What are some countries today that dont have religious freedom? Why is freedom of religion important?

Question

What is the history of freedom of religion in the u.s?

Answer 1

Antarepo has given the best, and most exhaustive answer although I have to dissagree with him on one or two parts.

Certainly with Cambodia -- Buddhism is the state religion, but around 11-13% of the population are CHAMS who are a Muslim group with their own form of Islam. Unfortunately this is changing with the influences of Saudi Arabia. The Chams have a large say in the government compared with their population

Answer 2

In Saudi Arabia, all citizens are required to be Muslims, and the public practice of other religions is forbidden. Private practice of other religions is sometimes allowed and sometimes persecuted; there is no law protecting even this.
Iran is officially a Twelver Shiite state. Some other religions (Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism) are permitted, but are not allowed to proselytize; and they are sometimes persecuted even if they don't. The Bahai faith is not allowed at all. Sunni Muslims are subject to some restrictions also.
In China, all religious organizations have to be authorized by the government. This has given rise to conflict when the government appoints religious leaders different from what the religion itself chooses. There are state-appointed Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, Taoist, and Muslim leaders. These are not always approved by the religious organizations outside of China. Those who practice religion outside these state-approved organizations are subject to severe persecution.
In Turkey, since the secularization by Ataturk in the early 20th century, the government permits all religions but keeps them all under close surveillance. Special religious clothing (the veil, the fez) is not permitted to be worn in public. Turkey is predominantly Muslim, and there is some prejudice against other religions.
In North Korea, virtually no religious practice is allowed except a limited amount by foreigners. Worship is considered a political offense.
Cuba was for years officially atheist, and religious practice was seriously discouraged, with some persecution. But now religious people are even allowed to join the Communist Party. The government is secular rather than atheist, and religious practice is pretty much free.
These are a few varied examples of governments which have restricted religious practice. In our time, the States that restrict religious freedom are mostly Muslim or Atheist.
I can't think of any other belief system that does this in modern times.
Religion is the source of meaning and values for many people, and restricting it restricts the growth of the human soul. In countries where a religion is imposed, it loses some of its growth potential. In countries where religion is not restricted or mandated by the government, it flourishes and leads to better values and ways of life.

Answer 3

Iran doesn't have religious freedom. Without religious freedom, someone can tell you what you must think. Many of the settlers of the original colonies here left England because they didn't have religious freedom. The history of religious freedom here started when the first settlers got off the boat and said, "No ones telling us what religion we must be".

Answer 4

I can't answer the first part to your question but as to the second part. I don't know what religion you are, but whatever you are, would you like to be told you can't follow it? Freedom of choice is one of the most important things in life. And at this time of year, we have to remember and be grateful to so many who gave their lives so that we have that freedom.

Answer 5

As a determine, faith helps to show little ones "the golden rule". while little ones think of that there is something extra effective than mom and pa accessible, likelihood is the phobia of a God will help them make nicely suited judgements whilst they're youthful and could optimistically accomplish that while grown up.

Answer 6

WELL ITS OBVIOUS, THAT IN THE FAR EAST, THEY MUST, WORSHIP BHUDA!!! AND IN EUROPE, iTALY MUST WORSHIP THE POPE, AND IN THE U.S.A. WE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO HEAR ABOUT THE MUSLUM'S WANTING TO TAKE OVER, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO FREEDOM TO WORSHIP AS WE WISH. THE U.S.A. WAS SET UP AS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, AND IT NEEDS TO STAY THAT WAY. NO MATTER WHAT!!!!!!!! RE4MEMBER THE PILGRIMS CAME OVER HERE TO ESCAPE KING GEORGE, AND HIS TAXES. AND SET THIS COUNTRY UP, AS ONE NATION UNDER GOD.WE HAVE FREEDOM TO ROAM, FREEDOM OF RELIGION, AND FREEDOM OF SPEACH, BUT IT GOING AWAY REAL FAST,

Answer 7

china, north korea.

Answer 8

Afghanistan
Main article: Status of religious freedom in Afghanistan
The current government of Afghanistan has only been in place since 2002, following a U.S.-led invasion which displaced the former Taliban government. The Constitution of Afghanistan is dated January 23, 2004, and its initial three articles mandate:

Afghanistan shall be an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary, and indivisible state.
The sacred religion of Islam shall be the religion of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Followers of other faiths shall be free within the bounds of law in the exercise and performance of their religious rights.
No law shall contravene the tenets and provisions of the holy religion of Islam in Afghanistan.

Argentina
Article 2 of the Constitution of Argentina reads: The Federal Government supports the Roman Catholic Apostolic religion. Article 14 guarantees all the inhabitants of the Nation the right to profess freely their religion.[1]


Austria
Austria guarantees freedom of religion through various constitutional provisions and through membership in various international agreements. In Austria, these instruments are deemed to allow any religious group to worship freely in public and in private, to proselytize, and to prohibit discrimination against individuals because of their religious allegiances or beliefs. However, part of the Austrian constitutional framework is a system of cooperation between the government and recognized religious communities. The latter are granted preferential status by being entitled to benefits such as a tax-exempt status and public funding of religious education.[2]p.7

Currently, Austria recognizes twelve religions. In addition to various Christian denominations, these include Judaism, Buddhism, and Islam. To date, Austria has not granted full recognition to several newer and allegedly controversial religions such as the Church of Scientology and Jehovah's Witnesses. Some newer religious groups, however, have applied under the 1998 Act and thereby attained the preliminary status of communities of believers.[2]p.7


Australia
Since the founding of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901, religious freedom has been guaranteed and state religion has been outlawed. Section 116 of the Australian Constitution says:

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.[3]
Some Australian judges have gone so far as to say that the government cannot support religious schools, even if done in a non-discriminatory way.[4] The High Court of Australia, however, has consistently allowed funding of religious schools. State aid for non-Government schools became an issue in 1962 and was a major campaign issue in the 1963 federal election, following which federal and State Government funds have supported non-Government schools.

The issue of separation between religion and state is generally less contentious than in the United States. The Australian Parliament still holds prayers at the start of each sitting day and has since federation. Attendance at the prayer services is optional but many Members of Parliament do attend.


Cambodia
Article 43 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Cambodia reads: Khmer citizens of either sex shall have the right to freedom of belief. Freedom of religious belief and worship shall be guaranteed by the State on the condition that such freedom does not affect other religious beliefs or violate public order and security. Buddhism shall be the State religion.[5]


Canada
Main article: Status of religious freedom in Canada
Religious freedom in Canada is a constitutionally protected right, allowing believers the freedom to assemble and worship without limitation or interference.

There is no established church, however religious groups can qualify for tax-exemption. The amount of funding religious schools receive varies from province to province. In many provinces religious schools are government funded in the same way other independent schools are. In most parts of Canada there is a Catholic education system alongside the secular "public" education system. They are run on Catholic principles and include religious activities and instruction as a matter of course. They are not exclusively attended by practicing Catholics.

Again, like most countries, the specific form of separation unique to the US does not apply here. There is no restriction on government funding of "faith-based" activities. Religious activity in schools is not excluded constitutionally (though in public schools it is usually not undertaken). Some Canadian public schools have the students recite the Lord's Prayer daily, some schools do not recite it.[citation needed]

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is entrenched in the Constitution, states in the preamble that Canada "is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law."[6] Freedom of religion as also guaranteed. The Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] (1 S.C.R. 295) ruled that a 1906 statute that required most places to be closed on Sunday did not have a legitimate purpose in a "free and democratic society," and was an unconstitutional attempt to establish a religious-based closing law (see Blue law.)


China
Main article: Status of religious freedom in People's Republic of China
The Constitution of the People's Republic of China provides for freedom of religious belief; however, the Government restricts religious practice to government-sanctioned organizations and registered places of worship and to control the growth and scope of the activity of religious groups.


Denmark
Denmark has freedom of worship, however the Church of Denmark does hold certain privileges. According to Section 4 in the Constitution of Denmark: "The Evangelical Lutheran Church shall be the Established Church of Denmark, and, as such, it shall be supported by the State."

Egypt
Despite the fact that Egypt is a predominantly Islamic population, the prevailing belief is that the Coptic Orthodox Church is the unofficial state church of Egypt. It is not noted in the Constitution of Egypt (which is currently in use) what is the official State Church because Egypt is currently an Arab Republic that recognizes Islam as the State Religion, but most inhabitants of Egypt accept the Coptic Orthodox Church as the unofficial State Church mainly due to the fact that it incorporates Egypt's largest Christian population, which makes up approximately 10% of Egypt's total population.[7] The separation of the state's influence on religion and vice versa is often undetermined; many rights groups have claimed that some laws passed by the State are heavily influenced by the State Religion, and sometimes aims at particular minorities in Egypt. The Coptic Orthodox Church is in fairly good relations with the State. This was seen when the State officially declared January 7, the Coptic Orthodox Christmas, as an official holiday in Egypt. However, some laws (e.g., the 19th century Hamayouni Decree, which requires the President of Egypt must approve any permits to build or repair any church in Egypt) still aim at persecuting the Coptic Orthodox Church.[8]

Other churches exist in Egypt, such as the Coptic Catholic Church as well as some Protestant denominations. However, their population composes a very small portion of Egypt's population.


