July 15, 2019


A Closer Look at How Religious Restrictions Have Risen Around the World


Tenth annual report dives deeper into the ways government restrictions on religion and social hostilities involving religion have changed, from 2007 to 2017


Over the decade from 2007 to 2017, government restrictions on religion – laws, policies and actions by state officials that restrict religious beliefs and practices – increased markedly around the world. And social hostilities involving religion – including violence and harassment by private individuals, organizations or groups – also have risen since 2007, the year Pew Research Center began tracking the issue.


Indeed, the latest data shows that 52 governments – including some in very populous countries like China, Indonesia and Russia – impose either “high” or “very high” levels of restrictions on religion, up from 40 in 2007. And the number of countries where people are experiencing the highest levels of social hostilities involving religion has risen from 39 to 56 over the course of the study.

政府的限制以几种不同的方式增加。限制宗教自由的法律和政策(例如要求宗教团体注册才能开展活动)以及政府偏袒宗教团体(例如通过资助宗教教育、财产和神职人员)一直是全球范围内最普遍的限制类型,在研究跟踪的5个地区:美洲、亚太、欧洲、中东-北非和东南亚撒哈拉以南非洲,每个地区都是如此。这两种类型的限制都在上升;2007年至2017年间,每一类的全球平均得分都上升了20% 以上。

Government restrictions have risen in several different ways. Laws and policies restricting religious freedom (such as requiring that religious groups register in order to operate) and government favoritism of religious groups (through funding for religious education, property and clergy, for example) have consistently been the most prevalent types of restrictions globally and in each of the five regions tracked in the study: Americas, Asia-Pacific, Europe, Middle East-North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa. Both types of restrictions have been rising; the global average score in each of these categories increased more than 20% between 2007 and 2017.


The Government Restrictions Index is made up of the following categories:

  • 政府偏袒宗教团体
  • Government favoritism of religious groups
  • 限制宗教自由的法律和政策
  • Laws and policies restricting religious freedom
  • 政府限制宗教活动
  • Government limits on religious activities
  • 政府对宗教团体的骚扰
  • Government harassment of religious groups


For more details on these categories, see here.

政府对宗教活动的限制和政府对宗教团体的骚扰程度较低。但在过去的十年中,这个数字也在上升——在某些情况下甚至更高。例如,自2007年以来,欧洲政府限制宗教活动(包括限制改变宗教信仰和男性割礼的努力)的平均分数翻了一番,中东-北非地区政府骚扰(如对艾哈迈迪教派或其他伊斯兰少数教派的刑事起诉)的平均分数增加了72% 。

Levels of government limits on religious activities and government harassment of religious groups are somewhat lower. But they also have been rising over the past decade – and in some cases, even more steeply. For instance, the average score for government limits on religious activities in Europe (including efforts to restrict proselytizing and male circumcision) has doubled since 2007, and the average score for government harassment in the Middle East-North Africa region (such as criminal prosecutions of Ahmadis or other minority sects of Islam) has increased by 72%.1


The Social Hostilities Index is made up of the following categories:

  • 与宗教规范有关的敌对行为
  • Hostilities related to religious norms
  • 宗教间的紧张和暴力
  • Interreligious tension and violence
  • 有组织团体的宗教暴力
  • Religious violence by organized groups
  • 个人和社会群体的骚扰
  • Individual and social group harassment


For more details on these categories, see here.


The global pattern has not been as consistent when it comes to social hostilities involving religion. One category of social hostilities has increased substantially – hostilities related to religious norms (for example, harassment of women for violating religious dress codes) – driving much of the overall rise in social hostilities involving religion. Two other types of social hostilities, harassment by individuals and social groups (ranging from small gangs to mob violence) and religious violence byorganized groups (including neo-Nazi groups such as the Nordic Resistance Movement and Islamist groups like Boko Haram), have risen more modestly.


Meanwhile, a fourth category of social hostilities – interreligious tension and violence (for instance, sectarian or communal clashes between Hindus and Muslims in India) – has declined markedly since the baseline year (17%). By one specific measure, in 2007, 91 countries experienced some level of violence due to tensions between religious groups, but by 2017 that number dropped to 57 countries.2


These trends suggest that, in general, religious restrictions have been rising around the world for the past decade, but they have not been doing so evenly across all geographic regions or all kinds of restrictions. The level of restrictions started high in the Middle East-North Africa region, and is now highest there in all eight categories measured by the study. But some of the biggest increases over the last decade have been in other regions, including Europe – where growing numbers of governments have been placing limits on Muslim women’s dress – and sub-Saharan Africa, where some groups have tried to impose their religious norms on others through kidnappings and forced conversions.

这个关于宗教限制的宏观观点来自于皮尤研究中心的一系列研究,这些研究分析了世界各地的政府和社会在多大程度上影响了宗教信仰和实践。研究人员每年梳理十几个公开的、被广泛引用的信息来源,包括美国国务院和美国国际宗教自由委员会关于国际宗教自由的年度报告,以及各种欧洲和联合国机构和几个独立的非政府组织的出版物。(有关研究中使用的资料来源,请参阅研究方法。) 由于原始材料的可用性和编码所需的时间,每份年度皮尤研究中心报告都会关注发生在其出版前18个月到两年的事件。例如,本报告涵盖了2017年发生的事件。

This big-picture view of restrictions on religion comes from a decadelong series of studies by Pew Research Center analyzing the extent to which governments and societies around the world impinge on religious beliefs and practices. Researchers annually comb through more than a dozen publicly available, widely cited sources of information, including annual reports on international religious freedom by the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, as well as publications by a variety of European and UN bodies and several independent, nongovernmental organizations. (See Methodology for more details on sources used in the study.) Due to the availability of the source material and the time it takes to code, each annual Pew Research Center report looks at events that took place about 18 months to two years before its publication. For example, this report covers events that occurred in 2017.

这些研究是 Pew-Templeton 全球宗教未来项目的一部分,该项目分析宗教变革及其对世界各地社会的影响。该项目由皮尤慈善信托基金和约翰邓普顿基金会共同资助。

The studies are part of the Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures project, which analyzes religious change and its impact on societies around the world. The project is jointly funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts and the John Templeton Foundation.


The previous reports have focused largely on year-over-year change, but this 10th report provides an opportunity for a broader look back at how the situation has changed around the world – and, more specifically, in particular regions and in 198 countries – over the length of the study. Also for the first time this year, researchers have broken down the two main, 10-point indexes used in the study – the Government Restrictions Index (GRI) and the Social Hostilities Index (SHI) – into four categories each.3

这些分类可以帮助读者了解更广泛的 GRI 和 SHI 分数的内容,而且在比较总分相似但境内情况迥异的国家时,这些分类也很有用。

The categories can help give readers a sense of what goes into the broader GRI and SHI scores, and they also are useful when comparing countries that have similar overall scores but very different situations within their borders.

例如,法国和卡塔尔的 GRI 总分相似(都属于“高”分类) ,但这并不意味着这两个国家的人的生活经历与政府对宗教的限制相似。法国在政府偏袒方面得分较低,而卡塔尔得分更高(根据宪法,伊斯兰教是官方国教)。尽管卡塔尔在政府对宗教团体的骚扰方面得分较低,但法国在这方面得分较高,其中包括对宗教服饰的限制。法国继续在全国范围内禁止在公共场合遮盖全脸,地方当局还实施了各种主要影响穆斯林妇女的限制措施。例如,2017年,洛雷特禁止在公共游泳池戴头巾。关于妇女宗教服饰的法律也提高了法国在宗教活动限制类别中的得分,但卡塔尔在这一类别中得分甚至更高,部分原因是针对非伊斯兰信仰的法律限制公众礼拜、展示宗教标志和改变宗教信仰。

For instance, France and Qatar have similar overall GRI scores (both are in the “high” category”), but that does not mean that the lived experience of someone in those two countries is similar with respect to government restrictions on religion. France scores low in the category of government favoritism, while Qatar scores much higher (Islam is the official state religion, according to the constitution). And while Qatar scores lower on government harassment of religious groups, France has higher scores in this category, which includes enforcing restrictions on religious dress. France continues to enforce a national ban on full-face coverings in public, and local authorities also impose various restrictions that mostly affect Muslim women. In 2017, for example, the city of Lorette banned headscarves in a public pool.4 Laws regarding women’s religious dress also have boosted France’s score in the category of limits on religious activities, but Qatar scores even higher in this category, in part due to laws that target non-Islamic faiths by restricting public worship, the display of religious symbols and proselytization.5

有关每一类研究分数中包括的所有198个国家和地区的完整列表,请参阅附录 c。本概览的其余部分更详细地探讨了对宗教的八类限制 -- 四类涉及政府限制,四类涉及私人团体或个人的社会敌对行动。

For a full list of how all 198 countries and territories included in the study score in each category, see Appendix C. The remainder of this overview looks in more detail at the eight categories of restrictions on religion – four involving government restrictions and four involving social hostilities by private groups or individuals.


