View source for Freedom of religion

{{Short description|Human right to practice, or not, a religion without conflict from governing powers}}
{{Redirect|Freedom of worship|the painting|Freedom of Worship (painting){{!}}''Freedom of Worship'' (painting)}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=May 2020}}
<!-- This article contains links to, or uses references to [[WP:Non-free content|proprietary services or sites]]. The links concerned should be carefully reviewed with a view to their replacement (if possible) with reliable official or "freely-licensed" alternatives.-->
{{Status of religious freedom|expanded=all}}
{{Liberalism sidebar}}

'''Freedom of religion''' or '''religious liberty''', also known as '''freedom of religion or belief''' ('''FoRB'''), is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest [[religion]] or [[belief]] in teaching, practice, [[worship]], and observance. It also includes the right not to profess any religion or belief<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=https://www.refworld.org/docid/453883fb22.html|title=CCPR General Comment No. 22: Article 18 (Freedom of Thought, Conscience or Religion)|date=July 30, 1993|quote=5. The Committee observes that the freedom to 'have or to adopt' a religion or belief necessarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one’s current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views. [...]|website=refworld.org}}</ref> or not to practice a religion, often called '''freedom from religion'''.<ref name=":2">{{cite web|url=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58915|title=CASE OF BUSCARINI AND OTHERS v. SAN MARINO|publisher=European Court of Human Rights|at= § 34|date=February 18, 1999|accessdate=January 24, 2023}}.</ref>

Freedom of religion is considered by many people and most nations to be a [[fundamental rights|fundamental]] [[human right]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://usinfo.state.gov/dd/eng_democracy_dialogues/religion/religion_essay.html|title=The Evolution of Religious Liberty as a Universal Human Right|access-date=5 December 2006|last=Davis|first=Derek H.|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080201105738/http://usinfo.state.gov/dd/eng_democracy_dialogues/religion/religion_essay.html|archive-date=1 February 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5ANDmIIpAmwC&pg=PA29734|title=Congressional Record #29734 – 19 November 2003|access-date=3 September 2011|isbn=978-0160799563|last1=Congress|first1=U. S.|year=2008|publisher=U.S. Government Printing Office }}</ref> Freedom of religion is protected in all the most important international human rights [[treaty|conventions]], such as the [[United Nations]] [[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]], the [[American Convention on Human Rights]], the [[European Convention on Human Rights]], and the [[Convention on the Rights of the Child|United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child]]. In a country with a [[state religion]], freedom of religion is generally considered to mean that the government permits religious practices of other communities besides the state religion, and does not [[religious persecution|persecute]] believers in other faiths or those who have no faith. The concept of religious liberty includes, and some say requires, [[secular liberalism]], and excludes [[authoritarian]] versions of secularism.<ref>Andrew Koppelman, How could religious liberty be a human right?, International Journal of Constitutional Law, Volume 16, Issue 3, July 2018, Pages 985–1005, https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moy071</ref><ref>{{Cite web| title = Is the liberal state secular? How much state-religion separation is necessary to secure liberal-democratic ideals| work = Religion and Global Society| access-date = 2024-03-07| date = 2017-04-05| url = https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/religionglobalsociety/2017/04/is-the-liberal-state-secular/}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web| last = Rosentiel| first = Tom| title = Religion and Secularism: The American Experience| work = Pew Research Center| access-date = 2024-03-07| date = 2007-12-03| url = https://www.pewresearch.org/2007/12/03/religion-and-secularism-the-american-experience/}}</ref>

Freedom of religion includes, at a minimum, ''freedom of belief'' (the right to believe whatever a person, group, or religion wishes, including all forms of [[irreligion]], such as [[atheism]], [[humanism]], [[existentialism]], or other forms of ''non-belief''), but some feel freedom of religion must include ''freedom of practice'' (the right to practice a religion or belief openly and outwardly in a public manner, including the right not to practice any religion).<ref name=Farr2019 /> A third term, ''freedom of worship'', may be considered synonymous with both ''freedom of belief'' and ''freedom of practice'' or may be considered to fall between the two terms.

Crucial in the consideration of religious liberty is the question of whether religious practices and religiously motivated actions that would otherwise violate [[secular law]] should be permitted due to the safeguarding freedom of religion. This issue is addressed in numerous court cases, including the [[United States Supreme Court]] cases ''[[Reynolds v. United States]]'' and ''[[Wisconsin v. Yoder]]'', and in the [[European Convention of Human Rights|European law]] cases of ''[[S.A.S. v. France]]'', as well as numerous other jurisdictions.

Symbols of religious freedom are seen in significant locations around the world, such as the [[Statue of Liberty]] in [[New York City|New York]], representing hope for religious refugees;<ref>{{Cite web |last= |first= |title=The story behind 'The New Colossus' poem on the Statue of Liberty and how it became a symbol of immigration |url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story-colossus-poem-statue-liberty-symbol-immigration/story?id=64931545 |access-date=2024-09-13 |website=ABC News |language=en}}</ref> the [[Bevis Marks Synagogue]] in [[London]], which dates from 1701 and is the oldest continuously active synagogue in Europe;<ref>{{cite news |title=London rejects 48-story skyscraper threatening UK's oldest synagogue |url=https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/london-rejects-48-story-skyscraper-threatening-uks-oldest-synagogue-684740 |access-date=June 11, 2025 |work=Jerusalem Post}}</ref> and the [[Golden Temple]] in [[Amritsar]], India, a symbol of religious inclusivity and freedom of worship.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Heim |first=Kristi |date=2009-08-16 |title=Visitors find a lot to worship in India's historic, friendly Amritsar |url=https://www.seattletimes.com/life/travel/visitors-find-a-lot-to-worship-in-indias-historic-friendly-amritsar/ |access-date=2024-09-13 |website=The Seattle Times |language=en-US}}</ref> Other key sites include the [[Terraces (Baháʼí)|Bahá'í Gardens]] in [[Haifa|Haifa, Israel]], which emphasize the unity of humanity and freedom of belief,<ref>{{Cite web |title=PEOPLE: Religious Freedom |url=https://embassies.gov.il/hague-en/aboutisrael/people/Pages/SOCIETY-%20Religious%20Freedom.aspx#:~:text=The%20Declaration%20of%20the%20Establishment,features%20developed%20over%20the%20centuries. |access-date=2024-09-13 |website=embassies.gov.il}}</ref> and [[Lutherstadt Wittenberg]] in Germany, where [[Martin Luther|Martin Luther's]] actions sparked the [[Reformation]], symbolizing a fight for religious reform and liberty.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hawkins |first=Benjamin |date=2020-10-31 |title=Luther's 500-year-old 'On Christian Liberty' lays foundation for modern religious freedom |url=https://mbcpathway.com/2020/10/31/luthers-500-year-old-on-christian-liberty-lays-foundation-for-modern-religious-freedom/ |access-date=2024-09-13 |website=Pathway |language=en-US}}</ref>

==History==
{{Cite check|section|date=September 2010}}

In a historic setting freedom to worship has often been limited in practice through punitive taxation, repressive social legislation, and political disenfranchisement. An example commonly cited by scholars is the status of [[dhimmi]]s under Islamic sharia law. Stemming from the [[Pact of Umar]] and literally meaning "protected individuals", it is often argued that non-Muslims possessing the dhimmi status in medieval Islamic societies enjoyed greater freedoms than non-Christians in most medieval European societies, while duly noting that the protection was limited because of regulation by and obligations to government such as taxation (compare [[jizya]] and [[zakat]]) and military service differed between religions. In modern concepts of religious freedom, the law is usually blind to religious affiliation.

In [[Classical antiquity|Antiquity]], a [[syncretism|syncretic]] point of view often allowed communities of traders to operate under their own customs. When street mobs of separate quarters clashed in a [[Hellenistic]] or [[Ancient Rome|Roman]] city, the issue was generally perceived to be an infringement of community rights.

[[Cyrus the Great]] established the [[Achaemenid Empire]] ca. 550 BC, and initiated a general policy of permitting religious freedom throughout the empire, documenting this on the [[Cyrus Cylinder]].<ref>[https://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/cyrus_cylinder.html Cyrus Cylinder] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170722222501/http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/cyrus_cylinder.html |date=22 July 2017 }}, [https://www.livius.org/ livius.org].</ref><ref>{{cite book |author1=Richard A. Taylor|author2=E. Ray Clendenen|title=Haggai, Malachi|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hII6mqKrH9kC|year= 2004|publisher=B&H Publishing Group|isbn=978-0805401219|pages=[https://books.google.com/books?id=hII6mqKrH9kC&pg=PA31 31–32]}}</ref>

Freedom of religious worship was established in the Buddhist [[Maurya Empire]] of [[History of India|ancient India]] by [[Ashoka the Great]] in the 3rd century BC, which was encapsulated in the [[Edicts of Ashoka]].{{citation needed|date=November 2024}}

Greek{{ndash}}Jewish clashes at [[Cyrene, Libya|Cyrene]] in 73 AD and 117 AD and in [[Alexandria]] in 115 AD provide examples of cosmopolitan cities as scenes of tumult.

[[Genghis Khan]] was one of the first rulers who in 13th century enacted a law explicitly guaranteeing religious freedom to everyone and every religion.<ref name="Weatherford 2005 p. 59">{{cite book | last=Weatherford | first=J. | title=Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World | publisher=Crown | year=2005 | isbn=978-0-307-23781-1 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=A8Y9B5uHQcAC | quote=Genghis Khan decreed complete and total religious freedom for everyone..| page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=A8Y9B5uHQcAC&dq=religion+freedompg=PA69&pg=PA69 60]}}</ref>

===Ancient Roman policy===

[[File:Minerva als Symbol der Toleranz.jpg|thumb|upright=0.7|Roman goddess [[Minerva]] as a symbol of enlightened wisdom protects the believers of all religions ([[Daniel Chodowiecki]], 1791)]]
The [[Ancient Rome|Romans]] tolerated most religions, including [[Judaism]], and encouraged local subjects to continue worshipping their own gods. They did not, however, tolerate [[Christianity]] because of the Christian refusal to offer honours to the official cult of the emperor until it was legalised by the Roman emperor [[Galerius]] in 311. Holmes and Bickers note that as long as Christianity was treated as a part of Judaism, which was generally tolerated because of its antiquity and its practice of making offers on ''behalf'' of the emperor, it enjoyed the same freedom, but the Christian claim to religious exclusivity meant its followers found themselves subject to hostility.<ref name="Moss">{{cite book|author=Candida Moss|title=[[The Myth of Persecution]]|publisher=[[HarperCollins]]|year=2013|isbn=978-0-06-210452-6|pages=145–151|author-link=Candida Moss}}</ref><ref>Holmes, J. D. and Bickers, B. (1983), ''A Short History of the Catholic Church'', pp. 11–12</ref>

The early Christian apologist [[Tertullian]] was the first-known writer to employ the term "freedom of religion" (''libertas religionis''), which appears in the 24th chapter of his [[Apologeticum]].<ref>Taliaferro, Karen (2019). "Arguing Natural Law: Tertullian and Religious Freedom in the Roman Empire". In ''The Possibility of Religious Freedom: Early Natural Law and the Abrahamic Faiths'', pp. 104–127. Cambridge University Press.</ref> He expanded on the case for the tolerance of all religious views in his epistle to [[proconsul]] Scapula,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.itslikethis.org/tertullian-on-freedom-of-religion/|title=Tertullian on Freedom of Religion|work=It's Like This |date=13 May 2013 |last1=Smith |first1=David R. }}</ref> in which he states

{{Blockquote
|[I]t is a human right [(''humanis ius'')], a privilege of nature [(''naturalis potestas'')], that every man should worship according to his own convictions: one man's religion neither harms nor helps another man. It is assuredly no part of religion to compel religion&mdash;to which free-will and not force should lead us<ref>{{cite book | last=Donaldson | first=J. | title=Ante-Nicene Christian Library: The Writings of Tertullian, v. 1 (1872) | publisher=T. and T. Clark | series=Ante-Nicene Christian Library: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325 | year=1869 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0Spz5wTrecQC |pages=[https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=0Spz5wTrecQC&pg=PA46 46-47]}}</ref>}}

The [[Edict of Milan]] guaranteed freedom of religion in the Roman Empire until the [[Edict of Thessalonica]] in 380, which outlawed all religions except Christianity.{{citation needed|date=November 2024}}

===India===
{{Main|Freedom of religion in India}}
'''Religious tolerance in India: A legacy of the past and a promise for the future'''

Ancient Jews fleeing from [[Persecution of Jews|persecution]] in [[Land of Israel|their homeland]] 2,500 years ago settled in modern-day India and never faced [[anti-Semitism]].<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZWX6pF2PTJwC&pg=PA26|title=Who Are the Jews of India?|last=Katz|first=Nathan|year=2000|publisher=University of California Press|isbn=978-0520920729|language=en}}</ref> Freedom of religion [[edicts]] have been found written during [[Ashoka the Great]]'s reign in the 3rd century BC. Freedom to practise, preach and propagate any religion is a constitutional right in Republic of India. Most major religious festivals of the main communities are included in the list of national holidays.