Finland
As the national churches of Finland, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and the Finnish Orthodox Church have a status protected by law. The special legal position of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland is also codified in the constitution of Finland. Both churches have the right to levy an income tax on their members and every Finnish company as a part of Corporation Tax. The tax is collected by the state. The administration of the national churches is regulated by their respective church laws, which are drafted by the churches and enacted or rejected by the parliament. State universities, religiously non-aligned in themselves, provide the theological education that is required from those to be ordained as clergy of the national churches. The general direction has been to restrict and remove the privileges of the national churches, and as of 2004, in most other official business (such as officiating marriages) any registered religious community has a status comparable to that of the national churches.[9] [10]

Teaching Christian religion as a school subject is an old tradition in Finland. Excusing students, who are not members of either national church, from such teaching has usually been the practice since the early 1900'ies [citation needed], though the exact regulations concerning who is entighteled to exclusion from such teaching have varied. Also requirements for teacher competency for the teaching of religion have varied [11].

Since 2003, world view related teaching is compulsory to all students in basic education (primary and secondary school). Each government funded primary or secondary school must arrange teaching in the religion, which the majority of the students are members of. Also, for every group of at least three students, who belong to some other organized religion, teaching in their own religion must be arranged. For a group of at least three students, who do not belong to any organized religion, teaching in the subject "secular world view" (in Finnish "elämänkatsomustieto", in Swedish "livsåskådningskunskap"), must be arranged. If there are too few students for a teaching group for the student's own religion to be arranged, the student (or as most such students are minors, their parents) can choose between joining the teaching group for the majority religion, requesting secular world view teaching or arranging the teaching from their own religious organization. A teaching group for a minority religion or for secular world view can be arranged for several schools together. [11]

Current teacher education in Finland gives primary and secondary school teachers a basic competence to teach the national churches' religion, major world religions and secular world view as school subjects. However, it is also noted that a teacher should not have to teach a particular religion, if that offends her or his conscience, and any conflicts between students' right to receive teaching and teachers' religious freedom should be solved on a case-by-case basis. [11]

France
Since 1905, France has had a law requiring separation of church and state, prohibiting the state from recognizing or funding any religion. According to the French constitution, freedom of religion was already a constitutional right. The 1905 law on secularity was highly controversial at the time. France adheres to the notion of laïcité, that is, noninterference of the government into the religious sphere and noninterference of religion into government, and a strict neutrality of government in religious affairs.

References to religious beliefs by politicians to justify public policies are considered a political faux pas, since it is widely believed that religious beliefs should be kept out of the public sphere.

Public tax money supports some church-affiliated schools, but they must agree to follow the same curriculum as the public schools and are prohibited from forcing students to attend religion courses or to discriminate against students on the basis of religion.

Churches, synagogues, temples and cathedrals built before 1905, at the taxpayers' expense, are now the property of the state and the communes; however they may be gratuitously used for religious activities provided this religious use stays continuous in time. Some argue that this is a form of unfair subsidy for the established religions in comparison to Islam.

The Alsace-Moselle area, which was administered by Germany at the time the 1905 law was passed and was returned to France only after World War I, is still under the pre-1905 regime established of the Concordat, which provides for the public subsidy of the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, the Reformed church and the Jewish Religion as well as public education in those religions. An original trait of this area is that priests are paid by the state; the bishops are named by the President on the proposal of the Pope. Controversy erupts periodically on the appropriateness of these and other extraordinary legal dispositions of Alsace-Moselle, as well as on the exclusion of other religions in Alsace-Moselle from this arrangement. See also laïcité

In recent years, some legislation such as the About-Picard law and government actions were taken against some groups considered to be dangerous or criminal. Officials and associations fighting excesses of such groups, justified these measures by the need to have appropriate legal tools and the need to fight criminal organizations masquerading as legitimate religious groups. Critics contended that those actions unfairly targeted minority religions, jeopardized freedom of religion, and were motivated by prejudice. The matters were made even more complex by the fact that some of the groups involved are based in the United States, which prompted the intervention of the government of that country.

Georgia
Main article: Status of religious freedom in Georgia
The Georgian Constitution provides for freedom of religion, and the Government generally respects this right in practice.

Germany
After the wars that followed the Reformation, the principle cuius regio, eius religio divided the Holy Roman Empire in statelets with a homogeneous faith. This principle was changed to religious freedom as a result of the Thirty Years' War in the 17th century.

Today, church and state are separate, but there is cooperation in many fields, most importantly in the social sector. Churches and religious communities, if they are large, stable and loyal to the constitution, can get special status from the state as a "corporation under public law" which allows the churches to levy taxes called Kirchensteuer (literally church tax) on their members. This revenue is collected by the state without any fee.

Religious instruction (for members of the respective religions) is an ordinary subject in public schools (in most states). It is organized by the state, but also under the supervision of the respective religious community. Teachers are educated at public universities. Parents, or students 14 years old and above, can decide not to take those religion classes, but most federal states require classes in "ethics" or "philosophy" as replacements. A small but significant number of religious schools, which receive the majority of their funding (but never all of it) from the state, exist in most parts of the country; however nobody can be compelled to attend them. There was considerable public controversy when the Federal Constitutional Court declared a Bavarian law requiring a crucifix in every classroom to be unconstitutional in 1997; Bavaria replaced it with a law still demanding the same, unless parents file a formal protest with the state.

As immigration has significantly increased the numbers of Muslim inhabitants, there is ongoing discussion about introducing an Islamic religious instruction for Muslim pupils, but such plans have yet been hampered by difficulties in organising a curriculum for the whole Islamic spectrum. The Federal Administrative Court recently ruled that the Berlin Islamic Federation was a qualified religious community under Berlin law (which differs considerably from most of the rest of the country); hence, the Berlin State Government decided to begin Islamic religious instruction in public schools in areas with significant Islamic populations.

The government did not recognize several belief systems, including Scientology, as Non-profit organizations; however, the absence of recognition did not prevent their adherents from engaging in public and private religious activities.[12]


Greece
Greece is the only European Union (EU) country to ban proselytism in its constitution, and for this reason the only EU country to have been condemned by the European Court of Human Rights for a lack of religious freedom. The position of the Church of Greece and its relations with the State are set forth in Article 3, par. 1 of the present Constitution (1975/1986/2001). According to this article: (a) The Greek-Orthodox dogma is the prevailing religion, (b) The Church of Greece is inseparably united in doctrine with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and with all other Orthodox Churches, and (c) The Church is self-administered and autocephalous.

About 98% of the population is Christian Orthodox.[13] The remaining percentage represents Muslims, Roman Catholics, Eastern-rite Catholics and Jews. The Government, under the direction of the Ministry of Education and Religion, provides some financial support by, for example, paying for the salaries and religious training of clergy, and financing the maintenance of Orthodox Church buildings. This special relation between the Greek State and the Orthodox Church has come about for historical reasons and long-established tradition, many Greeks attributing the preservation of Greek national identity during the 400 years of Ottoman occupation to the Orthodox Church. A separation of Church and State would require an amendment of the Constitution.

Being Greek Orthodox is a necessary requirement for those who wish to join the Hellenic Army special forces.

The relationship between church and state in Greece is partly responsible for the fact that Athens doesn't have a mosque. A Greek Government plan exists which would build an Islamic center and mosque on some 35,000 square meters of donated land in the Athens suburb of Peania.[14] The plan has drawn fire on grounds that Peania currently has no Muslim community. The Mayor of Peania has initiated legal action, pointing to a century-old deed which, municipal authorities say, proves that the land on which the Mosque would be built belongs to Peania and not the central government.[15] Muslim communities have also criticized the Peania project, noting that such a mosque would be located some 30 kilometers (19 miles) from Athens, where most of the capital's Muslim faithful live.[16]

The government financially supports the Greek Orthodox Church and also pays the salaries and some expenses of the two official Muslim religious leaders in Thrace.[17]

Das Leben des Jesus (The Life of Jesus), a satire in which Jesus is portrayed as an incense-addicted hippy, was banned in Greece in 2005 for blasphemy, and Haderer received a suspended six-month jail sentence. However, the ban and sentence were reversed on appeal and the book has since been unbanned.[18]

An Athens court recently ordered the adulation of Zeus, Hera, Hermes, Athena, et al to be unbanned, paving the way for more religious freedom for Hellenic Polytheism. Greek gods prepare for comeback

India
Main article: Status of religious freedom in India
The Indian constitution's preamble states that India is a secular state. Freedom of religion is a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution. Every citizen of India has a right to practise and promote their religions peacefully. However there have been many incidence of religious intolerance which resulted in riots, although the issues which caused these riots have been investigated and dealt with.

