Measuring the Social Perception of Religious Freedom: A Sociological Perspective

Abstract

This article discusses the construction of the measuring instrument for the study of social perception of religious freedom (SPRF). We provide an overview of existing definitions of religious freedom from a social-science perspective, which ground the empirical research of religious freedom and describe the conceptualization of SPRF. We focus on the operationalization model and introduce the operational variables for the SPRF research, also emphasizing the political, religious, and human rights contexts of independent variables. Finally, the results of exploratory factor analysis that allow to construct the balanced model of SPRF based on statistically weighted factors and scales are presented. The theoretical and statistically tested instrument is discussed as a result of this analysis.

Full text

religions
Article
Measuring the Social Perception of Religious
Freedom: A Sociological Perspective
Olga Breskaya 1, * and Giuseppe Giordan 2
1University Human Rights Centre, University of Padova, via Martiri della Libertà, 2, 35137 Padova, Italy
2Department of Philosophy, Sociology, Education and Applied Psychology, University of Padova,
via Cesarotti 10, 35123 Padova, Italy; giuseppe.giordan@unipd.it
*Correspondence: olga.breskaya@phd.unipd.it
Received: 27 March 2019; Accepted: 12 April 2019; Published: 16 April 2019


Abstract:
This article discusses the construction of the measuring instrument for the study of social
perception of religious freedom (SPRF). We provide an overview of existing definitions of religious
freedom from a social-science perspective, which ground the empirical research of religious freedom
and describe the conceptualization of SPRF. We focus on the operationalization model and introduce
the operational variables for the SPRF research, also emphasizing the political, religious, and human
rights contexts of independent variables. Finally, the results of exploratory factor analysis that allow to
construct the balanced model of SPRF based on statistically weighted factors and scales are presented.
The theoretical and statistically tested instrument is discussed as a result of this analysis.
Keywords:
religious freedom; sociology of human rights; sociology of religious freedom;
empirical research
1. Introduction
The central argument of this article is that the study of the social perception of religious freedom
(SPRF) allows to identify religious freedom as a multidimensional concept keeping the heuristic tension
between its societal and subjective meanings. Drawing on the sociological definition we introduce in
this article that sociopolitical structures, personal meanings, and individual choices and experiences
mediate the process of construction of religious freedom meaning, the research of SPRF aims to
integrate five conceptual domains producing it. We suggest that the multidimensional concept of SPRF
compounds the definition of religious freedom as (1) an individual and religious groups’ autonomy;
(2) a societal value; (3) a principle of religion–state governance; (4) an international human rights
standard; and (5) an impact of judicialization of religious freedom. In addition, the shared religious
freedom meaning in society is produced by intergroup dynamics—by social actors with various civil,
political, religious, and nonreligious identities—favoring one dimension of the concept more than the
other. It is the robust task for sociology to understand these dynamics behind the religious freedom
meaning and, thus, to track the socioreligious and sociopolitical processes challenging its future.
Sociology of law, political sociology, and sociology of religion together with the other social-science
disciplines, including legal studies, addressed anew the topic of religious freedom in the last three
decades (Finke 1990;Richardson 2006,2007,2015;Sullivan 2005;Gill 2008;Wuthnow and Lewis 2008;
Banchoffand Wuthnow 2011;Grim and Finke 2011;Finke 2013;Finke and Martin 2014;Fox 2015;
Sandberg 2011,2014;Hefner 2015;Hurd 2015;Mayrl 2018). However, the sociological potential of
research on this topic remains untapped. One of the reasons for the insufficient attention is that
religious freedom is approached through the prism of limitations and violations. In that kind of
analysis, the research focuses on the role of nation-states, national, and international organizations
as duty-bearers and advocates of human rights. Being associated with violations of human rights,
Religions 2019,10, 274; doi:10.3390/rel10040274 www.mdpi.com/journal/religions

Religions 2019,10, 274 2 of 18
religious freedom has been treated by sociology with a theoretical caution. The normative and legal
nature of rights distanced sociology from engagement with human rights research until recently
(Somers and Roberts 2008;Morgan 2009;Breskaya et al. 2018). However, exactly from the study
on human rights and religion through approaching the topics of gender, peacebuilding, and legal
pluralism (Possamai et al. 2015;Durham and Clark 2015;Giordan and Zrinšˇcak 2018;Giordan and
Breskaya 2018), the sociological dimensions of religious freedom analysis are evolving focused on
pluralism policies, interfaith dialogue, empowerment of women, and sustainable development.
The sociological study of new religious movements in the West (Barker 1990;Beckford 2003;
Beckford and Richardson 2003) and increased interest to the topic of new religions and religious
minorities in post-communist societies (Barker 1999;Borowik and Tomka 2001;Zrinšˇcak 2011) merged
the theoretical interest to religious phenomena with religious freedom concerns. The issues of violence,
exclusion, and spiritual awakening were often considered together with the sociopolitical context, even
though religious freedom was not articulated or presented explicitly.
For sociology, in order to break through to the sociological dimension of religious freedom analysis,
it is necessary to make certain efforts and overcome the barriers of human rights language, normativity,
and sometimes the dominance of historical conditionality. Sociology has much more to explore over
these contexts. It is also worth mentioning that religious freedom is mostly viewed in the realm of
religious issues, while the formulation of the Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights
and practice of its application is much wider in its scope (see Sandberg 2011). Behind the sociolegal
debates on the meaning of the freedom to have and to manifest thought, conscience, and religion, there
is a strong social dynamic of modern societies. It is related to the increasing number of religious ‘nones’,
challenging religious freedom issues in refugee asylums, increasing diversity in university campuses,
growth of fundamentalism and religious hatred, and many other sociological issues. The novelty
of global challenges for religious freedom creates a new task for sociologists—to consider existing
approaches to religious freedom analysis and revise its sociological definitions.
2. In Search for Sociological Theories and Definitions of Religious Freedom
Among the social scientists who deal with the topic of religious freedom, there is no agreement
on the definition, as every school of religious freedom research has a particular focus of analysis.
For instance, sociologist Roger Finke stated that “religious freedom refers to the unrestricted practice,
profession, and selection of religion” (Finke 2013, p. 299). Political scientist Jonathan Fox introduced
the definition, which stressed that “Religious freedom can be defined as the right for everyone to be
able to practice their religion as well as set up and maintain religious institutions without unreasonable
interference from the government
1
or other sources” (Fox 2015, p. 136). While the former definition
relies on a socioreligious theory of religious economy (Finke 1990;Finke and Stark 1992), the latter
develops the theoretical perspective of political secularism (Fox 2015) with emphasis on the increasing
public role of religion in a global society.2
In 2006, sociologist of law and religion, James T. Richardson, proposed a new interdisciplinary
approach of the sociology of religious freedom, which was defined as “a structural and socio-legal
analysis that examines historical, sociological, and cultural factors that have given rise to and promoted
the idea of religious freedom in modem human societies” (Richardson 2006, p. 271). Within that
theoretical framework, he defined religious freedom as a “social construct that is relatively new in human
history, and one with meanings that have varied over time and place” (
Breskaya et al. 2018, p. 425
).
This definition kept strong theoretical linkage with the social constructivist theory and highlighted the
imbedded dynamics in the religious freedom concept. In Richardson’s approach, the autonomous
1
Fox (2015) suggested four main dimensions for government religion policy: Official religion policy, religious support,
religious restrictions, and religious discrimination.
2
Fox (2015) defined political secularism as “an ideology or set of beliefs advocating that religion ought to be separate from all
or some aspects of politics and/or public life” (Fox 2015, p. 28).

