Encyclopedia of Politics and Religion


Edited by: Robert Wuthnow

  • Citations
  • Add to My List
  • Text Size

  • Entries A-Z
  • Front Matter
  • Back Matter
    • [0-9]
    • A
    • B
    • C
    • D
    • E
    • F
    • G
    • H
    • I
    • J
    • K
    • L
    • M
    • N
    • O
    • P
    • Q
    • R
    • S
    • T
    • U
    • V
    • W
    • X
    • Y
    • Z

    • Copyright

      View Copyright Page

      About the Editors

      Editor in Chief

      Robert Wuthnow is the Andlinger Professor of Sociology and Director of the Center for the Study of Religion at Princeton University. He received his bachelor’s degree at the University of Kansas and his Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley. After teaching for two years at the University of Arizona in Tucson, he relocated to Princeton in 1976. Between 1976 and 1979 he was the William Paterson Bicentennial Preceptor. In addition to teaching, Professor Wuthnow has served as director of Princeton’s Program in Science in Human Affairs. He was a founding member of the executive committee of the University Center for Human Values, was founder and director of the Center for the Study of American Religion, and since 1999 has served as founding director of the Center for the Study of Religion. As of July 2006, he is serving as chair of the Sociology Department. Professor Wuthnow is the author of more than twenty books, including Acts of Compassion, which received a Pulitzer Prize nomination in 1991, and Loose Connections: Joining Together in America’s Fragmented Communities, which received the Distinguished Book Prize from the Association for Research on Nonprofit and Voluntary Associations in 1998. His recent books include American Mythos: Why Our Best Efforts to Be a Better Nation Fall Short (2006), All In Sync: How Music and Art Are Revitalizing American Religion (2003), and Growing Up Religious: Christians and Jews and Their Journeys of Faith (1999). He has received numerous grants and scholarly awards, including the Martin Marty Award for Religion and Public Life from the American Academy of Religion, a Guggenheim Fellowship for his work on religion and diversity, and the 2003 Graduate Mentoring Award in Social Science from Princeton University.

      Editorial Board

      Grace Davie has a personal chair in the sociology of religion at the University of Exeter. She is a past president of the American Association for the Sociology of Religion (2003) and of Research Committee 22 (Sociology of Religion) of the International Sociological Association (2002–2006). In 2000–2001 she was the Kerstin-Hesselgren Professor at the University of Uppsala, where she will return in 2006–2007. In 2005 she spent a semester researching and teaching at Hartford Seminary, CT. In addition to numerous chapters and articles, she is the author of Europe: The Exceptional Case (2002), Religion in Modern Europe: a Memory Mutates (2000), and Religion in Britain since 1945 (1994); she is coeditor of Predicting Religion (2003). Sociology of Religion is scheduled for publication in 2007.

      John C. Green is a senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and a Distinguished Professor of Political Science and director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron. He is best known for his work on religion and American politics. He is a coauthor of The Diminishing Divide: Religion’s Changing Role in American Politics (2000), The Bully Pulpit: The Politics of Protestant Clergy (1997), and Religion and the Culture Wars: Dispatches from the Front (1996), and coeditor of The Values Campaign? The Christian Right in the 2004 Election (2006). Green is a widely quoted observer of national politics, drawing from his research on elections, campaign finance, and party politics.

      Charles F. Keyes, professor of anthropology and international studies at the University of Washington and a past president of the Association for Asian Studies, has conducted extensive research in Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam on Buddhism and modernity, ethnicity and national cultures, and culture and socioeconomic change. His published works include On the Margins of Asia: Diversity in Asian States (edited, 2006); Cultural Crisis and Social Memory: Modernity and Identity in Thailand and Laos (edited with Shigeharu Tanabe, 2002); The Golden Peninsula: Culture and Adaptation in Mainland Southeast Asia (reprinted, 1995); Asian Visions of Authority: Religion and the Modern States of East and Southeast Asia (edited with Laurel Kendall and Helen Hardacre, 1994); Karma: An Anthropological Inquiry (edited with E. Valentine Daniel, 1983); and Ethnic Change (edited, 1981).

      Charles Kurzman is associate professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he helped found the Carolina Center for the Study of the Middle East and Muslim Civilizations. He is the author of The Unthinkable Revolution in Iran (2004) and editor of the anthologies Modernist Islam, 1840–1940 (2002) and Liberal Islam (1998).

      David Maxwell is senior lecturer in African and imperial history at Keele University. He was editor of the Journal of Religion in Africa from 1998 to 2005. He is the author of African Gifts of the Spirit: Pentecostalism and the Rise of a Zimbabwean Transnational Religious Movement (2007) and Christians and Chiefs in Zimbabwe: A Social History of the Hwesa People (1999). He is currently researching a project on the missionary and African roots of colonial science in the Belgian Congo.


      The Encyclopedia of Politics and Religion was initially created to fill a void for those seeking to examine the interconnections of politics and religion and understand how these two elemental institutions of society have combined to shape public discourse, affect social attitudes, spark and sustain collective action, and influence policy, especially during the past two centuries.

      Since the publication of the first edition of the encyclopedia in 1998, the al-Qaida attacks of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent launch of the U.S. government’s “global war on terror” have thrust religio-political issues to the forefront of public consciousness. Today, this thoroughly revised second edition of the encyclopedia is more relevant than ever in a world seeking reliable, authoritative information.

      The principle of the separation of church and state, and the related idea that politics and religion are and ought to be distinct, has been one of the most crucial factors in the rise of national secular states. Although it is the bedrock of modern political institutions and international relations, this principle has been challenged in recent years to the point of becoming a fault line in societies and religious movements around the world. Clearly, religion increasingly plays a major role in much of the political conflict of our era. Any effective analysis of or long-lasting solution to such turmoil requires attention to religion in its political context. The encyclopedia’s aim is to present the historical roots of the relations between politics and religion in the modern world and to explain their global interconnections. This updated, second edition of an award-winning work continues to serve as a sorely needed guide to understanding, scholarship, and communication.

      In preparing this work, the editors and contributors sought to represent the vast diversity of ways in which religions and political systems are influencing each other throughout the contemporary world. Expanded to 281 articles by prominent scholars from many nations, the encyclopedia examines broad themes, such as millennialism and pluralism, as well as articles on specific religions, individuals, geographical regions, institutions, and events. More than half of the existing articles have been updated or partially revised to complement the more than twenty-five new or completely revised entries, including Creationism and Evolution, Palestine, and Radical Islam.

      The articles, ranging from a few hundred to eight thousand words, are written to be accessible to students and interested adults as well as to scholars. Most articles include references to related entries and brief bibliographies to assist in further reading. Each volume of the work contains a detailed index.

      In addition to the articles, the encyclopedia includes an introduction by Robert Wuthnow of Princeton University, who once again served as editor in chief. The appendix contains excerpts and complete texts from source documents related to articles in the volume. The appendix also includes excerpts from world constitutions with provisions on religion, a glossary of terms, and a compilation of Internet sites that may be of use to readers.


      The second edition of the Encyclopedia of Politics and Religon reflects the work of numerous authors, editors, and researchers. The editorial process has been under the general direction of Professor Wuthnow, who was assisted throughout the project by an editorial board of five scholars, each expert in his or her own field. Members of the editorial board, all of whom offered advice throughout the preparation of the work, are Grace Davie, University of Exeter (England); John C. Green, University of Akron; Charles F. Keyes, University of Washington; Charles Kurzman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and David Maxwell, Keele University (England). In the end, the volume is the product of the editors and authors who gave generously of their time to share their knowledge.

      It should be noted that the originator of the idea for the Encyclopedia of Politics and Religion was Ann Davies, now director of editorial operations at CQ Press. Editorial development of this edition of the encyclopedia at CQ Press fell under the direction of Andrea Pedolsky, chief, editorial acquisitions; acquisitions editor Mary Carpenter; and development editor David Arthur. Tim Arnquist, Iman Ali, Liza Baron, Sarah Myers, and Joshua Stager also made valuable contributions.

      Project editor Nancy Matuszak and production editor Joan Gossett oversaw manuscript editing and the production process. Steve Pazdan, Paul Pressau, and Margot Ziperman contributed resources and support to the project. Freelance editors Colleen McGuiness and Sabra Ledent assisted with editing the manuscript. Inge Lockwood proofread the typeset pages, and Sally Ryman prepared the index. Matthew Simmons designed the book, and MacPS composed it.

      A Note on Transliteration

      The editors have used diacritics sparingly in transliterating names of people and places from languages such as Chinese and Arabic, not written in Latin characters. In general, transliterated words appear in a form that should be familiar to English-speaking readers.

      Kathryn Suárez, Director, Library Reference Publishing

      Alphabetical List of Articles and Contributors


      ʿAbduh, Muhammad

      donald malcolm reid

      Georgia State University



      john m. giggie

      University of Texas at San Antonio



      clyde wilcox

      Georgetown University


      al-Afghani, Jamal al-Din

      nikki r. keddie

      University of California at Los Angeles



      ludwig w. adamec

      University of Arizona


      Africa, West: The Mande World

      jan jansen

      Leiden University


      African American Experience

      timothy p. harrison


      Ahmad Khan, Sir Sayyid

      hafeez malik

      Villanova University



      allan christelow

      Idaho State University



      fred kniss

      Loyola University-Chicago



      john wolffe

      The Open University



      didier péclard



      jean baubérot

      Éécole Pratique des Hautes Études (Vème section)–Sorbonne



      benjamin ginsberg

      Johns Hopkins University


      Atatürk, Kemal

      serif mardin

      Sabancï University



      paul g. crowley

      Santa Clara University



      said amir arjomand

      Stony Brook University


      Balkan States

      nikos kokosalakis

      Panteion University


      Banna, Hasan al-

      donald malcolm reid

      Georgia State University



      oran p. smith

      Palmetto Family Council


      Barth, Karl

      richard h. roberts

      Lancaster University


      Base Communities

      daniel h. levine

      University of Michigan


      Bonhoeffer, Dietrich

      daniel hardy

      University of Cambridge



      barry morton


      Bourguiba, Habib

      kenneth j. perkins

      University of South Carolina



      andrew chestnut

      University of Houston



      charles f. keyes

      University of Washington


      Buddhism, Theravada

      charles f. keyes

      University of Washington


      Buddhism, Tibetan

      peter k. moran

      University of Washington


      Burke, Edmund

      douglas sturm

      Bucknell University



      gary scott smith

      Grove City College



      mark a. noll

      Wheaton College



      richard h. roberts

      Lancaster University


      Catholicism, Roman

      r. scott appleby

      University of Notre Dame



      edward l. cleary

      Providence College



      bhikhu parekh

      University of Hull


      Central America

      phillip berryman

      Temple University


      Central Asia

      judy isacoff



      philip clart

      University of British Columbia


      Christian Democracy

      michael h. fleet

      Marquette University


      Christian Right

      jerome l. himmelstein

      Amherst College


      Christian Science

      james t. richardson

      University of Nevada at Reno



      adrian hastings

      University of Leeds


      Christianity in Africa

      andrew walls

      University of Edinburgh and founder of the Centre for the Study of Christianity in the Non-Western World


      Christianity in Asia

      ralph covell

      Denver Seminary



      adam b. seligman

      Boston University


      Civil Disobedience

      william r. marty

      University of Memphis


      Civil Religion

      robert wuthnow

      Princeton University


      Civil Rights Movement

      doug mcadam

      Stanford University


      Civil Society

      adam b. seligman

      Boston University


      Clash of Civilizations

      richard bulliet

      Columbia University



      hugh tinker

      Lancaster University



      paul m. kellstedt and lyman a. kellstedt

      Brown University Wheaton College



      michael bourdeaux



      bernard v. brady

      University of St. Thomas (Minnesota)


      Community Organizing

      richard l. wood

      University of New Mexico



      david l. hall

      University of Texas at El Paso



      david l. hall

      University of Texas at El Paso



      timothy longman

      Vassar College



      charles dunn

      Regent University


      Constitution, U.S.

      derek davis

      Baylor University



      robert w. hefner

      Boston University



      daniel j. elazar

      Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs


      Creationism and Evolution

      david masci

      Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life


      Crime and Criminal Justice

      harold g. grasmick and miyuki fukushima

      University of Oklahoma



      john france

      University of Wales, Swansea



      margaret e. crahan

      Hunter College, City University of New York



      james a. beckford

      University of Warwick


      Dalai Lama

      peter k. moran

      University of Washington


      Day, Dorothy

      mary c. segers

      Rutgers University


      Demographic Shifts in Global Christianity

      todd johnson

      Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary



      john wilson

      Duke University


      Douglass, Frederick

      eddie s. glaude jr.

      Princeton University



      edmund ghareeb

      American University


      Durkheim, Emile

      lewis a. coser

      Boston University


      Economic Development

      deepak lal

      University of California at Los Angeles



      john boli

      Emory University



      samer shehata

      Georgetown University


      English Revolution

      david zaret

      Indiana University



      douglas allen

      University of Maine



      michael s. northcott

      University of Edinburgh



      charles f. keyes

      University of Washington


      Europe, Eastern

      patrick michel

      Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris


      Europe, Western

      grace davie

      University of Exeter



      john c. green

      University of Akron



      roger griffin

      Oxford Brookes University



      cynthia eller

      Montclair State University



      celine beraud

      Centre d’Études Interdisciplinaires des Faits Religieux


      Freedom of religion

      ted g. jelen

      University of Nevada at Las Vegas



      david g. hackett

      University of Florida


      Friends, Society of (Quakers)

      hugh barbour

      Earlham School of Religion



      r. scott appleby

      University of Notre Dame


      Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand

      t. n. madan

      Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi University



      elisabeth schüssler fiorenza

      Harvard University


      Genocide and “Ethnic Cleansing”

      ben kiernan

      Yale University



      monika wohlrab-sahr

      Leipzig University



      kwabena asamoah-gyadu

      Trinity Theological Seminary



      peter beyer

      University of Ottawa


      Graham, Billy

      william martin

      Rice University


      Great Britain

      james a. beckford

      University of Warwick


      Gush Emunim

      emanuel gutmann

      Hebrew University of Jerusalem


      Havel, Václav

      richard h. roberts

      Lancaster University



      obery m. hendricks jr.

      New York Theological Seminary


      Herzl, Theodor

      isaiah friedman

      Ben-Gurion University


      Heschel, Abraham Joshua

      edward k. kaplan

      Brandeis University



      t. n. madan

      Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi University


      Hobbes, Thomas

      douglas sturm

      Bucknell University



      jack santino

      Bowling Green State University



      kristen renwick monroe

      University of California at Irvine



      steven h. haeberle

      University of Alabama at Birmingham


      Human Rights

      jo renee formicola

      Seton Hall University



      peter dobkin hall

      Harvard University



      attila molnar

      Eotvos University


      Ibn Khaldun

      lamin sanneh

      Yale University


      Ibn Taimiyya

      l. carl brown

      Princeton University


      Independent Churches, African

      marthinius l. daneel

      Boston University



      william r. overstreet

      Editor, Political Handbook of the World



      barry alan shain

      Colgate University



      robert w. hefner

      Boston University



      henry kamen

      Higher Council for Scientific Research (Barcelona)


      Iqbal, Muhammad

      carl w. ernst

      University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill



      said amir arjomand

      Stony Brook University



      louay y. bahry

      Middle East Institute



      tom inglis

      University College, Dublin



      john o. voll

      Georgetown University


      Islam in Africa

      david westerlund

      Söodertöorn University College


      Islam in Europe

      jocelyne cesari

      Harvard University


      Islam in Southeast Asia

      robert w. hefner

      Boston University


      Islam in the United States

      jen’nan g. read

      University of California at Irvine


      Islam, Radical

      mohammed hafez

      Villanova University


      Islam’s Encounters with the West

      asma afsaruddin

      University of Notre Dame



      ira sharkansky

      Hebrew University of Jerusalem



      alberto melloni

      Instituto per le Scienze Religiose (Italy)


      Ivory Coast

      robert g. launay

      Northwestern University


      James, William

      heather l. nadelman



      helen hardacre

      Harvard University


      Jefferson, Thomas

      william rogers

      Drew University


      Jehovah’s Witnesses

      jim beckford

      University of Warwick



      emanuel gutmann

      Hebrew University of Jeruselam



      pamela mason

      John Carroll University



      adrian hastings

      University of Leeds



      sohail hashmi

      Mt. Holyoke College


      Jinnah, Muhammad Ali

      hafeez malik

      Villanova University



      laurie a. brand

      University of Southern California



      alan mittleman

      Jewish Theological Seminary



      john m. lonsdale

      Trinity College, University of Cambridge


      Khomeini, Ruhollah Musavi

      shahrough akhavi

      University of South Carolina


      King, Martin Luther, Jr.

      eddie s. glaude jr.

      Princeton University



      clark sorenson

      University of Washington



      edmund ghareeb

      American University


      Latin America

      edward l. cleary

      Providence College


      Latter-day Saints, Church of Jesus Christ of

      anson shupe

      Indiana University–Purdue University, Fort Wayne



      augustus richard norton

      Boston University



      andrew w. reeve

      University of Warwick


      Liberation Theology

      daniel h. levine

      University of Michigan



      edmund ghareeb

      American University



      richard k. fenn

      Princeton Theological Seminary


      Lobbying, Religious

      daniel j. b. hofrenning

      St. Olaf College


      Low Countries

      karel dobbelaere

      Catholic University of Leuven (Belgium)



      martin e. marty

      University of Chicago Divinity School


      Madison, James

      neal riemer

      Drew University



      john o. voll

      Georgetown University



      shamsul a. b.

      Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia


      Maritain, Jacques

      michael novak

      American Enterprise Institute



      samuel z. klausner

      University of Pennsylvania



      gerard huiskamp and christian smith

      Wheaton CollegeUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill



      otto maduro

      Drew University


      Mawdudi, Sayyid Abu al-Ala

      seyyed vali reza nasr

      Naval Postgraduate School



      f. e. peters

      New York University



      kathleen m. joyce

      Duke University


      Merton, Thomas

      jim forest

      Orthodox Peace Fellowship



      stuart mews

      Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education



      edward l. cleary

      Providence College



      paul boyer

      University of Wisconsin



      thomas kselman

      University of Notre Dame



      jon miller

      University of Southern California



      ted g. jelen

      University of Nevada at Las Vegas



      dale f. eickelman

      Dartmouth College



      michael cook

      Princeton University


      Nasser, Gamal Abdel

      louay y. bahry

      Middle East Institute



      mark juergensmeyer

      University of California at Santa Barbara


      Nation of Islam

      lawrence h. mamiya

      Vassar College


      Native Americans

      matthew dennis

      University of Oregon



      bradford verter

      Bennington College


      Natural Law

      francis p. mchugh

      St. Edmund’s College, University of Cambridge


      Nhat Hanh, Thich

      charles f. keyes

      University of Washington


      Niebuhr, Reinhold

      richard wightman fox

      University of Southern California


      Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm

      richard schacht

      University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign



      john n. paden

      George Mason University


      Nongovernmental Organizations

      roland hoksbergen

      Calvin College



      ian barber

      University of Otago (New Zealand)


      Orthodoxy, Greek

      nikos kokosalakis

      Panteion University


      Orthodoxy, Russian

      sergey borisovich filatov

      Institute of Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences



      martin ceadel

      New College, Oxford University



      christel j. manning

      Sacred Heart University



      husain haqqani

      Boston University



      glenn robinson

      Naval Postgraduate School



      r. scott appleby

      University of Notre Dame


      Papua New Guinea

      philip gibbs

      Melanesian Institute of Papua New Guinea



      edith blumhofer

      Wheaton College


      Pentecostalism in Africa

      sibusiso masondo

      University of Cape Town



      paul g. schervish

      Boston College



      gretchen casper

      Pennsylvania State University



      franklin i. gamwell

      University of Chicago Divinity School



      irena borowik

      Jagiellonian University



      richard l. gorsuch

      Fuller Theological Seminary



      james h. moorhead

      Princeton Theological Seminary


      Presidents, American

      kenneth d. wald

      University of Florida



      wade clark roof

      University of California at Santa Barbara


      Protestantism, Mainline

      john green

      University of Akron


      Qaddafi, Muammar al-

      mamoon a. zaki

      LeMoyne-Owen College


      Qutb, Sayyid

      donald malcolm reid

      Georgia State University



      william h. swatos jr.

      Association for the Sociology of Religion and the Religious Research Association


      Religious Foundations

      michael lindsay

      Princeton University


      Religious Organization

      james a. beckford

      University of Warwick



      jon butler

      Yale University



      said amir arjomand

      Stony Brook University


      Romero, Oscar A.

      phillip berryman

      Temple University



      philip walters



      timothy longman

      Vassar College


      Sacred Places

      f. e. peters

      New York University


      Sadat, Anwar

      joshua m. landis

      University of Oklahoma



      raymond patterson

      Saint Michael’s College



      renny golden

      Northeastern Illinois University


      Saudi Arabia

      william ochsenwald

      Virginia Tech



      ole riis

      Aalborg Universitet


      Science and Technology

      james b. gilbert

      University of Maryland at College Park


      Secular Humanism

      james m. ault jr.



      c. john sommerville

      University of Florida



      lucy creevey

      University of Connecticut


      Separation of Church and State as a Principle of Human Rights

      lamin sanneh

      Yale University


      Separation of Church and State in Political Theory

      paul j. weber

      University of Louisville


      Seventh-day Adventism

      ronald l. lawson

      Queens College, City University of New York



      elizabeth currans

      University of California at San Diego



      rudolph peters

      University of Amsterdam



      helen hardacre

      Harvard University


      Social Gospel

      daniel sack

      Material History of American Religion Project


      Social Justice

      ruth l. smith

      Worcester Polytechnic Institute


      Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr I.

      bruce wetterau



      robert patman

      University of Otago


      South Africa

      dirk j. smit

      University of Stellenbosch



      william callahan

      University of Toronto


      Sri Lanka

      steven kemper

      Bates College


      State churches

      ole riis

      Aalborg Universitet



      john o. voll

      Georgetown University



      carl w. ernst

      University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill


      Sukarno, Achmad

      robert w. hefner

      Boston University



      steven l. gardiner

      Monmouth College



      david commins

      Dickinson College



      paul j. weber

      University of Louisville


      Temperance Movements

      jack s. blocker jr.

