Religious Freedom Across States in the U.S.

The Religious Liberty in the States website released their report on religious freedom within the United States. According to their methodology, the states with the highest religious liberty are, in order: Arkansas, Tennessee, Florida, Montana, and Illinois. California is near the bottom at 46 out of 50.

Here is a screenshot:

The key to understanding their ranking is understanding their methodology. By exploring their website and browsing the report you can find out more details about their methodology, but you can get a birds-eye view of it on pp. 16-17 of the report. You will see that their ranking puts emphasis on specific exemptions granted to religious persons (e.g., refusing vaccinations for religious reasons), religious leaders (e.g., clergy privacy privileges), and religious organizations (e.g., protections against forced closures of churches).

Although some of these exemptions are supported by the wider American population, many of them are specific concerns of the Christian Right in the U.S. today. In other words, this ranking reflects the concerns of today's Christian Right. Of course, any ranking will be a reflection of the values of the people who constructed it because when researchers make rankings or indices, they must choose what to count and what not to count. That holds for other indices that will be considered in the class, such as those on the ARDA website. This is one reason why it is good to have indices and rankings from different scholars, each a reflection of the values and biases of its creators. Having many different measures gives us a broader picture of what is studied, but it does mean that we should make an effort to understand the methodology of the creators.

Another takeaway from this report is that, in practice, religious rights are always traded off against other rights and concerns, and this means that the protection of specific religious rights is continually negotiated in society, legislatures, and the courts. Although most basic religious rights like the freedom to join a religious group of one's choosing are pretty well protected all over the U.S., some specific privileges and exemptions will change over time as public opinion and circumstances change. Depending on your view, this is either a feature or a flaw of living in a democratic republic such as the U.S.

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.

Resolution of a Long-standing Conflict in the United Methodist Church

For the last several years, the United Methodist Church (UMC) has been dealing with internal divisions over several matters of church policy, particularly on issues related to same-sex marriage and gay clergy. Resolving the internal conflict was delayed due the COVID-19 pandemic, but a process was put in place for congregations dissatisfied with the removal of restrictions against same-sex marriage and gay clergy to officially leave the church. During the last three years, a quarter of the UMC's congregations left the denomination, some joining a new denomination (the Global Methodist Church), some joining other Methodist denominations, and some staying independent. This resulted in a dramatic loss in the number of members in the UMC during the last few years, and it contributed to decades-long trend in UMC membership decline.

With the departures of those who opposed same-sex marriage and gay clergy, the remaining individuals and leaders faced little opposition to make official changes to church policy, and these changes were officially voted in earlier this month at their General Conference. (see here and here). This resolves a long-standing conflict in the UMC that has been touched on in several posts on this blog since 2020 (see here, here, here, and here).

This latest development was expected because so many of its opponents had left and were no longer present to prevent it, but it is still a historic development for the UMC. The removal of restrictions against same-sex marriage and gay clergy was hailed as a giant victory by some in the church but criticized as the most recent instance of straying farther from scriptural guidance for others. But whichever side of the issue a person finds themselves, it was a big change for what was once one of the largest denominations in the U.S.A.

This change is a clear reduction in the strictness of the UMC, and our economic approach predicts that this change will not help the UMC to reverse it long-run membership decline. Removing restrictions against same-sex marriage and gay clergy removes one of the remaining differences between the UMC and other mainline denominations that had already made similar accommodations. AS a result, the UMC is as similar to the other mainline denominations than it has ever been in its history, and that means that it will be more difficult than before to convince potential members of the UMC's uniqueness and value.

People inside and out of the UMC can debate whether the development was right or wrong, and that is a matter for which our economic approach cannot directly help. However, our economic approach does suggest that it will now be more difficult than ever for the UMC to claim any advantages over other mainline churches when competing for members. We should expect that the UMC's membership decline will continue apace and that what was once one of the largest denominations in the U.S.A. will not regain its once-dominant position in the American religious marketplace.

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?

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?

The Church Like Me

Last week, Christianity Today published an article titled "More Americans Want Their Church to Share Their Politics."  The "more" in the title refers to a finding that the percent of U.S. Protestant churchgoers who want their fellow churchgoers to share their political views has increased.

The figure below is from that article.  According to the blue bars, compared to 2017, more people now somewhat agree or strongly agree with the statement "I prefer to attend a church where people share my political views."  According to the red bars, there has also been a similar shift in people's perceptions of whether their fellow churchgoers' views match their own.

This trend is not a new one in the American religious marketplace.  In their 2010 book American Grace, Putnam and Campbell show that this trend has been in place for decades.  Americans are increasingly sorting themselves into religious groups of people who are more like themselves.

