Gill(2004,p.742)arguesthatreligious
neutralityisimpossiblebecauseastatethatfavorsneitheronereligionalonenorall
religionsequallyfavorsasecularsociety,whereallreligionisprivatizedbydefault.
Durham(1996)andKeane(2000)similarlyarguethatwhenseculardoctrinesareapplied
aggressivelytheycanbecomehostiletoreligionandeventotalitarian.
Jelen(2006)makesthisargumentintheUScontextpointingoutthattheUSAfocuseson
individualrightsisoftenseenbyreligiousactivistsasviolatingtheirrighttoreligious
freedom.Forexample,manygovernmentalbodieshaveenactedpolicieswhichprohibit
certainformsofdiscriminationagainsthomosexuals,suchasdiscriminationinhousing
oremployment....suchpoliciesviolatethefreeexerciserightsofcitizenswhosereligious
beliefsproscribeinteractionwithsuchsinners,byforcingsuchreligiouspeopletoengage
inbusinessactivitywithgays.Thus,lawswhichseemtoincreasethefreedomofone
group(gays)actattheexpenseofthefreedomofothers(conservativeChristians)(Jelen
2006,p.335).
Bethatasitmay,theELPFargumentinitsvariousmanifestationsrequiresthatall
religionsbetreatedequally.Thismeansthatthegovernmentshouldnotsupportoneor
somereligionsinamannerthatitdoesnotsupportallofthem.Italsomeansthatsome
religionscannotbesingledoutforrestrictions.Howeverthereissomedisputeover
whetherthisstandardalsorequiresthatthegovernmentrefrainfromviolationsoffree
exercisewhichapplytoallreligions.
CrossCountryEmpiricalStudiesofReligiousFreedom
Therehavebeenasmallnumberofcrosscountryempiricalstudiesofreligiousfreedom.
Fox(2008,2013,2014),whileexaminingstatereligionpolicy,foundthatthe
overwhelmingmajorityofcountriesrestrictthereligiouspracticesandinstitutionsof
religiousminorities.GrimandFinke(2011)focusontheELPFconceptionandsimilarly
findagenerallackofreligiousfreedomworldwide.Marshall(2009)alsofindssimilar
results.OtherssuchasAkbabaandTydas(2011),Basedauetal.(2011),Fox(2004),
NorthandGwin(2004),Rebe(2012),andSommeretal.(2013)focusonreligious
discriminationasanindependentvariablewhichinfluencesotherfactorssuchasconflict,
corruption,democracy,andindividualreligiosity.Otherstudiesexaminewhatmakes
religiousdiscriminationmorelikely(BuckleyandMantilla2013;Fox2008;Gwinand
North2004;Rahman2013).NearlyallofthesestudiesusethedatafromFox(2008,
2013,2014)orGrimandFinke(2011).
OperationalizingReligiousFreedom
ThisstudyusestheReligionandStateRound2(RAS2)datasettooperationalizethefree
exerciseandELPFmodelsforreligiousfreedom.Thatis,thisstudytranslatescompeting
theoriesofreligiousfreedomintoconcretemeasureswhichcanbetested.
12J.Fox
WhiletheRAS2datasetincludesdatafor1990to2008,thisstudyfocusesonthe2008
data.15IusefouroftheRAS2variablestooperationalizetheseconcepts.First,Iusethe
officialreligionvariablewhichdividesastatesofficialreligionpolicyinto14categories.
Therelevantcategoriesforthisstudyare:
29.
&Separationist:OfficialseparationofChurchandstateandthestateisslightly
hostiletowardreligion.
30.
&Accommodation:Officialseparationofchurchandstateandthestatehasa
benevolentorneutralattitudetowardreligioningeneral.
31.
&Supportive:Thestatesupportsallreligionsmoreorlessequally.These
categoriesrepresentthosecaseswhereallreligionsaretreatedequally.Therearealsotwo
categorieswherethestatedoesnotsingleoutonereligionforspecialsupportbutdoes
supportseveralreligionsinawayitdoesnotsupportallreligions:
32.
&Cooperation:Thestatefallsshortofendorsingaparticularreligionbutcertain
religionsbenefitfromstatesupportmorethanothers.
33.
&MultiTieredPreferences2:twoormorereligionsareclearlypreferredbystate,
receivingthemostbenefits,thereexistsoneormoretiersofreligionswhichreceiveless
benefitsthanthepreferredreligionsbutmorethansomeotherreligions.16Thevariable
alsoincludescodingsforstatesovertlyhostiletoreligionaswellasstateswhichstrongly
supportareligion,includingestablishingareligion.Ifurtherdiscussthereasoningfor
usingthesecategoriesbelow.Thesecondvariableisreligiousdiscriminationwhich
includesthirtytypesofrestrictionsonthereligiouspracticesorinstitutionsofminority
religionswhicharenotplacedagainstthemajorityreligion.Eachitemisscaledona
rangeof0to3sothevariablerangesfrom0to90.17Thethirdisreligiousregulation
whichmeasurestheextenttowhichthegovernmentregulatesallreligionsinacountry,
includingthemajorityreligion.Whilethesourcevariableincludes29typesofregulation,
notalloftheminvolvetheregulationofreligiousinstitutionsorpracticesbut,rather,
focusonlimitingreligionsinfluenceinpolitics.Iincludethefollowing16typesof
restrictionwhichclearlylimitreligiouspracticesorinstitutions:
1
&Arrest,continueddetention,orsevereofficialharassment
ofreligiousfigures,officials,and/ormembersofreligiousparties.
2
&Thegovernmentrestrictsorharassesmembersand
organizationsaffiliatedwiththemajorityreligionbutwhooperateoutside
ofthestatesponsoredorrecognizedecclesiasticalframework. 15Formoreon
theRAS2datasetseeFox(2011,2013,2014)andtheRASwebpageat
www.religionandstate.org.Thisincludesthedataitself,informationregardingdata
collection,datareliability,andvariablestructure.Distributionsforallofthevariablesare
16
availableathttp://www.thearda.com/Archive/Files/Codebooks/RAS2012_CB.asp.
ThesedescriptionsarefromtheRAS2codebookwhichisavailableat
17
www.religionandstate.org. Foralistingofthesecomponentvariables,seetheRAS2
codebookwhichisavailableatwww.religionandstate.org.
42.
&Restrictionsonformalreligiousorganizationsotherthanpoliticalparties.
43.
&Restrictionsonthepublicobservanceofreligiouspractices,includingreligious
holidaysandtheSabbath.
44.
&Restrictionsonreligiousactivitiesoutsideofrecognizedreligiousfacilities.
45.
&Restrictionsonpublicreligiousspeech.
46.
&Restrictionsormonitoringofsermonsbyclergy.
47.
&Restrictionsonaccesstoplacesofworship.
48.
&Restrictionsonthepublicationordisseminationofwrittenreligiousmaterial.
49.
&Peoplearearrestedforreligiousactivities.
50.
&Restrictionsonreligiouspublicgatheringsthatarenotplacedonothertypesof
publicgathering.
51.
&Restrictionsonthepublicdisplaybyprivatepersonsororganizationsof
religioussymbols.
52.
53.
54.
&Restrictionsonorregulationofreligiouseducationinpublicschools.
&Restrictionsonorregulationofreligiouseducationoutsideofpublicschoolsor
generalgovernmentcontrolofreligiouseducation.
&Restrictionsonorregulationofreligiouseducationattheuniversitylevel.
55.
&Conscientiousobjectorstomilitaryservicearenotgivenotheroptionsfor
nationalserviceandareprosecuted.18Eachoftheseitemsisscaledfrom0to3sothe
compositevariableincludesallofthesecomponentsrangesfrom0to48.Thefinal
variableisreligioussupportwhichincludes51waysinwhichagovernmentcansupport
religion.Eachcomponentiscodedas0or1sotheresultingvariablerangesfrom0to
51.19Table1showsthreemodelsforeachofthetwostandardsforreligiousfreedom
basedonthesevariables.Thefreeexercisestandardrequiresthatthegovernmentdoes
notlimitreligion.Forthisreason,atleastintheory,thereshouldbenoreligious
discriminationandnoneofthe16typesofrestrictionsonallreligionslistedabove.
Model1thestrictmodelisbasedonthisstandard.However,aswillbeseenbelow,
veryfewstatesmeetthisstandard.Accordingly,Idevelopmodel2theloosemodel
whichallowsforlowlevelsofbothreligiousdiscriminationandreligiousregulation
basedontheargumentthatitispossibleforastatetohaveanoverallregimefreeexercise
eveniftherearesomeexceptionstothisgeneralrule.Theloosemodelallowsuptoone
severetypeofreligiousdiscrimination(whichwouldbecodedas3)oruptothreemore
minortypesofreligiousdiscrimination(eachofwhichwouldbecodedas1or2aslong
asthetotalwasnohigherthan3).Atthesametime,itallowsforasimilaramountofthe
16typesofreligiousregulationlistedabove.Finally,Iaddapartiallyfreemodelwhich
describesstateswhichlikelycannotbesaidtohavefullfreeexerciserightsbutwhose
levelsofrestrictionsaresufficientlylowthattheyarenotfarfromestablishingsucha
regime.Themodelallowsbothreligiousdiscriminationandreligiousregulationtobe
codedashighas5.18ThesedescriptionsarefromtheRAS2codebookwhichisavailableat
19
www.religionandstate.org. Foralistingofthesecomponentvariables,seetheRAS2codebookwhichis
availableatwww.religionandstate.org.
14
J.Fox
OperationalstandardsforreligiousfreedomusingtheRAS2dataset
Table1
TheELPFmodelrequiresthatallreligionsbetreatedequally.Itismeasuredherewith
strict,loose,andpartiallyfreemodels.Assinglingoutminorityreligionsforrestrictions
isbydefinitionunequaltreatment,thelevelsofreligiousdiscriminationallowedarethe
sameasforthefreeexercisemodels.Theofficialreligionvariabledoesnotallowfor
overthostilitytoreligioninanyofthemodels.Forthestrictmodelitonlyallowsstates
whichtreatreligionscompletelyequally,eitherwithfullseparationofreligionandstate
(theseparationistandaccommodationstandards)orbysupportingallreligionsequally
(thesupportivestandard).Thelooseandpartiallyfreemodelsallowforstateswhichtreat
atwoormorereligionsbetterthanothersbasedontheargumentthatthesereligionsare
usuallythemostcommonreligionsinastateandthereligionsnotbenefittingfromstate
supporttendtobeminorones.Sucharegimewhilenotfullyequalisequalforalarge
majorityofastatespopulation.Howeverstateswhichsupportasinglereligionoverall
othersincludingthosewhichestablishareligiondonotmeetthisstandard.Finally,the
religioussupportvariableiskepttolowlevels.Asonlyonestate(SouthAfrica)iscoded
as0in2008,eventhestrictmodelallowslowlevelsofuptothreetypesofsupport.The
loosemodelallowsforuptofourandthepartiallyfreemodeluptofive.20
ThereissomedebateoverwhethertheELPFstandardrequiresfullfreeexercise.
Accordingly,IdonotincludeitinthisstandardbutIengageinseparateteststofindhow
manystatesmeetboththefreeexerciseandtheequalitylevelplayingfieldstandards
whicheffectivelyteststheversionoftheELPFstandardwhichincludesarequirementfor
freeexercise.
WhileallofthestandardsIsetforthesemodelsaresomewhatarbitrary,thisis
unavoidable.Unlessonesetsthecutoffsat0,whichisthebasisforthestrictestmodel,
20
WhileitispossibletoanalyzeeachoftheindividualvariablesoftheRASdatasetinrelationto
democracy,Fox(2008,2013,2014)hasalreadypublishedthistypefopanalysis.
anyotherboundariescannotbeanythingotherthanarbitrary.However,asawholethis
useofmultiplemodelsallowsforarangeofmodelswithvaryinglevelsofstrictnessto
betested.This,Iargue,producesareasonablepictureofthephenomenaIattemptto
measure.
DataAnalysisandDiscussion
Intheanalysis,Itestallninemodels(threeforeachstandardandthreeforthecombined
standards)forallstates177statesintheRAS2dataset.Ialsocontrolfordemocracyand
forthepresenceofreligiousfreedomclausesinconstitutions.Theformerisbecause
freedomofreligionisanexpectedcomponentofdemocracy.Iexaminethreecontrols
usingthepolitydataset:oneforthestateswhichscorea10,whichisthemostdemocratic
scoreonthepolityscaleof10to10,oneforallstateswhichscore8orhigherwhich
representsallstatesonthehigherendofthescaleandoneforstateswhichscore6or
higherbecausethePolityprojectdesignates6asthelowestscorewhichcanbe
considereddemocratic.IalsoexaminetheresultsforWesterndemocracies(Western
Europe,TheUSA,Canada,Australia,andNewZealand)andforEUmemberstatesasof
2008.IusetheRASConstitutionsdatasetsvariableforpresenceofareligiousfreedom
clauseinaconstitutiontomeasurethisfactor21becausestateswhichdeclarereligious
freedominaconstitutionoughttobemorelikelytoobservereligiousfreedomin
practice.Ialsocontrolfordemocracy,usingalloftheaboveoperationalizationsof
democracy,andtheconstitutionalvariablesintandem.TheresultsarepresentedinTable
2.
Whenexaminingtheentireworld,evenusingthepartiallyfreemodel,themajorityof
statesdonothavereligiousfreedom.Onthefreeexercisemodelevenusingthepartially
freestandard52%ofstatesdonothavereligiousfreedomand77.4%donotmeetthe
ELPFstandard.Whenapplyingtheloosestandard,compliancewithreligiousfreedom
dropsdramaticallywithanevenmoredramaticdropwhenapplyingthestrictstandard.
Interestingly,amongthe89.3%ofstateswhichhavereligiousfreedomclausesintheir
constitutionstheresultsarenotsubstantiallydifferent.Thisisconsistentwithprevious
resultswhichshowthatreligiousfreedomclausesdonotsubstantiallyinfluencereligious
discrimination(FoxandFlores2012).
Controllingfordemocracyonlyhasalimitedimpactupontheresults.Whenlookingat
thefreeexercisemodels,forallofthecontrolsotherthanoneofthem,democraticstates
areonlyslightlymorelikelytomeetthestrictstandard.Westerndemocraticstateswith
religiousfreedomclausesintheirconstitutionsaresubstantiallymorelikelytomeetthis
standardbut,evenso,overthreequartersofthemdonot.WhenexaminingtheELPF
standard,thestrictmodelmoreoftenthannotislessoftenmetbydemocraciesthan
statesingeneralandinnocaseisitsubstantiallymorelikelytobemetbydemocratic
states.
However,whenlookingatthefreeexercisestandard,democraticstatesacrosstheboard
arefarmorelikelytomeettothelooseandpartiallyfreemodelsthanstatesingeneral.
AmongdemocraticstateswithconstitutionalreligiousfreedomclausesWestern
democraciesandEuropeanUnionstatesareevenmorelikelytomeetthe
21
Thevariableiscfreetype01x2008.Thedatasetisavailableatvariableatwww.religionandstate.oorg
16J.Fox
Table2PresenceofreligiousfreedomNFreeexercisestandard
looseandpartiallyfreestandards.TheresultsfortheELPFstandardwithregardtothe
looseandpartiallyfreestandardsaremixed.Insomecases,democraciesareabitless
likelytomeetthesestandardsbutinsomecasestheyareabitmorelikely.However,in
allcasesnomorethan20.7%meettheloosestandardandnomorethan30%meetthe
partiallyfreestandard.Theresultsforstateswhichmeetbothstandardsatthesametime
arenearlyidenticaltotheresultsfortheELPFstandard.
Overall,religiousfreedomismuchrarerthanonewouldexpect,especiallyamong
democraticstateswhichareexpectedtoprovideanumberoffreedomstotheircitizens,
includingreligiousfreedom.Forexample,basedonazerotolerancepolicyfortheright
tofreeexercise(thestrictmodel),democraciesareonlyslightlymorelikelythannon
democraticstatestoprovidethesefreedomsandlessthan20%ofsuchstates,nomatter
howdemocracyismeasured,meetthisstrictstandard.Thismeansthatnondemocratic
statessuchasCameroon,CongoBrazzaville,andGuineaBissauhavemorereligious
freedomthanestablishedWesterndemocraciessuchasAustria,GermanyandGreece,all
ofwhichsubstantiallydiscriminateagainstatleastsomeoftheirreligiousminorities.
GermanyandGreeceplacesubstantialrestrictionsonMuslims.Greecealsoplaces
restrictionsonmanynonOrthodoxChristians.Allthreecountriessubstantiallyrestrict
cultsandsectssuchastheScientologists.ThethreeAfricancountriesInoteabovedo
noneofthistoanyminority.
Finally,Itestthecorrelatesofreligiousfreedomusingallnineoperalizationsasthe
dependentvariableusinglogisticregressions.Theindependentvariablesincludethethree
democracyvariablesandthereligiousfreedomclauseinconstitutionsusedabove.In
addition,Ialsousevariablespreviousstudiesusedtopredictreligiousdiscrimination
(Fox2008)theseincludethewhetherthemajoritypopulationinacountryisChristianor
Muslim,22religiousdiversity,23thelogofthecountryspopulation,24thepolityvariable
(thefull10to10versiondescribedabove),andpercapitaGDP.25
TheresultspresentedinTable3showthatdemocracyhasalimitedinfluenceonreligious
freedom.MembershipintheEUorbeingaWesterndemocracyhasnosignificant
relationshipwithreligiousfreedom.Thepolityvariablefordemocracyisonlysignificant
inthreeoftheninetests.Themostconsistentlysignificantvariableisreligious
diversity.26Religiouslydiversecountriesaresignificantlyassociatedwithreligious
freedomineightoftheninetests.DespitepreviousresultsthatMuslimmajoritycountries
areassociatedwithhigherlevelsofreligiousdiscrimination(Fox2008;GrimandFinke
2011),thisstudyfindsnosignificantcorrelationofanykindbetweenreligiousidentity
andreligiousfreedom.Infouroftheregressions,morepopulouscountrieshavelower
levelsofreligiousfreedomasdomoreeconomicallyprosperouscountriesintwoofthe
tests.
22
23
ThisistakenfromtheRAS2dataset. Forthis,IusetheversionoftheHerfindahlIndexdevelopedby
24
25
BarroandMcCleary(2005). TakenfromtheWorldBank. TakenfromtheUNStatisticalDivisionat
26
http://www.unstats.org/unsd/default.htm. Foramoredetaileddiscussionoftheimpactofreligious
diversityonreligiousfreedomanddemocracy,seeForblets(2013),GrimandFinke(2011,pp.36),and
Kuru(2009,pp.74102).
18J.Fox
Table3Logisticregressionspredictingreligiousfreedomin2008
Conclusions
Whilesortingoutthemeaningofreligiousfreedomcanbedifficult,operationalizing
multiplemodelsofthisstandarddemonstratesthathoweveritisdefined,religious
freedomisnotpresentinamajorityoftheworldsstates.Evenwhensubstantially
looseningthestandardstoallowforapartiallyfreestandardforreligiousfreedomand
lookingonlyatdemocracieswhoseconstitutionsguaranteereligiousfreedom,atleasta
thirdofthesestatesdonothavereligiousfreedom.Thisnumberincreasessubstantiallyif
onelooksbeyondWesterndemocracies,usesastricterstandardformeasuringthefree
exercisestandardforreligiousfreedomorusestheELPFstandard.
Theoreticaldiscussionsofreligiousfreedomareimportant.However,manyofthemare
basedonassumptionsofvalueswhichdonotappeartoreflectactualpracticeamonga
largenumberofthesedemocracies.Ifonewantsevenamildlystrictapplicationofthese
standards,aclearmajorityofdemocraciesdonothavefullreligiousfreedom.Infact,
usingazerotolerancestandard,freeexerciseispresentonlyin14.5to17.7%of
democracies,dependingonhowonemeasuresdemocracy.OnlySouthAfricameetsa
zerotoleranceequalitylevelplayingfieldstandard(aswillberecalledthestrictmodel
wasnotzerotolerancepreciselybecausenearlynostatescanmeetthatstandard).
Thus,totheextentthatthesestandardsexistinliberaldemocraciesthestateswewould
mostexpecttohavereligiousfreedomreligiousfreedomisfarmoreoftendiscussed
thanpracticed.Thisfindingneedstobealargerpartoftheconversation.Infact,this
includesmanyWesterndemocraciessuchasAustria,Belgium,Denmark,France,
Germany,Greece,Spain,andSwedenwhoarepartoftheEUwhichhasasystemwide
regimetoprotecthumanrightsincludingreligiousrights.Yetnoneofthesestatesmeet
eventheminimumrequirementsetinthisstudyforbeingpartiallyfree.Amongthese17
statesonlyIrelandandPortugalmeetthestrictstandardforfreeexercise.Onlythe
NetherlandsmeetstheloosestandardforELPFandnonemeetthestrictversionofthat
standard.
Basedonthis,Iwouldarguethattheabsenceofreligiousfreedomhoweveritis
theorized,definedandoperationalizedissufficientlywidespreadthatreligiousfreedom
ismorecommonintheoreticaldiscussionsofthenatureofdemocracythaninthepolicies
ofdemocraticgovernments.Thisleadsonetoquestionthelinkbetweenliberal
democracyandreligiousfreedom.Eitherreligiousfreedomisnotanecessarytraitfor
liberaldemocracyortherearefarfewerliberaldemocraciesintheworldthanmany
believetobethecase.WhileIwouldnotarguethattheconceptofliberaldemocracyis
theoreticallycompatiblewithviolationsofreligiousfreedom,itisclearthatthese
violationsaresocommonplaceinthesestatesthatitispossibleforastatetoviolatethis
principleandstillbeconsideredbymosttobealiberaldemocracy.
Inaddition,asIdiscussindetailearlierinthisarticle,mostnonacademicdiscussionsof
religiousfreedomfoundmostlyingovernmentreportsandinternationaldocuments
donotaddresstheissueshowreligiousfreedomshouldbeconceivedandratherfocuson
alaundrylistapproachtothetopic.Thisadhocapproachtoaddressingreligiousfreedom
mayprovidesomeindicationofpossibleavenuesforimprovingreligiousfreedomin
practice.Instigatingamorebasicfoundationaldiscussionofhowthenotionshouldbe
theorizedandconceivedmayhelptogeneratemore
20J.Fox
interestintheissueaswellasmorecoherentpoliciesinordertoapplyreligiousfreedom.
Basedonthis,furtherresearchisnecessaryalongatleastthreelines.First,whyisitthat
manystatesregularlyviolatewhatmanyconsidertobetheircorevaluesandarestill
widelyconsideredliberaldemocracies?Orperhapsweshouldframethequestionashow
muchcanademocracydeviatefortheidealofreligiousfreedomandstillbeconsidereda
democracy?Second,weneedmorestudyintowhystatesviolatetheprincipleofreligious
freedom.Paststudieshavefocusedonaspectsofthissuchasthecorrelatesofreligious
discrimination(BuckleyandMantilla2013;Fox2004,2008;GrimandFinke2011;Gwin
andNorth2004;Marshall2009;Rahman2013)butnonehavedistilledthesevariables
intoanoperationalmodelforreligiousfreedomandaskednotonlywhohasitbutalso
why?Thetestsinthisstudybeginthisprocessbutrequirefurtherresearch.Finally,itis
possibleweneedtorethinkhowwedefinereligiousfreedom.
References
Akbaba,Yasemin&ZeynepTydasDoesReligiousDiscriminationPromoteDissent?AQuantitative
AnalysisEthnopolitics,10(3),2011,271295
Barro,RobertJ.andRachelM.McClearyWhichCountriesHaveStateReligionsQuarterlyJournalof
Economics,120(4),2005,13311370
Basedau,MatthiasGeorgStrver,JohannesVllers&TimWegenastDoReligiousFactorsImpact
ArmedConflict?EmpiricalEvidenceFromSubSaharanAfricaTerrorismandPoliticalViolence,23(5),
2011,752779
Blake,MichaelToleranceandTheocracy:HowLiberalStatesShouldThinkofReligiousStatesJournal
ofInternationalAffairs,61(1),2007,117
Bowen,John,R.Secularism:ConceptualGenealogyorPoliticalDilemmaComparativeStudiesin
SocietyandHistory,52(3),2010,680694.
Brathwaite,Robert&AndrewBramsenReconceptualizingChurchandState:ATheoreticaland
EmpiricalAnalysisoftheSeparationofReligionandStateonDemocracyPolitics&Religion,4(2),
2011,229263Brush,StephenG.DynamicsofTheoryChangeintheSocialSciences:Relative
DeprivationandCollective
ViolenceJournalofConflictResolution,40(4),1996,523545Buckley,DavidT.&LouiseF.Mantilla
GodandGovernance:Development,StateCapacity,andthe
RegulationofReligionJournalfortheScientificStudyofReligion,52(2),2013,328348Casanova,
JoseTheSecularandSecularismsSocialResearch,76(4),2009,10491066Demerath,N.J.III
CrossingtheGods:WorldReligionsandWorldlyPolitics,NewJersey:RutgersUniversity
Press,2001.Driessen,MichaelD.P.Religion.StateandDemocracy:AnalyzingTwoDimensionsof
ChurchState
ArrangementsPoliticsandReligion,3(1),2010,5580Durham,W.ColeJr.PerspectivesonReligious
Liberty:AComparativeFrameworkinJohnD.vander
Vyver&JohnWitteJr.eds.ReligiousHumanRightsinGlobalPerspective:LegalPerspectives,Boston:
MartinusNjhoff,1996.144Eisenstein,MarieA.ReligionandthePoliticsofTolerance:How
ChristianityBuildsDemocracy,Waco,Tx:
BaylorUniversityPress,2008.Farr,ThomasF."Diplomacyinanageoffaith:religiousfreedomand
nationalsecurity."ForeignAffairs,87
(2),2008Finke,RogerReligiousDeregulation:OriginsandConsequencesJournalofChurchandState,
32(3),1990,
609626Finke,RogerOriginsandConsequencesofReligiousRestrictions:AGlobalOverview
Presidential
Address,AnnualMeetingoftheAssociationfortheSociologyofReligion,2012.Forblets,MarieClaire
FreedomofReligionandBeliefintheEuropeanWorkplace:WhichWayForwardandWhatRoleforthe
EuropeanUnionInternationalJournalforDiscriminationandtheLaw,13(23),2013,
240255

