The Religion and State-Minorities dataset

2011 ◽  
Vol 48 (6) ◽  
pp. 807-816 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yasemin Akbaba ◽  
Jonathan Fox
Keyword(s):  
Religious Identity ◽  
Similar Data ◽  
Religious Institutions ◽  
Religious Discrimination ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Religious Minorities ◽  
Methodological Problems ◽  
Religion And State ◽  
Data Collections ◽  
The Relationship

This article presents the Religion and State-Minorities (RASM) dataset addressing its design, collection, and utility. RASM codes religious discrimination by governments against all 566 minorities in 175 countries which make a minimum population cutoff. It includes 24 specific types of religious discrimination coded yearly from 1990 to 2002. Religious discrimination measures the absence of the human right of religious freedom which includes limits on religious practices such as worship as well as limits on religious institutions such as churches and mosques which are not placed on the majority group. Thus the dataset focuses on the restriction of religious group rights. Most similar datasets, including those that focus on human rights in general, include a single discrimination score for a country. RASM is the first to contain an accounting of religious discrimination against all relevant religious minorities on an individual basis while avoiding some methodological problems of previous similar data collections. In order to demonstrate the utility of the dataset, we examine the relationship between religious identity and religious discrimination. We find that both majority and minority identities matter in predicting the treatment of religious minorities. This demonstration that codings for individual minorities add to our understanding of the correlates of religious discrimination is illustrative of the potential uses of this dataset. It also indicates that this type of data can be useful in other types of studies where dyads based on religious identity are relevant, such as studies of ethnic conflict and civil war.

Russian Empire’s Religious Institutions in the 18th - Early 20th Century: The Evolution of “Friend - Alien - Foe” Relations

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-31
Author(s):  
Alexandre Yu. Bendin
Keyword(s):  
20Th Century ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
18Th Century ◽  
Early 20Th Century ◽  
Religious Institutions ◽  
Religious Tolerance ◽  
Religious Discrimination ◽  
Old Believers ◽  
Institutional Relations ◽  
The Relationship

The Russian governments three principal institutions to regulate the empires diverse religions from the 18th to the early 20th century are examined. Its author describes the evolution of these bodies, their features and purpose, as well as defining the concept of religious security by analyzing its specific historical content. The author also discusses the relationship between the institutions of the official Russian Church, religious tolerance for foreign confessions, and discrimination against the Old Believers through the prism of friend - alien - foe relations. This approach helps us understand the hierarchical nature of the relations and contradictions that existed between the institutions, whose activities regulated the religious life of the Russian Empires subjects until 1905. The article goes on to analyze the relationship between the official legal status of the Russian Church, imperial tolerance, and religious discrimination. It concludes that the formation of the three state-religious institutions that began in the 18th century ended during the reign of Emperor Nicholas I. That time saw the beginning of the gradual evolution of friend - alien - foe inter-institutional relations, which peaked under Emperor Nicholas in 1904-1906. The author also considers the changes in the governments policy towards the Russian schism of the 17th century, which ultimately removed the friend-or-foe opposition in the relations between the Russian state, the Russian Church and the schismatic Old Believers. In accordance with the modernized legislation on religious tolerance, lawful Old Believers and sectarians moved from the category of religious and political foes to that of aliens, to which foreign confessions traditionally belonged. Under the new legal and political conditions, intolerance and religious discrimination against the schism ceased to be an instrument of state policy.

scholarly journals Principle of Laicity in Turkish and French Constitutions

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ebru Karaman
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Political Life ◽  
Religious Institutions ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
Constitutional Principle ◽  
Democratic State ◽  
Turkish Constitution ◽  
Religion And State ◽  
State Relations ◽  
The Relationship

To be assumed as a truly democratic state of law; the state should not make law according to a religion and not have a religion-based structure. Turkey and France are two countries different from others being in the discussions on secularism examining the relationship between religion and state. Because the laicity is one of the foundations of the regime and takes part in the legal system as a constitutional principle. In the first chapter the provisions on laicity in the Turkish Constitutions before the date 1982 and in the Turkish Constitution dated 1982 are going to be explained then the discussions in Turkey are going to be evaluated according to the Turkish Constitutional Court's approach to the principle of laicity. In the second part the provisions on the principle of laicity in the French Constitution dated 1958 are going to be explained, afterwards the discussions on laicity in France is going to take place. State and religion relations continue to be relevant a subject. That is why it still gives form to Turkish political life. The freedom of religion and the separation of religious and state relations are the requirements of the laic state. For a state these includes not to have an official religion, be impartial to all the religion and to treat equal to all the believers to different religions, to distinguish the religious institutions and state institutions and not to have an accordance between the rules of and the rules of religion.

