freedom-of-religion

"…religion frees people from the worship of secular values and authoritarian state power. I know this from experience. I lived half my life under a communist dictatorship in . My own uncle was killed by the secret police. The regime sought to crush both historic and new religions through many forms of coercion. But it [had] ultimately collapsed, peacefully, in 1989. In Slovakia, the main force behind the peaceful resistance and the fight for freedom was the Christian community—especially the Catholic Church."

"To this day, the blasphemy laws continue to restrict the freedom of religion in Pakistan."

"The judges noted that the ulema were against the propagation of any other religion in Pakistan. They argued that anyone preaching another religion was involved in promoting apostasy, since Muslims could not be converted to another religion."

"The superior judiciary does not bear all responsibility for the dismal state of the fundamental human right of freedom of religion in Pakistan. But it remains the constitutionally designated guardian of guaranteed rights."

"This statement connects, Tawhid, or the oneness of Allah, to the BNP's idea of Bangladeshi nationalism and reinforces the idea that freedom of religion in Bangladesh was conceived in an Islamic way, not a liberal secular way"

"In May, President Hasina stated that there is indeed freedom of religion in Bangladesh but in the same breath she spoke against speech which spread “filth” against religion,"

"The Blasphemy Laws are primarily used to terrorize minorities and pursue personal scores and vendettas, and their very existence undermines any effective freedom of religion in Pakistan."

"Bangladesh had emerged as a secular state on the grave of Pakistani religious ideals [but] pro-Pakistanis captured power after the 1975 assassination of Bangladesh's founding father Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman [and inserted] discriminatory clause(s) between Muslim and non-Muslim [that were not included] in the original constitution of Bangladesh. ...After the assassination of Bangabandhu, two military rulers. General Ziaur Rahman and General H.M. Ershad removed the roots of the country's secular, non-communal and humane ideals. They changed the constitution to serve a vested quarter and thus eliminated the clause of equal rights for the Hindus, Christians and Buddhists along with Indigenous ethnic communities like Chakma, Marma, Tripura, Maug, Hajong, etc. In the original constitution, which was written in 1972, Article 12 in Part II enshrined 'secularism and freedom of Religion' in the section called Fundamental Principle of State Policy. General Ziaur Rahman's military government totally erased this part of the constitution and that was how the religious and ethnic minority groups became second- class citizens to suffer state discrimination.’"

"But the problem is that the Islamist extremists do not want our right to. That I would not practice religion, they don’t tolerate this. They want to kill us. If we say anything against religious fanaticism, then they come to kill us. So this is a problem. They don’t believe in freedom of expression. I believe in freedom of expression. I believe not only my freedom of expression, I believe my enemy’s freedom of expression… But most of the time, we find that extremists do not believe in freedom of expression of other people who do not accept their ideas."

"The Malaysian society of different races, languages, religions and cultures are used to celebrating religious festivals together. This is one of Malaysia’s many specialties. It is also a manifestation of the freedom of religion practised in Malaysia and this freedom is not limited to religion, but also freedom of language, customs and cultures."

"There is obviously no absolute freedom of religion in Malaysia. First, the political need to conflate 'Malay' with 'Muslim' ensures that it is forbidden for Malays/Muslims to leave Islam, ...."

"Even so, it seems that there are still some restrictions imposed against one’s rights to fully exercise freedom of religion in Malaysia Nowhere is this deprivation of rights evident than in Article 11 (5) of the Constitution. It implicitly places restriction to this freedom on the grounds of public order and morality, and thus the right of exercising any religious act that deemed contrary to any general law relating to such grounds is inconceivable. In the case of Muslims, there may be additional restrictions applied to religious freedom by virtue of Schedule 9, List II, Item I of the Constitution. This provision grants power to State Assemblies to enact laws to punish Muslims for offences against the edicts of Islam and human dignity..."

"While technically there is freedom of religion in Bangladesh, intimidation and discrimination are often used to corral the gospel witness. Pray that Christians would be fearless in their testimony of Christ, ...."