Religions 2019,10, 274 3 of 18
judiciary is seen as a structural condition for religious freedom maintenance, together with the growth
of pluralism. These elements highlight the importance of institutional analysis in conjunction with
research on the sociocultural context and contribute to understanding religious freedom as a social
construct. Thus, the social constructivism perspective allows to consider historical, sociological, and
cultural conditions of the judicial system, which controls religious freedom production in a society.
Sociologist Mayrl (2018) developed further the idea of “judicialization” (Richardson 2015) of religious
freedom. He highlighted the expanding scope of religious freedom meaning produced by the judiciary
system, enhancing the role of national courts and the European Court of Human Rights in this process.
The schools described above introduced the topic of religious freedom to sociology and political
sciences. They elaborated on definitions of religious freedom for the institutional level of research,
where the policy of the state, role of religions, or decisions of independent judiciary can be monitored
and measured. These studies contributed to the social constructivist perspective as they depicted
the societal meaning of religious freedom without reducing it to legal or historical dimensions solely.
Let us give a more detailed explanation of what this kind of nonreductionism means. For instance, a
recent study of Roger Finke, Dane Mataic, and Jonathan Fox on religious restrictions provided a good
example for that. They clarified how the legal mechanisms of registration of religious groups “offer an
effective avenue for monitoring and controlling religious groups” (Finke et al. 2018, p. 721) which are
used by the nation-states. The issue of registration could be seen as purely belonging to legal domain;
however, the understanding of reasoning and explanation of why and how the legal mechanisms of
registration are “used for reducing religious freedom” goes beyond the legal perspective. Finke et
al. showed that in order to understand “how the registration process can contribute to the denial
of freedom for some or all religions”, (Finke et al. 2018, p. 721), it is important to examine political
regimes, types of political secularisms and nationalism, as well as a type of religious competition
within the country or regionally. Thus, the analysis of the legal mechanism of registration has to be
integrated with the sociopolitical research of religious freedom context.
A recent significant development of the sociological study of religious freedom was a theoretical
contribution of Peter Berger. In his last book Many Altars of Modernity (Berger 2014), Berger
developed the conception of religious freedom intertwined with the process of pluralization of
societies. Berger stated that:
“The confluence of two modern developments, the wide diffusion of pluralism as a fact
and of religious freedom as a political norm, has by now become a global phenomenon.
An argument can be made, on strictly utilitarian grounds, that a measure of religious freedom
is a practical necessity under these conditions.” (Berger 2014, p. 47)
In his interpretation of religious freedom, Berger considered normative, human rights, political,
social, and individual aspects of the concept. The references to the ideas of state neutrality, theological
doctrines, philosophy, or political interest are implemented in his definition of religious freedom. What
is most important for the sociologists is that Berger put together the human rights dimension and
subjective meaning of religious freedom. This definition can be seen as a particular sign that sociology
overcame the fear of applying human rights language in religious freedom research:
“There are good empirical reasons to be in favor of religious freedom in the context of a
religiously neutral state. However, it is important to emphasize that political utility is not the
principal reason why most people who favor freedom of religion (myself definitely included)
do so. A theological argument can also be made, as was done very cogently at the Second
Vatican Council, and since then in the teachings and practice of the Roman Catholic Church.
I think a similar argument can be made by other Christian, Jewish, and Muslim thinkers.
There is also a philosophical argument, independent of religious presuppositions, with which
agnostics or atheists could agree. It touches on the key perception of what it means to be
human. Pascal described the human condition as standing at the midpoint between “the
nothing and the infinite” (le neant et l’infini). This situation is shrouded in mystery. Human

Religions 2019,10, 274 4 of 18
beings have wondered at this mystery throughout history. Religion has been the principal
vehicle for this wonder: Why is there something rather than nothing? What does it all mean?
Where do I come from? What may I hope for? How should I live? Who am I? Freedom to
pursue this wonder is a fundamental human right. This freedom sets a limit to the power of
the state; it is a fundamental right that predates and outweighs democracy or any particular
form of government. It requires no instrumental justification. If, as is the case, religious
freedom also turns out to be politically useful, this may be looked upon as a benefit to be
grateful for”. (Berger 2014, p. 92)
The stress on the search for the life meaning in Berger’s conception of religious freedom put his
definition close to the other socioreligious approach, which from the 1960s onward discussed similar
questions of “gradual establishment of the freedom of choice of the subject” (
Giordan 2016, p. 201
).
An obvious similarity in posing questions by Berger in the analysis of religious freedom and pluralism
in a modern world, from one hand, and sociology of spirituality and pluralism, on the other hand,
leaves many sociological questions open. How can the subjective meaning in religious freedom analysis
be studied together with the societal one? How can the linkage among religiosity, spirituality and
religious freedom be investigated together with the analysis of the normative and political nature of
religious freedom?
3. Five Dimensions of Religious Freedom Meaning
The study of SPRF aims to measure the interplay of the subjective meaning of religious freedom
with the other layers of its construction as well as consider the possible sociopolitical and socioreligious
factors that foster and impede its perception. Below, we introduce the conceptualization of social
perception of religious freedom (SPRF), suggesting that it is constructed at the intersection of five
domains of meaning. Similar to the concept of social perception in social psychology, which describes
the impressions and psychological factors that influence the process of interpersonal understanding
during the social interaction, social perception of religious freedom considers the various individual
and structural factors that affect the construction of the meaning of religious freedom in society.
These five domains are:
(1) Religious freedom as individual and religious groups’ autonomy. Deriving from Peter Berger’s definition
(Berger 2014), religious freedom as an individual autonomy refers to the idea that the principal
meaning of religious freedom is grounded in the entitlement of every human to search for life
meaning, the mystery of life, and truth, and pursue spiritual fulfillment. Religious groups’ autonomy
is seen as a development of the individual autonomy but taking its social forms—in the form of
community, church, or organization (Robbers 2001).
(2)
Religious freedom as a societal value. Religious freedom has strong societal meaning and value
related to pluralism (Giordan and Pace 2014;Richardson 2006), interreligious dialogue, tolerant
and peaceful coexistence (Durham and Clark 2015), religious and cultural diversity recognition,
and equality (Gedicks 2015). Modern societies support religious freedom concern with built-in
social dynamics with its gravitation poles to pluralism, spiritual experiences, fulfillment, and
democratization of the sacred (Berger 2014;Heelas 2008;Giordan 2007).
(3) Religious freedom as a principle of religion–state governance. Religious freedom as a normative concept
is intertwined with religion–state governance patterns (Durham 2012) and interpreted through
the prism of secularization or secularism theoretical discourses by social scientists (Asad 2003;
Casanova 1994;Calhoun et al. 2011;Sullivan 2010;Fox 2015) The empirical study of religion–state
policies (Fox 2008,2012,2015) revealed how patterns of religion–state governance produce
difference in religious freedom regimes. This topic seen through the prism of government and
social restrictions (Grim and Finke 2011) provides further considerations about religious freedom
as a normative and a sociological concept.

