Historical Example

Democratic Reform and Freedom Propelled by Faith-Based Institutions in the Context of a Communist Country

Communism initially made no attempt to co-opt religion, which Karl Marx had characterized as "the opium of the people." Instead, it attempted to abolish religious beliefs and replace them with its own materialist ideology. Following the Russian Revolution in 1917, the Bolsheviks destroyed churches, arrested and killed many priests, and banned observance of all faiths. Communist China similarly destroyed places of worship and religious relics and symbols. Soviet leader Joseph Stalin reopened churches and restored the Russian patriarchate, or church leadership, on the condition that it accepts the Communist regime's authority. Thereafter, religious institutions were allowed to function in the Soviet bloc, but frequently as state instruments and always under strict supervision.
East European countries considered it necessary to make separate laws on religious freedom in addition to its inclusion among the human rights in the Constitution, in full harmony with the human rights documents of the United Nations and the European Convention on Human Rights. Two laws passed by the Hungarian Parliament in 1990 and 1991 served as a model for the other East European countries. Act IV of 1990 of the "Freedom of Religion and Conscience" lays down an idea already in its introduction which is a reply to the concept of the negative social role of the church and religion proclaimed by Marxism for forty years. Accordingly, the churches in Hungary became an "outstandingly important factors of society bearing values and creating community which play a basic role in culture, education and teaching and in the development of social, health and national awareness." As a consequence, the Republic of Hungary did not only tolerate but protected by law and promoted the operation of the churches. It was also laid down in the law that the church could be involved in any activities which were not exclusively a state duty and it listed the spheres where church activity was especially desirable. It discussed specifically the activities of the representatives of the church in prisons and hospitals.
Section 16 of the 1990 Act was also a response to the former situation when it stated that no organization could be established to supervise the church. This is a basic legal guarantee of church autonomy. A very essential feature was that while the previous regime failed to provide any legal guarantee for the citizens in case their religious freedom was violated Act IV of 1990 stated clearly that if anyone is limited in the practice of religion with force or threat, those doing the limiting can be punished with up to three years imprisonment. With creation and putting into practice of Act IV of 1990, the legal conditions of the restoration of religious freedom were made. Soon after, other Eastern European former socialists' countries followed suit.
The examples of antidemocratic ideology and dictatorship discussed above illustrate the need for freedom of religion and the basic separation—either formally or in practice—of religion and state. Without such a separation, religious institutions have historically become either repressive political instruments or compromised entities that are unable to fulfill their proper functions. Dictators view freedom of belief as a threat because it can undermine individual obedience and mobilize community opposition. Independent religious institutions have been part of many recent movements for broader political freedom, including those in Chile, Poland, and South Africa.
Just as freedom of religion is a menace to dictatorship, it is a safeguard of democratic society. Democracy requires a diversity of views and choices, an environment in which differing opinions can be debated freely. This would be impossible if there were intolerance of "the first freedom"—freedom of conscience and of worship.