Fox,JonathanReligion,CivilizationandCivilWar:1945ThroughtheNewMillennium,Lanham,MD:
LexingtonBooks,2004.
Fox,JonathanAWorldSurveyofReligionandtheState,NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2008
Fox,JonathanBuildingCompositeMeasuresofReligionandStateInterdisciplinaryJournalof
Researchon
Religion,7(8),2011,139Fox,JonathanIsitReallyGodsCentury?AnEvaluationofReligious
SupportandDiscriminationfrom1990
to2008"Politics&Religion,7(1),2014,427.Fox,Jonathan&DeborahFloresReligiousFreedomin
ConstitutionsandLaw:AStudyinDiscrepanciesin
JonathanFox(ed)Religion,Politics,Society,andtheState,NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2012,
th
pp.2752Fox,JonathanEthnoreligiousConflictintheLate20 Century:AGeneralTheory,Lanham,
MD:Lexington
Books,2002.Fox,JonathanAnIntroductiontoReligionandPolitics:TheoryandPractice,London,
Routledge,2013.Friedland,RogerMoney,Sex,andGod:TheEroticLogicofEthnicNationalism
SociologicalTheory,20
(2),2002,381425.Gill,EmilyR.ReligiousOrganizations,CharitableChoice,andtheLimitsof
FreedomofConscience
PerspectivesonPolitics,2(4),2004,741755Grim,BrianJ.&RogerFinkeThePriceofFreedom
Denied,NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2011.Gurr,TedR.WhyMenRebel,Princeton:
PrincetonUniversity1970Gurr,TedR.MinoritiesAtRisk,WashingtonD.C.:UnitedStatesInstituteof
Peace,1993Gurr,TedR.PeoplesVersusStates:MinoritiesatRiskintheNewCentury,Washington
D.C.:UnitedStates
InstituteofPeacePress,2000Gwin,Carl.R.&CharlesM.NorthReligiousFreedomandStateReligion
inanInternationalPanelBaylor
BusinessWorkingPaperSeries,2004.Horowitz,DonaldL.EthnicGroupsinConflict,Berkeley:
UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1985.Jelen,TedG.ReligionandPoliticsintheUnitedStates:Persistence,
Limitations,andthePropheticVoice
SocialCompass,53(3),2006,329343Jelen,TedG.TheConstitutionalBasisofReligiousPluralismin
theUnitedStates:Causesand
ConsequencesAnnalsoftheAmericanAssociationofPoliticalandSocialSciences.612,
2007,2641.Jenkins,PhillipReligion,RepressionandRebellionReviewofFaithandInternational
Affairs,5(1),2007,
311.Karpov,VycheslavReligiosityandToleranceintheUnitedStatesandPolandJournalforthe
Scientific
StudyofReligion,41(2),2002,267288Keane,JohnSecularism?ThePoliticalQuarterly,71
(Supplement1),2000,519Kuru,AhmetT.SecularismandStatepoliciesTowardReligion,TheUnited
StatesFranceandTurkey,
CambridgeUniversityPress,2009.Laycock,DouglassTheUnderlyingUnityofSeparationand
NeutralityEmoryLawJournal,46,1997,43
75Little,DavidReligiousMilitancyinChesterA.CrockerandFenO.Hampsoneds.ManagingGlobal
Chaos:
SourcesofandResponsestoInternationalConflict,WashingtonDC:UnitedStatesInstituteofPeace
Press,1996.7991Madeley,JohnTSEuropeanLiberalDemocracyandthePrincipleofStateReligious
NeutralityWest
EuropeanPolitics,26(1),2003,122Marshall,PaulTheRangeofReligiousFreedomin2008:Results
ofaGlobalSurveyInternationaljournalof
ReligiousFreedom,2(1),2009,2536.Mazie,StevenV.RethinkingReligiousEstablishmentand
LiberalDemocracy:LessonsFromIsrael
BrandywineReviewofFaithandInternationalAffairs,2(2),2004,312Mazie,StevenV.Israel'sHigher
Law:ReligionandLiberalDemocracyintheJewishStateNewYork:
Lexington,2006.Morgenstern,MiraReligionandState:TheViewfromEnlightenmentJournalofLaw
ReligionandState,1
(2),2012,256288North,CharlesM.CarlR.GwinReligiousFreedomandtheUnintended
ConsequencesofStateReligion
SouthernEconomicJournal,71(1),2004,103117Perez,Nahshon,ShouldMulticulturalistsOppressthe
Oppressed?OnReligion,Culture,andtheIndividual
andtheCulturalRightsofUnLiberalCommunitiesCriticalReviewofInternationalSocialandPolitical
Philosophy,5(3),2002,5179.Philpott,DanielTheChallengeofSeptember11toSecularismin
InternationalRelationsWorldPolitics,55
(1),2002,6695