Religions 2019,10, 274 5 of 18
(4)
Religious freedom as an international human rights standard. From the post-WWII time, the
international human rights regime (Evans 2001) has advanced religious freedom globally guided
by Article 18 of Universal Declaration of Human rights, Article 18 of International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights and other international documents. With the European Court of
Human Rights (Guide to Article 9 2019) guided by the European Convention on Human Rights,
this standard advances religious freedom with normative and political powers. The history of
conceptualization of religious freedom (Digest 2011) from a human rights perspective reflected
global dynamics of religious freedom claiming (Hurd 2015).
(5) Societal impact of judicialization of RF. The processes of ruling religious freedom cases by national and
international courts are crucial for the construction of societal meaning of religious freedom in a
particular national context (Richardson and Lee 2014;Richardson 2015;Mayrl 2018). For instance,
the Lautsi vs Italy case in Italy can be seen as a reference point for public discussions on religious
symbolism in Italian public schools and in the public sphere in general.
4. Operationalization of Indicators for SPRF Research
The five theoretical dimensions of SPRF were elaborated on with indicators and operational
variables. In the questionnaire, the variables were grouped in the thematic sections. The formulation
of the answers (statements) did not contain the wording of ‘religious freedom’ in a majority of the
cases (see Appendix A), as it was incorporated in the questions preceding the list of statements. Below,
we present the items which measured each theoretical domain of the 5-dimensional concept of SPRF,
adding the wording ‘religious freedom’ for better understanding of the operationalization procedure:
I. Religious freedom as individual and religious groups’ autonomy:
A. Religious freedom as individual autonomy:
1. Religious freedom means the freedom to choose my worldview;
2. Religious freedom means the freedom to choose my religious/non-religious identity;
3. Religious freedom is connected with the idea of human dignity;
4. Religious freedom is connected with search for individual truth;
5. Religious freedom allows everyone to pursue their personal spiritual fulfillment;
6. Religious freedom is not important for me;
7. Religious freedom is important, but other forms of freedom are more important.
B. Religious freedom as religious groups’ autonomy:
1. Religious freedom means that the state does not interfere with the core beliefs and
religious teaching;
2. Religious freedom means that the state does not interfere with the core ministry including
matters of liturgy, confession, education of clergy;
3.
Religious freedom means that the state does not interfere with the core administration including
the right to appoint and dismiss religious employees, church discipline, and financial issues.
II. Religious freedom as a societal value
A. Societal function of religious freedom leaning to pluralism:
1. Religious freedom promotes interreligious dialogue between religions;
2. Religious freedom means non-violent coexistence for all religions in every society;
3. Religious freedom is important for tolerant and peaceful co-existence of religions;
4. Religious freedom promotes religious and cultural diversity in society;
5. Religious freedom promotes non-discrimination on the basis of religion;
6. Religious freedom is connected with protecting vulnerable people.

Religions 2019,10, 274 6 of 18
B. Societal challenges for religious freedom:
1. It is important to promote religious freedom at a time of increasing religious diversity in
my country;
2. The growth in Orthodox Christians in my country makes religious freedom a more
important issue;
3. The growth of Muslims in my country makes religious freedom a more important issue;
4. The growth of refugees in my country makes religious freedom a more important issue;
5. Debates about public policy such as abortion, homosexuality, cloning, and euthanasia make
religious freedom a more important issue in my country.
III. Religious freedom as a principle of religion–state governance:
A. Religious freedom as a legal–political principle:
1. Religious freedom means non-discrimination for religious minorities on the basis of religion;
2. Religious freedom means equality of various religions in society before the law;
3. Religious freedom is an important right in a democratic society;
4. Religious freedom promotes liberty as a principle of democratic citizenship;
5. Religious freedom is an important legal principle for secular state.
B. Religious freedom and religion–state governance patterns:
1. The state provides favorable conditions only for the Catholic Church;
2. The state provides equal conditions for the Catholic Church and religious minorities;
3. The state provides equal conditions for Catholics and non-religious people;
4. The state does not favor any religious group;
5. The state manages religious issues very well.
IV. Religious freedom as an international human rights standard:
A. Religious freedom as a freedom to have and to change religion:
1. Religious freedom allows everyone to be free to change their religion;
2. Religious freedom means freedom to have no religion;
3. Religious freedom means freedom to have inner personal religious convictions.
B. Religious freedom as a freedom to manifest religion:
1. Religious freedom means freedom to worship;
2. Religious freedom means freedom to speak on religious matters openly and freely;
3. Religious freedom means freedom to have religious education;
4. Religious freedom means freedom to establish a religious group;
5. Religious freedom means freedom to express religious views in the media;
6. Religious freedom means freedom to write, issue, and disseminate religious publications;
7. Religious freedom means freedom to teach a religion in places suitable for these purposes;
8.
Religious freedom means that everyone should be free to teach their religion, either in public or
in private;
9. Religious freedom means that children should be brought up in the religion chosen by
their parents;
10.
Religious freedom means that everyone should be free to observe dietary practices prescribed
by their religion;
11.
Religious freedom means that everyone should be free to have a wedding in conformity with
their beliefs;
12.
Religious freedom means that everyone should be free to wear religious symbols and clothes
openly in public.

Religions 2019,10, 274 7 of 18
C. Religious freedom and modes of religious expressions:
1. It is important for me to express my religion alone in private;
2. It is important for me to express my religion alone in public places;
3. It is important for me to express my religion with a community in public (in church, temple,
mosque, synagogue, during public religious gathering);
4. It is important for me to express my religion with family and friends in private;
5. It is not important for me to express my religion.
D. Negative and positive obligations of the state:
1. The state should educate the public to accept religious freedom;
2. Protection from state interference on religious issues;
3.
The state should not interfere with missionary activities in both majority and minority religions;
4. The state should not interfere with public activities of majority and minority religions.
V. Impact of judicialization of religious freedom was operationalized with the following variables
covering various cases of religious freedom in the country:
1.
In my country, people should not be allowed to wear religious clothes and religious symbols at
the workplace;
2. In my country, no religious symbols of any religion should be allowed in public schools;
3.
In my country, students should be offered time, space, and a room in schools to do their prayers;
4. In my country, the state should not prevent female teachers from wearing a headscarf for
religious reasons;
5. Religious freedom means freedom to wear religious clothes/symbols in public places.
In the questionnaire, the task to integrate theoretical dimensions of religious freedom was
considered, and some questions combined operational variables from different dimensions. For instance,
designing the question about the meaning of religious freedom allowed to suggest answers that covered
and integrated ideas from various theoretical domains. The same logic was behind the question about
the foundational ideas for religious freedom. The sixty variables measuring SPRF were grouped into
ten questions (See Figure 1). They are: “Meaning of religious freedom” (with 8 items); “Human rights
meaning of religious freedom” (9 items); “Modes of religious expressions” (according to Art. 18)
(5 items); “Variety of religious expressions under the religious freedom scope” (9 items); “Grounding
ideas for religious freedom” (12 items); “Cases of religious freedom in the country” (4 items); “Societal
challenges for religious freedom” (5 items); “Religious groups’ autonomy” (3 items); “Religion–state
governance patterns” (5 items). The constructed questionnaire suggested thematic sections that
measured sociodemographic characteristics (34 items),
3
religious freedom issues (60 items), attitudes
towards religion (12 items), human rights (25 items), and society (56 items).4
3
They include 10 sociodemographic features, 2 items on political participation and awareness, 1 item on perceived social
isolation, 16 items on religion and religious education, and 5 items on human rights and religious freedom education.
4
They include 6 items about political inclusion and social networking, 30 items about the function of religion in society,
4 items on positioning towards immigration, 7 items on religion, state, and society relationship, 4 items on religious and
cultural diversity, and 5 items on political interest and trust in religious and political institutions.

