Pub Date : 2022-08-08DOI: 10.1080/09637494.2022.2117526
T. Modood, Thomas Sealy
ABSTRACT Between and within different world regions today religious diversity remains a significant challenge and researchers have identified a wide variety of church-state relations as well as of legal, institutional, and political arrangements related to state-religion connections. These variations in type and degree owe something to distinctive political, institutional, theological, and historical inheritances and have led to different normative conceptions of secularism and of state-religion relations and connections. This first contribution begins by mapping the ground of existing conceptions of secularism and state-religion connections. Our discussion first assesses normative approaches that emanate from ‘the West’ as well as from perspectives outside of ‘the West’ (such as India), and which might directly challenge the former. It then turns to outline a new framework of five modes of governance of religious diversity, presenting each in relation to a series of constitutive features or norms that characterise it and which distinguish it from other modes. This typology of modes forms the basis of the intra- and inter-regional comparative analyses presented in the regionally focused contributions to this collection. We finally provide an overview of these contributions and their application of the typology.
{"title":"Developing a framework for a global comparative analysis of the governance of religious diversity","authors":"T. Modood, Thomas Sealy","doi":"10.1080/09637494.2022.2117526","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09637494.2022.2117526","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Between and within different world regions today religious diversity remains a significant challenge and researchers have identified a wide variety of church-state relations as well as of legal, institutional, and political arrangements related to state-religion connections. These variations in type and degree owe something to distinctive political, institutional, theological, and historical inheritances and have led to different normative conceptions of secularism and of state-religion relations and connections. This first contribution begins by mapping the ground of existing conceptions of secularism and state-religion connections. Our discussion first assesses normative approaches that emanate from ‘the West’ as well as from perspectives outside of ‘the West’ (such as India), and which might directly challenge the former. It then turns to outline a new framework of five modes of governance of religious diversity, presenting each in relation to a series of constitutive features or norms that characterise it and which distinguish it from other modes. This typology of modes forms the basis of the intra- and inter-regional comparative analyses presented in the regionally focused contributions to this collection. We finally provide an overview of these contributions and their application of the typology.","PeriodicalId":45069,"journal":{"name":"Religion State & Society","volume":"50 1","pages":"362 - 377"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82339194","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-08DOI: 10.1080/09637494.2022.2127591
D. Vékony, Marat Iliyasov, Egdūnas Račius
ABSTRACT The contribution aims to provide an exposition of the recent dynamics in state-religion relations in Central Eastern Europe (specifically in Hungary, Lithuania, and Slovakia) and Russia through the prism of the typology of modes of governance of religious diversity. Additionally, the present research complements this framework by taking into account the unique characteristics of Central and Eastern Europe and Russia. Though the countries of the region of Central Eastern Europe and Russia share much common history and recent experiences, the case studies analysed in this contribution reveal that state-religion relations and modes of governance of religious diversity nonetheless differ across countries. From a liberal secular perspective, adopted by the current authors, the dynamics of state-religion relations in this region look problematic. Of particular concern are state-Islam relations, which in some of the countries covered, namely Slovakia and Hungary, are already at a very low point, with Muslims (particularly of immigrant background) being increasingly securitised by the media, public, and the national political elites.
