Faiths Need Freedom—And Fairness Too

True religious freedom and fairness—the heart of FoRB—demands equal treatment for every faith and worldview, and this article shows how embracing covenantal pluralism strengthens human rights and social cohesion worldwide.

Faiths Need Freedom—And Fairness Too
Dr. Dennis R. Hoover

Freedom of religion and belief (FoRB) is under increasing threat in many parts of the world. In response, many religious freedom organizations and initiatives—both governmental and nongovernmental—have formed and are working hard to defend and build FoRB. In many contexts it is an uphill battle, but worth the effort because FoRB is a fundamental right that is vital to the well-being of individuals and society.  

Indeed FoRB is the first of three major components of covenantal pluralism, a holistic philosophical framework that shapes LYNC’s work and that of many other like-minded organizations. These three components (or “enabling conditions”) of covenantal pluralism are (1) FoRB (defined as free exercise of religion and equal treatment of religions/worldviews); (2) cross-cultural religious literacy (religious knowledge of self and other that is oriented to practical collaboration); and (3) embodiment and expression of character virtues (such as humility, empathy, patience). 

The “free exercise” dimension of the above definition of FoRB often receives a great deal of attention from activists and scholars—understandably so—as many of the most egregious and systematic violations of FoRB do take the form of severe restrictions on free exercise.

However, the “equal treatment” dimension is also essential, and too often overlooked or under-emphasized.

FoRB, properly understood, is necessarily egalitarian and inclusive. It is not special pleading for some, nor just another form of interest group politics. Rather, it is a regime of freedom and fairness for all. In other words, a government and society that genuinely provide equal FoRB for all will treat each person—of any faith or no faith—in a fair and balanced manner. What’s needed is a legal and cultural environment of positive neutrality, a “level playing field.”  

Such a social order does not privilege any one religion or set of religions over others, nor religion in general over non-religion, nor secularism over religion in general. Existing empirical scholarship and popular discourse on religious freedom/FoRB sometimes accents the individual liberty dimensions while under-specifying the egalitarian dimensions. The latter are matters related to equality of treatment, standing, status, and benefits across all religions and worldviews.  

This is particularly important in global context, as most countries around the world, including many democracies, do not follow a strict-separationist model of religion-state relations, and hence the mechanisms of government regulation and funding are much more intertwined with religious life than in a country like the United States. As such, the level playing field envisioned by covenantal pluralism is not necessarily a completely unregulated, “anarchic” space. Different jurisdictions may have differing levels of state regulation and/or state funding of faith-based institutions, but the question for covenantal pluralism is not whether such religion-state connections exist but whether the overall system is free, fair, and accommodative.  

When a state imposes a single religion or ideology, the offense to covenantal pluralism is obvious. But other forms of differential and discriminatory treatment of religions/worldviews are also problematic. For example, even if a government imposes few restrictions on minority religions’ worship practices, differential support of the majority religion puts these minorities at a disadvantage both symbolically and substantively. In the case of financial support, for example, the religion receiving government funding becomes less expensive than its non-supported competitors. This can make the beneficiaries of this support more attractive to potential congregants, which is an unfair advantage over the non-supported religions. It is also effectively a religious “tax” on the non-supported religions.  

Religious/worldview discrimination can lead to social and political tensions, and in some cases even contribute to cycles of violence. Sometimes the perpetrators of violence are religious minorities who feel aggrieved and lash out. But other times government favoritism of the majority faith contributes to members of the majority faith becoming radicalized and violent. When the state provides substantive and symbolic support to the majority faith while repressing or discriminating against other groups, it often sacralizes national identity for many members of the majority faith. It breeds feelings of entitlement, habits of scapegoating minorities, and an environment of impunity that emboldens radicals to commit acts of vigilante violence. Scholars of terrorism have documented empirically how government favoritism of a majority faith is in fact statistically a predictor of majoritarian terrorism (the “weapon of the strong”). 

In short, the stakes are high not only for religious freedom but also religious fairness. Governments should provide equal treatment of all religions, and also be even-handed as between religion in general and secularism/non-religious worldviews. 

*******

About the Author

Dennis R. Hoover (D.Phil. Politics, University of Oxford) is a Senior Fellow at Love Your Neighbor Community (LYNC). He is also Editor in Chief of The Review of Faith & International Affairs and a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Global Engagement (IGE). His recent books include Exploring Religious Diversity and Covenantal Pluralism in Asia, Volumes I and II (2023), and The Routledge Handbook of Religious Literacy, Pluralism, and Global Engagement (2022), co-edited with Chris Seiple.