Religions 2019,10, 274 8 of 18
Religions 2019, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19
Figure 1. Operationalization model for the study of social perception of religious freedom (SPRF).
The socioreligious, human rights, and sociopolitical contexts were operationalized to understand
the relationship between collective identities and the patterns of SPRF they produce (see Figure 1). The
‘socioreligious context’ was operationalized with the concepts of religious affiliation, religiosity,
spirituality, religious education, family socialization, role of religion, religious diversity, and pluralism.
The ‘human rights context’ allowed to measure the intersecting rights effect by correlation between
religious freedom and civil-political, socioeconomic rights, and effects of human rights education and
awareness on that topic. At the societal level, the ‘sociopolitical context’ allowed to measure the
predictive power of attitudes towards political secularism, trust in political and religious institutions,
importance of democracy, religion–state relations, and current issues of migration towards religious
freedom meaning in society. At the individual level, the sociopolitical context was designed to measure
perceived social isolation, civic participation, social networks, political awareness, and the concept of
‘equal citizenship and assimilation’ (see Modood and Kastoryano 2007).
5. Testing the Multidimensional Concept of Religious Freedom
The elaborated instrument for the analysis of SPRF was tested in Italy. The data were collected in
May–October 2018 at the University of Padova. The questionnaire was submitted to 1035 students
between 20–21 years old. Among them, ninety-one percent were born in Italy, five percent in other
European countries, and four percent in Africa, America, and Asia. Ninety-three percent of respondents
hold Italian citizenship. Thirty percent of the sample identify themselves with no religion, sixty-four
with Roman Catholicism, and six with various religious minorities, including Muslims (2.4%) and
Christian Orthodox (1.7%). Twenty-one percent of young people in our survey were not certain about
the statement “I believe in God”, thirty-four percent disagreed with it, and forty-five percent confirmed
their agreement.
Figure 1. Operationalization model for the study of social perception of religious freedom (SPRF).
The socioreligious, human rights, and sociopolitical contexts were operationalized to understand
the relationship between collective identities and the patterns of SPRF they produce (see Figure 1).
The ‘socioreligious context’ was operationalized with the concepts of religious affiliation, religiosity,
spirituality, religious education, family socialization, role of religion, religious diversity, and pluralism.
The ‘human rights context’ allowed to measure the intersecting rights effect by correlation between
religious freedom and civil-political, socioeconomic rights, and effects of human rights education
and awareness on that topic. At the societal level, the ‘sociopolitical context’ allowed to measure the
predictive power of attitudes towards political secularism, trust in political and religious institutions,
importance of democracy, religion–state relations, and current issues of migration towards religious
freedom meaning in society. At the individual level, the sociopolitical context was designed to measure
perceived social isolation, civic participation, social networks, political awareness, and the concept of
‘equal citizenship and assimilation’ (see Modood and Kastoryano 2007).
5. Testing the Multidimensional Concept of Religious Freedom
The elaborated instrument for the analysis of SPRF was tested in Italy. The data were collected in
May–October 2018 at the University of Padova. The questionnaire was submitted to 1035 students
between 20–21 years old. Among them, ninety-one percent were born in Italy, five percent in other
European countries, and four percent in Africa, America, and Asia. Ninety-three percent of respondents
hold Italian citizenship. Thirty percent of the sample identify themselves with no religion, sixty-four
with Roman Catholicism, and six with various religious minorities, including Muslims (2.4%) and
Christian Orthodox (1.7%). Twenty-one percent of young people in our survey were not certain about
the statement “I believe in God”, thirty-four percent disagreed with it, and forty-five percent confirmed
their agreement.
The theoretical model for the societal meaning of religious was tested by computing the principal
components method of factor analysis with Varimax rotation. Factor loadings below the threshold
of 0.45 were suppressed. Table 1suggests the results of the exploratory factor analysis. This model
explains 61% of the variance of the concept of SPRF, and we can conclude that the three first factors

Religions 2019,10, 274 9 of 18
together explain around one-third of the variance. The first interesting observation is that many items
downloaded were in accordance with the theoretically constructed concepts and question’ groupings.
However, some new latent factors appeared as items from different operational indicators downloaded
in the same factor—for instance, Factor 3 and Factor 7. We explore them below.
Table 1. Exploratory factor analysis for the concept of ‘SPRF’.
Factor Variable Factor Loading Composite Reliability
Societal function of
RF (factor 1) It promotes interreligious dialogue between religions 0.766 0.828
It promotes nondiscrimination on the basis of religion 0.763
It promotes religious and cultural diversity in society 0.726
It is important for tolerant and peaceful coexistence of religions 0.697
It promotes liberty as a principle of democratic citizenship 0.673
Modes of religious
expressions (factor 2) It is important for me to express my religion with family and friends in private 0.838 0.838
It is important for me to express my religion alone in public places 0.827
It is important for me to express my religion with a community in public
(in church, temple, mosque, synagogue, during public religious gathering) 0.800
It is important for me to express my religion alone in private 0.783
Sociolegal function of
RF (factor 3) Nondiscrimination for religious minorities on the basis of religion 0.785 0.725
Equality of various religions in society before the law 0.706
Nonviolent coexistence for all religions in every society 0.639
Freedom to speak on religious matters openly and freely 0.546
An important right in a democratic society 0.500
Human rights
aspects of RF (social)
(factor 4)
Freedom to establish religious group 0.758 0.697
Freedom to express religious views in the media 0.717
Freedom to write, issue, and disseminate religious publications 0.632
Everyone should be free to teach their religion, either in public or in private 0.590
Religion–state
governance patterns
(factor 5)
The Italian state does not favor any religious group 0.778 0.741
The Italian state provides equal conditions for the Catholic Church and religious
minorities 0.768
The Italian state manages religious issues very well 0.721
The Italian state provides equal conditions for Catholics and nonreligious people
0.715
Societal challenges
for RF (factor 6)
The growth of Muslims in Italy makes religious freedom a more important issue
0.877 0.774
The growth in Orthodox Christians in Italy makes religious freedom a more
important issue 0.776
The growth of refugees in Italy makes religious freedom a more important issue
0.764
Subjective meaning
of RF (factor 7) It is connected with search for individual truth 0.842 0.717
It allows everyone to pursue their personal spiritual fulfillment 0.788
It is connected with the idea of human dignity 0.498
Religious groups’
autonomy (factor 8) The core ministry including matters of liturgy, confession, education of clergy 0.843 0.550
The core beliefs and religious teaching 0.816
The core administration including the right to appoint and dismiss religious
employees, church discipline, and financial issues 0.495
Impact of
judicialization of RF
(factor 9)
In Italy, people should be allowed to wear religious clothes and religious
symbols at the workplace 0.778 0.595
In Italy, the state should not prevent female teachers from wearing a headscarf
for religious reasons 0.738
Freedom to wear religious clothes/symbols in public places 0.621
Human rights
aspects (belief and
practice) (factor 10)
Freedom to have no religion 0.793 0.595
Freedom to worship 0.607
It is important for everyone to be free to change their religion 0.475
Explained variance: 60.765 KMO =0.842. Explained variance by factor 1: 18%; factor 2: 8.31%; factor 3: 5.92%;
factor 4: 5.38%; factor 5: 5.06%; factor 6: 4.54%; factor 7: 4.17%; factor 8: 3.55%; factor 9: 2.99%; factor 10: 2.86%.

