Religious Minorities in Iran

The death of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, following the attacks by the U.S. and Israel has created profound uncertainty for the country's religious minorities. It also provides us in this class with a real-world case study in how government regulation shapes religious markets and the survival of minority religious groups.

Iran maintains a highly regulated religious market. Unlike the United States, where low barriers to entry allow diverse religious groups to compete freely, Iran maintains an official state religion with extreme government favoritism. The theocratic regime doesn't just prefer Shia Islam; it actively suppresses religious competitors through systematic persecution, property confiscation, and exclusion from education and employment.

This RNS article reveals the stark reality of this regulation and its effects on religious minorities. One of those groups are the followers of the Baha'i religion. Bahaʼis are systematically excluded from higher education and have their businesses shuttered, and crackdowns have intensified following the Israel-Iran conflict. These actions create a large barrier to entry for Baha'is because legal and social obstacles prevent religious entrepreneurs from starting new groups or minority religions from operating freely.

Yet, somehow, religious minorities can find ways to survive in such hostile regulatory environments. The article notes that Iran's religious minorities, particularly the 300,000 Bahaʼís, continue to exist despite decades of systematic oppression. This persistence relies in part on their ability to produce the club goods that comprise part of their religious communities. This includes the shared benefits of belonging—spiritual support, social networks, cultural identity—that create strong incentives for members to maintain their affiliation even when the costs are extremely high.

At the same time, economic theory also predicts that the intense regulation suppresses religious pluralism, and if the official state church fails to meet religious consumers' needs, then religious vitality can also decline. Indeed, the article notes growing secularization among Iran's Muslim majority, with surveys showing over 45% of respondents identifying as having no faith by 2020. This suggests that excessive religious regulation can backfire, reducing not just minority religions but overall religiosity in society.

As Iran faces this leadership transition, the fate of its religious minorities will depend largely on whether the new regime maintains the current highly regulated religious market or allows greater religious competition. For students of this class, Iran's situation demonstrates how government policies don't just shape political outcomes; they fundamentally determine whether diverse religious communities can survive and thrive.

(This article was written with the help of the Econ 17 ClassChat Chatbot.)

Global Religious Diversity Today

A report released last week from Pew Research Center, "Religious Diversity Around the World” (2026), provides a nice overview of religious diversity across 201 countries and territories. Using a modified version of the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI)—a measure economists typically use to assess market concentration—Pew constructs a Religious Diversity Index (RDI) ranging from 0 (complete religious homogeneity) to 10 (perfectly even distribution across seven religious categories).

The most religiously diverse country in the world is Singapore, with an RDI score of 9.3. No single religious tradition dominates: Buddhists (31%), religiously unaffiliated (20%), Christians (19%), Muslims (16%), Hindus (5%), and others (9%) all have significant presence. Suriname ranks second.

At the opposite end are Yemen and Afghanistan, where Muslims account for more than 99% of the population, yielding RDI scores close to 0.

A striking finding is that a single religious tradition forms a majority in 194 out of 201 countries. On the one hand, that makes it sound like religious pluralism is not quite so prevalent as might be supposed. Indeed, pluralism where no group exceeds 50% is rare, occurring in only seven countries. On the other hand, just looking at religious tradition can be misleading because there can be quite a lot of diversity in religious teaching and practices within a particular religious tradition. Just think of the Unitarian Universalists and the Amish, who both are rooted in Christianity (see the discussion on these groups in the book).

This last point is particularly relevant for the United States, whose RDI of 5.8 ties it with Nigeria as the most religiously diverse among the world's most populous countries. Although the U.S. is majority Christian (64%), nearly 30% are religiously unaffiliated, and smaller shares belong to other traditions. But keep in mind, too, that there is also tremendous diversity within Christianity in the United States, something that the RDI will not accurately account for.

The RDI is a good example of how a measurement concept that came from economics—namely the HHI—has found its way into the study of religion. However, you may be interested to know that the RDI is actually not the first time the HHI has been used to study religion, and it just takes a little internet sleuthing to find the earlier applications.

Overall, I suggest that you take away a two main lessons from this research report by Pew.

First, most of the world’s population lives in moderately diverse countries. Only 1% live in “very high” diversity contexts. This suggests that there are strong forces that drive both a degree of pluralism as well as a degree of concentration within a country. Can you think of some concepts from the book that would help to explain this fact?