The contents of clause (2)(b) of Article 25 of the Indian constitution, which describe Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains as Hindus and the laws based on its interpretation are arguably in violation of Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which calls for free exercise of religion, because Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains have no way of asserting their religious identity and in certain situations: they must choose between affirming themselves as Hindu or making no statement at all on religion under Indian Jurisprudence.


Indonesia
Main article: Religion in Indonesia
See also: Islam in Indonesia, Christianity in Indonesia, Buddhism in Indonesia, and Confucianism in Indonesia
Religion plays a major role in life in Indonesia. It is stated in the first principle of the state ideology, Pancasila: "belief in the one and only God". A number of different religions are practiced in Indonesia and their collective influence on the country's political, economical and cultural life is significant.[19] As of 2007, 86.1% of Indonesia's 234.7 million people (July 2007 est.) are Muslims, 5.7% are Protestant, 3% are Catholic, 1.8% are Hindu, and 3.4% other or unspecified (percentages based on 2000 census).[20]

The Indonesian Constitution states "every person shall be free to choose and to practice the religion of his/her choice" and "guarantees all persons the freedom of worship, each according to his/her own religion or belief".[21] The government, however, officially only recognises six religions, namely Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism.[22][23]


Iran
Main article: Status of religious freedom in Iran
The Iranian constitution was drafted during the Iranian Constitutional Revolution in 1906;[24] While the constitution was modelled on Belgium's 1831 constitution, the provisions guaranteeing freedom of worship were omitted.[25] Subsequent legislation provided some recognition to the religious minorities of Zoroastrians, Jews and Christians, in addition to majority Muslim population, as equal citizens under state law, but it did not guarantee freedom of religion and "gave unprecedented institutional powers to the clerical establishment."[25] The Islamic Republic of Iran, that was established after the Iranian revolution, recognizes four religions, whose status is formally protected: Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.[26] Members of the first three minority religions receive special treatment under Iranian law.

However, adherents of the Bahá'í Faith, Iran's largest religious minority are not recognized and are persecuted. Bahá'ís have been subjected to unwarranted arrests, false imprisonment, executions, confiscation and destruction of property owned by individuals and the Bahá'í community, denial of civil rights and liberties, and denial of access to higher education.[26] Since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Iranian Bahá'ís have regularly had their homes ransacked or been banned from attending university or holding government jobs, and several hundred have received prison sentences for their religious beliefs, most recently for participating in study circles.[26] Bahá'í cemeteries have been desecrated and property seized and occasionally demolished, including the House of Mírzá Buzurg, Bahá'u'lláh's father.[27] The House of the Báb in Shiraz has been destroyed twice, and is one of three sites to which Bahá'ís perform pilgrimage.[27][28][29]

Ireland
For most practical purposes, Ireland has separation of church and state. Article 44.1 of the constitution states that 'The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion.' However, Article 44.2 goes on to state that '1˚Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to pubic order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen. 2˚The State guarantees not to endow any religion.' While many religious schools are publicly funded, the religious link is due to the way the national school system is funded - a board of management runs the school, which is usually privately owned, while teachers' salaries are paid by the state. The Fifth Amendment of the constitution removed the section which referred to the special position of the Catholic Church, though it has been argued that this section was more symbolic than of actual influence. The Irish President has to swear an oath that does contain an explicit religious reference, though this may be changed in future. Occasionally, there is mild controversy that the Angelus bell is broadcast by RTE on RTÉ 1 TV and radio station, but it generally peters out, due to the indifference of the population at large to the issue. RTÉ is theorethically not state-owned, being a semi state corporation. Only one of RTÉ's eight radio stations and one of its two television stations shows this.

Israel
With some exceptions, such as laws relating to marriage and divorce, as well as policies concerning the Temple Mount, Israel is a secular state. English Common Law, rather than Judaic Talmudic Law, is the legal tradition. Every citizen of Israel, regardless of his or her religious or national affiliation, enjoys full and equal civil rights. This of course includes the large Arab and Muslim minority.

However, the ultra-Orthodox minority parties in Israel, being a necessary element in almost every coalition government, try to increase religious influence over the state, and receive state funding for religious schools, and other benefits, such as exemption from service in the Israeli Defence Forces. Israel also offers automatic citizenship to any Jew who wishes to become a citizen. Such benefits and funds are considered by many as discriminatory privileges, and as clear violations of the principle of separation of church and state.

Israel is commonly referred to as "the Jewish State" which is often a source of confusion, as the term "Jew" has the twin meaning of referring to both a religion and a nation. Israel's founders considered "Jew" as a nationality and hence Israel can be considered "the Jewish State" with regard to nationality only, just as Italy can be described as the "Italian State," France "the French Republic" and so on.

Notwithstanding, this definition is often cited as justification for enforcement of religious laws as official policies. Unlike other democracies, Israel enforces several religious laws, such as the ban on commerce on Sabbath or on the selling of pork.[citation needed] Civil marriage and public transport on Sabbath (Friday noon until Saturday evening) are also against the Israeli law.[citation needed] Some religious schools are considered independent and are run without being monitored by the ministry of education, resulting in an alternative education system whereby parents can have their children educated in institutions which teach nothing but religion.[citation needed] This phenomenon, non- existent in any other democracy, is an official Israeli policy.[citation needed] Such controversial practices make Israel differ substantially from other, secular democracies, and may pose a problem if Israel is to apply for EU membership.But according to almost all sources, kosher is not enforced in Israel. "Having said this, due to the secular nature of much of Israel, most foods can be found, and most restaurants aren't kosher." http://wikitravel.org/en/Israel

Japan
Main article: Religion in Japan
Historically, Japan had long tradition of mixed religious practice between Shinto and Buddhism since the introduction of Buddhism in 7th century. Though the Emperor of Japan is supposed to be the direct descendant of Amaterasu Oomikami, Shinto sun goddess, all Imperial family members, as well as almost all Japanese, were Buddhists who also practiced Shinto religious rites as well. Moreover, throughout Japanese history, religious organisation fail to exercise strong political influence as seen in Europe and when they tried to do so, they were violently suppressed. (see Ikko Ikki and Christianity in Japan).

After the Meiji Restoration, Japan tried to remodel the state in line of modern European constitutional monarchy. Upon learning that many European states sourced their constitutional authority to the Christian God, which Japanese religious tradition did not have, the emperor itself was substituted to its position. Buddhism and Shintoism were officially separated and Shintoism was set as the state religion which mirrored the position of Christianity in European monarchies. The Constitution specifically stated that Emperor is "holy and inviolable" (Tennou ha shinsei nishite okasu bekarazu). During the period of Emperor Showa, the status of emperor was further elevated to be a living god (Arahito gami). This ceased at the end of World War II, when the current constitution was drafted. (See Ningen-sengen.)

Article 20 of the constitution of Japan drafted in by the US occupation forces, in 1946 and currently in use, mandates a separation of religious organizations from the state, as well as ensuring religious freedom: "No religious organization shall receive any privileges from the State, nor exercise any political authority. No person shall be compelled to take part in any religious act, celebration, rite or practice. The State and its organs shall refrain from religious education or any other religious activity." However, like the CDU of Germany, Japan is not without a political party that has religious affiliation, namely the New Komeito Party which has affiliation with Sōka Gakkai. Less than one percent of Japanese population are Christian, and Soka Gakkai is a minor religion itself. Japanese in general mix Buddhism, Shinto, and secularism in practice, and often have "Christian" weddings. A secular form of Christmas is widely observed. Tenrikyo and other Japan-centered faiths are also present.

Korea, Democratic People's Republic of (north)
According to one source which is generally considered authoritative, "Genuine religious freedom does not exist."[30]

Korea, Republic of (south)
According to one source which is generally considered authoritative, "The constitution provides for freedom of religion, and the Government generally respected this right in practice."[31]

Article 11 [Equality], paragraph 1, of the Constitution decares: "All citizens are equal before the law, and there may be no discrimination in political, economic, social, or cultural life on account of sex, religion, or social status."[32]

Malaysia
Main article: Status of religious freedom in Malaysia
The status of religious freedom in Malaysia is a controversial issue. Islam is the official state religion and the Constitution of Malaysia provides for limited freedom of religion, notably placing control upon the 'propagation' of religion other than Islam to Muslims, a fundamental part of a number of other religions. However, questions including whether Malays can convert from Islam and whether Malaysia is an Islamic state or secular state remains unresolved. For the most part the multiple religions within Malaysia interact peacefully and exhibit mutual respect. This is evident by the continued peaceful co-existence of cultures and ethnic groups.

Mexico
A precedent of limiting the rights of the church – especially the Roman Catholic Church– was set by President Valentín Gómez Farías in 1833. Later, President Benito Juárez enacted a set of laws that came to be known as the Leyes de Reforma between 1859 and 1863 in the backdrop of the Guerra de Reforma. These laws mandated, among other things, the separation of church and state, allowed for civil marriages and a civil registry, and confiscated the church's property.