Many scholars and intellectuals believe that India's predominant religion, [[Hinduism]], has long been a most tolerant religion.<ref>{{cite book|author=David E. Ludden|title=Contesting the Nation: Religion, Community, and the Politics of Democracy in India|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jEUdPqYQjhoC|year=1996|publisher=University of Pennsylvania Press|isbn=0812215850|pages=[https://books.google.com/books?id=jEUdPqYQjhoC&pg=257 257–58]}}</ref> [[Rajni Kothari]], founder of the [[Centre for the Study of Developing Societies]] has written, "[India] is a country built on the foundations of a civilisation that is fundamentally non-religious."<ref>{{cite book|author=Rajni Kothari|title=Communalism in Indian Politics|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ruNtAAAAMAAJ|year=1998|publisher=Rainbow Publishers|isbn=978-8186962008|page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=ruNtAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22foundations+of+a+civilisation+that+is+fundamentally+non-religious%22&pg=PA134 134]}}</ref>

[[File:People offering Namaz on the occasion of Id-ul-Fitr, at Jama Masjid, in Delhi on August 20, 2012 (1).jpg|thumb|[[Muslims]] praying at a [[Jama Masjid, Delhi|Jama Masjid]] in India, a majority-[[Hindu]] country]]
The [[Dalai Lama]], the Tibetan leader in exile, said that religious tolerance of 'Aryabhoomi,' a reference to India found in the [[Mahabharata]], has been in existence in this country from thousands of years. "Not only Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism which are the native religions but also Christianity and Islam have flourished here. Religious tolerance is inherent in Indian tradition," the Dalai Lama said.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.deccanherald.com/content/42229/indias-religious-tolerance-lauded.html|title=India's religious tolerance lauded|work=Deccan Herald|date=19 December 2009|access-date=3 September 2011}}</ref>

Freedom of religion in the [[Indian subcontinent]] is exemplified by the reign of King Piyadasi (304–232 BC) ([[Ashoka]]). One of King Ashoka's main concerns was to reform governmental institutes and exercise moral principles in his attempt to create a [[Edicts of Ashoka|just and humane society]]. Later he promoted the principles of [[Buddhism]], and the creation of a just, understanding and fair society was held as an important principle for many ancient rulers of this time in the East.{{citation needed|date=November 2024}}

The importance of freedom of worship in India was encapsulated in an inscription of [[Ashoka]]:
{{Blockquote|King Piyadasi (Ashok) dear to the Gods, honours all sects, the ascetics (hermits) or those who dwell at home, he honours them with charity and in other ways. But the King, dear to the Gods, attributes less importance to this charity and these honours than to the vow of seeing the reign of virtues, which constitutes the essential part of them. For all these virtues there is a common source, modesty of speech. That is to say, one must not exalt one's creed discrediting all others, nor must one degrade these others without legitimate reasons. One must, on the contrary, render to other creeds the honour befitting them.}}

On the main Asian continent, the Mongols were tolerant of religions. People could worship as they wished freely and openly.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Chua, Amy.|title=Day of empire : how hyperpowers rise to global dominance--and why they fall|date=2007|publisher=Doubleday|isbn=978-0-385-51284-8|edition=1st|location=New York|oclc=123079516}}</ref>

After the arrival of Europeans, Christians in their zeal to convert local as per belief in conversion as service of God, have also been seen to fall into frivolous methods since their arrival, though by and large there are hardly any reports of law and order disturbance from mobs with Christian beliefs, except perhaps in the north eastern region of India.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.stephen-knapp.com/christian_persecution_in_india.htm|title=Christian Persecution in India: The Real Story|publisher=Stephen-knapp.com|access-date=3 September 2011}}</ref>

Freedom of religion in contemporary India is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 25 of the nation's constitution. Accordingly, every citizen of India has a right to profess, practice and propagate their religions peacefully.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://lawmin.nic.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdf |title=The Constitution of India |access-date=3 September 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140909230437/http://lawmin.nic.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdf |archive-date=9 September 2014}}</ref>

In September 2010, the Indian state of [[Kerala]]'s State Election Commissioner announced that "Religious heads cannot issue calls to vote for members of a particular community or to defeat the nonbelievers".<ref name="orthodoxherald.com">{{cite news |url=http://www.orthodoxherald.com/2010/09/18/%E2%80%98using-places-of-worship-for-campaigning-in-kerala-civic-polls-is-violation-of-poll-code%E2%80%99/|title=Using places of worship for campaigning in Kerala civic polls is violation of poll code|newspaper=Indian Orthodox Herald|date=18 September 2010|access-date=3 September 2011}}</ref> The Catholic Church comprising Latin, Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara rites used to give clear directions to the faithful on exercising their franchise during elections through pastoral letters issued by bishops or council of bishops. The pastoral letter issued by Kerala Catholic Bishops' Council (KCBC) on the eve of the poll urged the faithful to shun atheists.<ref name="orthodoxherald.com"/>

===Europe===

====Religious intolerance====
[[File:CONGRESS COLUMN-BRUSSELS-Dr. Murali Mohan Gurram (13).jpg|thumb|right|Nineteenth-century allegorical statue on the [[Congress Column]] in Brussels depicting religious freedom]]
Most Roman Catholic kingdoms kept a tight rein on religious expression throughout the [[Middle Ages]]. Jews were alternately tolerated and persecuted, the most notable examples of the latter being the expulsion of all [[History of the Jews in Spain|Jews]] from Spain in 1492. Some of those who remained and converted were tried as heretics in the [[Inquisition]] for allegedly practicing Judaism in secret. Despite the persecution of Jews, they were the most tolerated non-Catholic faith in Europe.

However, the latter was in part a reaction to the growing movement that became the [[Protestant Reformation|Reformation]]. As early as 1380, [[John Wycliffe]] in England denied [[transubstantiation]] and began his translation of the Bible into English. He was condemned in a [[papal bull]] in 1410, and all his books were burned.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-07-02 |title=Jan Hus - Bohemian Reformer, Martyr, Church Reform {{!}} Britannica |url=https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jan-Hus/The-final-trial |access-date=2025-07-03 |website=www.britannica.com |language=en}}</ref>

In 1414, [[Jan Hus]], a [[Bohemia]]n preacher of reformation, was given a safe conduct by the Holy Roman Emperor to attend the [[Council of Constance]]. Not entirely trusting in his safety, he made his will before he left. His forebodings proved accurate, and he was burned at the stake on 6 July 1415. The council also decreed that Wycliffe's remains be disinterred and cast out. This decree was not carried out until 1429.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-07-02 |title=Jan Hus - Bohemian Reformer, Martyr, Church Reform {{!}} Britannica |url=https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jan-Hus/The-final-trial |access-date=2025-07-03 |website=www.britannica.com |language=en}}</ref>

After the fall of the city of [[Granada]], Spain, in 1492, the Muslim population was promised religious freedom by the [[Treaty of Granada]], but that promise was short-lived. In 1501, Granada's Muslims were given an ultimatum to either convert to Christianity or to emigrate. The majority converted, but only superficially, continuing to dress and speak as they had before and to secretly practice Islam. The [[Morisco]]s (converts to Christianity) were ultimately expelled from Spain between 1609 (Castile) and 1614 (rest of Spain), by [[Philip III of Spain#Expulsion of the Moors (1609–1610)|Philip III]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-07-02 |title=Jan Hus - Bohemian Reformer, Martyr, Church Reform {{!}} Britannica |url=https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jan-Hus/The-final-trial |access-date=2025-07-03 |website=www.britannica.com |language=en}}</ref>

[[Martin Luther]] published his famous 95 Theses in [[Wittenberg]] on 31 October 1517. His major aim was theological, summed up in the three basic dogmas of Protestantism:
* The Bible only is infallible.
* Every Christian can interpret it.
* Human sins are so wrongful that no deed or merit, only God's grace, can lead to salvation.

In consequence, Luther hoped to stop the sale of [[indulgence]]s and to reform the Church from within. In 1521, he was given the chance to recant at the [[Diet of Worms]] before [[Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor]]. After he refused to recant, he was declared heretic. Partly for his own protection, he was sequestered on the [[Wartburg]] in the possessions of [[Frederick III, Elector of Saxony]], where he translated the [[New Testament]] into German. He was excommunicated by papal bull in 1521.{{citation needed|date=November 2024}}

However, the movement continued to gain ground in his absence and spread to Switzerland. [[Huldrych Zwingli]] preached reform in [[Zürich]] from 1520 to 1523. He opposed the sale of indulgences, celibacy, pilgrimages, pictures, statues, relics, altars, and organs. This culminated in outright war between the Swiss [[cantons of Switzerland|cantons]] that accepted Protestantism and the Catholics. In 1531, the Catholics were victorious, and Zwingli was killed in battle. The Catholic cantons made peace with Zurich and Berne.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-34SAAAAYAAJ&q=1531+The+Catholic+cantons+were+magnanimous+in+victory|title=The History of Switzerland, for the Swiss People|last1=Zschokke|first1=Heinrich|last2=Zschokke|first2=Emil|date=1855|publisher=C. S. Francis & Company|language=en}}</ref>

The defiance of papal authority proved contagious, and in 1533, when [[Henry VIII of England]] was excommunicated for his divorce and remarriage to Anne Boleyn, he promptly established a state church with bishops appointed by the crown. This was not without internal opposition, and [[Thomas More]], who had been his Lord Chancellor, was executed in 1535 for opposition to Henry.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-03-18 |title=BBC - History - Historic Figures: Thomas More (1478 - 1535) |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/more_sir_thomas.shtml |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250318114855/https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/more_sir_thomas.shtml |url-status=dead |archive-date=2025-03-18 |access-date=2025-03-22 }}</ref>

In 1535, the Swiss canton of Geneva became Protestant. In 1536, the [[Bern]]ese imposed the reformation on the canton of [[Vaud]] by conquest. They sacked the cathedral in [[Lausanne]] and destroyed all its art and statuary. [[John Calvin]], who had been active in Geneva was expelled in 1538 in a power struggle, but he was invited back in 1540.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-07-02 |title=Jan Hus - Bohemian Reformer, Martyr, Church Reform {{!}} Britannica |url=https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jan-Hus/The-final-trial |access-date=2025-07-03 |website=www.britannica.com |language=en}}</ref>

The same kind of seesaw back and forth between Protestantism and Catholicism was evident in England when [[Mary I of England]] returned that country briefly to the Catholic fold in 1553 and persecuted Protestants. However, her half-sister, [[Elizabeth I of England]] was to restore the [[Church of England]] in 1558, this time permanently, and began to persecute Catholics again. The [[King James Bible]] commissioned by King [[James I of England]] and published in 1611 proved a landmark for Protestant worship, with official Catholic forms of worship being banned.{{citation needed|date=November 2024}}

In France, although peace was made between Protestants and Catholics at the [[Peace of Saint-Germain-en-Laye]] in 1570, persecution continued, most notably in the [[Massacre of Saint Bartholomew's Day]] on 24 August 1572, in which thousands of Protestants throughout France were killed. A few years before, at the "Michelade" of Nîmes in 1567, Protestants had massacred the local Catholic clergy.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-07-02 |title=Jan Hus - Bohemian Reformer, Martyr, Church Reform {{!}} Britannica |url=https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jan-Hus/The-final-trial |access-date=2025-07-03 |website=www.britannica.com |language=en}}</ref>

====Early steps and attempts in the way of tolerance====
[[File:Cross menorah Oxford 20051225.jpg|thumb|upright=0.8|The [[Christian cross|cross]] of the [[war memorial]] and a [[Menorah (Temple)|menorah]] coexist in [[Oxford]], Oxfordshire, England]]
[[Kingdom of Sicily|The Norman Kingdom of Sicily]] under Roger II was characterized by its multi-ethnic nature and religious tolerance. Normans, Jews, Muslim Arabs, Byzantine Greeks, Lombards, and native Sicilians lived in harmony.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|url=http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9377080/Roger-II|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070523045823/http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9377080/Roger-II|url-status=dead|archive-date=23 May 2007|title=Roger II|encyclopedia=Encyclopædia Britannica|access-date=3 September 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE1D61331F935A15757C0A961948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2|title=Tracing The Norman Rulers of Sicily|work=The New York Times|date=26 April 1987|access-date=3 September 2011}}</ref>{{failed verification|date=February 2015}} Rather than exterminate the Muslims of Sicily, Roger II's grandson [[Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor|Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen]] (1215–1250) allowed them to settle on the mainland and build mosques. Not least, he enlisted them in his{{snd}} Christian{{snd}} army and even into his personal bodyguards.<ref>{{cite book|author=Christopher Gravett|title=German Medieval Armies 1000–1300|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=nav0JZtAJbcC|year=1997|publisher=Osprey Publishing|isbn=978-1855326576|page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=nav0JZtAJbcC&pg=PA17 17]}}{{Dead link|date=August 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>{{Request quotation|date=February 2015}}<ref>Thomas Curtis Van Cleve's ''The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen: Immutator Mundi'' (Oxford, 1972)</ref>{{Request quotation|date=February 2015}}

[[Kingdom of Bohemia]] (present-day Czech Republic) enjoyed religious freedom between 1436 and 1620 as a result of the [[Bohemian Reformation]], and became one of the most liberal countries of the Christian world during that period of time. The so-called Basel Compacts of 1436 declared the freedom of religion and peace between Catholics and [[Utraquism|Utraquists]]. In 1609 Emperor Rudolf II granted Bohemia greater religious liberty with his Letter of Majesty. The privileged position of the Catholic Church in the Czech kingdom was firmly established after the [[Battle of White Mountain]] in 1620. Gradually freedom of religion in Bohemian lands came to an end and Protestants fled or were expelled from the country. A devout Catholic, Emperor [[Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor|Ferdinand II]] forcibly converted Austrian and Bohemian Protestants.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://gw.geneanet.org/cousinjeanne?lang=en&n=austria&oc=2&p=ferdinand+ii+habsburg|title=Family tree of Ferdinand II Habsburg AUSTRIA|website=Geneanet|language=en|access-date=2019-12-23}}</ref>

In the meantime, in Germany [[Philip Melanchthon]] drafted the [[Augsburg Confession]] as a common confession for the Lutherans and the free territories. It was presented to Charles V in 1530.

[[File:Declaration of Human Rights.jpg|thumb|upright|The French ''[[Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen]]'' (1789) guarantees freedom of religion, as long as religious activities do not infringe on public order in ways detrimental to society.]]
In the [[Holy Roman Empire]], Charles V agreed to tolerate Lutheranism in 1555 at the [[Peace of Augsburg]]. Each state was to take the religion of its prince, but within those states, there was not necessarily religious tolerance. Citizens of other faiths could relocate to a more hospitable environment.

In France, from the 1550s, many attempts to reconcile Catholics and Protestants and to establish tolerance failed because the State was too weak to enforce them. It took the victory of prince Henry IV of France, who had converted into Protestantism, and his accession to the throne, to impose religious tolerance formalized in the [[Edict of Nantes]] in 1598. It would remain in force for over 80 years until its revocation in 1685 by [[Louis XIV of France]]. Intolerance remained the norm until Louis XVI, who signed the Edict of Versailles (1787), then the constitutional text of 24 December 1789, granting civilian rights to Protestants. The [[French Revolution]] then abolished state religion and the [[Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen]] (1789) guarantees freedom of religion, as long as religious activities do not infringe on public order in ways detrimental to society.

===Early laws and legal guarantees for religious freedom===

====Principality of Transylvania====
{{main|Edict of Torda}}
In 1558, the [[Hungarian Diet]]'s [[Edict of Torda]] declared free practice of both Catholicism and Lutheranism. Calvinism, however, was prohibited. Calvinism was included among the accepted religions in 1564. Ten years after the first law, in 1568, the same Diet, under the chairmanship of [[List of Hungarian monarchs|King of Hungary]], and [[List of Princes of Transylvania|Prince of Transylvania]] [[John Sigismund Zápolya]] (John II), following the teaching of [[Ferenc Dávid]],<ref>{{cite book |url=http://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/109.html|title=History of Transylvania. Volume I. From the Beginnings to 1606|date=2001 |publisher=Hungarian Research Institute of Canada and A Research Ancillary of the University of Toronto|access-date=20 November 2016|isbn=0880334797}}</ref> the founder of the [[Unitarian Church of Transylvania]],<ref>{{Cite web|title=DESTINATION: ROMANIA/Unitarianism, a religion born in Cluj|url=http://www.agerpres.ro/engleza-destinatie-romania/2014/08/27/destination-romania-unitarianism-a-religion-born-in-cluj-13-23-02|date=27 August 2014|access-date=2023-01-02|website=www.agerpres.ro|language=ro|archive-date=25 February 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210225160554/https://www.agerpres.ro/engleza-destinatie-romania/2014/08/27/destination-romania-unitarianism-a-religion-born-in-cluj-13-23-02|url-status=dead}}</ref> extended the freedom to all religions, declaring that "''It is not allowed to anybody to intimidate anybody with captivity or expelling for his religion''".