Second, there is much to be gained by applying concepts from other disciplines to the study of religion. In this case, the RDI is an application of the HHI from economics, but of course there are many ideas that have come from sociology, psychology, and other fields. It is good to keep an open mind and an interdisciplinary view when studying religion.

The Religious Rights of Krishna Prisoners

[Note: I asked the Econ 17 ClassChat chatbot to help draft this blog post, but severe editing was still needed.]

A significant religious freedom case is developing in Florida, where the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) is preparing to file a lawsuit against the state's prison system over the ban of a Hindu holy text.

As explained in this Religion News Service article, since April 2022, The Bhagavad Gita As It Is—an English translation and commentary of the central Hindu scripture—has been prohibited from all Florida prisons, affecting inmates like Rakesh Patel at Jefferson Correctional Institution. Prison officials justified the ban by claiming the text was "written in code" and not easily interpretable by staff, despite it being a straightforward English translation with commentary.

Florida prisoners do have access to other religious materials like the Koran and the Bible, so this ban on the Krishna text appears at face value to be targeting one particular religious group.

This case highlights how religious rights and regulations are always being negotiated. ISKCON argues that denying access to sacred texts violates inmates' ability to practice their faith and maintain their religious identity while incarcerated, while the prison argues that there the text raises security concerns. ISKCON is preparing to file a religious discrimination lawsuit, and the impact of the lawsuit can extend beyond Patel to other Krishna prisoners.

As discussed in class, regulations can take various forms—from official policies to informal restrictions—and can significantly impact individuals' ability to engage in religious activities.  Florida's prison ban is an example of government regulation that creates a barrier to religious practice. It doesn't just affect individual religiosity; it can also impact the broader religious marketplace by setting precedents for how religious freedom is interpreted in institutional settings.

Exactly what will be the result of the lawsuit is unclear right now, and it will take time for it to be resolved. However, in the meantime for us, this case is a good example of how religious rights are neither automatic nor given. In some cases, a group—especially a minority group—will have to pursue legal means to get the same kind of protections for their religious rights that other larger and well-known groups already have. And these legal pursuits do not always work in the minority group's favor.

Minnesota High School Students and Religious Colleges

 The U.S. is well known for having a long tradition of religious freedom. However, religious freedom is a constantly negotiated concept. To see an example of this, consider the following that just happened in the state of Minnesota, which you can read about here.

High school students sometimes take college courses for credit, and in some states in the U.S., the state will reimburse the college for the cost of the high school student taking the class. This is a way for the state to encourage students to take college courses.

In 2023, a statute was passed in the state of Minnesota so that if a religious college required a student to submit a “faith statement,” then that college could no longer participate in this program. The argument for the statute was that the faith statement is a way for a college to unfairly discriminate against (non-religious) students who will not agree to abide by the values of the religious school. This statute shifted the incentives for high-school students in Minnesota, increasing the incentive to go to non-religious colleges by effectively removing the option to attend the religious colleges. Some parents sued the state, arguing that this statute violated their religious freedom, and a state judge ruled in these parents' favor last Friday, thus striking down the statute for now (the case will be appealed).

There are always some subtle legal matters in cases like this, and the key one here is the question of whether the law poses a burden on the free exercise of religion. The free exercise of religion is a constitutionally protected right in the U.S., and constitutional law has developed such that a law is only allowed to limit some form of religious activity if it does not impose too high a burden on the religious person and that the law applies generally so that it is not specifically targeting the religious person. The judge ruled in this case that the law did not meet these standards.

This development is a great example of how religious liberty is not always a clear-cut concept. Just what is allowed as religious behavior and what is not must be continually worked out by different individuals and organizations, often with a big role played by the legal system. This case also illustrates how individual incentives depend on the "rules of the game," because the statute influenced the behavior of high school students.

The Religious Liberty Commission

In this class you will learn about the United States Commision on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). The USCIRF was created by an Act of the U.S. Congress in 1998, its primary purpose being to monitor and analyze violations of religious freedom outside of the U.S.