      Huron University College


      Teresa, Mother

      tony davies



      charles f. keyes

      University of Washington



      paul j. weber

      University of Louisville


      Theology, Public

      steven m. tipton

      Emory University


      Tocqueville, Alexis de

      wilfred m. mcclay

      University of Tennessee at Chattanooga


      Traditional Religions, African

      simeon o. ilesanmi

      Wake Forest University



      roger homan

      University of Brighton


      Treaty of Westphalia

      john carlson

      Arizona State University



      kenneth j. perkins

      University of South Carolina



      hakan yavuz

      University of Utah



      ben jones

      Roskilde University


      Unification Church

      eileen barker

      London School of Economics



      rhys h. williams

      University of Cincinnati


      United States of America

      martin e. marty

      University of Chicago Divinity School



      krishan kumar

      University of Virginia



      drew christiansen

      Editor in Chief, America magazine


      Vatican Council, Second

      r. scott appleby

      University of Notre Dame



      charles f. keyes

      University of Washington



      james aho

      Idaho State University



      rhys h. williams

      University of Cincinnati



      kenneth d. wald

      University of Florida



      betsy perabo

      Western Illinois University


      Weber, Max

      karen e. fields



      cynthia eller and elizabeth reis

      Montclair State UniversityUniversity of Oregon


      World Council of Churches

      george moyser

      University of Vermont



      judy isacoff



      marko kerˇsevan

      University of Ljubljana



      sara rich dorman

      University of Edinburgh



      alan mittleman

      Jewish Theological Seminary

      Contributors to the First Edition

      The authors listed below wrote the original versions of the following articles.


      lawrence w. henderson



      rowan ireland

      La Trobe University, Australia



      donald malcolm reid

      Georgia State University



      james l. guth, lyman a. kellstedt, and corwin e. smidt

      Furman University, Wheaton College, Calvin College



      danièle hervieu-leger

      L’École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales


      Freedom of Religion

      paul j. weber

      University of Louisville



      uwe berndt

      Arnold Bergstraesser Institut



      patrick j. ryan

      Fordham University



      miklós tomka

      Peter Pazmany Catholic University



      t. n. madan

      Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi University



      john fulton

      St. Mary’s University College


      Islam’s Encounters with the West

      kenneth cragg



      kevin avruch

      George Mason University


      Jehovah’s Witnesses

      karen e. fields



      peter mcdonough

      Arizona State University



      daniel j. elazar

      Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs



      laurel kendall

      American Museum of Natural History


      Nongovernmental Organizations

      brian h. smith

      Ripon College



      vali nasr

      Naval Postgraduate School



      leonard t. volenski



      michael bourdeaux



      aviad m. kleinberg

      Tel Aviv University



      gary david comstock

      Wesleyan University



      joshua m. landis

      University of Oklahoma



      şerif mardin

      American University



      lester kurtz

      University of Texas



      titus leonard presler

      Episcopal Theological Seminary of the Southwest



      kevin avruch

      George Mason University



      The Encyclopedia of Politics and Religion was initially created to fill a void for those seeking to examine the interconnections of politics and religion and understand how these two elemental institutions of society have combined to shape public discourse, affect social attitudes, spark and sustain collective action, and influence policy, especially during the past two centuries.

      Since the publication of the first edition of the encyclopedia in 1998, the al-Qaida attacks of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent launch of the U.S. government’s “global war on terror” have thrust religio-political issues to the forefront of public consciousness. Today, this thoroughly revised second edition of the encyclopedia is more relevant than ever in a world seeking reliable, authoritative information.

      The principle of the separation of church and state, and the related idea that politics and religion are and ought to be distinct, has been one of the most crucial factors in the rise of national secular states. Although it is the bedrock of modern political institutions and international relations, this principle has been challenged in recent years to the point of becoming a fault line in societies and religious movements around the world. Clearly, religion increasingly plays a major role in much of the political conflict of our era. Any effective analysis of or long-lasting solution to such turmoil requires attention to religion in its political context. The encyclopedia’s aim is to present the historical roots of the relations between politics and religion in the modern world and to explain their global interconnections. This updated, second edition of an award-winning work continues to serve as a sorely needed guide to understanding, scholarship, and communication.

      In preparing this work, the editors and contributors sought to represent the vast diversity of ways in which religions and political systems are influencing each other throughout the contemporary world. Expanded to 281 articles by prominent scholars from many nations, the encyclopedia examines broad themes, such as millennialism and pluralism, as well as articles on specific religions, individuals, geographical regions, institutions, and events. More than half of the existing articles have been updated or partially revised to complement the more than twenty-five new or completely revised entries, including Creationism and Evolution, Palestine, and Radical Islam.

      The articles, ranging from a few hundred to eight thousand words, are written to be accessible to students and interested adults as well as to scholars. Most articles include references to related entries and brief bibliographies to assist in further reading. Each volume of the work contains a detailed index.

      In addition to the articles, the encyclopedia includes an introduction by Robert Wuthnow of Princeton University, who once again served as editor in chief. The appendix contains excerpts and complete texts from source documents related to articles in the volume. The appendix also includes excerpts from world constitutions with provisions on religion, a glossary of terms, and a compilation of Internet sites that may be of use to readers.


      The second edition of the Encyclopedia of Politics and Religon reflects the work of numerous authors, editors, and researchers. The editorial process has been under the general direction of Professor Wuthnow, who was assisted throughout the project by an editorial board of five scholars, each expert in his or her own field. Members of the editorial board, all of whom offered advice throughout the preparation of the work, are Grace Davie, University of Exeter (England); John C. Green, University of Akron; Charles F. Keyes, University of Washington; Charles Kurzman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and David Maxwell, Keele University (England). In the end, the volume is the product of the editors and authors who gave generously of their time to share their knowledge.

      It should be noted that the originator of the idea for the Encyclopedia of Politics and Religion was Ann Davies, now director of editorial operations at CQ Press. Editorial development of this edition of the encyclopedia at CQ Press fell under the direction of Andrea Pedolsky, chief, editorial acquisitions; acquisitions editor Mary Carpenter; and development editor David Arthur. Tim Arnquist, Iman Ali, Liza Baron, Sarah Myers, and Joshua Stager also made valuable contributions.

      Project editor Nancy Matuszak and production editor Joan Gossett oversaw manuscript editing and the production process. Steve Pazdan, Paul Pressau, and Margot Ziperman contributed resources and support to the project. Freelance editors Colleen McGuiness and Sabra Ledent assisted with editing the manuscript. Inge Lockwood proofread the typeset pages, and Sally Ryman prepared the index. Matthew Simmons designed the book, and MacPS composed it.

      A Note on Transliteration

      The editors have used diacritics sparingly in transliterating names of people and places from languages such as Chinese and Arabic, not written in Latin characters. In general, transliterated words appear in a form that should be familiar to English-speaking readers.


      During the past decade interest in the relationships between religion and politics has burgeoned both in the academic literature and on the world stage. Evidence of the growing importance of religion in world affairs can hardly be missed, whether one is a government official, religious leader, scholar, or rank-and-file consumer of the mass media. Religion’s role in international diplomacy, as a source of armed violence or as a facilitator of humanitarian efforts, is increasingly apparent. Staying abreast of these fast-changing developments, not to mention their historic and cultural roots, is a major challenge.

      One indication of the increasing importance of relationships between religion and politics is the growing number of books, scholarly essays, and news articles about these topics. Between 1996 and 2005, the Library of Congress recorded nearly 1,200 new books about religion and politics, almost double the number published during the previous decade. In the same period, newly published scholarly articles about religion and politics listed in the Social Science Citation Index grew from 450 to 660. Popular articles indexed by the Dow-Jones Factiva service climbed even more steeply, reaching a total of more than 121,000 published between 1996 and 2005, compared with fewer than 37,000 from 1986 to 1995. No longer was religion relegated to the community events section of local newspapers. During a single six-month period in 2005, Le Monde carried more than 300 articles about religion, the London Times included more than 600, and the Washington Post published more than 850.

      The event that contributed most to the awakening of popular interest in religion and politics was, of course, the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, DC. Although it was disputed whether the attackers were as motivated by Muslim convictions as by other grievances, the ensuing debate brought religion and its potential for violence squarely into the public arena. Across campuses and among heads of state, controversy flared about the teachings and practices of Islam and about the appropriate manner for people of other faiths to respond. Discussions of terror, evil, morality, and respect all took on new meaning. Just as the Iranian revolution had done a generation earlier, the events of that Tuesday reminded leaders everywhere of how salient a political force religion can be.

      Other events in recent years have prompted growing awareness of the importance of religion in political life as well. In 2001, within the first few days of his administration, U.S. president George W. Bush announced the formation of a White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. This program was designed to expand significantly the possibilities for religious congregations and service organizations to receive government funding for their activities. Unlike the Charitable Choice legislation that had been passed in 1996 for a similar purpose, the Bush initiative favored a more proactive role for government in promoting faith-based social programs. Supporters argued that religion made caregivers more effective and thus deserving of public funds, while critics suggested that the constitutional wall separating church and state was being breached. The debate added fuel to an already smoldering fire of discussion about the free exercise of religion and whether religious groups were being fairly or unfairly excluded from participation in American public life. Local referenda and court cases focused on such topics as whether and how evolution and creationism should be taught in public schools, what rights or restrictions should be associated with gay marriage, and what to think about prayers and religious texts being performed or displayed in public places.

      During 2002 the United States’ military invasion of Afghanistan moved to the center of world attention and again raised questions about religion’s relationships to public policy. Afghanistan’s Taliban leadership represented a unique blend of Islamist and ethnic nationalist interpretation. The Taliban’s role in harboring al-Qaida leader Usama bin Ladin, the alleged planner of the attacks on New York and Washington, prompted U.S. leaders to call for its overthrow. As the war unfolded, broader questions about the United States’ relationship to the Muslim world emerged. Religion and politics were joined not only in these discussions but also in debates about “just war” theory in Christianity. Even broader questions about the applicability or inapplicability of Western understandings about religion’s place in democratic government became part of the public debate.

      In 2003 the main theater of U.S. military action moved to the Middle East as policymakers perceived an opportunity to depose Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and turn the country into a model of Western-style democracy. The end of Hussein’s regime opened opportunities for longstanding ethnic, religious, and regional differences to reappear. The role of religion thus became an important consideration during the process of formulating and ratifying a new Iraqi constitution. The war reinforced broader discussions about relationships between the Muslim world and the West. Within the United States, discussions also emerged about the religious foundations of human rights and sanctions against torture.

      The attention to Islam that was stimulated by these events became an increasing aspect of European politics for different reasons. By 2002, an estimated 14 million Muslims were living in western Europe, of whom approximately 5 million lived in France, 3 million lived in Germany, and more than 1 million lived in the United Kingdom. These numbers represented dramatic increases that were largely a result of guest worker programs and migration from former colonies. Policies sometimes excluded immigrants from becoming citizens and in other cases resulted in continuing economic hardships. Sporadic violence was a recurring feature of relationships between immigrants and the majority population. Religion thus became a matter of dispute among the various political parties and their leaders.

      Discussions of religion’s role in European affairs grew in intensity in 2004 in conjunction with debates about ratification of a constitution for the European Union (EU). Although a majority or significant minority of the EU countries’ populations identified with a Christian denomination, few of the countries’ constitutions included references to religion and most provided for separation of church and state. Proposals emerged nevertheless for the EU constitution to include some reference to God, to Christian values, or to Europe’s Christian heritage. These proposals were hotly contested, revealing the pronounced differences between more secular countries, such as France, and more religious ones, such as Poland. The debate also raised questions about relationships between the EU and Muslim countries and the possible inclusion of countries with predominant Muslim populations, such as Turkey, in the European Union.

      In eastern Europe the collapse of the Soviet Union continued to reverberate in the form of conflicts among religious and ethnic groups. The Orthodox Church gained adherents and political influence in Russia, but these gains generated concerns about the harassment of minority religious groups, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists, and Mormons. In Croatia, where 85 percent of the population is Catholic, Serbian Orthodox leaders reported continuing instances of harassment and violence. Bosnia and Herzegovina maintained a delicate balance among Muslim Bosniaks, Catholic Bosnian Croats, and Orthodox Bosnian Serbs, with religious discrimination being more common than uncommon and nationalistic sentiments often associated with religious appeals. Tensions between Christians and Muslims also continued in eastern Europe. One of the most visible instances of religious violence took place in 2004 when Muslim Chechen militants killed hundreds of women and children at a school in the southern Russian town of Beslan.

      In Central Asia religion has been of continuing concern in constitutional interpretation and governmental policy. For instance, Kyrgyzstan’s constitution mandates religious freedom, which the government seeks to enforce by requiring religious groups to be officially registered and by prohibiting religion from being taught in the nation’s schools. Kazakhstan’s policies toward religion also promote religious freedom, although a law passed in 2005 permits the government to punish members of religious groups deemed to be encouraging political extremism. Uzbekistan, in contrast, aggressively prosecutes Islamic groups that have not been approved by the government and prohibits Christian groups from proselytizing.

      Elsewhere, the role of religion in national and regional affairs has become increasingly important as a result of armed conflicts between religious groups as they struggle for political and economic advantage. For instance, the United Progressive Alliance in India has championed secular government and religious tolerance, while the opposing Bharatiya Janata Party has argued that Hindu religious and cultural norms should be given a more prominent role in school textbooks and in interpretations of local laws. Riots between Hindus and Muslims and between Christians and Hindus have necessitated armed intervention in several parts of India. In Pakistan more than 125 deaths occurred in 2004 as a result of conflict among religious groups. In Indonesia conflicts between Christians and Muslims have been a persistent problem in Central Sulawesi and the Moluccas.

      In Latin America and Africa the most notable religious development has been the rapid growth of Christianity, especially in variants of Protestant Pentecostalism. This growth is widely assumed to be the result of indigenous preaching and religious practices that appeal to the lower socioeconomic strata. Globalization, however, is also a significant factor, both as an influence on local economic and political conditions and as a means of communicating religious teachings via international travel and television. Although Pentecostalism is generally described as an apolitical religion, it has gained notable influence in some countries and been promoted by government officials in others. For instance, an amendment to the Zambian constitution has declared the country a Christian nation; similarly, Ghanaian policies of free trade and democratization have significantly facilitated the growth of Christian churches in that country.

      The impact of globalization can be seen in a wide variety of religious developments. Discussions of globalization generally emphasize growth of international travel and communication and increasing integration of economic markets. Because of this emphasis on technology and trade, religion is sometimes viewed separately as a manifestation only of local, traditional, and even tribal loyalties. Globalization sometimes threatens these loyalties, however, causing them to be held with greater conviction than before, and in other instances provides new resources that alter traditional practices. A sacred tribal ceremony in a remote village in Papua New Guinea being performed to disco music is one example. The popularity of holy hip-hop music of Ghanaian origin in Atlanta, Georgia, is another.

      China’s ascendancy in global markets has been striking not only in economic terms, but also in its implications for the changing relationships between religion and politics. In rural China the continuing paucity of health care and other government services has encouraged the popularity of faith healers and other religious self-help movements, such as Falun Gong. On the one hand, township officials sometimes tolerate these practices as long as they are deemed to be politically neutral; on the other hand, improved communication and transportation have made it easier for the police to suppress these groups. In the more prosperous coastal cities, underground churches coexist with growing officially registered churches, sometimes financed by “boss Christians” who run successful companies, as well as large “passport churches” attended by Koreans, Americans, and other expatriate workers. The political implications of this apparent upsurge of religious activity remain to be understood and, in the short term, depend considerably on balances within the ruling regime and relations with other countries.

      The scholarly response to these numerous developments in religion and politics has varied from discipline to discipline. The relevant disciples are of course the social scientists. Yet social scientists interested in religion have had to confront three significant hurdles in tackling the relationships between politics and religion. One is that the social sciences have long held that religion would become increasingly passé in the modern world. In this view, religion was something that benighted people of yesteryear believed, but that those with knowledge of science, with training in higher education, and with the comforts of modern existence would no longer take seriously. Thus it might be of interest to study religion historically, as a scholar of Late Antiquity or the Middle Ages might do, but not to credit it with much significance in contemporary affairs. A second and related hurdle is the assumption that religion, even if it does persist as a private passion in personal life, is not an important consideration in political or economic life. In this view, what may appear to the untutored as a religious impulse is to more thoughtful minds a reflection of rational choices, self-interest, social class, and power. Efforts to understand public policy, therefore, should focus on the nuts and bolts of what can be planned and predicted, not on the whims of the religiously inclined. The third hurdle is the fact that hardly any social scientists themselves, at least not in the United States or western Europe, are themselves religious believers or practitioners. Thus, to the extent that personal experience informs one’s outlook on the world, it has been easier for social scientists to ignore religion than attempt to understand it.

      These intellectual barriers have finally been challenged in recent years and, in the view of scholars who know the most about religion, are in the process of being thoroughly discredited. Science and economic development have altered the ways in which people practice their faith but have shown few signs of discouraging it from being practiced at all. Even in western Europe, where secularism has been most evident, religion continues to be an influence in public affairs, and that role appears to be increasing as a result of immigration and political integration. Empirical studies there, in the United States, and elsewhere show that religious participation shapes not only what people do in their private lives, but also how they vote, which political party they favor, and what they think about a wide range of social issues. Although it is true that social scientists themselves are generally uninvolved in religion, no educated person can fail to see that religion is an important part of the contemporary world and needs to be better understood.

      The discipline in which the greatest strides have been made toward taking religion seriously in relation to politics is political science. It is perhaps not surprising that this should be so, given the abundance of evidence that religion and politics commingle. The extent of this interest, however, is surprising from one perspective. In the development of political theory, at least in the West, religion did not feature as an important topic of concern. It was certainly in the background, especially in the Lockean tradition for which overcoming religious conflict through tolerance and constitutional liberalism was key. Political theory nevertheless progressed largely as a discussion of rational and procedural norms, grounded in such universal values as justice and fairness, rather than through continuing consideration of religious communities or traditions. In recent years, the renewal of interest in religion has thus been accompanied by criticisms of this strand of political theory. These criticisms have emphasized the reality of religious communities as crucibles for the formation and expression of values and the validity of bringing religious values into the public sphere. Among empirically oriented political scientists, inquiries into the political attitudes and electoral behavior of religious constituencies have become common, especially in the United States, where political candidates routinely invoke connections with these various constituencies. Qualitative research has focused increasingly on religious conflict, on constitutional debates about religion, and on the political implications of fundamentalist and extremist groups.

      Leaving aside economics, in which interest in religion has been limited to controversial studies purporting to show that rational choice theories were as applicable to the soul as to markets, the discipline that has shown a striking lack of interest in religion and politics is sociology. This lack of interest is notable for two reasons. One is that discussions of religion were central to the figures that sociologists generally count as their “founding fathers” (Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Emile Durkheim). The other is that many sociologists do in fact study various aspects of religion. Few of these studies, however, focus on the interplay between religion and politics. They usefully illuminate the religious beliefs and practices of individuals, and they sometimes provide rich descriptions of religious movements, communities, or congregations. The results sometimes include a discussion of how individuals feel about “hot button” issues (such as abortion or homosexuality). To the extent that they deal with “power,” though, the focus is more likely to be on power in interpersonal relations or over one’s emotions than within the political arena. Of course there are significant exceptions to this pattern, including treatments of the public role of religion and of the political factors that reshape religious identities. The larger problem within sociology is nevertheless that religion tends to be excluded rather than incorporated into the dominant considerations of the discipline. Few of the top-ranked graduate research departments include faculty who specialize in religion, and relative to other topics, religion is seldom the focus of articles in the discipline’s primary journals. Although religion is sometimes included in empirical studies as a single variable (such as church attendance), its connections with other aspects of social life are largely ignored. For example, social class is studied without considering the extent to which religion contributes to class disparities. Race and gender are prominent preoccupations among sociologists, whereas religious diversity and its connections with race and gender are not.

      Compared with sociology, anthropology has been a significantly richer source of inquiries about religion and politics. This interest is partly a reflection of the fact that anthropology has emphasized culture to a greater extent than sociology has and, in so doing, has recognized that religious symbolism and ritual is an important part of culture. To a much greater extent than sociologists, anthropologists have also covered the world, as it were, studying locations in Africa, Indonesia, the Middle East, and other countries where religion is not only prominent, as it is in the United States, but is also the source of ongoing change and political tension. In focusing less on statistical manipulations and model building, anthropological work has considered the character of whole communities as well, and for this reason has had to take the political factors influencing those communities into account.

      The work of scholars in religious studies, history, international relations, and public policy has also focused increasingly on religion and politics. Religious studies and history continue to hold accountable the work of scholars with interest in politics by producing studies that illuminate the past and that emphasize knowledge of religious texts and traditions. Increasingly, discussions in religious studies also challenge assumptions about what constitutes religion and how religion as a cultural category is influenced by social and political developments (such as colonialism and post-colonialism). New emphasis on “lived religion”—the practices of real people outside as well as inside religious organizations—converges with anthropological perspectives. This emphasis is especially valuable in giving policy discussions a “bottom up” or grassroots dimension. International relations and other policy studies, for their part, have focused increasingly on religion for practical reasons. The bread and butter of these studies is to offer recommendations deemed relevant to governmental decisions. Thus, the range of topics of current interest in policy circles runs the gamut from faith-based services to war and from constitutional questions to the role of religious organizations in promoting economic development.

      The Encyclopedia’s Approach

      The entries in this Encyclopedia are meant to serve both beginning students and more seasoned scholars whose work increasingly leads them into unfamiliar territory. Apart from disinterest, the biggest deterrent to scholars paying greater attention to religion is probably the fact that religion is such an enormously complicated subject. A scholar who stumbles in naming the three persons of the Trinity or confusing Eid and Divali risks sufficient embarrassment to avoid these topics at all. Treating religion as a variable (such as frequency of church attendance) betokens no more understanding of the subject than does treating race in the same way. The entries included here are meant to overcome some of the reluctance that unfamiliarity with the basics of religion may induce. These entries, though, are specifically tailored to emphasize the relationships between religion and politics. Many of the essays focus on individual countries. They summarize the essential ways in which religion and politics have influenced each other in the past and at present in these countries. We have not sought to include separate entries for each of the approximately 225 countries in the world. Rather, we have emphasized large countries and countries in which the dynamics of religion and politics have been especially important in recent years. We have also included essays that combine discussions of several countries under a single regional rubric.

      In addition to the essays about countries, we have included three other kinds of entries. One set provides historical and cultural background information. For instance, the essays about crusades, Confucianism, and the English revolution are largely of this nature. A second category includes essays about specific individuals who have played a prominent role in the relationships between religion and politics. The essays about Dorothy Day, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, and Theodor Herzl are examples. The remaining essays deal with important issues, developments, or concepts and are thus organized by topic. Some of these focus on issues that will be of primary interest to scholars based in the United States and concerned about the nation’s religion and politics in this country. Evangelicalism is an example. Others deal more broadly with issues that span countries and regions, such as environmentalism and globalization.

      This second edition of the Encyclopedia differs from the first in two important respects. First, we have updated more than half of the original entries. These updates emphasize developments that have taken place during the past decade. They also draw on the latest scholarship and include references to this scholarship in the respective bibliographies. In some instances, recent developments have also necessitated refocusing the discussion of preceding events or recasting the essay from scratch. Second, we have added twenty-five new entries. These have been added to reflect recent scholarly interest or because of events in the world itself. Entries for Demographic Shifts in Global Christianity, Islam in the United States, and Media and Religion are examples.

      No single scholar nor any single essay can provide an authoritative guide to current thinking about religion and politics in the social sciences. Specific research topics nevertheless require framing in terms of larger debates and assumptions. In the remainder of this introduction, I discuss five such debates, each of which rests on broad assumptions about the nature of religion and how it might be related to politics. Readers should think of these topics as orienting frameworks. How one thinks about specific relationships between religion and politics is likely to be shaped by one’s understanding of these larger issues.

      The Global Context

      The fact that goods, people, and information flow over longer distances in greater volume and faster than ever before is well documented. Despite rising fuel prices, shipping costs have declined. So have long-distance telephone rates. The volume of both goods shipped and calls made has climbed dramatically. Email further facilitates long distance communication. Satellite television transmission and the Internet make global information more accessible. Meanwhile, neoliberal economic policies and democratization have reduced trade barriers and opened new markets. The global economic dependence that has resulted consists not only of more importing and exporting, but also of cheaper consumer goods, greater specialization and thus interdependence, increasing international financial flows, and an enlarged pool of available investment capital. Although many of these developments have been good for rich countries, the effects for poor countries have been mixed, benefiting some but making it harder for others to compete.

      Scholarly opinions differ about the consequences of this new global economy, as it is sometimes called, for religion. In one view, religion is rooted primarily in local communities. It sacralizes attachments to home, to places of origin, to kin networks, and to tribal, ethnic, or familial identities. The main implication of global integration, in this view, is to threaten the local communities in which religion is rooted. Religious adherents can respond to these threats in one of two ways. They can accept them or resist them. Acceptance means passively acknowledging that religion is no longer as meaningful as it once was. Being a believer and a practitioner is now less important than being an Internet surfer, a Wal-Mart shopper, or a producer for the world market. Resistance means fighting back. The tension between one’s distinctive heritage and the wider world now becomes more acute. Religious participation takes on added meaning. Being a believer is a way to preserve the past, defend one’s home, and protect an entire way of life. That is one view. The other view is that religion itself adapts more easily to the changing global context. A person does not surf the Internet only for news; he or she also uses the new technology to learn more about fellow believers in other parts of the world. Shopping at Wal-Mart does not negate one’s religious identity; one can now purchase Bibles and inspirational books more cheaply at Wal-Mart because they have been produced with low-cost labor in China.