Categories of government restrictions on religion


The Government Restrictions Index measures government laws, policies and actions that restrict religious beliefs and practices. The GRI comprises 20 measures of restrictions, now grouped into the following categories:6


Government favoritism of religious groups


One of the consistent takeaways from a decade of tracking is the relatively high level of government restrictions on religion in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), which has ranked above all other regions each year from 2007 to 2017. The new study shows that the Middle East has high levels of restrictions across all four categories in 2017, but the gap in government favoritism is particularly large: The average country in the MENA region scores nearly twice as high on measures of government favoritism as the average country in any other region.

事实上,在中东的20个国家(除了黎巴嫩)中,有19个国家支持一种宗教ーー17个国家有官方宗教,2个国家有偏爱的宗教。在除以色列以外的所有这些国家中,伊斯兰教都是受欢迎的宗教。此外,该区域所有国家在某种程度上听从宗教权威或关于法律问题的教义。例如,在埃及的家庭法案例中,当配偶拥有相同的宗教信仰时,法院适用该宗教团体的教规(即传统的宗教)法律。然而,如果配偶一方是穆斯林,而另一方有不同的宗教信仰(如科普特基督教) ,或者如果配偶双方是不同基督教派别的成员,法院将遵循伊斯兰家庭法。

Indeed, 19 of the 20 countries in the Middle East (all except Lebanon) favor a religion — 17 have an official state religion, and two have a preferred or favored religion.7 In all of these countries except Israel, the favored religion is Islam. Additionally, all countries in the region defer in some way to religious authorities or doctrines on legal issues. For example, in family law cases in Egypt, when spouses have the same religion, courts apply that religious group’s canonical (i.e., traditional religious) laws. However, when one spouse is Muslim and the other has a different religion (such as Coptic Christianity), or if spouses are members of different Christian denominations, courts defer to Islamic family law.8


However, government favoritism has barely increased in the Middle East over the course of the study, partly because it started at such a high level that there was not much room for growth on the scale. In the other four major geographic regions, meanwhile, there have been notable increases in the levels of government favoritism of religious groups.

一些最大的增长发生在第一撒哈拉以南非洲。例如,2009年,科摩罗通过了宪法公投,宣布伊斯兰教为国教。2014年,佛得角岛国和梵蒂冈之间签订了一项协议,授予天主教会其他团体无法享有的特权。该协议允许“天主教教育机构,慈善活动,在军队,医院和刑罚机构的牧师工作,以及在公立学校的天主教教学。” 它还为天主教财产和礼拜场所提供免税。

Some of the largest increases occurred in sub-Saharan Africa. For example, in 2009, Comoros passed a constitutional referendum that declared Islam the state religion.9 And, in 2014, a concordat between the island nation of Cabo Verde and the Vatican granted privileges to the Catholic Church that were not available to other groups. The agreement allowed for “Catholic educational institutions, charitable activities, and pastoral work in military, hospitals, and penal institutions, as well as Catholic teaching in public schools.” It also provided tax exemptions for Catholic properties and places of worship.10


In the Asia-Pacific region, government favoritism of particular religious groups also has increased since 2007. In Thailand, a new constitution came into force in 2017 with a provision that elevates the status of Theravada Buddhism by mandating “special promotion” through “education, propagation of its principles, and the establishment of measures and mechanisms ‘to prevent the desecration of Buddhism in any form.’”11 There also has been an increase in Asian governments deferring to religious authorities, texts and doctrines since 2007. For instance, in Turkey, the government passed a law in 2017 giving Muslim religious authorities at the province and district level the authority to register marriages and officiate at weddings on behalf of the state.12 The government contended that this would make the registration process more efficient, while critics argued that it violated principles of secularism in the country’s constitution and did not meet the needs of other (non-Muslim) religious groups.13


Most countries with the highest scores in government favoritism as of 2017 (including Afghanistan, Bahrain and Bangladesh) have Islam as their official state religion.14 This dovetails with an earlier finding that, as of 2015, Islam is the most common state religion around the world; in 27 of the 43 countries that enshrine an official religion (63%), that religion is Islam.

但是并不是所有的国家都支持伊斯兰教。在希腊、冰岛和英国,不同的基督教派是官方的国教。希腊政府承认东正教为”主流宗教” ,并资助神职人员的培训、牧师的工资和学校的宗教教育。冰岛政府向国家福音路德教会提供其他宗教团体无法获得的财政支助和福利。在英国,君主是英国国教的最高统治者,而且必须是该教会的成员。

But not all the countries on this list favor Islam. In Greece, Iceland and the United Kingdom, different Christian denominations are the official state religions. The Greek government recognizes the Orthodox Church as the “prevailing religion” and funds the training of clergy, priests’ salaries and religious instruction in schools.15Iceland’s government provides the official state Evangelical Lutheran Church with financial support and benefits not available to other religious groups.16And in the UK, the monarch is the supreme governor of the Church of England, and must be a member of that church.17


At the country level, one of the largest increases since 2007 in the favoritism category occurred in the Pacific island nation of Samoa. In 2011, the Samoan government began to enforce a 2009 education policy that makes Christian instruction mandatory in public primary schools.18 And, in 2017, Samoa’s parliament amended the constitution to define the country as a Christian nation.19

有关此类和其他类别国家分数的完整列表,请参见附录 e。

For a full list of countries’ scores in this and other categories, see Appendix E.


Government laws and policies restricting religious freedom


Questions considered in this category

  • 作为宪法(基本法)的宪法或法律是否明确规定了”宗教自由”或包括联合国宪法世界人权宣言第18条所使用的语言?
  • Does the constitution, or law that functions in the place of a constitution (basic law), specifically provide for “freedom of religion” or include language used in Article 18 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
  • 《宪法》或基本法是否包括似乎限定或实质上违背”宗教自由”概念的规定?
  • Does the constitution or basic law include stipulations that appear to qualify or substantially contradict the concept of “religious freedom”?
  • 总的来说,宪法 / 基本法和其他国家法律和政策如何影响宗教自由?
  • Taken together, how do the constitution/basic law and other national laws and policies affect religious freedom?
  • 国家政府是否有既定的组织来管理或管理宗教事务?
  • Does the national government have an established organization to regulate or manage religious affairs?
  • 是否有任何级别的政府以任何理由要求宗教团体注册,包括有资格享受免税等福利?
  • Does any level of government ask religious groups to register for any reason, including to be eligible for benefits such as tax exemption?


Along with favoritism, the broad category of “government laws and policies restricting religious freedom” includes some of the most common types of restrictions identified by the study. These restrictions can range from a constitution’s stated commitment to religious freedom (or lack thereof) to the regulation or registration of religious groups.


Again, the Middle East-North Africa region has higher levels of these restrictions than other regions, although after an initial rise from 2007 to 2008, the overall level of government laws and policies restricting religious freedom has been relatively stable in the MENA region as a whole. Other regions have seen recent increases in restrictions in this category – particularly sub-Saharan Africa, which experienced a sharp rise in government laws and policies restricting religious freedom between 2014 and 2017.


Rules on government registration of religious groups contributed heavily to the high scores in this category across all regions. Many countries require some form of registration for religious groups to operate, and at least four-in-ten countries in the Americas and more than half the countries in sub-Saharan Africa, the Asia-Pacific region and Europe had a registration process in 2017 that, at a minimum, adversely affected the ability of some groups to carry out their religious activities. In the Middle East and North Africa, this was the case in more than eight-in-ten countries.


In some cases, governments recognize only a specific set of religious groups and deny registration (and, hence, official recognition) to all others. Elsewhere, bureaucratic hurdles create cumbersome registration processes that disadvantage particular groups. For example, in Eritrea, the government recognizes and registers only four religious groups — the Eritrean Orthodox Church, Sunni Islam, the Roman Catholic Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Eritrea — and since 2002 no other groups have been registered or allowed to perform religious activities and services.20 And in Belarus, where there are extensive bureaucratic and legal requirements to be recognized, minority religious groups, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses and some Baptist groups, remain unregistered and face difficulties in carrying out religious activities.21


The countries with the highest scores in the category of laws and policies restricting religious freedom are spread across Asia, the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa. In China, for example, only certain religious groups are allowed to register with the government and hold worship services. In order to do this, they must belong to one of five state-sponsored “patriotic religious associations” (Buddhist, Taoist, Muslim, Catholic and Protestant). However, there were reports that the Chinese government arrested, tortured and physically abused members of both registered and unregistered religious groups.22

与此同时,在沙特阿拉伯,2017年11月公布的一项新反恐法律将”任何直接或间接挑战国王或王储的宗教或正义的人”定为刑事犯罪,并禁止”以任何形式宣传无神论意识形态”、”任何怀疑伊斯兰教基本原则的企图”以及”违反伊斯兰法律规定”的出版物 事实上,在该国,所有非穆斯林宗教的公开活动都是非法的,包括公开礼拜、改变宗教信仰和展示宗教标志。穆斯林皈依另一种宗教也是违法的。

In Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, a new counterterrorism law published in November 2017 criminalizes “anyone who challenges, either directly or indirectly, the religion or justice of the King or Crown Prince,” and prohibits “the promotion of atheistic ideologies in any form,” “any attempt to cast doubt on the fundamentals of Islam” and publications that “contradict the provisions of Islamic law.” Indeed, public practice of all non-Muslim religions is illegal in the country, including public worship, proselytization and display of religious symbols. It is also illegal for Muslims to convert to another religion.23


Since 2007, Hungary has experienced a large increase in its score in this category. A new law in 2012 changed the registration process for religious groups and effectively deregistered more than 350 groups, adversely affecting their finances and ability to offer charitable social services.24


Government limits on activities of religious groups and individuals


Questions considered in this category

  • 是否有任何级别的政府干涉礼拜或其他宗教活动?
  • Does any level of government interfere with worship or other religious practices?
  • 野外布道是否受到任何级别政府的限制?
  • Is public preaching by religious groups limited by any level of government?
  • 改变宗教信仰受到任何级别的政府的限制吗?
  • Is proselytizing limited by any level of government?
  • 从一种宗教皈依另一种宗教是否受到任何级别政府的限制?
  • Is converting from one religion to another limited by any level of government?
  • 宗教文学或广播是否受到各级政府的限制?
  • Is religious literature or broadcasting limited by any level of government?
  • 是否允许外国传教士经营?
  • Are foreign missionaries allowed to operate?
  • 法律或任何级别的政府是否对佩戴宗教标志,例如妇女的围巾或覆盖物以及男子的胡须作出规定?
  • Is the wearing of religious symbols, such as scarves or coverings for women and facial hair for men, regulated by law or by any level of government?