{{Blockquote|Act of Religious Tolerance and Freedom of Conscience:<br><br>
''His majesty, our Lord, in what manner he{{snd}} together with his realm{{snd}} legislated in the matter of religion at the previous Diets, in the same matter now, in this Diet, reaffirms that in every place the preachers shall preach and explain the Gospel each according to his understanding of it, and if the congregation like it, well. If not, no one shall compel them for their souls would not be satisfied, but they shall be permitted to keep a preacher whose teaching they approve. Therefore none of the superintendents or others shall abuse the preachers, no one shall be reviled for his religion by anyone, according to the previous statutes, and it is not permitted that anyone should threaten anyone else by imprisonment or by removal from his post for his teaching. For faith is the gift of God and this comes from hearing, which hearings is by the word of God''.|Diet at Torda, 1568: King John Sigismund<ref name=s2>Unitarian Universalist Partner Church Council. [http://www.uupcc.org/docs/edict-of-torda.doc "Edict of Torda"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180713112749/http://www.uupcc.org/docs/edict-of-torda.doc |date=13 July 2018 }} (DOC). Retrieved on 2008-01-23.</ref>}}

After hearing learned debate on the matter, King Sigismund ruled that society did not have the power to stifle religious expression. The lack of state religion was unique for centuries in Europe, and the Edict of Torda is considered as the first legal guarantee of religious freedom in Christian Europe.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://lightbringers.net/content/story-francis-david-and-king-john-sigismund-establishment-transylvanian-unitarian-church|title=The Story of Francis David and King John Sigismund: The Establishment of the Transylvanian Unitarian Church|work=Lightbringers|access-date=17 October 2016|quote=every orator shall preach the gospel by his own (personal) conception, at any place if that community is willing to accept him}}</ref>

Four religions ([[Catholicism]], [[Lutheranism]], [[Calvinism]], [[Unitarianism]]) were named as accepted religions (religo recepta), having their representatives in the Transylvanian Diet, while the other religions, like the [[Eastern Orthodox Church|Orthodoxs]], [[Sabbatarians]] and [[Anabaptists]] were tolerated churches (religio tolerata), which meant that they had no power in the law making and no veto rights in the Diet, but they were not persecuted in any way. Thanks to the Edict of Torda, from the last decades of the 16th century Transylvania was the only place in Europe, where so many religions could live together in harmony and without persecution.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2005-11-25|author=Kovács Kálmán|title=Erdély és a Habsburg valláspolitika a 17. század utolsó évtizedeiben|url=https://mult-kor.hu/20051125_erdely_es_a_habsburg_vallaspolitika_a_17_szazad_utolso_evtizedeiben|access-date=2023-01-02|website=Múlt-kor történelmi magazin|language=hu}}</ref>

This religious freedom ended however for some of the religions of Transylvania in 1638. After this year the [[Szekler Sabbatarians|Sabbatarians]] began to be persecuted and forced to convert to one of the accepted Christian religions of Transylvania.<ref>{{cite book |url=http://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/192.html|title=History of Transylvania. Volume II. From 1606 to 1830|date=17 July 2002 |publisher=Hungarian Research Institute of Canada and A Research Ancillary of the University of Toronto|access-date=20 November 2016|isbn=0880334916}}</ref>

====Habsburg rule in Transylvania====
The Unitarians (despite being one of the "accepted religions") started to be put under an ever-growing pressure, which culminated after the Habsburg conquest of Transylvania (1691),<ref>{{cite book |url=http://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/290.html|title=History of Transylvania. Volume II. From 1606 to 1830|date=17 July 2002 |publisher=Hungarian Research Institute of Canada and A Research Ancillary of the University of Toronto|access-date=20 November 2016|isbn=0880334916}}</ref> Also after the Habsburg occupation, the new Austrian masters forced in the middle of the 18th century the [[Hutterite]] Anabaptists (who found a safe haven in 1621 in Transylvania, after the persecution to which they were subjected in the Austrian provinces and Moravia) to convert to Catholicism or to migrate in another country, which finally the Anabaptists did, leaving Transylvania and Hungary for Wallachia, then from there to Russia, and finally in the United States.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hutterites.org/history/hutterite-history-overview/|title=Hutterite History Overview|work=Hutterian Brethren}}</ref>

====Netherlands====
In the [[Union of Utrecht]] (20 January 1579), personal freedom of religion was declared in the struggle between the Northern Netherlands and Spain. The Union of Utrecht was an important step in the establishment of the Dutch Republic (from 1581 to 1795). Under Calvinist leadership, the Netherlands became the most tolerant country in Europe. It granted asylum to persecuted religious minorities, such as the Huguenots, the Dissenters, and the Jews who had been expelled from Spain and Portugal.<ref>Karl Heussi, ''Kompendium der Kirchengeschichte'', 11. Auflage (1956), Tübingen (Germany), pp. 396–397</ref> The establishment of a Jewish community in the Netherlands and New Amsterdam (present-day New York) during the Dutch Republic is an example of religious freedom. When New Amsterdam surrendered to the English in 1664, freedom of religion was guaranteed in the Articles of Capitulation. It benefitted also the Jews who had landed on Manhattan Island in 1654, fleeing Portuguese persecution in Brazil. During the 18th century, other Jewish communities were established in Newport, Rhode Island, Philadelphia, Charleston, Savannah, and Richmond.<ref>Clifton E. Olmstead (1960), ''History of Religion in the United States'', Prentice-Hall, Englewood Ciffs, NJ, p. 124</ref>

Intolerance of dissident forms of Protestantism also continued, as evidenced by the exodus of the Pilgrims, who sought refuge, first in the Netherlands, and ultimately in America, founding [[Plymouth Colony]] in Massachusetts in 1620. [[William Penn]], the founder of Philadelphia, was involved in a case which had a profound effect on future American laws and those of England. In a classic case of [[jury nullification]], the jury refused to convict William Penn of preaching a Quaker sermon, which was illegal. Even though the jury was imprisoned for their acquittal, they stood by their decision and helped establish the freedom of religion.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Krauss|first=Stanton D|date=1999|title=An Inquiry into the Right of Criminal Juries to determine the Law in Colonial America.|url=https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6989&context=jclc|journal=Journal of Criminology Law and Criminology.|volume=89|issue=1|pages=111–214|doi=10.2307/1144220|jstor=1144220|url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.quakersintheworld.org/quakers-in-action/96/William-Penn-Criminal-Justice-and-the-Penn-Mead-Trial|title=William Penn, Criminal Justice, and the Penn-Mead Trial|publisher=Quakers In The World|accessdate=April 9, 2022}}</ref>

====Poland====
[[File:Konfederacja Warszawska.jpg|thumb|upright=1.2|Original act of the [[Warsaw Confederation]] 1573. The beginning of religious freedom in the [[Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth]]]]
The General Charter of Jewish Liberties known as the [[Statute of Kalisz]] was issued by the Duke of [[Greater Poland]] [[Bolesław the Pious|Boleslaus the Pious]] on 8 September 1264 in [[Kalisz]]. The statute served as the basis for the legal position of Jews in Poland and led to the creation of the [[Yiddish]]-speaking autonomous Jewish nation until 1795. The statute granted exclusive jurisdiction of Jewish courts over Jewish matters and established a separate tribunal for matters involving Christians and Jews. Additionally, it guaranteed personal liberties and safety for Jews including freedom of religion, travel, and trade. The statute was ratified by subsequent Polish Kings: [[Casimir III of Poland]] in 1334, [[Casimir IV of Poland]] in 1453 and [[Sigismund I the Old|Sigismund I of Poland]] in 1539. Poland freed Jews from direct royal authority, opening up enormous administrative and economic opportunities to them.<ref>{{cite book|last=Sinkoff|first=Nancy|title=Out of the Shtetl: Making Jews Modern in the Polish Borderlands|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=f-KmeZgY2hIC|year=2003|publisher=Society of Biblical Lit|isbn=978-1930675162|page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=f-KmeZgY2hIC&dq=1539&pg=PA18 18]}}</ref>

====Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth====
{{Main|Warsaw Confederation}}
The right to worship freely was a basic right given to all inhabitants of the future [[Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth]] throughout the 15th and early 16th century, however, complete freedom of religion was officially recognized in 1573 during the Warsaw Confederation. Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth kept religious freedom laws during an era when religious persecution was an everyday occurrence in the rest of Europe.<ref>Zamoyski, Adam. ''The Polish Way''. New York: Hippocrene Books, 1987.</ref>

===United States===
{{Main|Freedom of religion in the United States}}
[[File:George-Henry-Boughton-Pilgrims-Going-To-Church.jpg|thumb|upright=1.2|''[[Pilgrims Going to Church]]'', a 1867 depiction of [[Puritans]] in the [[New England colonies]], by [[George Henry Boughton]].]]

Most of the [[New England Colonies]] in [[British Colonial America]] were generally not tolerant of dissident forms of worship. For example, [[Roger Williams]] found it necessary to found a new colony in [[Rhode Island]] to escape persecution in the theocratically dominated colony of Massachusetts. The [[Puritans]] of the [[Massachusetts Bay Colony]] were the most active of the New England persecutors of [[Quakers]], and the persecuting spirit was shared by [[Plymouth Colony]] and the colonies along the [[Connecticut River]].<ref name=PER/> Enforcing religious and intellectual homogeneity on the whole community, the civil and religious restrictions practiced by the Puritans of Massachusetts were more rigorous than those imposed on the Puritans in England, with various banishments applied to enforce conformity including the [[branding iron]], the [[whipping post]], the [[bilboes]] and the [[Noose|hangman's noose]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Merrill |first1=Louis Taylor |title=The Puritan Policeman |journal=[[American Sociological Review]] |publisher=American Sociological Association |date=1945 |volume=10 |issue=6 |pages=766–776 |doi=10.2307/2085847 |jstor=2085847 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2085847 |access-date=October 13, 2025 |archive-date=10 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220310173638/https://www.jstor.org/stable/2085847 |url-status=live|url-access=subscription }}</ref> In 1660, one of the most notable victims was an English Quaker [[Mary Dyer]], who was hanged in Boston, Massachusetts for repeatedly defying a Puritan law banning Quakers from the colony.<ref name=PER>{{Cite book|last=Rogers|first=Horatio|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=L5_5yIgpa-YC&q=Among%2520the%2520most%2520pathetic%2520chapters%2520|title=Mary Dyer of Rhode Island: The Quaker Martyr That Was Hanged on Boston Common, June 1, 1660|date=April 2009|publisher=BiblioBazaar|isbn=978-1-103-80124-4|language=en|pages=1–2}}</ref> As one of the four executed Quakers known as the [[Boston martyrs]], the hanging of Dyer on the Boston gallows marked the beginning of the end of the Puritan [[theocracy]] and New England independence from English rule, and in 1661 [[Charles II of England|King Charles II]] explicitly forbade Massachusetts from executing anyone for professing Quakerism.<ref name=CHLS>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EzvHvEDPosQC&q=charles+1661+-+massachusetts+execution&pg=PR41|title=Puritans and Puritanism in Europe and America: a comprehensive encyclopedia|access-date=3 September 2011|isbn=978-1576076781|last1=Bremer|first1=Francis J.|last2=Webster|first2=Tom|year=2006|publisher=Bloomsbury Academic }}</ref> Anti-Catholic sentiment appeared in New England with the first Pilgrim and Puritan settlers.<ref>{{cite news|title=America's dark and not-very-distant history of hating Catholics|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/12/america-history-of-hating-catholics|newspaper=The Guardian|date=14 June 2016}}</ref> In 1647, Massachusetts passed a law prohibiting any [[Society of Jesus|Jesuit]] [[Priesthood in the Catholic Church|Roman Catholic priests]] from entering territory under Puritan jurisdiction.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Pat|first1=Perrin|title=Crime and Punishment: The Colonial Period to the New Frontier|date=1 January 1970|publisher=Discovery Enterprises|page=24}}</ref> Any suspected person who could not clear himself was to be banished from the colony; a second offense carried a death penalty.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Mahoney|first1=Kathleen A.|title=Catholic Higher Education in Protestant America: The Jesuits and Harvard in the Age of the University|date=10 September 2003|publisher=Johns Hopkins University Press|page=47}}</ref> The Pilgrims of New England held radical Protestant disapproval of Christmas.<ref>{{cite book |last=Barnett |first=James Harwood |year=1984 |title=The American Christmas: A Study in National Culture |publisher=Ayer Publishing |isbn=0405076711 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-sRH9skUh6oC&q=Christmas+Puritan+New+England&pg=PA2 |page=3}}</ref> Christmas observance was outlawed in [[Boston]] in 1659.<ref>{{cite news |first= Rachel N. |last= Schnepper |title= Yuletide's Outlaws |url= https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/opinion/the-puritan-war-on-christmas.html?hp&_r=0 |quote= From 1659 to 1681, anyone caught celebrating Christmas in the colony would be fined five shillings. ... |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |date= 14 December 2012 |access-date= 15 December 2012 }}</ref> The ban by the Puritans was revoked in 1681 by an English appointed governor, however, it was not until the mid-19th century that celebrating Christmas became common in the Boston region.<ref>{{cite book |last=Marling |first=Karal Ann |year=2000 |title=Merry Christmas!: Celebrating America's Greatest Holiday |publisher=Harvard University Press |isbn=0674003187 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EUc13_ourtYC&q=Christmas+Puritan+New+England&pg=PA44 |page=44}}</ref>

