Freedom of religion

==Contemporary debates==
{{Status of religious freedom}}

===Theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs===
In 1993, the UN's human rights committee declared that article 18 of the [[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]] "protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.refworld.org/docid/453883fb22.html|title=CCPR General Comment 22: 30/07/93 on ICCPR Article 18|work=Minorityrights.org}}</ref> The committee further stated that "the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief necessarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one's current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views." Signatories to the convention are barred from "the use of threat of physical force or penal sanctions to compel believers or non-believers" to recant their beliefs or convert. Despite this, minority religions still are persecuted in many parts of the world.<ref>{{cite web |date=1 August 2003|title=Discrimination against religious minorities in Iran|author=International Federation for Human Rights|publisher=fdih.org|access-date=3 March 2009|url=http://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/ir0108a.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.law2.byu.edu/lawreview/archives/2002/2/dav2.pdf |title=The Evolution of Religious Liberty as a Universal Human Right |access-date=3 March 2009 |last=Davis |first=Derek H. |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110723210828/http://www.law2.byu.edu/lawreview/archives/2002/2/dav2.pdf |archive-date=23 July 2011 }}</ref>

===Secular liberalism===
[[File:AdamSmith.jpg|left|thumb|upright|[[Adam Smith]] argued in favour of freedom of religion.|alt=A man posing for a print]]
The French philosopher [[Voltaire]] noted in his book on English society, ''[[Letters on the English]]'', that freedom of religion in a diverse society was deeply important to maintaining peace in that country.  That it was also important in understanding why England at that time was more prosperous in comparison to the country's less religiously tolerant European neighbours. <blockquote>If one religion only were allowed in England, the Government would very possibly become arbitrary; if there were but two, the people would cut one another’s throats; but as there are such a multitude, they all live happy and in peace.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bartleby.com/34/2/6.html|title=Letter VI – On the Presbyterians. Letters on the English.|last=Voltaire|first=François Marie Arouet de.|date=1909–1914|website=www.bartleby.com|publisher=The Harvard Classics|orig-date=1734|access-date=2017-05-25}}</ref></blockquote>[[Adam Smith]], in his book ''[[The Wealth of Nations]]'' (using an argument first put forward by his friend and contemporary [[David Hume]]), states that in the long run it is in the best interests of society as a whole and the [[Magistrate|civil magistrate]] (government) in particular to allow people to freely choose their own religion, as it helps prevent [[civil unrest]] and reduces [[Religious intolerance|intolerance]]. So long as there are enough religions and/or religious sects operating freely in a society then they are all compelled to moderate their more controversial and violent teachings, so as to be more appealing to more people and so have an easier time attracting new converts. It is this [[free competition]] amongst religious sects for converts that ensures stability and tranquillity in the long run.

Smith also points out that laws that prevent religious freedom and seek to preserve the power and belief in a particular religion will, in the long run, only serve to weaken and corrupt that religion, as its leaders and preachers become complacent, disconnected and unpractised in their ability to seek and win over new converts:<ref name="Smith1">Smith, Adam (1776), [http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/adam-smith/Wealth-Nations.pdf Wealth of Nations] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131020042323/http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/adam-smith/Wealth-Nations.pdf |date=20 October 2013 }}, Penn State Electronic Classics edition, republished 2005, pp. 643–649</ref>

{{blockquote|The interested and active zeal of religious teachers can be dangerous and troublesome only where there is either but one sect tolerated in the society, or where the whole of a large society is divided into two or three great sects; the teachers of each acting by concert, and under a regular discipline and subordination. But that zeal must be altogether innocent, where the society is divided into two or three hundred, or, perhaps, into as many thousand small sects, of which no one could be considerable enough to disturb the public tranquillity. The teachers of each sect, seeing themselves surrounded on all sides with more adversaries than friends, would be obliged to learn that candour and moderation which are so seldom to be found among the teachers of those great sects.<ref name="Smith2">Smith, Adam (1776), [http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/adam-smith/Wealth-Nations.pdf Wealth of Nations] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131020042323/http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/adam-smith/Wealth-Nations.pdf |date=20 October 2013 }}, Penn State Electronic Classics edition, republished 2005, p. 647</ref>}}

