The permanent presence of Islam and Muslims is a comparatively recent phenomenon in most countries of the European Union. Over the last few decades many initiatives have been launched by Muslim communities in the European Union to create infrastructural provisions for their religious life, within the existing legal and social frameworks. In fact, all countries of the European Union share the principles of religious freedom and non-discrimination in their respective Constitutions. However, the precise way in which these principles are interpreted and applied to Islam depends largely on the historical traditions concerning the relation between State and Religion, which differ from one country to another. These differences are reflected in recent developments in the communication between the States and their Muslim communities, both at national, regional and municipal levels. They are also reflected in recent developments in legislation and jurisprudence concerning the most essential Islamic core-values, such as dietary laws, the precepts on modest dress, Islamic burial practices and the possibilities to found Islamic cemeteries, as well as the observance of Friday prayers and annual holidays. Looking at the legal position of Islam in the countries of the European Union, the authors of this volume discuss the challenges posed by the presence of Islam to the Western European system of relationships between law and religion. They argue, that these challenges necessitate reforms within the relevant European legislation, but differ as to their precise nature. They also discuss the difficulties of this task, as these adjustments will alter a longstanding balance of rights and privileges recognised by different religious denominations. Legal reforms, however, are not sufficient. The creation of a truly multicultural Europe also necessitates fighting against the negative image of Islam and Muslims (anti-Muslimism or Islamophobia) prevailing in most of its member states.

O'Halloran provides a comparative evaluation of contemporary law as it relates to religion in six developed nations.

This book focuses on the financing of religions, examining some European church-state models, using a philosophical methodology. The work defends autonomy-based liberalism and elaborates how this liberalism can meet the requirements of liberal neutrality. The chapters also explore religious education and the financing of institutionalized religion. This volume collates the work of top scholars in the field. Starting from the idea that autonomy-based liberalism is an adequate framework for the requirement of liberal neutrality, the author elaborates why a liberal state can support religions and how she should do this, without violating the principle of neutrality. Taking into account the principle of religious freedom and the separation of church and state, this work explores which criteria the state should take into account when she actively supports religions, faith-based schools and religious education. A number of concrete church-state models, including hands-off, religious accommodation and the state church are evaluated, and the book gives some recommendations in order to optimize those church-state models, where needed. Practitioners and scholars of politics, law, philosophy and education, especially religious education, will find this work of particular interest as it has useful guidelines on policies and practices, as well as studies of church-state models.

Also included are essays interpreting the historical background and legal issues involved in each case, beginning with the principal events leading to the adoption of the First Amendment.

The European Federation of Centers of Research and Information on Sectarianism (FECRIS) unites 25 European organizations to fight against minorities of religion or beliefs that they label as sects. This book focuses on the FECRIS member associations in five European countries: France, the cradle of laicite; Austria and Germany, where public powers and dominant churches lead a common struggle against sects; and Serbia and Russia, two Orthodox countries in which FECRIS member associations include Orthodox missionary departments. Can their activities be reconciled with the public funding granted to FECRIS and its affiliates, as well as the international standards to guarantee freedom of religion and belief? This is the question addressed in this volume. (Series: Religion - State - Society / Religion - Staat - Gesellschaft. Journal for the Study of Beliefs and Worldviews)

“Congress shall make no law reflecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The First Amendment aims to separate church and state, but Kent Greenawalt examines many situations in which its two clauses—the Nonestablishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause—point in opposite directions. How should courts decide?

This comparative analysis of the constitutional law of religion-state relations in the United States and Germany focuses on the principle of state neutrality. A strong emphasis on state neutrality, a notoriously ambiguous concept, is a shared feature in the constitutional jurisprudence of the US Supreme Court and the German Federal Constitutional Court, but neutrality does not have the same meaning in both systems. In Germany neutrality tends to indicate more distance between church and state, whereas the opposite is the case in the United States. Neutrality also has other meanings in both systems, making straightforward comparison more difficult than it might seem. Although the underlying trajectory of neutrality is different in both countries, the discussion of neutrality breaks down into largely parallel themes. By examining those themes in a comparative perspective, the meaning of state neutrality in religion-state relations can be delineated.