Explaining Discrimination against Religious Minorities

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 389-416 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger Finke ◽  
Robert R. Martin ◽  
Jonathan Fox
Keyword(s):  
Recent Work ◽  
The State ◽  
Religious Discrimination ◽  
Religious Minorities ◽  
Minority Religions ◽  
State Discrimination ◽  
Independent Judiciary ◽  
Law And Politics ◽  
Religion And State ◽  
Religious Economy

AbstractResearch has documented that religious minorities often face the brunt of religious discrimination. Yet formal tests, using global collections, have been lacking. Building on the religious economy theory and recent work in law and politics, we propose that minority religions face discrimination from the state because they represent unwanted competition for the state supported religion, are viewed as a threat to the state and larger culture, and lack support from an independent judiciary. Drawing on the recently collected Religion and State-Minorities collection on more than 500 minority religions, we find support for each of the propositions, though the level of support varies based on the targets of state discrimination. In general, the support is strongest when explaining discrimination against minority religion's institutions and clergy, but weakens when explaining more general discrimination against the membership.

scholarly journals The Causes of Societal Discrimination against Religious Minorities in Christian-Majority Countries

Religions ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (8) ◽  
pp. 611
Author(s):  
Jonathan Fox ◽  
Roger Finke ◽  
Dane R. Mataic
Keyword(s):  
Religious Tradition ◽  
Religious Activity ◽  
Complex Relationship ◽  
Religious Discrimination ◽  
Religious Minorities ◽  
Abrahamic Religions ◽  
State Actors ◽  
Religion And State ◽  
The Impact

Using the Religion and State-Minorities and WVS datasets, this study examined the impact of religiosity in Christian-majority countries on societal religious discrimination (i.e., discrimination by non-state actors) against religious minorities. We found that increased levels of religious activity and commitment in a country lead to less discrimination against Muslim and Jewish religious minorities but more discrimination against Christian minorities. We offered two explanations for this complex relationship. First, when Christian-majority nations hold high levels of religiosity, other Abrahamic religions are potential allies in the fight against secularism. Second, in religiously active Christian-majority nations, the majority religion views Christian minorities (rather than Jews and Muslims) as an unwanted competitive threat because denomination switching is more common within the same religious tradition.

Religious Regulation: Discrimination Against Religious Minorities

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Fox
Keyword(s):  
Religious Identity ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
Religious Practices ◽  
Specific Situation ◽  
Religious Discrimination ◽  
Security Threat ◽  
Religious Minority ◽  
Religious Minorities ◽  
World Region ◽  
Definition Of

The definition of the term “religious discrimination” is contested, but for the purposes of this discussion religious discrimination is defined as restrictions on the religious practices or institutions of minority religions that are not placed on the majority religion. Religious discrimination can include restrictions on (a) religious practices, (b) religious institutions and clergy, (c) conversion and proselytizing, and (d) other types of discrimination. Globally, 88.5% of countries discriminate against at least one religious minority, and religious discrimination is becoming more common over time. Religious discrimination is the norm worldwide regardless of world region, government type, and majority religion. Motivations to discriminate are multiple and complex. They include (a) differences in religious ideologies and beliefs—many religions are ideologically intolerant of other religions; (b) religious organizations seeking an institutional monopoly in a country; (c) religious beliefs and practices running counter to liberal and secular values, including human rights; (d) countries seeking to protect their national culture from outside influences, including nonindigenous religions; (e) countries having anti-cult policies; (f) countries restricting minority religious practices that are considered objectionable to the national ideology or culture; (g) a historical conflict between minority groups and the majority; (h) the perception of minorities as a security threat; (i) the perception of minorities as a political threat ; (j) long-lasting historical tensions between the majority and minority; (k) national politicians mobilizing supporters along religious lines; (l) societal prejudices against minorities leading to government-based discrimination; (m) religious identity; (n) general discrimination that is also applicable to religious minorities. Although these are among the most common motivations for discrimination, in many cases the motivations are unique to the specific situation.

How Secular Are Western Governments’ Religion Policies?

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Fox
Keyword(s):  
Financial Support ◽  
Religious Practices ◽  
Religious Institutions ◽  
The West ◽  
Religious Minorities ◽  
Religion And State ◽  
Western Democracies

Abstract This study examines government religion policy in 26 Western democracies between 1990 and 2014 using the Religion and State round 3 (RAS3) dataset to determine whether these policies can be considered secular. While many assume that the West and its governments are secular and becoming more secular, the results contradict this assumption. All Western governments support religion in some manner, including financial support. All but Canada restrict the religious practices and/or religious institutions of religious minorities. All but Andorra and Italy restrict or regulate the majority religion. In addition religious both governmental and societal discrimination against religious minorities increased significantly between 1990 and 2014. All of this indicates religion remains a prominent factor in politics and society in the West.

scholarly journals Ensuring Individual Rights through Institutional Freedoms: The Role of Religious Institutions in Securing Religious Rights