A few weeks ago, on 1 May 2025, Pres. Trump created the Religious Liberty Commission (RLC) by an executive order. The RLC has a similar purpose as the USCIRF but with a different domain. While the USCIRF focuses on religious freedom outside of the U.S., the RLC focuses on religious freedom inside of the U.S.

You can read the actual executive order creating the RLC on the White House's website. It's not too long. That same day, Pres. Trump appointed several members to server on the commission, and just a few days ago he also appointed more people to serve on advisory boards.

An interesting difference between the USCIRF and the RLC is that the USCIRF was created by an Act of Congress, while the RLC was created by an executive order. This means that the USCIRF is more permanent because it can only be disbanded by another Act of Congress or a court ruling. The RLC, on the other hand, can be disbanded by another executive order or a court ruling. For example, if the next president does not want the RLC to continue, then new president can just disband it, but if the next president does not want the USCIRF to continue, then they must work through Congress with no guarantee of success.

It will take some time to determine the value of the RLC and if it even continues past Pres. Trump. Like the USCIRF, the RLC will provide reports on religious freedom and advise the president on matters related to religious freedom. It is then a question of whether the president or others will take that advice.

However, even if the advice of the RLC is completely ignored, the RLC might provide interesting data. Reports created by the USCIRF were used to create measures of religious regulation in different countries for use in quantitative social scientific research (see p. 37 of the MM book). Maybe future scholars will find similar ways to create new data from RLC reports that they can use to do research on the U.S.

The creation of the RLC is something that you can remember from this quarter. In fact, it's a fun coincidence that it happened while you are taking Econ 17, which makes it good timing for you! It is a current event related directly to key ideas and concepts in our class, including Top Ten Principles 7-10.

2024 USCIRF Annual Report

Just last week, the USCIRF released its 2024 Annual Report (full report in pdf here). You will learn more about the USCIRF later in the course when we study religious regulation, but for now you can get a sense of the significance of the report by reading the press release here.

The significance of the report is really in which countries are named as "Countries of Particular Concern" (CPCs), which are the countries that have the most severe religious freedom violations. This year there are 17 countries that were given the CPC designation. The list nearly identical to last year's list except one country has been removed and a different one added.

Download and browse the report. Pick out a country or two and read about the religious freedom violations in those countries to get a sense of how religion is being regulated in those countries. Appendix 2 has some tables and charts that also summarize some of the findings of the report.

Religion, Free Speech, and Hate Speech

When does saying something negative about a religious group constitute hate speech?

Well, you first have to define hate speech, and this is not as easy as you might think. The basic idea is that hate speech has two parts:

1. It is language that targets an individual or group based on an inherent characteristic (religion, gender, race, etc.).
2. It has some sort of aggression or even potential for harm or violence.

Part 1 seems obvious, but 2 is more difficult to pin down because it is not always clear if and when statements are harmful. Should saying something negative about a religious group constitute hate speech just because it is negative? Can't any sort of negative speech have the potential to promote aggression or violence even unintentionally? Note that there is actually no legal definition of hate speech under U.S. law, however it can be a criminal act to use speech or other expressions to incite criminal activity or threaten violence against a person or group.

This background helps us to contextualize the findings from a recent Pew Research Center survey about religious discrimination in the U.S. Americans report that there has been an increase in discrimination against both Muslims and Jews since the start of the Israel-Hamas war.

Check out the page, and especially examine the charts. There is a lot there, but you can focus on just the first findings reported which relate to the possibility of hate speech. The connection to hate speech is that there have been accusations of hate speech against supporters of both sides of the war.

Notice that there is not a perfect consensus among Americans about what types of speech should be allowed, but of course a consensus is hard to expect. There are, on the other, opinions that a majority of Americans hold.

First, 73% of American's say that speech that calls for violence against Muslims or against Jews should not be allowed. That is, a large majority of Americans believe that calls for violence should not be protected as free speech.

Second, there is a lower but still majority amount of support (about 60% give or take) for allowing speech that opposes Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state or that opposes a Palestinian state. This type of speech is more difficult to assess for Americans because it is negative and could be viewed as implying support for violence against Israel or Palestinians but does not necessarily have to be interpreted as implying support for violence.

Nonetheless, the survey results reveal that most Americans see a big difference between saying something that could be construed as potentially conflictual in nature (most Americans believe this should be allowed) and saying something that is explicitly violent (even more Americans believe this shouldn't be allowed).