      Whether religion is local or global naturally depends on which religion and which population is at issue. What is evident in any situation is that the global context needs to be taken into account. Religious uprisings that take on political significance may well be inspired by the sense that one’s way of life is threatened. They may also result from the fact that global markets benefit some groups more than others. The feeling of being left behind can be a powerful motive for resisting regimes, policies, and other nations deemed responsible for changing circumstances. At the same time, global expansion brings new opportunities and new resources that religious leaders may use to enhance their political role. Links to foreign countries, broadcasting technology, and the legitimation provided by prestigious visitors from outside one’s community all help to strengthen the place of well-positioned religious leaders.

      The changing global context of religion is not only a source of resources and motives that result in struggles for power. It is also a source of shifting perspectives and priorities. For instance, it is notable that religious organizations in the United States and Europe have paid increasing attention in recent years to world hunger. This attention cannot be explained in terms of an increasing share of the world suffering from hunger or increasing disparities between rich and poor. It stems in large measure from the fact that images of starvation are more readily communicated. Concerns about environmental policy provide another example. Religious organizations express greater interest in the health of the planet because economic interdependence raises awareness of mutual responsibilities.

      The growing integration of the world’s economies appears likely to continue, barring scarcities or negative consequences that encourage governments to restrict trade and communication. The process of integration has thus far been bumpy, however, meaning that the future will likely proceed in fits and spurts as well. These uncertainties will also affect the relations between religion and politics. For example, a regime that seeks to reduce international trade or restrict immigration may well gain popular support from nativistic religious groups that find a wider platform for their arguments.

      Although the widening global context of religion and politics creates ample opportunities for new research to be conducted on these topics, one line of inquiry that has attracted attention does not, in my view, appear as promising as it did initially. This is the so-called neo-institutionalist approach to social organizations. This approach is so broad as to have hardly any distinct meaning, other than to suggest that organizations are influenced by the form of other organizations, and that what they display about themselves may be different from what they actually do. In recognition of the growing integration of the world economy, scholars working in this tradition have posed the bold argument that organizations will increasingly all resemble one another. Restaurants around the world will all look like McDonald’s, retail stores will all look like Wal-Mart, government agencies will all look like the U.S. State Department, and so on. The implication is that a world culture of commonly accepted norms is coming into existence. Buddhist temples in India and Christian churches in the United States will increasingly adopt these common norms. They will also relate to their governments in the same ways.

      The reason this argument does not appear promising is that it flies in the face not only of an increasing amount of empirical evidence but also of logic itself. Organizations do not take shape simply by imitating one another. They also adapt to their local environments. Even McDonald’s restaurants incorporate different themes and provide different menus in Beijing and Bangalore than they do in inner-city Los Angeles or suburban Dallas. Religious organizations have all the more reason to distinguish themselves and to develop distinctive styles in different contexts. It would be convenient, of course, if they all looked the same, for studying one would constitute understanding them all. That, however, is not the current reality.

      The more likely consequence of global integration is that religious diversity will increase. An organization in one country may adopt music from another. Not far away, a different religious organization caters to immigrants from a variety of home nations. The unique mix of beliefs and practices is different from those in any of these home countries. Local practices are altered by people and ideas from other places. The political implications thus become harder to predict.

      State Expansion and Contraction

      Thus far I have described how changes in the global context may affect religious communities. Governments’ roles in relation to these wider considerations are also changing. The primary scholarly debate at present is whether the ruling regimes and their governing functions in national societies are more likely to expand, contract, or possibly fluctuate between expansion and contraction. The argument for expansion appears to be supported by considerable evidence. Authoritarian and democratic regimes alike have been able to extract resources in large amounts from their respective economies. They do this by monopolizing the power to provide national security. They also provide a growing number of social services, ranging from transportation and old-age insurance to education and meat inspection. Government expansion means variously that a larger share of the population may be employed by government, that the best or most stable jobs may be in government, that tax rates are higher, that a larger proportion of the public pays taxes, or that people are increasingly defined as citizens, shaped by public schooling, and linked to government through identification cards or membership in organizations regulated by government. That government functions should expand in the context of increasing global competition is also arguable on grounds that strong states become more necessary to negotiate such competition. Thus, the strong centralized government in China does a good job of steering its economy in the direction of strong growth. Weaker states in Africa or Latin America compete less effectively.

      The possibility that national state power is contracting as a result of changing global conditions has also been of interest. Because this possibility is more about future than past developments, it is grounded less in empirical evidence than in arguments. The main argument is that states’ ability to control and thus extract revenue from their economies is shrinking. For instance, a business subject to high taxes or strict environmental regulations in one society can simply move to a different one. Or, even more easily, it can transfer more of its revenue to a branch office in another country. Another reason that national states may play a less important role in the future is that supranational organizations gain strength as they are called on increasingly to negotiate in global markets. The European Union’s growing power in relation to that of its individual nation states might be an example.

      Fluctuations involving periodic expansion and contraction of state power are also a reasonable possibility. During times of global economic growth, the role of states could contract, whereas economic downturn could encourage protectionist policies enforced by strong governments or more strategic political intervention in economic affairs. Differences among countries are also likely possibilities. For example, China, the United States, and the European Union could well pursue policies that strengthen their respective governments, while African governments might experience greater difficulty either in promoting economic growth or in maintaining their own stability.

      Governmental expansion, contraction, and fluctuation obviously have implications for the role of religion under these various conditions. Strong centralized regimes have made it possible for religious communities to be almost completely suppressed, as in the case of the Soviet Union or China. In other cases, appeals to religious authorities have been used to strengthen regimes and thereby reinforce the power of a monopoly religion. Weak or contracting states are likely to have a different relationship with religious communities. In instances where central government is incapable of enforcing basic law, extremist religious groups may be able to operate with impunity. In other situations where governmental power is moderately reduced or divided, political factions are more likely to seek alliances with religious groups to strengthen their position against other factions. Certainly in the policy sphere, religious groups can be found arguing both in favor of and against proposals that would strengthen or reduce the power of national governments.

      Non-State Actors

      An important set of issues that necessarily frames current thinking about religion and politics derives from the observation that the role of non-state actors has probably increased dramatically since the end of the cold war. In international relations, for instance, the prevailing orientation during and after World War II was that the heads of national states were the main players in world affairs, and for this reason negotiations involving treaties, alliances, and summit meetings needed to take place at this level. After the cold war, it was less clear that this view was still operative. Although centralized regimes still held power, it was increasingly evident that local associations, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, social movements, and in some cases mafiosa and tribal warlords were reasserting their place in civic affairs. Following 9/11, it seemed further evident that non-state actors were a more significant political force. Dealing with al-Qaida was different from meeting with official representatives of nations at the United Nations or in the Hague or Beijing.

      Non-state actors range from terrorist groups to nongovernmental organizations such as Amnesty International or Habitat for Humanity. They are not duly elected and they do not represent the legitimate authority within a territorially defined nation. They nevertheless command resources, exercise political power, carry out administrative and social service functions either with or without government support, and sometimes use violence or the threat of violence. Non-state actors typically represent a distinct constituency and function in the interests of that constituency, although they may also claim to speak for the common good or some universal principle (such as human rights or environmental justice). Religion is often a source of non-state organizations. These groups variously claim to speak for God, mobilize people through religious networks, and differentiate themselves from other religions or from such enemies of religion as secularism and materialism. Radical or extremist religious groups are often labeled as such because of the distinctive values they hold and their willingness to engage in nonlegal means of furthering those values. The majority of non-state actors, however, work within prevailing laws. They provide international emergency relief, lobby for environmental protection or human rights, promote marriage and childrearing, sponsor missionaries, or monitor abuses of prisoners.

      Non-state actors are essentially voluntary associations in that members join freely and do not in most instances rely on force to achieve their ends. In this respect, they are features of the nineteenth century as much as of the twentieth or twenty-first centuries. They bear a strong relationship with democracy, providing checks and balances against strong centralized state bureaucracies and serving as the means through which citizens express political claims. In more recent parlance, they generate social capital in the form of networks and norms of trust and cooperation, and this capital can be used to further peaceful aims but can also be deployed to sell drugs, rob banks, or bomb buildings.

      Discussions of non-state actors generally locate them within larger treatments of civil society. Civil society refers to the fact that citizens organize themselves in ways that both influence governmental structures and circumvent those structures. For instance, the voluntary associations of which civil society is composed include nonprofit food pantries and homeless shelters that, on the one hand, encourage government to be more responsive to the needs of the poor and, on the other hand, help the poor even without the assistance of government. Religion is sometimes considered an important source and continuing aspect of civil society because it encourages people to band together and engage in altruistic behavior of this kind.

      Several reasons can be advanced for thinking that non-state actors have become increasingly important in recent years. One is that global communication makes it possible for people to organize more easily and for scattered activities to be coordinated in ways other than the bureaucratic hierarchies involved in national governments. Another is that governments themselves rely increasingly on non-state actors to assist in administering ever more complicated social services. For instance, rich countries that seek to promote economic development or improved health facilities in poor countries do not simply hire bureaucrats to go abroad or send money to officials in those countries; instead, they work with nongovernmental associations, foundations, and churches to administer these efforts. A more specific reason is that non-state actors are increasingly used by democratic governments to promote democracy from the ground up, so to speak, in formerly authoritarian societies. For example, nongovernmental organizations have been a popular means of attempting to build civil society in eastern Europe and other areas previously controlled by the Soviet Union.

      Whether or not non-state actors are becoming more important, they are a significant consideration in discussions of the relationships between religion and politics. For one thing, these organizations mediate between individual citizens and central governing bodies, meaning that individuals often mobilize and voice their political views through religious or quasi-religious groups. The political behavior of religious people cannot be understood, therefore, simply in terms of what they believe or how they vote; it must also take account of how they are organized. For this reason, scholars pay increasing attention to religious congregations as places where political opinions are shaped or where people are recruited to join social movements. In addition, non-state actors increasingly work hand in hand with public officials and receive funding from government agencies. In this way, as well as through requirements for reporting or accountability to the public, religious groups are shaped by the political context in which they function. Clearly, it is quite different for a religious group to hire professional grant writers and secure large sums through government contracts than for it to recruit volunteers to spend a few free evenings helping the poor.

      A related consideration concerns the ability of religious groups, community organizations, and other non-state actors to encourage political participation. Two opposing trends underlie the interest in this consideration. On the one hand, voluntary associations have responded to changes in communication patterns and the enlarged scope of government functions by altering their basic structure. More of these associations are national membership organizations that raise money through direct mail but do little else to promote social interaction. Others are nonprofit service organizations with specialized functions and professional staff. On the other hand, grassroots organizations that create lasting bonds among people and draw them into larger networks appear to have declined. As a result, some kinds of civic participation also seem to be diminishing. Thus, the ebb and flow of participation in religious groups is of interest not only to religious leaders but also to social observers who view these dynamics as part of a larger story. To the extent that religious participation encourages political involvement and volunteering, a decline in levels of religious participation may also signal an erosion of civic life more generally.

      Porous Institutions

      In the social sciences religion and politics are often described as social institutions. This means that they presumably perform distinct societal functions and operate according to different norms. For instance, religion relates people in some way to the sacred, supernatural, or transcendent and is organized by clergy who carry out these functions, whereas the political sphere sets the society’s goals and pursues these goals through coercive means administered by people trained in policymaking and law. Institutions are said to be relatively autonomous from one another insofar as they can generate their own resources and set their own standards. Thus, religion raises its money through voluntary contributions and decides to devote these funds to paying clergy salaries and maintaining houses of worship; government generates revenue through taxes and spends it for national security, administration, and public services. The standards by which clergy are evaluated are thus different from those used to judge the performance of government officials.

      Social theory has long held that institutions such as religion and politics are more clearly differentiated from one another in modern societies than they probably were in earlier societies. For instance, a holy man may have doubled as tribal leader in earlier times, but it would be less common today for a member of the clergy to be an elected official. Historic efforts to draw a clear line of demarcation between church and state are often mentioned as watersheds in the increasing differentiation of religion and politics. Once a king is no longer head of the church, for instance, religion has greater freedom to set its own course and government does not need to be as concerned about how its actions may or may not conform to religious teachings. In the same way that religion and politics have become more distinct, other institutions have also gained greater autonomy. Professional medicine is much more distinct from religion now than it was at a time when the shaman also provided cures for illnesses. Other examples include a greater separation of art from religion, higher education from religion, and therapy from religion.

      What the idea of separate and distinct institutional spheres neglects is the fact that these spheres continue to interact. Just because the king does not double as the pope does not mean that the two no longer influence one another. Indeed, a related argument in social theory is that the more something becomes specialized and distinct, the more it has to interact with other specialized groups or organizations. A farmer who raises cattle but no longer bakes his own bread has to interact with another farmer who grows wheat or a baker who specializes in baking. In this view, political functionaries might not be so good at presiding over military funerals and thus would need to call on clergy for this task, or clergy would need to enlist the help of a public official to work out a complex zoning question when constructing a place of worship. It is worth noting, though, that these continuing and perhaps increasing interactions have often been neglected in the social sciences. The reason is that religion’s roles have not been considered as essential as those of public officials, doctors, or business leaders. In this view, religion simply existed because people could not deal with their problems in better ways. Once these ways were found, religion would disappear or at least shrink to insignificance.

      Yet religion has continued to be much more important in modern societies than social scientists predicted. To be sure, popular participation in religious worship services is much more common in some societies than in others. Yet there are few societies in which religion fails to be a public presence. If it is not a presence through large numbers of people participating in congregations, it is evident in state ceremonies, magnificent historic cathedrals, or activist minority political movements. Despite being well-differentiated from the formal functions of government, religion continues to interact with government. Political candidates appeal for votes by proclaiming themselves to be in favor of or in opposition to policies that affect religious groups. Clergy have sufficient followings to seize political power or serve as powerbrokers in the drafting of constitutions. Ordinary citizens assemble at places of worship and talk about public policy as well as about the sacred.

      That social institutions with distinct norms and functions interact with one another is important to consider in framing discussions about religion and politics. Whether the distinction is formalized as constitutional separation of the two or not, the differences in functions must be taken into account. For instance, when congregations become locations for political oratory or for administering government service programs, questions arise about the consequences for definitions of the sacred. Not without reason, religious leaders have often insisted that the mundane be kept separate from the sacred. Similarly, when public officials proclaim that their policies should be accepted because they resulted from prayer or studying sacred texts, questions must be asked about whether these policies can be defended through rational deliberation and are to be enacted by competent people. The fact that religion spills into politics and vice versa is equally important. In the same way that the environmental impact of public policy is taken into account, the religious impact also warrants consideration. For example, a policy that provides large sums of government funding to relocate low-income families from urban neighborhoods to small towns or suburbs will clearly have a detrimental influence on the religious organizations that serve those neighborhoods. Similarly, a zoning law that prevents any new religious organization from being established will have greater consequences for a mosque or temple initiated by recent immigrants than for a congregation long in existence. Because policies with implications like these are so common, litigation and other means of expressing religious concerns are a continuing aspect of contemporary politics.

      These interactions between religion and politics are likely to increase because of the growing porousness of institutions. Porousness refers to the fact that people, goods, and information flow more often and more easily across institutional boundaries, just as they do across geographic terrain. The change can be imagined in the following way: When travel and communication are difficult, coordination can be organized on any sizable scale only through a rather well-defined hierarchical structure. In this form of organization, people supervise those below them and report to those above them; information flows through channels. In contrast, instant communication via email or even telephone alters the possibilities. Electronic computation especially means that financial information does not have to be coordinated in one place. Accounts can be decentralized. People do not have to be employees of an organization; they can be brought in as subcontractors or temporary workers and yet their performance can be monitored more easily. This means that a business can reduce its overhead costs without significantly increasing its risks by dealing with independent suppliers and keeping inventories low. By the same token, it means that communication and coordination can also occur more easily across institutional sectors. A government agency can contract with a nonprofit organization, which in turn hires a for-profit publicity firm, raises additional revenue from a private foundation, and works through a network of religious organizations to provide tutoring for children from low-income families.

      Porousness is increasingly evident in the religious sphere. Although it might be supposed that religious leaders would guard their special relationship with the sacred, they have instead made strategic use of opportunities to build alliances with leaders in other sectors and to import ideas or export them to those sectors. This kind of porousness can be illustrated by the relationships between religion and the communications industry. Especially in the United States, religious organizations have made increasing use of radio and television technology. Although this practice is sometimes regarded as nothing more than borrowing technology, religious television programming has also spilled directly into the entertainment business, resulting in profitable cable television endeavors. In addition, religious productions in congregations sometimes air on network television, places of worship become venues for art exhibits and concerts, and specialists trained in communications or the arts gain experience in religious settings and then move into secular organizations.

      The interaction between religion and the communications industry is relevant to considerations about religion and politics because the latter is more likely to be considered a public domain and subject to government regulation. Once religion enters that sphere, its interests in public policies affecting communications shift. In addition, experience gained in mass communication and entertainment can also transfer to political marketing or lobbying. Not surprisingly, religious leaders who are deeply involved in mass communication have not only gained influence within the religious sphere itself but have also become a voice in political affairs. Other cross-institutional activities have had similar consequences. For instance, one of the largest organizations in the United States that specializes in family issues draws large sums from religious individuals and congregations and in turn uses some of this money to seek influence in national politics. Less visibly, religiously sponsored counseling centers draw religion increasingly into the public sphere through the regulations regarding insurance and privacy that are mandated by government.

      Porousness means that both religion and politics must be understood as taking increasingly complex and innovative organizational forms. Although research on religion correctly recognizes that congregations are usually the primarily way in which faith is organized, attention also needs to be paid to other forms. So-called parachurch or quasi-religious organizations are one example. A service organization that is motivated by religious convictions and partly funded by religious organizations is nevertheless different from a congregation and plays a different role in the community and in relation to government. Complex alliances that involve government agencies, businesses, nonprofit organizations, and religious organizations are another example. How public policies or laws pertain to these alliances are open questions. Informal networks among public officials, corporate executives, and clergy are especially interesting because of their potential for shaping major political decisions. Finally, the Internet’s role in mobilizing people across different religious traditions in support of political causes is a topic of growing importance.

      Cultural Pluralism

      Another lens through which the relationships between religion and politics must be viewed is the essentially pluralistic character of modern culture. Pluralism refers not only to the fact that norms and values are diverse but also to the idea that this diversity is a good thing. It contrasts sharply with situations in which consensus or homogeneity is required. Pluralism is always political. It arises from groups with different traditions needing to form an alliance to protect themselves or being joined by trade or intermarriage. It often emerges because of regimes being imposed on more than one local or ethnic subculture. Increasingly, pluralism is also the result of migration and travel. The idea that pluralism is desirable is reinforced by governments (in the name of tolerance), by businesses (as an impetus for expanded markets), and by universities (as the mark of an educated person).

      When diverse religious groups intermingle, the stakes are typically higher than they are for those involving any other kind of difference. This is because religion cannot be understood in terms of phenotypical characteristics, accident of birth, or comforting traditions. The major religions present themselves as manifestations of divine truth. Although there may be similarities among religious claims, each religion embodies a distinct understanding of truth and is organized around that understanding. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, for example, are quite different from one another, even though they share some of the same figures and stories. When adherents of different religions live within the same political space, therefore, cultural work is required to adjust their views of themselves and of one another.

      The most obvious difficulties posed by religious diversity include violent struggles, hate crimes, discrimination, and intolerance. Several political solutions have been devised to address these difficulties. One is repression. A strong authoritarian regime can simply repress all religions or those minority religions that happen to be in disfavor with the majority. Repression may not be sufficient to eradicate private religious convictions, but forcing them to be practiced in secret or held only as matters of conscience may severely dampen their longevity. Keeping minority religions in their place takes a variety of forms, ranging from withholding the right to meet or to worship, to forced emigration, to genocide. All of these techniques have been practiced in recent decades as well as throughout history.

      In democratic societies the more common means of managing the potential for conflict among religious groups is by guaranteeing freedom of religious expression but circumscribing the forms such expression may take. Minority and majority religions alike are typically free to meet as long as they do so peacefully. Individual adherents and religious leaders can exercise their right to speak publicly about their convictions as long as they do not instigate violence in the process. Religious groups can seek to influence elections and lawmaking, but cannot enlist the coercive powers of government to do so. They cannot, for instance, call on the police to harass members of other religions or use money raised through the government’s powers of taxation to support themselves. There are, of course, wide variations among constitutional democracies in how these principles are applied. What must be underscored in simply the great extent to which considerations about religious diversity are part of the heritage that has shaped modern constitutional thought and jurisprudence.

      The direct role of political processes in governing religious diversity does not, however, exhaust the significant implications of this diversity for the political sphere and for the practice of religion itself. A case in point is the tension between believing privately that one’s religious convictions are the unique revelation of divine truth and treating “unbelievers” as equals in civic life. This tension has been the source of deep philosophical debates, such as those about the possibilities of common moral principles underlying all religions. In civic life, universal suffrage has in practice been rooted in assumptions about common morality or a natural law that is not restricted to one or another interpretation of divine truth. Understandings of religious truth itself, though, are affected by these civic concerns. For example, some research suggests that exposure to religious diversity is associated with a weakening of commitment to the practices of one’s own religion or to placing greater emphasis on the mysterious nature of the divine and the inscrutability of divine will. The important point is that civic norms and religious convictions do not operate in separate spheres. Although institutional arrangements encourage people to speak and talk differently in different contexts (e.g., in school or at one’s congregation), their religious convictions influence how they think about other groups and about questions of respect and tolerance.

      Some of the most vociferous disagreements about the relationships between religion and politics stem from different views of how best to accommodate religious pluralism. These disagreements surface in questions about how much or how little religious convictions should be taken into consideration by judges in decisions about important constitutional questions, in questions about the desirability of granting full rights of citizenship to immigrants and other minority groups, and in debates about issues that appear to be grounded in religious convictions, such as abortion, homosexuality, and the propriety or impropriety of presenting school children with alternatives to instruction about evolution. Although the term “culture war” is often misused to overstate the popular extent of these disagreements, there is no question that conflicting views about deeply held religious beliefs have been part of the civic culture of many societies in recent decades. One of the underlying tensions in these debates is whether a particular interpretation of divine truth is being unfairly boxed in by considerations about pluralism or whether pluralism itself is of sufficient value to warrant such restrictions.

      Pluralism is thus about much more than simply creating a civic climate in which people of different religions can live together without killing one another. It is also a deeper question that can only temporarily be resolved by citizens retreating into themselves and saying, in effect, leave me alone. As long as people continue to take their religious faith seriously (a prospect that by all indications is likely), the question of how much those convictions should influence the collective life of societies will remain important. Deep differences and even acrimony will be part of how this question is debated. The purpose of democratic government, however, is not to quash differences or to eradicate acrimony. Debate about fundamental values is essential to any thriving democracy. There is positive value to the fact that people of different religions are willing to engage one another in public debate. The danger is that powerful political interest groups can also manipulate these discussions and their various constituencies simply for self-interested political gain.