Religions 2019,10, 274 10 of 18
This model of factor loadings provides us with interesting insights about the latent relationship
between the constructed theoretical domains. As a result, we observe ten factors explaining the
societal meaning of religious freedom presenting a particular structure of the variables. The first
factor, which can be called the “Societal function of RF”, suggests considering that religious freedom
is primarily associated with the ideas of interreligious dialogue, nondiscrimination, religious and
cultural diversity, peace, tolerance, liberty, and democratic citizenship. The indicator “Modes of
religious expressions” downloaded as a second factor revealed that the “expressionism” impulse of the
Article 18 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights with a particular division of public and private
spaces is at the core of religious freedom meaning. The third factor referred to the societal function of
religious freedom; however, the variables downloaded in this factor—nondiscrimination for minorities,
equality of religions before the law, freedom of religious speech, important right in a democratic
society—suggested that it had a stronger sociolegal connotation than the first factor. We named it
“Sociolegal function of RF”.
The fourth factor grouped variables from the “Human rights meaning of RF”, mostly of a social
nature, and the fifth factor grouped variables of the indicator “Religion–state governance patterns”.
The sixth factor presents the dimension of “Societal challenges for RF”, integrating the statements
about the increasing Cristian Orthodox and Muslim communities and number of refugees in Italy.
The theoretical dimension of individual and religious groups autonomy loaded as the seventh and
eighth factors. The former was named as the “Subjective meaning of RF”, and it merged ideas of search
for individual truth, pursuit of personal spiritual fulfillment, and human dignity, confirming the linkage
between freedom, dignity, and spiritual search. This latent factor highlighted that the respondents
associated human dignity with the ideas of personal autonomy and search for the meaning.
The ninth factor is called “Impact of judicialization of RF”. It refers to the wearing of religious
symbols and clothes at the workplace, school, and other public places, and it can be seen in light of
the recent ECtHR case on religious symbols in public schools in Italy. The tenth factor was named
“Human rights aspects (belief and practice)” as loaded together items revealed important elements
of human rights formulations of RF for the individual to change religion, to have no religion, and
to worship. Figure 2presents the constructed concept of SPRF based on statistical testing of the
respondents’ responses.
Religions 2019, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19
Figure 2. The structure of the concept of social perception of religious freedom (SPRF).
Thus, the structure of SPRF tested statistically is a build-up of thirty-seven individual variables
and ten scales. The reliability of six scales is above 0.70, and factor 4 “Human rights meaning of RF” is
slightly below that value. Together, the seven scales were selected to form the structure of the SPRF
index for further analysis.
6. Social Perception of Religious Freedom and Intergroup Dynamics
How does the understanding of religious freedom meaning structure the relationship between
political and religious identities and actions? Or, vice versa: How do political, civil, or religious
engagement and identities matter for the construction of religious freedom meaning in a society? This
inquiry refers to the post-IIWW debates in political theory about the idea that human rights require
realization and understanding of Hanna Arendt’s principle of “the right to have right”
5
. Exclusion from
the political community and absence of citizenship rights are crucial for the understanding and
implementation of other human rights. Similarly, religious freedom can be seen as a specific right for
those who are engaged with religious institutions and communities.
6
These arguments suggest
considering whether religious people favor religious freedom more or it is most appreciated by
nonbelievers due to the growth of religious nones in modern societies. Both political and religious
engagements are important to consider together, as the SPRF has to be considered in intergroup
dynamics.
For the purposes of our research—to understand intergroup dynamics in the process of
construction of shared religious freedom meaning—we briefly describe the independent variables from
socioreligious and sociopolitical contexts and compute the linear regression analysis to explore the
statistical relationship between the contexts and the societal meaning of religious freedom. Table 2
5
The necessity of recognition of inviolable rights of citizens and importance of membership in a political
community were described in the classical work of Hannah Arendt The Origins of Totalitarism (1951) as robust
preconditions for human rights advancement.
6
Roger Finke noted that “[r]eligion is often so infused within the institutions, history, and identity of a nation
that ensuring religious freedoms for all is perceived as challenging the cultural identity as a whole” (Finke
2013).
SPRF
F1: Societal function of
RF
5 items,
Cronbach’s alpha = 0.828
F2: Modes of religious
expressions
4 items,
Cronbach’s alpha = 0.838
F3: Sociolegal function
of RF
5 items,
Cronbach’s alpha = 0.725
F4:Human rights
meaning of RF (social)
4 items,
Cronbach’s alpha = 0.697
F5: Religion-state
governance patterns
4 items,
Cronbach’s alpha = 0.741
F6: Societal challenges
for RF
3 items,
Cronbach’s alpha = 0.774
F7: Subjective meaning
of RF
3 items,
Cronbach’s alpha = 0.717
Figure 2. The structure of the concept of social perception of religious freedom (SPRF).

Religions 2019,10, 274 11 of 18
Thus, the structure of SPRF tested statistically is a build-up of thirty-seven individual variables
and ten scales. The reliability of six scales is above 0.70, and factor 4 “Human rights meaning of RF” is
slightly below that value. Together, the seven scales were selected to form the structure of the SPRF
index for further analysis.
6. Social Perception of Religious Freedom and Intergroup Dynamics
How does the understanding of religious freedom meaning structure the relationship between
political and religious identities and actions? Or, vice versa: How do political, civil, or religious
engagement and identities matter for the construction of religious freedom meaning in a society?
This inquiry refers to the post-IIWW debates in political theory about the idea that human rights require
realization and understanding of Hanna Arendt’s principle of “the right to have right”
5
. Exclusion
from the political community and absence of citizenship rights are crucial for the understanding
and implementation of other human rights. Similarly, religious freedom can be seen as a specific
right for those who are engaged with religious institutions and communities.
6
These arguments
suggest considering whether religious people favor religious freedom more or it is most appreciated
by nonbelievers due to the growth of religious nones in modern societies. Both political and
religious engagements are important to consider together, as the SPRF has to be considered in
intergroup dynamics.
For the purposes of our research—to understand intergroup dynamics in the process of construction
of shared religious freedom meaning—we briefly describe the independent variables from socioreligious
and sociopolitical contexts and compute the linear regression analysis to explore the statistical
relationship between the contexts and the societal meaning of religious freedom. Table 2below
suggests the description of the sample, taking into consideration citizenship status, political engagement,
religious and spiritual identities, and sociopolitical views towards secularism and diversity.
Table 2.
Socioreligious and sociopolitical contexts of respondents (means, and reliability,
Cronbach’s Alpha).
Mean Cronbach’s Alpha
Political engagement 0.772
I am interested in politics. 3.59
I feel that I am included within political life in Italy. 2.89
How often do you follow politics?73.37
Religious practices 0.775
Frequencies of prayer82.02
Frequencies of attendances the religious services92.03
I am spiritual 0.889
I am a spiritual person. 3.18
My spiritual beliefs give my life a sense of significance and purpose. 2.83
My spiritual beliefs have a great influence on my daily life. 2.69
I am religious 0.928
I am a religious person. 2.61
My religious beliefs give my life a sense of significance and purpose. 2.46
My religious beliefs have a great influence on my daily life. 2.32
I believe in God 3.06
Political secularist views 0.329
Passive secularist views 4.06
Assertive secularist views 3.59
Equal citizenship and cultural assimilation attitudes 0.069
Assimilation-oriented model 2.83
Diversity-oriented model 4.03
5
The necessity of recognition of inviolable rights of citizens and importance of membership in a political community were
described in the classical work of Hannah Arendt The Origins of Totalitarism (1951) as robust preconditions for human
rights advancement.
6
Roger Finke noted that “[r]eligion is often so infused within the institutions, history, and identity of a nation that ensuring
religious freedoms for all is perceived as challenging the cultural identity as a whole” (Finke 2013).