Tensions also existed between the Roman Catholic Church and the post-Revolution Mexican government. Severe restrictions on the rights of the Church and members of the clergy were written into the country's 1917 constitution that led to the eruption of the Cristero War in 1926. In 1992 the government reestablished diplomatic relations with the Holy See and lifted almost all restrictions on the Catholic Church. This later action included granting all religious groups legal status, conceding them limited property rights, and lifting restrictions on the number of priests in the country. However, the law continues to mandate a strict separation of church and state. The constitution still bars members of the clergy from holding public office, advocating partisan political views, supporting political candidates, or opposing the laws or institutions of the state.

The constitution provides that education should avoid privileges of religion, and that one religion or its members may not be given preference in education over another. Religious instruction is prohibited in public schools; however, religious associations are free to maintain private schools, which receive no public funds.

According to the Religious Associations and Public Worship Law, religious groups may not own or administer broadcast radio or television stations; however, the Catholic Church owns and operates a national cable television channel. Government permission is required to transmit religious programming on commercial broadcast radio or television, and permission is granted routinely.[33]

Netherlands
In the Netherlands, freedom of religion found its roots in the religious wars that took place in the 16th century and which led to the first limited form of constitutional recognition of the freedom of religion in 1579. With the last major revision of the Constitution in 1983 with respect to freedom of religion, the secularization between state and church that started in the 19th century was completed. In Article 6, all discrimination based on religion or philosophy of life is forbidden. With the insertion of the term “philosophy of life,” the equal treatment of religious and non-religious philosophies of life is guaranteed in conformity with the international com- mitments of the Netherlands. This article briefly reviews the legal and constitutional background of the Netherlands and the constitutional provisions relevant to freedom of religion. It then lists the most important international agreements and laws affecting religious organizations.[2]p.76

The Netherlands has separation of church and state, but the government does recognize religious communities, especially in cultural affairs. Schools founded by religious communities, whether Protestant, Catholic, Jewish or Islamic, receive government finance. This was instituted in 1918 in what is known as the Pacification. Religiously inspired broadcasting associations are also allowed to broadcast on Dutch national public television. As such the Netherlands does not have a strong separation between church and state, but instead the state sustains a plural society, which historically consisted out of multiple separated religious groups. One anomaly in this respect is the convention that the Dutch monarch has to be a member of the Protestant Church in the Netherlands.

Pakistan
Main articles: Status of religious freedom in Pakistan and Blasphemy law in Pakistan
Religious freedom in Pakistan has come into conflict with sharia law. The original Constitution of Pakistan did not discriminate between Muslims and non-Muslims. Blasphemy laws restrict the right to freedom of speech with regard to religion. Speaking in opposition to Islam and publishing an attack on Islam or its prophets are prohibited. Pakistan's penal code now mandates the death penalty for anyone defiling the name of Muhammad, whom Muslims view as a prophet. This penal code mandates life imprisonment for desecrating the Koran, and up to 10 years' imprisonment for insulting another's religious beliefs with intent to outrage religious feelings.

Philippines
Main article: Status of religious freedom in the Philippines
By passing through the numerous phases of colonial occupation, the relationship of the church and state in the Philippines has gradually changed from the collaboration of the Roman Catholic Church with the government during the Spanish era to the generally accepted separation today.

Poland
Main article: Religion in Poland
The Republic of Poland is predominantly a Roman Catholic state with more than 96 percent of the population Roman Catholic.[34] The remainder of the state encompasses more than 151 churches or other religious organizations. Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the Polish Constitution and major international conventions and agreements related to religion. Most of these have been signed and ratified by Poland. The Constitution provides, without any exception, separation of church and state, freedom of faith and religion, and equal rights for churches and other religious organizations. After registration, churches and other religious organizations may enjoy their rights provided by various laws. The relations between the State and the Roman Catholic Church are determined by the Concordat Between the Holy See and the Republic of Poland and by other laws. The relations between the State and other major churches and religious organizations are determined by laws adopted pursuant to agreements concluded between their appropriate representatives and the Council of Ministers.[2]p.85


Portugal
Main article: Religion in Portugal
Article 13 of the Portuguese Constitution states, in part, that "No one is privileged, favored, injured, deprived of any right, or exempt from any duty because of his ancestry, sex, race, language, territory of origin, religion, political or ideological convictions, education, economic situation, or social condition"[35]

The country is mostly Roman Catholic, although other Christian churches are on the rise since the 1974 Revolution which inserted the aforementioned article in the constitution.

Immigrants from ex-colonies are Muslim and Hindu.

Recent immigration from Eastern European countries also brought the presence of the Orthodox faith.

Republic of China (Taiwan)
Article 13 of the constitution of the Republic of China provides that the people shall have freedom of religious belief.[36]

Russia
From the foundation of the Kievan Rus dynasty until the institution of bolshevism, Russia maintained very close ties between the officially recognized religion, the Russian Orthodox Church, and the government. These bonds became tightest under tsar Peter I ("Peter the Great"); in 1721, the office of Patriarch of Moscow was eliminated and replaced with a "Holy Governing Synod," presided over by an Imperial appointee and regulated by Imperial law. From that point until 1917 the Russian Orthodox Church was explicitly a department of the Russian government.

After the October Revolution and bolshevik coup, the government of the Soviet Union was quite active in religious affairs, even though it was theoretically atheist and purely secular. Between 1917 and 1922, Soviet authorities executed 28 Orthodox Bishops and over 1,000 priests. A government-sponsored "renovation" known as the Living Church was instigated in May of 1922 as a replacement for the Russian Orthodox Church. It was eliminated in 1943 during the Second World War, but state intervention in religious affairs did not end, and religion was highly regulated and controlled until the end of the Soviet Union.

On October 9 and November 10 of 1990, the Russian Parliament passed two freedom of conscience laws that formally disestablished the Russian Orthodox Church as the state church of Russia (this step had never actually been explicitly taken in the Soviet Union). In 1997, however, the Russian Parliament passed a law restricting the activities of religious organizations within Russia. Complete freedom is given to any religious organization officially recognized by the Soviet government before 1985: the Orthodox Church, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism. The basis for consideration as an official religion of the Russian Federation is supposed to be a 50-year presence in the state. According to this criterion, Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, and the Baptist faith should all enjoy official status as Russian religions. However, this is not the case. Non-official religions are strictly limited in that they are not permitted to operate schools or import non-Russian citizens to act as missionaries or clergy. Likewise, they must annually re-register with local officials.

This act has been sharply criticized as antithetical to the concept of freedom of religion, especially in countries with religious organizations that expend a great deal of money and effort in proselytizing.

The Russian government also engages in practices that have been accused of being discriminatory against citizens who profess faiths other than Orthodox Christianity. In the Russian armed forces — for which there continues to be universal conscription — no form of religious worship other than Orthodox Christian is permitted. Thus, conscripted Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists (despite their ostensible religious freedom granted in the 1997 law) are prohibited from engaging in prayer, even if they do so in solitude.

Despite these overtly religious practices listed above, The Constitution of the Russian Federation adopted on December 12, 1993, declares the state to be secular, and that no religion shall be declared an official or compulsory religion. The Constitution further provides for equality of all religious associations before the law and states in Article 14 that all religious organizations shall be separate from the state. This provision is contained in the chapter that constitutes the fundamental principles of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation and cannot be changed except by a very complicated procedure established by the Constitution. No other legal acts may contradict the fundamental principles of the Russian constitutional system.

Saudi Arabia
Main article: Status of religious freedom in Saudi Arabia
The kingdom of Saudi Arabia is an Islamic theocratic monarchy in which Islam is the official religion; the law requires that all Saudi citizens be Muslims, but permits non-Muslim visitors or foreign workers to live among and deal with Muslims except in certain areas. The Saudi Mutaween (Arabic: مطوعين), or Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (i.e., the religious police), prohibits the public practice of non-Muslim religions. The Government claims to recognize the right of non-Muslims to worship in private; however it does not always respect this right in practice.


Sweden
Main article: Religion in Sweden
Church-state ties in Sweden were formally separated on 1 January 2000. The Lutheran church still maintains special status, but this is only for an adjustment period. It is now possible to register new religious organizations, but they lack the same special status and the ability to perform legally binding services such as marriage and burials.