22J.Fox
Philpott,DanielExplainingthePoliticalAmbivalenceofReligionAmericanPoliticalScienceReview,
101(3),2007,505525
Rahman,FatimaZ.TheEffectsofStateEstablishedReligiononReligiousFreedomforMinorities
InterdisciplinaryJournalofResearchonReligion,9(8),2013,124.
Rawls,JohnPoliticalLiberalism,NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1993Rebe,RyanJ.Re
examiningtheWallofSeparation:ACrossNationalStudyofReligiousPluralismin
DemocracyPolitics&Religion,5(3),2012,655670Richardson,JamesT.Religion,Law,andHuman
RightsinPeterBeyer&LoriBermaneds.Religion,
Globalization,andCulture,Brill,2007,409430.Rule,JamesB.TheoriesofCivilViolence,Berkeley:
UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1988.Sarkissian,AniReligiousReestablishmentinPostCommunist
PolitiesJournalofChurchandState,51(3),
2010,472501.ServinGonzalez,MarianaandOscarTorresReynaThePollsTrends:Religionand
PoliticsPublicOpinion
Quarterly,63,1999,592621.Shah,TimothyS.MakingtheChristianWorldSafeforLiberalism:From
GrotiustoRawlsThePolitical
Quarterly,71(s1),2000,121139.Smart,NinanBeyondIdeology:ReligionandtheFutureofWestern
Civilization,Cambridge:Harper&Row,
1981Sommer,Udi,PazitBenNunBloom,&GizemArkianDoesFaithLimitMorality:ThePoliticsof
Religion
andCorruptionDemocratization,20(2),2013,287309Spickard,JamesV.HumanRights,Religious
Conflict,andGlobalization:UltimateValuesinaNewWorld
OrderMOST,JournalonMulticulturalSocieties,1(1),1999,www.unesco.org./most/vl1n1ris.htm.
Spohn,WilfriedEuropeanization,Religion,andCollectiveIdentitiesinEnlargingEurope:AMultiple
ModernitiesPerspectiveEuropeanJournalofSocialTheory,12(3),2009:358374)Stark,Rodney&
RogerFinkeActsofFaith:ExplainingtheHumanSideofReligion,Berkeley,CA:
UniversityofCaliforniaPress,2000Stepan,AlfredReligion,Democracy,andtheTwinTolerations
JournalofDemocracy,11(4),2000,3756Stepan,AlfredTheMultipleSecularismsofModern
DemocraticandNonDemocraticRegimesinCalhoun,
CraigMarkJuergensmeyer,&JonathanVanAntwerpwneds.RethinkingSecularism,NewYork,NY:
OxfordUniversityPress,2012,125155.Toft,MonicaD.,DanielPhilpott,&TimothyS.ShahGods
Century:ResurgentReligionandGlobalPolitics,
NewYork,NY:W.W.Norton&Company,2011.Wilson,ErinBeyondDualism:Expanded
UnderstandingsofReligionandGlobalJusticeInternational
StudiesQuarterly,54(3),2010,733754.Witte,JohnJr.FactsandFictionsAbouttheHistoryof
SeparationofChurchandStateJournalofChurch
andState,48(1),2006,1545.Witte,JohnJr.&M.ChristianGreenReligiousFreedom,Democracy,
andInternationalHumanRights
EmoryInternationalLawReview,23(2),2009,583698
CopyrightofHumanRightsReviewisthepropertyofSpringerScience
&BusinessMediaB.V.anditscontentmaynotbecopiedoremailedto
multiplesitesorpostedtoalistservwithoutthecopyrightholder's
expresswrittenpermission.However,usersmayprint,download,or
emailarticlesforindividualuse.
Article 3
TheReviewofPolitics77(2015),287299.UniversityofNotreDame
doi:10.1017/S0034670515000091
AmericanReligiousFreedomReflectionsonKoppelman
andSmithMichaelJ.Perry
AmongcontemporaryscholarsofAmericanreligiousfreedom,AndrewKoppelmanand
StevenSmitharetwoofthemostesteemed.Theyaddress,intheirrespectivebooks,a
broadrangeofimportantissues.1Spacelimitationsconstrainmetobeselectiveinthis
reviewessay;IcommenthereonwhatKoppelmanandSmithsay,anddontsay,about
twoofthemostfundamentalissuesregardingAmericanreligiousfreedom:themeaning
ofthenonestablishmentnormandtheconstitutionalityofgrantingconscienceprotecting
exemptionsonlytoreligiousbelievers.
AccordingtotheConstitutionoftheUnitedStates,asinterpretedandenforcedbythe
SupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates,neitherthefederalgovernmentnorstate
governmentmayprohibitthefreeexerciseofreligionorestablishreligion.2However,it
iscontroversialamongthejusticesoftheSupremeCourtandalsoamongconstitutional
scholarsbothwhatsortsof
MichaelJ.PerryisRobertW.WoodruffProfessorofLaw,EmoryUniversitySchoolofLaw,
andSeniorFellow,CenterfortheStudyofLawandReligion,EmoryUniversitySchoolofLaw,
1301CliftonRoadNE,Atlanta,GA30322(mjperry@emory.edu).
Forhelpfulcommentsonadraftofthisreviewessay,IamgratefultoDanConkle,ChrisEberle,
FredGedicks,MarkGoldfeder,DougLaycock,andJohnWitte.
1
SeeAndrewKoppelman,DefendingAmericanReligiousNeutrality(Cambridge,MA:Harvard
UniversityPress,2013)(hereinafterKoppelman);StevenD.Smith,TheRiseandDeclineof
AmericanReligiousFreedom(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress2014)(hereinafter
Smith).
2
TheFirstAmendmenttotheConstitutionstates,inrelevantpart:Congressshallmakenolaw
respectinganestablishmentofreligion,orprohibitingthefreeexercisethereof.Michael
McConnellhasexplained:Thetext[oftheFirstAmendment]statestheCongressmaymake
nolawrespectinganestablishmentofreligion,whichmeantthatCongresscouldneither
establishanationalchurchnorinterferewiththeestablishmentofstatechurchesastheythen
existedinthevariousstates.Afterthelastdisestablishmentin1833andtheincorporationofthe
FirstAmendmentagainstthestatesthroughtheFourteenthAmendment,thisfederalismaspect
oftheAmendmenthaslostitssignificance,andtheClausecanbereadasforbiddingthe
governmenttoestablishreligion(MichaelW.McConnell,
287
288THEREVIEWOFPOLITICS
governmentactionconstituteprohibitingthefreeexerciseofreligionandwhatsorts
constituteestablishingreligion.IbeginwiththecontroversywithwhichKoppelman
andSmithareprincipallyconcerned.3
TheNonestablishmentControversy
Thereiswidespreadagreementthatthenonestablishmentnorm4forbidsgovernment
actionofthissort:governmentactionaccordingtowhich(a)aparticularchurchora
particularrangeoftheologicallykindredchurches,suchastheChristianchurchis
treatedasthe,oran,officialchurchofthepoliticalcommunity(nation,state,county,
municipality,township,etc.)or(b)oneormorereligiousdoctrinesorpracticesofa
particularchurcharetreatedasofficialreligiousdoctrinesorpracticesofthepolitical
community.Letuscallthepropositionthatthenonestablishmentnormforbids
governmentactionofthesortjustspecifiedthecentralmeaningofthenonestablishment
norm.Thenonestablishmentcontroversyarisesinresponsetothisquestion:Doesthe
nonestablishmentnormforbidgovernmentactionofanysortinadditiontothesort
forbiddenbythecentralmeaningofthenorm?Moresimply,isthecentralmeaningthe
onlymeaningofthenorm?
Koppelmanspositionisthatthecentralmeaningisnottheonlymeaning,thatthe
nonestablishmentnormisbestunderstoodalsotoforbidgovernmentactionthataffirms,
bytreatingastrue,anyreligioustenetwhatsoever;accordingtoKoppelman,
governmentmaynotaffirmevenareligioustenetwhoseaffirmationbygovernment
doesnot(orwouldnot)violatethecentralmeaningofthenorm.5Governmentmustbe
neutral,insistsKoppelman,onthequestion
AccommodationofReligion:AnUpdateandResponsetotheCritics,GeorgeWashingtonLaw
Review60[1992]:685,690n19).
3
SeeKoppelmanat3:Thisbookoffersnewanswerstothreequestions:Whatconceptionof
neutralityisreliedonintheinterpretationoftheEstablishmentClauseoftheFirstAmendment?
Isitcoherent?Isitdefensible?
4
Intheirfinebook,IraLupuandRobertTuttlearguepersuasivelythatwhereasthefreeexercise
normisappropriatelyarticulatedasaright,thenonestablishmentnorm(a.k.atheEstablishment
Clause)isbestarticulatedasaprinciple:thenonestablishmentprinciple,LupuandTuttle
callit.SeeIraC.LupuandRobertW.Tuttle,SecularGovernment,ReligiousPeople(Grand
Rapids,MI:Eerdmans,2014),5.
5
Noteveryreligioustenetisonewhoseaffirmationbygovernmentviolatesthecentralmeaning
ofthenorm.Since1954,thePledgeofAllegiancehasechoedAbrahamLincolnsGettysburg
AddressindeclaringthatweareonenationunderGod.(AtGettysburg,Lincolnresolvedthat
thisnation,underGod,shallhaveanewbirthoffreedom...)Inaffirming,withLincoln,that
oursisanationthatstandsunderthejudgmentofarighteousGod,governmentisnotdoingwhat
thecentralmeaningofthenonestablishmentnormforbidsgovernmenttodo.Herearesome
otherexamplesofgovernmentaffirmingoneormorereligioustenetswhose
REFLECTIONSONKOPPELMANANDSMITH289
whetheroneoranotherreligioustenet,nomatterwhatthetenet,istrue:What
[government]maynotdowhat[nonestablishment]doctrineproperlyforbidsittodo
isdeclareanyparticularreligiousdoctrinetobethetrueone,orenactlawsthatclearly
implysuchadeclarationofreligioustruth.6
Indiscussinghisposition,Koppelmanwrites:Ifgovernmentcannotdeclarereligious
truth,thenitscannotuseitscoercivepowerstoenforcereligioustruth....If
[government]maynotdeclarereligioustruth,ortakesidesinlivetheological
controversies,thenofcourseitcannotpersecuteheresyorblasphemy. 7Itbears
emphasis,however,thatifgovernmentmaydeclarereligioustruth,itdoesnotfollow
thatgovernmentmayuseitscoercivepowerstoenforcereligioustruth.And,indeed,if
underthenonestablishmentnormgovernmentmayaffirmsomereligioustenets,itis
nonethelessthecasethatbecausegovernmentmaynotprohibitthefreeexerciseof
religion,governmentmayneithercoerceonetoaffirmorotherwiseconductoneselfin
accordwithanysuchtenetnordiscriminateagainstoneforrefusingtodoso. 8(More
aboutthefreeexercisenormbelow.)
Insupportofhispositionthatthenonestablishmentnormisbestunderstoodtoforbid
governmenttoaffirmthetruthofanyreligioustenetwhatsoever,Koppelmanlistsa
numberofconsiderations:(1)governmentisincompetenttodeterminethenatureof
[religious]truth;(2)theuseof[government]powertoresolvereligiouscontroversies
isterriblydivisiveanddoesnotreallyresolveanything;(3)governmentinvolvementin
such[controversies]hastendedtooppressreligiousminoritiesand,further,(4)tends
tocorruptreligion.9Koppelmansfourconsiderationsthelastofwhich
affirmationbygovernmentdoesnotviolatethecentralmeaningofthenonestablishmentnorm:
In1954,CongressrequestedthatallU.S.coinsandpapercurrencybeartheslogan,InGodWe
Trust.OnJuly11,1955,PresidentEisenhowermadethissloganmandatoryonallcurrency.In
1956thenationalmottowaschangedfromEPluribusUnumtoInGodWeTrust(JohnW.
Baer,ThePledgeofAllegiance:ACentennialHistory,18921992[Annapolis,MD:FreeState
Press,1992],63).TheproceedingsofmanycourtsintheUnitedStates,includingtheSupreme
CourtoftheUnitedStates,beginwithacourtofficialintoningGodsavetheUnitedStatesand
thisHonorableCourt.
6
Koppelmanat3;seealso84,90,91.7Ibid.,9192,105.8Koppelmansuggeststhatthe
nonestablishmentnormisdirectedagainstreligiously
basedcoercion(e.g.,Koppelmanat117).Butitisthefreeexercisenormthatisthebarrieror,
atleast,themainbarriertosuchcoercion.AsKentGreenawalthascorrectlyobserved,laws
thatenforceapurelyreligiousmorality...unacceptablyimposereligiononothers
(Greenawalt,HistoryasIdeology:PhilipHamburgersSeparationofChurchandState,
CaliforniaLawReview93[2005]:391).Greenawaltgivesasanexamplelawsagainst
homosexualrelationsbasedontheviewthattheBibleconsiderssuchrelationssinful(ibid.,
390).
9
Koppelmanat6.
heputsthemostweightonandspendsanentirechapterelaborating10explainwhyhe
believesthatgovernmentshouldstayoutofthebusinessofaffirmingreligioustenets.
However,theconsiderationsdonotshow,andsofarasIcantellKoppelmandoesnottry
toshow,whatadefenseofaparticularunderstandingofthenonestablishmentnormof
thenorm,thatis,asaconstitutionalnorm,aspartoftheconstitutionallawoftheUnited
States,and,assuch,judiciallyenforceableagainstgovernmentmustshow,whatever
elseitmustshow,ifthedefenseistobebroadlypersuasive:thatascomparedtoany
competingunderstandingofthenorm,theunderstandingatissueis,ifnotmore
congruent,notlesscongruentwiththeoriginalunderstandingofthenorm,orwitha
widelysharedhistoricalunderstandingofthenorm,or,atleast,withwellsettled
constitutionaldoctrine.
Smithspositioninthenonestablishmentcontroversyisthatthebroadunderstandingof
thenormforwhichsome,prominentlyincludingKoppelman,contendtheneutrality
understandingismuchtoobroadtobeaplausibleinterpretationofthenorm.WhatI
amcallingthecentralmeaningofthenonestablishmentnormisessentiallywhatJustice
Scaliaunderstandstobethemeaningofthenorm.11IcannottellwhetherSmiththinks
thatthemostplausibleinterpretationofthenormisnarrowereventhanwhatJustice
Scaliaunderstandsittobe.12Inanyevent,SmithrejectsKoppelmansneutrality
understandingofthenorm;accordingtoSmith,thenonestablishmentnormisbest
understoodtopermitgovernmenttoaffirmatleastsomereligioustenets.13
IncriticizingandrejectingthepositionforwhichKoppelmancontends,Smithdoesnot
relyontheoriginalunderstandingofthenonestablishmentnorm;Smithisacutelyaware