There has been a bigger increase in government limits on religious activities – such as restrictions on religious dress, public or private worship or religious literature – in Europe than in any other region during the course of the study.25

越来越多的欧洲国家对宗教服饰加以限制,规定的范围从禁止在官方文件或公共服务工作的照片中穿戴宗教标志或服装,到国家禁止在公共场所穿戴宗教服饰。2007年,据报道有5个国家在欧洲实施了此类限制,但到2017年,这一数字已增至20个国家。例如,在波斯尼亚和黑塞哥维那,司法机构的雇员被禁止在工作时佩戴“宗教徽章” ,包括头巾。在法国,2011年实施了一项禁令,禁止穆斯林妇女在公共场合穿戴罩袍或面纱。

A growing number of European countries have placed restrictions on religious dress, with regulations that can range from prohibitions on wearing religious symbols or clothing in photographs for official documents or in public service jobs to national bans on religious dress in public places. In 2007, five countries were reported to have such restrictions in Europe, but by 2017, that number had increased to 20 countries. In Bosnia-Herzegovina, for example, employees of judicial institutions are prohibited from wearing “religious insignia” at work, including headscarves.26 And in France, a ban on full-face coverings was implemented in 2011; the ban prohibits Muslim women from wearing the burqa or niqab in public.27

自2007年以来,干涉礼拜或其他宗教活动的欧洲政府数量也在增加。例如,在摩尔多瓦,几个地方议会在2012年禁止穆斯林在公共场合礼拜。同年,在联合王国,高等法院认定,一名山达基信徒关于歧视的指控是无效的,因为山达基教会因为不是”宗教礼拜的集会场所”而被禁止举行合法的婚礼 与此同时,在德国和斯洛文尼亚,穆斯林和犹太团体抗议政府干预男孩割礼。在德国,2012年科隆的一个地区法院裁决将男性因非医学原因进行割礼定为犯罪,并将其归类为人身攻击。接到投诉后,联邦政府在今年晚些时候出台了一项新的法律,允许出于宗教原因的这种做法,以解决穆斯林和犹太人的关切。在斯洛文尼亚,穆斯林和犹太团体指控斯洛文尼亚人权监察员——一位政府人物——宗教歧视,因为她称儿童割礼为犯罪行为。

The number of European governments that interfered in worship or other religious practices also has been on the rise since 2007. In Moldova, for example, several local councils in 2012 banned Muslim worship in public.28 And that same year in the United Kingdom, the high court found that a Scientologist’s allegation of discrimination was not valid after the Church of Scientology was barred from holding legal marriage ceremonies because it was not “a place of meeting for religious worship.”29 Meanwhile, in Germany and Slovenia, Muslim and Jewish groups protested government interference in circumcision of boys. In Germany, a district court ruling in Cologne in 2012 criminalized male circumcision for nonmedical reasons, classifying it as assault. Following complaints, the federal government introduced a new law later in the year to address the concerns of both Muslims and Jews by allowing the practice for religious reasons.30 And in Slovenia, Muslim and Jewish groups accused the Slovenian ombudswoman for human rights – a government figure – of religious discrimination after she called child circumcision a criminal offense.31

在美洲,政府对宗教活动的限制也明显增加,政府干预礼拜的国家从2007年的16个增加到2017年的28个。例如,在加拿大,最高法院于2017年拒绝对土著 Ktunaxa 民族具有精神意义的领土给予宪法保护。2012年,Ktunaxa 族要求对批准在他们信仰的核心土地上建造一个滑雪场的决定进行司法审查,声称这会侵犯他们的宗教习俗和宗教自由。

Government limits on religious activities also have increased markedly in the Americas, where the number of countries where governments interfered with worship rose from 16 in 2007 to 28 in 2017. In Canada, for example, the Supreme Court denied constitutional protection to a territory of spiritual significance to the indigenous Ktunaxa Nation in 2017. The Ktunaxa Nation had in 2012 sought a judicial review of a decision to approve the construction of a ski resort on land that was central to their faith, claiming it would impinge on their religious practices and violate their religious freedom.32


In other regions, too, government limits on religious activities have risen over the course of the study. This includes the Middle East-North Africa region. For instance, limits on public preaching have increased notably since 2007, when 13 countries were reported to have such restrictions. In 2017, 18 out of 20 countries in the region reportedly limited public preaching. These types of restrictions are not limited to minority faiths. In Jordan, for example, the government monitored sermons at mosques and required preachers to abstain from talking about politics to avoid social and political unrest and to counter extremist views. The Jordanian government began distributing themes and recommended texts for sermons to imams at mosques in 2017, and those who did not follow the recommendations were subject to fines and preaching bans.33


Additionally, in sub-Saharan Africa, the government has increasingly regulated the wearing of religious clothing. In 2015, four countries — Cameroon, Chad, the Republic of Congo and Niger — banned Islamic veils for women in response to terror attacks within their borders.34


Among the countries with the highest levels of limits on religion, myriad policies restricting religious activities are enforced. In the Maldives, for example, it is a criminal offense to promote a religion other than Islam, punishable by up to five years in jail.35 And in Laos, religious groups must get permission from the government in order to gather, hold religious services, build houses of worship and establish new congregations.36


Restrictions in this category also are common across Central Asia. As of 2017, the government in Turkmenistan continued to deny visas to foreigners if they were suspected of intending to do missionary work; the government also prevented the importation of religious literature.37 Similarly, in Uzbekistan, a government agency continued to block the importation of both Christian and Islamic literature.38 And a Kazakh law states that production, publication and dissemination of religious literature is allowed only after approval from the government.39


Spain has experienced some of the largest increases in its score for government limits on religious activities since 2007. In 2010, several cities in Catalonia introduced bans on the burqa and niqab (full-body and head coverings) as well as face-covering veils in public buildings. Additionally, the country’s largest opposition party also proposed a ban on the niqab in all public places, though it was ultimately rejected.40 And, in more recent years, religious groups such as Latter-day Saints (sometimes called Mormons) and Jehovah’s Witnesses have faced restrictions on public preaching and proselytizing from local governments in Spain.41


Government harassment of religious groups


Questions considered in this category

  • 各级政府是否对宗教团体进行骚扰或恐吓?
  • Was there harassment or intimidation of religious groups by any level of government?
  • 中央政府是否对少数民族或未经批准的宗教团体表现出敌视态度,使用肢体暴力?
  • Did the national government display hostility involving physical violence toward minority or non-approved religious groups?
  • 是否存在国家政府不干预[社会]歧视或虐待宗教团体的情况?
  • Were there instances when the national government did not intervene in cases of [social] discrimination or abuses against religious groups?
  • 国家政府是否谴责一个或多个宗教团体,将它们称为危险的”邪教”或”教派” ?
  • Did the national government denounce one or more religious groups by characterizing them as dangerous “cults” or “sects”?
  • 各级政府是否正式禁止任何宗教团体?
  • Does any level of government formally ban any religious group?
  • 是否有国家政府试图消除整个宗教团体在该国的存在的事例?
  • Were there instances when the national government attempted to eliminate an entire religious group’s presence in the country?
  • 是否有任何级别的政府对宗教团体使用武力,导致个人被杀害、身体受到虐待、监禁、拘留或流离失所,或其个人或宗教财产遭到破坏或毁坏?
  • Did any level of government use force toward religious groups that resulted in individuals being killed, physically abused, imprisoned, detained or displaced from their homes, or having their personal or religious properties damaged or destroyed?


Not only are there higher levels of government harassment of religious groups in the Middle East-North Africa region compared with other regions, but MENA also has experienced the biggest increase in this category since the baseline year. This category measures types of harassment ranging from violence and intimidation to verbal denunciations of religious groups and formal bans on certain groups.


