Religious Conviction, Law and Freedom of Expression

One possible response is civil disobedience: deliberately refusing to obey a law considered unjust, usually non-violently. A believer might accept punishment rather than act against their conscience. Other Christians may favour campaigning for change through lawful means, because breaking laws can undermine order and because people can disagree about what God requires. The seriousness of the injustice and the effects of resistance matter when judging the response.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer: faith and resistance to Nazi rule

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German Protestant pastor and theologian who opposed National Socialism. After Hitler came to power in 1933, the German Christians movement tried to bring Protestant Christianity into line with Nazi ideology. It supported applying racial restrictions within the Church, including excluding Christians of Jewish ancestry from ministry. Bonhoeffer believed this surrendered Christian principles to political ideology.

Bonhoeffer became involved in the Confessing Church, formed in 1934 to resist Nazi influence over the German Protestant Church. In his 1933 essay The Church and the Jewish Question, he argued that the Church should question state injustice, help its victims whether or not they were Christian, and, if necessary, act to stop the machinery of injustice. His conviction therefore demanded more than private disagreement: it required action.

He trained clergy at an illegal Confessing Church seminary at Finkenwalde, which the Gestapo closed in September 1937. In 1940, the Gestapo banned him from public speaking. He also became involved in resistance networks and efforts to help Jews escape Germany. Arrested in April 1943, he was later linked to the wider conspiracy to overthrow the Nazi regime. He was executed at Flossenbürg concentration camp on 9 April 1945.

The conflict was between state demands for obedience and Bonhoeffer’s conviction that Christians must oppose injustice and protect its victims. His actions show the personal cost of placing conscience above state authority. His involvement in wider resistance also means that his story cannot be reduced to a simple example of peaceful protest alone.

Christians did not all respond as he did. Many Protestant leaders initially welcomed Nazism, and most Confessing Church leaders avoided political criticism and remained silent about the persecution of Jews. Bonhoeffer’s example therefore shows a particular Christian response, not the response of every Christian. It supports the argument that legality does not automatically make an action morally right.

What freedom of religious expression protects

Freedom of religious expression means being able to practise and express religion openly without discrimination or punishment. Examples include wearing religious symbols, having time or space to pray at work, worshipping with others and sharing beliefs. Religious freedom is protected by law in the UK, although believers may still experience restrictions, legal disputes or public pressure.

For Christians, sharing faith can be a religious responsibility. Mark 16:15 records Jesus’s instruction: “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.” This supports mission and evangelism, which may involve public preaching, inviting people to church or distributing information about Christianity.

Christians who defend public religious expression argue that faith is not merely a private opinion: it shapes identity, worship and daily behaviour. Preventing peaceful expression could force believers to choose between participation in society and practising their religion. A non-religious defence reaches a similar conclusion through individual liberty: people should be free to express beliefs whether or not others agree with them.

However, other people also have freedom of belief. An invitation to hear about Christianity leaves someone free to decline; pressure to convert can fail to respect their existing beliefs. Religious expression should therefore be considered alongside the rights of those receiving it, rather than treated as an unlimited entitlement.

Censorship: protection or suppression?

Censorship occurs when an authority, such as a government or media company, controls what people can see, read, hear or say. It can involve banning books or religious materials, restricting broadcasts or preventing public speech. Bonhoeffer’s public-speaking ban illustrates how an authority can silence religious opposition.

Christians may oppose censorship because it prevents evangelism, conceals injustice or unfairly targets religious beliefs. Freedom to question those in power also helps people discover and discuss the truth. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises the right to freedom of opinion and expression, giving a wider human-rights basis for this argument.

Conversely, Christians may support restrictions that protect people from hatred or serious harm. Concern for other people’s dignity can justify preventing messages that encourage attacks on them. Non-religious arguments can also support such limits on the grounds of safety and equal rights.

The central distinction is between disagreement or offence and harm to people’s rights and safety. Some people argue that offensive views should remain open to criticism and debate rather than be suppressed. Others worry that leaving hateful messages unrestricted can intimidate vulnerable people and encourage discrimination. A justified judgement should consider what is being restricted, why, and whether a narrower restriction could protect people without silencing peaceful expression.

Religious extremism and its effects

Religious extremism involves radical religious views that reject other people’s rights or promote hatred. It may involve insisting that only one interpretation is acceptable, refusing to consider alternatives or treating people of other beliefs as inferior. Strong faith, an unpopular belief or criticism of a government does not by itself amount to extremism.

Extremist messages can encourage hatred and discrimination; violent extremism threatens lives and safety. It can also create fear and mistrust between communities. Extremists may claim that religion justifies their actions, but that claim does not mean other members of the religion agree. Christians generally reject extremist behaviour because it threatens the dignity and rights of others.

Restricting messages that promote hatred may therefore protect religious freedom as well as public safety: people cannot practise their beliefs freely if they face intimidation. Yet treating all religious expression as dangerous would unfairly restrict peaceful believers.

A defensible conclusion is to protect peaceful worship, religious discussion and criticism of authority while allowing limits on expression that threatens others’ rights or safety. Bonhoeffer’s case shows why dissent must not automatically be silenced; the harms of extremism show why freedom cannot excuse every action claimed to be religious.

• Christians generally support obeying laws, but many place God’s will above an unjust state demand.
• Bonhoeffer: opposed Nazi control of Christianity; trained clergy at an illegal seminary, closed in 1937; banned from public speaking in 1940.
• Involved in resistance and efforts to help Jews escape; arrested 1943, executed 9 April 1945.
• Key judgement: legality does not necessarily equal morality. His response was not shared by all Christians.

Religious expression and censorship

• Religious expression includes worship, prayer, religious symbols and sharing faith.
• Mark 16:15: “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation” — supports Christian evangelism.
• Against censorship: protects religious practice, open debate and criticism of injustice.
• For some restrictions: protects dignity, safety and others’ rights.
• Central distinction: peaceful disagreement or offence versus hatred, intimidation and harm.

Extremism

• Rejects others’ rights or promotes hatred; it is not simply strong religious commitment.
• Effects include discrimination, fear, violence and damaged community relations.
• Balanced conclusion: protect peaceful expression while limiting threats to rights and safety.