This distinction can also help us understand the reasoning and intent behind religious hate crime laws that are meant to protect religious minorities. As we will discuss later in the quarter, the enactment of these laws can help to protect members of religious minorities from violence and therefore help to maintain or increase the religious diversity within a country.

A Continuing Trend in Government Restrictions on Religion

Last month, the Pew Research Center released a report on changes in government restrictions on religion around the world. Read the summary here. If you are interested, then you can also check out the full report pdf, but be warned that it is pretty long.

The key finding is that the median level of government restrictions on religion increased slightly from 2020 to 2021. This development is a continuation of a trend that the Pew Research Center has been measuring since 2007 using their Government Restrictions Index (GRI).

In statistics, an index is a composite statistic. That is, it is a single number that summarizes information from several data sources.. Creating an index is no simple thing because it can be conceptually difficult to determine how best to combine different data into a single number, but indices are very important in the social sciences because of their ability to summarize many things at once. And this is true for the GRI. Because government restrictions can take many forms, the GRI provides a single number that summarizes all of those government restrictions in a useful way.

As you read this summary, you should look for information on the GRI, what it measures, and how it measures it. Also look for information about how government restrictions are related to other types of government interventions, such as the government's providing of benefits to religious groups.

Once you've read the summary page, then click on the link that takes you to Chapter 4 to learn about restrictions in the world's 25 most populous countries. Scroll down to see the graphic. Which large countries have the most restrictions? Which large countries have the fewest restrictions? Any surprises?

USCIRF Religious Freedom Designations and the 2022 Annual Report

Last week the USCIRF issued a press statement about its designated Countries of Particular Concern.  The following twelve countries were given this designation:

• Burma
• China
• Cuba
• Eritrea
• Iran
• Nicaragua
• North Korea
• Pakistan
• Russia
• Saudi Arabia
• Tajikistan
• Turkmenistan

Check out the 2022 Annual Report (pdf) for information about religious freedom in these and other countries.  This report was published back in April 2022.

COVID-19 Restrictions on Religion Around the World

The Pew Research Center just published two days ago a report titled "How COVID-19 Restrictions Affected Religious Groups Around the World in 2020."  Read the entire summary page here, and if you want to learn more then check out the full report here (pdf).

Several main findings are reported.  For example, 23% of all countries had some sort of penalties for violation of COVID-19 restrictions on religious gathering, 27% of all countries had religious groups that spoke out against the COVID-19 restrictions, and religious groups in many countries were blamed for helping to spread COVID-19.  In other words, there were both government restrictions and social hostilities towards religious groups during the pandemic.  There were also many cases religious groups working with government officials to slow down the spread of COVID-19.

When the pandemic first started and restrictions on religious practice were being instituted here in the U.S., I wrote several posts that tracked the ongoing developments and debates.  So if you want to learn more about these developments, you can see the posts here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

USCIRF Report on State-favored Religions

Last week the USCIRF (which you will learn about on Homework 7) issued a report on state-favored religions.  Here's the press release, and here is the entire report (pdf).

Some of the key points include:

• 73% of the 78 countries that have an official or favored religion, also have policies or laws that led to repression or discrimination.
• Religious minorities and women are among the mostly likely victims of this repression and discrimination.

The report is only 8 pages, so read the entire report.  Ask yourself the following questions as you read:

• Of the 78 countries with an official or favored religion, in how many is Islam the favored religion?  What about Christianity?  What other religions may be favored?
• In what parts of the world are countries with favored religions located?  Where are the ones that have discriminatory laws and policies?  Where are the ones that do not have discriminatory policies?
• Do you see any patterns?
• What types of repression and discrimination occur?
• What is the connection between having a favored religion and having discriminatory laws and policies?
• Are non-religious persons also victims?  Why or why not?

Burkinis in the Public Swimming Pool

In June of this year, an administrative court in France upheld a ruling that women are not allowed to wear burkini swimwear in public swimming pools in the city of Grenoble.  The burkini is a head-to-ankle swimsuit that covers the woman's entire body except for her face.  Responding to vocal locals, city leaders had previously determined the burkinis would be allowed, but then a higher-ranking government official (the prefect) stopped this decision.  The administrative court upheld the prefect's decision that burkinis not be allowed.