===Judaism===
[[File:Lesley and Rachel Detained.jpg|thumb|Women detained at Western Wall for wearing prayer shawls; photo from [[Women of the Wall]]]]
[[Judaism]] includes multiple streams, such as Orthodox, [[Reform Judaism]], [[Conservative Judaism]], [[Reconstructionist Judaism]], [[Jewish Renewal]] and [[Humanistic Judaism]]. However, Judaism also exists in many forms as a civilization, possessing characteristics known as [[Jewish peoplehood|peoplehood]], rather than strictly as a religion.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Brown|first1=Erica|last2=Galperin|first2=Misha|title=The Case for Jewish Peoplehood: Can We be One?|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=QBQxCts6_CYC|year=2009|publisher=Jewish Lights Publishing|isbn=978-1580234016|page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=QBQxCts6_CYC&pg=PA71 71]|quote=The 'hood' is not only a geographic reference; it is a shared identity that may be characterized by joint assumptions, body language, certain expressions, and a host of familial-like behaviors that unite an otherwise dispirate groupe of people.}}</ref> In the Torah, Jews are forbidden to practice idolatry and are commanded to root out pagan and idolatrous practices within their midst, including killing idolaters who sacrifice children to their gods, or engage in immoral activities. However, these laws are not adhered to anymore as Jews have usually lived among multi-religious communities.

After the conquest of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judea by the Roman Empire, a Jewish state did not exist until 1948 with the establishment of the State of Israel. For over 1500 years Jewish people lived under pagan, Christian, Muslim, etc. rule. As such Jewish people in some of these states faced persecution. From the pogroms in Europe during the Middle Ages to the establishment of segregated Jewish ghettos during World War II. In the Middle East, Jews were categorised as dhimmi, non- Muslims permitted to live within a Muslim state. Even though given rights within a Muslim state, a dhimmi is still not equal to a Muslim within Muslim society.

The State of Israel was established as a Jewish and democratic state after World War II. While the Israeli Declaration of Independence stresses religious freedom as a fundamental principle, in practice most of Israel's governments have depended on ultra-Orthodox parties and have instituted legal barriers that applied to all Jews, regardless of whether they practiced Orthodox Judaism. However, as a nation state, Israel is very open towards other religions and religious practices, including a public Muslim call to prayer chants and Christian prayer bells ringing in Jerusalem. Israel has been evaluated in research by the Pew organization as having "high" government restrictions on religion. The government recognizes only Orthodox Judaism in certain matters of personal status, and marriages can only be performed by religious authorities. The government provides the greatest funding to Orthodox Judaism, even though adherents represent a minority of citizens.<ref>{{cite web |url-status=dead |publisher=Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life |title=Global restrictions on Religion |date=Dec 2009 |url=http://www.pewforum.org/files/2009/12/restrictions-fullreport1.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180724112205/http://www.pewforum.org/files/2009/12/restrictions-fullreport1.pdf |archive-date=24 July 2018 }}</ref> Jewish women, including [[Anat Hoffman]], have been arrested at the [[Western Wall]] for praying and singing while wearing religious garments the Orthodox feel should be reserved for men. [[Women of the Wall]] have organized to promote religious freedom at the Wall.<ref>{{Cite news|title=Police arrest 5 women at Western Wall for wearing tallitot|url=https://www.jpost.com/national-news/police-arrest-5-women-at-western-wall-for-wearing-tallitot-309436 |first1= Jeremy |last1=Sharon |date=11 April 2013|access-date=2023-01-02|newspaper=The Jerusalem Post|language=en-US}}</ref> In November 2014, a group of 60 non-Orthodox rabbinical students were told they would not be allowed to pray in the [[Knesset]] synagogue because it is reserved for Orthodox. Rabbi Joel Levy, director of the Conservative Yeshiva in Jerusalem, said that he had submitted the request on behalf of the students and saw their shock when the request was denied. He noted: "paradoxically, this decision served as an appropriate end to our conversation about religion and state in Israel." MK [[Dov Lipman]] expressed the concern that many Knesset workers are unfamiliar with non-Orthodox and American practices and would view "an egalitarian service in the synagogue as an affront."<ref>{{cite news | last=Maltz | first=Judy | title=Non-Orthodox Jews prohibited from praying in Knesset synagogue | date=26 November 2014 | newspaper=Haaretz | url= http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.628571 |url-access=subscription | access-date=21 April 2017 }}</ref> The non-Orthodox forms of Jewish practice function independently in Israel, except for these issues of praying at the Western Wall.