      The Challenges Ahead

      Scholarly inquiries are generally driven by one or another of two goals. The quest for intrinsic knowledge is one. In the case of religion and politics, curiosity alone is a powerful reason to know more. A scholar might say, here is a new way to use the Internet to conduct an experiment about religious belief; I wonder what I can learn. Or, let’s see what happens if we apply a new statistical technique to the information we have from surveys. A scholar could become passionate about the quest for new knowledge in these ways. The other motive for scholarly investigation is the quest for practical knowledge. The idea of practical knowledge is often misunderstood to be any knowledge that can be used. Thus, information that can be used to blow up buildings or annihilate populations is as practical as research to cure an illness. This interpretation leads to the cynical view that scholarly inquiry should not be very concerned with its practical uses because any of these could be harmful instead of beneficial. A better understanding of practical knowledge implies a strong normative commitment to engage in scholarship oriented toward improving the human condition and the circumstances bearing on this condition and for which humans can assume responsibility. Any consideration of religion and politics is surely a reason to engage in the pursuit of practical knowledge. Both the enormous problems associated with religion and its vast potential for good cry out for investigation.

      Yet, the conclusion that knowledge about religion and politics is of value for its practical consequences cannot be so readily assumed in the contemporary academy. To the extent that scarce resources are invested, many would argue that religion is simply a realm of idle speculation, a topic for pointless chatter on a Sunday morning or at parties, not a subject for serious investigation in the modern university. The long reach of the Enlightenment remains strong in the twenty-first century. Was not the Enlightenment the triumph over years of superstition and religion-inspired bloodshed? Did it not lead to the glorious age of modern science? The priority for universities should thus be science, not the study of religion. Improvements to life are better accomplished through cancer research and studies of the brain. Let people fight about religion if they will, but scholars should move on, take the high road, and learn a better way.

      In short, academia should ignore the real world. Ignore the fact that religion matters so deeply that people are willing to die for it, even if cancer research would ensure them a long life. Ignore the fact that the United States remains one of the most religious countries in the world, despite its high levels of education and scientific achievements. Ignore the fact that the normal way to understand something better is not to ignore it but to learn more about it. This is the kind of ignorance that reflects badly on scientists and university administrators alike. It results in policymakers pursuing adventures that backfire because they overemphasize technology and take religion too little into account.

      The challenge involved in gaining a clearer understanding of the relationships between religion and politics is in the first instance a matter of learning the extent to which religion is or is not a significant part of the lived experiences of individuals and communities. This is a fundamental question to which there are as yet surprisingly few answers. It cannot be assumed that religion is simply important in all circumstances and to all aspects of life, any more than it can be assumed to be irrelevant. How individuals and groups make choices and defend those choices remains poorly understood. Interdisciplinary research that includes, but extends beyond, questions about religion is required. A promising start is to recognize that people may or may not make rational choices but generally do want their decisions to seem reasonable. What counts as reasonable, though, varies considerably from context to context. The accounts that people give of their behavior, whether religious, scientific, self- interested, or something else, are ways of legitimating their decisions in relation to the norms and values they consider important. Studies of decision-making processes that pay close attention to the discourses of legitimation are thus a promising avenue for enhancing knowledge about religion and politics.

      A related challenge is to maintain the delicate balance between studies of abstract or disaggregated constructs and real-life situations. For instance, the study of decision making and its legitimating rationale may usefully be conducted in the laboratory or through computerized simulations. At the same time, ethnographic research provides a reality check on these assumptions built into experiments and simulations. The global context in which religion and politics intersect means that greater attention must be devoted to regional and cultural differences. Language skills and familiarity with local customs and religious traditions are essential. Fortunately, increases in global communication also greatly facilitate the sharing of such knowledge.

      An additional challenge is to balance scholarship that reflects a rich understanding of religion itself with studies that relate religion to other aspects of social life, such as social class, gender, health policy, the mass media, or the pursuit of democracy. On the one hand, specialists in the study of particular religious traditions provide valuable information about the origins and history of sacred texts, schools of interpretation, and associated ritual practices. On the other hand, a specialist in health policy or national security brings a wealth of knowledge to the table that helps in understanding how religion may be relevant to these issues. Increasingly, collaborative scholarship is required, whether it is conducted in universities or in policy institutes. Such collaboration is of course best facilitated by centers, seminars, and other interdisciplinary programs.

      A final challenge is simply a cautionary note. The events of 9/11 are a reminder of how quickly interests in religion and politics can be altered by world affairs. Because religion interacts constantly with its social environment, its flanks are also exposed to changes in that environment. Wars, natural disasters, waning or waxing economic fortunes, and acts of violence can all have profound effects on religion. The task of scholarship is not only to respond with new information but also to provide a foundation of knowledge from which to launch the search for that information. The entries in this Encyclopedia aim to serve this purpose.

      Robert Wuthnow, Editor


      Almond, Gabriel A., R. Scott Appleby, and Emmanuel Sivan. Strong Religion: The Rise of Fundamentalisms around the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.

      Barrett, David B., George T. Kurian, and Todd M. Johnson. World Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Survey of Churches and Religions in the Modern World. 2d ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

      Casanova, José. Public Religions in the Modern World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.

      Esposito, John L., and Michael Watson. Religion and Global Order. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2000.

      Fetzer, Joel S., and J. Christopher Soper. Muslims and the State in Britain, France, and Germany. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

      Hanson, Eric O. Religion and Politics in the International System Today. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

      Heclo, Hugh, and Wilfred M. McClay. Religion Returns to the Public Square: Faith and Policy in America. Washington, D.C.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003.

      Jenkins, Philip. The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

      Juergensmeyer, Mark. Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence. 3d ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003.

      Norris, Pippa, and Ronald Inglehart. Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

      Orsi, Robert A. Between Heaven and Earth: The Religious Worlds People Make and the Scholars Who Study Them. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2005.

      Philpott, Daniel. Revolutions in Sovereignty: How Ideas Shaped Modern International Relations. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2001.

      Putnam, Robert D., ed. Democracies in Flux: The Evolution of Social Capital in Contemporary Society. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.

      Stern, Jessica. Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill. New York: Ecco, 2003.

      Stout, Jeffrey. Democracy and Tradition. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2004.

      Wuthnow, Robert. America and the Challenges of Religious Diversity. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2005.

      ———. Saving America? Faith-Based Services and the Future of Civil Society. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2004.

    • Appendix

      Appendix: Documents on Politics and Religion

      Ninety-Five Theses (1517)

      Martin Luther (1483–1546), German theologian and noted translator of the Bible, initiated the doctrinal revolution that led to the Protestant Reformation. Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses, which he posted on the door of the castle church at Wittenberg, were to be a polite challenge to the selling of “indulgences” (remission of punishment for sins committed) by the Roman Catholic Church. Although the sale of indulgences, also known as pardons, had been criticized by many Catholic theologians, it nevertheless provided the church with a steady source of income and therefore was allowed to continue. The Theses were intended to open a peaceful line of communication with Catholic oYcials; their eVect was much more dynamic. This and other challenges initiated one of the most important religious movements in history: the Protestant Reformation.

      Throughout the Ninety-Five Theses, which is translated here from the German, Luther chastised the greed found in the Catholic Church. He began with his thoughts on repentance, pointing out that the pope, according to canon law, cannot remit any penalties to souls in purgatory. He attacked the false teaching that anyone could buy admission to heaven. Luther ended the Theses by claiming that only Christ can grant salvation and that individuals must rely upon faith in Him alone. Luther’s writings from 1517 to 1523 inspired several groups to deny the universal authority of the pope and reaYrm the principle of justification by faith alone.

      The Theses produced a lasting schism between the Catholic Church and the followers of Luther. At a meeting with papal authorities at Augsburg in 1518, Luther, viewed as a heretic by his opponents, refused to renounce his ideas. In following years he continued to challenge church doctrine and in 1521 was formally excommunicated. Eluding an attempt later in the year by the Diet of Worms to seize him, he escaped to Wartburg, where he began translating the Bible into German, a ten-year process. The dominant position of the Catholic Church was subsequently imperiled by the rise of Protestantism.

      Ninety-Five Theses

      Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter.

      In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

      1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said “Poenitentiam agite, he willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.

      2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.

      3. Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no inward repentance which does not outwardly produce mortifications of the flesh.

      4. The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

      5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority or by that of the Canons.

      6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God’s remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely unforgiven.

      7. God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest.

      8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to them, nothing should be imposed on the dying.

      9. Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us, because in his decrees he always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.

      10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purgatory.

      11. This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown while the bishops slept.

      12. In former times the canonical penalties were imposed not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.

      13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties; they are already dead to canonical rules, and have a right to be released from them.

      14. The imperfect health [of soul], that is to say, the imperfect love, of the dying brings with it, of necessity, great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater is the fear.

      15. This fear and horror is suYcient of itself alone (to say nothing of other things) to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.

      16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to diVer as do despair, almost-despair, and the assurance of safety.

      17. With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror should grow less and love increase.

      18. It seems unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that they are outside the state of merit, that is to say, of increasing love.

      19. Again, it seems unproved that they, or at least that all of them, are certain or assured of their own blessedness, though we may be quite certain of it.

      20. Therefore by “full remission of all penalties” the pope means not actually “of all,” but only of those imposed by himself.

      21. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that by the pope’s indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved.

      22. Whereas he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to the canons, they would have had to pay in this life.

      23. If it is at all possible to grant to any one the remission of all penalties whatsoever, it is certain that this remission can be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to the very fewest.

      24. It must needs be, therefore, that the greater part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of release from penalty.

      25. The power which the pope has, in a general way, over purgatory, is just like the power which any bishop or curate has, in a special way, within his own diocese or parish.

      26. The pope does well when he grants remission to souls [in purgatory], not by the power of the keys (which he does not possess), but by way of intercession.

      27. They preach doctrines that say that as soon as the penny jingles into the money-box, the soul flies out [of purgatory].

      28. It is certain that when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain and avarice can be increased, but the result of the intercession of the Church is in the power of God alone.

      29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory wish to be bought out of it, as in the legend of Sts. Severinus and Paschal.

      30. No one is sure that his own contrition is sincere; much less that he has attained full remission.

      31. Rare as is the man that is truly penitent, so rare is also the man who truly buys indulgences, i.e., such men are most rare.

      32. They will be condemned eternally, together with their teachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have letters of pardon.

      33. Men must be on their guard against those who say that the pope’s pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to Him.

      34. For these “graces of pardon” concern only the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, and these are appointed by man.

      35. They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that contrition is not necessary in those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessional privileges.

      36. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon.

      37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has part in all the blessings of Christ and the Church; and this is granted him by God, even without letters of pardon.

      38. Nevertheless, the remission and participation [in the blessings of the Church] which are granted by the pope are in no way to be despised, for they are, as I have said, the declaration of divine remission.

      39. It is most diYcult, even for the very keenest theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the abundance of pardons and [the need of] true contrition.

      40. True contrition seeks and loves penalties, but liberal pardons only relax penalties and cause them to be hated, or at least, furnish an occasion [for hating them].

      41. Apostolic pardons are to be preached with caution, lest the people may falsely think them preferable to other good works of love.

      42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend the buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of mercy.

      43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better work than buying pardons.

      44. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more free from penalty.

      45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in need, and passes him by, and gives [his money] for pardons, purchases not the indulgences of the pope, but the indignation of God.

      46. Christians are to be taught that unless they have more than they need, they are bound to keep back what is necessary for their own families, and by no means to squander it on pardons.

      47. Christians are to be taught that the buying of pardons is a matter of free will, and not of commandment.

      48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting pardons, needs, and therefore desires, their devout prayer for him more than the money they bring.

      49. Christians are to be taught that the pope’s pardons are useful, if they do not put their trust in them; but altogether harmful, if through them they lose their fear of God.

      50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St. Peter’s church should go to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep.

      51. Christians are to be taught that it would be the pope’s wish, as it is his duty, to give of his own money to very many of those from whom certain hawkers of pardons cajole money, even though the church of St. Peter might have to be sold.

      52. The assurance of salvation by letters of pardon is vain, even though the commissary, nay, even though the pope himself, were to stake his soul upon it.

      53. They are enemies of Christ and of the pope, who bid the Word of God be altogether silent in some Churches, in order that pardons may be preached in others.

      54. Injury is done the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or a longer time is spent on pardons than on this Word.

      55. It must be the intention of the pope that if pardons, which are a very small thing, are celebrated with one bell, with single processions and ceremonies, then the Gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.

      56. The “treasures of the Church,” out of which the pope grants indulgences, are not suYciently named or known among the people of Christ.

      57. That they are not temporal treasures is certainly evident, for many of the vendors do not pour out such treasures so easily, but only gather them.

      58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the Saints, for even without the pope, these always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outward man.

      59. St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church were the Church’s poor, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time.

      60. Without rashness we say that the keys of the Church, given by Christ’s merit, are that treasure.

      61. For it is clear that for the remission of penalties and of reserved cases, the power of the pope is of itself suYcient.

      62. The true treasure of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God.

      63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last.

      64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.

      65. Therefore the treasures of the Gospel are nets with which they formerly were wont to fish for men of riches.

      66. The treasures of the indulgences are nets with which they now fish for the riches of men.

      67. The indulgences which the preachers cry as the “greatest graces” are known to be truly such, in so far as they promote gain.

      68. Yet they are in truth the very smallest graces compared with the grace of God and the piety of the Cross.

      69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of apostolic pardons, with all reverence.

      70. But still more are they bound to strain all their eyes and attend with all their ears, lest these men preach their own dreams instead of the commission of the pope.

      71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let him be anathema and accursed!

      72. But he who guards against the lust and license of the pardon-preachers, let him be blessed!

      73. The pope justly thunders against those who, by any art, contrive the injury of the traYc in pardons.

      74. But much more does he intend to thunder against those who use the pretext of pardons to contrive the injury of holy love and truth.

      75. To think the papal pardons so great that they could absolve a man even if he had committed an impossible sin and violated the Mother of God—this is madness.

      76. We say, on the contrary, that the papal pardons are not able to remove the very least of venial sins, so far as its guilt is concerned.

      77. It is said that even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could not bestow greater graces; this is blasphemy against St. Peter and against the pope.

      78. We say, on the contrary, that even the present pope, and any pope at all, has greater graces at his disposal; to wit, the Gospel, powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written in I. Corinthians xii.

      79. To say that the cross, emblazoned with the papal arms, which is set up [by the preachers of indulgences], is of equal worth with the Cross of Christ, is blasphemy.

      80. The bishops, curates and theologians who allow such talk to be spread among the people, will have an account to render.

      81. This unbridled preaching of pardons makes it no easy matter, even for learned men, to rescue the reverence due to the pope from slander, or even from the shrewd questionings of the laity.

      82. To wit:—“Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a Church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial.”

      83. Again:—“Why are mortuary and anniversary masses for the dead continued, and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded on their behalf, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?”

      84. Again:—“What is this new piety of God and the pope, that for money they allow a man who is impious and their enemy, to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God, and do not rather, because of that pious and beloved soul’s own need, free it for pure love’s sake?”

      85. Again:—“Why are the penitential canons long since in actual fact and through disuse abrogated and dead, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences, as though they were still alive and in force?”

      86. Again:—“Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?”

      87. Again:—“What is it that the pope remits, and what participation does he grant to those who, by perfect contrition, have a right to full remission and participation?”

      88. Again:—“What greater blessing could come to the Church than if the pope were to do a hundred times a day what he now does once, and bestow on every believer these remissions and participations?”

      89. “Since the pope, by his pardons, seeks the salvation of souls rather than money, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons granted heretofore, since these have equal eYcacy?”

      90. To repress these arguments and scruples of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the Church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christians unhappy.

      91. If, therefore, pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved; nay, they would not exist.

      92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Peace, peace,” and there is no peace!

      93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Cross, cross,” and there is no cross!

      94. Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hell.

      95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven rather through many tribulations, than through the assurance of peace.

      American statesman James Madison (1751–1836) is often referred to as the “father of the U.S. Constitution.” A member of the Virginia aristocracy and an able scholar at the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University), Madison continued to study law and religion upon his return to Virginia after graduation. An influential political thinker and product of the Enlightenment, Madison served as secretary of state for President Thomas JeVerson for two terms before becoming the fourth president of the United States (1809–1817).

      Madison, himself an Episcopalian, shared with JeVerson a lifelong passion for religious freedom and distrust of clericalism. He believed that the exercise of religion should be completely separated from the government so that all people would be free to worship—or not to worship—whenever and wherever they pleased. He believed that there should be a large number of religions, as this would prevent one from dominating others.

      In 1785 the Virginia legislature attempted to impose a tax for the support of “teachers of the Christian religion.” Madison viewed this attempt as an assault on religious freedom by the Virginia Anglicans, who, though a minority in the state enjoyed social and economic prominence and held a majority in the General Assembly. General assessment taxes were to be collected and distributed to the denomination designated by the taxpayer; if no designation had been specified, the assessment would be used for education. The bill before the 1784 legislature passed preliminary votes in the assembly, but Madison prevented the final consideration of the bill until late 1785. He led the successful attack against the bill, writing Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, which was addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia and widely distributed during the summer of 1785. This classic statement of religious freedom is regarded as a major factor in the defeat of the bill and a testament to the power of Madison’s belief that the connection between church and state must be severed to prevent religious injustice and promote a system of checks and balances.

      Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments

      We, the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled “A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion,” and conceiving that the same, if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,

      1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth “that Religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.” The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate.

      This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds, cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator.

      It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association, must always do it with a reservation of his duty to the general authority; much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign.

      We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man’s right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society, and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

      2. Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and viceregents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents.

      The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suVered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

      3. Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it.

      Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

      4. Because the Bill violates the equality which ought to be the basis of every law, and which is more indispensable, in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. If “all men are by nature equally free and independent,” all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights.

      Above all are they to be considered as retaining an “equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience.” Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us.

      If this freedom be abused, it is an oVence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions. Are the Quakers and Menonists the only sects who think a compulsive support of their Religions unnecessary and unwarrantable? Can their piety alone be entrusted with the care of public worship? Ought their Religions to be endowed above all others with extraordinary privileges by which proselytes may be enticed from all others?

      We think too favorably of the justice and good sense of these denominations to believe that they either covet pre-eminences over their fellow citizens or that they will be seduced by them from the common opposition to the measure.

      5. Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.

      6. Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself; for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence.

      Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits.

      7. Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and eYcacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation.

      During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest luster; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy.

      Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks; many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?

      8. Because the establishment in question is not necessary for the support of Civil Government. If it be urged as necessary for the support of Civil Government only as it is a means of supporting Religion, and it be not necessary for the latter purpose, it cannot be necessary for the former. If Religion be not within the cognizance of Civil Government, how can its legal establishment be necessary to Civil Government? What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society?

      In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries.

      A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suVering any Sect to invade those of another.

      9. Because the proposed establishment is a departure from the generous policy, which, oVering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion, promised a luster to our country, and an accession to the number of its citizens. What a melancholy mark is the Bill of sudden degeneracy? Instead of holding forth an Asylum to the persecuted, it is itself a signal of persecution.

      It degrades from the equal rank of Citizens all those whose opinions in Religion do not bend to those of the Legislative authority. Distant as it may be in its present form from the Inquisition, it diVers from it only in degree. The one is the first step, the other the last in the career of intolerance. The magnanimous sufferer under this cruel scourge in foreign Regions, must view the Bill as a Beacon on our Coast, warning him to seek some other haven, where liberty and philanthropy in their due extent, may oVer a more certain repose from his Troubles.

      10. Because it will have a like tendency to banish our Citizens. The allurements presented by other situations are every day thinning their number. To superadd a fresh motive to emigration by revoking the liberty which they now enjoy, would be the same species of folly which has dishonored and depopulated flourishing kingdoms.

      11. Because it will destroy that moderation and harmony which the forbearance of our laws to intermeddle with Religion has produced among its several sects. Torrents of blood have been spilt in the old world, by vain attempts of the secular arm, to extinguish Religious discord, by proscribing all diVerence in Religious opinion. Time has at length revealed the true remedy. Every relaxation of narrow and rigorous policy, wherever it has been tried, has been found to assuage the disease.

      The American Theater has exhibited proofs that equal and complete liberty, if it does not wholly eradicate it, suYciently destroys its malignant influence on the health and prosperity of the State. If with the salutary eVects of this system under our own eyes, we begin to contract the bounds of Religious freedom, we know no name that will too severely reproach our folly. At least let warning be taken at the first fruits of the threatened innovation.

      The very appearance of the Bill has transformed “that Christian forbearance, love and charity,” which of late mutually prevailed, into animosities and jealousies, which may not soon be appeased. What mischiefs may not be dreaded, should this enemy to the public quiet be armed with the force of a law?

      12. Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diVusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion?

      No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of revelation from coming into the Region of it; and countenances by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of Leveling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of Truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it with a wall of defense against the encroachments of error.

      13. Because attempts to enforce by legal sanctions, acts obnoxious to so great a proportion of Citizens, tend to enervate the laws in general, and to slacken the bonds of Society. If it be diYcult to execute any law which is not generally deemed necessary or salutary, what must be the case, where it is deemed invalid and dangerous? And what may be the eVect of so striking an example of impotency in the Government, on its general authority?

      14. Because a measure of such singular magnitude and delicacy ought not to be imposed, without the clearest evidence that it is called for by a majority of citizens, and no satisfactory method is yet proposed by which the voice of the majority in this case may be determined, or its influence secured.

      “The people of the respective counties are indeed requested to signify their opinion respecting the adoption of the Bill to the next Session of Assembly.” But the representation must be made equal, before the voice either of the Representatives or of the Counties will be that of the people. Our hope is that neither of the former will, after due consideration, espouse the dangerous principle of the Bill. Should the event disappoint us, it will still leave us in full confidence, that a fair appeal to the latter will reverse the sentence against our liberties.

      15. Because finally, “the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his Religion according to the dictates of conscience” is held by the same tenure with all our other rights.

      If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consult the Declaration of those rights which pertain to the good people of Virginia, as the “basis and foundation of Government,” it is enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis.

      Either then, we must say, that the Will of the Legislature is the only measure of their authority; and that in the plenitude of this authority, they may sweep away all our fundamental rights; or, that they are bound to leave this particular right untouched and sacred:

      Either we must say, that they may control the freedom of the press, may abolish the Trial by Jury, may swallow up the Executive and Judiciary Powers of the State; nay that they may despoil us of our very right of suVrage, and erect themselves into an independent and hereditary Assembly or, we must say, that they have no authority to enact into the law the Bill under consideration.

      We, the Subscribers, say that the General Assembly of this Commonwealth have no such authority. And in order that no eVort may be omitted on our part against so dangerous an usurpation, we oppose to it, this remonstrance; earnestly praying, as we are in duty bound, that the Supreme Lawgiver of the Universe, by illuminating those to whom it is addressed, may on the one hand, turn their Councils from every act which would aVront his holy prerogative, or violate the trust committed to them: and on the other, guide them into every measure which may be worthy of his blessing, may rebound to their own praise, and may establish more firmly the liberties, the prosperity, and the happiness of the Commonwealth.

      Thomas Jefferson on Religious Freedom (1786, 1802)

      Although Thomas Jefferson is most often remembered as the principal author of the Declaration of Independence (1776), in his own view his advocacy of religious freedom and the separation of an individual’s religious beliefs from the intrusion of the state was equally important. On his tombstone he quotes as a life’s accomplishment the authorship of a statute establishing religious freedom in his home state of Virginia.

      Following are the text of the Virginia statute and of the famous Danbury Letter—two documents that stand as monuments to Jefferson’s position on religion and the state. The letter is a reply to an address by an association of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, congratulating him on his election to the presidency. No doubt expecting it would have wide circulation, Jefferson uses words that have been part of the constitutional debate ever since. Such is Jefferson’s prestige that the phrase “a wall of separation between church and state” has been debated, until the present day, as though it were part of the constitution itself.

      The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom (1786)

      Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righ-teousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy of the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.

      Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened 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 nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

      And though we well know this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no powers equal to our own and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.