{"title":"Dynamics in state-religion relations in postcommunist Central Eastern Europe and Russia","authors":"D. Vékony, Marat Iliyasov, Egdūnas Račius","doi":"10.1080/09637494.2022.2127591","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09637494.2022.2127591","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The contribution aims to provide an exposition of the recent dynamics in state-religion relations in Central Eastern Europe (specifically in Hungary, Lithuania, and Slovakia) and Russia through the prism of the typology of modes of governance of religious diversity. Additionally, the present research complements this framework by taking into account the unique characteristics of Central and Eastern Europe and Russia. Though the countries of the region of Central Eastern Europe and Russia share much common history and recent experiences, the case studies analysed in this contribution reveal that state-religion relations and modes of governance of religious diversity nonetheless differ across countries. From a liberal secular perspective, adopted by the current authors, the dynamics of state-religion relations in this region look problematic. Of particular concern are state-Islam relations, which in some of the countries covered, namely Slovakia and Hungary, are already at a very low point, with Muslims (particularly of immigrant background) being increasingly securitised by the media, public, and the national political elites.","PeriodicalId":45069,"journal":{"name":"Religion State & Society","volume":"315 6 1","pages":"415 - 435"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79562865","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-08DOI: 10.1080/09637494.2022.2094121
Bindi V. Shah
{"title":"Religion, migration, and existential wellbeing","authors":"Bindi V. Shah","doi":"10.1080/09637494.2022.2094121","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09637494.2022.2094121","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45069,"journal":{"name":"Religion State & Society","volume":"39 1","pages":"486 - 487"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85755388","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-08DOI: 10.1080/09637494.2022.2126258
Thomas Sealy, Zawawi Ibrahim, Pradana Boy Zulian, Imran Mohd Rasid
ABSTRACT South and Southeast Asia is characterised by an historic and deep religious diversity and countries in the region have also been shaped by colonialism. Focusing on the cases of India, Indonesia, and Malaysia, this contribution explores the governance of religious diversity and conceptions of secularism influenced by – but quite distinct from – those found in the West. It assesses how, upon independence from colonial rule, a core concern in all three was a settlement that reflected the history and presence of deep religious diversity. The contribution then explores how these settlements have since come under strain as majorities in each country have more aggressively asserted their dominance. Since independence, settlements that aimed to secure rights for the multiple religious groups in each country have been tested. A trend in all three countries is a rise in forms of more exclusive majoritarian nationalisms tied to the dominant religion. This trend presents serious implications for minority faiths as well as for ideas of freedom of religion and the place and role of religion in society and politics. The contribution suggests that we might be witnessing an erosion of the post-independence settlements such that the mode of governance itself is shifting.
{"title":"South and Southeast Asia: deep diversity under strain","authors":"Thomas Sealy, Zawawi Ibrahim, Pradana Boy Zulian, Imran Mohd Rasid","doi":"10.1080/09637494.2022.2126258","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09637494.2022.2126258","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT South and Southeast Asia is characterised by an historic and deep religious diversity and countries in the region have also been shaped by colonialism. Focusing on the cases of India, Indonesia, and Malaysia, this contribution explores the governance of religious diversity and conceptions of secularism influenced by – but quite distinct from – those found in the West. It assesses how, upon independence from colonial rule, a core concern in all three was a settlement that reflected the history and presence of deep religious diversity. The contribution then explores how these settlements have since come under strain as majorities in each country have more aggressively asserted their dominance. Since independence, settlements that aimed to secure rights for the multiple religious groups in each country have been tested. A trend in all three countries is a rise in forms of more exclusive majoritarian nationalisms tied to the dominant religion. This trend presents serious implications for minority faiths as well as for ideas of freedom of religion and the place and role of religion in society and politics. The contribution suggests that we might be witnessing an erosion of the post-independence settlements such that the mode of governance itself is shifting.","PeriodicalId":45069,"journal":{"name":"Religion State & Society","volume":"49 1","pages":"452 - 468"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89062928","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-08DOI: 10.1080/09637494.2022.2140502
Daniel Nilsson DeHanas, Marat S. Shterin
All states must make choices in how they govern religious diversity. In the worst cases, states will actively perpetuate inequalities or oppression through these choices. But even in the best cases, it is inevitable that compromises will be made and successes can only be partial. It is therefore essential that we not only seek to understand how states navigate the challenge of religious diversity, but that we do so in comparative perspective. Then mutual learning across imperfect choices becomes possible. This special issue of Religion, State & Society presents findings from a major new project (2018–2022), Radicalisation, Secularism, and the Governance of Religion (GREASE). GREASE compares approaches to the governance of religious diversity in 23 countries across five world regions: the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), South and Southeast Asia, Central and Eastern Europe, Southern and Southeastern Europe, and Western Europe, with Australia added to this final European ‘region’ as a complementary case. We have been delighted to invite Professor Tariq Modood and Dr Thomas Sealy as guest editors of this special issue entitled The Governance of Religious Diversity: Global Comparative Perspectives. Tariq Modood is Professor of Sociology, Politics, and Public Policy at Bristol University and the founding Director of the Centre for the Study of Ethnicity and Citizenship. Thomas Sealy is Lecturer in Ethnicity and Race at Bristol University where he is also an active contributor to the intellectual life of the Ethnicity Centre. Our two guest editors led the Bristol team that was one of ten partners in this EU Horizon 2020-funded global institutional consortium. The current special issue continues conversations on the pages of this journal from our previous issue with an urban focus, Governing Religious Diversity in Cities: Critical Perspectives (2019), bringing the GREASE project’s unprecedented global scope to the study of religion and diversity. It begins with an introductory article that proposes a framework with new conceptual tools for understanding the governance of religious diversity, incorporates a focused article on each of the five world regions, and, finally, concludes with a contribution that compares the regions and cases. In a world in which religious freedoms, restrictions, and appropriate levels of state intervention remain hotly contested topics, this special issue makes many important empirical and normative contributions.