An increasing number of governments in MENA have reportedly used force against religious groups (including detention and forced displacement) since 2007. In Algeria, for example, more than 280 Ahmadis were prosecuted due to their religious beliefs in 2017.42 And in the same year in Saudi Arabia, authorities began to demolish a 400-year-old Shiite majority neighborhood and displaced thousands of people in what the government described as counterterrorism efforts.43

亚太区域在这一类别中也是比较突出的。例如,仅在2017年,该地区86% 的国家报告了政府对宗教团体的骚扰或恐吓。这项措施包括在一些国家长期持续骚扰宗教少数群体,这种情况在2017年仍在继续。例如,据报道,在中国,数十万维吾尔穆斯林被送往“再教育营” 近年来,缅甸发生的与宗教有关的骚扰事件也引起了全球的关注。2017年,有大量报道称,该国的穆斯林少数民族罗辛亚人(Rohingya)遭到大规模虐待。据报道,军队进行法外处决、强奸、酷刑、殴打、任意逮捕和拘留以及限制宗教活动,造成大规模流离失所。还有报道称,罗辛亚人被剥夺了公民身份。

The Asia-Pacific region also stands out as relatively high in this category. For example, in 2017 alone, harassment or intimidation of religious groups by governments was reported in 86% of countries in the region.44 This measure includes long-term, ongoing harassment of religious minorities in some countries, which continued in 2017. For example, in China, hundreds of thousands of Uighur Muslims reportedly were sent to “reeducation camps.”45 Religion-related harassment in Burma (Myanmar) also has received global attention in recent years. In 2017, there were numerous reports of large-scale abuses against the Rohingya, a Muslim ethnic minority in the country. The military reportedly carried out extrajudicial killings, rapes, torture, beatings, arbitrary arrests and detentions, and restrictions on religious practice, which contributed to large-scale displacement. There also were reports that Rohingya were denied citizenship.46

自研究基准年以来,欧洲和美洲的骚扰事件也有所增加,尤其是在2014年至2016年之间。例如,在2015年,欧洲45个国家中有38个国家(84%)的宗教团体受到的骚扰程度至少有限,而前一年只有32个国家(71%)受到骚扰。一些政府骚扰事件(可能包括贬损性言论和公职人员的恐吓)是对2015年进入欧洲的移民人数创纪录的回应。例如,在荷兰,反对党议员海尔特·威尔德斯(Geert Wilders)发起了反对”西方伊斯兰化”的运动,并于2015年9月领导了一场抗议活动,反对”来自伊斯兰国家、威胁我们妇女和文明的难民海啸”

Harassment also increased in Europe and Americas since the baseline year of the study, particularly between 2014 and 2016. For example, in 2015, religious groups in 38 out of 45 countries (84%) in Europe experienced at least limited levels of harassment, compared with 32 countries (71%) the previous year. Some incidents of government harassment — which can include derogatory statements and intimidation by public officials — were in response to record numbers of migrants entering Europe in 2015. For example, in the Netherlands, opposition parliamentarian Geert Wilders campaigned against the “Islamization of the West,” and in September 2015 led a protest against a “tsunami of refugees from Islamic countries who threaten our women and our civilization.”47


In the Americas, the sharpest increase in the government harassment category occurred between 2015 and 2016. That year, there was at least limited harassment in 32 countries, compared with 28 countries in 2015. In Cuba, for instance, members of religious groups advocating for greater religious and political freedom reportedly were threatened by the government.48

在伊朗,对宗教团体的骚扰尤其严重,当局将巴哈称为“异端”和“肮脏” ;在俄罗斯,警方搜查了宗教少数群体的住所和礼拜场所。在印度尼西亚,地方政府继续努力迫使艾哈迈迪穆斯林皈依,要求他们在登记结婚或参加朝圣之前签署放弃信仰的表格。

Harassment of religious groups is particularly high in Iran, where authorities have labeled Baha’is as “heretical” and “filthy,” and Russia, where police have raided religious minorities’ homes and places of worship.49 In Indonesia, local governments continued efforts to force conversions of Ahmadi Muslims by requiring them to sign forms renouncing their beliefs before they could register marriages or participate in the hajj pilgrimage.50


When it comes to increases since 2007 in this category, Bahrain stands out. Anti-government protests that began in 2011 took on a sectarian dimension, with the Sunni government targeting mostly Shiite opposition protesters and religious leaders. In 2016, the government carried out a security operation in a predominantly Shiite village where protesters were demonstrating in support of the country’s most senior Shiite cleric, whose citizenship had been revoked. Authorities cut off access to the village, used live ammunition to clear the area and killed five civilians, injured many others, and arrested nearly 300 people.51


Categories of social hostilities involving religion


The Social Hostilities Index measures acts of religious hostility by private individuals, organizations or groups in society. The SHI includes 13 measures of social hostilities, grouped into the following categories:


Hostilities related to religious norms


Questions considered in this category

  • 个人或团体是否使用暴力或暴力威胁,包括所谓的荣誉处决,以试图执行宗教规范?
  • Did individuals or groups use violence or the threat of violence, including so-called honor killings, to try to enforce religious norms?
  • 个人是否因为宗教活动,包括传教和其他形式的宗教表达被视为冒犯或威胁到多数人的信仰而受到攻击或背井离乡?
  • Were individuals assaulted or displaced from their homes in retaliation for religious activities, including preaching and other forms of religious expression, considered offensive or threatening to the majority faith?
  • 妇女是否因违反宗教着装规定而受到骚扰?
  • Were women harassed for violating religious dress codes?
  • 有没有因为改变宗教信仰而产生敌意的事件?
  • Were there incidents of hostility over proselytizing?
  • 在从一个宗教转变为另一个宗教的过程中是否发生过敌对事件?
  • Were there incidents of hostility over conversions from one religion to another?


Social hostilities involving religion have been consistently high in the Middle East-North Africa region compared with other regions throughout the length of the study. This is true across all four subcategories of social hostilities.


But social hostilities in MENA have been relatively stable between 2007 and 2017. Meanwhile, the largest increasein the category of social hostilities related to religious norms – and, in fact, in any category – occurred in Europe.

2007年,仅有四个欧洲国家报告称,有个人或团体使用暴力或暴力威胁,试图强迫他人接受自己的宗教习俗和信仰;到2017年,这一数字上升到15个国家。例如,2016年在英国,一名逊尼派穆斯林男子杀害了一名艾哈迈迪穆斯林店主,因为他“不尊重穆罕默德” 2015年在乌克兰,分离主义者用枪指着4名耶和华见证会信徒,殴打他们,模拟处决他们,强迫他们承认正教是唯一真正的宗教。

In 2007, just four European countries were reported to have individuals or groups who used violence, or threat of violence, to try to force others to accept their own religious practices and beliefs; by 2017, it had risen to 15 countries. For example, in the United Kingdom in 2016, a Sunni Muslim man killed an Ahmadi Muslim shopkeeper because he had “disrespected the Prophet Muhammad.”52 And in Ukraine in 2015, separatists held four Jehovah’s Witnesses at gunpoint, subjected them to beatings and mock executions and forced them to confess Orthodox Christianity as the only true religion.53

此外,因宗教表达被认为冒犯或威胁到多数人的信仰而对个人进行攻击的事件也有所增加。2007年,据报道有6个欧洲国家存在这种敌对行为;到2017年,这一数字已攀升至25个(欧洲共有45个国家)。在比利时,一位拉比在2016年报告说,有人向他和一位朋友扔石头,因为他“看起来像犹太人” 前一年,一个戴着圆顶小帽的年轻犹太人被两个男人袭击。在另一起事件中,一名穆斯林妇女遭到两名妇女的攻击,她们脱下面纱,辱骂她是穆斯林。

There also was an increase in assaults on individuals for religious expression considered offensive or threatening to the majority faith. In 2007, six European countries were reported to have such hostilities; by 2017, that number had climbed to 25 (out of a total of 45 countries in Europe). In Belgium, a rabbi reported in 2016 that stones were thrown at him and a friend because he was “visibly Jewish.”54 The previous year, a young Jewish man wearing a yarmulke was assaulted by two men. And in a separate incident, a Muslim woman was attacked by two women who took off her veil and verbally abused her for being Muslim.55

在21撒哈拉以南非洲,与宗教规范相关的敌对行为也比研究基准年有所增加。2007年,八个国家报告了用于执行宗教规范的暴力事件,而2017年,该区域48个国家中有31个国家经历了这种敌意。例如,在布基纳法索,武装分子闯入多所学校的教室,威胁如果教师不向学生教授《古兰经》 ,就杀死他们。整个地区也发生了杀害被指控为巫术的人的事件。2017年,有报道称,五个国家——安哥拉、中非共和国、莱索托、利比里亚和南非——的巫师遭到袭击。

In sub-Saharan Africa, hostilities related to religious norms also have risen since the baseline year of the study. In 2007, incidents of violence used to enforce religious norms were reported in eight countries, while in 2017, 31 out of 48 countries in the region experienced this type of hostility. In Burkina Faso, for example, armed men entered classrooms in multiple schools and threatened to kill teachers if they did not teach the Quran to their students.56 Killings of people accused of witchcraft also occurred throughout the region. In 2017, there were reports of attacks on people accused of practicing witchcraft in five countries — Angola, Central African Republic, Lesotho, Liberia and South Africa.