The constitution provides for freedom of religion, and the Government generally respects this right in practice. The Government at all levels seeks to protect this right in full and does not tolerate its abuse, either by governmental or private actors. The rights and freedoms enumerated in the constitution include the rights to practice one's religion and protection of religious freedom. The laws concerning religious freedoms are generally observed and enforced at all government levels and by the courts in a non-discriminatory fashion. Legal protections cover discrimination or persecution by private actors.[37]

Since the separation of church and state in 2000, eight recognized religious denominations, in addition to the Church of Sweden, raise revenues through member-contributions made through the national tax system. All recognized denominations are entitled to direct government financial support, contributions made through the national tax system, or a mix of both. The state does not favor the Church of Sweden at the expense of other religious groups in any noticeable way. Since the population is predominantly Christian, certain Christian religious holy days are national holidays, but this does not appear to affect other religious groups negatively. School students from minority religious backgrounds are entitled to take relevant religious holidays.[37]

There are ongoing efforts to remove the special status from the former state church. Marriage can now be performed by anyone who has received a certificate.{[fact|date=May 2007}}

Turkey
Turkey is a country with a strong stance of secularism since the republican revolution of October 29, 1923 and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's modernization movement in March 3, 1924 which, among other things, abolished the Caliphate and removed all religious influence over the affairs of the state. Even though the state has no official religion nor promotes any, it actively monitors the area between the religions. The constitution recognises freedom of religion for individuals, whereas religious communities are placed under the protection of the state; but the constitution explicitly states that they cannot become involved in the political process (by forming a religious party, for instance) or establish faith-based schools. No party can claim that it represents a form of religious belief; nevertheless, religious sensibilities are generally represented through conservative parties.[38]

In reverse, the mainstream Hanafite school of Sunni Islam is largely organised by the state, through the Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı (Religious Affairs Directorate), which controls all mosques and Islamic clerics. All Islamic views which are deemed political are censored in accordance with the principle of secularism. All mosques are state funded and it is the state that appoints their imams. The content of the weekly seminars of these mosques has to be approved a priori by the DRI. As such, independent Sunni communities and mosques are illegal. Minority religions, like Alevi Islam or Armenian or Greek Orthodoxy, are guaranteed by the constitution as individual faiths and are mostly tolerated, but this guarantee does not give any rights to religious communities. However, the Treaty of Lausanne gives certain minority religious rights to Jews, Greeks and Armenians, but not, for example, to Syriac-Orthodox or Roman Catholics. Recently, the question over the re-establishment of an ancient Greek Orthodox seminary in Istanbul became a political issue in regard to the accession of Turkey to the European Union. The EU considers such prohibition to amount to suppression of religious freedom. However, it is pointed out that, if the Greek Orthodox are allowed to reopen the school, they will become the only religion in Turkey with the right to independent religious schools.

Moreover, Turkey, like France, prohibits by law the wearing of religious headcover and theo-political symbolic garments for both genders in government buildings, schools, and universities;[39] the law was upheld by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights as "legitimate" in Leyla Şahin v. Turkey on November 10, 2005.[40]

United Kingdom
Main article: Status of religious freedom in the United Kingdom
Freedom of religion and worship is a fundamental feature of Britain's traditions, except for the provisions of the Act of Settlement (1701)[2]which ensures that no Catholic shall ever be the monarch of the United Kingdom, nor shall they be married to one. For a mature democracy, the freedom was achieved relatively late, and some discriminatory laws against minority religions survived into modern times. The role of Britain's "established" (i.e., state) churches remains incongruous. The new Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law, guarantees the protection of individual rights, including freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, and the freedom to hold or adopt a religion or belief of one's choice. Religious organizations are generally accorded the status of tax exempt public charities. Religious education is mandated in state schools based on a syllabus reflecting the country's Christian traditions, but taking into account the other principal represented religions. Students may be excused from attendance at religious worship or instruction upon the request of a parent. Recent laws have shown sensitivity towards religious practices of different groups. A greater role for the judiciary in protecting religious liberties is envisaged under the Human Rights Act.[2]p.

Britain is a predominantly Christian country with two established, i.e. state, churches, the Church of England (COE), the mother church of the Anglican Communion and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Roman Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists and Orthodox are among the other Christian faiths present. Most of the world's religions are also represented, including a large number of Muslims (1 million), Sikhs (400,000), Hindus (400,000), and Jews (285,000). There are smaller communities of Bahá'í (6,000), Buddhists (over 500 groups and centers), Jains (25,000) and Zoroastrians (5,000), as well as followers of new religious movements and pagans. Many Britons consider themselves agnostic.[2]

The Church of Scotland is Presbyterian while the Church of England is Anglican (Episcopalian). The former is a national church guaranteed by law to be separate from the state, while the latter is a state-established church and any major changes to doctrine, liturgy, or structure must have parliamentary approval. Neither Wales nor Northern Ireland currently have established churches: the Church in Wales was disestablished in 1920, the Church of Ireland in 1871. The king or queen must promise to uphold the rights of the Presbyterian church in Scotland and the Anglican church in England. He or she is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, holding the title of Defender of the Faith, but an ordinary member of the Church of Scotland. Neither church receives direct funding from taxation. State schools must provide religious instruction and regular religious ceremonies, though parents may withdraw their children from either; the choice of religion is left up to the school governors, but in the absence of an explicit choice it is by default "broadly Christian;" the Church of England and the Catholic Church operate many state-funded schools and there are a small number of Jewish and Muslim ones. Senior Church of England bishops have a right to sit in the House of Lords, the upper chamber of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

United States
In the 1600s and 1700s, many Europeans emigrated to what would later become the United States. For some this was driven by the desire to worship freely in their own fashion. These included a large number of nonconformists such as the Puritans and the Pilgrims as well as English Catholics. However, with some exceptions, such as Roger Williams of Rhode Island or the Roman Catholic Lord Baltimore in Maryland, most of these groups did not believe in religious toleration and in some cases came to America with the explicit aim of setting up a theocratic state.

Such history and beliefs were integrated into the U.S. Constitution with the passing of the Bill of Rights containing the First Amendment. The clause of the First Amendment that adopted the founders' principles of separation of church and state and freedom of religion is known as the Establishment Clause. It states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

The interpretation of that clause is subject to disagreement. According to Conservatives, the first half of that establishment clause has been interpreted as requiring official indifference, whereas the second half (the free exercise portion) has been emasculated.

Public education is a case in point. Some conservatives doubt that restricting religious speech in public school classrooms was the original intent of the first amendment and believe that ending government-funded or government-endorsed religious activities for students constitutes censorship of religion, contrary to the intent of the First Amendment. Further, they feel that many educators deliberately abuse their authority by imposing atheist views on their students.

Some hold that the founders' intent was to prevent the state from mandating or banning any religion, while others, including the ACLU, hold to the view that no government — federal, state or local — can perform any action or make any policy which blatantly favors one faith or church over the others, or which favors belief in God or the Supreme being over non-belief. The latter position has been gradually adopted by the Supreme Court since the latter half of the nineteenth century, though the Court is not unanimous on this: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, an "originalist" who favors the stricter interpretation and application of the Constitution (e.g.,no government can blatantly favor one faith or church over the others, or favor belief in God or the Supreme being over non-belief) disagrees with the modern view.

The court-enforced separation does not extend to all elements of civil religion. By law, the country's currency now carries the motto "In God We Trust." Congress begins its sessions with a prayer, and since 1954 the Pledge of Allegiance contains the phrase, "one nation, under God." Court rulings have upheld these apparently religious references, viewing them as non-substantive "ceremonial deism" or utilizing other legal theories. Recent lawsuits have unsuccessfully attempted to challenge this view. Some expressions of religion on public property, such as certain displays of the Ten Commandments in courtrooms or Nativity scenes on public land have been recently ruled to be unconstitutional. The government is also permitted to restrict religious activities so long as these restrictions do not target religion specifically. For instance, a religious group cannot perform human sacrifice under the veil of separation of church and state because the government views it as murder and murder is illegal.

Religion plays a strong role in national politics, especially in controversial issues like abortion, euthanasia, and homosexuality. Direct church-state issues also arise, currently including the question of whether or not school vouchers should be used to help parents pay for education at private schools which may have religious affiliations, and the status of the faith-based initiatives of the current President, George W. Bush.

While there are numerous Catholics in the government, the most prominent religious participants in national politics are Evangelical Christians, Conservative Catholics, some Orthodox Jews, and Mormons, largely allied with the Republican Party and in the Bible Belt of the Southern and Midwestern United States, comprising what is known as the "religious right." Some religious groups wish to increase the ability of government to make various religious expressions; they often emphasize the largely Christian demographics and history of the country, however it is also often used as an attempt to give state sanction to a majoritarian faith at the direct expense of the rights of minority religious groups.

It is common practice for national politicians with strongly religious constituencies to cite religious texts or beliefs in support of certain policies. In other areas voters may be more disapproving of expressions of religious faith by political candidates and government officials.

Vietnam
Main article: Religion in Vietnam
The Constitution formally allows religious freedom.[41] Every citizen is declared to be allowed to freely follow no, one, or more religions, practice his or her religion without violating the law, be treated equally regardless of his or her religion, be protected from being violated his or her religious freedom, but is prohibited to use religion to violate the law.[41]

****
Through the annals of time there has existed an inseparable link between religion and liberty. Those who have claimed liberty in the name of their God have, of course, used religion to legitimate their struggle to be free. The alliance between religion and liberty, however, runs deeper than a powerful source of legitimacy for overturning the status quo in human relationships.