      Letter to the Danbury Baptists (1802)

      To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, and Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.


      Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

      I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender for you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

      Th. Jefferson

      Jan. 1, 1802

      Federalist No. 10 (1787)

      In addition to promoting religious freedom (see Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, p. 975), American statesman James Madison (1751–1836) was one of the driving forces behind the enactment of the U.S. Constitution and the American Bill of Rights.

      In 1780 Madison was selected to serve in the Continental Congress, where he worked to bring greater organization to the federal government under the new Articles of Confederation. He believed the Articles had to be strengthened if the government was to survive. Madison’s extensive knowledge of political theory came to great use at the Constitutional Convention in the summer of 1787, as his “Virginia Plan,” which stressed the creation of a three-branch government by the people rather than the states, served as the basis for the Constitution.

      After the Constitutional Convention, Madison, along with fellow statesmen Alexander Hamilton (1755–1804) and John Jay (1745–1829), wrote a series of eighty-five articles that appeared under the pseudonym “Publius” in several New York newspapers (Hamilton wrote fifty-one, Madison twenty-six, Jay five, and Hamilton and Madison jointly wrote three). These articles explained and defended the new Constitution, which had to be ratified by the states before becoming law. They were later gathered into a book called The Federalist Papers, which is regarded as one of the greatest books ever written on U.S. political philosophy.

      Federalist No. 10 proposed that the government should be able to check and limit the excesses of parties but not abolish them. Madison believed that separate, competing interests were inevitable in a free society; snuYng out competition would curb free thought and action. He stressed that the only satisfactory method of “curing the mischiefs of faction” was to control their eVects. To attempt to silence factions by eliminating competing interests would be to destroy liberty.

      In Federalist No. 10 Madison recognized the “class” divisions in society, which led to and explained his belief that there also existed an inescapable division of opinions. He advocated openly recognizing and accepting the existence of human diversity, in both opinion and property. According to Madison, the primary object of government was to prevent one group or party from invading the rights of the others. The government must be neutral, with clear definitions of its powers and separation of functions.

      In 1789, as a member of the first U.S. Congress, Madison spearheaded the movement for passage of the Bill of Rights, which guaranteed basic liberties, including religious freedom, for all Americans. He had proposed nine amendments to the Constitution, which became the basis for the Bill of Rights.

      Federalist No. 10

      To the People of the State of New York:

      AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitution on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as eVectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, eVects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.

      By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

      There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its eVects.

      There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

      It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

      The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, diVerent opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of diVerent and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of diVerent degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into diVerent interests and parties.

      The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into diVerent degrees of activity, according to the diVerent circumstances of civil society. A zeal for diVerent opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to diVerent leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been suYcient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into diVerent classes, actuated by diVerent sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

      No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the diVerent classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be diVerently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.

      It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.

      The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.

      If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

      By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into eVect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their eYcacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their eYcacy becomes needful.

      From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

      A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a diVerent prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the eYcacy which it must derive from the Union.

      The two great points of diVerence between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended. The eVect of the first diVerence is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the eVect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suVrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:

      In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

      In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more diYcult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suVrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diVusive and established characters.

      It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.

      The other point of diVerence is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more diYcult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.

      Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the eVects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,—is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security aVorded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security? Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.

      The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

      In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.


      Balfour Declaration (1917)

      On November 2, 1917, Arthur James Balfour, the British foreign secretary, wrote what has become known as the Balfour Declaration. Addressed to Jewish leader Lord Rothschild, the declaration stated that the British government supported the establishment in Palestine of a homeland for the Jews. During World War I (1914–1918) the British army had moved into Palestine, replacing the occupying Turkish forces. Seeking to retain an interest in the area, in particular, the Suez Canal, the British cabinet felt its interests would be best served if the area was controlled by a friendly Jewish population.

      This declaration marked the first time that Zionist aims were recognized by a world power. Zionism, a political program dedicated to the establishment of a national Jewish homeland, had been championed twenty years earlier by Theodor Herzl at the first Zionist Congress, in Basel, Switzerland. In the intervening years, Zionists of many persuasions—some seeking social and cultural goals, others political aims—competed for influence within the movement, but they were united in their insistence that the Jewish people were entitled to a homeland. With the drafting of the Balfour Declaration, their cause was furthered considerably, though the document was met with strong opposition by some British cabinet members and received a cool response from the governments of allies Italy and France. Thirty-one years would pass before the Zionists would witness the creation of the State of Israel, on May 14, 1948.

      The Balfour Declaration was thought to be a means to generate goodwill among Jews worldwide, who would, in turn, pressure their respective governments to support British policy. It was hoped that American Jews would support U.S. entry into the war and that Jews who had participated in the Bolshevik Revolution would press to keep Russia in the war.

      The overriding impact of the Balfour Declaration was to begin the process of reparation to the Jewish people. The letter, as reproduced here, was published a week after its drafting in The Times of London.

      The Balfour Declaration

      Foreign Office

      November 2nd, 1917

      Dear Lord Rothschild,

      I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

      “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

      I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

      Yours sincerely,

      Arthur James Balfour

      Barmen Delaration (1934)

      Following the seizure of power by the Nazis in 1933, Protestant Christians in Germany faced pressure to “Aryanize” their churches. The government attempted to force religious authorities to sign an oath of loyalty to Adolf Hitler.

      In many cases the churches gave in to the pressure, but others—especially Lutheran churches—vigorously opposed the Nazi encroachment on their beliefs. The Barmen Declaration, named for the German city in which it was drafted, was a statement of resistance against the theological claims of the Nazi state.

      In defense of the Lutheran leadership and in response to Hitler’s incorporation of German churches into the Nazi Party, a resistance movement was formed. This emerging “Confessing Church” (a church that confesses itself to be for its Lord and against its enemies) actively opposed the incorporation process, which it viewed as an attempt to destroy German Protestantism. Composed of pastors from United, Lutheran, and Reformed Churches, including the Lutheran theologian Dietrich BonhoeVer, who later would be imprisoned and executed for serving as its spokesperson, the Confessing Church convened a synod at Barmen in May 1934 to formulate a response to Nazi aggression. It adopted a declaration drafted by theologians Karl Barth and Hans Asmussen that dismissed the claim that any power other than Christ could be the source of God’s revelation. The German Evangelical Church proclaimed its right to determine its own constitution, despite the harassment and persecution of its members. For his open opposition to the Hitler regime, widely considered the high point of his political life, Barth was expelled from Germany in 1935 and spent much of the remainder of his career in Basel, Switzerland. Many other Christians who resisted the regime were arrested and executed in concentration camps.

      The Barmen Declaration was a source of hope for many in Germany during the dark days of the Hitler regime. It was a source of strength for those who aimed to drive violence and heresy from their church and the world.

      The Barmen Declaration

      In view of the errors of the “German Christians” and of the present Reich Church Administration, which are ravaging the Church and at the same time also shattering the unity of the German Evangelical Church, we confess the following evangelical truths:

      1. “I am the Way and the Truth and the Life; no one comes to the Father except through me.” (Jn. 14:6)

      “Truly, truly I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold through the door but climbs in somewhere else, he is a thief and a robber. I am the Door; if anyone enters through me, he will be saved.” (Jn. 10:1,9)

      Jesus Christ, as he is attested to us in Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God which we have to hear, and which we have to trust and obey in life and in death.

      We reject the false doctrine that the Church could and should recognize as a source of its proclamation, beyond and besides this one Word of God, yet other events, powers, historic figures, and truths as God’s revelation.

      2. “Jesus Christ has been made wisdom and righteousness and sanctification and redemption for us by God.” (I Cor. 1:30)

      As Jesus Christ is God’s comforting pronouncement of the forgiveness of all our sins, so, and with equal seriousness, he is also God’s vigorous announcement of his claim upon our whole life. Through him there comes to us joyful liberation from the godless ties of this world for free, grateful service to his creatures.

      We reject the false doctrine that there could be areas of our life in which we would belong not to Jesus Christ but to other lords, areas in which we would not need justification and sanctification through him.

      3. “Let us, however, speak the truth in love, and in every respect grow into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body is joined together.” (Eph. 4:15–16)

      The Christian Church is the community of brethren in which, in Word and sacrament, through the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ acts in the present as Lord. With both its faith and its obedience, with both its message and its order, it has to testify in the midst of the sinful world, as the Church of pardoned sinners, that it belongs to him alone and lives and may live by his comfort and under his direction alone, in expectation of his appearing.

      We reject the false doctrine that the Church could have permission to hand over the form of its message and of its order to whatever it itself might wish or to the vicissitudes of the prevailing ideological and political convictions of the day.

      4. “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles exercise authority over them and those in high position lord it over them. So shall it not be among you; but if anyone would have authority over you, let him be your servant.” (Matt. 20:25–26)

      The various oYces in the Church do not provide a basis for some to exercise authority over others but for the ministry with which the whole community has been entrusted and charged to be carried out.

      We reject the false doctrine that, apart from this ministry, the Church could, and could have permission to, give itself or allow itself to be given special leaders—(Führer)—vested with ruling authority.

      5. “Fear God, honour the King.” (I Pet. 2:17)

      Scripture tells us that by divine appointment the State, in this still unredeemed world in which also the Church is situated, has the task of maintaining justice and peace, so far as human discernment and human ability make this possible, by means of the threat and use of force. The Church acknowledges with gratitude and reverence toward God the benefit of this, his appointment. It draws attention to God’s Kingdom (Reich), God’s commandment and justice, and with these the responsibility of those who rule and those who are ruled. It trusts and obeys the power of the Word, by which God upholds all things.

      We reject the false doctrine that beyond its special commission the State should and could become the sole and total order of human life and so fulfil the vocation of the Church as well.

      We reject the false doctrine that beyond its special commission the Church should and could take on the nature, tasks, and dignity which belong to the State and thus become itself an organ of the State.

      6. “See, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matt. 28:20). “God’s Word is not fettered.” (II Tim. 2:9)

      The Church’s commission, which is the foundation of its freedom, consists in this: in Christ’s stead, and so in the service of his own Word and work, to deliver to all people, through preaching and sacrament, the message of the free grace of God.

      We reject the false doctrine that with human vainglory the Church could place the Word and work of the Lord in the service of self-chosen desires, purposes, and plans. The Confessional Synod of the German Evangelical Church declares that it sees in the acknowledgment of these truths and in the rejection of these errors the indispensable theological basis of the German Evangelical Church as a confederation of Confessional Churches. It calls upon all who can stand in solidarity with its Declaration to be mindful of these theological findings in all their decisions concerning Church and State. It appeals to all concerned to return to unity in faith, hope, and love.

      Verbum Dei manet in aeternum.

      The Word of God will last for ever.

      Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)

      The rights of individuals became a concern of the international community only in the twentieth century. Before World War I (1914–1918), the political, civil, and human rights of citizens, including the right to free exercise of religion, were considered properly to be the internal concerns of sovereign states. In the peace treaties concluded at the end of the war, some limited attempts were made for the first time to provide for the political and civil rights of certain minority groups. After the widespread horrors of World War II (1939–1945), the international community, as embodied in the United Nations, placed the extension and protection of individual rights at the forefront of the world agenda.

      When the United Nations Charter was drafted in 1944– 1945, a decision was made to defer a statement of fundamental human rights because of the cultural, political, and ideological diYculties involved in drafting such a document. In 1947 the UN Commission on Human Rights began working toward an international bill of human rights that would be acceptable to all member states: the long established and the newly independent; the industrially developed and the underdeveloped; communist and noncommunist; colonial powers and noncolonial powers. The resolution was adopted by a vote of 48–0 with eight abstentions by the UN General Assembly on December 10, 1948. (The six states of the Soviet bloc, Saudi Arabia, and the Union of South Africa abstained.)

      The UN declaration includes the political and civil rights common to Western democratic constitutions: the rights to life, liberty, and equality; freedom of conscience and religion; freedom from arbitrary arrest and the right to a public hearing by an impartial jury; and freedom of assembly and association. It also addresses economic, social, and cultural issues not normally considered fundamental rights in the Western democratic tradition.

      The Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not have the force of international law and hence places no obligations or restrictions on its signatory states. The declaration, however, provided the moral and intellectual underpinnings for subsequent covenants and conventions that do have the force of law. Among them are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, both of which were adopted in 1966 and entered into force in 1976.


      Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

      Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

      Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

      Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

      Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaYrmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

      Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

      Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

      Now, therefore,

      The General Assembly

      Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and eVective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

      Article 1

      All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

      Article 2

      Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

      Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

      Article 3

      Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

      Article 4

      No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

      Article 5

      No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

      Article 6

      Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

      Article 7

      All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

      Article 8

      Everyone has the right to an eVective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

      Article 9

      No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

      Article 10

      Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

      Article 11

      (1) Everyone charged with a penal oVence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

      (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal oVence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal oVence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal oVence was committed.

      Article 12

      No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

      Article 13

      (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.

      (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

      Article 14

      (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

      (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

      Article 15

      (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

      (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

      Article 16

      (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

      (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

      (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

      Article 17

      (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

      (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

      Article 18

      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.

      Article 19

      Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

      Article 20

      (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

      (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

      Article 21

      (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

      (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

      (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of the government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suVrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

      Article 22

      Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national eVort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

      Article 23

      (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

      (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

      (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

      (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

      Article 24

      Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

      Article 25

      (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

      (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

      Article 26

      (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

      (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

      (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

      Article 27

      (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

      (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

      Article 28

      Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

      Article 29

      (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

      (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

      (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

      Article 30

      Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

      Irish Peace Accord (1998)

      After nearly thirty years of sectarian conflict between the Roman Catholics and Protestants of Northern Ireland a peace accord was agreed upon in Belfast on April 10, 1998—Good Friday. More than thirty-two hundred people have been killed since “the troubles,” as the strife is known, began. In actuality, the dispute has been more political than religious; the Protestants are predominantly “unionists,” preferring to retain links to Great Britain, and the Catholics are primarily “nationalists,” wishing instead to reunite Northern Ireland with the Republic of Ireland.

      Eight political parties and the governments of Britain and Ireland took part in the negotiations, which continued for nearly two years. The British prime minister, Tony Blair, and his Irish counterpart, Bertie Ahern, were influential in gaining the agreement, as was U.S. president Bill Clinton, whose last-minute telephone calls to participants in the final negotiations were the culmination of several years of working toward the agreement. George Mitchell, the former U.S. Senate majority leader, won wide praise for his eVorts as mediator of the talks. Other important players were David Trimble, leader of the Ulster Unionist Party; John Hume, head of the Social Democratic and Labour Party, Northern Ireland’s largest Catholic party; and Gerry Adams, president of Sinn Féin, the political section of the Irish Republican Army. The leader of the Democratic Unionists, Ian Paisley, a fundamentalist Presbyterian preacher, refused to take part in the talks. Two militant Protestant groups, including Trimble’s Ulster Unionist Party, the largest Protestant faction, walked out of the negotiations. Trimble, nevertheless, endorsed the agreement. Sinn Féin failed to endorse it but took part in negotiations.

      Concessions were made on both sides. Although Northern Ireland is to remain part of Britain and the Republic of Ireland is to give up its territorial claims to Northern Ireland, the two entities are to work together in both the political and the economic realms. And the way has been left open for Northern Ireland to unite with the Republic of Ireland and cut its ties with Britain if the people of Northern Ireland, by majority vote, so choose. A 108-member Northern Ireland Assembly is to replace direct rule by Britain and is to be “inclusive in its membership,” thus giving the residents of Northern Ireland the power to govern themselves for the first time since 1972 and assuring the Catholic minority of a greater voice in governing Northern Ireland.

      A majority of voters in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland approved the agreement in a referendum on May 22, 1998. Almost 95 percent of the voters in the Republic of Ireland and slightly more than 71 percent in Northern Ireland voted yes. How the vote was split between Catholics and Protestants was impossible to know because all votes were counted at one place, but an exit poll reported majority support from both groups.

      The conflict now has shifted from one between Catholics and Protestants to one between those who support the agreement and those who do not. The elections held on June 25, 1998, for the Northern Ireland Assembly resulted in clear support for the agreement, with the nonsupporters winning not quite enough votes to block the peace process. Catholics and Protestants of the new assembly joined together to elect the Protestant David Trimble as first minister and the Catholic Seamus Mallon as deputy first minister. As noted by Clinton and others, the agreement represents the promise, but not the guarantee, of peace. Excerpts of the agreement follow.

      Declaration of Support

      1. We, the participants in the multi-party negotiations, believe that the agreement we have negotiated oVers a truly historic opportunity for a new beginning.

      2. The tragedies of the past have left a deep and profoundly regrettable legacy of suVering. We must never forget those who have died or been injured, and their families. But we can best honour

      them through a fresh start, in which we firmly dedicate ourselves to the achievement of reconciliation, tolerance, and mutual trust, and to the protection and vindication of the human rights of all.

      3. We are committed to partnership, equality and mutual respect as the basis of relationships within Northern Ireland, between North and South, and between these islands.

      4. We reaYrm our total and absolute commitment to exclusively democratic and peaceful means of resolving diVerences on political issues, and our opposition to any use or threat of force by others for any political purpose, whether in regard to this agreement or otherwise.

      5. We acknowledge the substantial diVerences between our continuing, and equally legitimate, political aspirations. However, we will endeavour to strive in every practical way towards reconciliation and rapprochement within the framework of democratic and agreed arrangements.l.l.l.

      Constitutional Issues

      1. The participants endorse the commitment made by the British and Irish Governments that, in a new British-Irish Agreement replacing the Anglo-Irish Agreement, they will:

      (i) recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status, whether they prefer to continue to support the Union with Great Britain or a sovereign united Ireland;

      (ii) recognise that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively and without external impediment, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish, accepting that this right must be achieved and exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland;

      (iii) acknowledge that while a substantial section of the people in Northern Ireland share the legitimate wish of a majority of the people of the island of Ireland for a united Ireland, the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union and, accordingly, that Northern Ireland’s status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish; and that it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people;

      (iv) aYrm that if, in the future, the people of the island of Ireland exercise their right of self-determination .l.l. to bring about a united Ireland, it will be a binding obligation on both Governments to introduce and support in their respective Parliaments legislation to give eVect to that wish;

      (v) aYrm that whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions and shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos, and aspirations of both communities;

      (vi) recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be aVected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland.

      2. The participants also note that the two Governments have accordingly undertaken in the context of this comprehensive political agreement, to propose and support changes in, respectively, the Constitution of Ireland and in British legislation relating to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland.l.l.l.

      Strand One

      Democratic Institutions in Northern Ireland

      1. This agreement provides for a democratically elected Assembly in Northern Ireland which is inclusive in its membership, capable of exercising executive and legislative authority, and subject to safeguards to protect the rights and interests of all sides of the community.l.l.l.

      3. The Assembly will exercise full legislative and executive authority in respect of those matters currently within the responsibility of the six Northern Ireland Government Departments, with the possibility of taking on responsibility for other matters as detailed elsewhere in this agreement.

      4. The Assembly—operating where appropriate on a cross-community basis—will be the prime source of authority in respect of all devolved responsibilities.l.l.l.

      34. A consultative Civic Forum will be established. It will comprise representatives of the business, trade union and voluntary sectors, and such other sectors as agreed by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. It will act as a consultative mechanism on social, economic and cultural issues….

      Strand Two

      North/South Ministerial Council

      … a North/South Ministerial Council to be established to bring together those with executive responsibilities in Northern Ireland and the Irish Government, to develop consultation, co-operation and action within the island of Ireland.l.l.l.

      13. It is understood that the North/South Ministerial Council and the Northern Ireland Assembly are mutually inter-dependent, and that one cannot successfully function without the other.l.l.l.


      Areas for North-South co-operation and implementation may include the following:

      1. Agriculture—animal and plant health.

      2. Education—teacher qualifications and exchanges.

      3. Transport—strategic transport planning.

      4. Environment—environmental protection, pollution, water quality, and waste management.

      5. Waterways—inland waterways.

      6. Social Security/Social Welfare—entitlements of cross-border workers and fraud control.

      7. Tourism—promotion, marketing, research, and product development.

      8. Relevant EU [European Union] Programmes.l.l.l.

      9. Inland Fisheries.

      10. Aquaculture and marine matters.

      11. Health: accident and emergency services and other related cross-border issues.

      12. Urban and rural development.

      Strand Three

      British-Irish Council

      1. A British-Irish Council (BIC) will be established .l.l. to promote the harmonious and mutually beneficial development of the totality of relationships among the peoples of these islands.l.l.l.

      5. The BIC will exchange information, discuss, consult and use best endeavours to reach agreement on co-operation on matters of mutual interest within the competence of the relevant Administrations. Suitable issues for early discussion in the BIC could include transport links, agricultural issues, environmental issues, cultural issues, health issues, education issues and approaches to EU issues. Suitable arrangements to be made for practical co-operation on agreed policies.

      British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference

      … a new British-Irish Agreement .l.l. will establish a standing British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, which will subsume both the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council and the Intergovernmental Conference established under the 1985 Agreement.

      2. The Conference will bring together the British and Irish Governments to promote bilateral co-operation at all levels on all matters of mutual interest within the competence of both Governments….

      Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity

      Human Rights

      1. The parties aYrm their commitment to the mutual respect, the civil rights and the religious liberties of everyone in the community. Against the background of the recent history of communal conflict, the parties aYrm in particular:

      the right of free political thought;

      the right to freedom and expression of religion;

      the right to pursue democratically national and political aspirations;

      the right to seek constitutional change by peaceful and legitimate means;

      the right to freely choose one’s place of residence;

      the right to equal opportunity in all social and economic activity, regardless of class, creed, disability, gender or ethnicity;

      the right to freedom from sectarian harassment; and

      the right of women to full and equal political participation….

      3 the British Government intends, as a particular priority, to create a statutory obligation on public authorities in Northern Ireland to carry out all their functions with due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity in relation to religion and political opinion; gender; race; disability; age; marital status; dependants; and sexual orientation….

      5. A new Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, with membership from Northern Ireland reflecting the community balance, will be established …, independent of Government, with an extended and enhanced role beyond that currently exercised by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights….

      9. The Irish Government will also take steps to further strengthen the protection of human rights in its jurisdiction…. In addition, the Irish Government will:

      establish a Human Rights Commission with a mandate and remit equivalent to that within Northern Ireland;

      .l.l. ratify the Council of Europe Framework Convention on National Minorities (already ratified by the UK);

      implement enhanced employment equality legislation;

      introduce equal status legislation….

      10. It is envisaged that there would be a joint committee of representatives of the two Human Rights Commissions, North and South, as a forum for consideration of human rights issues in the island of Ireland….

      12. It is recognised that victims have a right to remember as well as to contribute to a changed society. The achievement of a peaceful and just society would be the true memorial to the victims of violence. The participants particularly recognise that young people from areas aVected by the troubles face particular diYculties and will support the development of special community-based initiatives based on international best practice. The provision of services that are supportive and sensitive to the needs of victims will also be a critical element and that support will need to be channelled through both statutory and community-based voluntary organisations facilitating locally-based self-help and support networks. This will require the allocation of suYcient resources, including statutory funding as necessary, to meet the needs of victims and to provide for community-based support programmes.

      13. The participants recognise and value the work being done by many organisations to develop reconciliation and mutual understanding and respect between and within communities and traditions, in Northern Ireland and between North and South, and they see such work as having a vital role in consolidating peace and political agreement.

      Accordingly, they pledge their continuing support to such organisations…. An essential aspect of the reconciliation process is the promotion of a culture of tolerance at every level of society, including initiatives to facilitate and encourage integrated education and mixed housing.

      Economic, Social and Cultural Issues

      1. Pending the devolution of powers to a new Northern Ireland Assembly, the British Government will pursue broad policies for sustained economic growth and stability in Northern Ireland and for promoting social inclusion, including in particular community development and the advancement of women in public life.

