Contrasting Beliefs on Freedom of Religious Expression

Most Christians support freedom of religious expression. Jesus' teaching to ‘love your neighbour’ encourages respect for people whose beliefs differ from their own. The Golden Rule, ‘Do to others what you would have them do to you’ (Matthew 7:12), gives a practical reason: Christians who want freedom to worship should respect that freedom for others.

Jesus also rejected a violent response when a Samaritan village would not welcome him (Luke 9:52–56). Rather than forcing the villagers to accept him, he moved on. Christians can understand this as an example of respecting people's choice to reject a religious message. Paul's instruction to ‘live at peace with everyone’ (Romans 12:18) similarly supports peaceful relationships between communities.

These teachings can influence Christians to defend other people's places of worship and oppose attempts to force anyone into a faith. Tolerance here means respecting people and their rights, not abandoning Christian beliefs.

Believing in religious truth without forcing belief

Christians differ in how they understand other religions. Some emphasise openness towards other faiths; others strongly emphasise that people should accept Christianity. Jesus' command to ‘make disciples of all nations’ (Matthew 28:19) motivates Christians to share their faith and invite others to convert.

However, sharing a belief is different from imposing it. The Catholic declaration Dignitatis humanae, issued in 1965, affirms both the Catholic Church's belief in the true religion and everyone's right to freedom from religious coercion. It teaches that a response to God must be free: nobody should be forced to become Christian against their will.

Catholic teaching therefore provides a useful distinction between a religious duty to seek truth and a civil right to freedom. People retain that right even when their beliefs are judged mistaken. Religious communities should be able to worship and teach publicly, while respecting the rights of others and just public order.

Muslim support for freedom and contrasting interpretations

Many Muslims support religious freedom through the Qur’anic teaching, ‘There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion’ (Qur’an 2:256). They understand this to mean that faith must be chosen rather than forced. Qur’an 18:29 also allows people the choice to believe or reject its message.

Islam recognises Jews and Christians as People of the Book, because they follow revelations from God. This provides a basis for accepting their religious communities and allowing them to worship, even though Muslims believe Islam is the right path to follow.

There are nevertheless contrasting interpretations and practices. More restrictive approaches regard leaving Islam, or apostasy, as sinful and something that should be prohibited. In some Muslim-majority countries, leaving Islam is treated as a crime. This contrasts with interpretations that emphasise freedom to choose and change religion. Saudi Arabia also places substantial restrictions on the public religious expression of other faiths.

These differences should not be treated as the view of every Muslim. A country's laws, an individual's beliefs and a religious teaching are not interchangeable.

Religious expression and its limits in Britain

In Britain, people can worship, express their faith and choose not to worship. Muslims can build mosques and practise Islam; Christians can attend churches and share their beliefs. Although the Church of England is the established Church in England, this does not mean everyone must follow it.

Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights distinguishes holding a belief, which cannot be restricted, from manifesting a belief, which can sometimes be limited. Restrictions on expression must be lawful and necessary, for example to protect public safety or other people's rights. Mere disagreement with a religion is not enough.

Two workplace cases illustrate this balance. Nadia Eweida was prevented from visibly wearing a Christian cross with her uniform. The European Court of Human Rights found that the employer's wish to maintain its corporate image did not strike a fair balance with her religious freedom. By contrast, a restriction on nurse Shirley Chaplin's cross necklace was accepted because it protected the health and safety of nurses and patients.

The central debate is therefore not simply whether religion should be expressed. It is also when a restriction is justified. Christians and Muslims may defend religious freedom while accepting necessary safety limits, yet disagree with restrictions they consider unnecessary or unfair.

• ‘Love your neighbour’ and the Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12): respect others' freedom as you want yours respected.
• ‘Live at peace with everyone’ (Romans 12:18): supports peaceful religious coexistence.
• ‘Make disciples of all nations’ (Matthew 28:19): encourages sharing Christianity, not necessarily coercion.
• Dignitatis humanae (1965): Catholic belief in religious truth is compatible with everyone's civil right to religious freedom.

Islam

• ‘No compulsion’ (Qur’an 2:256): supports freely chosen faith.
• Qur’an 18:29: people can choose to believe or reject.
• People of the Book: recognition of Jewish and Christian religious communities.
• Contrast: restrictive interpretations and some countries' laws prohibit apostasy or limit other faiths' public expression. These do not represent every Muslim.

British application

• Eweida: corporate image did not justify restricting her visible cross.
• Chaplin: health and safety justified restricting her cross necklace.
• Key judgement: protecting others can justify necessary limits; disagreement with a belief alone cannot.