A January 2022 report by [[Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education|IMPACT-se]], an Israeli [[non-profit]], detailed the amount of religious tolerance impressed on students through the education system in the United Arab Emirates. The “Jews as a Religious Community” section of the report starts with the UAE curriculum being cited as a tolerant one and one instilling a “generally positive attitude toward other non-Muslims”. However, besides the positive examples aimed at maintaining peace between the two nations, the report also highlights the negative portrayal of Jews in the UAE, citing a hadith passage that preaches believers to not be like the [[Jews]], as they may be unclean or dirty. An Islamic educational text further described punishing the Bani Qurayza Jews for purportedly abusing the commitment of supporting Muhammad. The textbooks also seem to have missed mentioning Israel in their maps or educating the children and about the Jewish state history, i.e. the event of [[Holocaust]] despite normalizing ties with the Jewish state.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.impact-se.org/wp-content/uploads/When-Peace-Goes-to-School_The-Emirati-Curriculum-2016%E2%80%9321.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220120120811/https://www.impact-se.org/wp-content/uploads/When-Peace-Goes-to-School_The-Emirati-Curriculum-2016%E2%80%9321.pdf |archive-date=2022-01-20 |url-status=live|title=IMPACT-se: When Peace Goes to School The Emirati Curriculum 2016–21|accessdate=20 January 2022|website=IMPACT-se}}</ref>

===Christianity===
[[File:Worship-monument.jpg|left|thumb|Part of the [[Oscar Straus (politician)|Oscar Straus]] Memorial in Washington, D.C. honoring the right to worship]] According to the Catholic Church in the [[Vatican II]] document on religious freedom, ''[[Dignitatis Humanae]]'', "the human person has a right to religious freedom", which is described as "immunity from coercion in civil society".<ref name=autogenerated1>{{cite web |url=https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html |title=Declaration on religious freedom – ''Dignitatis humanae'' |publisher=Vatican.va |access-date=3 September 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120211202206/https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html |archive-date=11 February 2012}}</ref> This principle of religious freedom "leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion."<ref name=autogenerated1 /> In addition, this right "is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right."<ref name=autogenerated1 />

Prior to this, [[Pope Pius IX]] had written a document called the ''[[Syllabus of Errors]]. ''The Syllabus was made up of phrases and paraphrases from earlier papal documents, along with index references to them, and presented as a list of "condemned propositions". It does not explain why each particular proposition is wrong, but it cites earlier documents to which the reader can refer for the Pope's reasons for saying each proposition is false. Among the statements included in the Syllabus are: "[It is an error to say that] Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true" (15); "[It is an error to say that] In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship"; "[It is an error to say that] Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P9SYLL.HTM|title=The Syllabus|author=Pope Pius IX|publisher=[[EWTN]]|author-link=Pope Pius IX|access-date=26 August 2013|archive-date=2 January 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180102165127/http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P9SYLL.HTM|url-status=dead}}, [http://www.ewtn.com/ Global Catholic Network]</ref>

Some Orthodox Christians, especially those living in democratic countries, support religious freedom for all, as evidenced by the position of the [[Ecumenical Patriarchate]]. Many Protestant Christian churches, including some [[Baptists]], [[Churches of Christ in Australia|Churches of Christ]], [[Seventh-day Adventist Church]] and [[Mainline (Protestant)|main line]] churches have a commitment to religious freedoms.{{cn|date=August 2023}} [[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] also affirms religious freedom.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Articles of Faith|url=https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/eng/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1|access-date=2023-01-02|website=www.churchofjesuschrist.org|language=en|quote=We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may}}</ref>

However others, such as African scholar [[Makau Mutua]], have argued that Christian insistence on the propagation of their faith to native cultures as an element of religious freedom has resulted in a corresponding denial of religious freedom to native traditions and led to their destruction. As he states in the book produced by the Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief, "Imperial religions have necessarily violated individual conscience and the communal expressions of Africans and their communities by subverting African religions."<ref>Mutua, Makau. 2004. ''Facilitating Freedom of Religion or Belief, A Deskbook''. Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief.{{ISBN?}}{{page needed|date=April 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Religious human rights in global perspective: legal perspectives|volume=2|author1=J. D. Van der Vyver|author2=John Witte|publisher=Martinus Nijhoff Publishers|year=1996|isbn=9041101772|page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=XSnpr1ndq5kC&pg=PA418418 418]|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XSnpr1ndq5kC}}</ref>