"Superman: Remember this as long as you live: Whenever you meet up with anyone who is trying to cause trouble between people-anyone who tries to tell you that a man can’t be a good citizen because of his religious beliefs-you can be sure that the troublemaker is a rotten citizen himself and a rotten human being. Don’t ever forget that!"

"The need of the moment is not one religion, but mutual respect and tolerance of the devotees of the different religions. We want to reach not the dead level, but unity in diversity. Any attempt to root out traditions, effects of heredity, climate and other surroundings is not only bound to fail but is a sacrilege. The soul of religions is one, but it is encased in a multitude of forms. The latter will persist to the end of time."

"Religion cannot be separated from people’s lives. Religious faith is human life. Faith is where people live!"

"I hope [the book Desperate Struggle: Survival from 4,536-day Confinement /『死闘 監禁4536日からの生還』] will serve as an opportunity for people to think about what religious freedom really means."

"[The Putin regime] is serving notice to the world that not only the practice of religious liberty, but even the possibility of discussing about freedom of religion or belief have been abrogated in the [Russian Federation]."

"China, Russia, North Korea, Iran… When we consider the worst situations of systematic violation of religious liberty we tend to forget one country, Cuba. The crimes of the Cuban [Communist] regime are somewhat overshadowed by the more bloody deeds of other governments, some of them sharing with Cuba a Communist and Marxist ideological background. Yet, Cuba should not be forgotten."

"… when religious liberty is under siege, doctrinal differences must be set aside. Churches must unite in defense of the freedom to worship, preach, and live by their convictions. … when values become crimes, liberty is already lost."

"We do not believe that anti-FoRB and pro-FoRB positions should be considered as equally respectable in a report about religious liberty. Frankly, we would have preferred a coverage of the Japanese situation consistent with the traditional American position that regards stigmatization of certain groups as “cults” as bigotry, a position reiterated on the sections on Russia and China of the same 2023 report."

"Why did a reaction hostile to religious liberty manifest itself almost at the same time in France, Japan, Taiwan, and other democratic countries (but not all) in the late 1980s and 1990s? Obviously, there is not a single answer, but a look at the context may help."

"Prosecutors, judges, and tax bureaucrats [and other secular authorities] cannot evaluate the truth or quality of spiritual doctrines. In a democratic society, citizens should be free to join the spiritual movements they like, and if they contribute money to them, these should be considered as tax-exempt gifts. Affirming these principles is essential to protect freedom of religion or belief. California courts understood this more than ninety years ago. Taiwan authorities should do the same in the Tai Ji Men case."

"When a national or local government calls a religious group “antisocial” [or “cultic” or “dangerous” or the like], it jeopardizes [that religious group's] right to honor and reputation, incites [unreasonable] discrimination, and interferes with the citizens’ right of deciding which religion they want to join free from governmental pressures—who would want to bear the stigma connected with joining a religion officially declared “antisocial”?"

"Today, in my decade-long experience of studying them, Jehovah’s Witnesses interact respectfully with people of all religions. However, as most other religionists, they are persuaded that their own religious organization offers the genuine path to salvation devised by God. If believing this is a crime, then it is a crime committed by most if not all religions."

"Certainly, religions have called each other “false” and “heretic” for centuries. We live in an era of interreligious dialogue and civility, but conservative groups remain outside of it. …one religious leader’s religious liberty in criticizing other religions is another’s hate speech. The border is not well defined by the law, and difficult to grasp. These cases can only be decided on a case-by-case basis and taking context into account. Perhaps a Catholic priest in 2016 was treated in a kindlier way by [the] Brazilian courts than an Evangelical minister in 2023. But it is also possible that [the] Brazilian judges are taking into account the widespread violence and [undue] discrimination against Afro-Brazilian religions, fueled by hate speech, prevailing in Brazil in the last few years."

"As Europeans with experience in the field of promoting freedom of religion or belief, we cannot tell Africans what is needed in their beautiful and special context. They will find solutions and practices based on their own culture and traditions. But we can express our appreciation for [the African Forum for Religious and Spirituality Liberty (AFRSL)] and for its young and energetic African Coordinator and his team, and our warning that the same forms of intolerance and discrimination we combat in Europe may raise their ugly head in Africa too. Now, however, they will find AFRSL to oppose and resist them."