ofthedifficulty,tothepointofimpossibility,ofidentifyingtheoriginalunderstandingof
thenonestablishmentnorm.AsSmithexplains,therehasneverbeenasinglemoment
anddeliberateor
10
Seeibid.,4677.Inthecourseofelaborating,insupportofhisposition,thecorruption
rationale,Koppelmanidentifiesafifthrationalethealienationrationaleandthenargues
thatassupportsforhisposition,thedivisivenessrationaleandthealienationrationaleare
inferiortothecorruptionrationale.Seeibid.,4649.
11
KoppelmanquotesJusticeScaliaanddiscussesScaliaspositionat10and3942.Seealso
AntoninScaliaSaysConstitutionPermitsCourttoFavorReligionoverNonReligion,
WashingtonTimes,October2,2014.
12
Smithsometimesseemstosuggest(thoughperhapsImisreadhim)thatevenacongressional
declarationthattheUnitedStatesisaChristiannationwouldnotviolatethenonestablishment
normwerethenormcorrectlyi.e.,verynarrowlyinterpreted.See,e.g.,Smithat85etseq.
ThisisnottosaythatSmithsupportssuchadeclaration.
13
SmithobjectstoKoppelmansuseofthetermsneutralandneutrality,whichSmithfinds,
atbest,misleading.SeeSmithat13338.Koppelmanexplainsanddefendshisuseoftheterms
inachaptertitledTheAmericanSpecificationofNeutrality.SeeSmithat1545.
authoritativedecisiontowhichwecanlookbackinordertofigureoutwhatthe
constitutionalcommitments[tononestablishmentandfreeexercise]actuallymean.
Instead,courtshavegiventhosecommitmentsmeaningthroughanunmooredprocessof
constructiveinterpretationandperhapsinvention.14NordoesSmithrelyonwell
settledconstitutionaldoctrine;Smithknowsthatconstitutionaldoctrineregarding
nonestablishmentisanythingbutwellsettledorevencoherent.15Instead,Smith
marshalsmorethanamplehistoricalevidencetodemonstratethatanunderstandingofthe
nonestablishmentnormmuchnarrowerthanthebroadneutralityunderstandingfor
whichKoppelmancontendsismuchmorecongruentwithwhathasbeenthedominant
understandingofthenormthroughoutmostofAmericanhistory.Asafederalcourtput
thepointin2001:[Thenonestablishmentnorm]wasnot...understoodtobea
prohibitionagainstemployinggeneralizedreligiouslanguageinofficialdiscourse.The
notionthattheFirstAmendmentwasdesignedtoimposeasecularpoliticalcultureonthe
nationwouldhavestruckmostnineteenthcenturyjudgesasabsurd.16Considerthisdata:
14
Smithat7475.
15
SeeDoev.ElmwoodSchoolDistrict,687F.3d840,872(7thCir.2012)(Posner,J.,
dissenting):
ThecaselawthattheSupremeCourthasheapedonthedefenselesstextoftheestablishment
clauseiswidelyacknowledged,evenbysomeSupremeCourtJustices,tobeformless,
unanchored,subjectiveandprovidenoguidance.See,e.g.,UtahHighwayPatrolAssnv.
AmericanAtheists,Inc.,132S.Ct.12(2011)(dissentfromdenialofcertiorari)(Establishment
Clausejurisprudence[is]inshambles,nebulous,erratic,noprincipledbasis,
EstablishmentClausepurgatory,impenetrable,adhocpatchwork,limbo,incapableof
consistentapplication,ourmess,littlemorethanintuitionandatapemeasure);Lambs
Chapelv.CenterMorichesUnionFreeSchoolDistrict,508U.S.384,39899(1993)(concurring
opinion)(ageometryofcrookedlinesandwaveringshapes,aghoulinalatenighthorror
moviethatcantbeslaineventhoughnofewerthanfiveofthecurrentlysittingJusticeshave,
intheirownopinions,personallydrivenpencilsthroughthecreaturesheart).
Manyconstitutionalscholarshavesaidmuchthesamething.See,e.g.,JesseH.Choper,
SecuringReligiousLiberty:PrinciplesforJudicialInterpretationoftheReligionClauses
(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1995),17476;AkhilReedAmar,Foreword:The
DocumentandtheDoctrine,HarvardLawReview114(2000):119;WilliamVanAlstyne,Ten
Commandments,NineJustices,andFiveVersionsofOneAmendmentTheFirst.(Now
What?),William&MaryBillofRightsJournal14(2005):17.Cf.WilliamM.Janssen,Led
Blindly:OneCircuitsStruggletoFaithfullyApplytheU.S.SupremeCourtsReligiousSymbols
ConstitutionalAnalysis,WestVirginiaLawReview116(2013).
16
ACLUofOhiov.CapitolSquareReview&AdvisoryBoard,243F.3d289,297(6thCir.
2001).
292
THEREVIEWOFPOLITICS
Fullytwentyseven,ortwothirds,ofthe1868stateconstitutionscontainedanexplicit
referencetoGodintheirpreambles.Atypicalsuchreferencestated,[W]e,thepeopleofthe
StateofIndiana,gratefultoAlmightyGodforthefreeexerciseoftherighttochooseourown
formofgovernment,doordainthisConstitution.
InadditiontothesereferencestoGodinthepreamblesofstateconstitutions,thirtystate
constitutionsin1968,ormorethanthreefourthsofthetotal,containedreferencetoGod....
Examples...includetheuseinconstitutionaltextsofsuchphrasesasAlmightyGod,
SupremeBeing,theGreatCreatorandPreserveroftheUniverse,Authoroftheuniverse,
[A]uthorofallgoodgovernment,SovereignRuleroftheUniverse,DivineBeing,Great
LegislatoroftheUniverse,and[O]urCreator.17
ItisavirtueofSmithspositioninthenonestablishmentcontroversythat,unlike
Koppelmansposition,Smithsdoesnotentailaconclusionthatmostcitizensofthe
UnitedStates,presentaswellaspast,wouldgreet,orwouldhavegreeted,asridiculously
extreme:thathavingunderGodinthePledgeorInGodWeTrustasthenational
motto,orbeginningasessionofcourtwithGodsavetheUnitedStatesandthis
HonorableCourt,isunconstitutional.18AlthoughKoppelmanacceptsthatconclusion,
hemanagestosteerclearoftherelated,andunrealistic,prescriptionthattheSupreme
Courtsoruleonlybyacceptingthatthosepracticesandkindredremnantsofcer
emonialdeismhaveacquiredimmunitytoconstitutionalchallengeinconsequenceof
theirhavingbeengrandfathered.19
Smithdoesnotrestcontentwithshowingthatthebroadunderstandingofthe
nonestablishmentnormforwhichKoppelmanandsomeotherscontendisimplausibleas
amatterofconstitutionalinterpretation.Smithgoesontoexplain,atlength,whyeven
justasapracticalmatter,hestronglyprefers,forusAmericans,astateofaffairsinwhich
questionsaboutwhethergovernmentshouldaffirmoneoranotherreligioustenetare
decidedbythecitizenry,orbytheirpoliticalrepresentatives,orbyboth,inthecontextof
ordinarypoliticaldiscussionanddecisionmaking.20Smithspreferredstateofaffairs
whichhecallstheAmericansettlement,andwhich,accordingtoSmith,prevailed
unchallengedthroughoutmostofthenineteenthcenturyupto
17
StevenG.CalabresiandSarahE.Agudo,IndividualRightsUnderStateConstitutionswhen
theFourteenthAmendmentWasRatifiedin1868:WhatRightsAreDeeplyRootedinAmerican
HistoryandTradition?,TexasLawReview87(2008):37and38.
18
Seeabove,n5.
19
SeeKoppelmanat2and7377.ForthoughtfulcriticalcommentaryonKoppelmans
grandfatheringargument,seeRichardW.Garnett,NeutralityandtheGoodofReligious
Freedom:AnAppreciativeResponsetoProfessorKoppelman,PepperdineLawReview39
(2013):115254.
20
SeeSmithat76110.
themiddleofthetwentieth21contrastssharplywiththestateofaffairsconstitutedby
Koppelmansposition,inwhichtheSupremeCourthasremovedallsuchquestionsfrom
thedomainofordinarypoliticsbyrulingthatthenonestablishmentnormforbids
governmenttoaffirmanyreligioustenetwhatsoever.However,becausethecontroversy
abouthowthenonestablishmentnormisbestunderstoodisfundamentallya
constitutionalcontroversy,onecanbeagnostic,orevenskeptical,asIam, 22aboutthe
praisesSmithsingsinsupportoftheAmericansettlementandnonethelessconclude,as
Ido,thatwhatSmithsaysinrejectingKoppelmansbroadinterpretationofthe
nonestablishmentnormthenormquajudiciallyenforceableconstitutionalnormis
persuasive.
FreeExerciseandReligiousExemptions
Likethenonestablishmentcontroversy,thefreeexercisecontroversypitsanarrow
understandingofthenormatissueagainstabroadunderstanding.Thefreeexercisenorm
isaright:therighttothefreedombothtopractice(exercise)onesownreligionand
nottopracticeareligionnotonesown.Thatthefreeexerciserightisan
antidiscriminationrightisnotdisputed;whetheritismorethananantidiscrimination
rightisdisputed.
Asanantidiscriminationright,thefreeexerciserightforbidsgovernmenttodiscriminate
againstapersontotreataperson,A,lesswellthananotherperson,Bonthebasisofa
religionspecificreasonregardingthepersonsconduct.23Examplesofsuchreligion
specificreasons:A(unlikeB)is
21
SeeSmithat11138.AccordingtoSmith,theAmericansettlementbegantobenotonly
seriouslychallengedbutundermined,bycertainSupremeCourtrulings,intheearly1960s.See
id.at113etseq.
22
Cf.KevinM.Kruse,OneNationunderGod:HowCorporateAmericanInventedChristian
America(NewYork:BasicBooks,2015).
23
SeeEmploymentDivisionv.Smith,494U.S.872,877(1990):[T]heexerciseofreligion
ofteninvolves...theperformanceof(or
abstentionfrom)physicalacts...[A]Statewouldbeprohibitingthefreeexercise[ofreligion]
ifitsoughttobansuchactsorabstentionsonlywhentheyareengagedinforreligiousreasons,
oronlybecauseofthereligiousbeliefsthattheydisplay.Itwoulddoubtlessbeunconstitutional,
forexample,tobanthecastingofstatutesthataretobeusedforworshippurposes,orto
prohibitbowingdownbeforeagoldencalf.
SeealsoChurchoftheLukumiBabaluAyev.CityofHialeah,508U.S.520(1993).WhenIsay,
inthetext,onthebasisofareligionspecificreason,Imeanitinthesensethatgovernment
wouldnotbetreatingAlesswellthanBbutforthe
religionspecificreason.Governmentdiscriminationagainstapersononthebasisofareason,
includinga
religionspecificreason,regardingthepersonsbeliefsorspeechimplicates,and
engaginginIslamicconduct;Aisengaginginreligiouslybasedconduct;24Aisnot
engaginginChristianconduct;Aisnotengaginginreligiouslybasedconduct.25An
instanceoftreatingAlesswellthanBcantaketheformofpunishingA,ofotherwise
imposingaburdenonA,orofwithholdingfromAabenefitthatisgrantedtoB.26
InEmploymentDivisionv.Smith,27fivejusticesoftheSupremeCourtruledthatthefree
exerciserightisnothingmorethananantidiscriminationright.28Accordingtoabroader
understandingoftheright,howeveranunderstandingthatattractedthesupportofthe
fourotherjustices29thefreeexerciserightismorethananantidiscriminationright:the
rightnotonlyforbidsgovernmenttodiscriminateonthebasisofareligionspecific
reasonregarding
sometimesviolates,therighttofreedomofthoughtandspeech.Withrespecttobeliefsand
speech,thefreeexerciserightisredundant.Notthatredundancyisneversalutary,butitiswith
respecttoconductconductotherthanspeechthatthefreeexerciserightmostmatters.
24
Cf.LawrieBreen,AChinesePuzzle,TheTablet(London),Mar.5,2005(reportingthat
newregulationsconfirmthatBeijingperceivesreligionasunscientific,superstitiousandan
enemyofprogress).Lastyearasecretdocument,issuedbytheCentralCommittees
PropagandaDepartment,calledforanewdrivetopromoteMarxistatheism(ibid.).
25
ByreligiouslybasedconductImeanconductanimatedbyoneormoreofonesreligious
convictionsandcommitments.
26
Asnomorethananantidiscriminationright,thefreeexerciserightreflectswhatBoucherand
Laborde,intheirexcellentcommentaryonBrianLeitersWhyTolerateReligion?(2013),calla
theoryoftoleration;itdoesnotreflectwhattheycallatheoryoflegalexemptions.See
FranoisBoucher&CcileLaborde,WhyTolerateConscience?,CriminalLawand
Philosophy(publishedonline,Nov.11,2014).
27
494U.S.872(1990).
28
However,inHosannaTaborEvangelicalLutheranChurchandSchoolv.EEOC,565U.S.
(2012),theSupremeCourtruledthatalthoughthefreeexerciserightisonlyan
antidiscriminationrightwithrespecttogovernmentactionthatinterfereswithoutwardphysical
acts,itisabroaderrightwithrespecttogovernmentactionthatinterfereswithinternalchurch
decisionthataffectsthefaithandmissionofthechurchitself.Forexpressionsofskepticism
aboutthecoherenceofthatbifurcatedunderstandingofthefreeexerciseright,seeMichael
StokesPaulsen,StevenG.Calabresi,MichaelW.McConnell,andSamuelL.Bray,The
ConstitutionoftheUnitedStates,2nded.(WestAcademic,2013),1133;RichardSchraggerand
MicahSchwartzman,AgainstReligiousInstitutionalism,VirginiaLawReview99(2013):975.
29
AndthatprevailedbeforetheSupremeCourtchangedcourseinEmploymentDivisionv.
Smith.SeeWisconsinv.Yoder,406U.S.205(1972);Sherbertv.Verner,374U.S.398(1963).It
isnoteworthythatduringtheperiodwhenitprevailed,thebroaderunderstandingofthefree
exerciserighthadlittlepracticalbite.See,e.g.,IraLupu,HobbyLobbyandtheDubious
EnterpriseofReligiousExemptions,HarvardJournalofLawandGender38(forthcoming).
conduct;therightalsorequiresgovernment,evenifitisnotdiscriminatingonthebasis
ofsuchareason,toaccommodateareligiousbelieverbyexemptingthereligiouslybased
choiceshewantstomakefromalaw(orothergovernmentaction)thatsignificantly
burdensherabilitytomakethechoiceherability,thatis,toactinaccordwithher
religiousconvictionsandcommitmentsunlessnotexemptingthechoiceistheleast