自2007年以来,该地区因改变宗教信仰而产生的敌对行动也有所增加。2007年,21撒哈拉以南非洲有5个国家经历了这种敌对状态;到2017年,这个数字翻了一番,达到10个国家。例如,在吉布提,基督教团体报告说,基督教皈依者在就业和教育方面面临歧视。在尼日利亚,被恐怖组织 Boko Haram 绑架的女孩受到了改宗者和其他虐待。

Since 2007, there also has been an increase in hostilities over conversions in the region. In 2007, five countries in sub-Saharan Africa experienced such hostilities; by 2017, that number doubled, to 10 countries. In Djibouti, for instance, Christian groups reported that Christian converts faced discrimination in employment and education.57 And in Nigeria, girls abducted by the terrorist group Boko Haram were subjected to forced religious conversion and other abuses.58


There has been a substantial increase in the Americas’ score in this category over the course of this study, but the score started from a very low base in 2007 and remains substantially lower than all other regions’ scores.


Several Western European countries rank among those with the highest scores in the category of social hostilities related to religious norms. In Germany, for instance, one sociologist estimated that there were thousands of conversions to Christianity – more than during all of the previous 50 years – linked to the rising number of refugees. Religious groups reportedly “used refugees’ fear of deportation to promote conversions and incentivized them by offering accelerated baptism, free lunch and transportation costs,” according to a radio program cited by the U.S. State Department’s annual report on religious freedom.59 In France, Jehovah’s Witnesses faced violence when proselytizing door to door or engaging in other missionary activity.60 And in Russia, following a Supreme Court ban on Jehovah’s Witnesses in 2017, several threats and attacks on the group were reported. The Russian Orthodox Church supported the ban, saying it would combat the “spread of cultist ideas, which have nothing in common with Christian religion.”61


Elsewhere, the Taliban in Afghanistan killed or threatened Sunni clerics for preaching messages the Taliban considered un-Islamic, and in 2015, some Algerians promised “retribution” against women who went out uncovered, threatening to publish pictures of unveiled women on the internet or to attack them by pouring acid on their faces.62 In Israel, drivers who operated cars near ultra-Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods on the Sabbath reported incidents of harassment, including name-calling and spitting, by ultra-Orthodox residents.63


Germany and Uganda had some of the largest increases in social hostilities related to religious norms. In Uganda, for example, Christians were beaten and three were killed for religious reasons in Muslim-majority areas in 2015. The same year, three children were kidnapped because of their father’s conversion from Islam to Christianity.64 And in 2016, several incidents of violence against converts were reported, including a woman whose husband strangled her to death for leaving Islam.65


Interreligious tension and violence


Questions considered in this category

  • 宗教团体之间是否存在宗派或社区暴力行为?
  • Were there acts of sectarian or communal violence between religious groups?
  • 暴力是否源于宗教团体之间的紧张关系?
  • Did violence result from tensions between religious groups?
  • 宗教团体是否试图阻止其他宗教团体开展活动?
  • Did religious groups attempt to prevent other religious groups from being able to operate?


Interreligious tension and violence involves acts of sectarian or communal violence betweenreligious groups. Such tensions can carry over from year to year, and are not necessarily reciprocal.66


Interreligious tension and violence was the most common type of social hostility in the early years of the study. But unlike all other categories of both government restrictions and social hostilities involving religion, interreligious tension and violence has declined since 2007 globally and in most regions (except sub-Saharan Africa), and by 2017, the average country’s score was higher in the religious norms category than in this one.


In the Asia-Pacific, Europe and Middle East-North Africa regions, the specific measure of tensions that involved numerous cases of physical violence between religious groups dropped in recent years in at least some countries. In Armenia, for instance, no violent attacks against Jehovah’s Witnesses were reported in 2017, unlike in 2012, when Jehovah’s Witnesses faced an attack from supporters of the Armenian Apostolic Church.67 And in Tunisia, there were no reported attacks in 2017 by Salafists – who follow fundamentalist interpretations of Sunni Islam – on Sufi and Shiite Muslims, as had been reported in previous years. (This may be in part due to Salafists being closely monitored and restricted by the government after the deadly Bardo Museum attacks in 2015.68)


Still, in 2017, more than half of countries in sub-Saharan Africa and the Asia-Pacific region, and more than eight-in-ten countries in the Middle East-North Africa region, experienced some kind of communal tension between religious groups.


Communal violence has long been common in India, which continued to score high in this category in 2017. According to media reports, a dispute between two Hindu and Muslim high school students in Gujarat escalated into a mob attack on the village’s Muslim residents; homes and vehicles were set on fire and about 50 homes were ransacked by the mob.69


There also were tensions between Christians and Muslims in Nigeria – the most populous country in Africa, and one that is almost evenly divided between the two religious groups. For example, Muslim herders carried out retaliatory attacks against Christian farmers after herders said they did not receive justice when the farmers killed members of the herding community and stole their cattle.70

在伊拉克,随着某些地区从 ISIS 的统治下解放出来,逊尼派和什叶派之间发生了战斗。有报道称,2017年塔尔阿法尔市从 ISIS 手中解放后,什叶派民兵逮捕、绑架并杀害了逊尼派教徒。

In Iraq, there was Sunni-Shiite fighting following the liberation of certain areas from ISIS rule. There were reports that after the city of Tal Afar was freed from ISIS in 2017, Shiite militias arrested, kidnapped and killed Sunnis.71

尽管自2007年以来总体宗教间紧张局势略有缓解,但这一类别仍有一些显著增加,特别是在叙利亚和乌克兰。自2011年以来,叙利亚一直在经历一场内战,其中有很大一部分是宗教派别之间的冲突,整个冲突期间都有宗教团体之间发生暴力的报道。在乌克兰,乌克兰东正教-莫斯科教会(下议院)和乌克兰东正教-基辅教会(下议院)与乌克兰希腊天主教会(下议院)之间的紧张关系持续存在。2017年,UGCC 的追随者和一名牧师控制了 UOC-MP 教堂,攻击成员,并称 UOC-MP 教区居民为“莫斯科猪” 议员联盟的领导人还声称,议员联盟继续没收属于议员联盟的教堂。

Despite a modest decline in overall interreligious tensions since 2007, there were still some notable increases in this category, particularly in Syria and Ukraine. Syria has been experiencing a civil war since 2011 that has had a large sectarian component, with violence between religious groups reported throughout the conflict.72 And in Ukraine, tensions between the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP) and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyiv Patriarchate (UOC-KP) along with the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) have persisted. In 2017, UGCC followers and a priest took control of a UOC-MP church, assaulted members and called UOC-MP parishioners “Moscow’s pigs.” UOC-MP leaders also claimed that the UOC-KP continued to seize churches belonging to the UOC-MP.73


Religious violence by organized groups


Religious violence by organized groups includes the actions of religion-related terrorist groups, religion-related conflict, and the use of force by organized groups to dominate public life with their perspective on religion. Since 2007, the largest increases in this category of social hostilities have occurred in Europe and the Middle East-North Africa region.

与所有其他类别的政府限制和涉及宗教的社会敌对行动一样,中东和北非的有组织团体的宗教暴力程度最高。多年来,与宗教有关的恐怖主义集团的行动在该地区尤其急剧增加。2007年,这项研究记录的四个国家有50多人因与宗教有关的恐怖主义事件受伤或死亡。到2017年,这一数字攀升至该地区20个国家中的11个。其中包括2017年发生在埃及的致命袭击,当时持有 ISIS 旗帜的武装分子袭击了西奈北部的苏菲派清真寺,造成311人死亡。在棕枝全日,伊拉克国内两所科普特教堂发生自杀式炸弹袭击,造成45人死亡,ISIS 声称对此负责。

As in all other categories of government restrictions and social hostilities involving religion, the Middle East and North Africa has seen the highest levels of religious violence by organized groups. Over the years, the actions of religion-related terrorist groups have increased especially sharply in this region. In 2007, four countries in this study were recorded as having more than 50 injuries or deaths from religion-related terrorism incidents. By 2017, that figure climbed to 11 of the 20 countries in the region. These include deadly attacks in Egypt in 2017, when armed gunmen carrying the ISIS flag attacked a Sufi mosque in northern Sinai, leaving 311 dead. And on Palm Sunday, suicide bombings at two Coptic churches in the country – which ISIS claimed responsibility for – left 45 people dead.74


In Europe, meanwhile, organized groups have increasingly used force or coercion in an attempt to dominate public life with their perspective on religion. In the baseline year of the study, this type of hostility was reported at the local, regional or national level in a total of 21 European countries. By 2017, that figure had risen to 33 countries.For example, in Finland, the Nordic Resistance Movement, a neo-Nazi group, published anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim material and organized small-scale training camps and rallies. They published content on their website asserting that Jews had brought Muslims to Europe and that “Finns must become informed about racial violence against white persons and diseases spread by Muslim immigrants,” according to the U.S. State Department’s annual report on religious freedom.75 The group also organized multiple antireligious activities in Sweden in 2017. In September, roughly 500 supporters of the group marched through the city of Gothenburg on the Jewish holiday Yom Kippur, clashing with police and thousands of counterdemonstrators.76

许多有组织团体的宗教暴力事件频发的国家境内都有活跃的伊斯兰激进团体。这包括叙利亚的 ISIS 和其他组织,也门的阿拉伯半岛组织,索马里的青年党,阿富汗的塔利班和巴勒斯坦地区的哈马斯。

Many of the countries with high levels of religious violence by organized groups have active Islamist militant groups within their borders. This includes ISIS and other groups in Syria, al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen, al-Shabaab in Somalia, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hamas in the Palestinian territories.

