Sidebar: Situation in the United States

The United States was among the 16 countries whose scores on both the Government Restrictions Index and the Social Hostilities Index increased by one point or more in the year ending in mid-2010.¹ This was the first time scores for the U.S. increased on both indexes during the four-year period covered in this study.

Rising Government Restrictions  

Based on the information in the sources consulted for this study, the U.S. score on the Government Restrictions Index rose from 1.6 in the year ending in mid-2009 to 2.7 in the year ending in mid-2010, moving the U.S. from the low category of restrictions to the moderate category for the first time in the four years studied. (GRI scores 2.4 or higher are categorized as moderate by this study, while scores 4.5 or higher are categorized as high.)

During the period from mid-2009 to mid-2010, a number of the sources used in the study reported an increase in the number of incidents at the state and local level in which members of some religious groups faced restrictions on their ability to practice their faith. This included incidents in which individuals were prevented from wearing certain religious attire or symbols, including beards, in some judicial settings or in prisons, penitentiaries or other correctional facilities. For instance, the U.S. Department of Justice reported that it was pursuing a lawsuit in federal court against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and various California officials on behalf of a Sikh prison inmate who, in March 2010, had been ordered to trim his facial hair in violation of his religious beliefs. The Justice Department said the state’s inmate grooming policy “imposed a substantial burden” on the man’s ability to exercise his faith.² 

Some religious groups in the U.S. also faced difficulties in obtaining zoning permits to build or expand houses of worship, religious schools or other religious institutions. For instance, in May 2010, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that the Boulder County Commissioners had discriminated against the Rocky Mountain Christian Church by denying it permits to expand its school and worship facilities even though the commissioners had issued permits to a nearby secular school for a similar expansion.³ The appeals court agreed with the lower court that the commissioners’ actions violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), which protects individuals and institutions from religious discrimination in land-use decisions and protects the religious rights of prisoners and other persons confined to institutions.⁴ The Justice Department — in a report marking the 10th anniversary of the passage of RLUIPA — noted that 31 of its 51 land-use investigations from 2000-2010 involved Christian groups; most of the remaining 20 investigations involved religious minorities, including Muslims (seven investigations), Jews (six), Buddhists (three) and Hindus (one).⁵ 

From mid-2009 to mid-2010, at least one state sought to restrict the application of Islamic or sharia law. In the spring of 2010, Oklahoma legislators proposed an amendment to the state constitution that would have banned state courts from considering sharia law or international law in their decisions.⁶ (The constitutional change was later approved in a statewide vote, but a federal appeals court struck down the amendment in January 2012, saying it violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.⁷)

And, for the first time, one of the primary sources used in this study reported that some level of government in the U.S. had imposed limits on conversion. A report by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief mentions an incident at the Southport Correctional Facility, an ultra-maximum security prison near Elmira, N.Y., in which a prisoner was denied the right to change his religious designation to Muslim. The inmate complained that he could not participate in Ramadan observances without an official change to his religious designation in the New York Department of Correctional Services’ records.⁸ 

Rising Social Hostilities Involving Religion  

The U.S. score on the Social Hostilities Index also rose, from 2.0 as of mid-2009 to 3.4 as of mid-2010, moving the U.S. from the lower end of the moderate range of hostilities to the upper end of the moderate range. (Social Hostilities Index scores 3.6 or higher are categorized as high by this study.)

A key factor behind the increase in the U.S. score on the Social Hostilities Index was a spike in religion-related terrorist attacks in the United States in the year ending in mid-2010. In November 2009, for instance, U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan – allegedly inspired by the U.S.-born radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki – gunned down and killed 13 people and wounded 32 others at a military base in Fort Hood, Texas.⁹ In December 2009, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian national, attempted to set off a bomb hidden in his underwear while aboard a Detroit-bound aircraft.¹⁰ And in May 2010, Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani-born resident of Bridgeport, Conn., attempted to set off a bomb in New York’s Times Square. ¹¹ 

Other forms of social hostilities involving religion also increased in the U.S. during the most recent year studied. In Murfreesboro, Tenn., for example, some county residents attempted to block the construction of a mosque in the spring of 2010 by claiming, as reported by the Justice Department, that Islam is a “political ideology rather than a religion” and that “mosques are political rather than religious in nature.”¹² (The mosque officially opened in August 2012, but opponents are still challenging the mosque in federal court.¹³)

The increase in social hostilities in the U.S. also reflects a rise in the number of reported religion-related workplace discrimination complaints. The number of such complaints filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) rose from 3,386 in the fiscal year ending on Sept. 30, 2009, to 3,790 in the year ending on Sept. 30, 2010.¹⁴ The number of cases that the EEOC determined had “reasonable cause” rose from 136 to 314 during this period.