restrictivemeansofservingacompellinggovernmentinterest.30
Constitutionalscholarstoo,nolessthanSupremeCourtjustices,aredividedaboutwhich
ofthetwounderstandingsofthefreeexerciserightthenarrow,antidiscrimination
understandingthatprevailedinEmploymentDivisionv.Smithorthebroader,
accommodationistunderstandingisthemoredefensibleunderstanding,inthesenseof
morefaithfultotheoriginalunderstandingoftheright.31AlthoughKoppelmanandSmith
eachdiscussthefreeexercisecontroversy,neitherindicateswhichunderstandingofthe
right,narroworbroad,hejudgestobethemoredefensibleunderstanding.32(Again,
KoppelmanandSmithareprincipallyconcerned,intheirbooks,withthe
nonestablishmentcontroversy.)However,bothKoppelmanandSmithapproveof
governmentssometimesaccommodatingreligiousbelieversbyexemptingreligiously
basedconduct,33which,astheSupremeCourtemphasizedinEmploymentDivisionv.
Smith,governmentisconstitutionallyfree(thoughnotconstitutionallyrequired)todo.
Animportantquestionariseswhengovernmentchoosestograntwhatwemaycalla
conscienceprotectingexemption(a)toreligiousbelievers,sothattheycanactin
accordwiththeirreligiousconvictionsandcommitments,includingtheirreligiously
basedmoralconvictionsandcommitments,but(b)nottopersonswhoarenotreligious
believersbutwhononethelesswanttobeabletoactinaccordwiththeirmoral
convictionsandcommitments:Isitconstitutionalforgovernmenttograntconscience
protectingexemptionsonlytoreligiousbelievers?
30
Asmorethananantidiscriminationrightasabroad,accommodationistrightthefree
exerciserightreflectswhatBoucherandLabordecallatheoryoflegalexemptionsaswellas
atheoryoftoleration.Seeabove,n26.
31
Foradefenseoftheaccommodationistunderstandingasmorefaithfultotheoriginal
understanding,seeMichaelW.McConnell,TheOriginsandHistoricalUnderstandingofFree
ExerciseofReligion,HarvardLawReview103(1990):14091517.Foradefenseofthe
antidiscriminationunderstandingasmorefaithful,seePhillipA.Hamburger,AConstitutional
RightofReligiousExemption:AnHistoricalPerspective,GeorgeWashingtonLawReview60
(1992):91548.
32
SeeKoppelmanat108;Smithat7374.
33
SeeKoppelmanat1078.Smithsapprovalofgovernmentssometimesgrantingreligious
exemptionsisevidenthere:StevenDouglasSmith,Debate:TheContraceptionMandateand
ReligiousFreedom,UniversityofPennsylvaniaLawReviewOnline161,no.261(2013).
InWelshv.UnitedStates(1970),fourmembersoftheSupremeCourtavoidedthe
questionintheprecedingparagraphbyconstruingtheconscientiousobjectorprovision
oftheUniversalMilitaryTrainingandServiceAct,whichbyitstermsprovidedonlyfor
religiouslybasedconscientiousobjection,alsotoprovideforconscientiousobjection
thatwasnotreligiouslybased.34Inanopinionthatsuppliedthecrucialfifthvotein
supportoftheCourtsjudgment,JusticeHarlanansweredtheconstitutionalquestion;he
explainedthatinhisview,theconscientiousobjectorprovisionrunsafoulofthe
religionclausesoftheFirstAmendmentbydiscriminatingagainstthosewhoarenot
religiousbelievers.35[H]avingchosentoexempt,[Congress]cannotdrawtheline
betweentheisticornontheisticreligiousbeliefsontheonehandandsecularbeliefsonthe
other.Anysuchdistinctionsarenot,inmyview,compatiblewiththeEstablishment
ClauseoftheFirstAmendment.36
JusticeHarlanssensethatanysuchdistinctionsareunconstitutionalwascorrect,but
hisrelianceonthenonestablishmentnormwasproblematic.Itisfarfromobviousthatby
grantingconscienceprotectingexemptionsonlyto(all)religiousbelievers(i.e.,who
otherwisequalify),governmentviolateseventhebroadunderstandingofthe
nonestablishmentnorm,muchlessanarrowerunderstanding:grantingsuchexemptions
onlytoreligiousbelieversdoesnotaffirmorpresupposeorentailtheaffirmationof
anyreligioustenet;itdoesnot,inKoppelmansarticulation,declarereligioustruth.
Thereason:therearesecularrationalesforgrantingexemptionsonlytoreligious
believers.37
However,bygrantingsuchexemptionsonlytoreligiousbelievers,governmentdoes
violatetheprevailingunderstandingthenarrow,antidiscriminationunderstandingof
thefreeexerciseright:grantingconscienceprotectingexemptionsonlytoreligious
believersdiscriminatesagainstthosewhoarenotreligiousbelieversonthebasisofa
religionspecificreasonregardingconduct.Moreprecisely,grantingsuchexemptions
onlytoreligiousbelieversistotreatlesswellthosewhoarenotreligiousbelieversbased
onthefactthattheconductthatthosewhoarenotreligiousbelieverswanttoengagein,
unliketheconductthatthereligiousbelieverswanttoengagein,isnot
34
Welshv.UnitedStates,398U.S.333,335(1970)(Black,J.,joinedbyDouglas,Brennan,and
Marshall,JJ.).
35
Id.at345.36Id.at356.37SeeBoucherandLaborde,WhyTolerateConscience?;ChristopherJ.
Eberle,
ReligionandInsularity:BrianLeiteronAccommodatingReligion,SanDiegoLawReview51,
no.4(2014).Foranargumentthatgrantingexemptionstoreligiousbelieversdoesnotviolate
theoriginalunderstandingofthenonestablishmentnorm,seeDouglasLaycock,Regulatory
ExemptionsofReligiousBehaviorandtheOriginalUnderstandingoftheEstablishmentClause,
NotreDameLawReview81(2006):1793.
religiouslybasedconduct.38JusticeHarlansbottomlinewascorrect:itisnot
constitutionalforgovernment,ifitgrantsconscienceprotectingexemptions,togrant
themonlytoreligiousbelievers.39
Thatgovernmentisnotconstitutionallyfreetograntconscienceprotectingexemptions
onlytoreligiousbelieversisnot,intheUnitedStates,controversialasapractical
politicalmatter:itisnotatalluncommonforthefederalgovernment,whenitgrants
exemptionstoreligiousbelieverssothattheycanactinaccordwiththeirreligiously
basedmoralconvictionsandcommitments,alsotograntexemptionstopersonswhoare
notreligiousbelieverssothattheycanactinaccordwiththeirmoralconvictionsand
commitments,eventhoughtheirmoralconvictionsandcommitmentsarenotreligiously
based.MicahSchwartzmanslistillustratesthepoint:
Federalandstatelegislationoftengoesbeyondthecategoryofreligiontoprotectnonreligious
ethicalandmoralbeliefs.Forarecentexample,theAffordableCareAct...includesan
exemptionfromitsminimumcoverageprovisionakatheindividualmandateformembers
ofarecognizedhealthcaresharingministry,whichthestatutedefinesasanonprofit
organizationwhosemembersshareacommonsetofethicalorreligiousbeliefsandshare
medicalexpensesamongmembersinaccordancewiththosebeliefs.Similarlanguageisused
infederallegislationprohibitingpublicofficialsfromrequiringhealthcareproviderstoperform
orassistwithabortionsorsterilizationswhendoingsowouldviolatetheirreligiousbeliefsor
moralconvictions.Thefederalgovernmentisalsobarredfromrequiringemployeesto
participateintheadministrationofthedeathpenaltyifsuchparticipationiscontrarytothe
moralorreligiousconvictionsoftheemployee.Numerousotherfederalandstatestatutesand
regulationsinvolvingforeignaid,counselingservices,vaccinations,pharmacies,organ
donation,assistedsuicide,and,ofcourse,militaryservicefollowthesamepatternofexpressly
protectingnotonly
38
DouglasLaycocktooarguesthatgrantingconscienceprotectingexemptionsonlytoreligious
believersisinconsistentwiththefreeexerciseright:DouglasLaycock,ReligiousLibertyas
Liberty,JournalofContemporaryLegalIssues7(1996):32637.
39
JusticeHarlansanswertotheconstitutionalquestionrestscomfortablywiththeconclusion
thatasamatterofpoliticalmorality,governmentshouldprotectnotonlyreligiouslybasedmoral
freedombutalsomoralfreedomthatisnotreligiouslybased.SeeMichaelJ.Perry,Freedomof
ConscienceasReligiousandMoralFreedom,JournalofLawandReligion29,no.1(2014):
12441;MichaelJ.Perry,ARighttoReligiousandMoralFreedom?AReplytoRafael
Domingo,InternationalJournalofConstitutionalLaw12,no.1(2014):24855.
AnimportantquestionputtomebyDanConkleincommentingonadraftofthisreviewessay:
IstheSupremeCourtsunanimousdecisioninHosannaTaborEvangelicalLutheranChurchand
Schoolv.EEOCconsistentwiththepositionthatgrantingexemptionsonlytoreligious
believersisunconstitutional?OnHosannaTabor,seeabove,n28.
298THEREVIEWOFPOLITICSreligiousconvictionsbutalsoethicalandmoralbeliefs,
conscience,or
somecombinationthereof.40
ButthenthereisRFRAtheReligiousFreedomRestorationActof1993whichbyits
explicittermsgrantsexemptions(whendoingdodoesnotdisserveacompelling
governmentinterest)onlytoreligiousbelievers.Specifically,RFRAprohibitsthefederal
[g]overnment[from]substantiallyburden[ing]apersonsexerciseofreligionevenifthe
burdenresultsfromaruleofgeneralapplicabilityunlessthegovernmentdemonstrates
thatapplicationoftheburdentotheperson(1)isinfurtheranceofacompellinggov
ernmentalinterest;and(2)istheleastrestrictivemeansoffurtheringthatcompelling
governmentalinterest.41
Again,bothKoppelmanandSmithapproveofgovernmentssometimesac
commodatingreligiousbelieversbyexemptingreligiouslybasedconduct.Smith,
however,saysnothingabouthowhethinkstheSupremeCourtshouldrespondifonewho
isnotareligiousbelieverseeksaconscienceprotectingexemptionunderastatutethat,
likeRFRA,grantssuchexemptionsonlytoreligiousbelievers.HowshouldtheCourt
respond?Isthere,allthingsconsidered,amoreappropriatewaytoresponddoesSmith
thinkthatthereisamoreappropriatewaytorespondthanthewaytheCourtresponded
inWelshv.UnitedStates,inwhichonewhowasnotareligiousbelieversought
conscientiousobjectorstatusundertheUniversalMilitaryTrainingandServiceAct,
whichbyitsexplicittermsgrantedconscientiousobjectorstatusonlyto(otherwise
qualifying)religiousbelievers?42IconcurinDouglasLaycocksjudgmentthat
respondingthewaytheCourtrespondedinWelshisoptimal,namely,bybroadeningthe
coverageofthelawatissueratherthanbyinvalidatingthelaw.43Atonepointinhis
discussionofreligiousexemptions,KoppelmanexpressessupportfortheCourts
strategyinWelsh,44inwhich,asKoppelmanexplains,theCourtruledthattheActex
emptedfrommilitaryserviceallthosewhoseconsciences,spurredby
40
MicahSchwartzman,ReligionasaLegalProxy,SanDiegoLawReview51(2014):1100
1101(citationsomitted).SeealsoLynnD.Wardle,ProtectionofHealthCareProvidersRights
ofConscienceinAmericanLaw:Present,Past,andFuture,AveMariaLawReview9,no.1
(2010).
41
42U.S.C.2000bb1(a),(b).AsamendedbytheReligiousLandUseandInstitutionalized
PersonsActof2000(RLUIPA),RFRAcoversanyexerciseofreligion,whetherornot
compelledby,orcentralto,asystemofreligiousbelief.2000cc5(7)(A).AsofDecember
2014,twentystateshaveenactedlawsthataresubstantiallylikeRFRA,exceptthatwhereas
RFRAappliesonlytothefederalgovernment,eachstatelawappliestothegovernmentofthe
statewhoselawitis.Seehttp://rfraperils.com/.
42
AccordingtoDouglasLaycock,respondingthewaytheCourtrespondedinWelshisoptimal:
Laycock,ReligiousLibertyasLiberty,n.#,at33637
43
Laycock,ReligiousLibertyasLiberty,33637.44SeeKoppelmanat161.
REFLECTIONSONKOPPELMANANDSMITH299deeplyheldmoral,ethical,or
religiousbeliefs,wouldgivethemnorestor
peaceiftheyallowedthemselvestobecomeapartofaninstrumentofwar. 45***
IhavefocusedhereontwoofthemostfundamentalcontroversiesconcerningAmerican
religiousfreedom:themeaningofthenonestablishmentnormandtheconstitutionalityof
grantingconscienceprotectingexemptionsonlytoreligiousbelievers.Muchmorein
KoppelmansandSmithslearned,thoughtful,andconstructivelyprovocativebooks
meritscomment.Sufficeittosaythatanyoneinterestedinstateoftheartdiscussionsof
religiousfreedomundertheconstitutionallawoftheUnitedStatesshouldreadboth
booksand,ideally,readthemseriatim,because,asIhaveexplained,thetwobooks
articulatesharplydifferentresponsestothequestion,Whatsortsofgovernmentaction
constitutetheestablishmentofreligion?
45
Welshv.UnitedStates,398U.S.333,344(1970)(pluralityopn),quotedbyKoppelmanat
133.Cf.MarkL.Rienzi,TheCaseforReligiousExemptionsWhetherReligionIsSpecialor
Not,HarvardLawReview127(2014):1409n39(citationsomitted):Thefederalgovernment
hassinceexpresslychangeditsconscientiousobjectorprovisionstoembracebothsecularand
religiousconscienceobjections.
RespondingthewaytheCourtrespondedinWelshwouldhavethegreatvirtueofbringing
RFRAintoalignmentwithArticle18oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,
towhichtheUnitedStateshasbeenapartysince1992.SeePerry,FreedomofConscienceas
ReligiousandMoralFreedom,12633.
CopyrightofReviewofPoliticsisthepropertyofCambridgeUniversity
Pressanditscontentmaynotbecopiedoremailedtomultiplesitesor
postedtoalistservwithoutthecopyrightholder'sexpresswritten
permission.However,usersmayprint,download,oremailarticlesfor
individualuse.
Article 4
Everything You Need