{"title":"Editors’ introduction","authors":"Daniel Nilsson DeHanas, Marat S. Shterin","doi":"10.1080/09637494.2022.2140502","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09637494.2022.2140502","url":null,"abstract":"All states must make choices in how they govern religious diversity. In the worst cases, states will actively perpetuate inequalities or oppression through these choices. But even in the best cases, it is inevitable that compromises will be made and successes can only be partial. It is therefore essential that we not only seek to understand how states navigate the challenge of religious diversity, but that we do so in comparative perspective. Then mutual learning across imperfect choices becomes possible. This special issue of Religion, State & Society presents findings from a major new project (2018–2022), Radicalisation, Secularism, and the Governance of Religion (GREASE). GREASE compares approaches to the governance of religious diversity in 23 countries across five world regions: the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), South and Southeast Asia, Central and Eastern Europe, Southern and Southeastern Europe, and Western Europe, with Australia added to this final European ‘region’ as a complementary case. We have been delighted to invite Professor Tariq Modood and Dr Thomas Sealy as guest editors of this special issue entitled The Governance of Religious Diversity: Global Comparative Perspectives. Tariq Modood is Professor of Sociology, Politics, and Public Policy at Bristol University and the founding Director of the Centre for the Study of Ethnicity and Citizenship. Thomas Sealy is Lecturer in Ethnicity and Race at Bristol University where he is also an active contributor to the intellectual life of the Ethnicity Centre. Our two guest editors led the Bristol team that was one of ten partners in this EU Horizon 2020-funded global institutional consortium. The current special issue continues conversations on the pages of this journal from our previous issue with an urban focus, Governing Religious Diversity in Cities: Critical Perspectives (2019), bringing the GREASE project’s unprecedented global scope to the study of religion and diversity. It begins with an introductory article that proposes a framework with new conceptual tools for understanding the governance of religious diversity, incorporates a focused article on each of the five world regions, and, finally, concludes with a contribution that compares the regions and cases. In a world in which religious freedoms, restrictions, and appropriate levels of state intervention remain hotly contested topics, this special issue makes many important empirical and normative contributions.","PeriodicalId":45069,"journal":{"name":"Religion State & Society","volume":"38 1","pages":"361 - 361"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73561667","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-08DOI: 10.1080/09637494.2022.2104490
L. Marsden
The secular surge in US politics has been identified by almost every political pundit and academic working in the field, and in truth, there is little in Secular Surge that is not known intuitively or anecdotally by those same people. Where Campbell, Layman, and Green make an enormous contribution to the discipline, however, is in providing a well-researched evidential basis for that intuition. The authors have worked extensively in the field of religion and US politics over decades and have now turned their attention to that fastest growing of demographics: ‘the Nones’, described by the authors as those who choose to identify as having no religion. The authors helpfully disaggregate the group from a meaningless homo-geneity to meaningful specifics through dividing the Nones into Religionists, Non Religionists, Religious Secularists, and Secularists. With Nones accounting for around a quarter of the electorate, this is a timely analysis of this key demographic. Rather than the lazy assumption that Nones have abandoned their religious belief, the authors show that just over half of those self-identifying as Nones either believe in God or a higher power. The claim is that the growth in Nones does not simply represent a decline in religiosity but rather that it also signifies a positive identification as Secularists. The authors’ central argument American society is rapidly secularising and that a distinct, politically engaged Secular Left emerging the Religious Right the four decades. identity new fault line US alienated
{"title":"Secular surge: a new fault line in American politics","authors":"L. Marsden","doi":"10.1080/09637494.2022.2104490","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09637494.2022.2104490","url":null,"abstract":"The secular surge in US politics has been identified by almost every political pundit and academic working in the field, and in truth, there is little in Secular Surge that is not known intuitively or anecdotally by those same people. Where Campbell, Layman, and Green make an enormous contribution to the discipline, however, is in providing a well-researched evidential basis for that intuition. The authors have worked extensively in the field of religion and US politics over decades and have now turned their attention to that fastest growing of demographics: ‘the Nones’, described by the authors as those who choose to identify as having no religion. The authors helpfully disaggregate the group from a meaningless homo-geneity to meaningful specifics through dividing the Nones into Religionists, Non Religionists, Religious Secularists, and Secularists. With Nones accounting for around a quarter of the electorate, this is a timely analysis of this key demographic. Rather than the lazy assumption that Nones have abandoned their religious belief, the authors show that just over half of those self-identifying as Nones either believe in God or a higher power. The claim is that the growth in Nones does not simply represent a decline in religiosity but rather that it also signifies a positive identification as Secularists. The authors’ central argument American society is rapidly secularising and that a distinct, politically engaged Secular Left emerging the Religious Right the four decades. identity new fault line US alienated","PeriodicalId":45069,"journal":{"name":"Religion State & Society","volume":"73 1","pages":"488 - 489"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86378835","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-08DOI: 10.1080/09637494.2022.2135350