In their book ''[[Breaking India]]'', [[Hindutva]] ideologue [[Rajiv Malhotra]]<ref>{{Cite news|date=October 30, 2018|title=Rajiv Malhotra, Swapan Dasgupta appointed as JNU honorary professors|work=Business Standard|url=https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/rajiv-malhotra-swapan-dasgupta-appointed-as-jnu-honorary-professors-118103000970_1.html|access-date=January 1, 2021}}</ref> and [[Aravindan Neelakandan]] discussed the "US Protestant Church" funding activities in India, with the book arguing that the funds collected were being used not so much for the purposes indicated to sponsors, but for indoctrination and conversion activities. They suggest that India is the prime target of a huge enterprise{{snd}} a "network" of organizations, individuals, and churches{{snd}} that, they argue, seem intensely devoted to the task of creating a separatist identity, history, and even religion for the vulnerable sections of India. They suggest that this nexus of players includes not only church groups, government bodies, and related organizations, but also private think tanks and academics.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.breakingindia.com/introduction/|title=Introduction|work=Breaking India}}</ref>

[[Joel Spring]] has written about the Christianization of the [[Roman Empire]]:

<blockquote>Christianity added new impetus to the expansion of empire. Increasing the arrogance of the imperial project, Christians insisted that the Gospels and the Church were the only valid sources of religious beliefs. Imperialists could claim that they were both civilizing the world and spreading the true religion. By the 5th century, Christianity was thought of as co-extensive with the ''Imperium romanum''. This meant that to be human, as opposed to being a natural slave, was to be "civilized" and Christian. Historian Anthony Pagden argues, "just as the ''civitas''; had now become coterminous with Christianity, so to be human{{snd}} to be, that is, one who was 'civil', and who was able to interpret correctly the law of nature{{snd}} one had now also to be Christian." After the fifteenth century, most Western colonialists rationalized the spread of empire with the belief that they were saving a barbaric and pagan world by spreading Christian civilization.<ref>{{cite book|title=Globalization and educational rights: an intercivilizational analysis|author=Joel H. Spring|publisher=Routledge|year=2001|isbn=978-0805838824|page=92|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3lobX1DC_i0C&pg=PA92}}{{Dead link|date=August 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref></blockquote>

===Islam===
{{Further|Human rights in Islamic countries|Human rights in the Middle East|Application of sharia law by country|Islamism|Political aspects of Islam}}
{{See also|Marrakesh Declaration|Criticism of hadith}}
[[Conversion to Islam]] is simple, but Muslims are forbidden to convert from Islam to another religion. Certain [[Muslim-majority countries]] are known for their restrictions on religious freedom, highly favoring Muslim citizens over non-Muslim citizens. Other countries{{who|date=February 2012}} having the same restrictive laws tend to be more liberal when imposing them. Even other Muslim-majority countries are secular and thus do not regulate religious belief.<ref>{{cite web |last=United States |first=Department of State|title=2010 International Religious Freedom Report|url=https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2010_5/index.htm|work=International Religious Freedom Report|publisher=US Department of State|access-date=15 February 2012}}</ref>{{Failed verification|date=February 2012|reason=this may be supportable, but I don't see clear support in the source cited}}

In [[Iran]], the constitution recognizes four religions whose status is formally protected: Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.<ref name="fdih1">
{{cite web |date=1 August 2003|title=Discrimination against religious minorities in Iran|author=International Federation for Human Rights|publisher=fdih.org|access-date=20 October 2006|url=http://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/ir0108a.pdf}}</ref>
The constitution, however, also set the groundwork for the institutionalized [[persecution of Baháʼís]],<ref name="ihrdc">
{{cite web |author=Iran Human Rights Documentation Center|publisher=Iran Human Rights Documentation Center| title= A Faith Denied: The Persecution of the Baha'is of Iran|year=2007|access-date=3 March 2007|url=http://www.iranhrdc.org/english/pdfs/Reports/bahai_report.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071127005930/http://www.iranhrdc.org/english/pdfs/Reports/bahai_report.pdf|archive-date=2007-11-27}}</ref>
who have been subjected to arrests, beatings, executions, confiscation and destruction of property, and the denial of civil rights and liberties, and the denial of access to higher education.<ref name="fdih1" /> There is no freedom of conscience in Iran, as converting from Islam to any other religion is forbidden.