尼日利亚是自2007年以来有组织团体所报告的宗教暴力增加最多的国家之一。根据美国国务院关于宗教自由的年度报告,伊斯兰激进组织 Boko Haram 在这个国家变得越来越活跃,“犯下了大规模屠杀、绑架、性侵犯、强制改宗组织和强制征兵等暴行。”。在2014年一起特别引人注目的案件中,该组织从博尔诺州 Chibok 的一所学校绑架了200多名女学生,其中大部分是基督徒。

Nigeria is among the countries with the largest reported increases in religious violence by organized groups since 2007. The Islamist militant group Boko Haram became increasingly active in the country, “committing abuses such as mass killings, kidnappings, sexual assault, forced conversion and forced conscription,” according to the U.S. State Department’s annual report on religious freedom. In a particularly high-profile case in 2014, the group kidnapped more than 200 schoolgirls – who were mostly Christian – from a school in Chibok in Borno state.77


Individual and social group harassment


Social harassment of religious groups is a broad category that ranges from actions by individuals to mob violence.78 Harassment also can include discrimination or publishing of articles or cartoons that are derogatory toward a certain group. This category also includes property damage, detentions or abductions, displacement, physical assault and deaths of members of religious groups caused by private individuals or social groups.


The Middle East and North Africa again has almost always had the highest levels of hostilities in this category (sub-Saharan Africa had the highest level in 2010). The Americas, meanwhile, has the lowest levels of all the regions, but also has experienced the largest increasein this type of hostility since 2007. In Brazil, there were pockets of anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim sentiment in 2017 as well as incidents targeting Afro-Brazilian religions. In the state of Sao Paulo, arsonists burned down an Afro-Brazilian temple in September, one of eight attacks against Afro-Brazilian targets in the state in that month.79


There was a considerable uptick in this category in 2012 in the Middle East and North Africa in the aftermath of the Arab Spring uprisings in late 2010 and 2011. The increase was particularly pronounced in Syria, where there was a rise in people being targeted due to their faith, exacerbated by government efforts to quell what had started as anti-government protests. As the conflict worsened and the government increasingly targeted Sunni Muslims, revenge attacks by Sunnis against Alawites — who were seen as supporting the regime — also escalated.80

2017年,一些个人和社会团体骚扰程度最高的国家经历了暴民暴力事件,包括孟加拉国——2017年11月,在一个 Facebook 帖子诋毁了印度教穆罕默德之后,伦格布尔大约20,000名暴民在当地印度教少数民族社区放火并肆意破坏了大约30所房屋。在巴基斯坦,发生了几起针对亵渎指控的暴民袭击事件。

Some of the countries with the highest levels of individual and social group harassment in 2017 experienced incidents of mob violence, including Bangladesh – where in November 2017 a mob of approximately 20,000 in Rangpur set fire to and vandalized approximately 30 homes belonging to the local Hindu minority community after a Facebook post demeaned the Prophet Muhammad.81 In Pakistan, there were several incidents of mob attacks in response to accusations of blasphemy.82


The U.S. also ranked among the highest-scoring countries in this category in 2017, in part because of the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, where white supremacists were protesting the removal of a Confederate statue from a park. Protesters expressed anti-Semitic and racist sentiments, displaying swastika flags and chanting “Jews will not replace us!”83

中非共和国在这一类别中的得分增长尤其明显。在基督教和穆斯林民兵部队之间的暴力冲突中,发生了大规模的杀戮和流离失所现象。穆斯林不成比例地流离失所——大约80% 的穆斯林被迫逃离该国。

Central African Republic experienced a particularly large increase in its score in this category. In the midst of a violent conflict between Christian and Muslim militia forces, there have been widespread killings and displacement of people. Muslims have been disproportionately displaced – approximately 80 percent have been forced to flee the country.84


Overall restrictions in 2017


Overall, government restrictions on religion and social hostilities involving religion remained fairly stable in 2017, compared with the previous year. This marks the first time there was little change globally after two consecutive years of increases on overall restrictions carried out either by governments or by private groups and individuals.

2017年,在所研究的198个国家中,约有四分之一(26%)的国家经历了“高”或“非常高”的政府限制,即政府官员限制宗教信仰和宗教活动的法律、政策和行动,这一比例从2016年的28% 下降到了2017年的28% 。这一下降是在这些措施使宗教受到高度限制的国家的百分比连续两年增加之后发生的(见此处)。

In 2017, about a quarter of the 198 countries studied (26%) experienced “high” or “very high” levels of government restrictions — that is, laws, policies and actions by government officials that restrict religious beliefs and practices — falling from 28% in 2016. This decrease follows two years of increases in the percentage of countries with high levels of restrictions on religion by these measures (see here).

涉及宗教的社会敌对行为(即个人、组织或社会团体的宗教敌对行为)水平“高”或“非常高”的国家所占比例从2016年的27% 上升到2017年的28% 。这是自2013年以来社会敌对行动高度或非常高的国家的最大百分比,但远低于2012年33% 的10年高峰。

The share of countries with “high” or “very high” levels of social hostilities involving religion — that is, acts of religious hostility by private individuals, organizations or groups in society — ticked up from 27% in 2016 to 28% in 2017. This is the largest percentage of countries to have high or very high levels of social hostilities since 2013, but falls well below the 10-year peak of 33% in 2012.

2017年,83个国家(42%)经历了政府行动或个人、组织和社会团体的敌对行为对宗教的总体限制程度很高或很高。经过两年的增长,这一数字自2016年以来一直保持在同一水平,略低于2012年43% 的10年高点。与前几年一样,2017年大多数国家的总体宗教限制水平仍然处于低至中等水平。

In 2017, 83 countries (42%) experienced high or very high levels of overall restrictions on religion, from government actions or hostile acts by private individuals, organizations and social groups. This figure has remained at the same level since 2016 following two years of increases and is just below the 10-year peak of 43% in 2012. As in previous years, most countries continue to have low to moderate levels of overall religious restrictions in 2017.


Looking separately at global median scores can provide another understanding of how religious restrictions are changing. The global median score on the Government Restrictions Index remained the same at 2.8 from 2016 to 2017 after three years of increases. And the global median score on the Social Hostilities Index increased slightly from 1.8 to 2.1 in 2017.


The rest of this report looks more closely at the changes in 2017, the most recent year for which data is available.

1. 自2007年以来,政府对宗教实行”非常严格”限制的国家数量保持在最高水平

1. Number of countries with ‘very high’ government restrictions on religion remains at highest levels since 2007


Countries with the most extensive government restrictions on religion


While most countries have some form of government restrictions involving religion, some countries stand out each year by having particularly high levels of these restrictions. This subset of states may have some similarities with countries in the lower categories of restrictions – for example, both may limit religious activities like worship or public preaching, harass religious groups, or have a religion they favor over others – but the countries with higher levels of restrictions either have a wider variety of government restrictions, or they implement them more severely.

2017年,在这项研究的198个国家中,有27个国家的政府对宗教的限制“非常严格” ,比2016年的25个国家有所增加。这标志着连续第三年的增长;27个国家是自2007年皮尤研究中心银行开始分析对宗教的限制以来,最大数量的国家落入这一限制类别。

In 2017, 27 of the 198 countries in this study had “very high” levels of government restrictions on religion, an increase from 25 countries in 2016.85 This marks the third straight year of increases; 27 is the largest number of countries to fall in this top category of restrictions since Pew Research Center began analyzing restrictions on religion in 2007.

2017年,四个国家——科摩罗、巴基斯坦、苏丹和越南——加大了政府的限制力度,导致它们加入了“非常高”的类别。这是科摩罗首次进入这一高分类别:科摩罗的得分增加(从2016年的6.3分增加到2017年的7.4分) ,部分原因是该国领导层针对该国什叶派穆斯林发表的声明。在2017年7月的一次讲话中,阿扎利·阿苏马尼总统将什叶派伊斯兰教比作”边缘极端主义教派” ,并声称不会容忍沙菲伊派逊尼派以外的宗教信仰。今年9月,该国三位副总统中的一位誓言要“在该国彻底根除什叶派” 巴基斯坦、苏丹和越南在过去几年中多次位居前列。

Four countries – Comoros, Pakistan, Sudan and Vietnam – had increased levels of government restrictions in 2017 that led them to join the “very high” category. This is Comoros’ first time in this top category: Comoros’ increase in score (from 6.3 in 2016 to 7.4 in 2017) was due in part to statements by the country’s leadership targeting Shiite Muslims in the country. During a speech in July 2017, President Azali Assoumani compared Shia Islam to “fringe extremist sects” and asserted that the practice of religions other than Shafi’i Sunni Islam would not be tolerated. And in September, one of the country’s three vice presidents vowed to “completely eradicate Shiism from the country.”86 Pakistan, Sudan and Vietnam have been in this top category multiple times in previous years.