This sorting a natural consequence of a vibrant religious marketplace in which people are able to switch religious groups at relatively low cost, thereby increasing the chance that they find a religious group that better matches their tastes.  Though it is fair to ask about the consequences of this trend.  Of course, the main one is that this sorting further reduces the diversity in the already someone homogenous churches.  Overcoming this homogeneity is difficult, an issue that is discussed in Section 11.5 of the book.

Read this article and Section 11.5 of the book to better understand the challenges with creating and fostering a diverse church.

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?

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.

Supreme Court Ruling on California's COVID Worship Restrictions

On February 5, the Supreme Court ruled that the state of California cannot enforce its ban on indoor religious worship but that it can maintain a 25% capacity limit.  This came after a circuit court upheld the ban.  The judges were not in complete agreement on all matters.  Some wanted to remove the capacity limit and ban on singing, while others did not.

You can see the write-up at Religion Clause here and the write up at Get Religion here.

Top Ten Church-state Developments of 2020

 The Religion Clause blog offers its top church-state developments of 2020.  Not surprising is that the the COVID-19 church attendance limits take the top spot in the list.

California COVID Church Attendance Restrictions Upheld Again

In late November, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the state of New York could not enforce limits on church attendance because of COVID-19 (see here).  Many observers wondered what would be the effect of this ruling for states that did have attendance limits in place.  We found out last week that it will not affect the church attendance limits in California.  See here and here.

The court ruled that California's limits were "neutral" because they allowed for churches to meet without attendance limits as long as those meetings are outdoors.  In other words, California's policy is not as restrictive as New York's, and Californian's can still fully worship outside.  Thus, Californians are not severely impacted by their state's policy.

Again, we must stay tuned to see if there are further developments.

Supreme Court Prevents New York from Enforcing Limits on Church Attendance

On 25 November 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the state of New York could not limit church and synagogue attendance.  Read this article at the Religion News Service.

We have been tracking developments on government restrictions on church attendance since the Covid-19 pandemic began, and you can browse several past blog posts if you are interested (here, here, here, here, here).  This ruling differs from the previous court rulings and reflects a recent shift in the ideological make-up of the Supreme Court.

The judges in the majority argued that places of worship, even in areas very hard hit by Covid-19, had been singled out for attendance restrictions and that the New York regulations were harsher on religious groups than on other organizations, such as grocery stores and pet shops.  If you are interested in the legal arguments, you can see the post at Religion Clause.

How this ruling affects government restrictions on religious gatherings in other states remains to be seen.  Current state guidelines in California allow for different types and sizes of religious gatherings depending on what "tier" of Covid-19 outbreak is experienced within the county.  Orange County has "widespread" outbreak, so it is currently in the "purple" tier which has the most restrictions.  Churches are allowed to meet "outdoor only with modifications."  You can see the different restrictions by tiers on state government web site here (scroll down to the link for "Places of worship and cultural ceremonies."

Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses Around the World

The United States Commission on Religious Freedom (USCIRF), which is an organization created by the U.S. government in 1998 to monitor religious freedom around the world, just released a short report on the rise of state persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses around the world.  Access the 8-page report here.

As you read this report, consider the following questions.  In which countries are Jehovah's Witnesses targeted?  What is it about the Jehovah's Witnesses that makes them targets of persecution?  What type of persecution do Jehovah's Witnesses suffer?

This blog post is written just a day after a related post about the Pew Research Center's work that shows religious restrictions continue to rise around the world.  This USCIRF report provides a closer look at how one particular religious group's experience forms a part of the larger trend.

Pres. Trump's Executive Order on Advancing Religious Freedom

Yesterday, U.S. President Trump issued an executive order that states that international religious freedom should factor into U.S. foreign policy.  Among other things:

• The Secretary of State should budget at least $50 million a year for programs that advance religious freedom worldwide.
• Government agencies should not discriminate against religious entities when awarding federal funding.
• Plans of action should be developed to support religious freedom in Countries of Particular Concern (remember these from USCIRF).
• Concerns about international religious freedom should be raised when meeting with leaders of foreign countries.
• State Department and Foreign Affairs workers are to undergo training in international religious freedom.
• Economic tools, such as the awarding of foreign assistance or the assigning of sanctions, should be used to help advance international religious freedom.

Because religious freedom is widely understood to be a basic human right (sees Article 18-20 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights), it has long been a factor in U.S. foreign policy.  This itself is not new.  However, this executive order does outline some specific ways it is to be factored into policy.  It will take some time to determine whether it actually changes U.S. foreign policy in any meaningful sense.