To Know About The
Wave Of 100+ Anti-
LGBT Bills Pending In

States
Nine states are afraid to let transgender people go
to the bathroom.
04/15/2016 04:17 pm ET | Updated Apr 16, 2016
Jennifer BenderyWhite House and Congressional Reporter, The Huffington
Post
Michelangelo Signorile, Editor-at-Large, HuffPost Queer VoicesQueer Voices
Editor-at-Large, The Huffington Post
JOSHUA ROBERTS / REUTERS
There are so many homophobic bills pending in state legislatures right now
its hard to keep up.
WASHINGTON Its been almost a year since the

Supreme Courts historic ruling in favor of same-sex
marriage. And in that time, theres been an ugly
backlash.
A new law in Mississippi lets any person or business
deny services to same-sex couples because of
religious objections. In North Carolina, the governor
signed a law banning cities from passing LGBT antidiscrimination ordinances and barring transgender
people from using bathrooms that match their gender
identity. Tennessee also has a bathroom bill, plus a
bill that lets mental health professionals refuse to
treat LGBT patients.

There are more than 100 active bills like this right
now, across 22 states. They fall into a handful of
categories some are bathroom bills, some let
judges refuse to marry same-sex couples, some let
businesses deny services to LGBT people but they
all have the same goal: legalizing discrimination
against queer people.
While it might seem like this onslaught of legislation
came out of nowhere, religious conservatives have
been working toward this kind of full-blown assault for
years. Theyve been test-driving various anti-LGBT
bills at local levels, anticipating the Supreme
Courts Obergefell decision on marriage equality and
preparing ways to weaken it.
Specific laws like this that seek to target and
marginalize one small segment of the population is
nothing less than mean-spirited, White House press
secretary Josh Earnest said Tuesday. President
Obama has talked on a number of occasions about the
important progress our country has made with regard
to civil rights. This is a good illustration that the fight
for civil rights is not over.
DAVIS TURNER VIA GETTY IMAGES
North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R) rushed through a sweeping anti-LGBT
law in his state. He also pissed off Bruce Springsteen, who canceled a
concert there in protest. Whos The Boss now?
Conservatives have found some success with these

bills, particularly when they can move them under the
radar. When the Arkansas governor rescinded local

LGBT rights ordinances in 2015, for example, it got
next to no media attention. Last month, North
Carolina passed one of the most sweeping anti-LGBT
laws in the nation within 24 hours, moving so quickly
that critics hardly had time to campaign against it.
But some of their efforts have failed spectacularly.
Facing outcry from the business community, Arizona
Gov. Jan Brewer (R) vetoed a bill in 2014 that would
have let businesses cite their religious beliefs to deny
services to LGBT customers. Indiana Gov. Mike Pence
(R) got hammered in the media last year for signing a
law that allowed businesses to discriminate against
LGBT people. He quickly signed an amended version
of the law to scale back its provisions.
Was I expecting this kind of backlash? Heavens no,
Pence said at the time.
Ironically, the business community has played a major
role in stopping anti-LGBT laws allegedly meant to
empower them. Companies based in states with these
bills, and big corporations with hubs in those states,
have warned that these laws are bad for the states
economy and would lead to discrimination lawsuits.
Some have even threatened to take their business
elsewhere if these laws take effect a response that
no governor wants.
AARON P. BERNSTEIN VIA GETTY IMAGES
Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) signed an anti-LGBT religious freedom law
and immediately reversed course after businesses said theyd pull out of the
state over it.
Anti-LGBT activists have a blueprint for how to do this.

At the 2014 Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C.,
they talked about plans for using the same tactics the
anti-abortion movement used, post-Roe vs. Wade, if
the Supreme Court ruled for marriage equality. Frank
Schubert, the strategist behind Californias Proposition
8, and National Organization for Marriage president
Brian Brown described a strategy of incrementally
eroding LGBT rights. Schubert even floated the idea of
modeling his efforts on a partial-birth abortion
campaign, which resonated with the public even if it
was distorted.
That appears to be the tactic they used in Houston
last year, and it worked. The city was weighing an
LGBT anti-discrimination measure, the Houston Equal
Rights Ordinance, and it was expected to pass. The
city itself had a lesbian mayor, and an antidiscrimination ordinance had already been in effect
for three months; the subsequent vote stemmed from
a lawsuit demanding Houston either repeal it or have
residents vote on it.
But religious conservatives overwhelmingly defeated
it, and they did it by running television ads that
demonized transgender women and suggested the
ordinance would allow male sex predators entry into
womens rest rooms.
When HERO went down, conservatives saw a strategy
that worked, and soon bathroom bills began popping
up all over the country. They have since moved on to
test-drive other discriminatory measures.
RICHARD CARSON / REUTERS
Houston even had a lesbian mayor when conservatives tanked the citys
LGBT anti-discrimination ordinance in 2015. They succeeded by running TV
ads that demonized transgender people.
Heres a snapshot of all the anti-LGBT bills currently

active in state legislatures (or at least the bulk of
them, thanks to the exhaustive efforts of the
American Civil Liberties Union). You can see which
ones conservatives think have the best shot of
becoming law, given the spike in those kinds of bills in
different states.
Religious Freedom Restoration Acts
These bills are popping up all over the place.
Ironically, Democrats used to champion this
legislation. The federal RFRA of 1993, co-written by
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), came about after two
members of the Native American Church in Oregon
were fired from their positions as drug counselors for
using peyote during a religious ritual. The law outlines
how, and when, the government can and cannot
infringe on peoples religious practices. The law was
meant as a shield, not a sword, as Nadler likes to
say.
But its been perverted in recent years. Conservatives
are putting forward state-level RFRAs to let people
claim religious liberty as a justification for denying
services to LGBT people. So youve got the
evangelical Christian bakery that refuses to bake a
cake for a same-sex wedding, for example, or the
photographer who refuses to provide services to a gay

couple. In some cases, these bills are written so
broadly that they also allow discrimination against
single mothers, interfaith couples and interracial
couples.
Seven states have active RFRA bills: Colorado (HB
1180), Hawaii (HB 1160), Iowa (HF 2032, HF 2200, SF
2171), Michigan (SB 4), Mississippi (SB 2093, SB
2822), North Carolina (HB 348, SB 550) and Oklahoma
(HB 1371, SB 440, SB 723, SB 898).
Marriage-Related Religious Exemption Laws
There are other kinds of non-RFRA bills that provide a
religiously based exemption regarding same-sex
marriage. Some only apply to religious organizations;
others apply to commercial or government officials.
32. First Amendment Defense Acts These bills, in
essence, allow any person, business or taxpayerfunded organization to ignore any law that conflicts
with their religious beliefs about marriage. Yes, its as
sweeping as it sounds. It not only discriminates
against LGBT people, but can extend to single
mothers and anybody with a sexual relationship
outside of marriage. A state-contracted counselor, for
example, could deny services to a single mom.
Taxpayer-funded adoption agencies could refuse to
place children in the homes of same-sex married
couples. Government employees could decline to file
official forms for gay couples (remember Kim Davis?).
Three states have active FADA bills: Hawaii (SB
2164), Illinois (SB 2164) and Oklahoma (SB 440).
34. Pastor Protection Acts These let churches refuse
to perform marriages that conflict with their religious
beliefs. The First Amendment already covers this right,

but sometimes lawmakers like to pass bills just to
send a message. So, we have Pastor Protection
Acts. Fourteen states have active PPA bills: Arkansas
(HB 236, SB 120), Colorado (HB 1123), Kentucky (HB
17, HB 28), Louisiana (HB 597), Maryland (HB 16),
Michigan (HB 4732, HB 4855, HB 4858), Minnesota (SF
2158), Missouri (HJR 97, SJR 39, HB 2000, HB 2040, HB
2730), Mississippi (HB 587, HB 737), New Jersey (AB
1706), Ohio (HB 286), Oklahoma (HB 1371, SB 811),
South Carolina (H 4446, H 4508) and Tennessee (HB
2375, SB 2329).
56. Government-officials-using-your-taxpayerfunds-against-you bills Some bills let judges and
clerks refuse to perform same-sex marriages or issue
marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. Four
states have active bills like this: Kentucky (HB 17, HB
14), Minnesota (SF 2158), Mississippi (HB 586, HB
1342) and South Carolina (SB 116).
48. No-wedding-cake-for-non-straight-non-whiteheathens bills These allow businesses to refuse to
provide goods or services related to marriages that
conflict with their religious beliefs. That could mean a
frame shop refusing to sell pictures frames that are
going to be used for a same-sex wedding, an
interracial marriage or an interfaith marriage. Four
states have active bills like this: Kentucky (SB 180),
Minnesota (SF 2158), Missouri (HJR 97, SJR 39) and
Ohio (HB 296).
52. Other marriage exemption bills These bills
provide yet other kinds of religious exemptions
relating to same-sex marriage. Five states have
active bills in this category: Kentucky (HB 31),