Footnotes:  

1 The other countries were Angola, Brunei, Chad, Germany, Greece, Guinea, Japan, Kenya, Lebanon, Liberia, Republic of Macedonia, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Ukraine and the United Kingdom. (return to text) 

2 For more information, see U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. March 2011. “DOJ Files RLUIPA Suit on Behalf of Sikh Inmate.” Religious Freedom in Focus, vol. 45. http://www.justice.gov/crt/spec_topics/religiousdiscrimination/newsletter/focus_45.html#1. Also see Complaint in Intervention Pursuant to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc (Civil Rights), No. CVII-01676 SVW (FMOx). http://www.justice.gov/crt/spec_topics/religiousdiscrimination/basra_comp.pdf. (return to text) 

3 For more information, see the decision in Rocky Mountain Christian Church v. Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County Colorado at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=88c64fbf-17ea-432d-8e66-1ac6b663709b. Boulder County appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case, leaving intact the 10th Circuit’s decision that Boulder County had unfairly discriminated against the church. For more information, see the “Proceedings and Orders” on the Supreme Court’s website at http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/10-521.htm. (return to text) 

4 For more information on the land-use provisions in RLUIPA, see the Pew Forum’s October 2008 report, “Brutalism is In the Eye of the Beholder: A Congregation Sues D.C. for Making Its Church Building a Historic Landmark,” http://www.pewforum.org/Church-State-Law/Brutalism-Is-in-the-Eye-of-the-Beholder-A-Congregation-Sues-DC-for-Making-Its-Church-Building-a-Historic-Landmark.aspx. (return to text) 

5 See page 6 of the Justice Department’s September 2010 report, “Report on the Tenth Anniversary of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act,” http://www.justice.gov/crt/rluipa_report_092210.pdf. (return to text) 

6 For more information, see Schlachtenhaufen, Mark. June 4, 2010. “Sharia law, courts likely on 2010 ballot.” The Edmond Sun. http://www.edmondsun.com/local/x1996914371/Sharia-law-courts-likely-on-2010-ballot. (return to text) 

7 For more information, see Ceasar, Stephen. Jan. 10, 2012. “Appeals court affirms order blocking Oklahoma sharia law ban.” Los Angeles Times. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/10/nation/la-na-oklahoma-sharia-20120111. (return to text) 

8 The N.Y. Department of Correctional Services’ Directive 4202 allows inmates to apply for changes to their religious designation but limits when and how often such changes are permitted once an inmate is confined. See http://www.doccs.ny.gov/directives/4202.pdf. For more information on this case, see U.N. Human Rights Council. Feb. 14, 2011. “Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Heiner Bielefeldt, Addendum: Summary of cases transmitted to Governments and replies received.” Doc. A/HRC /16/53/Add.1. http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/EE945AEF270C0F538525783A005365CF. (return to text) 

9 For more information, see The New York Times. Sept. 7, 2012. “Times Topics: Nidal Malik Hasan.” http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/nidal_malik_hasan/index.html. In August 2012 (outside the period covered in this study), Hasan’s trial was put on hold while a military court considered his objections to being forced to shave his beard, which he says would violate his Muslim faith. On Sept. 6, 2012, a military judge ruled that forcible shaving would not violate Hasan’s right to freely exercise his faith. Hasan’s lawyers were expected to appeal the ruling, and the case remained on hold. See Fernandez, Manny. Sept. 6, 2012. “Fort Hood Shooting Suspect’s Beard Must Be Shaved, Military Judge Rules.” The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/07/us/judge-in-fort-hood-case-orders-maj-nidal-malik-hasans-beard-shaved.html. (return to text) 

10 For more information, see The New York Times. Feb. 16, 2012. “Times Topics: Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.” http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/umar_farouk_abdulmutallab/index.html. (return to text) 

11 For more information, see The New York Times. Feb. 16, 2012. “Times Topics: Faisal Shahzad.” http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/faisal_shahzad/index.html?8qa. (return to text) 

12 See U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. December 2010. “Court Rejects Neighbors’ Challenge that Mosque is not a Place of Worship.” Religious Freedom in Focus, vol. 44. http://www.justice.gov/crt/spec_topics/religiousdiscrimination/newsletter/focus_44.html#2. (return to text) 

13 On Aug. 30, 2012 (outside the period covered in this study), county residents who oppose the mosque were granted permission to have a say in a federal lawsuit involving the mosque. See Loller, Travis. Aug. 30, 2012. “Federal judge allows Murfreesboro mosque opponents to intervene.” The Associated Press. http://www.tennessean.com/viewart/20120830/NEWS01/308300046/Federal-judge-allows-Murfreesboro-mosque-opponents-intervene. (return to text) 

14 See U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. “Religion-Based Charges: FY 1997 - FY 2011.” http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/religion.cfm. (return to text)