"…history has taught us, again and again, that once a state claims the authority to decide which beliefs are legitimate, no one—not even the majority religions who cheer today—can be sure they will not be tomorrow’s heretics."

"The effect of the religious freedom Amendment to our Constitution was to take every form of propagation of religion out of the realm of things which could directly or indirectly be made public business, and thereby be supported in whole or in part at taxpayers' expense. That is a difference which the Constitution sets up between religion and almost every other subject matter of legislation, a difference which goes to the very root of religious freedom … This freedom was first in the Bill of Rights because it was first in the forefathers' minds; it was set forth in absolute terms, and its strength is its rigidity. It was intended not only to keep the states' hands out of religion, but to keep religion's hands off the state, and, above all, to keep bitter religious controversy out of public life by denying to every denomination any advantage from getting control of public policy or the public purse."

"The day that this country ceases to be free for irreligion it will cease to be free for religion — except for the sect that can win political power."

"Almighty God hath created the mind free. All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens … are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion … No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion. I know but one code of morality for men whether acting singly or collectively."

"That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."

"I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another, for freedom of the press, and against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents."

"Constantine fostered an atmosphere of religious liberty … Since it favored all religions equally, the edict expressed a policy of religious liberty, not toleration...All should try to share the benefits of their religious understanding with others, but no one should force his or her truth upon another. … (for according to Constantine)..."it is one thing acting with free will to enter into contest for immortality, another to compel others to do so by force through the fear of punishment. No one should greatly trouble another, rather, everyone should follow what his soul prefers...This edict is a paradigmatic statement of concord. … Since Constantine hopes that common fellowship and the persuasion "of those who believe" will lead everyone freely to choose (what he called) the straight path, he indicates his wish that religious unity will ultimately evolve."

"In both countries, Taiwan and Poland, the newly established democratic systems resulted in the development of associations and other civic initiatives, but also in the emergence of new religious and spiritual groups. In both countries religious liberty was officially proclaimed in late 1980s. Yet, in Poland, the initial thaw and ease of registering new religious communities significantly slowed down over the years, and currently—for various reasons—registering a new group is more challenging than three decades ago. Previously, the political climate made similar activities difficult, various groups operated unregistered, and everything was monitored by the secret security services."

"Sikandar Lodi’s “empire” was much smaller than that of Firuz Shah Tughlaq. But he enforced the “law” of Islam with no less zeal. A typical case of his reign is recorded by Abdulla in his Tarikhi-i-Daudi: “It is related in the Akbar Shahi that there came a Brahman by name Bodhan who had asserted one day in the presence of Musulmans that Islam was true, as was also his own religion. This speech of his was aired abroad, and came to the ears of the ulema… Azam Humayun, the governor of that district, sent the Brahman into the king’s presence at Sambal. Sultan Sikander …summoned all the wise men of note from every quarter… After investigating the matter, the ulema determined that he should be imprisoned and converted to Islam, or suffer death, and since the Brahman refused to apostatize he was accordingly put to death by the decree of the ulema. The Sultan after rewarding the learned casuists, gave them permission to depart.”"

"He summoned to the palace the bishops of the Christians, who were of conflicting opinions, and the people, who are also at variance, and politely advised them to lay aside their differences, and each fearlessly and without opposition to observe his own beliefs. On this he took a firm stand, to the end that, as this freedom increased their dissension, he might afterwards have no fear of a united populace, knowing as he did from experience that no wild beasts are such enemies to mankind as are most of the Christians in their deadly hatred of one another."

"The great writers to whom the world owes what religious liberty it possesses, have mostly asserted freedom of conscience as an indefeasible right, and denied absolutely that a human being is accountable to others for his religious belief. Yet so natural to mankind is intolerance in whatever they really care about, that religious freedom has hardly anywhere been practically realised, except where religious indifference, which dislikes to have its peace disturbed by theological quarrels, has added its weight to the scale."