[[File:ReligiousFreedomStamp.jpg|thumb|left|upright=0.9|A 1957 U.S. postage stamp commemorating religious freedom and the 1657 [[Flushing Remonstrance]] which had lifted governor [[Peter Stuyvesant]]'s ban on [[Quaker]] worship in New Netherland.]]
Freedom of religion was first applied as a principle of government in the founding of the colony of Maryland, founded by the Catholic [[Cecil Calvert, 2nd Baron Baltimore|Lord Baltimore]], in 1634.<ref name="Symbol of Enduring Freedom">{{Cite magazine|title=Symbol of Enduring Freedom|author=Zimmerman, Mark|magazine=Columbia Magazine|url=https://issuu.com/columbia-magazine/docs/columbiamar10en/1|access-date=2023-01-02|via=issuu|date=5 March 2010 |page=19|language=en}}</ref> Fifteen years later (1649), the [[Maryland Toleration Act]], drafted by Lord Baltimore, provided: "No person or persons...shall from henceforth be any way troubled, molested or discountenanced for or in respect of his or her religion nor in the free exercise thereof." The Act allowed freedom of worship for all [[Trinitarianism|Trinitarian Christians]] in Maryland, but [[Capital punishment|sentenced to death]] anyone who denied the [[divinity of Jesus]]. The Maryland Toleration Act was repealed during the Cromwellian Era with the assistance of Protestant assemblymen and a new law barring Catholics from openly practicing their religion was passed.<ref>Brugger, Robert J. (1988). ''Maryland: A Middle Temperament''.  p. 21, Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press. {{ISBN|080183399X}}.</ref> In 1657, the Catholic Lord Baltimore regained control after making a deal with the colony's Protestants, and in 1658 the Act was again passed by the colonial assembly. This time, it would last more than thirty years, until 1692<ref>{{Cite encyclopedia|last=Finkelman|first=Paul|title=Maryland Toleration Act (1649)|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YoI14vYA8r0C&q=maryland+toleration+act|encyclopedia=The Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties|date=2006|publisher=Taylor & Francis|isbn=978-0-415-94342-0|language=en}}</ref> when, after Maryland's [[Protestant Revolution (Maryland)|Protestant Revolution of 1689]], freedom of religion was again rescinded.<ref name="Symbol of Enduring Freedom"/><ref name="roarke">{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6ybHa6D24qQC&pg=PA78 |author=Roark, Elisabeth Louise|title=Artists of Colonial America|page=78 |isbn=978-0313320231|year=2003|publisher=Greenwood Publishing }} Retrieved 22 February 2010</ref> In addition, in 1704, an Act was passed "to prevent the growth of Popery in this Province", preventing Catholics from holding political office.<ref name="roarke" />

Rhode Island (1636), Connecticut (1636), New Jersey, and Pennsylvania (1682){{snd}} founded by Protestants Roger Williams, [[Thomas Hooker]], and William Penn, respectively{{snd}} combined the democratic form of government which had been developed by the Puritans and the Separatist [[Congregationalists]] in Massachusetts with religious freedom.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.histarch.illinois.edu/plymouth/ccflaw.html|title=Plymouth Colony Legal Structure|website=www.histarch.illinois.edu|access-date=2019-08-13}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://history.hanover.edu/texts/masslib.html|title=Liberties|website=history.hanover.edu|access-date=2019-08-13}}</ref><ref>M. Schmidt, ''Pilgerväter'', in ''Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart'', 3. Auflage, Tübingen (Germany), Band V (1961), col. 384</ref><ref>M. Schmidt, ''Hooker, Thomas'', in ''Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart'', 3. Auflage, Band III (1959), col. 449</ref> These colonies became sanctuaries for persecuted religious minorities. Catholics and, later on, Jews also had full citizenship and free exercise of their religions.<ref>Clifton E. Olmstead (1960), ''History of Religion in the United States'', Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., pp. 74–75, 99, 102–105, 113–115</ref><ref>Edwin S. Gaustad (1999), ''Liberty of Conscience: Roger Williams in America'', Judson Press, Valley Forge</ref><ref>Hans Fantel (1974), ''William Penn: Apostel of Dissent'', William Morrow & Co., New York, N.Y.</ref> Williams, Hooker, Penn, and their friends were firmly convinced that freedom of conscience was the will of God. Williams gave the most profound argument: As faith is the free work of the [[Holy Spirit in Christianity|Holy Spirit]], it cannot be forced on a person. Therefore, strict [[separation of church and state]] has to be kept.<ref>Heinrich Bornkamm, ''Toleranz. In der Geschichte der Christenheit'', in ''Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart'', 3. Auflage, Band VI (1962), col. 943</ref> Pennsylvania was the only colony that retained unlimited religious freedom until the foundation of the United States in 1776. It was the inseparable connection between democracy, religious freedom, and other forms of freedom which became the political and legal basis of the new nation. In particular, [[Baptists]] and [[Presbyterians]] demanded the disestablishment of state churches{{snd}} [[Anglican]] and [[Congregationalist]]{{snd}} and the protection of religious freedom.<ref>[[Robert Middlekauff]] (2005), ''The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763–1789'', Revised and Expanded Edition, Oxford University Press, {{ISBN|978-0195315882}}, p. 635</ref>

[[File:Religious Liberty by Jacob Moses Ezekiel.jpg|thumb|right|''[[Religious Liberty (Ezekiel)|Religious Liberty]]'', a statue by [[Moses Jacob Ezekiel]] commissioned for the 1876 [[Centennial Exposition]] and dedicated "to the people of the United States".]]
Reiterating Maryland's and the other colonies' earlier colonial legislation, the [[Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom]], written in 1779 by [[Thomas Jefferson]], proclaimed:
<blockquote>[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.</blockquote>

Those sentiments also found expression in the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] of the national constitution, part of the United States' [[United States Bill of Rights|Bill of Rights]]: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". The acknowledgement of religious freedom as the first right protected in the Bill of Rights points toward the American founders' understanding of the importance of religion to human, social, and political flourishing. The First Amendment makes clear that it sought to protect "the free exercise" of religion, or what might be called "''free exercise equality."''<ref name=Farr2019>{{Cite web|title=What in the World is Religious Freedom?|url=https://religiousfreedominstitute.org/what-in-the-world-is-religious-freedom/|last=Farr|first=Thomas|date=1 November 2019|website=Religious Freedom Institute}}</ref>

The United States formally considers religious freedom in its foreign relations. The [[International Religious Freedom Act of 1998]] established the [[United States Commission on International Religious Freedom]] which investigates the records of over 200 other nations with respect to religious freedom, and makes recommendations to submit nations with egregious records to ongoing scrutiny and possible economic sanctions. Many human rights organizations have urged the United States to be still more vigorous in imposing sanctions on countries that do not permit or tolerate religious freedom.{{citation needed|date=November 2024}}

===Canada===
{{Further|Freedom of religion in Canada}}
Freedom of religion in Canada is a constitutionally protected right, allowing believers the freedom to assemble and worship without limitation or interference. Canadian law goes further, requiring that private citizens and companies provide [[reasonable accommodation]] to those, for example, with strong religious beliefs. The [[Canadian Human Rights Act]] allows an exception to reasonable accommodation with respect to religious dress, such as a [[Sikh]] [[turban]], when there is a ''[[bona fide]]'' occupational requirement, such as a workplace requiring a [[hard hat]].<ref>[http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2011-60-e.htm#a6 Freedom of Religion and Religious Symbols in the Public Sphere. 2.2.2 Headcoverings] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151117174923/http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/2011-60-e.htm#a6 |date=17 November 2015 }}. Parliament of Canada. Publication No. 2011-60-E. Published 2011-07-25. Retrieved 21 December 2011.</ref> In 2017 the [[Santo Daime]] Church Céu do Montréal received religious exemption to use [[Ayahuasca]] as a sacrament in their rituals.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://chacruna.net/how-ayahuasca-church-received-religious-exemption-canada/|title=How Our Santo Daime Church Received Religious Exemption to Use Ayahuasca in Canada|last=Rochester|first=Rev Dr Jessica|date=2017-07-17|website=Chacruna|language=en-US|access-date=2019-03-25}}</ref>

===Children's rights===
The law in Germany includes the concept of "religious maturity" (''Religiöse Mündigkeit'') with a minimum age for [[Minor (law)|minors]] to follow their own religious beliefs even if their parents don't share those or don't approve. Children 14 and older have the unrestricted right to enter or exit any religious community. Children 12 and older cannot be compelled to change to a different belief. Children 10 and older have to be heard before their parents change their religious upbringing to a different belief.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://bundesrecht.juris.de/kerzg/BJNR009390921.html|title=Gesetz über die religiöse Kindererziehung|publisher=Bundesrecht.juris.de|access-date=3 September 2011}}</ref> There are similar laws in Austria<ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.familienrecht.at/fileadmin/gesetze/abgb/rekerz.pdf| title = Bundesgesetz 1985 über die religiöse Kindererziehung}}</ref> and in Switzerland.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gesetze.ch/sr/210/210_025.htm|title=Schweizerisches Zivilgesetzbuch Art 303: Religiöse Erziehung|publisher=Gesetze.ch|access-date=3 September 2011|archive-date=16 September 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170916045044/http://www.gesetze.ch/sr/210/210_025.htm|url-status=dead}}</ref>

===International===
The [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]] declares that:
{{Blockquote
|text=Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
|multiline=yes
|source=[https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18, United Nations, 1948]
}}
On 25 November 1981, the United Nations General Assembly passed the [[Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief]]. This declaration recognizes freedom of religion as a fundamental human right in accordance with several other instruments of international law.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/36/a36r055.htm|title=A/RES/36/55. Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief|publisher=United Nations|date=25 November 1981|access-date=3 September 2011}}</ref>

However, the most substantial binding legal instruments that guarantee the right to freedom of religion that was passed by the international community is the [[Convention on the Rights of the Child]] which states in its Article 14: ''"States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.{{snd}} States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.{{snd}} Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others."''<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.unesco.org/most/rr2int.htm |title=Religious Rights – International Legal Instruments |publisher=Unesco.org |date=2015-11-19 |access-date=2018-12-06}}</ref>

There exists a [[United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief]].

==Right to change religion==
[[File:Apostasy laws world map.svg|thumb|upright=1.4|Apostasy penalties in 2020 by country<ref name="Pew">[http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/05/28/which-countries-still-outlaw-apostasy-and-blasphemy/ Which countries still outlaw apostasy and blasphemy?] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160725201505/http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/05/28/which-countries-still-outlaw-apostasy-and-blasphemy/ |date=25 July 2016 }} Pew Research Center, United States (May 2014)</ref>]]
Part of religious freedom is the right of an individual to change or abandon his or her own religion. [[Religious conversion]] is criminalized as [[apostasy]] in some countries.<ref name="Pew"/>

In 2008, [[Christian Solidarity Worldwide]], a Christian human rights non-governmental organisation which specializes in religious freedom, launched an in-depth report on the human rights abuses faced by individuals who leave Islam for another religion. The report is the product of a year long research project in six countries. It calls on Muslim nations, the international community, the UN and the international media to resolutely address the serious violations of human rights suffered by apostates.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.online2.church123.com/attach.asp?clientURN=christiansolidarityworldwide2&attachFileName=09ae125dba76986113441ef1463aca8e.attach&attachOriginalFileName=CSW_Briefing_Apostasy_April_2008.pdf|title=No place to call home|date=29 April 2008|publisher=Christian Solidarity Worldwide|access-date=11 March 2009|archive-date=18 November 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181118150837/http://www.online2.church123.com/attach.asp?clientURN=christiansolidarityworldwide2&attachFileName=09ae125dba76986113441ef1463aca8e.attach&attachOriginalFileName=CSW_Briefing_Apostasy_April_2008.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref>

==Right to proselytize==
Part of the freedom of religion is the right to [[proselytism|proselytize]], seeking to convince others to convert to a religion. Some debates have centered around restricting certain kinds of [[Missionary|missionary]] activity by religions. Proselytism by [[Alien (law)|foreign citizens]] has been restricted as a [[Interventionism (politics)|foreign intervention]] in line with Article 18 of [[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Stahnke |first=Tad |date=1999 |title=Proselytism and the Freedom to Change Religion in International Human Rights Law |url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/byulr1999&id=261&div=&collection= |journal=Brigham Young University Law Review |volume=1999 |pages=251}}</ref> Many Islamic states, and others such as China, severely restrict missionary activities of other religions. Greece, among European countries, has generally looked unfavorably on missionary activities of denominations others than the majority church and proselytizing is constitutionally prohibited.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://2001-2009.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/51555.htm|title=US State Department report on Greece|publisher=State.gov|date=8 November 2005|access-date=3 September 2011}}</ref> 

A critique of the freedom to propagate religion has come from non-Abrahamic traditions such as the African and Indian. African scholar [[Makau Mutua]] criticizes religious evangelism on the ground of cultural annihilation by what he calls "proselytizing universalist faiths" (Chapter 28: Proselytism and Cultural Integrity, p.&nbsp;652):

{{Blockquote|...the (human) rights regime incorrectly assumes a level playing field by requiring that African religions compete in the marketplace of ideas. The rights corpus not only forcibly imposes on African religions the obligation to compete{{snd}} a task for which as nonproselytizing, noncompetitive creeds they are not historically fashioned{{snd}} but also protects the evangelizing religions in their march towards universalization ... it seems inconceivable that the human rights regime would have intended to protect the right of certain religions to destroy others.<ref>{{cite book |last=Mutua  |first=Makau |title=Facilitating Freedom of Religion or Belief, A Deskbook |year=2004 |publisher= Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief|isbn=978-9004137837|page=652}}</ref><!-- direct quote should have page number. For another edition of cited source, see https://books.google.com/books?id=fU1-AAAACAAJ&dq=%22Facilitating+Freedom+of+Religion+or+Belief%22+%22A+Deskbook%22&ei=rCq3SdyVI5DUlQSO1Ij9Bg -->}}

Some Indian scholars<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.manushi-india.org/pdfs_issues/PDF%20Files%20150/Sankrant%20Sanu.%204-12.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070124123847/http://www.manushi-india.org/pdfs_issues/PDF%20Files%20150/Sankrant%20Sanu.%204-12.pdf |archive-date=2007-01-24 |url-status=live|title=Re-examining Religious Freedom|first=Sankrant|last=Sanu|publisher=Manushi|year=2006|access-date=26 July 2008}}</ref> have similarly argued that the right to propagate religion is not culturally or religiously neutral. In Sri Lanka, there have been debates regarding a bill on religious freedom that seeks to protect indigenous religious traditions from certain kinds of missionary activities. Debates have also occurred in various states of India regarding similar laws, particularly those that restrict conversions using force, fraud or allurement.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rangan |first=Kasturi |date=April 15, 1979 |title=Christians in India Condemn Bill |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1979/04/15/archives/christians-in-india-condemn-bill-barring-conversion-inducement-some.html |access-date=8 December 2024 |website=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref>

== Freedom from religion ==
A core element of freedom of religion is the freedom not to practice religion.<ref name=":1" /> This is often called ''Freedom from religion''.<ref name=":2" /> Various charities work to promote this right including the [[American Civil Liberties Union|ACLU]], and American United.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sharfman |first=Alexandra |date=2025-08-14 |title=Judge dismisses Walters' lawsuit against Freedom from Religion Foundation |url=https://okcfox.com/news/local/judge-dismisses-walters-lawsuit-against-freedom-from-religion-foundation-state-superintendent-ryan-walters-ffrf-department-education-advocacy-letters-religious-activity-public-school-objection-aclu-suppress-protected-speech-firsts-amendment-rights |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=KOKH |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Religious Liberty |url=https://www.aclu.org/issues/religious-liberty |access-date=2025-08-17 |website=American Civil Liberties Union |language=en-US}}</ref> The Satanic Temple is famous and infamous for their official unbaptism rituals.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2023-05-19 |title=The Satanic Temple: Think you know about Satanists? Maybe you don't |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65549975 |access-date=2025-08-17 |language=en-GB}}</ref> There is also a group named after the concept, the [[Freedom From Religion Foundation]].  A similar concept is [[List of irreligious organizations|irreligious organizations]].{{Citation needed|date=August 2025}}