See this article.  The primary direct effect of this ruling is that many Muslim women will no longer be swimming in the pool because they would only swim there if they could wear burkinis.

Some other French cities do allow burkinis in their public pools, so it might seem strange to not allow them in Grenoble's pools.  The court's reasoning behind not allowing them in Grenoble is not that burkinis should be prohibited in general but rather that the Grenoble city leaders whose decision -- later overturned -- to allow women to wear burkinis in public pools made their decision based in part of religious reasons, which violates a principle of separation of church and state.  Those cities that allow burkinis in public pools made their decisions to allow burkinis as part of general loosening of swimwear restrictions and not specifically to satisfy a particular religious demand.

The article does not make any prediction about what will happen next, however the ruling does seem to leave open a path for burkinis to be allowed in Grenoble in the future.  The key is for the burkini proponents to advocate for a more general loosening of swimwear restrictions rather than a specific burkini privilege.  Whatever happens, this case demonstrates the intricate interplay between religious persons and government officials that leads to the religious rules and regulations that we observe in the real world.

To Be a Jehovah's Witness in Russia

This article in the Associated Press provides a glimpse into what life is like for Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia.  Consider the following questions as you read this article:

• How have Jehovah's Witnesses been treated in Russia?
• What justification has the Russian government given for this type of treatment?
• What is distinctive about Jehovah's Witnesses teachings?
• In what other countries have Jehovah's Witnesses experienced persecution?
• How do many Jehovah's Witnesses respond to the persecution?

The Russia-Ukraine War and Religious Minorities

The title of this article in Religion & Politics asks an important question about the Russia-Ukraine war:  What does the Russian Invasion Mean for Religious Minorities in Ukraine?

Read the article to find out.  Here are some key questions for you to ask yourself as you read the article:

• What religious minorities currently exist in Ukraine?
• What types of challenges have religious minorities recently faced in Ukraine?
• What does the experience of religious minorities in Russia tell us about what the experience of religious minorities in Ukraine might be in regions of Ukraine that are taken over by Russia?
• Does the experience of what has happened in Crimea since Russia invaded in 2014 provide any clues?

These questions matter far beyond the scope of this class.  As the author states near the end of the article, "The protection of the rights of religious minorities is often the litmus test for democracy."  There is research to support this claim -- indeed the case of what has happened in Russia during the last two decades is itself evidence that religious protections are among the first to disappear when on a path that diverges from democracy.

The Russia-Ukraine War and Religion

Religion remains a significant part of national identity in many European countries, and this is true for both Russia and Ukraine.  Both have historical ties to the Eastern Orthodox Church, yet there have also been divisions.  Since the end of Soviet rule in 1991, religion and the official status of religious groups in both Russia and Ukraine have undergone significant changes and not without disagreement.

Three Orthodox churches have played the most significant roles in Ukraine, one of which has strong ties to Moscow.  As recently as 2018, there was a unification of the three into a single Orthodox Church of Ukraine -- although some of those with ties to Moscow did not join the unification.  This development was supported by many Orthodox leaders worldwide and gained official support by the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in 2019.  However, it was criticized by Russian political leaders and leaders of the Russian Orthodox Church who want Ukrainian Orthodox Christians to exist under the direction of Orthodox religious leaders in Moscow.

Read this article about religion in Russia-Ukraine war from the Religion News Service, and think about the following questions.  What key religious developments have occurred in Ukraine?  What is the significance of religious developments in Ukraine?  What role has religion played in the war?

The Benefits and Costs of Streaming Church Services

The COVID pandemic has affected social interactions in many ways, and this is also true for religious interactions.  One of the biggest changes for churches is is that many congregations began live streaming their church services online.  Some did this because large worship services were temporarily prohibited by law, while others did it to enable members with health concerns who would not attend in person to watch remotely, or both.

As COVID infection rates have continued to fluctuate, congregations that started live streaming during the pandemic must decide whether or not to continue streaming their services.  But as with any type of activity, the streaming of church services has benefits and costs.  Let us consider some of these here.