*****
History of Religious Liberty in America

Written for Civitas: A Framework for Civic Education. Copyright 1991, Council for the Advancement of Citizenship and the Center for Civic Education. Updated and reprinted by permission.

From the Colonial era to the present, religions and religious beliefs have played a significant role in the political life of the United States. Religion has been at the heart of some of the best and some of the worst movements in American history. The guiding principles that the framers intended to govern the relationship between religion and politics are set forth in Article VI of the Constitution and in the opening 16 words of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Now that America has expanded from the largely Protestant pluralism of the 17th century to a nation of some 3,000 religious groups, it is more vital than ever that every citizen understand the appropriate role of religion in public life and affirm the constitutional guarantees of religious liberty, or freedom of conscience, for people of all faiths and none.

The philosophical ideas and religious convictions of Roger Williams, William Penn, John Leland, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and other leaders were decisive in the struggle for freedom of conscience. The United States is a nation built on ideals and convictions that have become basic democratic principles. These principles must be understood and affirmed by every generation if the American experiment in liberty is to endure.

FRAME OF REFERENCE

Conceptual perspective

The central place of faith in the idea of religion.
The radical pluralism of faiths in the United States today makes it difficult to define religion without excluding religions that may not fit a chosen definition. If, however, citizens are to understand the role of religion in American public life and support religious liberty for all, they need to appreciate that faith is of central importance to many Americans.

The centrality of religion in the lives of many Americans. Without defining what religion is, we can, for purposes of civic understanding, focus on what religion does in the lives of believers. Ultimate beliefs and worldviews shape the lives of many people because they are regarded as the deepest source of meaning and belonging. In the United States, arguably the most religious of all the industrialized nations, religious beliefs are at the center of life for millions of Americans. These beliefs are not confined to worship and family life; they also shape the political and social views of vast numbers of citizens.

The expansion of religious pluralism. The United States has moved beyond the largely Protestant pluralism of its early history to a pluralism that includes almost every religious expression in the world. This expanding diversity presents new challenges for American public life.

Religious liberty as freedom of conscience for all, including nonbelievers. A growing number of people in the United States express no religious preference at all. Any discussion of pluralism and the role of religion in public life, therefore, must include secularists, humanists, nonbelievers and others who do not profess any religious beliefs.

The protection of religion in its broadest sense. The Supreme Court has accepted the necessity of broad recognition of worldviews (and the dangers of too narrow a definition of religion) by giving conscientious objector status to those who have "a sincere and meaningful belief which occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those admittedly qualifying for the exemption ..." (U.S. v. Seeger, 1965).

No one excluded from protection. The important point for citizens to keep in mind is that religious liberty, or freedom of conscience, was intended by the framers to protect the beliefs of everyone, not just those of recognized faith communities.

The American experiment in religious liberty.
Religious liberty in America is a key part of the boldest and most successful experiment in freedom the world has known. The strength and diversity of religion in the United States is due almost entirely to the full protection of religious liberty, or freedom of conscience, guaranteed by the Constitution.

Religious liberty as the "first liberty." Religious liberty has been called America's "first liberty" because freedom of the mind is logically and philosophically prior to all other freedoms protected by the Constitution.

Definition of religious liberty. In the American experiment, religious liberty is defined according to the following elements:

Freedom of conscience. There shall be full freedom of conscience for people of all faiths or no faith.

Religious liberty, an inalienable right. Religious liberty is considered to be a natural or inalienable right that must always be beyond the power of the state to confer or remove.

Right to practice any or no religion. Religious liberty includes the right to freely practice any religion or no religion without government coercion or control.

Guarantees of religious liberty in the Constitution. The guiding principles supporting the definition of religious liberty are set forth in Article VI of the Constitution and in the opening words of the First Amendment to the Constitution. These principles have become the ground rules by which people of all religions and none can live together as citizens of one nation.

Article VI of the Constitution. Article VI concludes with these words: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." With this bold stroke, the framers broke with European tradition and opened public office in the federal government to people of any faith and no faith.

Religious-liberty clauses. The First Amendment's religious-liberty clauses state that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... ." Taken together, these two clauses safeguard religious liberty by protecting religions and religious convictions from government interference or control. They ensure that religious belief or nonbelief remains voluntary, free from government coercion.

State and local government included. The clauses apply equally to actions of both state and local governments, because the Supreme Court has ruled that the 14th Amendment's dictum that states are not to deprive any person of liberty makes the First Amendment applicable to the states.

Meaning of "no establishment." "No establishment" means that neither a state nor the federal government can establish a particular religion or religion in general. Further, government is prohibited from advancing or supporting religion. This does not mean that the government can be hostile to religion. The government must maintain what the Supreme Court has called "benevolent neutrality," which permits religious exercise to exist but denies it government sponsorship. The no-establishment clause serves to prevent both religious control over government and political control over religion.

Meaning of "free exercise." "Free exercise" is the freedom of every citizen to reach, hold, practice and change beliefs according to the dictates of conscience. The free-exercise clause prohibits government interference with religious belief and, within limits, religious practice.

(1) The difference between belief and practice. The Supreme Court has interpreted "free exercise" to mean that any individual may believe anything he or she wants, but there may be times when the state can limit or interfere with practices that flow from these beliefs.

(2) The traditional "compelling interest" test. Traditionally, the Court has required a government to demonstrate a compelling interest of the "highest order" before it can burden or otherwise interfere with religious conduct. Even then, the government has to demonstrate that it has no alternative means of achieving its interest that would be less restrictive of religious conduct.

(3) The debate over the "compelling interest" test. A 1990 Supreme Court decision, Employment Division v. Smith, states that government no longer has to demonstrate a compelling government interest unless a law is specifically targeted at a religious practice or infringes upon an additional constitutional right, such as free speech. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signed into law by President Clinton in 1993, restored the compelling-interest test and ensured its application in all cases where religious exercise is substantially burdened. In June 1997, the Supreme Court struck the act down, holding that Congress had overstepped its bounds by forcing states to provide more protection for religious liberty than the First Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Smith, requires.

(4) Several states have responded to this situation by enacting state versions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In an attempt to protect the free exercise of religion, these new laws require the compelling-interest test as a matter of state law. (The following have state RFRAs as of Aug. 25, 2002: Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Texas.)

(5) Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. This act is designed to protect religious assemblies and institutions from land-use restrictions burdening their property, and to protect the right of institutionalized persons to practice their faith.

Religion, public life and politics.
The First Amendment separated church from state but not religion from public life.

The involvement of religious groups in public life. Many religious groups consider it an article of faith to speak out on issues of moral concern in the public sphere. The Constitution protects the right of religious individuals and organizations to attempt to shape public policy and to exercise their influence. There are presently hundreds of nonprofit groups concerned with religious issues and public life in the United States.

Tax-exempt status dependent on nonpartisanship. However, religious organizations that are exempt from taxation under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code may not engage in partisan politics by endorsing or opposing candidates for public office or by spending a substantial amount of their resources lobbying Congress.

Religious liberty and political responsibility. In certain cases, the injection of religious views into political debate, though constitutionally protected, may be irresponsible.

Religious views in political debate are protected. In the American experiment in self-government, disestablishment of religion, or separation of church and state, prevents religious institutions from establishing their faith as the law of the land and from receiving financial support from the state. At the same time, "free exercise" protects the right of religious views to be part of the political debate.

Religious attacks in political debate may be irresponsible. It is important to remember, however, that some actions taken by religious organizations or individuals in the political arena (for example, attacks against the fitness of people to hold public office because of their religion) may not be unconstitutional but may be politically irresponsible violations of the spirit of religious liberty.

Historical perspective
The relationship of politics and religion has been a central issue in American life since the Colonial era. For most of the European settlers who came to North America in the 17th century from England, France and Spain — all nations with established churches — a society without an established faith was unimaginable.

The unity and morality of the community, it was believed, depended upon divine sanction of political authority and conformity of the populace in matters of faith. Eventually, however, by separating religion and government and by granting freedom to all religious groups, America launched a new political experiment unprecedented in the world's history.

The religious liberty sought by the Puritans.
Like many who arrived on these shores in the 17th century, the Puritans of Massachusetts Bay came to America seeking religious freedom.

Religious freedom not sought for others. The freedom they sought, however, was for themselves and not for others. The Puritans felt called by God to establish "new Israel," a holy commonwealth based on a covenant between God and themselves as the people of God.

All laws to be grounded in God's law. Though there were separate areas of authority for church and state in Puritan Massachusetts, all laws of the community were to be grounded in God's law and all citizens were expected to uphold the divine covenant. Massachusetts was to be an example to the world of God's kingdom on Earth, "a City upon a hill."

Roger Williams and the origins of freedom of conscience in Puritan America.
Very early in the Massachusetts experiment, dissenters arose to challenge the Puritan vision of a holy society. The first dissenter, Roger Williams (c.1603-1683), was himself a Puritan minister but with a very different vision of God's plan for human society. Williams argued that God had not given divine sanction to the Puritan colony. In his view, the civil authorities of Massachusetts had no authority to involve themselves in matters of faith. The true church, according to Williams, was a voluntary association of God's elect. Any state involvement in the worship or God, therefore, was contrary to the divine will and inevitably led to the defilement of the church.