      2. Subject to the public consultation currently under way, the British Government will make rapid progress with:

      (i) a new regional development strategy for Northern Ireland….

      (ii) a new economic development strategy for Northern Ireland….

      (iii) measures on employment equality….

      3. All participants recognise the importance of respect, understanding and tolerance in relation to linguistic diversity, including in Northern Ireland, the Irish language, Ulster-Scots and the languages of the various ethnic communities, all of which are part of the cultural wealth of the island of Ireland.

      4. In the context of active consideration currently being given to the UK signing the Council of Europe Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, the British Government will in particular in relation to the Irish language, where appropriate and where people so desire it:

      take resolute action to promote the language;

      facilitate and encourage the use of the language in speech and writing in public and private life where there is appropriate demand….

      explore urgently with the relevant British authorities, and in co-operation with the Irish broadcasting authorities, the scope for achieving more widespread availability of Teilifis na Gaeilige in Northern Ireland;

      seek more eVective ways to encourage and provide financial support for Irish language film and television production in Northern Ireland….

      5. All participants acknowledge the sensitivity of the use of symbols and emblems for public purposes, and the need in particular in creating the new institutions to ensure that such symbols and emblems are used in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division….


      1. Participants recall their agreement in the Procedural Motion adopted on 24 September 1997 “that the resolution of the decommissioning issue is an indispensable part of the process of negotiation.”.l.l.

      2. They note the progress made by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning and the Governments in developing schemes which can represent a workable basis for achieving the decommissioning of illegally-held arms in the possession of paramilitary groups….

      3. All participants .l.l. reaYrm their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. They also confirm their intention to continue to work constructively .l.l. to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years following endorsement in referendums North and South of the agreement….


      1. The participants note that the development of a peaceful environment on the basis of this agreement can and should mean a normalisation of security arrangements and practices.

      2. The British Government will make progress towards the objective of as early a return as possible to normal security arrangements in Northern Ireland, consistent with the level of threat….

      5. The Irish Government will initiate a wide-ranging review of the OVences Against the State Acts 1939–85 with a view to both reform and dispensing with those elements no longer required as circumstances permit.

      Policing and Justice

      1. The participants .l.l. believe that the agreement provides the opportunity for a new beginning to policing in Northern Ireland with a police service capable of attracting and sustaining support from the community as a whole. They also believe that this agreement oVers a unique opportunity to bring about a new political dispensation which will recognise the full and equal legitimacy and worth of the identities, senses of allegiance and ethos of all sections of the community in Northern Ireland. They consider that this opportunity should inform and underpin the development of a police service representative in terms of the make-up of the community as a whole and which, in a peaceful environment, should be routinely unarmed….

      3. An independent Commission will be established to make recommendations for future policing arrangements in Northern Ireland….

      4. The participants believe that the aims of the criminal justice system are to:

      deliver a fair and impartial system of justice to the community;

      be responsive to the community’s concerns, and encouraging community involvement where appropriate;

      have the confidence of all parts of the community; and

      deliver justice eYciently and eVectively….


      1. Both Governments will put in place mechanisms to provide for an accelerated programme for the release of prisoners, including transferred prisoners, convicted of scheduled oVences in Northern Ireland or, in the case of those sentenced outside Northern Ireland, similar oVences (referred to hereafter as qualifying prisoners). Any such arrangements will protect the rights of individual prisoners under national and international law.

      2. Prisoners aYliated to organisations which have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire will not benefit from the arrangements. The situation in this regard will be kept under review.

      3. Both Governments will complete a review process within a fixed time frame and set prospective release dates for all qualifying prisoners. The review process would provide for the advance of the release dates of qualifying prisoners while allowing account to be taken of the seriousness of the oVences for which the person was convicted and the need to protect the community. In addition, the intention would be that should the circumstances allow it, any qualifying prisoners who remained in custody two years after the commencement of the scheme would be released at that point.

      4. The Governments will seek to enact the appropriate legislation to give eVect to these arrangements by the end of June 1998.

      5. The Governments continue to recognise the importance of measures to facilitate the reintegration of prisoners into the community….

      Validation, Implementation and Review

      Validation and Implementation

      1. The two Governments will as soon as possible sign a new British-Irish Agreement replacing the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement, embodying understandings on constitutional issues and aYrming their solemn commitment to support and, where appropriate, implement the agreement reached by the participants in the negotiations which shall be annexed to the British-Irish Agreement.

      2. Each Government will organise a referendum on 22 May 1998. Subject to Parliamentary approval, a consultative referendum in Northern Ireland, organised under the terms of the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc.) Act 1996, will address the question: “Do you support the agreement reached in the multi-party talks on Northern Ireland and set out in Command Paper 3883?”. The Irish Government will introduce and support in the Oireachtas a Bill to amend the Constitution .l.l. to permit the Government to ratify the new British-Irish Agreement. On passage by the Oireachtas, the Bill will be put to referendum.

      3. If majorities of those voting in each of the referendums support this agreement, the Governments will then introduce and support, in their respective Parliaments, such legislation as may be necessary to give eVect to all aspects of this agreement, and will take whatever ancillary steps as may be required including the holding of elections on 25 June, subject to parliamentary approval, to the Assembly, which would meet initially in a “shadow” mode. The establishment of the North-South Ministerial Council, implementation bodies, the British-Irish Council and the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference and the assumption by the Assembly of its legislative and executive powers will take place at the same time on the entry into force of the British-Irish Agreement….


      Appendix: Reference Materials

      Religious Affiliation in Countries and Regions of the World, mid-2005

      Each year since 1750, demographic information related to churches and religions around the world has been gradually increasing. Much of this comes from decennial governmental censuses: half the countries of the world have long asked their populations to state their religions if any, and still do today. Until recently, several developing countries each year were terminating the religion question in their censuses due to its high cost, but this trend has now been reversed—in Britain’s 2000 census the British government introduced this formal question for the first time since 1851, describing it as valuable for enumerating and serving its ethnic minorities.

      The other major source of data each year consists of the decentralized inquiries undertaken by many religious headquarters. Almost all Christian denominations ask and answer statistical questions on their members each year. All Roman Catholic bishops, for instance, are required to answer 141 statistical questions about their jurisdictions’ activities over the previous twelve months.

      A third annual source is the total of 27,000 new books on the religious situation each in a single country, as well as some 9,000 printed annual yearbooks or official handbooks. Together, these three major sources of data constitute a massive annual assessment of religious affiliation around the world.

      The table below combines and reconciles all these data related to an individual’s religious profession and/or affiliation for mid-2005. The results are presented first by country and then by United Nations region for seven major religious categories and an eighth category that includes ten smaller religions (including doubly-professing, where an individual claims to adhere to more than one religion). More detailed analysis, methodological notes, and sources can be found at http://www.worldchristiandatabase.org.

      Todd M. Johnson

      Constitutions of the World

      Following are excerpts from several world constitutions that include provisions on religion or religious practice. The selections, by no means exhaustive, are intended to provide a representative look at how some countries have sought to codify national policies on separation of church and state, state establishment of religion, freedom of conscience, and religious toleration. For further information, including the full text of most world constitutions, see the Web site administered by International Constitutional Law (http://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/law).

      Cambodia (1993)

      Article 4 [Motto]

      The motto of the Kingdom of Cambodia is: “Nation, Religion, King.”

      Article 31 [Human Rights, Equality, Restrictions]

      (2) Every Khmer citizen is equal before the law, enjoying the same rights and freedom and fulfilling the same obligations regardless of race, colour, sex, language, religious belief, political tendency, birth origin, social status, wealth or other status….

      Article 43 [Religion]

      (1) Khmer citizens of either sex enjoy the freedom of belief.

      (2) Freedom of religious belief and worship is guaranteed by the State on the condition that such freedom does not affect other religious beliefs or violate public order and security.

      (3) Buddhism is the State religion.

      China (1982)

      Article 34 [Electoral Rights and Equality]

      All citizens of the People’s Republic of China who have reached the age of 18 have the right to vote and stand for election, regardless of nationality, race, sex, occupation, family background, religious belief, education, property status, or length of residence, except persons deprived of political rights according to law.

      Article 36 [Religion]

      (1) Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief.

      (2) No state organ, public organization, or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not to believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion.

      (3) The state protects normal religious activities. No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the state.

      (4) Religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination.

      France (1958)

      Article 2 [State Form and Symbols]

      (1) France is an indivisible, secular, democratic, and social Republic. It ensures the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction as to origin, race, or religion. It respects all beliefs….

      Article 77 [Autonomy]

      (3) All citizens shall be equal before the law, regardless of their origin, race or religion. They shall have the same duties.

      Germany (1949)

      Article 3 [Equality]

      (3) No one may be disadvantaged or favored because of his sex, his parentage, his race, his language, his homeland and origin, his faith, or his religious or political opinions. No one may be disadvantaged because of his handicap.

      Article 4 [Freedom of Faith, of Conscience, and of Creed]

      (1) Freedom of creed, of conscience, and freedom to profess a religious or non-religious faith are inviolable.

      (2) The undisturbed practice of religion is guaranteed.

      (3) No one may be compelled against his conscience to render war service involving the use of arms. Details are regulated by a federal statute.

      Article 7 [Education]

      (3) Religion classes form part of the ordinary curriculum in state schools, except for secular schools. Without prejudice to the state’s right of supervision, religious instruction is given in accordance with the tenets of the religious communities. No teacher may be obliged against his will to give religious instruction.

      Article 12a [Liability to military and other service]

      (2) A person who refuses, on grounds of conscience, to render war service involving the use of arms can be required to render a substitute service. The duration of such substitute service may not exceed the duration of military service. Details are regulated by a statute which may not interfere with freedom to take a decision based on conscience and which must also provide for the possibility of a substitute service not connected with units of the Armed Forces or of the Federal Border Guard.

      Greece (1975)

      Article 3 [Relations of Church and State]

      (1) The prevailing religion in Greece is that of the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ. The Orthodox Church of Greece acknowledging as its head Our Lord Jesus Christ is indissolubly united in doctrine with the Great Church of Constantinople and every other Church of Christ of the same doctrine. It observes steadfastly, as they do, the holy apostolic and synodical canons and the holy tradition. It is autocephalous, exercising its sovereign rights independently of any other church, and is administered by the Holy Synod of Bishops and the Parliament Holy Synod which emanates from the former and is constituted in accordance with the Constitutional Chart of the Church and the provisions of the Patriarchal Document of 29 June 1850 and the Synodal Deed of 4 September 1928.

      (2) The religious status prevailing in certain parts of the State is not contrary to the provisions of the aforegoing paragraph.

      (3) The text of the Holy Scriptures shall be maintained unaltered. The oYcial translation thereof into any other linguistic form, without the sanction of the Autocephalous Church of Greece and the Great Church of Christ in Constantinople, is prohibited.

      Article 13 [Religion]

      (1) The freedom of religious conscience is inviolable. The enjoyment of civil and individual rights does not depend on the religious conviction of each individual.

      (2) Every known religion is free and the forms of worship thereof shall be practiced without any hindrance by the State and under protection of the law. The exercise of worship shall not contravene public order or offend morals. Proselytizing is prohibited.

      (3) The ministers of all religions are subject to the same obligations towards the State and to the same state supervision as the ministers of the established religion.

      (4) No person shall, by reason of his religious convictions, be exempt from discharging his obligations to the State, or refuse to comply with the laws.

      (5) No oath shall be imposed without a law specifying the form thereof.

      Article 59 [Oath]

      (1) Before entering upon their duties the deputies shall take the following oath in the House of Parliament in public session: “I swear in the name of the Holy, Consubstantial, and Indivisible Trinity to be loyal to the Motherland and the democratic form of government, obey the Constitution and the laws and discharge my duties conscientiously.”

      (2) Deputies of other religions or dogmas shall give the same oath in the manner of their own religion or dogma.

      (3) Deputies who enter upon their duties during the recess of Parliament shall take the oath before a Department thereof which is in session.

      Hong Kong (1990)

      Article 1 Entitlement to rights without distinction

      (1) The rights recognized in this Bill of Rights shall be enjoyed without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

      Article 15 Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

      (1) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

      (2) No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

      (3) 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.

      (4) The liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions shall be respected.

      Article 20 Rights of children

      (1) Every child shall have, without any discrimination as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, national or social origin, property or birth, the right to such measures of protection as are required by his status as a minor, on the part of his family, society and the State.

      Article 22 Equality before and equal protection of law

      All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

      Article 23 Rights of minorities

      Persons belonging to ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language.

      Article 32 [Religion]

      (1) Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of conscience.

      (2) Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of religious belief and freedom to preach and to conduct and participate in religious activities in public.

      Article 141

      (1) The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall not restrict the freedom of religious belief, interfere in the internal affairs of religious organizations or restrict religious activities which do not contravene the laws of the Region.

      (2) Religious organizations shall, in accordance with law, enjoy the rights to acquire, use, dispose of and inherit property and the right to receive financial assistance. Their previous property rights and interests shall be maintained and protected.

      (3) Religious organizations may, according to their previous practice, continue to run seminaries and other schools, hospitals and welfare institutions and to provide other social services.

      (4) Religious organizations and believers in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may maintain and develop their relations with religious organizations and believers elsewhere.

      Section 5 Public emergencies

      (1) In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is oYcially proclaimed, measures may be taken derogating from the Bill of Rights to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, but these measures shall be taken in accordance with law.

      (2) No measure shall be taken under Subsection (1) that —

      (b) involves discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin….

      India (1950)

      Article 15 Prohibition of discrimination on grounds

      of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth

      (1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.

      (2) No citizen shall, on ground only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to -

      (a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or

      (b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained whole or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public….

      Article 16 Equality of opportunity in matters

      of public employment

      (2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or oYce under the State….

      (5) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any law which provides that the incumbent of an oYce in connection with the affairs of any religious or denominational institution or any member of the governing body thereof shall be a person professing a particular religion or belonging to a particular denomination.

      Article 17 Abolition of Untouchability

      “Untouchability” is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement of any disability arising out of “Untouchability” shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.

      Article 23 Prohibition of traYc in human beings

      and forced labour

      (2) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from imposing compulsory service for public purposes, and in imposing such service the State shall not make any discrimination on ground only of religion, race, caste or class or any of them.

      Article 25 Freedom of conscience and free

      profession, practice and propagation of religion

      (1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.

      (2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law

      (a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;

      (b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.

      Explanation I: The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion.

      Explanation II: In sub-Clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.

      Article 26 Freedom to manage religious affairs

      Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right

      (a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes;

      (b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion;

      (c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and

      (d) to administer such property in accordance with law.

      Article 27 Freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion

      No person shall be compelled to pay any taxes, the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated in payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination.

      Article 28 Freedom as to attendance at

      religious instruction or religious worship in

      certain educational institutions

      (1) No religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of State funds.

      (2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to an educational institution which is administered by the State but has been established under any endowment or trust which requires that religious instruction shall be imparted in such institution.

      (3) No person attending any educational institution recognised by the State or receiving aid out of State funds shall be required to take part in any religious instruction that may be imparted in such institution or to attend any religious worship that may be conducted in such institution or in any premises attached thereto unless such person or, if such person is minor, his guardian has given his consent thereto.

      Article 29 Protection of interests of minorities

      (2) No citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them.

      Article 30 Right of minorities to establish and

      administer educational institutions

      (1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice….

      (2) The State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language.

      Iran (1979)

      Article 1 [Form of Government]

      The form of government of Iran is that of an Islamic Republic, endorsed by the people of Iran on the basis of their longstanding belief in the sovereignty of truth and Koranic justice, in the referendum of 29 and 30 March 1979, through the aYrmative vote of a majority of 98.2% of eligible voters, held after the victorious Islamic Revolution led by Imam Khumayni.

      Article 2 [Foundational Principles]

      The Islamic Republic is a system based on belief in: 1) the One God (as stated in the phrase “There is no god except Allah”), His exclusive sovereignty and right to legislate, and the necessity of submission to His commands; 2) Divine revelation and its fundamental role in setting forth the laws; 3) the return to God in the Hereafter, and the constructive role of this belief in the course of man’s ascent towards God; 4) the justice of God in creation and legislation; 5) continuous leadership and perpetual guidance, and its fundamental role in ensuring the uninterrupted process of the revolution of Islam; 6) the exalted dignity and value of man, and his freedom coupled with responsibility before God; in which equity, justice, political, economic, social, and cultural independence, and national solidarity are secured by recourse to: a) continuous leadership of the holy persons, possessing necessary qualifications, exercised on the basis of the Koran and the Sunnah, upon all of whom be peace; b) sciences and arts and the most advanced results of human experience, together with the effort to advance them further; c) negation of all forms of oppression, both the infliction of and the submission to it, and of dominance, both its imposition and its acceptance.

      Article 12 [OYcial Religion]

      The oYcial religion of Iran is Islam and the Twelver Ja>fari school, and this principle will remain eternally immutable. Other Islamic schools are to be accorded full respect, and their followers are free to act in accordance with their own jurisprudence in performing their religious rites. These schools enjoy oYcial status in matters pertaining to religious education, affairs of personal status (marriage, divorce, inheritance, and wills) and related litigation in courts of law. In regions of the country where Muslims following any one of these schools constitute the majority, local regulations, within the bounds of the jurisdiction of local councils, are to be in accordance with the respective school, without infringing upon the rights of the followers of other schools.

      Article 13 [Recognized Religious Minorities]

      Zoroastrian, Jewish, and Christian Iranians are the only recognized religious minorities, who, within the limits of the law, are free to perform their religious rites and ceremonies, and to act according to their own canon in matters of personal affairs and religious education.

      Article 14 [Non-Muslims’ Rights]

      In accordance with the sacred verse “God does not forbid you to deal kindly and justly with those who have not fought against you because of your religion and who have not expelled you from your homes” [60:8], the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and all Muslims are duty-bound to treat non-Muslims in conformity with ethical norms and the principles of Islamic justice and equity, and to respect their human rights. This principle applies to all who refrain from engaging in conspiracy or activity against Islam and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

      Article 64 [270 Members, Religious Representatives]

      (1) There are to be two hundred seventy members of the Islamic Consultative Assembly which, keeping in view the human,

      political, geographic, and other similar factors, may increase by

      not more than twenty for each ten-year period from the date of the national referendum of the year 1368 of the solar Islamic calendar.

      (2) The Zoroastrians and Jews will each elect one representative; Assyrian and Chaldean Christians will jointly elect one representative; and Armenian Christians in the north and those in the south of the country will each elect one representative.

      (3) The delimitation of the election constituencies and the number of representatives will be determined by law.

      Article 67 [Oath]

      (1) Members of the Assembly must take the following oath at the first session of the Assembly and aYx their signatures to its text: “In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. In the presence of the Glorious Koran, I swear by God, the Exalted and Almighty, and undertake, swearing by my own honor as a human being, to protect the sanctity of Islam and guard the accomplishments of the Islamic Revolution of the Iranian people and the foundations of the Islamic Republic; to protect, as a just trustee, the honor bestowed upon me by the people, to observe piety in fulfilling my duties as people’s representative; to remain always committed to the independence and honor of the country; to fulfil my duties towards the nation and the service of the people; to defend the Constitution; and to bear in mind, both in speech and writing and in the expression of my views, the independence of the country, the freedom of the people, and the security of their interests.”

      (2) Members belonging to the religious minorities will swear by their own sacred books while taking this oath.

      (3) Members not attending the first session will perform the ceremony of taking the oath at the first session they attend.

      Article 121 [Oath]

      The President must take the following oath and aYx his signature to it at a session of the Islamic Consultative Assembly in the presence of the head of the judicial power and the members of the Guardian Council: “In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful, I, as President, swear, in the presence of the noble members of parliament and the people of Iran, by God, the Exalted and Almighty, that I will guard the oYcial religion of the country, the order of the Islamic Republic, and the Constitution of the country; that I will devote all my capacities and abilities to the fulfillment of the responsibilities that I have assumed; that I will dedicate myself to the service of the people, the honor of the country, the propagation of religion and morality, and the support of truth and justice, refraining from every kind of arbitrary behavior; that I will protect the freedom and dignity of all citizens and the rights that the Constitution has accorded the people; that in guarding the frontiers and the political, economic, and cultural independence of the country I will not avoid any necessary measure; that, seeking help from God and following the Prophet of Islam and the infallible Imams (peace be upon them), I will guard, as a pious and selfless trustee, the authority vested in me by the people as a sacred trust, and transfer it to whomever the people may elect after me.”

      Israel (Declaration of Independence, 1948)

      The Land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and national identity was formed. Here they achieved independence and created a culture of national and universal significance. Here they wrote and gave the Bible to the world.

      Exiled from Palestine, the Jewish people remained faithful to it in all the countries of their dispersion, never ceasing to pray and hope for their return and the restoration of their national freedom….

      The State of Israel will be open to the immigration of Jews from all countries of their dispersion; will promote the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; will be based on the precepts of liberty, justice and peace taught by the Hebrew Prophets; will uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex; will guarantee full freedom of conscience, worship, education and culture; will safeguard the sanctity and inviolability of the shrines and Holy Places of all religions; and will dedicate itself to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

      Luxembourg (1868)

      Article 19 [Freedom of Religion]

      Freedom of religion and of public worship as well as freedom to express one’s religious opinions are guaranteed, subject to the repression of offenses committed in the exercise of such freedoms.

      Article 20 [No Forced Religion]

      No one may be forced to take part in any way whatsoever in the acts and ceremonies of a religion or to observe its days of rest.

      Article 22 [State and Church]

      The State’s intervention in the appointment and installation of heads of religions, the mode of appointing and dismissing other ministers of religion, the right of any of them to correspond with their superiors and to publish their acts and decisions, as well as the Church’s relations with the State shall be made the subject of conventions to be submitted to the Chamber of Deputies for the provisions governing its intervention.

      Article 25 [Assembly]

      Luxembourgers have the right to assemble peaceably and unarmed in compliance with the laws governing the exercise of this right which may not require prior authorization. This provision does not apply to open-air political, religious, or other meetings which are fully governed by laws and police regulations.

      Article 106 [Salaries of Priests]

      The salaries and pensions of ministers of religion shall be borne by the State and regulated by the law.

      Malta (1964)

      Section 2 [State Religion]

      (1) The religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion.

      (2) The authorities of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church have the duty and the right to teach which principles are right and which are wrong.

      (3) Religious teaching of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Faith shall be provided in all State schools as part of compulsory education.

      Section 40 [Religion, Belief]

      (1) All persons in Malta shall have full freedom of conscience and enjoy the free exercise of their respective mode of religious worship.

      (2) No person shall be required to receive instruction in religion or to show knowledge or proficiency in religion if, in the case of a person who has not attained the age of sixteen years, objection to such requirement is made by the person who according to law has authority over him and, in any other case, if the person so required objects thereto: Provided that no such requirement shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this section to the extent that the knowledge of, or the proficiency or instruction in, religion is required for the teaching of such religion, or for admission to the priesthood or to a religious order, or for other religious purposes and except so far as that requirement is shown not to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society….

      (3) Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of subsection (1), to the extent that the law in question makes provision that is reasonably required in the interests of public safety, public order, public morality or decency, public health, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, and except so far as that provision or, as the case may be, the thing done under the authority thereof, is shown not to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.

      Section 45 [Discrimination]

      (1) Subject to the provisions of subsections (4), (5) and (7) of this section, no law shall make any provision that is discriminatory either of itself or in its effect.

      (2) Subject to the provisions of subsections (6), (7) and (8) of this section, no person shall be treated in a discriminatory manner by any person acting by virtue of any written law or in the performance of the functions of any public oYce or any public authority.

      (3) In this section, the expression “discriminatory” means affording different treatment to different persons attributable wholly or mainly to their respective descriptions by race, place of origin, political opinions, colour, creed or sex whereby persons of one such description are subjected to disabilities or restrictions to which persons of another such description are not made subject or are accorded privileges or advantages which are not accorded to persons of another such description….