==Contemporary debates==
{{Status of religious freedom}}

===Theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs===
In 1993, the UN's human rights committee declared that article 18 of the [[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]] "protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.refworld.org/docid/453883fb22.html|title=CCPR General Comment 22: 30/07/93 on ICCPR Article 18|work=Minorityrights.org}}</ref> The committee further stated that "the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief necessarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one's current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views." Signatories to the convention are barred from "the use of threat of physical force or penal sanctions to compel believers or non-believers" to recant their beliefs or convert. Despite this, minority religions still are persecuted in many parts of the world.<ref>{{cite web |date=1 August 2003|title=Discrimination against religious minorities in Iran|author=International Federation for Human Rights|publisher=fdih.org|access-date=3 March 2009|url=http://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/ir0108a.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.law2.byu.edu/lawreview/archives/2002/2/dav2.pdf |title=The Evolution of Religious Liberty as a Universal Human Right |access-date=3 March 2009 |last=Davis |first=Derek H. |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110723210828/http://www.law2.byu.edu/lawreview/archives/2002/2/dav2.pdf |archive-date=23 July 2011 }}</ref>

===Non-religious people===
{{See also|Religious persecution#Persecution of non-believers or irreligion}}
In 2012, the organizations [[American Humanist Association]], [[Center for Inquiry]], [[Humanists International]], [[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science]] and [[Secular Coalition for America]] worked together on a joint report: the ''2012 Report on Discrimination Against [[Atheists]], [[Humanism|Humanists]] and the [[Irreligion|Non-Religious]]''.<ref name=FreedomofThoughtReport>{{cite web|url=https://fot.humanists.international/about-the-report/|title=About the report|publisher=[[Humanists International]]|access-date=2 October 2024}}{{Creative Commons text attribution notice|cc=by4|from this source=yes}}</ref> In December, on [[Human Rights Day]], Humanists International launched a new edition for an international audience: ''[[Freedom of thought|Freedom of Thought]] 2012: A Global Report on [[Discrimination]] against Humanists, Atheists and the Non-Religious''.<ref name=FreedomofThoughtReport/> It is now called ''The Freedom of Thought Report'' and examines every country in the world for its record on upholding the [[rights]] and [[Equality before the law|equality]] for non-religious people.<ref name=FreedomofThoughtReport/>

===Secular liberalism===
[[File:AdamSmith.jpg|left|thumb|upright|[[Adam Smith]] argued in favour of freedom of religion.|alt=A man posing for a print]]
The French philosopher [[Voltaire]] noted in his book on English society, ''[[Letters on the English]]'' (1733), that freedom of religion in a diverse society was deeply important to maintaining peace in that country.  It was also important to understand why England at that time was more prosperous in comparison to the country's less religiously tolerant European neighbours. <blockquote>Take a view of the [[Royal Exchange, London|Royal Exchange]] in London, a place more venerable than many courts of justice, where the representatives of all nations meet for the benefit of mankind. There the Jew, the Mahometan [Muslim], and the Christian transact together, as though they all professed the same religion, and give the name of infidel to none but bankrupts. There the Presbyterian confides in the Anabaptist, and the Churchman depends on the Quaker's word. If one religion only were allowed in England, the Government would very possibly become arbitrary; if there were but two, the people would cut one another’s throats; but as there are such a multitude, they all live happy and in peace.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bartleby.com/34/2/6.html|title=Letter VI – On the Presbyterians. Letters on the English.|last=Voltaire|first=François Marie Arouet de.|date=1909–1914|website=www.bartleby.com|publisher=The Harvard Classics|orig-date=1734|access-date=2017-05-25}}</ref></blockquote>[[Adam Smith]], in his book ''[[The Wealth of Nations]]'' (using an argument first put forward by his friend and contemporary [[David Hume]]), states that in the long run it is in the best interests of society as a whole and the [[Magistrate|civil magistrate]] (government) in particular to allow people to freely choose their own religion, as it helps prevent [[civil unrest]] and reduces [[Religious intolerance|intolerance]]. So long as there are enough religions and/or religious sects operating freely in a society then they are all compelled to moderate their more controversial and violent teachings, so as to be more appealing to more people and so have an easier time attracting new converts. It is this [[free competition]] amongst religious sects for converts that ensures stability and tranquillity in the long run.{{citation needed|date=November 2024}}

Smith also points out that laws that prevent religious freedom and seek to preserve the power and belief in a particular religion will, in the long run, only serve to weaken and corrupt that religion, as its leaders and preachers become complacent, disconnected and unpractised in their ability to seek and win over new converts:<ref name="Smith1">Smith, Adam (1776), [http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/adam-smith/Wealth-Nations.pdf Wealth of Nations] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131020042323/http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/adam-smith/Wealth-Nations.pdf |date=20 October 2013 }}, Penn State Electronic Classics edition, republished 2005, pp. 643–649</ref>

{{blockquote|The interested and active zeal of religious teachers can be dangerous and troublesome only where there is either but one sect tolerated in the society, or where the whole of a large society is divided into two or three great sects; the teachers of each acting by concert, and under a regular discipline and subordination. But that zeal must be altogether innocent, where the society is divided into two or three hundred, or, perhaps, into as many thousand small sects, of which no one could be considerable enough to disturb the public tranquillity. The teachers of each sect, seeing themselves surrounded on all sides with more adversaries than friends, would be obliged to learn that candour and moderation which are so seldom to be found among the teachers of those great sects.<ref name="Smith2">Smith, Adam (1776), [http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/adam-smith/Wealth-Nations.pdf Wealth of Nations] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131020042323/http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/adam-smith/Wealth-Nations.pdf |date=20 October 2013 }}, Penn State Electronic Classics edition, republished 2005, p. 647</ref>}}

===Secular law===
Religious practice may also conflict with secular law, creating debates on religious freedom. For instance, even though [[polygamy]] is permitted in Islam, it is prohibited in secular law in many countries. This raises the question of whether prohibiting the practice infringes on the beliefs of certain Muslims. The US and India, both constitutionally secular nations, have taken two views of this. In India, polygamy is permitted, but only for Muslims, under [[Muslim Personal Law]]. In the US, polygamy is prohibited for all. This was a major source of conflict between the US government and [[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] until the Church amended its position on practicing polygamy.

Similar issues have also arisen in the context of the religious use of [[psychedelic substance]]s by Native American tribes in the United States, such as by the [[Native American Church]]. Other examples of religious groups using [[Entheogen|entheogens]] are the ''[[União do Vegetal]]'' and Santo Daime.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Psychedelics, Religion and Spirituality |url=https://psychedelics.berkeley.edu/religion-spirituality/ |access-date=2025-03-02 |website=UC Berkeley Center for the Science of Psychedelics |language=en-US}}</ref>

In 1955, Chief Justice of California [[Roger J. Traynor]] neatly summarized the American position on how freedom of religion cannot imply freedom from law: "Although freedom of conscience and the freedom to believe are absolute, the freedom to act is not."<ref>{{Cite web|title=Pencovic v. Pencovic (1955) 45 C2d 97|url=http://online.ceb.com/calcases/C2/45C2d97.htm|access-date=2023-01-02|website=online.ceb.com}}</ref> But with respect to the religious use of animals within secular law and those acts, the [[US Supreme Court]] decision in the case of the ''[[Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah]]'' in 1993 upheld the right of Santeria adherents to practice ritual [[animal sacrifice]], with Justice Anthony Kennedy stating in the decision: "religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection" (quoted by Justice Kennedy from the opinion by Justice Burger in ''[[Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division]]'' {{ussc|450|707|1981}}).<ref>{{Cite book|last=Hall|first=Daniel E.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KnBnknQAHlkC&q=religious%2520beliefs%2520need%2520not%2520be%2520acceptable%2C%2520logical%2C%2520consistent%2520or%2520comprehensible%2520to%2520others%2520in%2520order%2520to%2520merit%2520First%2520Amendment%2520protection&pg=PA266|title=Criminal Law and Procedure|date=2008-07-22|publisher=Cengage Learning|isbn=978-1-4283-4059-6|language=en|page=266}}</ref>

In 1962, the case of ''[[Engel v. Vitale]]'' went to court over the violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment resulting from a mandatory nondenominational prayer in New York public schools. The Supreme Court ruled in opposition to the state.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-engel-v-vitale|title=Facts and Case Summary – Engel v. Vitale|work=United States Courts|access-date=2018-05-03|language=en}}</ref>

In 1963, the Supreme Court ruled on the case of ''[[Abington School District v. Schempp]]''. Edward Schempp sued the school district in Abington over the Pennsylvania law which required students to hear and sometimes read portions of the bible for their daily education. The court ruled in favor of Schempp and the Pennsylvania law was overturned.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://cases.laws.com/abington-school-district-v-schempp|title=Abington School District V Schempp – Cases {{!}} Laws.com|website=cases.laws.com|date=3 April 2015 |language=en-US|access-date=2018-05-03}}</ref>

In 1968, the Supreme Court ruled on the case of ''[[Epperson v. Arkansas]]''. Susan Epperson, a high school teacher in Arkansas sued over a violation of religious freedom. The state had a law banning the teaching of evolution and the school Epperson worked for had provided curriculum which contained evolutionary theory. Epperson had to choose between violating the law or losing her job. The Supreme Court ruled to overturn the Arkansas law because it was unconstitutional.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://cases.laws.com/epperson-v-arkansas|title=Epperson V Arkansas – Cases {{!}} Laws.com|website=cases.laws.com|date=3 April 2015 |language=en-US|access-date=2018-05-03}}</ref>

====As a legal form of discrimination====
Leaders of the [[Christian right]] in the United States, United Kingdom, and other nations frame their opposition to [[LGBT rights]] and [[reproductive freedom]] as a defence of religious liberty.<ref name="Fredman2020">{{cite journal|last=Fredman|first=Sandra|date=23 August 2020|title=Tolerating the Intolerant: Religious Freedom, Complicity, and the Right to Equality|journal=Oxford Journal of Law and Religion|volume=9|issue=2|pages=305–328|doi=10.1093/ojlr/rwaa017|doi-access=free}}</ref>

The Catholic Church does not believe it unjustly discriminates against anyone, but justly discriminates against sin, by obeying God.<ref>[http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a6.htm Catechism of the Catholic Church 1598]</ref><ref>[http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2357 Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357]</ref><ref>[http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2399 Catechism of the Catholic Church 2399]</ref><ref>[http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2271 Catechism of the Catholic Church 2271]</ref>

In court cases, religious adherents have argued that they need [[Religious exemption|exemptions]] from laws requiring equal treatment of LGBT people to avoid being complicit in "the sinful behaviour" of LGBT people.<ref name="Fredman2020"/> Moreover, other Christians argue that LGBT rights must be entirely removed from law to preserve the religious liberty of conservative Christians.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Whitehead|first1=Andrew L.|last2=Perry|first2=Samuel L.|date=2020 |title=Taking America back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States|location=New York|publisher=Oxford University Press|pages=134–149|isbn=978-0190057886|oclc=1150958230}}</ref> As pointed out at the [[United Nations Human Rights Council]] in the 2023 formal report of the [[LGBT rights at the United Nations|United Nations Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity]] on the basis of the explanation in a 2020 article by human rights expert [[Dag Øistein Endsjø]], adherents of denominations and belief systems who embrace LGBT-equality "can claim that anti-LGBT manifestations of religion (such as criminalization and discrimination) not only impinge upon the right of LGBT people to be free from violence and discrimination based on [[sexual orientation]] and [[gender identity]] (SOGI), but also violate the denominations' own rights of freedom of religion".<ref>[[United Nations Human Rights Council]] ''[https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/ahrc5337-report-independent-expert-protection-against-violence-and|A/HRC/53/37 Freedom of religion or belief, and freedom from violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity: Report of the Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity]'', 7 June 2023, § 162; [[Dag Øistein Endsjø]] "[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13642987.2020.1763961 The other way around? How freedom of religion may protect LGBT rights]", ''The International Journal of Human Rights'' 24:10 (2020), pp. 1686-88.</ref>

In 2015, [[Kim Davis]], a Kentucky county clerk, refused to abide by the Supreme Court decision in ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]'' legalising [[same-sex marriage in the United States]]. When she refused to issue marriage licences, she became embroiled in the ''[[Miller v. Davis]]'' lawsuit. Her actions caused attorney and author [[Roberta Kaplan]] to claim that "Kim Davis is the clearest example of someone who wants to use a religious liberty argument to discriminate."<ref name="Bromberger">{{cite news|last=Bromberger|first=Brian|date=15 October 2015|title=New book details Windsor Supreme Court victory|newspaper=[[Bay Area Reporter]]|url=http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=70989|access-date=16 October 2015|archive-date=18 October 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171018192333/http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=70989|url-status=dead}}</ref> Davis was briefly jailed and Kentucky court ordered her to pay the same-sex couple $100,000 in damages.<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/14/kim-davis-damages-same-sex-marriage-license-kentucky | title=Kim Davis must pay $100,000 to US same-sex couple she denied marriage license | newspaper=The Guardian | date=14 September 2023 | last1=Oladipo | first1=Gloria }}</ref>

===Judaism===
[[File:Lesley and Rachel Detained.jpg|thumb|Women detained at Western Wall for wearing prayer shawls; photo from [[Women of the Wall]]]]
[[Judaism]] includes multiple streams, such as Orthodox, [[Reform Judaism]], [[Conservative Judaism]], [[Reconstructionist Judaism]], [[Jewish Renewal]] and [[Humanistic Judaism]]. However, Judaism also exists in many forms as a civilization, possessing characteristics known as [[Jewish peoplehood|peoplehood]], rather than strictly as a religion.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Brown|first1=Erica|last2=Galperin|first2=Misha|title=The Case for Jewish Peoplehood: Can We be One?|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=QBQxCts6_CYC|year=2009|publisher=Jewish Lights Publishing|isbn=978-1580234016|page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=QBQxCts6_CYC&pg=PA71 71]|quote=The 'hood' is not only a geographic reference; it is a shared identity that may be characterized by joint assumptions, body language, certain expressions, and a host of familial-like behaviors that unite an otherwise dispirate groupe of people.}}</ref> In the Torah, Jews are forbidden to practice idolatry and are commanded to root out pagan and idolatrous practices within their midst, including killing idolaters who sacrifice children to their gods or engage in immoral activities. However, these laws are not adhered to anymore as Jews have usually lived among multi-religious communities.{{citation needed|date=November 2024}}

