Are there any nations that are not communist and not predominantly Muslim where the citizens DO NOT have freedom of religion? I’m talking about places where the laws specifically prohibit certain religions, or where the law grants freedom of religion on paper, but in practice persecution reigns.
Interesting question. Russia gives the Orthodox Church an exalted position, and I believe has recently clamped down on competing protestant sects, including the Salvation Army. Ex-Yugoslavia harbors religious intolerance. Belarus and Ukraine, perhaps? Of course, all these places are fresh out of communism.
Trying to think of anywhere else… If it’s plain persecution you want, there are loads of examples (India, Nigeria and N Ireland all spring to mind). But state-sanctioned religious persecution… Not much around outside communist/Muslim places.
I really can’t think of any examples of the kind you mean, but there are certainly countries where Scientology, Satanism or witchcraft are discriminated against by law, at least in theory.
Oh, I almost forgot. France and Germany make life very difficult for Scientologists. And the Utah authorities keep picking on Mormon guys who just want to mind their own business and marry a 12 year old or three…
Isn’t there some half-the-size-of-Sangamon-county little European microstate (Andorra, perhaps) whose constitution (or charter or whatever) specifically states: all citizens of this country shall be Roman Catholics, or they shall leave [paraphrased].
The Vatican City State?
It’s illegal for a non-episcopalian to be monarch in the UK (much to the relief of non-episcopalians, I suspect).
Most western nations (I’m fairly sure France doesn’t… any others?) have anti-polygamy laws. Could these be considered against Freedom of Religion?
There are places in North and South Africa that still charge (and kill) people as witches (whether they are simply healers or people that have annoyed higher-ups).
Americans may have the freedom to choose their religion but not so much to choose none at all. No, wait, silly me, atheists AREN’T Americans, according to George Bush (the first incarnation)-= “I don’t know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.”
What about officially Roman Catholic nations, like Ireland?
Is freedom of religion the right to profess beliefs, or the right to practice the tenets of the belief? Or is it even/also the right not to practice as the “official” religion dictates?
I don’t know if it is true, but I did hear that practicing brith control --as in having and or selling condoms, the pill, etc.— was or is illegal in Ireland as it is against the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
I am not sure if Ireland specifically prohibits by statute other non-RC faiths, but it would seem that it is at the very least highly intolerant of them.
I can’t think of any non-Communist countries except Muslim ones that officially prohibit the public practice of other religions. But various countries do have some form of “established church” or “national religion” that in practice gives legal preferences to the majority religion, or delegitimizes certain minority religions. Some examples:
Scientology, although not illegal as such, as been declared to not be a valid religion, but rather a cult, in a High Court decision in New Zealand.
I think the Act of Settlement merely prohibits Roman Catholics and their spouses from being the monarch (along with those few people who aren’t direct descendants of Sophia, Electress of Hannover).
Doesn’t Sweden also have a state-sponsored church?
I’ve read that the president of Lebanon is required by law to be Christian. And I think the (Roman Catholic) Bishop of Urgell is one of the heads of state of Andorra.
Now, now, Bush was stating his (utterly stupid, methinks as an atheist) personal opinion, not official policy. Presidents can do that, ya know (have opinions, I mean).
Not sure what your source on this is, but as an Irishman I feel obliged to leap to my country’s defence on this one! Ireland isn’t an officially Roman Catholic nation in any sense of the word! You can find the Article 44 of the Irish Constition on this page http://www.maths.tcd.ie/local/JUNK/Constitution/Articles40-44.html and you’ll see that it in no sense prescribes Roman Catholicism as a state religion.
Until 1972 the Constitution did include the following:
2º The State recognises the special position of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church as the guardian of the Faith professed by the great majority of the citizens.
3º The State also recognises the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the Methodist Church in Ireland, the Religious Society of Friends in Ireland, as well as the Jewish Congregations and the other religious denominations existing in Ireland at the date of the coming into operation of this Constitution.
the removal of which was supported by the Roman Catholic church itself, IIRC. Even the above was far from conferring official status of the Catholic Church.
As regards your comments regarding intolerence of other faiths, I find it hard to believe that you have much first hand experience of Ireland. I suspect that the headlines regarding the political troubles in Northern Ireland give many people a misleading picture of the political and social climate in the Republic of Ireland which is probably as tolerant in religious matters as any other similar European state.
Absolute nonsense. Allow me to quote Article 44 of the Constitution in full:
I don’t know where you got your ideas about Ireland, but if anything members of minority religions are over-represented in public life. The Republic of Ireland has a very high degree of religious tolerance, both at the official and personal level.
Not anymore. The state and the church split a year or so ago, but the state still collects the then taxes now membership fees for the Church of Sweden and has also offered to do this for any congregation that wants this service.
The prior poster probably derives this from the heavily-media-publicized controversies over plain old divorce (or birth control for non-medical purposes for unmarried people) being unavailable to citizen/residents in very recent times (I lost track of when/if they changed it).
But MANY other countries are in the same boat, having “freedom of worship” and “non establishment” yet incorporating into their civil legal system specific rules of the oldest-established/majoritarian religion, to the discomfort of nonbelievers (and even of believers that do not care much for the Clergy’s take on things). However, this would hardly be a freedom-of-religion issue, it would be more of a political “civil rights” vs. “traditional values” controversy, not unknown even in countries with the widest margin of FOR and SOCAS (Defense of Marriage Act, anyone?). (Also, that first line of Art. 44 wherein it is explicitly stated that the State recognizes and reveres God is, well, interesting, but kind of superfluous – though I know some folks in the USA who’d love to have that.)
As pointed out earlier in the thread, there ARE countries that though recognizing “freedom of worship” provide preferential treatment to one or more (Such as the Russian law which was allegedly specially designed to keep “outsiders” [mostly Christian and Muslim Fundamentalist] from “poaching” the faithful from the traditional denominations loyal to Mother Russia), or have the government set standards and pass judgement on what constitutes a legitimate religion.
Even the USA does not have absolute FOR. FOR is restricted by whether the activities are a threat to public safety or common morals. Ask the polygamist Mormon-variants, or the Branch Davidians.