International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 3, 2012 9
Religion and Politics
We may differ about the degree to which any
government should restrict the ability of
religious organizations to receive funding from
abroad. We may object to the idea that
governments should have a role in the
appointment of religious leadership (whether
homegrown or imported). However, Western
democracies also attempt to influence events,
arguably in the national (sometimes
international) interest.
The Australian government recently deported an
imam, presumably because the government
thought his teachings were subversive.33 The
US government has actively supported attempts
by the Pakistan government to prohibit the
influx of Saudi money into Pakistan for the
funding of Wahabi-based madrassas (which
severely restrict or eschew the teaching of
secular subjects) try to influence the religious
curriculum away from teaching fundamental
interpretations of the Quran and the Sunnah’s
hadiths and prohibit the propagation of
politically and religiously inflammatory
statements from schools and mosques. These
efforts have been relatively unsuccessful,
countered effectively by cries for religious
freedom (paradoxically, in light of the US global
championing of religious liberty).34
The UK (and other countries which adopted the
common law of charity), and France, settled on
different ways of keeping religion out of
politics—or at least containing the political
dimensions of religious activity. The English
policy of establishment and privilege for the
Church of England segued into toleration for
other religious groups and a policy of plural
religious accommodation including financial
privileges, but with a system of discretionary
control built into the common law system of
charity – in recent decades presided over by the
Charity Commission for England and Wales,
which is armed with a carrot and a stick.
33 Jodie Minus, “Deported Cleric Mansour Leghaei Returns to
Iran,” The Australian, 28 June 2010. Retrieved online at
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/deported-cleric-
mansour-leghaei-returns-to-iran/story-e6frg6nf-1225884951184
34 Thomas, Religion in Schools: Controversies Around the World,
pp. 121–134.
The common law of charity (now refined by
statute in England) has long contained an
injunction against political activity. A
recognized charitable purpose, including
advancement of religion, which is a ticket to
financial privileges, is not charitable if the
dominant purpose of an organization is deemed
to be political. Charitable groups are free to
make political comment on matters ancillary to
their charitable activities, but they are cautious
not to transgress the line into political debate,
and particularly political partisanship, lest the
gatekeeper of privilege rules them ineligible.
Even though the United Kingdom has no written
constitution per se, upon joining Europe it has
come under the influence of human rights
provisions found in European fundamental laws.
In the Scientology case referred to above, the
Charity Commissioners felt obliged to consider
the ramifications of Articles 9 and 14 of the
European Convention on Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms 1950. These include the
religious freedom to worship, teach, practice and
observe, and a right of non-discrimination on the
ground of religion.
So the Charity Commission picked a path
through this minefield of imprecise ideas (which
are loaded with any number of potential future
meanings). The Europeans recognize the
impediments that vaguely worded fundamental
laws can place in the way of good policy, and
allow laws necessary for the protection of public
order, health or morals, or for the protection of
the rights or freedoms of others. In other words,
the continental Europeans wrote into their
fundamental law similar policy flexibility
enjoyed by the English for centuries.35
The objective of keeping religion out of politics
in the United States works on similar lines to the
UK in the field of charity. At the federal level,
tax-exempt status is available to charitable
organizations, including those “organized and
operated exclusively for religious … purposes.”
35 The nondiscrimination provision also can be avoided if laws are
made for a legitimate aim, or there is a reasonable relationship of
proportionality between the means employed and the aims sought
to be realised. Mutch, “Cults, Religion and Public Policy: A
Comparison of Official Responses to Scientology in Australia and
the United Kingdom,” p. 297.
Religion and Politics
We may differ about the degree to which any
government should restrict the ability of
religious organizations to receive funding from
abroad. We may object to the idea that
governments should have a role in the
appointment of religious leadership (whether
homegrown or imported). However, Western
democracies also attempt to influence events,
arguably in the national (sometimes
international) interest.
The Australian government recently deported an
imam, presumably because the government
thought his teachings were subversive.33 The
US government has actively supported attempts
by the Pakistan government to prohibit the
influx of Saudi money into Pakistan for the
funding of Wahabi-based madrassas (which
severely restrict or eschew the teaching of
secular subjects) try to influence the religious
curriculum away from teaching fundamental
interpretations of the Quran and the Sunnah’s
hadiths and prohibit the propagation of
politically and religiously inflammatory
statements from schools and mosques. These
efforts have been relatively unsuccessful,
countered effectively by cries for religious
freedom (paradoxically, in light of the US global
championing of religious liberty).34
The UK (and other countries which adopted the
common law of charity), and France, settled on
different ways of keeping religion out of
politics—or at least containing the political
dimensions of religious activity. The English
policy of establishment and privilege for the
Church of England segued into toleration for
other religious groups and a policy of plural
religious accommodation including financial
privileges, but with a system of discretionary
control built into the common law system of
charity – in recent decades presided over by the
Charity Commission for England and Wales,
which is armed with a carrot and a stick.
33 Jodie Minus, “Deported Cleric Mansour Leghaei Returns to
Iran,” The Australian, 28 June 2010. Retrieved online at
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/deported-cleric-
mansour-leghaei-returns-to-iran/story-e6frg6nf-1225884951184
34 Thomas, Religion in Schools: Controversies Around the World,
pp. 121–134.
The common law of charity (now refined by
statute in England) has long contained an
injunction against political activity. A
recognized charitable purpose, including
advancement of religion, which is a ticket to
financial privileges, is not charitable if the
dominant purpose of an organization is deemed
to be political. Charitable groups are free to
make political comment on matters ancillary to
their charitable activities, but they are cautious
not to transgress the line into political debate,
and particularly political partisanship, lest the
gatekeeper of privilege rules them ineligible.
Even though the United Kingdom has no written
constitution per se, upon joining Europe it has
come under the influence of human rights
provisions found in European fundamental laws.
In the Scientology case referred to above, the
Charity Commissioners felt obliged to consider
the ramifications of Articles 9 and 14 of the
European Convention on Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms 1950. These include the
religious freedom to worship, teach, practice and
observe, and a right of non-discrimination on the
ground of religion.
So the Charity Commission picked a path
through this minefield of imprecise ideas (which
are loaded with any number of potential future
meanings). The Europeans recognize the
impediments that vaguely worded fundamental
laws can place in the way of good policy, and
allow laws necessary for the protection of public
order, health or morals, or for the protection of
the rights or freedoms of others. In other words,
the continental Europeans wrote into their
fundamental law similar policy flexibility
enjoyed by the English for centuries.35
The objective of keeping religion out of politics
in the United States works on similar lines to the
UK in the field of charity. At the federal level,
tax-exempt status is available to charitable
organizations, including those “organized and
operated exclusively for religious … purposes.”
35 The nondiscrimination provision also can be avoided if laws are
made for a legitimate aim, or there is a reasonable relationship of
proportionality between the means employed and the aims sought
to be realised. Mutch, “Cults, Religion and Public Policy: A
Comparison of Official Responses to Scientology in Australia and
the United Kingdom,” p. 297.