两个国家或领土-- 伊拉克和西撒哈拉-- 不属于”很高”类别(尽管两国政府都保持”很高”的限制)。2017年,两者的得分都小幅下降了不到1.0个百分点。有关每个类别中所有国家的完整列表,请参阅附录 a 中的政府限制索引表。

Two countries or territories – Iraq and Western Sahara – fell out of the “very high” category (although both maintained “high” levels of government restrictions). Both had small score decreases of less than 1.0 point in 2017. For a complete list of all countries in each category, see the Government Restrictions Index table in Appendix A.87


Countries with the most extensive social hostilities involving religion


Similarly, each year some countries stand out for having the highest levels of social hostilities involving religion. These hostilities can include violence by individuals or social groups targeting religious groups or enforcing religious norms, religiously motivated terrorism, or sectarian and communal violence (see Overview).


In 2017, 10 of the 198 countries in this study fell into the top category of “very high” levels of social hostilities involving religion. This marks an increase from nine countries in 2016, and reverses the decrease seen from 2015 to 2016.


Three countries – Central African Republic, Pakistan and Yemen – had scores that caused them to rise into the “very high” category in 2017, although each had small increases of less than 1.0 point.

与此同时,巴勒斯坦领土和俄罗斯在2017年跌出了这一最高类别,得分下降使它们处于“高”类别。在俄罗斯,与2016年相比,关于宗派暴力事件组织和针对宗教团体成员的暴力事件的报道有所减少。在巴勒斯坦领土上,没有报道有关皈依的敌对事件(与前几年相比) ,而且和俄罗斯一样,针对宗教团体的暴力事件也有所减少。

Meanwhile, the Palestinian territories and Russia fell out of this top category in 2017, with score decreases that put them in the “high” category instead. In Russia, there were fewer reports of sectarian violence and violence targeting members of religious groups than in 2016. And in the Palestinian territories, there were no reported incidents of hostility over conversion (in contrast with previous years), and, similar to Russia, fewer incidents of violence targeting religious groups.

有关每个类别中所有国家的完整清单,请参阅附录 b 中的社会敌对行动索引表。

For a complete list of all countries in each category, see the Social Hostilities Index table in Appendix B.88


Changes in government restrictions on religion


Some countries experience changes in their level of government restrictions that do not put them in the “very high” category but are nonetheless substantial. For this reason, Pew Research Center analyzes the magnitude of changes across all countries and categories to provide greater insight into the ways government actions and policies can have an especially large impact on religious restrictions each year.

2017年,同样数量的国家(67个)在政府限制指数(GRI)上的得分有增有减,而且从2016年到2017年,几乎同样数量的国家(64个)的得分没有变化。自2007年皮尤研究中心开始分析宗教限制以来,这是 GRI 分数上升与下降相匹配的第一年。在2016年和2015年,GRI 分数上升的国家数量大约是分数下降的两倍。

In 2017, an equal number of countries (67) had increases and decreases in their scores on the Government Restrictions Index (GRI), and nearly the same number of countries (64) had no change in score from 2016 to 2017. This is the first year since Pew Research Center began analyzing restrictions on religion in 2007 that increases in GRI scores have matched decreases. In 2016 and 2015, the number of countries with increases in GRI scores was about double the number with decreases.

与2016年不同的是,2017年冈比亚是唯一一个 GRI 得分大幅上升(2.0分或更多)的国家,而是唯一一个得分大幅下降的国家。这种转变在一定程度上是由于总统阿达玛·巴罗(Adama Barrow)宣布,根据冈比亚宪法,该国将再次成为一个世俗共和国。2015年底,前总统叶海亚·贾梅宣布冈比亚为伊斯兰国家。2017年,没有哪个国家的 GRI 得分出现大幅增长。

Unlike 2016, when Gambia was the only country to experience a large increase (2.0 points or more) in its GRI score, it was the only country to see a large decrease in score in 2017. This reversal was due in part to President Adama Barrow’s announcement that Gambia would become a secular republic once again, in accordance with its constitution. In late 2015, former President Yahya Jammeh had proclaimed Gambia an Islamic state.89 No countries had large increases in GRI scores in 2017.

十四个国家的 GRI 分数变化不大(1.0至1.9分) ,其中9个国家的 GRI 分数有所上升,5个国家的 GRI 分数有所下降。其中一个增加发生在荷兰,那里的宗教领袖报告说,禁止宗教组织在庇护中心传教。刚果共和国的 GRI 得分有所下降,2017年报告的政府骚扰事件也有所减少。

Fourteen countries saw modest changes (1.0 to 1.9 points) in their GRI scores, with nine of those countries registering increases and five having decreases. One of the increases occurred in the Netherlands, where religious leaders reported that religious organizations had been barred from proselytizing at asylum centers.90 And in the Republic of the Congo, which had a decrease in its GRI score, there were fewer reported incidents of government harassment in 2017.

大多数国家(198个国家中有119个国家)的 GRI 得分只有很小的变化(小于1.0分)。几乎相等的数字有增加(58)和减少(61)。

Most countries (119 out of 198) experienced only small changes (less than 1.0 point) in their GRI scores. Nearly equal numbers had increases (58) and decreases (61).


Changes in social hostilities involving religion


In 2017, 66 countries experienced increases in their Social Hostilities Index (SHI) scores and 75 countries experienced decreases.

2017年,马里是唯一一个社会敌对行动发生巨大变化的国家(2.0分或更多) ,从”中等”类别升至”高”类别。其中一部分增加是由于宗教团体试图阻止其他宗教团体开展活动的若干事件。例如,马里主教团报告了多起骚扰事件,包括8月份,一个伊斯兰激进组织的嫌疑成员强迫基督徒从他们的教堂拆除钟。

Mali was the only country in 2017 to experience a large change (2.0 points or more) in social hostilities, rising from the “moderate” category to the “high” category. Some of this increase was due to several incidents of religious groups attempting to prevent other religious groups from operating. For example, the Malian Episcopal Conference reported multiple incidents of harassment, including in August, when suspected members of a militant Islamist group forced Christians to remove the bell from their church.91

32个国家的统计分数变化不大(1.0分至1.9分) ,其中16个国家的统计分数增加,但减少的数目相同。在保加利亚,涉及宗教的社会敌对行动呈上升趋势,对耶和华见证人和后期圣徒(也称摩门教徒)的人身攻击仍在继续,2017年还有更多关于攻击穆斯林的报告。例如,今年6月,一名穆斯林神职人员的妻子(戴着头巾)和女儿在一家超市的停车场遭到两名十几岁女孩的身体和言语攻击。此外,新教牧师报告受到东正教牧师骚扰,不同于前一年。

Thirty-two countries registered modest changes in SHI scores (1.0 to 1.9 points), including 16 increases and the same number of decreases. In Bulgaria, where social hostilities involving religion were on the rise, physical assaults against Jehovah’s Witnesses and Latter-day Saints (also known as Mormons) continued, and there were additional reports of attacks on Muslims in 2017. For example, in June, a Muslim cleric’s wife (who was wearing a head scarf) and daughters were physically and verbally attacked by two teenage girls in a supermarket parking lot. In addition, Protestant pastors reported being harassed by Orthodox Christian priests, unlike in the previous year.92

在这项研究的198个国家中,有108个国家的师范生评分(0.1至0.9分)出现了小幅变化,其中49个国家的师范生评分上升,59个国家的师范生评分下降。在57个国家中,SHI 分数没有变化。

Out of the 198 countries in the study, 108 experienced small changes in their SHI scores (0.1 to 0.9 points) – 49 with increases and 59 with decreases. There was no change in SHI score in 57 countries.


Changes in overall restrictions on religion


Looking at changes in overall restrictions (including both government restrictions and social hostilities involving religion) can provide a more complete picture of religious restrictions in a country. In 2017, a similar number of countries had increases in overall scores (85 countries) and decreases (87). Most of these countries had small changes in their scores.


Among the countries with increases, 67 had small increases and 17 had modest increases. Only one country (Mali) had a large increase in its overall score. Similarly, within the countries that had decreases, most (68) had small decreases and fewer (18) had modest decreases. And only one country, Gambia, had a large decrease in its overall score.


Twenty-six countries had no change in their overall scores between 2016 and 2017.

2. 2017年,宗教团体受到骚扰的情况保持稳定,维持在10年来的最高水平

2. Harassment of religious groups steady in 2017, remaining at 10-year high


In 2017, harassment against religious groups – either by governments or individuals and groups in society – was reported in 187 countries by this study’s sources (see Methodology for details). This figure remained the same from the previous year, matching the highest level since the study began in 2007.


Harassment entails an offense against a religious group or person due to their religious identity, and can include being physically coerced or singled out with the intent of making life or religious practice more difficult. The severity ranges from verbal or written harassment to physical violence and killings.


Christians and Muslims typically have been targeted in the largest number of countries since the beginning of the study. They also are the two largest religious groups in the world, and, compared with smaller groups, are geographically dispersed across a greater number of countries in substantial numbers.