In Egypt, a 16 December 2006 judgment of the [[Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt]] created a clear demarcation between recognized religions{{snd}} Islam, Christianity and Judaism{{snd}} and all other religious beliefs;<ref name="middle_east_times">{{cite web |url=http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20061220-033209-2100r|archive-url=https://swap.stanford.edu/20090402124811/http%3A//www%2Emetimes%2Ecom/|archive-date=2009-04-02|title=Egypt's Bahais denied citizenship rights|first=Joseph|last=Mayton|work=Middle East Times|date=19 December 2006|access-date=23 January 2007}}</ref><ref name="washingtontimes">{{cite web |title=Court denies Bahai couple document IDs|first=Sharon|last=Otterman|work=The Washington Times|date=17 December 2006|access-date=23 January 2007|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20061217-122113-6320r.htm}}</ref> no other religious affiliation is officially admissible.<ref name="ahram">{{cite web |title=Rendered faithless and stateless |first=Gamal |last=Nkrumah |url=http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/825/eg5.htm |publisher=Al-Ahram weekly |date=21 December 2006 |access-date=23 January 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070123145617/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/825/eg5.htm |archive-date=23 January 2007}}</ref> The ruling leaves members of other religious communities, including Baháʼís, without the ability to obtain the necessary government documents to have rights in their country, essentially denying them of all rights of citizenship.<ref name="ahram" /> They cannot obtain ID cards, birth certificates, death certificates, marriage or divorce certificates, and passports; they also cannot be employed, educated, treated in public hospitals or vote, among other things.<ref name="ahram" /> See [[Egyptian identification card controversy]].

===Changing religion===
{{Main|Religious conversion}}

Among the most contentious areas of religious freedom is the right of an individual to change or abandon his or her own religion, criminalized as [[apostasy]] in some countries, and the right to [[Evangelism|evangelize]] individuals seeking to convince others to make such a change.

Other debates have centered around restricting certain kinds of missionary activity by religions. Many Islamic states, and others such as China, severely restrict missionary activities of other religions. Greece, among European countries, has generally looked unfavorably on missionary activities of denominations others than the majority church and proselytizing is constitutionally prohibited.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://2001-2009.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/51555.htm|title=US State Department report on Greece|publisher=State.gov|date=8 November 2005|access-date=3 September 2011}}</ref>

A different kind of critique of the freedom to propagate religion has come from non-Abrahamic traditions such as the African and Indian. African scholar [[Makau Mutua]] criticizes religious evangelism on the ground of cultural annihilation by what he calls "proselytizing universalist faiths" (Chapter 28: Proselytism and Cultural Integrity, p.&nbsp;652):

{{Blockquote|...the (human) rights regime incorrectly assumes a level playing field by requiring that African religions compete in the marketplace of ideas. The rights corpus not only forcibly imposes on African religions the obligation to compete{{snd}} a task for which as nonproselytizing, noncompetitive creeds they are not historically fashioned{{snd}} but also protects the evangelizing religions in their march towards universalization ... it seems inconceivable that the human rights regime would have intended to protect the right of certain religions to destroy others.<ref>{{cite book |last=Mutua  |first=Makau |title=Facilitating Freedom of Religion or Belief, A Deskbook |year=2004 |publisher= Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief|isbn=978-9004137837|page=652}}</ref><!-- direct quote should have page number. For another edition of cited source, see https://books.google.com/books?id=fU1-AAAACAAJ&dq=%22Facilitating+Freedom+of+Religion+or+Belief%22+%22A+Deskbook%22&ei=rCq3SdyVI5DUlQSO1Ij9Bg -->}}

Some Indian scholars<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.manushi-india.org/pdfs_issues/PDF%20Files%20150/Sankrant%20Sanu.%204-12.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070124123847/http://www.manushi-india.org/pdfs_issues/PDF%20Files%20150/Sankrant%20Sanu.%204-12.pdf |archive-date=2007-01-24 |url-status=live|title=Re-examining Religious Freedom|first=Sankrant|last=Sanu|publisher=Manushi|year=2006|access-date=26 July 2008}}</ref> have similarly argued that the right to propagate religion is not culturally or religiously neutral.