After the conquest of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judea by the Roman Empire, a Jewish state did not exist until 1948 with the establishment of the State of Israel. For over 1500 years Jewish people lived under pagan, Christian, Muslim, etc. rule. As such Jewish people in some of these states faced persecution. From the pogroms in Europe during the Middle Ages to the establishment of segregated Jewish ghettos during World War II. In the Middle East, Jews were categorised as dhimmi, and non-Muslims were permitted to live within a Muslim state. Even though given rights within a Muslim state, a dhimmi is still not equal to a Muslim within Muslim society.{{citation needed|date=November 2024}}

The State of Israel was established as a Jewish and democratic state after World War II. While the Israeli Declaration of Independence stresses religious freedom as a fundamental principle, in practice, most of Israel's governments have depended on ultra-Orthodox parties and have instituted legal barriers that applied to all Jews, regardless of whether they practised Orthodox Judaism. However, as a nation-state, Israel is very open towards other religions and religious practices, including a public Muslim call to prayer chants and Christian prayer bells ringing in Jerusalem. Israel has been evaluated in research by the Pew organization as having "high" government restrictions on religion. The government recognizes only Orthodox Judaism in certain matters of personal status, and marriages can only be performed by religious authorities. The government provides the greatest funding to Orthodox Judaism, even though adherents represent a minority of citizens.<ref>{{cite web |url-status=dead |publisher=Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life |title=Global restrictions on Religion |date=Dec 2009 |url=http://www.pewforum.org/files/2009/12/restrictions-fullreport1.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180724112205/http://www.pewforum.org/files/2009/12/restrictions-fullreport1.pdf |archive-date=24 July 2018 }}</ref> Jewish women, including [[Anat Hoffman]], have been arrested at the [[Western Wall]] for praying and singing while wearing religious garments the Orthodox feel should be reserved for men. [[Women of the Wall]] have organized to promote religious freedom at the Wall.<ref>{{Cite news|title=Police arrest 5 women at Western Wall for wearing tallitot|url=https://www.jpost.com/national-news/police-arrest-5-women-at-western-wall-for-wearing-tallitot-309436 |first1= Jeremy |last1=Sharon |date=11 April 2013|access-date=2023-01-02|newspaper=The Jerusalem Post|language=en-US}}</ref> In November 2014, a group of 60 non-Orthodox rabbinical students were told they would not be allowed to pray in the [[Knesset]] synagogue because it is reserved for Orthodox. Rabbi Joel Levy, director of the Conservative Yeshiva in Jerusalem, said that he had submitted the request on behalf of the students and saw their shock when the request was denied. He noted: "Paradoxically, this decision served as an appropriate end to our conversation about religion and state in Israel." MK [[Dov Lipman]] expressed the concern that many Knesset workers are unfamiliar with non-Orthodox and American practices and would view "an egalitarian service in the synagogue as an affront."<ref>{{cite news | last=Maltz | first=Judy | title=Non-Orthodox Jews prohibited from praying in Knesset synagogue | date=26 November 2014 | newspaper=Haaretz | url= https://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.628571 |url-access=subscription | access-date=21 April 2017 }}</ref> The non-Orthodox forms of Jewish practice function independently in Israel, except for these issues of praying at the Western Wall.

A January 2022 report by [[Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education|IMPACT-se]], an Israeli [[non-profit]], detailed the amount of religious tolerance impressed on students through the education system in the United Arab Emirates. The "Jews as a Religious Community" section of the report starts with the UAE curriculum being cited as a tolerant one and one instilling a "generally positive attitude toward other non-Muslims". However, besides the positive examples aimed at maintaining peace between the two nations, the report also highlights the negative portrayal of Jews in the UAE, citing a hadith passage that preaches believers to not be like the [[Jews]], as they may be unclean or dirty. An Islamic educational text further described punishing the Bani Qurayza Jews for purportedly abusing their commitment to supporting Muhammad. The textbooks also seem to have missed mentioning Israel in their maps or educating the children about the Jewish state's history, i.e. the event of [[Holocaust]] despite normalizing ties with the Jewish state.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.impact-se.org/wp-content/uploads/When-Peace-Goes-to-School_The-Emirati-Curriculum-2016%E2%80%9321.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220120120811/https://www.impact-se.org/wp-content/uploads/When-Peace-Goes-to-School_The-Emirati-Curriculum-2016%E2%80%9321.pdf |archive-date=2022-01-20 |url-status=live|title=IMPACT-se: When Peace Goes to School The Emirati Curriculum 2016–21|accessdate=20 January 2022|website=IMPACT-se}}</ref>

===Christianity===
[[File:Worship-monument.jpg|left|thumb|Part of the [[Oscar Straus (politician)|Oscar Straus]] Memorial in Washington, D.C. honoring the right to worship]] 
Some Orthodox Christians, especially those living in democratic countries, support religious freedom for all, as evidenced by the position of the [[Ecumenical Patriarchate]]. Many Protestant Christian churches, including some [[Baptists]], [[Churches of Christ in Australia|Churches of Christ]], [[Seventh-day Adventist Church]] and [[Mainline (Protestant)|main line]] churches have a commitment to religious freedoms.{{citation needed|date=August 2023}} [[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] also affirms religious freedom.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Articles of Faith|url=https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/eng/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1|access-date=2023-01-02|website=www.churchofjesuschrist.org|language=en|quote=We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may}}</ref>

However others, such as African scholar [[Makau Mutua]], have argued that Christian insistence on the propagation of their faith to native cultures as an element of religious freedom has resulted in a corresponding denial of religious freedom to native traditions and led to their destruction. As he states in the book produced by the Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief, "Imperial religions have necessarily violated individual conscience and the communal expressions of Africans and their communities by subverting African religions."<ref>Mutua, Makau. 2004. ''Facilitating Freedom of Religion or Belief, A Deskbook''. Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief.{{ISBN?}}{{page needed|date=April 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Religious human rights in global perspective: legal perspectives|volume=2|author1=J. D. Van der Vyver|author2=John Witte|publisher=Martinus Nijhoff Publishers|year=1996|isbn=9041101772|page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=XSnpr1ndq5kC&pg=PA418418 418]|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XSnpr1ndq5kC}}</ref>

In their book ''[[Breaking India]]'', [[Hindutva]] ideologue [[Rajiv Malhotra]]<ref>{{Cite news|date=October 30, 2018|title=Rajiv Malhotra, Swapan Dasgupta appointed as JNU honorary professors|work=Business Standard|url=https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/rajiv-malhotra-swapan-dasgupta-appointed-as-jnu-honorary-professors-118103000970_1.html|access-date=January 1, 2021}}</ref> and [[Aravindan Neelakandan]] discussed the "US Protestant Church" funding activities in India, with the book arguing that the funds collected were being used not so much for the purposes indicated to sponsors, but for indoctrination and conversion activities. They suggest that India is the prime target of a huge enterprise{{snd}} a "network" of organizations, individuals, and churches{{snd}} that, they argue, seem intensely devoted to the task of creating a separatist identity, history, and even religion for the vulnerable sections of India. They suggest that this nexus of players includes not only church groups, government bodies, and related organizations, but also private think tanks and academics.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.breakingindia.com/introduction/|title=Introduction|work=Breaking India}}</ref>

[[Joel Spring]] has written about the Christianization of the [[Roman Empire]]:

<blockquote>Christianity added new impetus to the expansion of empire. Increasing the arrogance of the imperial project, Christians insisted that the Gospels and the Church were the only valid sources of religious beliefs. Imperialists could claim that they were both civilizing the world and spreading the true religion. By the 5th century, Christianity was thought of as co-extensive with the ''Imperium romanum''. This meant that to be human, as opposed to being a natural slave, was to be "civilized" and Christian. Historian Anthony Pagden argues, "just as the ''civitas''; had now become coterminous with Christianity, so to be human{{snd}} to be, that is, one who was 'civil', and who was able to interpret correctly the law of nature{{snd}} one had now also to be Christian." After the fifteenth century, most Western colonialists rationalized the spread of empire with the belief that they were saving a barbaric and pagan world by spreading Christian civilization.<ref>{{cite book|title=Globalization and educational rights: an intercivilizational analysis|author=Joel H. Spring|publisher=Routledge|year=2001|isbn=978-0805838824|page=92|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3lobX1DC_i0C&pg=PA92}}{{Dead link|date=August 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref></blockquote>

====Catholicism====
Prior to Vatican Council II, the Catholic Church persecuted other religions. European Catholics, especially during the [[Inquisition]] and [[Crusades]] in the middle ages, killed Jews, Muslims, pagans, and Christians of different denominations and destroyed non-Christian and non-Catholic Christian religious art, books, and places of worship.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm |title=Catholic Encyclopedia: Inquisition |publisher=Newadvent.org |access-date=2012-07-23}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://bulfinch.englishatheist.org/mm/inquisition/Chapter7.htm |title=A History of the Inquisition In The Middle Ages. By Henry Charles Lea. Volume 1 |publisher=Bulfinch.englishatheist.org |access-date=2012-07-23}}</ref><ref name="OHC">Riley-Smith, Jonathan. ''The Oxford History of the Crusades'' New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. {{ISBN|0-19-285364-3}}.{{page needed|date=July 2022}}</ref> In the colonial era of the United States, American Catholics forced [[Native Americans in the United States|Native Americans]] to convert to Catholicism and destroyed their religious art and places of worship.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Yun|first=Tom|url=https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canadian-archbishop-says-comments-made-by-trudeau-on-church-s-role-in-residential-schools-unfair-1.5458553|title=Canadian archbishop says Trudeau comments on Church's role in residential schools 'unfair'|date=6 June 2021|work=CTV News|access-date=4 January 2025|archive-date=4 January 2025|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250104071029/https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canadian-archbishop-says-comments-made-by-trudeau-on-church-s-role-in-residential-schools-unfair-1.5458553|url-status=dead}}</ref> In 1864, [[Pope Pius IX]] had written a document called the ''[[Syllabus of Errors]],'' which - made up of phrases and paraphrases from earlier papal documents, along with index references to them, and presented as a list of "condemned propositions" - condemned belief in universal religious freedom, claiming that non-Catholics do not have the right to practice their own religions and types of worship.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P9SYLL.HTM|title=The Syllabus|author=Pope Pius IX|publisher=[[EWTN]]|author-link=Pope Pius IX|access-date=26 August 2013|archive-date=2 January 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180102165127/http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P9SYLL.HTM|url-status=dead}}, [http://www.ewtn.com/ Global Catholic Network]</ref> In 1892, the church agreed with [[Thomas Aquinas]] on his policy of religious tolerance.<ref>{{cite book|editor1-last=Novak|editor1-first=Michael |editor2-last= Brailsford|editor2-first=William|editor3-last=Heesters|editor3-first=Cornelis|title=A Free Society Reader: Principles for the New Millennium|publisher=Lexington Books|location=New York|year=2000|isbn=0-7391-0143-9}}</ref> In 2000, [[Pope John Paul II]] apologized on behalf of the church for its past sins, making special mention of religious persecution.<ref>[https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/homilies/2000/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_20000312_pardon.html Vatican.Va, 3-12-00 Day of Pardon Homily by Pope John Paul II]</ref>

According to the [[Vatican II]] document on religious freedom, ''[[Dignitatis Humanae]]'', "the human person has a right to religious freedom", which is described as "immunity from coercion in civil society".<ref name=autogenerated1>{{cite web |url=https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html |title=Declaration on religious freedom – ''Dignitatis humanae'' |publisher=Vatican.va |access-date=3 September 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120211202206/https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html |archive-date=11 February 2012}}</ref> This principle of religious freedom "leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion."<ref name=autogenerated1 /> In addition, this right "is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right."<ref name=autogenerated1 /> According to ''Dignitatis Humanae'' and the [[Catechism of the Catholic Church]], every religion has the right to exist and to be publicly and privately practiced (including the right to be spread and to make converts), no religion must be denied the right to worship according to its own beliefs and practices, every person and group has the right to be religious or nonreligious and to change from one to the other, no person or group must be forced to be good but their right to conscience must be respected, every person and group has the right to its own culture and art, no religion must be used for sin nor any sin committed in the name of God or religion, and every religion and adherent must be treated as humanely as every other group and person in the world (especially when one religion is predominate or given special civil recognition).<ref>[http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c1a1.htm#2104 Catechism of the Catholic Church 2104-2109]</ref>  The catechism explains that, as the one true religion founded by the one true God, the Catholic Church has the right and duty to protect every individual's individual right to religious liberty.<ref>[http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c1a1.htm#2105 Catechism of the Catholic Church 2105]</ref> While the church believes idolatry is a sin,<ref>[http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c1a1.htm#2112 Catechism of the Catholic Church 2112]</ref> the church does not believe idolatry should be made illegal, since the criminalization of all or even most sins is the sin of coercion.<ref>[http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c1a1.htm#2104 Catechism of the Catholic Church 2104]</ref> Regarding the church's past sins, the catechism condemns [[Jewish deicide]]<ref>[http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a4p2.htm Catechism of the Catholic Church 597]</ref> and makes reference to ecclesiastical torture and capital punishment.<ref>[http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2267.htm Catechism of the Catholic Church 2267]</ref><ref>[http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2298.htm Catechism of the Catholic Church 2298]</ref>

===Islam===
{{Further|Human rights in Islamic countries|Human rights in the Middle East|Application of sharia law by country|Islamism|Political aspects of Islam}}
{{See also|Marrakesh Declaration|Criticism of hadith}}
[[Conversion to Islam]] is simple and according to [[Al-Baqara 256]] "there is no compulsion in religion".{{qref|2|256|b=y|s=y}} Certain [[Muslim-majority countries]] are known for their restrictions on religious freedom, highly favoring Muslim citizens over non-Muslim citizens. Other countries{{who|date=February 2012}} having the same restrictive laws tend to be more liberal when imposing them. Even other Muslim-majority countries are secular and thus do not regulate religious belief.<ref>{{cite web |last=United States |first=Department of State|title=2010 International Religious Freedom Report|url=https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2010_5/index.htm|work=International Religious Freedom Report|publisher=US Department of State|access-date=15 February 2012}}</ref>{{Failed verification|date=February 2012|reason=this may be supportable, but I don't see clear support in the source cited}}

In [[Iran]], the constitution recognizes four religions whose status is formally protected: Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.<ref name="fdih1">
{{cite web |date=1 August 2003|title=Discrimination against religious minorities in Iran|author=International Federation for Human Rights|publisher=fdih.org|access-date=20 October 2006|url=http://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/ir0108a.pdf}}</ref>
The constitution, however, also set the groundwork for the institutionalized [[persecution of Baháʼís]],<ref name="ihrdc">
{{cite web |author=Iran Human Rights Documentation Center|publisher=Iran Human Rights Documentation Center| title= A Faith Denied: The Persecution of the Baha'is of Iran|year=2007|access-date=3 March 2007|url=http://www.iranhrdc.org/english/pdfs/Reports/bahai_report.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071127005930/http://www.iranhrdc.org/english/pdfs/Reports/bahai_report.pdf|archive-date=2007-11-27}}</ref> who have been subjected to arrests, beatings, executions, confiscation and destruction of property, and the denial of civil rights and liberties, and the denial of access to higher education.<ref name="fdih1" /> There is no freedom of conscience in Iran, as converting from Islam to any other religion is forbidden.<ref>{{cite web |title=2022 Report on International Religious Freedom: Iran|url=https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-report-on-international-religious-freedom/iran#:~:text=Sharia%20as%20interpreted%20by%20the,a%20Muslim%20father%20is%20Muslim.}}</ref>

In Egypt, a 16 December 2006 judgment of the [[Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt]] created a clear demarcation between recognized religions{{snd}} Islam, Christianity and Judaism{{snd}} and all other religious beliefs;<ref name="middle_east_times">{{cite web |url=http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20061220-033209-2100r|archive-url=https://swap.stanford.edu/20090402124811/http%3A//www%2Emetimes%2Ecom/|archive-date=2009-04-02|title=Egypt's Bahais denied citizenship rights|first=Joseph|last=Mayton|work=Middle East Times|date=19 December 2006|access-date=23 January 2007}}</ref><ref name="washingtontimes">{{cite web |title=Court denies Bahai couple document IDs|first=Sharon|last=Otterman|work=The Washington Times|date=17 December 2006|access-date=23 January 2007|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20061217-122113-6320r.htm}}</ref> no other religious affiliation is officially admissible.<ref name="ahram">{{cite web |title=Rendered faithless and stateless |first=Gamal |last=Nkrumah |url=http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/825/eg5.htm |publisher=Al-Ahram weekly |date=21 December 2006 |access-date=23 January 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070123145617/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/825/eg5.htm |archive-date=23 January 2007}}</ref> The ruling leaves members of other religious communities, including Baháʼís, without the ability to obtain the necessary government documents to have rights in their country, essentially denying them of all rights of citizenship.<ref name="ahram" /> They cannot obtain ID cards, birth certificates, death certificates, marriage or divorce certificates, and passports; they also cannot be employed, educated, treated in public hospitals or vote, among other things.<ref name="ahram" /> See [[Egyptian identification card controversy]].