"Christians are beginning to lose the spirit of intolerance which animated them: experience has shown the error of the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, and of the persecution of those Christians in France whose belief differed a little from that of the king. They have realized that zeal for the advancement of religion is different from a due attachment to it; and that in order to love it and fulfil its behests, it is not necessary to hate and persecute those who are opposed to it."

"[The] unique ability to deal with the spiritual, needs to be cherished, not destroyed by technocracy, or suppressed by ridicule or totalitarian governments."

"People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind, and the heart, and the soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways. … Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together."

"Our nations are strongest when we see that we are all God’s children — all equal in His eyes and worthy of His love. Across our two great countries we have Hindus and Muslims, Christians and Sikhs, and Jews and Buddhists and Jains and so many faiths. And we remember the wisdom of Gandhiji, who said, “for me, the different religions are beautiful flowers from the same garden, or they are branches of the same majestic tree.” Branches of the same majestic tree. Our freedom of religion is written into our founding documents. It’s part of America’s very first amendment. Your Article 25 says that all people are “equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.” In both our countries — in all countries — upholding this fundamental freedom is the responsibility of government, but it's also the responsibility of every person."

"No society is immune from the darkest impulses of man. And too often religion has been used to tap into those darker impulses as opposed to the light of God. Three years ago in our state of Wisconsin, back in the United States, a man went to a Sikh temple and, in a terrible act of violence, killed six innocent people — Americans and Indians. And in that moment of shared grief, our two countries reaffirmed a basic truth, as we must again today — that every person has the right to practice their faith how they choose, or to practice no faith at all, and to do so free of persecution and fear and discrimination."

"Religious freedom does not mean that all religions are the same: it means that truth matters, and this is what religion and the sense of the sacred are all about. Every man and woman has the right to know the truth, but only full freedom allows them to progress in that direction."

"The same truth we trust to finally prevail is the same truth [Freedom of Religion or Belief] is made of. Religions and spiritual ways are not all the same. What is the same is the honest spirit that animates all believers in different religions. What is really true of all religions, including religions that a believer in another religion may regard as false, is the afflatus for truth that motivates them. No matter how different beliefs and believers may be, no matter how many conflicts they may have between each other, that single element, a thirst and hunger for truth, makes them similar, make their devotees sisters and brothers, make them human and unique."

"Religious liberty is concerned not with beliefs and doctrines, but with human beings and persons. It comes before any deed human beings may do, even in the name of their own right to truth gone astray. A person’s fundamental right to the truth of facts and to ultimate truth does not cease to exist because some people misunderstand or misuse it. This is why laws and judicial procedures of societies that aim at being civilized struggle to grant fair trials, proportionate sentences, and humane treatment even to inmates in prison cells—and differ from rogue states and regimes."

"Is there a risk that reducing the debate on religious liberty to different forms of state recognition, including the Italian “,” may implicitly or inadvertently confer to the state the power to grant to religious groups the right to exist? In practice, states do have such power in different countries. The question is whether giving such an authority to the state is morally and philosophically correct. Perhaps, a state should just watch over the compliance of its citizens with the laws (assuming the laws are just), regardless of their religious persuasion, and leave religious groups alone to live and self-regulate their lives. The state is not the source of religious liberty, although it should acknowledge and protect it."

"Religious liberty is the first need of human beings―and one much threatened in the contemporary world, even in places that one would never suspect: democratic countries."

"The enemies of religious liberty are not mysterious. They are the secularist states and their bureaucratic appendages—governments, fiscal agencies, administrative bodies; terrorist groups, that persecute in the name of some purity; mainline churches and movements that politicize faith and weaponize numbers to marginalize dissent; and the self-appointed anti-cultists, who brandish the word “cult” like a gun, firing it at anyone they happen to dislike—“cult” being a convenient label, endlessly reusable, infinitely abusable. But their power would be far weaker were it not for the media—the great amplifiers of prejudice, always ready to trade nuance for noise."

"The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect. On the one hand, it forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship. Freedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual may choose cannot be restricted by law. On the other hand, it safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion. Thus the Amendment embraces two concepts,-freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society."