Georges Fahmi, M. Lahlou
ABSTRACT Religion-state relations in the MENA region have been shaped by two main dynamics. First is the modern political elites’ interest in shaping their own versions of Islam to legitimise their rule. Second is the desire of religious actors to use modern state structures to impose their religious norms on society. Despite moments of tension, political and religious leaders have often reached a compromise on regulating the relationship between Islam and the state. In different cases, different agreements that reflect the different balances of power between political and religious actors have been reached. These agreements between political and religious authorities have been contested twice, leading in some cases to a renegotiation of their terms: the first time with the religious revival in 1970s, and the second after the 2011 popular uprisings known as the Arab Spring. This contribution seeks to unpack these dynamics between political and religious elites, their impact on the rules governing religion-state relations, how they have been renegotiated over time, and how these different institutional arrangements have created their own norms, policies, and practices, highlighting the gaps between formal mechanisms and informal practices.
{"title":"Negotiating religion-state relations in the MENA region: actors’ dynamics, modes, and norms","authors":"Georges Fahmi, M. Lahlou","doi":"10.1080/09637494.2022.2135350","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09637494.2022.2135350","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Religion-state relations in the MENA region have been shaped by two main dynamics. First is the modern political elites’ interest in shaping their own versions of Islam to legitimise their rule. Second is the desire of religious actors to use modern state structures to impose their religious norms on society. Despite moments of tension, political and religious leaders have often reached a compromise on regulating the relationship between Islam and the state. In different cases, different agreements that reflect the different balances of power between political and religious actors have been reached. These agreements between political and religious authorities have been contested twice, leading in some cases to a renegotiation of their terms: the first time with the religious revival in 1970s, and the second after the 2011 popular uprisings known as the Arab Spring. This contribution seeks to unpack these dynamics between political and religious elites, their impact on the rules governing religion-state relations, how they have been renegotiated over time, and how these different institutional arrangements have created their own norms, policies, and practices, highlighting the gaps between formal mechanisms and informal practices.","PeriodicalId":45069,"journal":{"name":"Religion State & Society","volume":"27 1","pages":"436 - 451"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89404947","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-27DOI: 10.1080/09637494.2022.2111914
Lilian Türk
{"title":"No masters but God: portraits of anarcho-Judaism","authors":"Lilian Türk","doi":"10.1080/09637494.2022.2111914","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09637494.2022.2111914","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45069,"journal":{"name":"Religion State & Society","volume":"58 1","pages":"356 - 358"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83450828","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-27DOI: 10.1080/09637494.2022.2105622
Shai Wineapple, R. Kark
ABSTRACT In the broader context of missionary activity during the period of colonialism and post-colonialism, this contribution explores the relationship between Christian mission and Israel as a modern Jewish democratic nation-state. After the founding of the modern State of Israel in 1948, some Protestant churches and missionary organisations continued to seek conversions of Jews to Christianity. The State of Israel has officially opposed proselytising among Israeli Jews yet wished to maintain the commitment to freedom of religion stated in its Declaration of Independence. It has also sought not to damage relations with ‘Christian’ nations, to minimise the harm resulting from historical hostility towards Jews, and to reinforce positive trends within Christianity vis-à-vis Judaism and the Jewish State. We focus on the years 1966–1978, and consider the attitudes of Israeli NGOs to the mission as well as the Israeli Knesset’s numerous attempts to enact laws to prevent missionary activity, plus efforts to prevent missionaries from entering the country and to ban Jewish pupils from attending Christian schools. We can conclude by pointing to the persistent tension between the democratic character of the Jewish state and its wish to protect Jews from the perceived spiritual and physical harm of Christian proselytising activities.