Michigan (HB 4733), Missouri (HB 2754), Oklahoma
(HB 1125, HB 1599, SB 478, HJR 1059, SB 973) and
South Carolina (H 3022, H 3150, H 4513).
Bathroom Bills
This legislation bans transgender people from using
public bathrooms that match their gender identity,
and even criminalizes it. Nine states have active bills
relating to this: Illinois (HB 4474), Kansas (SB 513, HB
2737), Kentucky (HB 364), Minnesota (HF 3395, HF
3396, SF 3002), Missouri (HB 1624, SB 720),
Mississippi (HB 1258), Oklahoma (HB 2215, HB 3049,
SB 1014), South Carolina (SC 1203) and Tennessee
(HB 2414, SB 2387, HB 2600, SB 2275).
God-Doesnt-Want-Gay-People-To-Raise-Kids
Bills
These let adoption and foster care agencies refuse to
provide any services that conflict with their religious
beliefs about marriage, such as same-sex couples.
This is regardless of what is in the best interests of a
child. Three states have pending bills like this:
Alabama (HB 158, SB 204), Nebraska (LB 975) and
Oklahoma (HJR 1059, HB 2428).
Other Generally Terrible Anti-LGBT Bills
It turns out there are too many categories for all the
bills out there, but theres a few more of note: Two
states have bills (AB 1212 in California; SB 210 in
South Carolina) that require public universities to
provide funds for student organizations, regardless of
whether the organization discriminates against LGBT
people based on religious beliefs. Three states have
bills (HB 325 in Arkansas; HJR 1059 in Oklahoma; and
Tennessees HB 566, SB 397, HB 1840 and SB 1556)

that let health professionals deny services to LGBT
people by citing religious objections. And theres one
bill in Oklahoma (SB 1289) that prevents local
governments from passing nondiscrimination
protections, including LGBT protections, that go
further than protections at the state level. North
Carolinas recent anti-LGBT law does this.
Article 5
The Boundary Between Church and State
Second Annual Sacramento Court/Clergy Conference
Sacramento, California
October 20, 2015

Elder Dallin H. Oaks
I appreciate the invitation to speak to this distinguished audience of

religious leaders, judges, and lawyers.
I.
My purpose is to advance this conferences objective to be a forum
for mutual support, understanding, edification and collaboration
between the judiciary and regional communities of faith. I will,
therefore, refrain from advocating my strongly held views on various
issues affecting religious freedom. Instead, I will focus my remarks on
two of your objectives: mutual understanding and edification.
I enjoyed reading the Sacramento Lawyers report of the prior

court-clergy conference. I was easily persuaded by Presiding Justice
Vance W. Rayes description of the importance of judges understanding
the role that religion plays in the lives of the American people, the
importance of valueswhether religious or secularin shaping
behavior, and the fact that churchesas institutionsoffer an amazing
panoply of resources to help people involved in the judicial system. [1] I
will speak later of my appreciation for the remarks of Father Rodney
Davis, retired appellate court justice, who spoke of how deeply held
religious beliefs of judges and litigants impact ones experience with the
judicial system. [2]
While I was unable to attend this mornings welcome addresses,

presentations, and breakout sessions, I hope that my remarks will
further your discourse on our important concerns.
II.
I begin by speaking of the inevitable relationship between two
different realms: the laws and institutions of government on the one
hand and the principles (or laws) and institutions of religion on the
other. (By religion I refer to churches, synagogues, mosques, and
others and to their adherents and affiliated organizations.) I will suggest
how these inevitable relationships should affect the behavior of
believers and nonbelievers toward one another and toward the two
different sets of laws to which all must relate in one way or another.
My thesis is that we all want to live together in happiness, harmony,

and peace. To achieve that common goal, and for all contending parties
to achieve their most important personal goals, we must learn and
practice mutual respect for others whose beliefs, values, and behaviors
differ from our own. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes observed, the
Constitution is made for people of fundamentally differing views. [3]
Differences on precious fundamentals are with us forever. We must

not let them disable our democracy or cripple our society. This does not
anticipate that we will deny or abandon our differences but that we will
learn to live with those laws, institutions, and persons who do not share
them. We may have cultural differences, but we should not have
culture wars.
There should be no adversariness between believers and

nonbelievers, and there should be no belligerence between religion
and government. These two realms should have a mutually supportive
relationship. In that relationship governments and their laws can
provide the essential protections for believers and religious
organizations and their activities. Believers and religious organizations
should recognize this and refrain from labeling governments and laws
and officials as if they were inevitable enemies. On the other hand,
those skeptical of or hostile to believers and their organizations should
recognize the realityborne out by experiencethat religious
principles and teachings and their organizations are here to stay [4] and
can help create the conditions in which public laws and government
institutions and their citizens can flourish.
That perceptive observer of America, Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote

that what sustained the unique American democracy were the
voluntary associations like churchestoday often called mediating
institutionsthat lead citizens to choose to obey laws that
governments cannot enforce. [5] Even today, our society is not held
together primarily by law and its enforcement but most importantly by
those who voluntarily obey the unenforceable because of their
internalized norms of righteous or correct behavior. Some call this civic
virtue. It has various sources, but all should recognize the vital
contribution of religion because religious belief in right and wrong by a
large number of citizens is fundamental to producing this essential
voluntary compliance.
Of course there will be differences that must be resolved by the

rule of law. But these occasional differences must not obscure the basic
fact that we are in this together, we need each other, and we can
resolve our differences through mutual respect, mutual understanding,
and the collaboration you advocate as the purpose of this gathering.
When I first studied this subject in law school about 60 years ago,
the popular metaphor of the relationship between church and state
was that of a wall of separation. Introduced into Supreme Court
jurisprudence in the 1879 case Reynolds v. United States [6] and
brought into mainstream vernacular in its 1947 Everson case, [7] this
metaphor dominated discussions of the day. [8] It even found its way
into the title of a book I edited in 1963. [9] That book is long out of
print, but the unfortunate connotations of the wall of separation
metaphor persist to the present day. Those connotations inhibit the
desirable collaboration that brings us together in this conference.
I reject the idea of a wall between church and state. The more
appropriate metaphor to express that relationreinforced by various
decisions of the United States Supreme Courtis a curtain that defines
boundaries but is not a barrier to the passage of light and love and
mutual support from one side to another.
III.
I have viewed the boundary between church and state from both
sides. I viewed it from the state side as a law clerk to Chief Justice Earl
Warren of the United States Supreme Court, as a prosecutor in the
state courts in Illinois, and still later as a justice on the Utah Supreme
Court. From the church side, I have been a lifelong believer, teacher,
counselor, and leader in my denomination. For me, questions about the
relationship between government and religion are not academic, any
more than the fate of Christian martyrs or the events of the Holocaust
are academic to persons associated with them. My great-grandfather
Harristhrough whom I have my middle nameserved time in the
Utah territorial prison for violation of a federal law intended to punish
him for acting on his religious belief. Before that, my wifes great-greatgrandfather Hyrum Smith was murdered in Illinois by an anti-Mormon
mob.
Rejecting a wall of separation between church and state but

affirming the need for a boundary, I will discuss that boundary and
invite you to walk that center path with me.
I begin by suggesting a few general principles.
First, parties with different views on the relationship between

church and state should advocate and act with civility. In this country
we have a history of tolerant diversitynot perfect but mostly effective
at allowing persons with competing visions to live together in peace. We
all want effective ways to resolve differences without anger and with
mutual understanding and accommodation. We all lose when an

atmosphere of anger or hostility or contention prevails. We all lose
when we cannot debate public policies without resorting to boycotts,
firings, and intimidation of our adversaries.
Second, on the big issues that divide adversaries on these issues,

both sides should seek a balance, not a total victory. For example,
religionists should not seek a veto over all nondiscrimination laws that
offend their religion, and the proponents of nondiscrimination should
not seek a veto over all assertions of religious freedom. Both sides in
big controversies like this should seek to understand the others
position and seek practical accommodations that provide fairness for
all and total dominance for neither. For example, an influential article
by Martha Minow of the Harvard Law School concludes that
accommodation and negotiation can identify practical solutions where
abstract principles sometimes cannot. [10] She observes that this
approach is highly relevant to sustaining and replenishing both
American pluralism and constitutional protections for minority groups.
[11] Thus, in a head-on conflict over individual free exercise and
enforced nondiscrimination in housing and employment, for example,
the Utah Legislature crafted a compromise position under the banner
of fairness for all. It gave neither position all that it sought but granted
both positions benefits that probably could not have been obtained
without the kind of balancing that is possible in the lawmaking branch
but not in the judiciary.
Third, it will help if we are not led or unduly influenced by the
extreme voices that are heard from contending positions. Extreme

voices polarize and create resentment and fear by emphasizing what is
nonnegotiable and by suggesting that the desired outcome is to disable
the adversary and achieve absolute victory. Such outcomes are rarely
attainable and never preferable to living together in mutual
understanding and peace.
The Supreme Court bowed toward this principle in its majority

opinion in Obergefell, the 5-4 case establishing a federal constitutional
right to same-sex marriage. It implicitly rejected several argued bases
for its decision, such as alleged animus in traditional marriage laws and
the need for establishing a new suspect class for laws affecting those
with same-gender attraction. Either of those bases for the decision
would have complicated the kind of accommodation I advocate here.
Just as important, the majority opinion also included some teachings
that are particularly welcome to those who argued the losing position.
Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy acknowledged the
reasonableness of the religious and philosophical premises of those
who argue that marriage should be limited to a man and a woman and
assured that the First Amendment will protect religious organizations
and persons who continue to teach them.
IV.
In addition to these general principles, I have some suggestions for
each contender in current struggles over the proper boundary between
the different realms of church and state. I believe these suggestions
advance the mutual understanding and collaboration we seek in this
conference.
A.
I speak first to my fellow believersthose advocating the maximum
free exercise of religion. I begin with the reminder that for believers
there are two different systems of law: divine and civil. While all
believers revere divine law, most also acknowledge that civil law is also
ordained of God. The Lord Jesus Christ directed, Render therefore unto
Caesar the things which are Caesars; and unto God the things that are
Gods (Matthew 22:21). So taught, we must, to the extent possible,
obey both systems of law. When there are apparent conflicts, we must
seek to harmonize them. When they are truly irreconcilable, we should
join with others of like mind in striving to change the civil law to
accommodate the divine. In all events, we must be very measured
before ever decidingin the rarest of circumstancesto disregard one
in favor of the other.
In that context, I say to my fellow believers that we should not

assert the free exercise of religion to override every law and
government action that could possibly be interpreted to infringe on
institutional or personal religious freedom. As I have often said, the free
exercise of religion obviously involves both the right to choose religious
beliefs and affiliations and the right to exercise or practice those
beliefs. But in a nation with citizens of many different religious beliefs,
the right of some to act upon their religious principles must be
circumscribed by the governments responsibility to protect the health
and safety of all. Otherwise, for example, the government could not
protect its citizens person or property from neighbors whose

intentions include taking human life or stealing in circumstances
purportedly rationalized by their religious beliefs.
Religious persons will often be most persuasive in political

discourse by framing arguments and explaining the value of their
positions in terms understandable to those who do not share their
religious beliefs. All sides should seek to contribute to the reasoned
discussion and compromise that are essential in a pluralistic society.
And none should adopt an us vs. them mentality.
Believers should also acknowledge the validity of constitutional

laws. Even where they have challenged laws or practices on
constitutional grounds, once those laws or practices have been
sustained by the highest available authority, believers should
acknowledge their validity and submit to them. It is better to try to live
with an unjust law than to contribute to the anarchy that a young
lawyer named Abraham Lincoln anticipated when he declared, There is
no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law. [12]
Clear cases for the application of this principle are the public
officials in the executive or judicial branch who enforce and interpret
the laws. All such officials take an oath to support the constitution and
laws of their jurisdiction. That oath does not leave them free to use
their official position to further their personal beliefsreligious or
otherwiseto override the law. Office holders remain free to draw
upon their personal beliefs and motivations and advocate their

positions in the public square. But when acting as public officials they
are not free to apply personal convictionsreligious or otherin place
of the defined responsibilities of their public offices. All government
officers should exercise their civil authority according to the principles
and within the limits of civil government. A county clerks recent
invoking of religious reasons to justify refusal by her office and staff to
issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples violates this principle.
Far more significant violations of the rule of law and democratic selfgovernment occur when governors or attorneys general refuse to
enforce or defend a law they oppose on personal groundssecular or
religious. Constitutional duties, including respect for the vital principle
of separation of powers, are fundamental to the rule of law.
Government officials must not apply these duties selectively according
to their personal preferenceswhatever their source.
This insistence that the constitutional and legal duties of the office
override the religious or other moral scruples of the office holder
implies no compulsion on the office holders conscience. The operation
of the government can continue when attorneys or other
administrators delegate the performance of their duties and when
judges disqualify themselves. Government operations can
accommodate the conscience of individual officials, but neither the
government nor its citizens should tolerate veto of a law (either its text
or its operation) by officials not formally authorized to do so.
After I wrote those words to share here, I was pleased to read a
similar position being advocated by Judge William H. Pryor Jr. of the

