Lived Experiences of Religious Freedom: Organizational Challenges in the United Kingdom

Freedom of religion or belief is a fundamental right, protected by both domestic laws and international commitments that the United Kingdom has embraced. However, there is sometimes a divergence between legal provisions on paper and the actual lived experiences of organisations. This study focuses on these lived experiences, examining the current state of freedom of religion and belief in the United Kingdom. It has two primary objectives:

1. To identify the challenges faced by religious and non-religious belief organisations in relation to Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
2. To generate an empirically grounded theory that explains how these organisations address their challenges.

Although a substantial body of scholarly literature examines religious freedom in the United Kingdom, no study has yet theorized how organizations navigate its challenges. This research addresses that gap by employing classic grounded theory methodology, based on the works of Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss. In accordance with the principles of this theory-generating approach, data collection and analysis were conducted simultaneously, applying theoretical sampling, the constant comparison method, open coding, selective coding, theoretical coding, memo-writing, and theoretical sorting of memos.

Following the tenets of grounded theory methodology, this research sought to understand the main concern of religious and non-religious belief organisations regarding religious freedom and how this concern is addressed. The primary questions that guided the investigation were as follows:

• What challenges do religious organisations and non-religious belief organisations face in the United Kingdom concerning Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
• How do they resolve these challenges?

To answer these questions, interviews were conducted with leaders of both religious and non-religious belief organisations. In total, twenty-nine organisations participated, including the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, Cambridge Central Mosque, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Pagan Federation, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Rastafari Movement Wellbeing UK, Sunday Assembly, and Humanists UK. Additionally, data were collected from leaders of relevant advocacy groups, including the Muslim Council of Britain, the National Secular Society, and Christian Concern, to enhance the explanatory power of the theory.

One of the core elements emerging from this research is the concept of the status quo. This concept refers to the current state of affairs regarding both the regulation of freedom of religion or belief and the prevailing societal attitudes towards it at national and local levels. It consists of two interrelated components:

1. The legal framework – the set of laws and regulations that define the operational parameters of religious and non-religious belief organisations in British society.
2. The societal framework – the informal norms, values, and cultural attitudes that influence the perception and practice of religion and belief. Even if laws formally allow certain religious practices, societal disapproval can restrict or shape how those practices are actually carried out.

These legal and societal frameworks interact dynamically, forming a feedback loop. Legal decisions and regulations can legitimise societal norms and alter public behaviour, while shifts in public opinion and cultural values create pressure for legal reforms. Religious and non-religious belief organisations are both constrained and empowered by these frameworks. Laws can either limit or enable their activities, while societal attitudes can offer support or resistance to their goals. Simultaneously, these organisations actively work to shape both frameworks. This dynamic interplay ensures that the status quo is not static but continuously changing.

Closely linked to the status quo is the concept of an area of concern, which refers to specific issues that religious and non-religious belief organisations perceive as requiring attention, modification, or protection. These areas are shaped by both legal and societal frameworks, which determine how the issues are regulated and perceived.

The main concern of UK-based religious and non-religious belief organisations regarding Article 18 is that the status quo does not fully align with what they perceive as ideal. Either the legal framework, the societal framework, or both fail to meet what an organisation considers to be ideal. To address this issue, organisations adopt various behavioral patterns, all of which fall under the overarching process of realizing the ideal—the core category of the theory.

Once an area of concern reaches a certain threshold of significance, organisations respond in one of three ways:

1. Striving to change the status quo – When organisations perceive that the legal or societal framework is not ideal, they take active steps to modify it. This may involve:
   1. Lobbying: Engaging policymakers to influence legislation.
   2. Campaigning: Conducting public outreach to shift societal attitudes.
2. Striving to maintain the status quo – If an organisation views the existing legal or societal framework as ideal but perceives that it is under threat, it works to preserve it through similar lobbying and campaigning efforts, but with the goal of resisting change.
3. Striving to enforce the legal framework – When organisations consider the legal framework to be ideal but find that it is not being upheld at the societal level, they take actions aimed at ensuring that their rights are upheld in practice.    

What one organization views as the ideal status quo may not be the same for another. As a result, different organizations engage with the legal and societal frameworks in different ways and with varying levels of intensity. 

The study also introduces the concept of the ideal, referring to an organisation’s envisioned state of religious freedom. It consists of two components:

• Official stance – The formal position an organisation adopts regarding religious freedom.
• Individual stances – The perspectives of individuals within the organisation.

A significant divergence between the official stance and individual stances can create internal tensions, which may, in turn, limit an organisation’s ability to engage in lobbying or campaigning, and hinder coalition-building efforts.

While the study’s focus is specific to the United Kingdom, its insights hold broad relevance for leaders of religious and non-religious belief organisations, advocacy groups, and policymakers worldwide.