      (9) A requirement, however made, that the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion shall be taught by a person professing that religion shall not be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this section….

      Mauritania (1991)

      Article 1 [State Integrity, Equal Protection]

      (1) Mauritania is an indivisible, democratic, and social Islamic Republic.

      (2) The Republic guarantees equality before the law to all of its citizens without distinction as to origin, race, sex, or social condition.

      (3) All particularist propaganda of racial or ethnic character shall be punished by the law.

      Article 5 [State Religion]

      Islam shall be the religion of the people and of the State.

      Nepal (1990)

      Article 11 Right to Equality

      (2) No discrimination shall be made against any citizen in the application of general laws on grounds of religion (dharma)….

      (3) The State shall not discriminate among citizens on grounds of religion, race, sex, caste, tribe, or ideological conviction or any of these. Provided that special provisions may be made by law for the protection and advancement of the interests of women, children, the aged or those who are physically or mentally incapacitated or those who belong to a class which is economically, socially or educationally backward.

      (4) No person shall, on the basis of caste, be discriminated against as untouchable, be denied access to any public place, or be deprived of the use of public utilities. Any contravention of this provision shall be punishable by law.

      Article 19 Right to Religion

      (1) Every person shall have the freedom to profess and practise his own religion as handed down to him from ancient times having due regard to traditional practices; provided that no person shall be entitled to convert another person from one religion to another.

      (2) Every religious denomination shall have the right to maintain its independent existence and for this purpose to manage and protect its religious places and trusts.

      Article 27 His Majesty

      (1) In this Constitution, the words “His Majesty” mean His Majesty the King for the time being reigning, being a descendant of the Great King Prithvi Narayan Shah and an adherent of Aryan Culture and the Hindu Religion.

      Nigeria (1989)


      Article 11

      The Government of the Federation or of a State, shall not adopt any religion as State Religion.

      Article 37

      (1) Every person shall be entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom (either alone or in community with others, and in public or in private) to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

      (2) No person attending any place of education shall be required to receive religious instruction or to take part in or attend any religious ceremony or observance if such instruction, ceremony or observance relates to a religion other than his own, or a religion not approved by his parent or guardian.

      (3) No religious community or denomination shall be prevented from providing religious instruction for pupils of that community or denomination in any place of education maintained wholly by that community or denomination… .

      Article 236

      (1) There shall be a Court of Appeal.

      (2) The Court of Appeal shall consist of

      (a) a President of the Court of Appeal; and

      (b) such number of Justices of the Court or Appeal, not less than 15, of which not less than 3 shall be learned in Islamic law, and not less than 3 shall be learned in Customary law, as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly.

      Norway (1814)

      Sec. 2.

      All inhabitants of the Kingdom shall have the right to free exercise of their religion.

      The Evangelical-Lutheran religion shall remain the oYcial religion of the State. The inhabitants professing it shall be bound to bring up their children in the same.

      Sec. 4.

      The King shall at all times profess the Evangelical-Lutheran religion, and uphold and protect the same.

      Sec. 12.

      … More than half the number of Members of the Council of State shall profess the oYcial religion of the State….

      Sec. 16.

      The King shall give directions for all public church services and public worship, all meetings and assemblies dealing with religious matters, and shall ensure that the public teachers of religion follow the rules prescribed for them.

      Sec. 27.

      … Members of the Council of State who do not profess the oYcial religion of the State shall not take part in proceedings on matters which concern the State Church.

      Sec. 100.

      There shall be liberty of the Press. No person may be punished for any writing, whatever its contents, which he has caused to be printed or published, unless he willfully and manifestly has either himself shown or incited others to disobedience to the laws, contempt of religion or morality or the constitutional powers, or resistance to their orders, or has advanced false and defamatory accusations against anyone. Everyone shall be free to speak his mind frankly on the administration of the State and on any other subject whatsoever.

      Paraguay (1992)

      Article 24 Religious and Ideological Freedom

      (1) Freedom of religion, worship, and ideology is hereby recognized without any restrictions other than those established in this Constitution and the law. The State has no oYcial religion.

      (2) Relations between the State and the Catholic Church are based on independence, cooperation, and autonomy.

      (3) The independence and autonomy of all churches and religious denominations, without restrictions other than those imposed by this Constitution and the law, are hereby guaranteed.

      (4) No one may be disturbed, questioned, or forced to give testimony by reason of his beliefs or ideology.

      Article 37 The Right to Conscientious Objection

      The right to conscientious objection for ethical or religious reasons is hereby recognized for those cases in which this Constitution and the law permits.

      Article 74 The Right to Learn and the

      Freedom to Teach

      The right to learn and to have equal access opportunities to the benefits of humanistic culture, science, and technology, without any discrimination, is hereby guaranteed. Freedom to teach, without any requirement other than having ethical integrity and being competent for the job, as well as the right to have a religious education and ideological pluralism are also guaranteed.

      Article 82 Recognition of the Catholic Church

      The role played by the Catholic Church in the historical and cultural formation of the Republic is hereby recognized.

      Article 88 Nondiscrimination

      No discrimination will be permitted against workers for reasons of race, sex, age, religion, social status, political, or union preference. Special protection will be given to the work of physically or mentally handicapped individuals.

      Article 197 Causes of Ineligibility

      The following cannot be candidates for deputies or senators:l…

      (5) Ministers or clergymen of any religion … .

      Article 235 Causes for Ineligibility

      The following are ineligible to run as candidates for president or vice president of the Republic:l…

      5) Ministers or clergymen of any religion …

      Portugal (1976)

      Article 13 Principle of Equality

      (2) No one is privileged, favored, injured, deprived of any right, or exempt from any duty because of his ancestry, sex, race, language, territory of origin, religion, political or ideological convictions, education, economic situation, or social condition.

      Article 35 Use of Data Processing …

      (3) Data processing may not be used in regard to information concerning a person’s philosophical or political convictions, party or trade union aYliations, religious beliefs, or private life, except in the case of non-identifiable data for statistical purposes….

      Article 41 Freedom of Conscience, Religion,

      and Worship

      (1) Freedom of conscience, religion, and worship are inviolable.

      (2) No one may be persecuted, deprived of rights, or exempted from civil obligations or duties because of his convictions or religious practices.

      (3) No one may be questioned by any authority about his or her convictions or religious practices, except for gathering of statistical data that cannot be identified individually, nor shall anyone be prejudiced by his or her refusal to reply.

      (4) The churches and religious communities are separate from the State and free to organize and exercise their own ceremonies and worship.

      (5) The freedom to teach any religion within its own denomination and the use of its own means of public information for the pursuit of its activities, are safeguarded.

      (6) The right to be a conscientious objector is safeguarded in accordance with the law.

      Article 43 Freedom to Learn and Teach

      (2) The State may not arrogate to itself the right to plan education and culture in accordance with any philosophical, aesthetic, political, ideological, or religious guidelines.

      (3) Public education is non-denominational.

      Article 51 Political Associations and Parties

      (3) Without prejudice to the philosophy or ideology inspiring their programs, political parties may not use names that contain terms directly related to any religion or church or use emblems which may be mistaken for national or religious symbols….

      Russia (1993)

      Article 14

      (1) The Russian Federation shall be a secular state. No religion may be instituted as state-sponsored or mandatory religion.

      (2) Religious associations shall be separated from the state, and shall be equal before the law.

      Article 19

      (2) The state shall guarantee the equality of rights and liberties regardless of sex, race, nationality, language, origin, property or employment status, residence, attitude to religion, convictions, membership of public associations or any other circumstance. Any restrictions of the rights of citizens on social, racial, national, linguistic or religious grounds shall be forbidden.

      Article 28

      Everyone shall be guaranteed the right to freedom of conscience, to freedom of religious worship, including the right to profess, individually or jointly with others, any religion, or to profess no religion, to freely choose, possess and disseminate religious or other beliefs, and to act in conformity with them.

      Article 29

      (2) Propaganda or campaigning inciting social, racial, national or religious hatred and strife is impermissible. The propaganda of social, racial, national, religious or language superiority is forbidden.

      (3) No one may be coerced into expressing one’s views and convictions or into renouncing them.

      Saudi Arabia (Basic Law of Government, (1992))

      Article 1

      The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a sovereign Arab Islamic state with Islam as its religion; God’s Book and the Sunnah of His Prophet, God’s prayers and peace be upon him, are its constitution, Arabic is its language and Riyadh is its capital.

      Article 6

      Citizens are to pay allegiance to the King in accordance with the holy Koran and the tradition of the Prophet, in submission and obedience, in times of ease and diYculty, fortune and adversity.

      Article 7

      Government in Saudi Arabia derives power from the Holy Koran and the Prophet’s tradition.

      Article 8 [Government Principles]

      Government in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is based on the premise of justice, consultation, and equality in accordance with the Islamic Shari>ah.

      Article 23 [Islam]

      The state protects Islam; it implements its Shari>ah; it orders people to do right and shun evil; it fulfills the duty regarding God’s call.

      Article 24 [Holy Places]

      The state works to construct and serve the Holy Places; it provides security and care for those who come to perform the pilgrimage and minor pilgrimage in them through the provision of facilities and peace.

      Singapore (1963)

      Article 12 Equality

      (2) Except as expressly authorized by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens of Singapore on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law or in the appointment to any oYce or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding, or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.

      (3) This article does not invalidate or prohibit

      (a) any provision regulating personal law; or

      (b) any provision or practice restricting oYce or employment connected with the affairs of any religion, or of an institution managed by a group professing any religion, to persons professing that religion.

      Article 15 Freedom of Religion

      (1) Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion and to propagate it.

      (2) No person shall be compelled to pay any tax the proceeds of which are specially allocated in whole or in part for the purposes of a religion other than his own.

      (3) Every religious group has the right

      (a) to manage its own religious affairs;

      (b) to establish and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes; and

      (c) to acquire and own property and hold and administer it in accordance with law.

      (4) This article does not authorize any act contrary to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality.

      Article 16 Rights in Respect of Education

      (1) Without prejudice to the generality of Article 12, there shall be no discrimination against any citizens of Singapore on the grounds only of religion, race, descent or place of birth

      (a) in the administration of any educational institution maintained by a public authority, and, in particular, the admission of pupils or students or the payment of fees; or

      (b) in providing out of the funds of a public authority financial aid for the maintenance or education of pupils or students in any educational institution (whether or not maintained by a public authority and whether within or outside Singapore).

      (2) Every religious group has the right to establish and maintain institutions for the education of children and provide therein instruction in its own religion, and there shall be no discrimination on the ground only of religion in any law relating to such institutions or in the administration of any such law.

      (3) No person shall be required to receive instruction in or to take part in any ceremony or act of worship of a religion other than his own.

      (4) For the purposes of clause (3), the religion of a person under the age of 18 years shall be decided by his parent or guardian.

      Slovakia (1993)

      Article 12 [Equality]

      (2) Basic rights and liberties on the territory of the Slovak Republic are guaranteed to everyone regardless of sex, race, color of skin, language, creed and religion, political or other beliefs, national or social origin, aYliation to a nation or ethnic group, property, descent, or another status. No one must be harmed, preferred, or discriminated against on these grounds….

      Article 24 [Freedom of Religion]

      (1) The freedoms of thought, conscience, religion, and faith are guaranteed. This right also comprises the possibility to change one’s religious belief or faith. Everyone has the right to be without religious belief. Everyone has the right to publicly express his opinion.

      (2) Everyone has the right to freely express his religion or faith on his own or together with others, privately or publicly, by means of divine and religious services, by observing religious rites, or by participating in the teaching of religion.

      (3) Churches and religious communities administer their own affairs. In particular, they constitute their own bodies, inaugurate their clergymen, organize the teaching of religion, and establish religious orders and other church institutions independently of state bodies….

      Article 25

      (2) No one must be forced to perform military service if this runs counter to his conscience or religious belief. The details will be specified in a law.

      South Korea (1948)

      Article 11 [Equality]

      (1) All citizens are equal before the law, and there may be no discrimination in political, economic, social, or cultural life on account of sex, religion, or social status.

      (2) No privileged caste is recognized or ever established in any form….

      Article 19 [Conscience]

      All citizens enjoy the freedom of conscience.

      Article 20 [Religion, Church]

      (1) All citizens enjoy the freedom of religion.

      (2) No state religion may be recognized, and church and state are to be separated.

      Spain (1978)

      Article 14 [Equality]

      Spaniards are equal before the law, without any discrimination for reasons of birth, race, sex, religion, opinion, or any other personal or social condition or circumstance.

      Article 16 [Religion, Belief, No State Church]

      (1) Freedom of ideology, religion, and cult of individuals and communities is guaranteed without any limitation in their demonstrations other than that which is necessary for the maintenance of public order protected by law.

      (2) No one may be obliged to make a declaration on his ideology, religion, or beliefs.

      (3) No religion shall have a state character. The public powers shall take into account the religious beliefs of Spanish society and maintain the appropriate relations of cooperation, with the Catholic Church and other denominations.

      Syria (1973)

      Article 3 [Islam]

      (1) The religion of the President of the Republic has to be Islam.

      (2) Islamic jurisprudence is a main source of legislation.

      Article 7 [Oath]

      The constitutional oath is as follows: “I swear by God the Almighty to sincerely preserve the republican, democratic, and popular system, respect the constitution and the laws, watch over the interests of the people and the security of the homeland, and work and struggle for the realization of the Arab nation’s aims of unity, freedom, and socialism.”

      Tibet (Charter of the Tibetans In-Exile, 1991)

      Article 9 Equality before the Law

      All Tibetan citizens shall be equal before the law and shall enjoy the rights and freedoms set forth in this Chapter without discrimination on grounds of birth, sex, race, religion, language, lay or ordained, social origin, rich or poor, elected position or other status.

      Article 10 Religious Freedom

      All religious denominations are equal before the law. Every Tibetan shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. These religious rights include the freedom to manifest one’s belief, to receive initiation into religious traditions, practice with matters relating to religious commitment, such as preaching and worship of any religion, either alone or in community with others.

      Article 12 Other Fundamental Rights and Freedoms

      Subject to any law imposing restrictions in the immediate and ultimate interest of the Tibetan people and for the benefit of the public, and subject to legal restrictions imposed by the Tibetan Assembly during the tenureship of a civil servant, all Tibetans shall be entitled to the following rights and freedoms:l…

      (g) right to form, and become a member of any religious, cultural, economic, corporate, union or other association….

      Tunisia (1991)

      Article 1 [State]

      Tunisia is a free State, independent and sovereign; its religion is Islam, its language is Arabic, and its form is the Republic.

      Article 5 [Personal Integrity, Conscience, Belief]

      The Tunisian Republic guarantees the inviolability of the human person and freedom of conscience, and protects the free exercise of beliefs, with reservation that they do not disturb the public order.

      Article 38 [Head of State]

      The President of the Republic is the Head of the State. His religion is Islam.

      Article 40 [Eligibility]

      (1) Any Tunisian who does not carry another nationality, who is of Moslem religion, and whose father, mother, and paternal and maternal grandfather have been of Tunisian nationality without interruption, may present himself as a candidate for the Presidency of the Republic….

      Article 42 [Oath]

      The elected President of the Republic gives the following oath before the National Parliament: “I swear by God Almighty to safeguard the national independence and the integrity of the territory, to respect the Constitution and the law, and to watch meticulously over the interests of the Nation.”

      United States (1789)

      Article VI [Religious Tests]

      The Senators and Representatives …, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

      Amendment i [Religion, Speech, Press,

      Assembly, Petition]

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      Zambia (1991)

      Article 19 [Freedom of Conscience]

      (1) Except with his own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of conscience, and for the purposes of this Article the said freedom includes freedom of thought and religion, freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others, and both in public and in private, to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

      (2) Except with his own consent, or, if he is a minor, the consent of his guardian, no person attending any place of education shall be required to receive religious instruction or to take part in or attend any religious ceremony or observance if that instruction, ceremony or observance relates to a religion other than his own.

      (3) No religious community or denomination shall be prevented from providing religious instruction for persons of that community or denomination in the course of any education provided by the community or denomination or from establishing and maintaining institutions to provide social services for such persons.

      (4) No person shall be compelled to take any oath which is contrary to his religion or belief or to take any oath in a manner which is contrary to his religion or belief.

      (5) Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this Article to the extent that it is shown that the law in question makes provision which is reasonably required

      (a) in the interests of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health; or

      (b) for the purpose of protecting the rights and freedoms of other persons, including the right to observe and practice any religion without the unsolicited intervention of members of any other religion; and except so far as that provision or, the thing done under the authority thereof as the case may be, is shown not to be reasonably justified in a democratic society.

      Politics and Religion on the Internet

      Scholars examining the interrelationship of politics and religion are increasingly turning to the Internet for both primary and secondary research materials. Thousands of Web sites offer an ever growing array of resources, ranging from recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions about the separation of church and state to position papers from advocacy organizations to information about individual denominations.

      To assist in the search for useful information, the editors have compiled the following list of sites relevant to the study of politics and religion. The list was current at the time of the book’s publication in December 2006. The editors attempted to choose sites that showed some degree of stability, but site addresses may change or sites may disappear altogether.

      The list is by no means comprehensive, and many other excellent sites can be identified using a search engine such as AltaVista (http://altavista.digital.com) or a directory such as Yahoo! (http://www.yahoo.com). The list is divided into three sections:

      1. Politics and Religion: Sites that provide specific information about the topic.

      2. Meta-Indexes: Sites that offer multiple links to other religion-oriented Internet sites.

      3. Individual Denominations and Organizations: Sites about specific religious denominations or sites operated by religious organizations. Unless otherwise noted, the sites are oYcially sponsored by their respective churches or groups.

      Politics and Religion

      American Civil Liberties Union

      The ACLU site provides updates about religion cases in the courts, news about religion-related bills before Congress, and briefing papers about such issues as the separation of church and state, the proposed constitutional amendment on school prayer, and the establishment clause and public schools. The site also has materials about cyber liberties, the death penalty, lesbian and gay rights, and reproductive rights, among other issues.

      Americans United for Separation of Church and State

      This site’s highlight is its summaries of church-state legislation introduced in state legislatures around the country. It also has news about recent court cases, updates about congressional actions, articles from the magazine Church and State, and pamphlets about such topics as prayer in public schools and education vouchers.

      Catholics for a Free Choice

      The highlight of this site is a publication titled Everything You Always Wanted to Know About the Catholic Vote. Some of the individual article titles include “What do Catholics do in the voting booth?” “Where do Catholics live and vote?” “What’s a Catholic politician to do about abortion?” and “How much politicking can churches do?”

      Christian Coalition

      The Christian Coalition site offers news reports about religious rights, information about state and international aYliates, and selected articles from the magazine Christian American. It also has contact information for members of Congress and state legislatures around the country, calendars of daily activities in the U.S. House and Senate, and weekly lists of congressional committee hearings.


      A strong collection of news stories about religious freedom issues in the Unted States is the highlight of the Free! site. It also has reports and brochures about religion and public schools, religion and the news media, religious liberty in America, and religion among prisoners, among other topics. The site is operated by the Freedom Forum, a foundation that focuses on free press and free speech issues.

      Legal Information Institute

      All U.S. Supreme Court decisions from May 1990 to the present are available at this site, in addition to nearly six hundred historic decisions from before May 1990. The site also provides the Court calendar for the current term and the schedule of oral arguments. It is operated by Cornell University’s Legal Information Institute.

      National Conference of Catholic Bishops/United States Catholic Conference

      A variety of church documents, congressional testimony, fact sheets, and press releases about such topics as abortion, cloning, the death penalty, euthanasia, the federal budget, immigration, landmines, refugees, and school vouchers are provided at this site.

      National Council of Churches

      This site, which is operated by the National Council of Churches, features congressional testimony, legislative analyses, and other resources about religious freedom and persecution around the world. It also has resolutions about antipersonnel landmines, organ and tissue donations, and other issues.

      People for the American Way Foundation

      This site features numerous reports about what it terms the “religious right.” Some of the available titles include “Parental Rights: The Trojan Horse of the Religious Right Attack on Public Education,” “Attacks on the Freedom to Learn,” “Artistic Freedom Under Attack,” “The Republicans and the Religious Right,” “Teaching Fear: The Religious Right’s Campaign Against Sexuality Education,” “Buying a Movement: Right-Wing Foundations and American Politics,” and “How to Win: Fighting the Religious Right in Your Community.” The site also has a set of fact sheets titled “Who’s Who on the Religious Right” and updates about religious liberty issues being considered by Congress.

      Religion and the Founding of the American Republic

      The Library of Congress produced this site, which is an online companion to an exhibit at the library about religion’s role in the early days of the United States. The online version has images of more than two hundred objects, including early American books, manuscripts, letters, prints, paintings, and artifacts, in addition to text. The exhibit is divided into seven sections: America as a Religious Refuge: The Seventeenth Century, Religion in Eighteenth-Century America, Religion and the American Revolution, Religion and the Congress of the Confederation, Religion and the State Governments, Religion and the Federal Government, and Religion and the New Republic.


      THOMAS, which is named for Thomas Jefferson and operated by the Library of Congress, offers a wealth of congressional information. THOMAS’s highlight is its databases containing the full text of all bills introduced in Congress since 1989, the full text of the Congressional Record since 1989, and status and summary information for all bills introduced since 1973. THOMAS also offers special links to bills that have received or are expected to receive floor action during the current week and to newsworthy bills that are pending or that have recently been approved. Finally, THOMAS has selected committee reports, answers to frequently asked questions about accessing congressional information, publications titled How Our Laws Are Made and Enactment of a Law, and links to many other congressional Web sites.


      Academic Info—Religious Studies

      Internet resources about comparative religion are featured at this site, which is operated by Academic Info. The listings cover such topics as world scriptures, women and religion, studying religion in the electronic age, online publications, religious tolerance and dialogue, religion in the ancient world, Eastern religions, Islam, Zoroastrianism, and new religious movements, among others. Some of the listings are annotated.

      APS Guide to Resources in Theology

      The annotated links at this site are divided by subject: Anglican/Episcopalian resources, Catholic resources, Orthodox resources, evangelical resources, Protestant resources, ecumenical resources, manuscripts/papyri, textual resources, and miscellaneous resources. It is operated by the University of St. Michael’s College, which is aYliated with the University of Toronto.

      Berkeley Buddhist Research Center

      Translations of Buddhist manuscripts, publications in the Berkeley Buddhist Studies Series, and links to more than two dozen related Internet sites are featured at this site. It is maintained by the Group in Buddhist Studies at the University of California at Berkeley and the Berkeley Buddhist Research Center.

      Catholic Online

      Catholic Online provides links to dozens of Catholic-oriented sites, ranging from the Catholic News Service to the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights to the Pro-Life Council.

      The Center for Middle Eastern Studies

      A highlight of this site is its links to Internet sites about specific countries of the Middle East. It also offers hundreds of links to Web sites around the world about such topics as ancient history and archaeology, arts and culture, business and economics, travel, news, religion, and oil and natural resources. The site is operated by the University of Texas at Austin.

      Christianity Online

      A searchable database containing links to more than eight thousand Christian Web sites around the world is the highlight of Christianity Online. The links also can be browsed by more than a dozen subjects, including Bible and reference, churches and denominations, ministries and organizations, newsstand, and spiritual growth. Another database contains links to more than sixty-nine hundred church Web sites. The site is operated by Christianity Today and also offers daily religious news stories.

      Church Internet Assistance

      Christian-related Internet sites are the focus of Church Internet Assistance, which provides links to hundreds of sites that can be searched or browsed by subject. Dozens of subjects are covered, including abortion alternatives, campus ministries, denominations, ethics, health and medical services, marriage, missions, reference and research, relief and social services, witnessing, and world relief.