In Sri Lanka, there have been debates regarding a bill on religious freedom that seeks to protect indigenous religious traditions from certain kinds of missionary activities. Debates have also occurred in various states of India regarding similar laws, particularly those that restrict conversions using force, fraud or allurement.

In 2008, [[Christian Solidarity Worldwide]], a Christian human rights non-governmental organisation which specializes in religious freedom, launched an in-depth report on the human rights abuses faced by individuals who leave Islam for another religion. The report is the product of a year long research project in six countries. It calls on Muslim nations, the international community, the UN and the international media to resolutely address the serious violations of human rights suffered by apostates.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.online2.church123.com/attach.asp?clientURN=christiansolidarityworldwide2&attachFileName=09ae125dba76986113441ef1463aca8e.attach&attachOriginalFileName=CSW_Briefing_Apostasy_April_2008.pdf|title=No place to call home|date=29 April 2008|publisher=Christian Solidarity Worldwide|access-date=11 March 2009|archive-date=18 November 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181118150837/http://www.online2.church123.com/attach.asp?clientURN=christiansolidarityworldwide2&attachFileName=09ae125dba76986113441ef1463aca8e.attach&attachOriginalFileName=CSW_Briefing_Apostasy_April_2008.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref>

====Apostasy in Islam====
{{Main|Apostasy in Islam|Takfir|Mutaween}}
[[File:Rechtsgutachten betr Apostasie im Islam.jpg|thumb|upright=1.15|Legal opinion on apostasy by the [[Fatwa]] committee at [[Al-Azhar University]] in [[Cairo]], the highest Islamic institution in the world, concerning the case of a man who converted to Christianity: "Since he left Islam, he will be invited to express his regret. If he does not regret, he will be killed pertaining to rights and obligations of the Islamic law."]]
In Islam, apostasy is called "''ridda''" ("turning back") and is considered to be a profound insult to God. A person born of Muslim parents that rejects Islam is called a "''murtadd fitri''" (natural apostate), and a person that converted to Islam and later rejects the religion is called a "''murtadd milli''" (apostate from the community).<ref>{{cite book | last=Warraq | first=I. | title=Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out | publisher=Prometheus | year=2009 | isbn=978-1-61592-160-7 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9q0y21B9BoUC | page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=9q0y21B9BoUC&pg=PA16 16]}}</ref>

A female apostate must be either executed, according to [[Shafi'i]], [[Maliki]], and [[Hanbali]] schools of [[Sunni Islam]]ic jurisprudence ([[fiqh]]), or imprisoned until she reverts to Islam as advocated by the Sunni [[Hanafi]] school and by [[Shi'a]] scholars.<ref name="EI Murtadd">{{cite encyclopedia|author=Heffening, W.|article=Murtadd| encyclopedia=[[Encyclopaedia of Islam]] Online Edition|editor1=P.J. Bearman |editor2=Th. Bianquis |editor3=C.E. Bosworth |editor4=E. van Donzel |editor5=W.P. Heinrichs |publisher=Brill Academic Publishers|issn=1573-3912}}</ref>

Ideally, the one performing the execution of an apostate must be an [[imam]].<ref name="EI Murtadd" /> At the same time, all schools of [[Islamic jurisprudence]] agree that any Muslim can kill an apostate without punishment.<ref>{{cite book |author=Abdul Qadir Oudah|title=Kitab Bhavan|year=1999|isbn=8171512739|publisher=Kitab Bhavan|location=New Delhi}}, Volume II. pp. 258–262; Volume IV. pp. 19–21</ref>

However, while almost all scholars agree about the punishment, many disagree on the allowable time to retract the apostasy.<ref>{{cite book |author=Sadakat Kadri|title=Heaven on Earth: A Journey Through Shari'a Law from the Deserts of Ancient Arabia|year=2012|isbn=978-0099523277|publisher=Macmillan|location=New York}}</ref> [[S. A. Rahman]], a former Chief Justice of Pakistan, argues that there is no indication of the death penalty for apostasy in the [[Qur'an]].<ref>{{cite book |author=S. A. Rahman|author-link=S. A. Rahman|title=Punishment of Apostasy in Islam|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=L4fsYtFf5AoC|year=2007|publisher=The Other Press|isbn=978-9839541496|pages=[https://books.google.com/books?id=L4fsYtFf5AoC&pg=PA132 132–142]|chapter=Summary and Conclusions|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=L4fsYtFf5AoC&pg=PA132}}</ref>

[[Javed Ahmad Ghamidi]] a prominent islamic scholar who studied under Syed Abul Ala Maududi & Amin Ahsan Islahi, says killing of apostates was only for a special period after the [[Itmam e Hujjat]].