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In a notable
article in the Yale Law and Policy Review nine years ago, he wrote:
There is a limit to the relevance of religion in the performance

of my judicial duty. That limit is defined by the very nature of my judicial
authority. Properly understood, the exercise of my authority as a
federal judge is governed by the law alone.
As a judge, I am not given the authority to use a personal moral
perspective to update or alter the text of our Constitution and laws. The
business of using moral judgment to change the law is reserved to the
political branches, which is why the officers of those branches are
regularly elected by the people.
For centuries, members of Congress have supported a variety
of new laws on [moral bases, informed by religion,] whether to abolish
slavery, withdraw troops from foreign wars, abolish child labor,
guarantee civil rights, provide assistance to the poor and sick, protect
marriage, or prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors. The changing of
laws enacted by political authorities is not a judges task; the duty of a
judge is the application of those laws in controversies within the
jurisdiction of the courts. [13]
Here I wish to record my agreement with former appellate justice

Father Rodney Daviss wise observation that we should forthrightly
face up to how [religious judges] deeply held religious perspectives
impact their decision-making. [14] Father Davis observes persuasively
that in discretionary decision-making, like sentencing and custody

arrangements, judges bring their life experiences to the process and
with it the perspectives, religious and otherwise, that are part of that
experience. [15] He reminds us of the inescapable fact that a judges
religious perspective influences how he or she sizes up and measures
the complicated conduct and motivations presented and how, if given
some level of discretion, he or she reacts to them. [16]
How can it be otherwise? Surely a constitution that grants unique

guarantees to the free exercise of religion cannot deny religious
judges the application of their religious experiences while inevitably
granting other judges the application of their secular experiences.
Of course it is different, as Father Rodney Davis observes, when a

judge is required to enforce a rule or standard or apply the analytical
skill-set needed to find and follow an analogous case. [17] Thus, in
their role to interpret or apply legal rules, judges must apply the same
standards of decision, whether believers or not.
B.
I have been speaking to those for whom religious faithto one
degree or anotheris the key to their human dignity. In recent years
our society has increased its recognition that many look on race and
gender, including sexual orientation, as a basis of their human dignity.
As these other bases have been accommodated in the law, some have
placed freedom from discrimination on these grounds above the
constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion. [18] The collision of

these two values is the cause of many of the so-called cultural wars.
These conflicts inevitably undermine the kinds of mutual support and
collaboration of the judiciary and communities of faith that we are
seeking in this conference.
C.
Having given some advice to the religious side, I also have some
suggestions for those who have other keys to or nonreligious values for
their human dignity.
First, please respect the laws that provide unique protections for
believers and religious institutions, and please accept the fact that this
grants religion an honorable place in our public life. Most notable is the
uniquely positioned First Amendment in the Bill of Rights, which singles
out the free exercise of religion for special protection, along with free
speech, free press, and freedom of assembly. This favored
constitutional status that a unanimous United States Supreme Court
recently described in part as special solicitude to the rights of religious
organizations [19] should be acknowledged in all controversies over
the meaning of free exercise and how to balance it against contrary
cultural preferences.
Surely this unique constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of

religion was intended to grant unique protections to those acting in
accordance with religious belief. This was intended in our nations
founding. As Professor Michael McConnell has observed, when the First

Amendment was drafted, several formulations were considered, the
two final ones being the protection of rights of conscience or the free
exercise of religion. [20] The ultimate choice of the words free
exercise of religion in lieu of rights of conscience, is, as Professor
McConnell notes, of utmost importance. [21] First, it made clear that
the First Amendment protected more than just belief. It protected
action in accordance with belief. [22] Second, while conscience
emphasizes individual judgment, religion also encompasses the
institutional aspects of religious beliefs. [23] Finally, the framers
preference for free exercise of religion over rights of conscience
means that religiously based scruples are given more solicitude than
non-religiously based ones. As the framers thoughtfully reasoned, The
free exercise clause accords a special, protected status to religious
conscience not because religious judgments are better, truer, or more
likely to be moral than nonreligious judgments, but because the
obligations entailed by religion transcend the individual and are outside
the individuals control. [24]
Treating actions based on religious belief the same as actions based

on other systems of belief is, therefore, not enough to satisfy the
special place of religion in the United States Constitution.
Understanding this reality is important to advancing this conferences
purposes to further mutual understanding, edification, and
collaboration.
Second, we must take notice of current theories asserting that
religious speech is more dangerous and therefore less deserving of

protection than other types of speech. Without detailing the obvious, I
merely maintain that the constitutional freedom of religion is intended
to be guaranteedand is guaranteednot only by the First
Amendments free exercise clause, but is also protected by the
companion guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of
assembly. The United States Supreme Court reaffirmed that principle in
a near-unanimous 1981 case, declaring that religious worship and
discussion are forms of speech and association protected by the First
Amendment. [25] Thus, these great guarantees are cumulative,
strengthening and building upon one another.
Of course there are extremist and even terrorist groups that

attempt to use religious beliefs to justify illegal incitements or violent or
destructive actions. Those excesses can and should be rejected by our
understanding of the limits on any constitutional right. Similarly, we all
understand the common-sense principle that the prospect of abuse of
a constitutional right must not be used to veto that right. We resist that
tendency for speech and press, and we must also resist it for religion.
For the reasons just stated, the extreme adversaries of churches

should refrain from violating or ignoring the fundamental freedoms of
speech and assembly that are also enjoyed by religious persons or
institutions. Why do I say this? There are strong movements in our
country to crowd religious voices, values, and motivations from the
public square. [26] One way this is done is to shout down such
arguments as irrational or reflective of hatred or bigotry, thus
forestalling consideration of the very real secular as well as religious

reasons supporting their positions. Even less extreme forms, like the
principled toleration argument advocated by some mainstream
academics, [27] subvert common understanding and have a chilling
effect on speech and public debate on many important issues. This
jeopardizes not only the freedom of religious exercise but also the
associated freedoms of speech, press, and assembly.
Since such efforts have surfaced on the campuses of various

colleges and universities, [28] I cannot refrain from referring to the
widely publicized policy on free expression in the academy put forth by
my alma mater, the University of Chicago. [29] I am also heartened by
President Barack Obamas recently declared support for free speech on
the campus [30] and for broader respect for religion in speech. [31]
Such expressions are encouraging examples of recent reaffirmation

of the vitality of freedom of speech on religious subjects and for
religious leaders. As my time is up, I will not cite further examples but
only affirm the basic principle that religious leaders and religiously
motivated persons should have at least the same privileges of speech
and participation as any other persons or leaders when they enter the
public square to participate in public policy debates.
On this occasion I conclude by urging upon those attending this

conference the importance of remembering the vital constitutional
rights of free exercise of religion and free speech and assembly when
considering controversies involving religion and religious expression.

That perspective is vital to advancing our desired collaboration between
the judiciary and religious institutions.
[1] Hon. Rodney Davis, Religions Place in Judicial Decision Making,

Sacramento Lawyer, May-June 2015 at 16, available at
http://issuu.com/milenkovlais/docs/final_saclaw_may_june_2015_web.
[2] Id., at 18.
[3] Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 76 (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting).
[4] See Mary Beth McCauley, Why Religion Still Matters, The Christian
Science Monitor Weekly, October 12, 2015, p. 26.
[5] Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 489-92 (Mansfield &
Winthrop eds. & trans., University of Chicago Press, 2000) (1835).
[6] 98 U.S. 145 (1879).
[7] Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).
[8] E.g., see Paul M. Butler & Alfred L. Scanlan, Wall of Separation
Judicial Gloss on the First Amendment, 37 Notre Dame L. Rev 288
(1962).
[9] The Wall Between Church and State (Oaks, ed., The Univ. of Chicago
Press, 1963).
[10] Martha Minow, Should Religious Groups Be Exempt from Civil

Rights Laws?, 48 B.C.L. Rev. 781, 849 (2007)
[11] Id., at 783.
[12] Abraham Lincoln, Address Before the Young Men's Lyceum of
Springfield, Illinois (Jan. 27, 1838), reprinted in Collected Works of
Abraham Lincoln 113 (Roy P. Basler ed. 1953) available at
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln1/1:130.1?
rgn=div2;view=fulltext.
[13] William H. Pryor, Jr., The Religious Faith and Judicial Duty of an
American Catholic Judge, Yale Law & Policy Review, Vol. 24:347, 2006,
355, 357-58.
[14] Hon. Rodney Davis, note 1, supra at 20.
[15] Id. at 21.
[16] Id.
[17] Id.
[18] See, e.g., Chai Feldblum, Moral Conflict and Liberty: Gay Rights and
Religion, 72 Brook. L. Rev. 61, 115 (2006).
[19] Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C.,
565 U.S._, 132 S. Ct. 694, 706 (2012).
[20] Michael W. McConnell, The Origins and Historical Understanding of
Free Exercise of Religion, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1409, 1488 (1990).
[21] Id. at 1489.
[22] Id.
[23] Id. at 1490.

[24] Id. at 1497.
[25] Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 269 (1981).
[26] See, e.g., Ronald A. Lindsay, Religion Has No Place in Government,
24 Secular Humanist Bulletin, No. 4 (Winter 2008/2009).
[27] See Brian Leiter, Why Tolerate Religion? (Princeton Univ. Press
2013).
[28] See, e.g., Timothy Larsen, No Christianity Please, Were
Academics, Inside Higher Ed., July 30, 2010,
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2010/07/03/larsen.
[29] See Geoffrey R. Stone et al, Report of the Committee on Freedom
of Expression, The University of Chicago Magazine, July-Aug. 2015, pp.
26-27.
[30] See Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, President
Obama: College Students Shouldnt be Coddled and Protected from
Different Points of View, FIRE, Sep. 15, 2015.
[31] See, e.g., Ashley Alman, Obama Calls For Balancing Free Speech
With Respect For Religion, Huffington Post, Feb. 5, 2015,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/05/obama-religiousfreedom_n_6622006.html.
Works Cited
Bendery, Jennifer, and Michelangelo Signorile. "Everything You Need To Know About The
Wave Of 100 Anti-LGBT Bills Pending In States." Huffington Post. Huffington Post, 16
Apr. 2016. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.
Fox, Jonathan. "Religious Freedom In Theory And Practice." Human Rights Review 16.1 (2015):
1-22. Academic Search Premier. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.
Hollan, Carl. "A Broken System: Failures of The Religious Regulatory System in The People's
Republic of China." Brigham Young University Law Review 2014.3 (2015): 733-773.
Business Source Premier. Web. 23 March 2016.
Oaks, Dallin H. "The Boundary Between Church and State." Mormon Newsroom. Web. 29 Apr.
2016.
Perry, Michael J. "American Religious Freedom." Review Of Politics 77.2 (2015): 287.
MasterFILE Complete. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.

Final Exploratory Research Paper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Exploratory Research Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Religious Freedom in America

This article was valuable to my research because it analyzed a contemporary

I came to understand better the responsibilities of the different branches of

influentialfactorsincivilwars, rebellions, corrupt

principles, thespreadofforeigninfluence, andthedeclineofChinese

Everything You Need

LGBT Bills Pending In

JOSHUA ROBERTS / REUTERS

WASHINGTON Its been almost a year since the

treat LGBT patients.

DAVIS TURNER VIA GETTY IMAGES

Conservatives have found some success with these

radar. When the Arkansas governor rescinded local

AARON P. BERNSTEIN VIA GETTY IMAGES

state over it.

Anti-LGBT activists have a blueprint for how to do this.

RICHARD CARSON / REUTERS

Heres a snapshot of all the anti-LGBT bills currently

photographer who refuses to provide services to a gay

beliefs. The First Amendment already covers this right,

active bills in this category: Kentucky (HB 31),

Tennessees HB 566, SB 397, HB 1840 and SB 1556)

October 20, 2015

I appreciate the invitation to speak to this distinguished audience of

I enjoyed reading the Sacramento Lawyers report of the prior

While I was unable to attend this mornings welcome addresses,

My thesis is that we all want to live together in happiness, harmony,

Differences on precious fundamentals are with us forever. We must

There should be no adversariness between believers and

That perceptive observer of America, Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote

Of course there will be differences that must be resolved by the

Rejecting a wall of separation between church and state but

I begin by suggesting a few general principles.

First, parties with different views on the relationship between

mutual understanding and accommodation. We all lose when an

Second, on the big issues that divide adversaries on these issues,

Third, it will help if we are not led or unduly influenced by the

extreme voices that are heard from contending positions. Extreme

The Supreme Court bowed toward this principle in its majority

In that context, I say to my fellow believers that we should not

protect its citizens person or property from neighbors whose

Religious persons will often be most persuasive in political

Believers should also acknowledge the validity of constitutional

upon their personal beliefs and motivations and advocate their

After I wrote those words to share here, I was pleased to read a

similar position being advocated by Judge William H. Pryor Jr. of the

There is a limit to the relevance of religion in the performance

Here I wish to record my agreement with former appellate justice

that in discretionary decision-making, like sentencing and custody

How can it be otherwise? Surely a constitution that grants unique

Of course it is different, as Father Rodney Davis observes, when a

constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion. [18] The collision of

Surely this unique constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of

founding. As Professor Michael McConnell has observed, when the First

Treating actions based on religious belief the same as actions based

Second, we must take notice of current theories asserting that

religious speech is more dangerous and therefore less deserving of

Of course there are extremist and even terrorist groups that

For the reasons just stated, the extreme adversaries of churches

forestalling consideration of the very real secular as well as religious

Since such efforts have surfaced on the campuses of various

Such expressions are encouraging examples of recent reaffirmation