====Apostasy in Islam====
{{Main|Apostasy in Islam|Takfir|Mutaween|Islam and other religions}}
[[File:Rechtsgutachten betr Apostasie im Islam.jpg|thumb|upright=1.15|Legal opinion on apostasy by the [[Fatwa]] committee at [[Al-Azhar University]] in [[Cairo]], the highest Islamic institution in the world, concerning the case of a man who converted to Christianity: "Since he left Islam, he will be invited to express his regret. If he does not regret, he will be killed pertaining to rights and obligations of the Islamic law."]]
In Islam, apostasy is called "''ridda''" ("turning back") and is considered to be a profound insult to God. A person born of Muslim parents that rejects Islam is called a "''murtadd fitri''" (natural apostate), and a person that converted to Islam and later rejects the religion is called a "''murtadd milli''" (apostate from the community).<ref>{{cite book | last=Warraq | first=I. | title=Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out | publisher=Prometheus | year=2009 | isbn=978-1-61592-160-7 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9q0y21B9BoUC | page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=9q0y21B9BoUC&pg=PA16 16]}}</ref>

A female apostate must be either executed, according to [[Shafi'i]], [[Maliki]], and [[Hanbali]] schools of [[Sunni Islam]]ic jurisprudence ([[fiqh]]), or imprisoned until she reverts to Islam as advocated by the Sunni [[Hanafi]] school and by [[Shi'a]] scholars.<ref name="EI Murtadd">{{cite encyclopedia|author=Heffening, W.|article=Murtadd| encyclopedia=[[Encyclopaedia of Islam]] Online Edition|editor1=P.J. Bearman |editor2=Th. Bianquis |editor3=C.E. Bosworth |editor4=E. van Donzel |editor5=W.P. Heinrichs |publisher=Brill Academic Publishers|issn=1573-3912}}</ref>

Ideally, the one performing the execution of an apostate must be an [[imam]].<ref name="EI Murtadd" /> At the same time, all schools of [[Islamic jurisprudence]] agree that any Muslim can kill an apostate without punishment.<ref>{{cite book |author=Abdul Qadir Oudah|title=Kitab Bhavan|year=1999|isbn=8171512739|publisher=Kitab Bhavan|location=New Delhi}}, Volume II. pp. 258–262; Volume IV. pp. 19–21</ref>

However, while almost all scholars agree about the punishment, many disagree on the allowable time to retract the apostasy.<ref>{{cite book |author=Sadakat Kadri|title=Heaven on Earth: A Journey Through Shari'a Law from the Deserts of Ancient Arabia|year=2012|isbn=978-0099523277|publisher=Macmillan|location=New York}}</ref> [[S. A. Rahman]], a former Chief Justice of Pakistan, argues that there is no indication of the death penalty for apostasy in the [[Qur'an]].<ref>{{cite book |author=S. A. Rahman|author-link=S. A. Rahman|title=Punishment of Apostasy in Islam|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=L4fsYtFf5AoC|year=2007|publisher=The Other Press|isbn=978-9839541496|pages=[https://books.google.com/books?id=L4fsYtFf5AoC&pg=PA132 132–142]|chapter=Summary and Conclusions|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=L4fsYtFf5AoC&pg=PA132}}</ref>

[[Javed Ahmad Ghamidi]] a prominent Islamic scholar who studied under Syed Abul Ala Maududi & Amin Ahsan Islahi, says killing of apostates was only for a special period after the [[Itmam e Hujjat]].{{citation needed|date=November 2024}}

==Promotion==
27 October is International Religious Freedom Day, in commemoration of the execution of the [[Boston martyrs]], a group of [[Quakers]] executed by the [[Puritans]] on [[Boston Common]] for their religious beliefs under the legislature of the [[Massachusetts Bay Colony]] between 1659 and 1661.<ref>{{cite book |author=Margery Post Abbott|title=Historical Dictionary of the Friends (Quakers)|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WlTnzA6kHYwC|year=2011|publisher=Scarecrow Press|isbn=978-0810870888|page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=WlTnzA6kHYwC&pg=PA102 102]}}</ref>{{verify source|date=October 2024}} On October 27, 1553, [[Michael Servetus]] was burned alive for heresy in [[Geneva]].<ref>{{Cite book | last = McGrath | first =Alister E. | author-link =Alister McGrath | title =A Life of John Calvin | publisher=[[Basil Blackwell]] | year =1990 | place = Oxford| isbn = 978-0-631-16398-5 |pages=118–120}}; {{Cite book | last = Cottret | first =Bernard |  trans-title =Calvin: A Biography | publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans | year =2000 | place = Grand Rapids, Michigan| isbn = 978-0-8028-3159-0|title=Calvin: Biographie|orig-year=1995|language=fr|others=Translated by M. Wallace McDonald |pages=222–225}};  {{Cite book | last = Parker | first =T. H. L. | title =John Calvin: A Biography | publisher=Lion Hudson plc | year =2006 | place = Oxford| isbn = 978-0-7459-5228-4|url=https://archive.org/details/johncalvinbiogra00park |pages=150–152}}</ref><ref>[http://dir.salon.com/story/books/review/2002/11/12/goldstone/index.html "Out of the Flames" by Lawrence and Nancy Goldstone –Salon.com] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071014215521/http://dir.salon.com/story/books/review/2002/11/12/goldstone/index.html |date=14 October 2007}}</ref> On October 27, 1998, President [[Bill Clinton]] signed the [[International Religious Freedom Act]].<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-signing-the-international-religious-freedom-act-1998 | title=Statement on Signing the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 &#124; the American Presidency Project }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=https://editorials.voa.gov/a/international-religious-freedom-day-105823038/1482120.html | title=International Religious Freedom Day | date=25 October 2010 }}</ref>

The [[International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance]] (IRFBA) is a network of countries promoting freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) worldwide.

There exists an [[International Panel of Parliamentarians for Freedom of Religion or Belief]].

==Measurement==
[[File:Religiousfreedom.png|thumb|Freedom of religion by country (Pew Research Center study, 2009). Light yellow: low restriction; red: very high restriction on freedom of religion.|332x332px]]
Religious freedom is measured in the non-profit organization [[Freedom House]]'s annual report, ''[[Freedom in the World]]''.

In its 2011 annual report, the ''[[United States Commission on International Religious Freedom]]'' designated fourteen nations as "countries of particular concern". The commission chairman commented that these are nations whose conduct marks them as the world's worst religious freedom violators and human rights abusers. The fourteen nations designated were [[Rohingya people|Burma]], China, Egypt, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. Other nations on the commission's watchlist include Afghanistan, Belarus, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Laos, Russia, Somalia, Tajikistan, Turkey, and Venezuela.<ref>{{cite magazine|url=http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=10154|title=US commission names 14 worst violators of religious freedom|access-date=11 July 2011|magazine=Christianity Today|date=29 April 2011}}<br />^ {{Cite press release|url=http://www.uscirf.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3595|title=USCIRF Identifies World's Worst Religious Freedom Violators: Egypt Cited for First Time|publisher=United States Commission on International Religious Freedom|date=28 April 2011|access-date=11 July 2011}}<br />
^ {{cite report|url=http://www.uscirf.gov/images/book%20with%20cover%20for%20web.pdf|title=Annual Report 2011|publisher=United States Commission on International Religious Freedom|date=May 2011|access-date=11 July 2011|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111023101604/http://uscirf.gov/images/book%20with%20cover%20for%20web.pdf|archive-date=23 October 2011}}</ref>

There are concerns about the restrictions on public religious dress in some European countries (including the [[Hijab]], [[Kippah]], and [[Christian cross]]).<ref>{{cite magazine |url=http://www.christiantoday.com/article/france.passes.religious.symbol.ban/17.htm|title=France Passes Religious Symbol Ban|access-date=29 April 2011|magazine=Christianity Today|date=9 February 2004}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13038095|title=The Islamic veil across Europe
|access-date=2 December 2006|work=BBC News|date=17 November 2006}}</ref> Article 18 of the UN [[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]] limits restrictions on freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs to those necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.<ref>{{Cite web|title=International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 52, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171, entered into force Mar. 23, 1976.|url=http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/b3ccpr.htm|access-date=2023-01-02|website=hrlibrary.umn.edu}}</ref> Freedom of religion as a legal concept is related to, but not identical with, religious toleration, [[separation of church and state]], or [[secular state]] (''[[laïcité]]'').

==Contemporary restrictions==
{{Blasphemy laws worldwide}}
The [[Pew Research Center]] has performed studies on international religious freedom between 2009 and 2022, compiling global data from 16 governmental and non-governmental organizations{{snd}}including the United Nations, the [[United States State Department]], and [[Human Rights Watch]]{{snd}}and representing over 99.5 percent of the world's population.<ref name="prc-1">{{cite web|title=Global Restrictions on Religion (Executive summary)|publisher=The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life|date=December 2009|url=http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=491|access-date=29 December 2009|archive-date=22 April 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100422060719/http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=491|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name="prc-2">{{cite web|title=Global Restrictions on Religion (Full report)|publisher=The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life|date=December 2009|url=http://www.pewforum.org/files/2009/12/restrictions-fullreport.pdf|access-date=12 September 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303223318/http://www.pewforum.org/files/2009/12/restrictions-fullreport.pdf|archive-date=3 March 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name=":3">Pew Research Center, December 2024, “Government Restrictions on Religion Stayed at Peak Levels Globally in 2022”. https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2024/12/PR_2024.12.18_restrictions-on-religion-2022_report.pdf</ref> In 2009, nearly 70 percent of the world's population lived in countries classified as having heavy restrictions on freedom of religion.<ref name="prc-1" /><ref name="prc-2" /> This concerns restrictions on religion originating from government prohibitions on [[free speech]] and religious expression as well as social hostilities undertaken by private individuals, organisations and social groups. Social hostilities were classified by the level of [[communal violence]] and [[Religious terrorism|religion-related terrorism]].

While most countries provided for the protection of religious freedom in their constitutions or laws, only a quarter of those countries were found to fully respect these legal rights in practice. In 75 countries, governments limit the efforts of religious groups to proselytise, and in 178 countries, religious groups must register with the government. In 2013, Pew classified 30% of countries as having restrictions that tend to target religious minorities, and 61% of countries have social hostilities that tend to target religious minorities.<ref name="pew2013"/>

The countries in North and South America reportedly had some of the lowest levels of ''government'' and ''social'' restrictions on religion, while The Middle East and North Africa were the regions with the highest. Saudi Arabia and Iran were the countries that top the list of countries with the ''overall'' highest levels of restriction on religion. Topping the Pew 2022 government restrictions index were Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Russia, Uzbekistan, China, Egypt, Burma, Maldives, and Malaysia.<ref name=":3" />

Of the world's 25 most populous countries, Egypt, India, Pakistan, Iran and Nigeria had the ''overall'' highest levels of restriction, while Japan, South Africa, the United States, the United Kingdom and the Democratic Republic of the Congo had some of the lowest levels, as measured by Pew in 2022.<ref name=":3" />

Vietnam and China were classified as having high ''government'' restrictions on religion but were in the moderate or low range when it came to ''social'' hostilities. Nigeria, Bangladesh and India were high in ''social'' hostilities but moderate in terms of ''government'' actions.<ref name=":3" />

Restrictions on religion across the world increased between mid-2009 and mid-2010, according to a 2012 study by the [[Pew Research Center]]. Restrictions in each of the five major regions of the world increased{{snd}}including in the Americas and sub-Saharan Africa, the two regions where overall restrictions previously had been declining. In 2010, Egypt, Nigeria, the Palestinian territories, Russia, and Yemen were added to the "very high" category of social hostilities.<ref>{{cite report|url=http://www.pewforum.org/Government/Rising-Tide-of-Restrictions-on-Religion-findings.aspx|title=Rising Tide of Restrictions on Religion|date=20 September 2012|publisher=[[Pew Research Center]]|access-date=8 January 2013|archive-date=3 January 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130103090935/http://www.pewforum.org/government/rising-tide-of-restrictions-on-religion-findings.aspx|url-status=dead}}</ref> The five highest social hostility scores were for Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Iraq, and Bangladesh.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://stage.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Issues/Government/RisingTide-SHI.pdf |archive-url=http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20121005033805/http://stage.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Issues/Government/RisingTide-SHI.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=2012-10-05 |title=Table: Social Hostilities Index by country |year=2012 |publisher=[[Pew Research Center]] }}</ref> In 2015, Pew published that social hostilities declined in 2013, but the harassment of Jews increased.<ref name="pew2013">{{cite web|url=http://www.pewforum.org/2015/02/26/religious-hostilities/|title=Latest Trends in Religious Restrictions and Hostilities|work=Pew Forum|date=26 February 2015}}</ref>