====Children's rights====
The law in Germany includes the concept of "religious maturity" (''Religiöse Mündigkeit'') with a minimum age for [[Minor (law)|minors]] to follow their own religious beliefs even if their parents don't share those or don't approve. Children 14 and older have the unrestricted right to enter or exit any religious community. Children 12 and older cannot be compelled to change to a different belief. Children 10 and older have to be heard before their parents change their religious upbringing to a different belief.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://bundesrecht.juris.de/kerzg/BJNR009390921.html|title=Gesetz über die religiöse Kindererziehung|publisher=Bundesrecht.juris.de|access-date=3 September 2011}}</ref> There are similar laws in Austria<ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.familienrecht.at/fileadmin/gesetze/abgb/rekerz.pdf| title = Bundesgesetz 1985 über die religiöse Kindererziehung}}</ref> and in Switzerland.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gesetze.ch/sr/210/210_025.htm|title=Schweizerisches Zivilgesetzbuch Art 303: Religiöse Erziehung|publisher=Gesetze.ch|access-date=3 September 2011|archive-date=16 September 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170916045044/http://www.gesetze.ch/sr/210/210_025.htm|url-status=dead}}</ref>

===Secular law===
Religious practice may also conflict with secular law, creating debates on religious freedom. For instance, even though [[polygamy]] is permitted in Islam, it is prohibited in secular law in many countries. This raises the question of whether prohibiting the practice infringes on the beliefs of certain Muslims. The US and India, both constitutionally secular nations, have taken two views of this. In India, polygamy is permitted, but only for Muslims, under [[Muslim Personal Law]]. In the US, polygamy is prohibited for all. This was a major source of conflict between the US government and [[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]], in its early days, and the United States until the Church amended its position on practicing polygamy.

Similar issues have also arisen in the context of the religious use of [[psychedelic substance]]s by Native American tribes in the United States, such as by the [[Native American Church]].

In 1955, Chief Justice of California [[Roger J. Traynor]] neatly summarized the American position on how freedom of religion cannot imply freedom from law: "Although freedom of conscience and the freedom to believe are absolute, the freedom to act is not."<ref>{{Cite web|title=Pencovic v. Pencovic (1955) 45 C2d 97|url=http://online.ceb.com/calcases/C2/45C2d97.htm|access-date=2023-01-02|website=online.ceb.com}}</ref> But with respect to the religious use of animals within secular law and those acts, the [[US Supreme Court]] decision in the case of the ''[[Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah]]'' in 1993 upheld the right of Santeria adherents to practice ritual [[animal sacrifice]], with Justice Anthony Kennedy stating in the decision: "religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection" (quoted by Justice Kennedy from the opinion by Justice Burger in ''[[Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division]]'' {{ussc|450|707|1981}}).<ref>{{Cite book|last=Hall|first=Daniel E.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KnBnknQAHlkC&q=religious%2520beliefs%2520need%2520not%2520be%2520acceptable%2C%2520logical%2C%2520consistent%2520or%2520comprehensible%2520to%2520others%2520in%2520order%2520to%2520merit%2520First%2520Amendment%2520protection&pg=PA266|title=Criminal Law and Procedure|date=2008-07-22|publisher=Cengage Learning|isbn=978-1-4283-4059-6|language=en|page=266}}</ref>

In 1962, the case of ''[[Engel v. Vitale]]'' went to court over the violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment resulting from a mandatory nondenominational prayer in New York public schools. The Supreme Court ruled in opposition to the state.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-engel-v-vitale|title=Facts and Case Summary – Engel v. Vitale|work=United States Courts|access-date=2018-05-03|language=en}}</ref>