Religions 2019,10, 274 12 of 18
Two independent variables, ‘political secularist views’ and ‘equal citizenship and cultural
assimilation’ attitudes were used to specify the modes of citizenship and political views that the
respondents share. Applying the theoretical perspective of Ahmet T. Kuru, the concept of secularism was
operationalized with the variables of ‘passive,’ and ‘assertive’ secularism. While the former “demands
that the state play a “passive” role by allowing the public visibility of religion” (
Kuru 2009, p. 11
), the
latter “requires the state to play an “assertive” role to exclude religion from the public sphere and
confine it to the private domain” (Kuru 2009, p. 11). Two operational variables: “State should be neutral,
treat equally all religions, and allow them to be present in public sphere” (passive secularism) and
“State should be neutral, treat equally all religions, and confine religious expression to private sphere”
(assertive secularism) were elaborated on to measure political secularists’ views of the respondents.
The linkage between the concepts of ‘equal citizenship’ and cultural assimilation was elaborated
on by Modood and Kastoryano (2007). They described the modes of relationship between these
concepts with two kinds of strategies: (1) “The right to assimilate to the majority/dominant culture in
the public sphere; and toleration of ‘difference’ in the private sphere”, and (2) “The right to have one’s
‘difference’ (minority ethnicity, etc.) recognised and supported in the public and the private spheres.”
(Modood and Kastoryano 2007, p. 23). These two conceptions of equality were not interpreted as
mutually exclusive; however, for their operationalization, we used a formulation in a slightly opposing
manner to highlight the semantic division. The first one was formulated as follows: “We should
tolerate differences in private sphere but assimilate “different culture or religion” to major/dominant
culture.” This statement measures the assimilation-oriented model. The second statement (diversity
model-oriented) was left with its original formulation.
The descriptive statistics reveal that our respondents follow politics with a frequency which
oscillates from weekly to monthly, while their religious practices are much less frequent. The ‘political
interest’ of the respondents (M =3.59) is assessed with the greater value of the mean than their
identification with the category “I am a spiritual person” (M =3.18) or “I am a religious person”
(M =2.61). Both spiritual (M =2.83) and religious perspectives (M =2.43) are important in the search
for life significance, even though only 34.5% of young Italians agree about the significance of spiritual
beliefs and 23% about the significance of religious beliefs in that matter. At the same time, political
secularism attitudes are valued much higher, and preference is given to state neutrality, equal treatment
of all religions, and allowance to religious presence in the public sphere (M =4.06). The salience of
religious diversity and its presence in public and private is highly valued by young people (M =4.03).
We have described how the religious, political, and civil identities interplay to proceed with the next
step of analysis—how the SPRF reflects this dynamics and structure relationship between collective
identities. The results in Table 3aim to respond to this inquiry.
The linear regression models computed for each dimension of religious freedom tested statistically,
showed significant influence of political engagement on the ‘Societal function of RF’, ‘Sociolegal
function of RF’, and ‘Human rights meaning of RF (social)’ scales of SPRF. In a lesser degree, we
observed this influence on the ‘Subjective meaning of RF’. The concept ‘religious practices’ had
no predictive power for the religious freedom construct with one exception: There was a negative
significant influence of ‘religious practices’ on ‘Religion–state governance patterns’.
9
This item was scored in the following manner: Never (1); sometimes (2); at least once a year (3); at least six times a year (4);
at least once a month (5).
8
This item was scored in the following manner: Never (1); occasionally (2); at least once a month (3); at least once a week (4);
nearly every day (5).
7
This item was scored in the following manner: Never (1); occasionally (2); at least once a month (3); at least once a week (4);
nearly every day (5).

Religions 2019,10, 274 13 of 18
Table 3. Regression models testing SPRF and intergroup dynamics.
Societal
Function
of RF
Modes of
Religious
Expressions
Sociolegal
Function
of RF
Human Rights
Aspects of RF
(Social)
Religion–State
Governance
Patterns
Societal
Challenges
for RF
Subjective
Meaning
of RF
Political engagement 0.123 ** NS 0.179 *** 0.126 *** NS NS 0.062 *
Religious practices NS NS NS NS −0.152 *** NS NS
Noncitizens (ref. citizens)
NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
Religious nones
(ref. Catholics) NS NS 0.094* NS NS NS NS
Religious minorities (ref.
Catholics) NS NS NS NS −0.077 * NS NS
I am spiritual (scale) 0.080 * 0.175 *** .079* NS NS NS 0.208 ***
I am religious (scale) NS 0.151 * NS NS 0.309 *** NS 0.163 **
I believe in God NS NS NS NS NS −0.142 * NS
Assertive secularist views
NS NS NS −0.073 * NS NS NS
Passive secularist views 0.234 *** 0.074 * 0.214 *** 0.211 *** NS 0.098 ** 0.123 ***
Equal Citizenship:
Assimilation-oriented
model
−0.064 * 0.066 * NS NS 0.102 ** NS NS
Equal Citizenship:
Diversity-oriented model 0.192 *** 0.063 * 0.204 *** 0.135 *** NS 0.234 *** 0.132 ***
Male (ref. female) NS NS −0.097 ** NS NS NS NS
N=1035, * p≤0.05; ** p≤0.01; *** p≤0.001.
While the citizenship status had no predictive power for religious freedom perception, the
identification with “no religion” had a significant positive effect for ‘Sociolegal function of RF’.
Identification with Catholicism had a significant positive effect on the perception of ‘Religion–state
governance patterns’. There was a similarity between the impact of spiritual and religious identities
for the perception of ‘Subjective meaning of RF’ and ‘Modes of religious expressions’. Both spiritual
and religious identity had predictive power for these dimensions of religious freedom, even though
the correlation for spirituality is slightly stronger. Religiosity had a strong predictive power on
‘Religion–state governance patterns’ dimension, while spirituality predicted ‘Societal function of RF’
and ‘Sociolegal function of RF’. It is important to underline that two concepts—‘passive political
secularist views’ and ‘diversity-oriented model’ of citizenship—had predictive power for mostly all
dimensions of religious freedom. Gender is significant only in one case: The female respondents
considered the dimension of ‘Sociolegal function of RF’ to be more important in comparison with
male students.
We can observe that theoretical scales of religious freedom are much more sensitive to political
secularist and diversity-related civil positions than to religious affiliation or citizenship status. There
were more similarities between political engagement and spirituality in their impact on various
dimensions of the meaning of religious freedom than were found between political engagement and
religiosity. The study of specific differences and similarities that independent variables produce in their
effect on religious freedom ideas allows us to better understand the construction of shared meaning
of religious freedom through the interplay of political, civil, and socioreligious factors. At the same
time, the variance in predictive power of spirituality, religiosity, political interest, and civil positions
showed that SPRF is less dependent on religious or civil statuses but more on value-based civil and
political attitude leaning to diversity, state neutrality with claiming equality, and necessity for public
presence of religion. The importance of spiritual and religious experiences in life made a difference
in the understanding of religious freedom meaning. Moreover, it is important to highlight that the
dimension of ‘Sociolegal function of RF’ produced a more significant effect from different independent
variables than other theoretical dimensions of religious freedom.