In the [[Palestinian territories]], Palestinians face tight restrictions on practicing the freedom of religion due to the ongoing [[Israeli–Palestinian conflict]]. In a report published by the [[Geneva]]-based [[Euro-Med HRM|Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor]], eyewitnesses reported systematic practices aiming at preventing young men and women from performing their prayers at [[Temple Mount|Masjid Al-Aqsa]]. These practices include military orders issued by the Israeli Defense Army commander against specific Palestinians who have an effective role in [[Jerusalem]], interrogating young men, and creating a secret blacklist of people who are prevented from entering the Al-Aqsa Mosque.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/2611/New-report:-Israel-punishes-Al-Aqsa-worshippers--escalates-harassment-of-Palestinians-in-Jerusalem|title=New report: Israel punishes Al-Aqsa worshippers, escalates harassment of Palestinians in Jerusalem|date=8 October 2018|publisher=Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor|access-date=2019-07-09}}</ref>

The lack of religious freedom in China has led to [[Uyghurs|Uyghur Muslims]] fleeing the country to take refuge in other parts of the world. Uyghurs abroad encounter digital surveillance and intimidation, where their families in China are sometimes being used as leverage.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Yang |first=William |date=October 9, 2024 |title=China tries to silence critics in Japan, new report finds |url=https://www.voanews.com/a/china-tries-to-silence-critics-in-japan-new-report-finds/7816790.html |access-date=November 3, 2024 |work=[[Voice of America]]}}</ref> The diplomatic relations of Beijing have resulted in the abuse and detention of Uyghur Muslims even in abroad. Along with Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the government of UAE was reportedly one of the three Arab nations to have detained and deported Uyghur Muslims living in asylum in Dubai, back to China.<ref name=":0" /> The decision received a lot of criticism due to China's poor human rights records and no extradition agreement shared between the two countries.<ref name=":0">{{cite web|url=https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/08/middleeast/uyghur-arab-muslim-china-disappearances-cmd-intl/index.html|title=Uyghurs are being deported from Muslim countries, raising concerns about China's growing reach|accessdate=8 June 2021|website=CNN|date=8 June 2021 }}</ref> Thailand and Turkey also have detained and deported Uyghurs reportedly under the pressure of the Chinese government.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Sawitta Lefevre |first1=Amy |last2=Dikmen |first2=Yesim |date=July 9, 2015 |title=Thai PM defends decision to send Uighurs back to China |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/world/thai-pm-defends-decision-to-send-uighurs-back-to-china-idUSKCN0PJ186/ |access-date=November 3, 2024 |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Kakissis |first=Joanna |date=March 13, 2020 |title='I Thought It Would Be Safe': Uighurs In Turkey Now Fear China's Long Arm |url=https://www.npr.org/2020/03/13/800118582/i-thought-it-would-be-safe-uighurs-in-turkey-now-fear-china-s-long-arm |access-date=November 3, 2024 |work=[[NPR]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Olarn |first=Kocha |date=2025-02-27 |title=Thailand's secret deportation of Uyghurs to China a win for Beijing, snub to US |url=https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/27/asia/thailand-deporting-uyghurs-china-intl-hnk/index.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250228075259/https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/27/asia/thailand-deporting-uyghurs-china-intl-hnk/index.html |archive-date=28 February 2025 |access-date=2025-03-02 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref>

According to a 2021 report of the [[Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights|United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights]], UN human rights experts received credible information that the Chinese government continues to engage in forced organ harvesting against religious minorities such as Uyghurs and Falun Gong practitioners and  the organs most likely harvested include “hearts, kidneys, livers, corneas and, less commonly, parts of livers.”<ref>{{Cite web |date=June 14, 2021 |title=China: UN human rights experts alarmed by 'organ harvesting' allegations |url=https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2021/06/china-un-human-rights-experts-alarmed-organ-harvesting-allegations |access-date=November 5, 2024 |website=United Nations}}</ref>

[[Raif Badawi]], the Saudi blogger who was detained for 10 years and received 1,000 lashes in public in 2014, was released on 11 March 2022. The information of Raif's release was shared by his Quebec-based wife, Ensaf Haidar after she received a call from him. The Saudi blogger was fined, jailed, and flogged for criticizing his country's clerics through his writings. However, besides the said punishment, a 10-year passport ban was also imposed on Raif, restricting him from traveling outside Saudi Arabia. Reporters Without Borders claimed that they would work in order to get the travel ban removed to help Raif join his family in Canada.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://apnews.com/article/business-raif-badawi-quebec-canada-saudi-arabia-84299704ff3dc914b85e59b084dbbe37|title=Saudi blogger reported freed after decade in prison|accessdate=11 March 2022|website=AP News|date=11 March 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-60714086|title=Raif Badawi: Saudi blogger freed after decade in prison|work=BBC News|date=11 March 2022|accessdate=11 March 2022}}</ref>

==See also==
{{col div|colwidth=30em}}
* [[Anti-conversion law]]
* [[Blasphemy]]
* [[Blasphemy law]]
* [[Civil liberties]]
* [[Cognitive liberty]]
* [[Edict of toleration]]
* [[Freedom of assembly]]
* [[Freedom of association]]
* [[Freedom of religion by country]]
* [[Freedom of thought]]
* [[Hate speech]]
* [[International Association for Religious Freedom]]
* [[International Center for Law and Religion Studies]]
* [[International Coalition for Religious Freedom]]
* [[Liberty]]
* [[Religious conversion#International law|Religious conversion]]
* [[Religious discrimination]]
* [[Religious freedom bill]]
* [[Religious tolerance]]
* [[Religious education in primary and secondary education]]
* [[Separation of church and state]]
* [[Viewpoint discrimination]]
{{colend}}

==References==
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}

==Further reading==
{{refbegin|30em}}
* {{cite web|last=Balduzzi|first=Alessandro|title=Atheism in the Arab-Islamic world (with a focus on Morocco)|url=https://www.academia.edu/32873876|via=Academia.org}}
* {{cite book |last=Barzilai|first=Gad|title=Law and Religion|year=2007|publisher=Ashgate|isbn=978-0754624943}}
* {{cite book |last=Beneke|first=Chris|title=Beyond Toleration: The Religious Origins of American Pluralism|year=2006|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]|isbn=0195305558}}
* {{cite book|last=Curry|first=Thomas J.|title=Church and State in America to the Passage of the First Amendment|year=1989|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=0195051815|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/firstfreedomschu0000curr}}
* {{cite book | last1=Dreisbach | first1=D.L. | last2=Hall | first2=M.D. | title=The Sacred Rights of Conscience: Selected Readings on Religious Liberty and Church-state Relations in the American Founding | publisher=Liberty Fund | year=2009 | isbn=978-0865977150 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7rBBAQAAIAAJ | access-date=2022-03-15 }}
* [[Dag Øistein Endsjø|Endsjø, Dag Øistein]] "[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13642987.2020.1763961 The other way around? How freedom of religion may protect LGBT rights]", ''The International Journal of Human Rights'' 24:10 (2020).
* [[European Court of Human Rights]] "[https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/fs_freedom_religion_eng Factsheet – Freedom of religion]", August 2023.
* Frost, J. William (1990) ''A Perfect Freedom: Religious Liberty in Pennsylvania'' (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press). {{ISBN?}}
* Gaustad, Edwin S. (2004, 2nd ed.) ''Faith of the Founders: Religion and the New Nation, 1776–1826'' (Waco: Baylor University Press). {{ISBN?}}
* {{cite book|last=Hamilton|first=Marci A.|others=Edward R. Becker (Foreword)|title=God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law|year=2005|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=0521853044|url=https://archive.org/details/godvsgavelreligi00hami}}
* {{cite book|last=Hanson|first=Charles P.|title=Necessary Virtue: The Pragmatic Origins of Religious Liberty in New England|year=1998|publisher=University Press of Virginia|isbn=0813917948|url=https://archive.org/details/necessaryvirtuep0000hans}}
* Hasson, Kevin 'Seamus', ''The Right to be Wrong: Ending the Culture War Over Religion in America'', Encounter Books, 2005, {{ISBN|1594030839}}
* Hirschberger, Bernd / Voges, Katja (eds.) (2024): [https://www.transcript-publishing.com/978-3-8376-6827-8/religious-freedom-and-populism/?number=978-3-8376-6827-8 Religious Freedom and Populism: The Appropriation of a Human Right and How to Counter It]. Bielefeld: transcript. Retrieved 9 May 2024.
* {{cite book|last=McLoughlin|first=William G.|author-link=William G. McLoughlin|year=1971|title=New England Dissent: The Baptists and the Separation of Church and State|format=2 vols.|url=http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674368637|location=Cambridge, MA|publisher=Harvard University Press|isbn=978-0674368637|access-date=25 November 2018|archive-date=28 September 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200928094657/https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674368637|url-status=dead}}
* {{cite book |last=Murphy|first=Andrew R.|title=Conscience and Community: Revisiting Toleration and Religious Dissent in Early Modern England and America|year=2001|publisher=Pennsylvania State University Press|isbn=0271021055}}
* {{cite book |last=Mutua|first=Makau|title=Facilitating Freedom of Religion or Belief, A Deskbook|year=2004|publisher=Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief}}
* {{cite encyclopedia |last=Smith |first=George H. |author-link=George H. Smith |editor-first=Ronald |editor-last=Hamowy |editor-link=Ronald Hamowy |encyclopedia=The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism |chapter=Religion and Liberty |chapter-url=https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/libertarianism/n258.xml |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yxNgXs3TkJYC |year=2008 |publisher=[[SAGE Publishing|Sage]]; [[Cato Institute]] |location=Thousand Oaks, CA |doi=10.4135/9781412965811.n258 |isbn=978-1412965804 <!-- |oclc=750831024| lccn = 2008009151 --> |pages=420–422 |url-access=subscription }}
* Stokes, Anson Phelps (1950) ''Church and State in the United States, Historic Development and Contemporary Problems of Religious Freedom under the Constitution,'' 3 Volumes (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers).
* Stokes, DaShanne (In Press). {{Cite web |url=http://geocities.com/eaglefeatherlaw |title=Legalized Segregation and the Denial of Religious Freedom |access-date=10 December 2014 |archive-date=27 October 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091027073648/http://geocities.com/eaglefeatherlaw |url-status=dead }}
* Stüssi Marcel, ''[https://www.amazon.de/Models-Religious-Freedom-Marcel-St%C3%BCssi/dp/3643801181 Models of Religious Freedom: Switzerland], the United States, and Syria by Analytical, Methodological, and Eclectic Representation, 375 ff. (Lit 2012).'', by Marcel Stüssi, research fellow at the University of Lucerne.<!-- Before adding a link to this book, please make sure that such a link is not in breach of either WP:ELNO or WP:ELREG -->
* Associated Press (2002). [https://web.archive.org/web/20060710211138/http://www.religionnewsblog.com/archives/00000246.html Appeals court upholds man's use of eagle feathers for religious practices]
* [http://www.cr.nps.gov/local-law/FHPL_IndianRelFreAct.pdf American Indian Religious Freedom Act] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141226045333/http://www.cr.nps.gov/local-law/FHPL_IndianRelFreAct.pdf |date=26 December 2014 }} (1978)
* [http://www.animallaw.info/administrative/adus59fr22953.htm Policy Concerning Distribution of Eagle Feathers for Native American Religious]
* [http://works.bepress.com/marcel_stuessi/4 ''Ban on Minarets: On the Validity of a Controversial Swiss Popular Initiative (2008), ''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201023045029/https://works.bepress.com/marcel_stuessi/4/ |date=23 October 2020 }}, by Marcel Stuessi, research fellow at the University of Lucerne.
* {{cite web|url=http://italy.usembassy.gov/pdf/other/rellib1.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080625032914/http://italy.usembassy.gov/pdf/other/rellib1.pdf|archive-date=25 June 2008|title=Religious Liberty: The legal framework in selected OSCE countries.|access-date=6 April 2007|date=May 2000|publisher=Law Library, U.S. Library of Congress}}
* {{cite journal|last=Utt|first=Walter C.|title=Brickbats and Dead Cats|journal=Liberty|volume=59|issue=4, July–August|pages=18–21|publisher=Review and Herald Publishing Association|location=Washington, D.C.|year=1964|url=http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/LibM/LibM19640401-V59-04__C.pdf#view=fit|access-date=23 June 2011|archive-date=19 January 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120119102422/http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/LibM/LibM19640401-V59-04__C.pdf#view=fit|url-status=dead}}
* {{cite journal|last=Utt|first=Walter C.|title=A Plea for the Somewhat Disorganized Man|journal=Liberty|volume=55|issue=4, July–August|pages=15–16, 29|publisher=Review and Herald Publishing Association|location=Washington, D.C.|year=1960|url=http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/LibM/LibM19600401-V55-04__C.pdf#view=fit|access-date=24 June 2011|archive-date=19 January 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120119105342/http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/LibM/LibM19600401-V55-04__C.pdf#view=fit|url-status=dead}}
* {{cite journal|last=Utt|first=Walter C.|title=Toleration is a Nasty Word|journal=Liberty|volume=69|issue=2, March–April|pages=10–13|publisher=Review and Herald Publishing Association|location=Washington, D.C.|year=1974|url=http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/LibM/LibM19740201-V69-02__C.pdf#view=fit|access-date=24 June 2011|archive-date=15 September 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110915191432/http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/LibM/LibM19740201-V69-02__C.pdf#view=fit|url-status=dead}}
* {{cite book |last=Zippelius|first=Reinhold|title=Staat und Kirche, ch.13|year=2009|publisher=Mohr Siebeck|location=Tübingen|isbn=978-3161500169}}
{{refend}}
* Labate, Bia; Cavnar, Clancy (2023). ''Religious Freedom and the Global Regulation of Ayahuasca.''

==External links==
{{wikiquote}}
* [http://cfr.org/religion Religion and Foreign Policy Initiative], [[Council on Foreign Relations]].
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20130513153844/http://iiss.berkeley.edu/files/2011/06/The-Complexity-of-Religion-Gunn1.pdf The Complexity of Religion and the Definition of "Religion" in International Law] Harvard Human Rights Journal article from the President and Fellows of Harvard College (2003)
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20051216050311/http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/briefs/brief_3.html Human Rights Brief No. 3, Freedom Of Religion and Belief] Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC)
* [https://2001-2009.state.gov/g/drl/irf/rpt/ U.S. State Department country reports]
* [http://www.irf.in.ua/eng/ Institute for Religious Freedom] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190723070745/http://www.irf.in.ua/eng/ |date=23 July 2019 }}
* [https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ Universal Declaration of Human Rights]
* [http://www.adl.org/civil-rights/religious-freedom/c/religious-freedom.html Religious Freedom Publications and Resources from the Anti-Defamation League]
{{Portal|Religion}}
{{Liberty}}
{{Particular human rights}}
{{Religion topics}}
{{Christianity and politics}}
{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Religion}}
[[Category:Freedom of religion| ]]
[[Category:First Amendment to the United States Constitution]]
[[Category:Four Freedoms]]