"Soul liberty" means freedom of conscience for all. Williams' arguments for religious liberty had two principal parts.

Freedom of conscience as God's will. Central to Roger Williams' arguments for separating church and state was his conviction that it was divine will that every individual's conscience remain free to accept or reject the word of God. Williams defined freedom of conscience, which he called "soul liberty," as the freedom of each person to follow his or her own heart in matters of faith without interference or coercion by the state.

Religious intolerance and war. Citing Europe's long history of wars and divisions, Williams pointed out that coercion in matters of faith inevitably leads to persecution and bloodshed.

Rhode Island's experiment in religious liberty. Williams found it necessary to seek religious liberty outside of Massachusetts Bay.

The founding of Rhode Island. Banished from Massachusetts in 1635, Roger Williams founded Rhode Island, the first colony with no established church and the first society in America to grant liberty of conscience to everyone. Jews, Quakers and others not welcome elsewhere made their home there.

The wider significance of Rhode Island's religious liberty. Eventually, Williams' conception of soul liberty had an impact far beyond the Rhode Island experiment. In the 18th century, dissenting religious groups, particularly the Baptists, were inspired by Williams' ideas to advocate disestablishment and freedom of conscience. Some historians also argue that Williams' writings influenced the Enlightenment philosopher John Locke (1632-1704), a key source for Thomas Jefferson's views concerning religious liberty.

Freedom of conscience as an American conviction. The Puritans' demand for religious liberty for themselves became, in the vision of Roger Williams, a requirement of religious liberty for all.

Early religious liberty outside Rhode Island. This revolutionary idea was echoed to a lesser degree (and for only a brief period) in 17th-century Maryland and later, more fully, in the 18th-century "holy experiment" of Quaker William Penn's colony of Pennsylvania.

Gradual extension of religious liberty. Gradually, the extension of liberty to include not only one's own group but also others, even those with whom "we" disagree, became a central American conviction. It is this principle of full freedom for people of all faiths and of none that was embodied 150 years later in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

The movement toward religious liberty in the United States.
The momentous decision by the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to prohibit religious establishment on the federal level and to guarantee free exercise of religion was related to a number of religious, political and economic factors in 18th-century America. Underlying all of these factors, of course, was the practical difficulty of establishing any one faith in an emerging nation composed of a multiplicity of faiths (mostly Protestant sects), none of which was strong enough to dominate the others.

From toleration to free exercise. The period between 1776 and the passage of the First Amendment in 1791 saw critical changes in fundamental ideas about religious freedom.

The Virginia Declaration of Rights. In May 1776, just before the Declaration of Independence, the leaders of Virginia adopted the Virginia Declaration of Rights, drafted by George Mason. The first draft of the declaration argued for the "fullest toleration in the exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience." This language echoed the writings of John Locke and the movement in England toward toleration.

Madison's objection: "toleration" vs. "free exercise." Although toleration was a great step forward, a 25-year-old delegate named James Madison (1751-1836) did not think it went far enough. Madison, also deeply influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment, successfully argued that "toleration" should be changed to "free exercise" of religion. This seemingly small change in language signaled a revolutionary change in ideas. For Madison, religious liberty was not a concession by the state or the established church, but an inalienable or natural right of every citizen.

"Free exercise and the First Amendment." In 1791, the free exercise of religion proclaimed in the Virginia Declaration became a part of the First Amendment, guaranteeing all Americans freedom of conscience.

From establishment to separation. The decisive battle for disestablishment came in the large and influential colony of Virginia, where the Anglican Church was the established faith. Once again, James Madison played a pivotal role by leading the fight that persuaded the Virginia Legislature to adopt in 1786 Thomas Jefferson's "Bill for the Establishment of Religious Freedom."

Madison, Jefferson and the struggle for disestablishment. Madison and Jefferson argued that state support for a particular religion or for all religions is wrong, because compelling citizens to support through taxes a faith they do not follow violates their natural right to religious liberty. "Almighty God had created the mind free," declared Jefferson's bill. Thus, "to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."

The "Great Awakening" and the struggle for disestablishment. Madison and Jefferson were greatly aided in the struggle for disestablishment by the Baptists, Presbyterians, Quakers and other "dissenting" faiths of Anglican Virginia. The religious revivals of the 18th century, often called the Great Awakening (1728-1790), produced new forms of religious expression and belief that influenced the development of religious liberty throughout the Colonies. The revivalists' message of salvation through Christ alone evoked a deeply personal and emotional response in thousands of Americans.

Evangelical fervor and religious self-government. The evangelical fervor of the Awakening cut across denominational lines and undercut support for the privileges of the established church.

Support of religious choice by evangelicals. Religion was seen by many as a matter of free choice and churches as places of self-government. The alliance of church and state was now seen by many as harmful to the cause of religion.

Leadership in Virginia of John Leland. In Virginia this climate of dissent and the leadership of such religious leaders as John Leland, a Baptist, provided the crucial support Madison needed to win the battle for religious liberty in Virginia.

The final demise of religious establishment. The successful battle for disestablishment in Virginia is a vital chapter in the story of religious liberty in America. By the time of the ratification of the First Amendment in 1791, all of the other Anglican establishments (except in Maryland) were ended. The Congregational establishments of New England lasted longer. Not until 1818 in Connecticut and 1833 in Massachusetts were the state constitutions amended to complete disestablishment.

The constitutional prohibition of religious tests for office in Article VI.
The only mention of religion in the Constitution of the United States prior to the adoption of the First Amendment was the "no religious test" provision of Article VI. The significance of this often-forgotten provision cannot be exaggerated. At the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, most of the Colonies still had religious establishments or religious tests for office. It was unimaginable to many Americans that non-Protestants — Catholics, Jews, atheists and others — could be trusted with public office.

"No religious test" proposed at the Constitutional Convention. One aspect of religious liberty was inserted into the Constitution during its framing in Philadelphia.

The role of Charles Pinckney. At the Constitutional Convention, Charles Pinckney (1757-1824), a delegate from South Carolina, proposed that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Though he came from a state that had established the Protestant faith as the state religion, Pinckney represented the new spirit of religious liberty exemplified in the Enlightenment thinking of Jefferson.

A tool for oppression outlawed. Remarkably, the "no religious test" provision passed with little dissent. For the first time in history, a nation had formally abolished one of the most powerful tools of the state for oppressing religious minorities.

Religious tests imposed in some states. Most states followed the federal example and abolished tests for state office. But it was not until 1868 in North Carolina, 1946 in New Hampshire, and 1961 in Maryland that religious tests were abolished entirely. Maryland had required since 1867 "a declaration of belief in God" for all officeholders. When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down this requirement in its 1961 decision in Torcaso v. Watkins, freedom of conscience was fully extended to include non-believers as well as believers. No religious test can be imposed for any office at any level of government.

Informal religious tests a factor in elections. Though the Constitution barred religious tests as a formal qualification for office, many American voters continued to apply informal religious tests in the political arena, particularly in presidential elections.

Exclusion of Catholics. Until the nomination of Al Smith in 1928, all presidential and vice presidential candidates nominated by the two parties were Protestants. In 1960, the election of John Kennedy, a Roman Catholic, broke the informal political barrier that had long excluded non-Protestants from the presidency.

Religious dissension among Protestants. Even with Protestant candidates, religion has frequently been an issue. Beginning with attacks on the Deist religious convictions of Thomas Jefferson (Deism is a faith based on reason rather than revelation) and continuing to the recent discussions about which candidate is "born again," questions about the "correctness" of a politician's religion have played an important role in many national elections.

Another barrier falls. In the 2000 presidential campaign, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., ran as the Democratic vice-presidential candidate. An Orthodox Jew, Lieberman spoke openly of his faith. The fact that Lieberman was Jewish appeared to have little or no effect on the outcome of the election.

The First Amendment principles of religious liberty.
In the mind of James Madison and some of the others at the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution established a limited federal government with no authority to act in religious matters. That others were unsure had momentous consequences.

Reassurance for those fearful of religious intolerance. Many Americans, including leaders of the Baptists and other religious groups, feared that the Constitution offered an insufficient guarantee of the civil and religious rights of citizens.

Madison's promise of a bill of rights. Many of those who suspected the proposed new constitution demanded a bill of rights as their price of moderating their heated opposition to its adoption. To win ratification, Madison promised to propose a bill of rights in the First Congress.

The enshrinement of religious liberty in the Bill of Rights. Madison kept his promise, and the religious-liberty clauses adopted by the First Congress in 1789 became, when ratified by the required number of states in 1791, the opening words of the Bill of Rights.

Religious liberty and the first principles of American liberty. Full religious liberty was first applied to acts of the federal government alone. Later it was applied to the states as well.