In 1963, the Supreme Court ruled on the case of ''[[Abington School District v. Schempp]]''. Edward Schempp sued the school district in Abington over the Pennsylvania law which required students to hear and sometimes read portions of the bible for their daily education. The court ruled in favor of Schempp and the Pennsylvania law was overturned.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://cases.laws.com/abington-school-district-v-schempp|title=Abington School District V Schempp – Cases {{!}} Laws.com|website=cases.laws.com|date=3 April 2015 |language=en-US|access-date=2018-05-03}}</ref>

In 1968, the Supreme Court ruled on the case of ''[[Epperson v. Arkansas]]''. Susan Epperson, a high school teacher in Arkansas sued over a violation of religious freedom. The state had a law banning the teaching of evolution and the school Epperson worked for had provided curriculum which contained evolutionary theory. Epperson had to choose between violating the law or losing her job. The Supreme Court ruled to overturn the Arkansas law because it was unconstitutional.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://cases.laws.com/epperson-v-arkansas|title=Epperson V Arkansas – Cases {{!}} Laws.com|website=cases.laws.com|date=3 April 2015 |language=en-US|access-date=2018-05-03}}</ref>

====As a legal form of discrimination====
Leaders of the [[Christian right]] in the United States, United Kingdom, and other nations frame their opposition to [[LGBT rights]] and [[reproductive freedom]] as a defence of religious liberty.<ref name="Fredman2020">{{cite journal|last=Fredman|first=Sandra|date=23 August 2020|title=Tolerating the Intolerant: Religious Freedom, Complicity, and the Right to Equality|journal=Oxford Journal of Law and Religion|volume=9|issue=2|pages=305–328|doi=10.1093/ojlr/rwaa017|doi-access=free}}</ref>

In court cases, religious adherents have argued that they need [[Religious exemption|exemptions]] from laws requiring equal treatment of LGBT people to avoid being complicit in "the sinful behaviour" of LGBT people.<ref name="Fredman2020"/> Moreover, other Christians argue that LGBT rights must be entirely removed from law to preserve the religious liberty of conservative Christians.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Whitehead|first1=Andrew L.|last2=Perry|first2=Samuel L.|date=2020 |title=Taking America back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States|location=New York|publisher=Oxford University Press|pages=134–149|isbn=978-0190057886|oclc=1150958230}}</ref> As pointed out at the [[United Nations Human Rights Council]] in the 2023 formal report of the [[LGBT rights at the United Nations|United Nations Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity]] on the basis of the explanation in a 2020 article by human rights expert [[Dag Øistein Endsjø]], adherents of denominations and belief systems who embrace LGBT-equality "can claim that anti-LGBT manifestations of religion (such as criminalization and discrimination) not only impinge upon the right of LGBT people to be free from violence and discrimination based on SOGI [sexual orientation and gender identity], but also violate the denominations' own rights of freedom of religion".<ref>[[United Nations Human Rights Council]] ''[https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/ahrc5337-report-independent-expert-protection-against-violence-and|A/HRC/53/37 Freedom of religion or belief, and freedom from violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity: Report of the Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity]'', 7 June 2023, § 162; [[Dag Øistein Endsjø]] “[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13642987.2020.1763961 The other way around? How freedom of religion may protect LGBT rights]”, ''The International Journal of Human Rights'' 24:10 (2020), pp. 1686-88.</ref> 

In 2015, [[Kim Davis]], a Kentucky county clerk, refused to abide by the Supreme Court decision in ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]'' legalising [[same-sex marriage in the United States]]. When she refused to issue marriage licences, she became embroiled in the ''[[Miller v. Davis]]'' lawsuit. Her actions caused attorney and author [[Roberta Kaplan]] to claim that "Kim Davis is the clearest example of someone who wants to use a religious liberty argument to discriminate."<ref name="Bromberger">{{cite news|last=Bromberger|first=Brian|date=15 October 2015|title=New book details Windsor Supreme Court victory|newspaper=[[Bay Area Reporter]]|url=http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=70989|access-date=16 October 2015}}</ref> Davis was briefly jailed and Kentucky court ordered her to pay the same-sex couple $100,000 in damages.<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/14/kim-davis-damages-same-sex-marriage-license-kentucky | title=Kim Davis must pay $100,000 to US same-sex couple she denied marriage license | newspaper=The Guardian | date=14 September 2023 | last1=Oladipo | first1=Gloria }}</ref>