Religion's role in public life is one of the most debated subjects in history. A fair account must recognize both its contributions and its harms, and notice that the same could be said of many powerful human institutions.

Contributions

• Charity and care. Religious communities founded many of the world's earliest hospitals, schools, orphanages and universities, and today run vast networks of relief, food banks and care for the poor. Giving to the needy is a duty in Judaism (tzedakah), Christianity, Islam (zakat, one of the Five Pillars), Sikhism (the langar, a free communal kitchen) and other traditions.
• Movements for justice. Quakers and evangelical Christians such as William Wilberforce were leaders in the campaign to abolish the slave trade. In the US civil rights movement, Black churches supplied leaders, meeting places and moral language; Martin Luther King Jr. was a Baptist minister. Religious leaders such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu opposed apartheid in South Africa.
• Community and meaning. Congregations give many people friendship, mutual aid and a sense of belonging, and studies often find links between religious participation and volunteering.

Harms

• Persecution. Religious authorities and rulers have persecuted heretics, dissenters and minorities through inquisitions, forced conversions, expulsions such as that of Jews from Spain in 1492, and laws punishing blasphemy or apostasy.
• Sectarian violence and war. Europe's wars of religion, including the Thirty Years' War (1618 to 1648), killed millions. Violence between religious communities has accompanied partitions and civil conflicts in many regions.
• Abuse of trust. Some religious institutions have concealed abuse by leaders, causing deep harm to victims and to faith communities themselves.
• Justifying injustice. Religion has been used to defend slavery and the subordination of women, even as other believers fought against both using their own scriptures.

Weighing fairly

Two cautions help. First, religion is rarely the only cause. Many conflicts called religious also involve land, ethnicity, nationalism and power, and scholars debate how much weight religion itself carries. Second, harms are not unique to religion: secular regimes have also persecuted, as in the Soviet campaigns against believers. Neither side's record is spotless, and the more useful question is often which conditions make any powerful belief system humane or dangerous.

Religious freedom and its limits

Modern human rights law, beginning with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, protects freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to change one's religion and to practice it in public or private. In short, belief is protected absolutely, but practice may be limited: under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), the freedom to manifest one's religion may be restricted only by law and only when necessary to protect public safety, order, health, morals, or the rights and freedoms of others.

Courts in many countries wrestle with hard cases: whether parents may refuse medical treatment for a child on religious grounds, whether employers must accommodate religious holidays or dress, and whether conscientious objectors may refuse military service. A common approach is to protect religious practice broadly, grant accommodations where possible, and set limits mainly where practice would seriously harm others, especially those who cannot consent.

Worked example: a request for accommodation

Harjit, a Sikh, applies for a job at a delivery company that requires employees to wear a standard cap. Many Sikh men wear a turban as an article of faith, and Harjit asks to wear his instead. How should the company, or a court, think about this?

1. Is the belief sincere? Courts generally do not judge whether a religious belief is correct, only whether it is sincerely held. Harjit's practice is long-standing and widely recognized.
2. What is the burden? Requiring the cap would force Harjit to choose between his faith and his job, a heavy burden.
3. What is the employer's interest? The company wants a recognizable uniform. That is a real interest, but a turban in company colors, or a badge, could meet it.
4. Would accommodation harm others? Here, no one is harmed.

In many countries' law, and as a matter of fairness, this points toward accommodation. Many employers and public bodies, including police forces and armed services in several countries, now allow turbans.

Now change the case. Parents refuse a blood transfusion for their young child because of their faith, and doctors say the child will die without it. Here the same reasoning leads elsewhere. The parents' belief is sincere and deserves respect, but the practice would seriously harm someone who cannot consent. Courts in many countries authorize treatment for the child, while respecting adults' right to refuse treatment for themselves.

Notice the principle at work in both cases: belief is protected absolutely; practice is protected broadly but may be limited to prevent serious harm to others. Notice too that people of many faiths and none support both outcomes. Fair limits on religious freedom are not hostility to religion but part of protecting everyone's rights.