Religions 2019,10, 274 14 of 18
7. Conclusions
In this article, we presented a model of operationalization of the meaning of religious freedom,
applying the constructivism perspective both in sociological and interdisciplinary research. Testing
of the theoretical model and understanding of the relationship between the collective identities and
religious freedom perception highlighted that particular ideas of religious freedom correspond better
to specific social groups and their values. For instance, the concept of ‘Modes of religious expressions’
is more important for spiritual people, while the concept of ‘Human rights aspects of RF’ correlated
neither with religious nor with spiritual identities, but with a political one. The multidimensional
concept of religious freedom takes its shape through the understanding of intergroup dynamics
behind it.
An important conclusion is that religious freedom has strong societal functions which cannot be
separated from its normative and sociopolitical meanings. Societal functions of religious freedom,
which suggest strong linkage with the values of interreligious dialogue and cultural and religious
diversity (‘Societal function of RF’) and with values of democracy, equality before the law, and freedom
(‘Sociolegal function of RF’) can be seen as complementary. Our initial theoretical model, where the
societal value of religious freedom was conceptualized through the relationship with pluralism and
spiritual fulfillment, finds particular support in empirical results. The ‘Subjective meaning of religious
freedom’ corresponds to that theoretical model as well, albeit showing the linkage between the idea of
individual autonomy, spiritual fulfillment, and human dignity. Without the reduction of the meaning
of religious freedom to either individual or structural dimensions, SPRF suggests a balanced model of
theoretical and empirical analysis of construction of shared religious freedom meaning in society.
In the process of theoretical elaboration of the instrument for SPRF measurement, it became
evident that certain variables can fall into more than one theoretical dimension. The challenges related
to that problem made the statistical analysis and understanding of the latent relationship between the
variables an important step in its clarification and preparation of the shorter version of the measuring
instrument. The factor-analysis results revealed the explanatory ‘weakness’ of some variables. As the
objective of this study was to integrate various theoretical perspectives towards the analysis of religious
freedom meaning, it became important to observe that the majority of theoretically grounded indicators
were reflected in respondents’ answers. However, some theoretical dimensions and indicators were
‘lost’ during the testing stage. This leaves us with the task of considering better the operationalization
of ‘Impact of judicialization of RF’ or ‘Religious groups’ autonomy’ ’for further research of religious
freedom meaning. Considering that the results of this research are limited to the study conducted
in Italy, it will be important to test the SPRF instrument in other sociopolitical and religious contexts.
Meanwhile, the analysis of SPRF in Italy showed the clear structure of the constructed concept and
statistical relationship between dependent and independent variables.
Author Contributions:
Writing—original draft, O.B. and G.G.; Writing—review & editing, O.B. and G.G. The article
was jointly conceived in dialogue between the two authors. O.B. took the lead in writing the sections: “Five
Dimensions of Religious Freedom Meaning,” “Operationalization of Indicators for SPRF Research,” “Testing
the Multidimensional Concept of Religious Freedom,” “Social Perception of Religious Freedom and Intergroup
Dynamics,” while G.G. took the lead in writing “Introduction,” “In Search for Sociological Theories and Definitions
of Religious Freedom” and “Conclusions.”
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
1. For me, Religious Freedom means:
(a) Freedom to choose my worldview.
(b) Freedom to choose my religious/non-religious identity.
(c) Freedom to speak on religious matters openly and freely.

Religions 2019,10, 274 15 of 18
(d) Protection from the state interference on religious issues.
(e) Non-discrimination for religious minorities on the basis of religion.
(f) Equality of various religions in society before the law.
(g) An important right in a democratic society.
(h) Non-violent co-existence for all religions in every society.
2. Please indicate how much you agree with the following aspects of Religious Freedom:
(a) It is important for everyone to be free to change their religion.
(b) Children should be brought up in the religion chosen by their parents.
(c) Everyone should be free to teach their religion, either in public or in private.
(d) Everyone should be free to observe dietary practices prescribed by their religion.
(e) Everyone should be free to have a wedding in conformity with their beliefs.
(f) Everyone should be free to wear religious symbols and clothes openly in public.
(g) The state should educate the public to accept religious freedom.
(h)
The state should not interfere with missionary activities in both majority and minority
religions10.
(i) The state should not interfere with public activities of majority and minority religions.
3. How much do you agree with the following statements?
(a) It is important for me to express my religion alone in private.
(b) It is important for me to express my religion alone in public places.
(c)
It is important for me to express my religion with a community in public (in church,
temple, mosque, synagogue, during public religious gathering).
(d) It is important for me to express my religion with family and friends in private.
(e) It is not important for me express my religion.
4. How much do you agree that the following aspects of Religious Freedom are important
for you?
(a) Freedom to have inner personal religious convictions.
(b) Freedom to have no religion.
(c) Freedom to worship.
(d) Freedom to have religious education.
(e) Freedom to wear religious clothes/symbols in public places.
(f) Freedom to establish religious group.
(g) Freedom to express religious views in the media.
(h) Freedom to write, issue, and disseminate religious publications.
(i) Freedom to teach a religion in places suitable for these purposes.
5. How much do you agree that Religious freedom is important because:
(a) It is connected with the idea of human dignity.
(b) It is connected with search for individual truth.
(c) It allows everyone to pursue their personal spiritual fulfillment.
(d) It promotes non-discrimination on the basis of religion.
(e) It promotes religious and cultural diversity in society.
10
The items 2h, 2i, 6c, and 6d were introduced from the measuring instrument elaborated within the international research
project “Religion and Human Rights” (Van der Ven and Ziebertz 2012).

Religions 2019,10, 274 16 of 18
(f) It promotes interreligious dialogue between religions.
(g) It promotes liberty as a principle of democratic citizenship.
(h) It is connected with protecting vulnerable people.
(i) It is important for tolerant and peaceful coexistence of religions.
(j) It is an important legal principle for secular state.
(k) Religious freedom is not important for me.
(l) Religious freedom is important, but other forms of freedom are more important.
6. How much do you agree with the following cases related to Religious Freedom protection in
your country?
(a)
In my country, people should not be allowed to wear religious clothes and religious
symbols at the workplace.
(b) In my country, no religious symbols of any religion should be allowed in public schools.
(c)
In my country, students should be offered time, space, and a room in schools to do
their prayers.
(d)
In my country, the state should not prevent female teachers from wearing a headscarf for
religious reasons.
7. How much do you agree with the following statements related to current situation with
Religious Freedom in your country?
(a)
It is important to promote religious freedom at a time of increasing religious diversity in
my country.
(b)
The growth in Orthodox Christians in my country makes religious freedom a more
important issue.
(c) The growth of Muslims in my country makes religious freedom a more important issue.
(d) The growth of refugees in my country makes religious freedom a more important issue.
(e)
The debates about public policy related to the topics of abortion, homosexuality, cloning,
and euthanasia make religious freedom a more important issue.
8. How much do you agree that the state should not interfere with the following affairs of
religious groups?
(a) The core beliefs and religious teaching.
(b) The core ministry including matters of liturgy, confession, education of clergy.
(c)
The core administration including the right to appoint and dismiss religious employees,
church discipline, and financial issues.
9. How much do you agree with the following claims about how the state regulates religions in
your country?
(a) ‘The (country’s name) state’ provides favorable conditions only for the Catholic Church.
(b)
‘The (country’s name) state’ provides equal conditions for the Catholic Church and
religious minorities.
(c)
‘The (country’s name) state’ provides equal conditions for Catholics and
non-religious people.
(d) ‘The (country’s name) state’ does not favor any religious group.
(e) ‘The (country’s name) state’ manages religious issues very well.

