Abstract:

Religious organisations play critical functions in societies around the world. The role of religious organisations in secular states however tends to be under-studied in disciplines outside of the sub-discipline of sociology of religious organisation. Within some disciplines, including law, this is partly because of the dominant view that secular states should stand apart from religion (and religious organisations), and that any entanglement would undermine the “neutrality” of the state, and hence its secularity. There has been increased attention on religious organizations in relation to their responses to COVID-19 measures, which included restricting religious gatherings and other collective religious activities. These restrictions go to the heart of religious practice. How religious organisations responded however depend on a range of factors, including their status within the social order. In this article, we further discuss how the constitutional environment shapes the religious organisations’ responses to Covid-19 restrictions. By constitutional environment, we refer to the existing constitutional arrangement of state and religion, and the degree to which the constitutional right to freedom of religion is founded on a strong idea of individual and group rights, as opposed to being seen as subjected to or even subsidiary to public interests. Where the constitutional environment is seen as conducive to rights-assertion, religious organisations are more likely to resist state restrictions because such action would enhance their standing among their own adherents. Under such conditions, they performatively present themselves as freedom fighters standing against state oppression. Filing a lawsuit against Covid-19 measures is seen as an act of resistance in pursuit of freedom and divine blessings. In contrast, where the constitutional environment is not conducive to rights claims but emphasises communitarian values, religious organisations would tend to employ the language of duties in complying with state restrictions. Many, however, do not do this simply as passive subjects but may consciously adopt public health values and encourage their adherents to do the same because doing so could enhance their social standing and legitimacy. Thus, by emphasising their value to society through an explicit commitment to public health, specifically, and to the community’s interests, more generally, and avoiding an emphatic insistence on rights, Covid-19 became an opportunity for religious organisations to performatively present themselves as civic-minded and socially responsible social actors. This allowed them to frame their adoption of public health measures partly as group choices, and not merely top-down imposition by the state.