Benefits:

1. Streaming allows people who would not participate in person to participate remotely.  Streaming thus allows those people to maintain their religious capital -- or to prevent it from depreciating as rapidly as it would if they did not participate at all.  This is the most important reason to stream and is the main motivation for beginning to stream during the pandemic.  Some members might be especially served by streaming services, including those who are out of town and those whose health prevents them from attending in person.
2. Streaming allows the congregation to more easily reach and recruit new members.  Attending a congregation for the first time can be a scary experience.  When a person is invites you to attend church you have not previously attended, you might hesitate to go because you are unsure of what the experience will be like.  Watching a service remotely entails a much lower cost and risk because you can easily stop the stream or watch anonymously.  Streaming the service thus allows potential recruits an easier entry into the congregation.  Some people might be too afraid to go in person but be willing to watch remotely, and maybe they will come in person once they determine that they like the congregation. 
3. Streamed services can be recorded, thereby allowing some people to have a form of engagement with a church service that they missed synchronously.  As with 1 and 2 above, the ability to watch a recorded services enable people to reinforce their religious capital when they might not have been able to do so otherwise.

Costs:

1. Some people who would attend in person if there was no remote option might switch to remote attendance rather than attend in person.  If this happens, then the lower in-person attendance can reduce the vitality of the in-person meetings.  It also means that those who switch to remote viewing will have fewer chances to develop friendship and other ties at church services, thereby causing their religious capital to be lower than it would be without the remote option.  Worshipping together and fellowshipping each other are two of the main benefits of in-person church attendance, and these are missed when people switch from in-person participation to remote viewing.  Lower in-person participation can thus bring a lower quality of collective religious production.
2. Some equipment and software may need to be purchased, and a volunteer will need to run the live stream.  The technical requirements for streaming a church service are not that large.  A smart phone and a Zoom account can be enough to do a simple live stream, and a tripod and good microphone can improve the quality. More sophisticated set-ups with multiple audio feeds and viewer participation are also possible, and a volunteer will be needed to run the live stream.  Note that many of these technical costs are set-up costs that are paid when first beginning the live streams and not thereafter.  The ongoing costs of continuing to live stream are fairly low.

The size of these benefits and costs will differ across congregations.  A congregation that places a high value on in-person participation will be less comfortable with an easy remote option that creates an added incentive for members to skip church because of the convenience of remote viewing.  Another congregation that values a low cost of initial participation for potential new members will like having the remote option for new recruits.  There might also be innovations in how to grant access to the live stream or the recordings that try to balance different desires.  For example, a congregation can limit access to its live stream, e.g., limit to only those who are unable to attend in person due to health.  By limiting the remote access, the in-person participation is promoted while still making a remote option available for some of the members.

A key point to take away from this discussion is that we should expect to see wide variation across congregations in how streaming is used going forward.  Some will continue their live streams while others will stop them, and among those that continue there will be variation in how open or restricted the access is to those live streams.

A Trade-off Between Friendliness and Security

A recent RNS article discusses a trade-off that several synagogues find themselves facing, i.e., that between offering synagogue services that are open to strangers and services that ensure the safety for congregants.  This comes after a newcomer was welcomed into a synagogue in Texas and took several hostages at gunpoint.  The hostages eventually escaped, and the newcomer was killed.

Leaders of other synagogues who are fearing similar attacks have stepped up security at their services, but this has come at a cost of reducing friendliness.  It is a trade-off that many synagogues are willingly taking.  Doors are locked during services, guards are hired, cameras installed, and more, including turning away newcomers if the clergy do not know they were coming.

Religious groups must always make trade-offs in carrying out their religious mission, but this is not one that we normally think of.  It is a trade-off that a religious group -- usually a new religious movement or a religious minority -- must consider when it finds itself faced with threats of violence.

Religion Clause's Top 10 Church-state Developments of 2021

 See this Top-10 List at Religion Clause.  Covid and abortion take the top spots.

Pew Study Finds Global Hostilities Decline but Religious Restrictions Remain High

This is the finding reported in the latest Pew Research Center report on religious freedom.  See the main web page here and the complete report pdf here.

Is Cockfighting a Religiously Protected Activity?

Not according to a Louisiana federal district court.  The pastor of the Holy Fight Ministries argued that this activity was an essential part of their religious faith and practice, and so a ban on cockfighting violated its religious freedom.  The court ruled that the law applies generally to protect animals, so it is not a violation of religious freedom.