Religions 2019,10, 274 17 of 18
References
Asad, Talal. 2003. Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Banchoff, Thomas, and Robert Wuthnow. 2011. Religion and the Global Politics of Human Rights. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Barker, Eileen. 1990. New Religious Movements: A Practical Introduction. London: HMSO.
Barker, Eileen. 1999. But who’s going to win? National and minority religious movements in post-communist
society. Facta Universitatis: Series Philosophy and Psychology 2: 49–74.
Beckford, James A. 2003. Social Theory and Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beckford, James A., and James T. Richardson. 2003. Challenging Religion: Essays in Honour of Eileen Barker. London:
Routledge.
Berger, Peter L. 2014. The Many Altars of Modernity: Toward a Paradigm for Religion in a Pluralist Age. Boston and
Berlin: De Gruyter.
Borowik, Irena, and Miklós Tomka. 2001. Religion and Social Change in Post-Communist Europe. Kraków: Nomos.
Breskaya, Olga, Giuseppe Giordan, and James T. Richardson. 2018. Human rights and religion: A sociological
perspective. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 57: 419–31. [CrossRef]
Calhoun, Craig, Mark Juergensmeyer, and Jonathan VanAntwerpen. 2011. Rethinking Secularism. Oxford and
New York: Oxford University Press.
Casanova, José. 1994. Public Religions in the Modern World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Digest. 2011. Rapporteur ’s Digest on Freedom of Religion or Belief. Excerpts of the Reports from 1986
to 2011 by the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief. Arranged by Topics of the
Framework for Communications. Available online: https://www.ohchr.org/documents/issues/religion/
rapporteursdigestfreedomreligionbelief.pdf (accessed on 22 March 2019).
Durham, Cole W. 2012. Patterns of religion state relations. In Religion and Human Rights: An Introduction. Edited by
John Witte Jr. and Christian M. Green. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 360–78.
Durham, Cole W., Jr., and Elizabeth A. Clark. 2015. The place of religious freedom in the structure of peacebuilding.
In The Oxford Handbook of Religion, Conflict, and Peacebuilding. Edited by Atalia Omer, R. Scott Appleby and
David Little. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 281–306.
Evans, Carolyn. 2001. Freedom of Religion under the European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Finke, Roger. 1990. Religious deregulation: Origins and consequences. Journal of Church and State 32: 609–26.
[CrossRef]
Finke, Roger. 2013. Origins and consequences of religious freedom: A global overview. Sociology of Religion 74:
297–313. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Finke, Roger, and Robert R. Martin. 2014. Ensuring liberties: Understanding state restrictions on religious
freedoms. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 53: 687–705. [CrossRef]
Finke, Roger, and Rodney Stark. 1992. The Churching of America, 1776–1990: Winners and Losers in Our Religious
Economy. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Finke, Roger, Dane Mataic, and Jonathan Fox. 2018. Assessing the impact of religious registration. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion 56: 720–36. [CrossRef]
Fox, Jonathan. 2008. A World Survey of Religion and the State. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fox, Jonathan. 2012. Religion, Politics, Society, and the State. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fox, Jonathan. 2015. Political Secularism, Religions, and the State. A Time Series Analysis of Worldwide Data. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Gedicks, Frederick M. 2015. Religious freedom as equality. In Routledge Handbook of Law and Religion. Edited by
Silvio Ferrari. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 133–44.
Gill, Anthony. 2008. The Political Origins of Religious Liberty. New York: Oxford University Press.
Giordan, Giuseppe. 2007. Spirituality: From a religious concept to a sociological theory. In A Sociology of Spirituality.
Edited by Kieran Flanagan and Peter C. Jupp. Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 161–90.
Giordan, Giuseppe. 2016. Spirituality. In Handbook of Religion and Society. Edited by David Yamane. Berlin:
Springer International Publishing, pp. 197–219.
Giordan, Giordan, and Olga Breskaya. 2018. Divided by religion, united by gender: A socio–religious interpretation
of the “Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women”. Sociologia 1: 110–16.

Religions 2019,10, 274 18 of 18
Giordan, Giuseppe, and Enzo Pace. 2014. Religious Pluralism. Framing Religious Diversity in the Contemporary World.
Cham: Springer.
Giordan, Giuseppe, and Siniša Zrinšˇcak. 2018. One pope, two churches: Refugees, human rights and religion in
Croatia and Italy. Social Compass 65: 62–78. [CrossRef]
Grim, Brian, and Roger Finke. 2011. The Price of Freedom Denied: Religious Persecution and Violence. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Guide to Article 9. 2019. Guide to Article 9: Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion. Council of Europe,
European Court of Human Rights. 2019. Available online: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_
9_ENG.pdf.pdf (accessed on 22 March 2019).
Heelas, Paul. 2008. Spiritualities of Life: New Age Romanticism and Consumptive Capitalism. Malden and Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing.
Hefner, Robert W. 2015. Varieties of religious freedom and governance: A practical perspective. In Politics of
Religious Freedom: Case Studies. Edited by Winnifred F. Sullivan, Elizabeth Sh Hurd, Saba Mahmood and
Peter Danchin. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, pp. 127–34.
Hurd, Elizabeth. 2015. Beyond Religious Freedom: The New Global Politics of Religion. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Kuru, Ahmet T. 2009. Secularism and State Policies Toward Religion: The United States, France, and Turkey. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Mayrl, Damon. 2018. The judicialization of religious freedom: An institutionalist approach. Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion 57: 514–30. [CrossRef]
Modood, Tariq, and Riva Kastoryano. 2007. Secularism and the accommodation of Muslim identities.
In The Construction of Minority Identities in France and Britain. Edited by Gino G. Raymond and Tariq Modood.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 13–32.
Morgan, Rhiannon. 2009. Human rights research and the social sciences. In Interpreting Human Rights: Social Science
Perspectives. Edited by Rhiannon Morgan and Bryan S. Turner. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 1–22.
Possamai, Adam, James T. Richardson, and Bryan S. Turner. 2015. The Sociology of Shari’a: Case Studies from around
the World. New York: Springer.
Richardson, T. James. 2006. The Sociology of religious freedom: A structural and socio-legal analysis. Sociology of
Religion 67: 271–94. [CrossRef]
Richardson, T. James. 2007. Religion, law, and human rights. In Religion, Globalization, and Culture. Edited by
Peter Beyer and Lori Beaman. Leiden: Brill, pp. 407–28.
Richardson, T. James. 2015. Managing religion and the judicialization of religious freedom. Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion 54: 1–19. [CrossRef]
Richardson, James T., and Brian M. Lee. 2014. The role of the courts in the social construction of religious freedom
in Central and Eastern Europe. Review of Central and Eastern Europe Law 39: 291–313. [CrossRef]
Robbers, Gerhard. 2001. Church Autonomy: A Comparative Survey. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang AG.
Sandberg, Russell. 2011. Law and Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sandberg, Russell. 2014. Religion, Law and Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Somers, Margaret R., and Christopher N. J. Roberts. 2008. Toward a new sociology of rights: A genealogy of “buried
bodies” of citizenship and human rights. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 4: 385–425. [CrossRef]
Sullivan, Winnifred F. 2005. The Impossibility of Religious Freedom. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Sullivan, Winnifred F. 2010. Varieties of legal secularism. In Comparative Secularisms in a Global Age. Edited by
Linell E. Cady and Elizabeth Shakman Hurd. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 107–20.
Van der Ven, Johannes, and Hans-Georg Ziebertz. 2012. Tensions within and between Religions and Human Rights.
Empirical Research in Religion and Human Rights. Leiden: Brill.
Wuthnow, Robert, and Valerie Lewis. 2008. Religion and altruistic U.S. foreign policy goals: Evidence from a
national survey of church members. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 47: 191–209. [CrossRef]
Zrinšˇcak, Siniša. 2011. Church, state and society in post-communist Europe. In Religion and the State. A Comparative
Sociology. Edited by Jack Barbalet, Adam Possamai and Bryan S. Turner. London: Anthem Press, pp. 159–84.
©
2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).