The First Amendment and the federal government. With the passage of the First Amendment, the principles of non-establishment and free exercise became the first principles of American freedom. The federal government was constitutionally prohibited from establishing or sponsoring religion and prohibited from interfering with the natural right of every citizen to reach, hold, exercise or change beliefs freely.

The First Amendment and state governments. These prohibitions were extended to the states in the 20th century, following Supreme Court rulings that the 14th Amendment made the First Amendment applicable to the states.

Religious influences in American political life.
Disestablishment was never meant to keep religious beliefs or institutions from influencing public life. From the beginning of American history, religions and religious believers have played a central role in shaping public policy and political debate.

De facto Protestant establishment. For many Protestants in the 19th century, disestablishment meant an end to the coercive power of the state in matters of faith and barred any faith from becoming the legally established religion. But disestablishment did not extinguish the Protestant vision of creating and maintaining a "Christian America." By numbers and influence, Protestantism became the de facto established religion of the nation. Many no doubt agreed with Daniel Webster when he argued in 1844 that "general tolerant Christianity is the law of the land."

Protestant contributions to social reform. The close ties between Protestant churches and American culture led to many social and political reforms. This can most clearly be seen in the "Second Great Awakening" of the early 19th century, when some Protestant leaders mounted a crusade to reform and revitalize America. Urban social work, schooling for poor children, the abolitionist movement, supported by Quakers, Methodists and others, were only a few of the many reform movements inspired in large measure by the religious awakenings.

Nativist reaction to expanding pluralism. A dark side to the Protestant vision of America became evident in the 19th century.

The effects of immigration. The waves of immigrants coming to these shores in the 19th century challenged the Protestant domination of the culture. By 1850 Catholicism was the largest single American denomination, and by the end of the century large numbers of Jews had arrived to become citizens.

The rise of anti-Catholicism and anti-Semitism. There were only a few Catholics and Jews in America from the earliest days of colonization. This dramatic influx of non-Protestants created fear and anxiety among some Protestants.

Intolerance and the "Know Nothings" at mid-century. An anti-Catholic and anti-foreign nativist movement emerged in the first half of the 19th century, culminating in the 1840s and 1850s in the Know-Nothing Party. The party endeavored to exclude Catholics from politics. Catholics were the victims of violence and discrimination in many parts of the nation.

Intolerance at the turn of the century. A resurgence of similar sentiments in the late 19th and early 20th centuries contributed to widespread anti-Semitism, opposition to immigration, and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan.

The positive role of religion in helping shape public policy. The ugly expressions of religious bigotry in the nativist movement represent some of the worst examples of religious involvement in politics and public policy. But religion has also been at the heart of some of the best movements in American social and political life.

The contribution of African-American churches. The black churches have played a central role in the political and social history of African-Americans from the Colonial period to the present. Indeed, black churches have shaped the lives of all Americans by providing much of the moral and political leadership of the civil rights movement.

The contribution of Judaism and other minority religions. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, churches, synagogues and temples provided vital support for Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish, and Buddhist immigrants as they adjusted to life in the United States. Religious communities were also at the forefront of many reform movements during the Progressive Era early in this century. Various religious groups, notably Unitarians, Quakers and Reform Jews, have been particularly visible in the peace movements and in the advocacy of social justice.

Constitutional separation and the role of religion in public life. In these and in many other ways, religious institutions and believers have significantly influenced public policy in the United States throughout the nation's history.

Benefits of religious moral leadership. Again, disestablishment was not meant to separate religion from public life. Politics and government in America have clearly benefited from the moral leadership and values of many religious traditions and convictions.

Costs of religious zealotry. At the same time, the nation has suffered from violations of the spirit of religious liberty by religious groups who have at various times in our history used the public square to attack the religion of others or to deny others the full rights of citizenship.

Contemporary perspective
More people died because of their religious convictions in the 20th century than in any previous century. And there appears to be no end to the tragedy. Of the many wars waged throughout the world in the 1990s, more than two-thirds had religious or ethnic differences as a root cause. From Northern Ireland to Bosnia to Sri Lanka, religious differences contribute daily to death and destruction around the globe.

Even the explosion of freedom in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, by any measure a tremendous advance for democratic principles, has been accompanied by a serious outbreak of religious and ethnic bigotry and division. One of the most frightening developments has been the dramatic rise of anti-Semitism throughout the region.

Tensions between Muslims and Christians have resulted in violence in Bosnia, Azerbaijan, Armenia and other places. How has the United States, the most religiously diverse nation in the world, managed to avoid the "holy wars" so prevalent today and throughout history? This remarkable achievement may be traced directly to the religious-liberty clauses of the First Amendment. In spite of occasional setbacks and outbreaks of religious bigotry, the American experiment in religious liberty has held.

Religions remain active in American political life. Religious liberty has allowed religions in the United States to grow and prosper as in few other places in the world. Not only are a large number of Americans deeply religious, but their religious communities continue to be actively involved in political life. This is evident, for example, in the civil rights and peace movements. Also, since the late 1970s, fundamentalist Christian communities together with other evangelical Christians have become a significant force in American politics, speaking out on a variety of social and moral issues.

Confusion about the role of religion in public life threatens religious liberty. There are disturbing signs that the American experiment in liberty may be in danger from two extremes.

Two extremes on the issue of religion and public life. On one end of the political spectrum there are those who seek to establish in law a "Christian America." On the other end are some who seek to exclude religion from public life entirely. Both proposals violate the spirit of religious liberty.

Teaching religion vs. teaching about religion. The controversy surrounding the role of religion in public life has left many citizens confused about the principles of religious liberty. This confusion is made worse by the absence of teaching about religion and religious liberty in many public schools. Teaching about religion in the schools is often confused with the teaching of religion, or religious advocacy and indoctrination.

Change in some public schools. In the last few years, most states have mandated more teaching about religion in the schools in the social studies curriculum.

Efforts by U.S. Department of Education. In December 2000, the U.S. Department of Education sent a packet of religious-liberty guidelines to every public school principal in the nation. These guidelines focused on religious-liberty rights of students, the relationship between public schools and religious communities, and the role of religion in the curriculum. (See Cases & resources in this section.)

Change in textbook treatment of the role of religion. As a result, textbooks have begun to include more about the story of religious liberty and the role of religion in American history and society.

The new challenges of exploding pluralism. The confusion and ignorance surrounding the religious-liberty clauses of the Constitution leave Americans in a weak position to meet the challenges of exploding religious pluralism in the United States. The violent religious divisions throughout the world serve as a dramatic reminder of how vital it is for Americans to understand and affirm the principles of religious liberty in a nation of some 3,000 religious groups.

Pluralism as meaning society includes people of all faiths and none. Religious pluralism in the United States has expanded beyond the Protestant, Catholic and Jewish pluralism of the 1950s.

Expanding pluralism. Pluralism now includes a growing number of people from all the world's religions, especially Islam and Buddhism. Pluralism must also take into account the nearly 12% of Americans who express no religious preference at all. Pluralist expansion will only continue.

The burdens of exploding pluralism. The challenges of this diversity can be seen throughout American society. This pluralism is particularly evident in public schools. For example, dozens of different native languages are often found among the students of large urban schools. Similarly, many different religions are represented.

The First Amendment as providing ground rules for living together. As the United States begins its third century of constitutional government, important questions arise.

Living together without religious consensus. Two urgent questions are how Americans of so many faiths will continue to live together as citizens of one nation, and, since there is not (and cannot be) a religious consensus, what the civic values are that Americans of all faiths and none hold in common.

Adherence to the principles of religious liberty. To answer these questions, American citizens must return to the basic democratic principles articulated in the religious-liberty clauses of the First Amendment. Religious liberty, or freedom of conscience, is at the heart of what it means to be an American citizen. Only in these principles can Americans find the ground rules that allow all citizens to live together with deep religious differences.

The Williamsburg Charter. One effort to return to basic principles is the Williamsburg Charter. Drafted by members of America's leading faiths and revised over the course of two years in close consultation with political, academic, educational and religious leaders, the charter was signed in 1988 by former Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, two chief justices of the United States, and by nearly 200 leaders of national life. With their signatures, these individuals strongly reaffirmed the principles of religious liberty as essential for developing a common vision for the common good.

The Williamsburg Charter states in part:

"We affirm that a right for one is a right for another and a responsibility for all. A right for a Protestant is a right for an Eastern Orthodox is a right for a Catholic is a right for a Jew is a right for a Humanist is a right for a Mormon is a right for a Muslim is a right for a Buddhist — and for the followers of any other faith within the wide bounds of the republic.

"That rights are universal and responsibilities mutual is both the premise and the promise of democratic pluralism. The First Amendment in this sense, is the epitome of public justice and serves as the golden rule for civic life. Rights are best guarded and responsibilities best exercised when each person and group guards for all others those rights they wish guarded for themselves."

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel_liberty/history/overview.aspx

************
Your question is too big, thus my answer was too long...!!!

Good Luck & Best Regards