Religions ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 273
Author(s):  
Jonathan Fox ◽  
Roger Finke
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Religious Organizations ◽  
Religious Institutions ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Religious Minorities ◽  
Religion And State

Understanding the restrictions placed on religious institutions and associations, or the freedoms that they are denied, is essential for understanding the limits placed on individual religious freedoms and human rights more generally. This study uses the Religion and State round 3 (RAS3) dataset to track restrictions faced by religious organizations and individuals between 1990 and 2014 and explores how reduced institutional freedoms results in fewer individual freedoms. We find that restrictions on both institutional and individual religious freedoms are common and rising. Restrictions on institutional religious freedom are harsher against religious minorities than restrictions on individual freedoms. However, against the majority religion, restrictions on individual religious freedoms are harsher.

scholarly journals The Relationship between Religion and State in Hegel's Thought

2004 ◽  
Vol 25 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 96-112
Author(s):  
Oran Moked
Keyword(s):  
Church And State ◽  
Philosophy Of Religion ◽  
Complete Separation ◽  
Philosophy Of History ◽  
Political Life ◽  
Religious Institutions ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Religion And State ◽  
The One ◽  
The Relationship

To say that Hegel's position on the relationship between religion and state is not easy to categorise would be a vast understatement. Eluding comfortable labels, his ideas on the subject diverge from historically prevalent conceptions, which together are often thought to be exhaustive. On the one hand, Hegel's position contrasts sharply with theocratic doctrines that propose a simple identity of political and religious institutions, or subjugate the former to the latter. Almost equally distant from Hegel's position, however, are liberal and Enlightenment views that urge the complete separation of religion from secular authority and mundane politics.This tension is characteristic of many of Hegel's writings on the subject, from the earliest to die most mature. On numerous occasions, Hegel voices his vehement opposition to the notion of a radical split between religion and the ‘ethical’ (sittlich) institutions of political power. In an early fragment from 1798 he writes, ‘if the principle of the state is a complete totality, then church and state cannot possibly be unrelated’, and similar sentiments are voiced in many other writings, including Hegel's very last lectures on the Philosophy of Religion from 1831. Yet, at other junctures he contends, rather, that only ‘in despotism church and state are one’. Of all Hegel's extended discussions of the subject, one — in the Remark and Addition to §270 of thePhilosophy of Right— lays emphasis on the cleft between church and state; others — in §552 of theEncyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences(Third Edition), the aforementioned 1831Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, and the final sections of thePhilosophy of History— seem, on the contrary, to stress the essential and eventual unity of religious and political life. To reconcile such seemingly contradictory views within a coherent position (even adialecticallycoherent one) and salvage Hegel's position from the muddle of apparent contradictions and oblique formulations is therefore a challenge.

scholarly journals RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION IN CHRISTIAN-MAJORITY DEMOCRACIES FROM 1990 TO 2014

2019 ◽  
pp. 285-308
Author(s):  
Jonathan Fox
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Religious Discrimination ◽  
The West ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
Religious Minorities ◽  
Empirical Tests ◽  
Religion And State ◽  
Levels Of Support ◽  
Western Democracies

This study examines patterns in societal and government-based religious discrimination (SRD and GRD) against 307 religious minorities in 67 Christian-majority democracies using the Religion and State-Minorities round 3 (RASM3) dataset. Despite expectations that all forms of religious discrimination, especially GRD, should be lower in Western liberal democracies, it is, in fact, lower in developing countries. I argue that three factors explain this discrepancy. Economically developed countries have more resources available for discrimination. Western democracies have higher levels of support for religion than Christian-majority developing countries and countries which more strongly support religion are more likely to discriminate against religious minorities. Finally levels of SRD are higher in the West and SRD is posited to be a cause of GRD. Empirical tests support these propositions.

“Our Dead are the Ultimate Teachers of Life”. The Corpse as an Inter-mediator of Transcendence

2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 223-240
Author(s):  
Antje Kahl
Keyword(s):  
Death And Dying ◽  
Modern Society ◽  
Religious Institutions ◽  
Spiritual Experiences ◽  
Dead Body ◽  
Funeral Directors ◽  
The Public ◽  
Funeral Director ◽  
The Dead ◽  
The Relationship

Today in Germany, religion and the churches forfeit their sovereignty of interpretation and ritual concerning death and dying. The funeral director is the first point of contact when death occurs. Therefore he or she is able to influence the relationship between the living and the dead. In the course of this development, the dead body, often referred to as dirty and dangerous, is being sanitized by funeral directors. Funeral directors credit the dead body with a certain quality; they claim that facing the dead may lead to religious or spiritual experiences, and therefore they encourage the public viewing of the dead – a practice which was, and still is not very common in Germany. The new connotation of the dead body is an example for the dislimitation of religion in modern society. The religious framing of death-related practises no longer exclusively belongs to traditional religious institutions and actors, but can take place in commercial business companies as well.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document