{"title":"Mission not accomplished: the response of the State of Israel and NGOs to Christian missionary activity, 1966–1986","authors":"Shai Wineapple, R. Kark","doi":"10.1080/09637494.2022.2105622","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09637494.2022.2105622","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In the broader context of missionary activity during the period of colonialism and post-colonialism, this contribution explores the relationship between Christian mission and Israel as a modern Jewish democratic nation-state. After the founding of the modern State of Israel in 1948, some Protestant churches and missionary organisations continued to seek conversions of Jews to Christianity. The State of Israel has officially opposed proselytising among Israeli Jews yet wished to maintain the commitment to freedom of religion stated in its Declaration of Independence. It has also sought not to damage relations with ‘Christian’ nations, to minimise the harm resulting from historical hostility towards Jews, and to reinforce positive trends within Christianity vis-à-vis Judaism and the Jewish State. We focus on the years 1966–1978, and consider the attitudes of Israeli NGOs to the mission as well as the Israeli Knesset’s numerous attempts to enact laws to prevent missionary activity, plus efforts to prevent missionaries from entering the country and to ban Jewish pupils from attending Christian schools. We can conclude by pointing to the persistent tension between the democratic character of the Jewish state and its wish to protect Jews from the perceived spiritual and physical harm of Christian proselytising activities.","PeriodicalId":45069,"journal":{"name":"Religion State & Society","volume":"62 1","pages":"298 - 315"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89118035","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-27DOI: 10.1080/09637494.2022.2099217
Olga Breskaya, G. Giordan, S. Trophimov
ABSTRACT Do social perceptions of religious freedom (SPRF) represent individual a priori experiences, or are they the results of a process of socialisation into a normative political and religious culture? The contribution responds to this inquiry with data from comparative research on the multidimensional construct of SPRF among youth in Italy and Russia (N = 1,810). The study conducted between 2018 and 2019 investigates the patterns of constructed meanings of religious freedom and their correlates in the contexts of Christian-majority cultures, a significant ratio of non-affiliated youth, and contrasting records on societal religious discrimination. The findings suggest, first, that Italian participants endorse the socio-legal and human rights aspects of religious freedom more strongly than their Russian peers, who favoured the issues of individual autonomy linked to this freedom more. Second, attitudes towards normative concepts of religious pluralism, passive secularism, and democracy are robust predictors of the SPRF dimensions in both samples. Third, we found that the main difference in perceptions of religious freedom between the samples is in regard to the predisposition of young people towards a model of the dominant church endorsed by the state. Its predictive power varies across four models of analysis of the SPRF and has the opposite effect in Italian and Russian samples.
{"title":"Social construction of religious freedom: a comparative study among youth in Italy and Russia","authors":"Olga Breskaya, G. Giordan, S. Trophimov","doi":"10.1080/09637494.2022.2099217","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09637494.2022.2099217","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Do social perceptions of religious freedom (SPRF) represent individual a priori experiences, or are they the results of a process of socialisation into a normative political and religious culture? The contribution responds to this inquiry with data from comparative research on the multidimensional construct of SPRF among youth in Italy and Russia (N = 1,810). The study conducted between 2018 and 2019 investigates the patterns of constructed meanings of religious freedom and their correlates in the contexts of Christian-majority cultures, a significant ratio of non-affiliated youth, and contrasting records on societal religious discrimination. The findings suggest, first, that Italian participants endorse the socio-legal and human rights aspects of religious freedom more strongly than their Russian peers, who favoured the issues of individual autonomy linked to this freedom more. Second, attitudes towards normative concepts of religious pluralism, passive secularism, and democracy are robust predictors of the SPRF dimensions in both samples. Third, we found that the main difference in perceptions of religious freedom between the samples is in regard to the predisposition of young people towards a model of the dominant church endorsed by the state. Its predictive power varies across four models of analysis of the SPRF and has the opposite effect in Italian and Russian samples.","PeriodicalId":45069,"journal":{"name":"Religion State & Society","volume":"98 1","pages":"254 - 276"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91085406","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：