      Finding God in Cyberspace: A Guide to Religious Studies Resources on the Internet

      The annotated links at this site are divided into dozens of subjects, ranging from religion in cyberspace to Internet tools for finding religious studies print sources. The site is operated by a librarian at Franciscan University of Steubenville.

      Interfaith Working Group

      The hundreds of links at this site are divided by political topic. Some of the subjects covered include homosexuality and religion, religion and sexual orientation, equal treatment for sexual minorities, reproductive freedom, the separation of church and state, religious diversity, and the radical religious right. The site is operated by the Interfaith Working Group, a Philadelphia organization that supports gay rights, reproductive freedom, and the separation of church and state.

      Political Science and Public Policy Resources

      This site has links to Internet sites operated by political science journals, think tanks, U.S. political parties and groups, and political science associations. It also provides links to sites that provide information about public policy issues, campaigns, international relations, and area studies. It is operated by a librarian at Michigan State University.

      Politics and Religion Academic Network (PARAN)

      PARAN provides links to research centers and groups, documents, and conferences. The Politics and Religion Specialist Group of the Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom operates the site.

      Religion Religions Religious Studies

      This superb site has hundreds of annotated links to some of the best religion resources on the Internet. The listings are divided by a dozen major topics, including Afro-European traditions, Asian traditions, guides to Internet sites, new or alternative religions, relations among religions, Internet and religion, and mysticism resources, among others. The site is maintained by an associate professor at the University of Florida.

      Virtual Religion Index

      The detailed site annotations provided by the Virtual Religion Index make it an excellent place to start a search for religion information on the Internet. The links are divided into more than a dozen topics, including academia, American religions, ancient Near Eastern studies, anthropology and sociology of religion, archaeology and religious art, biblical studies, Buddhist tradition, Christian tradition, comparative religion, confessional agencies, East Asian studies, ethics and moral values, Greco-Roman studies, Hindu tradition, Islam, Jewish studies, philosophy and theology, and psychology of religion. The site is operated by a professor in the Religion Department at Rutgers University.

      World Council of Churches

      The highlight of this site is its links to more than one hundred Internet sites operated by religious denominations around the world. It also offers links to sites that provide religious news from various denominations and religious publications, in addition to sites operated by aid, development, and relief organizations, many of which are church aYliated.

      Worldwide Faith News

      A database containing thousands of oYcial press releases and other documents issued by religious organizations around the world is the highlight of this site. The documents can be searched in English, French, German, and Spanish. Users also can browse the headlines of all releases posted in the last thirty days and subscribe to a mailing list to receive all documents as they are posted.


      The religion section of the Yahoo! directory offers links to more than ten thousand Internet sites. The links, which are divided by subject, cover church-state issues, creation vs. evolution, faiths and practices, organizations, science and religion, and women, among many other topics.

      Individual Denominations and Organizations

      All About Mormons (unofficial)

      American Baptist Churches in the USA

      The Assemblies of God Online

      The Baha’i World

      Billy Graham Evangelistic Association

      The Canadian Council of Churches

      Catholic Information Center on Internet (unofficial)

      Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)

      The Church of Christ, Scientist

      The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

      Church of the Nazarene

      Church of the Province of Southern Africa (Anglican)

      The Church of Scotland

      The Churches of Christ

      DharmaNet International (Buddhism—unofficial)

      Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople

      The Episcopal Church

      Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

      Friends United Meeting (Quaker)

      General Board of Church and Society, United Methodist Church

      Greek Orthodox Church of America

      The Hindu Universe (unofficial)

      Hong Kong Christian Council

      International Pentecostal Holiness Church

      Islamic Affairs Department at the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia (unofficial)

      Islamic Foundation of America (unofficial)

      Islamic Texts and Resources MetaPage (unofficial)

      Jewishnet (unofficial)

      The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod

      The Lutheran World Federation

      The Moravian Church

      National Council of Churches in Korea

      Orthodox Church in America

      The Orthodox Presbyterian Church

      Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

      Presbyterian Church in America

      Presbyterian Church of Brazil

      Project Genesis: Torah on the Information Superhighway (unofficial)

      Protestant Church in Germany

      The Religious Society of Friends (Quaker)

      SBCNet (Southern Baptist Convention)

      Seventh-day Adventist Church

      South African Council of Churches

      Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch

      Unitarian Universalist Association

      United Church of Christ

      United Methodist Information

      United Pentecostal Church International

      The Worldwide Anglican Communion


      Appendix: Glossary


      Following is a selection of terms that arise frequently in discussions about politics and religion. Far from comprehensive, the glossary nevertheless covers many of the concepts, sacred texts, movements, and phrases that may be unfamiliar to readers and do not appear as separate entries in the encyclopedia.

      Act of Settlement. British act of 1701 requiring that the monarch be a member of the Church of England.

      Act of Supremacy. British act of 1534 recognizing Henry VIII and succeeding monarchs as “the only supreme head on earth of the Church of England.” The act of 1559 established the monarch, then Elizabeth I, as “Supreme Governor” of the Church of England.

      Act of Toleration. British act of 1689 that granted limited religious liberty to all Protestant sects. See also Dissenting churches.

      Act of Uniformity. English law of 1662 that required the use of the Book of Common Prayer and made absence from church punishable by a fine. The act was directed against Roman Catholics and Protestant dissenters from the policies of the Church of England.

      Aggiornamento. The goal of “updating” pursued by liberal Roman Catholic leaders of the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965). In seeking to synthesize ancient faith and modern thought, these leaders, including Pope John XXIII, encouraged ressourcement, the selective retrieval of neglected Catholic theological and spiritual traditions.

      Allah. The one true God in Islam.

      Antinomianism. The Christian belief that according to the Gospel the moral law is irrelevant because faith alone is necessary for salvation.

      Apostolic succession. The notion that the power for ministry conferred on the apostles by Christ has been passed along to their successors (the bishops, in Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, and Eastern Orthodoxy).

      Augsburg, Peace of. Law of 1555 allowing princes within the Holy Roman Empire to decide whether Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism would prevail in their lands.

      Autocephalous. Having its own bishop; independent of external authority. The term describes those national Eastern Orthodox churches that operate independently of the ecumenical patriarchate. See also Patriarch.

      Autochthonous. Term referring to a church that has local membership, origin, and financial resources. It distinguishes churches that originate in the community from those initiated by outsiders.

      Ayatollah. “Sign of God”; the title for the highest-ranking legal scholar in Twelver Shiʿism. See also Twelver Shiʿism.

      Blue laws. American laws regulating private and public behavior. The first blue laws, printed on blue paper, were enacted in the seventeenth century in the theocratic colony of New Haven and prohibited drunkenness and the breaking of the Sabbath, among other activities deemed offensive. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the prohibition movement gave rise to similar laws outlawing the sale of cigarettes and work on Sunday.

      Bodhisattva. In general, one committed to attaining the status of a Buddha; one who vows to attain perfect awakening for the sake of all living creatures.

      Book of Common Prayer. Liturgical book of the Anglican Church.

      Book of Mormon. Scriptures of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Church members, known as Mormons, believe that the book was revealed on gold tablets to Joseph Smith, the church’s founder.

      Brahma. The supreme being in Hinduism.

      Broad Church movement. Nineteenth-century movement within the Church of England advocating liberal stands on theology and Bible study. The movement challenged Low Church proponents, who emphasized the Bible and preaching. See also High Church; Low Church; Oxford movement.

      Caesaropapism. Form of government in which the lay head of state exercises authority over the church and seeks to influence doctrinal or liturgical affairs. A form of caesaropapism existed under Charlemagne and in czarist Russia, the Holy Roman Empire, and Gallican France. See also Augsburg, Peace of; Cuius regio, eius religio; Gallicanism.

      Caliph. The successor of Muhammad and the supreme leader of the unified Muslim community. The rulership of the caliph is the caliphate.

      Canon law. The codified body of regulations governing, individually, the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican Churches.

      Charismatics. Christian individuals, groups, or churches that place special emphasis on the activity of the Holy Spirit in religious life. Charismatic persons practice ecstatic forms of worship and believe in the “gifts of the Holy Spirit,” including speaking in tongues (glossolalia).

      Concordats. Public treaties between the Vatican and individual secular governments.

      Confessing Church. The church movement led by theologians Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer that resisted Adolf Hitler’s incorporation of German churches into the Nazi Party during World War II. The Confessing Church in 1934 issued the Barmen Declaration opposing Nazi aggression and proclaiming the independence of the German Evangelical Church. See also Barmen Declaration in Documents section.

      Consistory. A collegial body comprising both pastors and lay elders; in Roman Catholicism, a formal meeting of cardinals convoked and presided over by the pope.

      Coptic Church. The independent Christian church in Egypt and Ethiopia. The Coptic Church is believed to have been founded by Mark the Evangelist, the first bishop of Alexandria.

      Cuius regio, eius religio. “In a ruler’s country, the ruler’s religion”; the guiding principle of the Peace of Augsburg (1555), permitting rulers of the Holy Roman Empire to choose the religion of their realm. See also Augsburg, Peace of.

      Curia. The Roman Catholic Church’s central administrative offices.

      Dar al-Harb.See Dar al-Islam.

      Dar al-Islam. The land of Islam, where Islamic law applies; one of the two spheres into which Islamic legal scholars divide the world, the other sphere being Dar al-Harb, the land of war, where the absence of Islamic law fosters anarchy and immorality. It is the duty of the Islamic state to reduce Dar al-Harb —through peaceful means if possible, through war if necessary—until it has been incorporated into Dar al-Islam.

      Deism. The system of belief asserting that God created the world but does not exercise control over it.

      Dhimmis. Non-Muslim religious groups exercising communal autonomy within the Islamic state in return for tax payments.

      Diaconia theology. The policy of accommodation followed by some East European churches and world church bodies in response to the advance of communist atheism in the 1940s and 1950s.

      Dispensationalism. The Christian belief that history is divided into several periods, or dispensations, the last of which will be the reign of Christ. A version of dispensationalism, termed premillennial, is professed by some evangelical Protestant groups and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. It holds that Christ will reign one thousand years in Jerusalem before the final judgment.

      Dissenting churches. Churches that object to the requirements of established state churches; also known as nonconforming churches. The term was first used to describe Protestant churches that dissented from the policies of the Church of England not long after the Reformation.

      Dissolution of monasteries. Occurred in Great Britain in the 1530s under the supervision of Thomas Cromwell, minister to King Henry VIII. Following the king’s break with the Roman Catholic Church over his decision to divorce his wife, Katharine, Catholic clergy were persecuted, monasteries were seized by the crown, and some of their property was given to the landed gentry.

      Divine right of kings. A monarch’s claim to absolute authority based on the belief that the right to rule has been granted by God and comes from birth alone.

      Eastern rite churches. Catholic churches that originated in eastern Europe, Asia, or Africa, possess their own distinctive liturgical traditions, and are distinguished by their national or ethnic character. Eastern rite churches are outnumbered within the Catholic Church by those that practice the Latin rite.

      Ecclesiastical. Concerning the laws, jurisdiction, or official organization of the church.

      Edict of Nantes. Decree of 1598 that defined the rights of the persecuted French Protestants, or Huguenots, in the wake of the Wars of Religion. Among the rights established by the decree were freedom of conscience and worship and the right to hold public office.

      Encyclical. In Roman Catholicism, a papal letter directed to a group of bishops with the intent of informing the entire church on a matter of moral importance. Many encyclicals had wide-ranging influence; for example, Rerum Novarum (1891) prepared the way for the involvement of the modern church in social and economic issues around the world.

      Episcopal. Governed by bishops (from the Latin episcopus).

      Erastian government. A unitary form of government in which religion is subject to the state. The term is derived from the name of Thomas Erastus, a Swiss Protestant theologian who feared the encroachment of the church upon civil authority. See also Theocracy.

      Establishment clause.See Free exercise clause.

      Fatwa. A religious edict concerning law, morals, or doctrine issued by a recognized authority on Islamic jurisprudence.

      Fifth Monarchists. British religious group spun off from the Particular Baptists and active from the 1640s to the 1660s. Its members believed that the reign of Jesus Christ on Earth might be ushered in by apocalyptic violence. Consequently, they were involved in several insurrections in the late 1650s and early 1660s. See also Particular Baptists.

      First Great Awakening. Revival movement based largely on Calvinist theology that occurred in the American colonies during the 1730s and 1740s. The movement helped to unify colonists and prepare them for their break with England. See also Second Great Awakening.

      Five pillars of Islam. The five duties required of all Muslims: (1) the statement of faith (“There is no God but God, and Muhammad is the Prophet of God”); (2) almsgiving; (3) prayer performed five times daily; (4) fasting from dawn to sunset during the month of Ramadan, the ninth month of the Islamic year; and (5) the pilgrimage to Mecca, or hajj.

      Free exercise clause. The provision in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution granting freedom of religion and prohibiting state establishment of religion.

      Gallicanism. A movement originated by the French Roman Catholic Church in 1682 that advocated administrative independence from papal control for the Roman Catholic churches of each nation. See also Ultramontanism.

      Glorious Revolution of 1688. The events culminating in the ouster of the English king James II, who was believed to want to restore Roman Catholicism in place of the Anglican Church, and the succession of Protestants William of Orange and his wife Mary (daughter of James) at the invitation of parliamentary leaders. The revolution guaranteed the supremacy of Parliament over the king and assured the Protestant succession.

      Hadith. The sayings and actions attributed to Muhammad that do not appear in the Qurʾan. See also Qurʾan.

      Hajj. The pilgrimage to Mecca, to be made if at all possible at least once in the life of every Muslim. See also Five pillars of Islam.

      High Church. The liturgical tradition within the Church of England that emphasizes “Catholic” ritual and sacramental theology, as opposed to the more Protestant Low Church tradition. See also Broad Church movement; Low Church; Oxford movement.

      Holy See. The Diocese of Rome, the chief diocese of the Roman Catholic Church; the Vatican.

      Huguenots. Calvinist Protestants who suffered persecution in France from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries. See also Edict of Nantes.

      Imam. In Sunni Islam, a prayer leader. In Shiʿi Islam, the term refers to a historical leader of the Shiʿi community. Sunnis and Shiʿis differ over the imam’s selection, status, and role in the Muslim community.

      Inculturation. In the Roman Catholic Church, the process by which the Gospel is adapted to a particular culture.

      Indulgence. The remission of temporal punishment for sins committed. The selling of indulgences by the Roman Catholic Church came under attack in the late Middle Ages and was one of the principal causes of the Protestant Reformation.

      Intifada. The Arab uprising initiated in 1987 against Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

      Jahiliyya. The period of “pre-Islamic ignorance” before knowledge of God brought civilization to the world.

      Jihad. Islamic term for struggle, especially that of believers against persecution and idolatry. This struggle may take the form of war in certain circumstances.

      Just wage and just price. The idea that the determination of wages and prices should depend not only on market forces but also on the responsibility of society to ensure that work is rewarded according to the reasonable needs of workers.

      Kaʿba. The cubic, black-draped stone structure located within the Grand Mosque in Mecca and regarded by Muslims as the holiest place on earth.

      Karma. The doctrine held by Buddhists and Hindus that the force generated by a person’s actions, whether positive or negative, has consequences that determine the cycle of birth and death.

      Koran.See Qurʿan.

      Lateran Treaty. The concordat signed in 1929 by Italian dictator Benito Mussolini and the papal secretary of state. In establishing Vatican City, recognizing it as an independent state, and making Roman Catholicism the official religion of Italy, the agreement resolved the “Roman Question,” or the problems that arose from Italy’s restriction in 1871 of papal sovereignty. See also Roman Question.

      “Lemon test.” The judicial test formulated by the U.S. Supreme Court to determine whether laws violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Introduced in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the test holds that a statute must meet three criteria to be constitutionally permissible: (1) it must have a secular legislative purpose, (2) its principal effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and (3) it must not foster excessive government entanglement with religion.

      Low Church. The liturgical tradition within the Church of England that emphasizes evangelism, preaching, and the Bible, as opposed to the High Church, or Anglo-Catholic, tradition. See also Broad Church movement; High Church; Oxford movement.

      Marabout. In West Africa, a Muslim spiritual leader who is influential in national politics. Marabouts are religious specialists trained in the knowledge of the Qurʾan, as well as in traditional medicine, the making of amulets, and occult science.

      Maronites. Lebanese Christians whose religious practice incorporates features of Roman Catholic and Eastern rites.

      Monophysitism. The belief, present among churches in Armenia, Syria, Egypt, and Ethiopia, that Jesus Christ had only one nature, wholly divine. It opposes the notion that Christ was both fully God and fully human.

      Mujahedin. Muslim activists who seek to resanctify Muslim society, sometimes by waging war. The name was used by Muslim rebels fighting the Soviet-backed Marxist regime in Afghanistan throughout the 1980s.

      Nonconforming churches.See Dissenting churches.

      Oxford movement. The nineteenth-century movement within the Church of England that emphasized ritual and reinvigorated the High Church tradition. The movement challenged Low Church proponents, who stressed the Bible and preaching. See also Broad Church movement; Low Church.

      Panca Sila. In Indonesia, the “five principles” accepted as the ideological basis of the state by most Muslim leaders, who believe that Islam does not require an Islamic state. The Panca Sila rejects formal separation of religion and state, affirms that religion is a public good, and directs the state to promote religious life.

      Papal States. Independent territory in central Italy under the temporal rule of the popes until 1870, when Italy was unified. See also Roman Question.

      Particular Baptists. A sect of Puritans who renounced infant baptism and sought Spirit-led preaching rather than ministry by designated clerics.

      Pastoral letter. In Roman Catholicism, a letter on church instruction or activity from a bishop or bishops to his people.

      Patriarch. Title for a bishop with authority over other bish- ops in the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Oriental Orthodox churches.

      Peace churches. Churches opposed to war on ethical grounds, including Mennonites, Amish, and Quakers.

      Petrine Commission. Foundation of the Roman Catholic doctrine of papal primacy, which recognizes the direct authority of the pope, the successor of St. Peter, over the whole church. The commission is expressed in Christ’s words to Peter: “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I give you the keys to the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

      Pillarization. The division of society on the basis of religion or ideology, which has been institutionalized in the Low Countries (Belgium and the Netherlands).

      Primus interpares. “First among equals.” The term describes the authority of the chief bishop in Anglican and Orthodox churches in relation to other bishops. Unlike the authority of the pope, which is absolute and extends over the entire Roman Catholic Church, this authority is considered honorary, conferring prestige and an elevated platform from which to speak on church matters but lacking in enforcement power.

      Qur ʿan (also Koran). The sacred book of Islam containing the word of God as revealed to the prophet Muhammad. See also Hadith.

      Rapture. In the New Testament, the event during which the elect on earth, at the end of the world, will be “raised into the air” with Christ. The rapture figures prominently in millennialist theology.

      Reformed churches. Churches that hold to the system of doctrine and polity as set out by John Calvin in the sixteenth century and expressed in various “Reformed” confessions.

      Roman Question. The complications arising from the 1871 annexation by Italy of the Papal States, the independent territory under temporal papal authority. Italy awarded the Roman Catholic Church an annual indemnity as compensation for the loss of the Papal States, but the church refused to accept it. The Roman Question was resolved by the Lateran Treaty (1929). See also Lateran Treaty.

      Sayyid. Islamic term for prince or lord.

      Second Great Awakening ( 1800 1835). A religious revival movement based on the Enlightenment principle of confidence in human reason. It envisioned the possibility of self-improvement for individuals and reform for society as it strove to abolish slavery, reduce drunkenness, improve education, and help the indigent. See also First Great Awakening.

      Shari ʿa. Islamic law based on the Qurʾan and the sunna. See also Qurʾan; Sunna.

      Shaykh. An elder, chief, teacher, or honored person of Islam.

      Shi ʿi. One of the two major branches of Islam, the other being the larger Sunni branch. Shi>i Muslims believe that Ali ibn Abi Talib and his heirs are the rightful inheritors of Muhammad’s political and religious authority. See also Sunni; Twelver Shiʿism.

      Social Darwinism. The application of scientist Charles Darwin’s theories of biological evolution—“natural selection” and “survival of the fittest”—to human social and economic systems.

      Subsidiarity. A concept established by Pope Pius XI in the 1931 encyclical Quadragesimo Anno. Warning against the encroachments of the modern state, subsidiarity holds that a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its appropriate functions.

      Sufism. The mystical tradition of Islam.

      Sunna. The written record of the prophet Muhammad’s words and actions. Binding on all Muslims, the sunna, together with the Qurʾan, forms the Shariʿa, or Islamic law. See also Qurʾan; Shariʿa.

      Sunni. One of the two major branches of Islam, the other being the smaller Shiʿi branch. Sunni Muslims accept the sunna and the historic succession of the caliph, the leader chosen by elders as Muhammad’s successor. See also Caliph; Shiʿa; Sunna.

      Sura. A collection of verses contained in a single chapter or literary division of the Qurʾan.

      Syncretism. The intermingling of different beliefs and practices. The term is frequently applied to the religions of developing nations.

      Synod. A gathering of church officials and representatives with policy-making authority.

      Ta ʿif accord. Agreement of 1989 that provided the blueprint for ending the Lebanese civil war (1975–1990). The accord retained Lebanon’s confessional system of government, in which parliamentary seats are allocated by religious affiliation, but reshuffled the political privileges between religious sects. Parliament was split evenly between Christians and Muslims, the prerogatives of the Maronite president were reduced by the power of the Sunni prime minister, and the power of the Shiʿi speaker of the parliament was enhanced.

      Talmud. The collection of authoritative writings that constitutes Jewish civil and religious law.

      Theocracy. A unitary form of government in which the state is subordinate to religion; the opposite of an Erastian form of government. See also Erastian government; Unitary government.

      Theodicy. An attempt to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering in the world with a belief in a God who is just, all powerful, and all knowing.

      Torah. Specifically, the five books of Moses, or the Pentateuch. More broadly, the term refers to all of the Hebrew scriptures that make up the Old Testament.

      Tories. British political party. The first Tories were supporters of the duke of York, the future James II, whose succession to the throne was opposed because of his Roman Catholicism. Led by the first earl of Shaftesbury, those who opposed succession came to be known as Whigs. Tories were supporters of divine right, tradition, and ecclesiastical uniformity.

      Trent, Council of. Roman Catholic ecumenical council held between 1545 and 1563 in Trent, Italy, that sought to reform the church and respond to the challenges of the Protestant Reformation.

      Twelver Shi ʿism. The largest movement within Shiʿi Islam. Twelver Shiʿis believe that twelve imams, or authoritative leaders of the community and interpreters of religion, existed on earth, the last one having left the world in 874. Since then, Twelver Shiʿis have looked for guidance in religious and political matters to their scholars, called mujtahids or ayatollahs.

      Ulama . Scholars of Islamic law.

      Ultramontanism. A movement that called for greater papal supremacy over the national churches. Ultramontanism backed the universal supremacy of the pope and culminated in the decree of papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council (1869–1870). See also Gallicanism.

      Umma. The Muslim community of believers.

      Unitary government. Form of government in which church and state are not separate but unified. See also Erastian government; Theocracy.

      “Urbi et orbi.” “To the city [Rome] and the world”; the designation given certain papal blessings.

      Vedas. The wide-ranging collection of Hindu sacred texts.

      Westminster Confession. The Calvinist statement of belief drafted in 1643 and adopted by the Scottish Parliament in 1649. It is the creed of English-speaking Presbyterians.

      Whigs.See Tories.

      Yeshiva. A Jewish academy that instructs its all-male student body in talmudic literature; also a Jewish primary or secondary school offering secular as well as religious courses. See also Talmud.

      Yishuv. The Jewish community in Israel.

    Back to Top

    Copy and paste the following HTML into your website