Part III | Expanded Analysis
Category G | Extrinsic Benefits
Topic 35 | The good religious freedom does
While it is true that religion can be a source of, or contribute to, conflict and other problems, religious freedom is usually the solution to the ills created by religion.963
Introduction: The paradox of religion
Law and religion scholar Elizabeth A. Clark describes religion as a paradox:
"Many of the social norms [associated with religion] that some see as positive and pro-social, have led to discrimination and hostility to those seen as deviating from social norms, particularly in the sphere of gender and sexual identity, orientation, and expression. Religion can be a force for peace, yet the religiosity of a country alone does not affect the level of peace in countries worldwide, which is accounted for more by political and regional similarities. Religion promotes values needed in liberal democracies yet for thousands of years has also been used to prop up monarchies and repressive governments. Some believers can promote liberal democracy or pro-social behaviors, while other members of the same faith oppose them."964
Indeed, history is replete with examples of religion being invoked to carry out the noblest of goods965 and the most depraved of ills.966
Antidote to bad religion: More religion, not less
Yet, Clark argues, “If some versions of religion are extremely helpful while others are deleterious, religious freedom becomes even more important.”967
In places where religion is a negative force, there is almost never a robust culture of religious freedom or robust protections of religious freedom.968 Repression and persecution of religion can force religion out of the public square—where there is light and air—and into an “underground,” where anti-social ideologies and behaviors can breed.969 Religion-related terrorists, for example, “thrive in unfree countries.”970
Conversely, robust religious freedom facilitates a vibrant marketplace of ideas, in the light and air of the public square, where competition and self-regulation can help curb harmful religiously motivated actions.971 Reasonable state limitations on manifestations of religion, aligned with standards in international human rights treaties,972 can provide an adequate and effective backstop to ensure religious freedom is not simply a “blank check” for bad religious actors.973
Echoing ideals that underlie U.S. free speech protections, Clark notes, “the answer to bad religion is more religion, not less. And religious freedom is key to ensuring more religious choices and voices.”974
Antidote to monopolies
A related idea is that majoritarian religious groups—especially when they enjoy something like a monopoly position and are closely aligned with dominant political power—are more prone to oppression, corruption, and other anti-social behaviors than other religious groups.975 Just as freedom and competition are antidotes to monopolies, religious freedom is often the solution to the over-identification of political power with a particular religious group.976 It thus helps prevent the cultural or religious majority from coercively imposing their will on cultural and religious minorities.977
Danger in conflating religious freedom with religion
A key danger in discussing the benefits of religious freedom is to conflate religious freedom with religion itself. Religious freedom will not bring salvation, enlightenment, or nirvana. It is, however, a key prerequisite for those who wish to seek salvation, enlightenment, or nirvana. In facilitating individuals’ agency to seek for and find truth, religious freedom is a foundational principle even if it is not the ultimate principle.
Conclusion
Religious freedom benefits society in myriad ways, as discussed throughout this Toolkit. However, a fundamental benefit of religious freedom is that it is the solution to ills created by religion. Religious freedom facilitates an “agonistic pluralism”978—an open-air marketplace of religious ideas where individuals are free to explore, inspect, debate, share, and adopt disparate ideas that they individually and/or collectively conclude to be true. In doing so, religious freedom helps mitigate and prevent the negative effects of “bad religion,” including those that arise from religion as a monopoly or as an underground fugitive.
References
963. Toolkit Topic 35 (The good religious freedom does) was drafted with contributions by Juliette Green, 2022 ICLRS Summer Fellow.
964. Elizabeth A. Clark, The Impact of Religion and Religious Organizations, 49(1) BYU LAW REVIEW 1, 36 (2023), https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3463&context=lawreview (internal citations omitted).
965. See generally, e.g., HENRY LOUIS GATES, JR. THE BLACK CHURCH: THIS IS OUR STORY, THIS IS OUR SONG (2021) (discussing the role of the Black church in the U.S. civil rights movement).
966. See generally, e.g., LINDA GORDON, THE SECOND COMING OF THE KKK: THE KU KLUX KLAN OF THE 1920s AND THE AMERICAN POLITICAL TRADITION (2017) (discussing the Ku Klux Klan’s origins and motivations linked to white Protestant nationalism).
967. Clark, supra, at 37.
968. See, e.g., U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, 2024 ANNUAL REPORT (May 2024), https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/USCIRF%202024%20Annual%20Report.pdf (discussing religious freedom violations in Countries of Particular Concern such as Burma, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere).
969. Clark, supra, at 39–40 (citing, e.g., Philip Jenkins, The Politics of Persecuted Religious Minorities, in RELIGION AND SECURITY: THE NEW NEXUS IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 25 (Robert A. Seiple & Dennis R. Hoover eds., 2004)).
970. Id. at 38 (citing, e.g, Daniel Philpott, Religious Freedom and Peacebuilding: May I Introduce You Two?, 11 THE REVIEW OF FAITH & INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 31, 35 (2013)).
971. Id. at 37; see generally Shima Baradaran Baughman [Baradaran-Robison], Brett G. Scharffs & Elizabeth A. Clark [Sewell], Religious Monopolies and the Commodification of Religion, 32 PEPPERDINE LAW REVIEW 885 (2005).
972. See International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), at art. 18, Dec. 16, 1966, 993 U.N.T.S. 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.”).
973. See Clark, supra, at 37; see also Toolkit Topic 31 (Understanding limitations).
974. Clark, supra, at 37; see also RABBI JONATHAN SACKS, THE GREAT PARTNERSHIP: SCIENCE, RELIGION, AND THE SEARCH FOR MEANING 11 (2011) (“Religion has done harm; I acknowledge that candidly . . . . But the cure of bad religion is good religion, not no religion.”).
975. See Baradaran Baughman, Scharffs & Clark, supra, at 926–43; see also generally U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, supra (discussing religious freedom violations related to “monopolies” on religion in Burma, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere).
976. BRIAN J. GRIM & ROGER FINKE, THE PRICE OF FREEDOM DENIED: RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION AND CONFLICT IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY 207–10 (2011).
977. See Roger Finke, Presidential Address, Origins and Consequences of Religious Freedoms: A Global Overview, 74(3) SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION 297, 301–03 (2013); see also Peter Mandaville & Knox Thames, Common Ground on International Religious Freedom Enhances U.S. National Security, UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE (Oct. 26, 2022), https://www.usip.org/publications/2022/10/common-ground-international-religious-freedom-enhances-us-national-security (noting the “vicious cycle of declining stability” created when minority religions are oppressed and then respond, which leads to “higher levels of religious restrictions from governments or non-state actors”).
978. ROBERT WUTHNOW, WHY RELIGION IS GOOD FOR AMERICAN DEMOCRACY 254–56 (2021). Wuthnow borrows the term agonistic pluralism from Belgian (leftist/populist) political theorist Chantal Mouffe, who states that the real aim of democratic politics should be to transform “antagonism” into “agonism.” Mouffe asserts that democracy “is fundamentally messy, divided, and of necessity representative of diverse interests and values that can never be fully reconciled.” Id. at 7. She argues, “Awareness of the fact that difference allows us to constitute unity and totality while simultaneously providing essential limits is an agonistic approach that contributes [to] the subversion of the ever-present temptation that exists in democratic societies to naturalize their frontiers and essentialize their identities.” Chantal Mouffe, Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism, 66(3) SOCIAL RESEARCH 745, 755–57 (1999).