In 2017, Christians reportedly were harassed in 143 countries, declining slightly from 144 countries in 2016. In China, for example, the government ramped up efforts to arrest and deport Christian missionaries. There were more frequent reports of authorities in northeastern provinces of the country detaining missionaries and confiscating their electronic devices.93

2017年,140个国家的穆斯林受到骚扰,比2016年的142个国家有所下降。在印度尼西亚——一个 Muslim-majority 国家——什叶派教徒和艾哈迈迪教徒等穆斯林少数群体报告说,他们在作为穆斯林申请国民身份证时遇到困难,这使他们无法获得结婚证或医疗保健等公共服务。

Muslims were harassed in 140 countries in 2017, down from 142 countries in 2016. In Indonesia – a Muslim-majority country – Muslim minority groups such as Shiites and Ahmadis reported that they faced difficulties in applying for national identity cards when applying as Muslims, which prevented them from accessing public services such as marriage licenses or health care.94


Jews were harassed in 87 countries – steady since 2016, and still the third-largest number of countries of any religious group despite Jews’ relatively small population size. In Sweden, for instance, there was a reported increase in violence against Jewish targets in 2017, even though there was a decline in the overall share of hate crimes with suspected anti-Semitic motives. In the city of Gothenburg, a group of people wearing masks threw flaming objects at a synagogue in December. The prosecutor in the case said the attack was a reaction to unrest in the Middle East over the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel by the United States. In the same month, a Jewish cemetery was attacked with Molotov cocktails in the city of Malmo.95


Hindus continued to be harassed in 23 countries – the same number as the previous year. In Uzbekistan, for example, government authorities raided the home of a Hare Krishna member, seizing religious booksfrom the home and issuing a fine for a violation of policies restricting religious literature.96


Buddhists experienced a slight increase in the number of countries where they faced harassment, from 17 in 2016 to 19 in 2017 – the highest number since the study began in 2007. In Bangladesh, there were attacks on Buddhist monks, including one in the Jessore District and another in Chittagong.97


Religiously unaffiliated people (including atheists, agnostics and people who don’t identify with any religion) were harassed for religious reasons in 23 countries in 2017, up from 14 the previous year – the biggest increase of any group. In Malaysia, for example, the government declared atheism to be unconstitutional. And in August, authorities began investigating a meeting of atheists in Kuala Lumpur.98


Government versus social harassment of groups


Some groups face more harassment from governments, while others are more often harassed by individuals or groups in society. For example, in 2017, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus and Muslims experienced harassment by governments in more countries than they did by private individuals or groups. By contrast, Jews have faced more social harassment than government harassment since the baseline year of the study. This pattern continued in 2017, when social hostilities against Jews were reported in 75 countries, compared with 63 countries where Jews experienced some form of government harassment – although both numbers increased from 2016.

2017年,民间宗教的信徒也面临着比政府骚扰更为广泛的社会敌意(27个国家对16个国家)。例如,在坦桑尼亚,义务警员杀害了他们称为施行巫术的妇女。在海地,伏都教(在该国被称为 Vodou)的信徒报告说,他们的信仰面临社会耻辱。

Adherents of folk religions also faced more widespread social hostilities than government harassment in 2017 (27 countries vs. 16). In Tanzania, for example, vigilantes killed women they said were practicing witchcraft.99 And in Haiti, practitioners of Voodoo (known as Vodou in that country) reported facing social stigma for their beliefs.100


Other religious groups beyond those separately analyzed above – including Baha’i, Scientologists, Sikhs, Rastafarians and Zoroastrians – experienced government harassment in 43 countries, compared with 21 countries where they faced social hostilities. In Malawi, Rastafarian children with dreadlocks were prevented from attending some public schools.101 And several countries (including Jordan) continued to deny official recognition to the Baha’i faith, while others (such as Iraq) prohibit practicing the faith.102

看看这两个最大的宗教团体就会发现,在他们更容易受到骚扰的地方,也存在地区差异。在基督徒受到骚扰的国家中,中东-北非地区所占比例最高。2017年,该地区所有20个国家都有针对基督徒的某种形式的骚扰(无论是政府还是社会团体)。该地区所有国家都报告了政府对基督徒的骚扰,60% 的国家发生了社会骚扰。例如,在摩洛哥,两名外国人因鼓励皈依基督教和分发宗教材料而被驱逐出境。

Looking at the two largest religious groups shows there also are regional variations in where they are more likely to face harassment. The Middle East-North Africa region had the highest share of countries where Christians were harassed. All 20 countries in the region had some form of harassment (either by governments or social groups) directed at Christians in 2017. Government harassment of Christians was reported in all countries in the region, while social harassment occurred in 60% of countries. For example, in Morocco, two foreigners were deported for encouraging conversions to Christianity and distributing religious materials.

据报道,在亚太地区,基督徒受到政府或社会团体骚扰的比例位居第二(76% 的国家)。在欧洲,73% 的国家的基督徒受到骚扰,在撒哈拉以南非洲和美洲,至少十分之六的国家的基督徒受到骚扰。在所有这些地区,更多的国家经历了政府对基督徒的骚扰(而不是社会的骚扰)。

The Asia-Pacific region had the second-highest share of countries where Christians reportedly were harassed by governments or social groups (76% of countries). In Europe, Christians were harassed in 73% of countries, and in sub-Saharan Africa and the Americas, Christians faced harassment in at least six-in-ten countries. In all of these regions, a higher number of countries experienced government harassment (rather than social harassment) of Christians.

与其他地区相比,中东-北非地区和欧洲的穆斯林受到骚扰的比例更高(分别为95% 和93%)。在中东地区,90% 的政府骚扰穆斯林(包括伊斯兰教内的少数教派) ,87% 的欧洲政府也这样做。与此同时,60% 的中东国家和82% 的欧洲国家(45个国家中的37个国家)报告了对穆斯林的社会骚扰。

Compared with other regions, Muslims were harassed in a higher percentage of countries in the Middle East-North Africa region and Europe (95% and 93% of countries, respectively). In the Middle East region, 90% of governments harassed Muslims (including minority sects within Islam), and 87% of European governments did the same. Meanwhile, social harassment of Muslims was reported in 60% of countries in the Middle East and 82% of countries in Europe (37 out of 45 countries).

在亚洲和太平洋地区,有消息称72% 的国家的穆斯林受到骚扰。这个数字在撒哈拉以南的非洲是67% ,在美洲是31% 。在除美洲以外的所有地区,政府对穆斯林的骚扰比社会骚扰更为普遍。在美洲,23% 的政府骚扰穆斯林,26% 的国家存在对这个群体的社会骚扰。

In Asia and the Pacific, the sources reported harassment of Muslims in 72% of countries. This figure was 67% in sub-Saharan African and 31% in the Americas. In all regions but the Americas, there was more widespread government harassment of Muslims than social harassment. In the Americas, 23% of governments harassed Muslims, while there was social harassment of the group in 26% of countries.

3. 中东仍然是宗教限制最严格的地区,尽管自2016年以来限制程度有所下降

3. Middle East still home to highest levels of restrictions on religion, although levels have declined since 2016


Government restrictions by region


In 2017, the global median score on the Government Restrictions Index (GRI) remained stable at 2.8 – matching 2016 and staying at its highest point since the study began in 2007 (see Overview). The median score declined in three geographic regions (Middle East-North Africa, the Americas and Asia-Pacific), increased in Europe and remained about the same in sub-Saharan Africa.103

在所有地区中,中东-北非地区政府对宗教的限制程度仍然最高。2017年,20个国家的中位数(6.0)是全球中位数(2.8)的两倍以上,自2007年以来,全球中位数每年都是这样。自2016年以来,中东地区的平均得分略有下降(0.2分) ,部分原因是关于政府敌视少数宗教团体的报道减少(从2016年的15个国家下降到2017年的12个国家)。

The Middle East-North Africa region continued to have the highest level of government restrictions on religion out of all regions. The median score for the 20 countries (6.0) in 2017 was more than double the global median (2.8), which has been the case every year since 2007. Since 2016, there has been a small decline (0.2 points) in the Middle East’s median score, partly due to fewer reports of government hostility toward minority religious groups (down from 15 countries in 2016 to 12 in 2017).


The Asia-Pacific region had the second-highest level of restrictions. Similar to the Middle East, the median score among the 50 countries in the region (3.8) also declined by 0.2 points, and there were fewer Asian countries where governments used physical violence toward minority groups (23 countries in 2016 vs. 20 in 2017). However, in 2017, there were still 10 countries in the Asia-Pacific region where there were 200 or more cases of governments using force (including detentions and killings) against religious groups. For example, in Uzbekistan, the country’s president in 2017 pardoned 763 prisoners of conscience who were being held for their religious beliefs, but a civil society organization reported that the government still held 7,000 “religious prisoners.”104


Europe experienced a slight increase in its median score, from 2.7 to 2.9, marking the highest levels of government restrictions for the region since the study began in 2007 and the only increase out of the five regions in 2017. More specifically, there was a notable rise in governments failing to intervene when religious groups were targeted. For example, in Croatia and Moldova, Jewish leaders reported dissatisfaction with the government’s handling of anti-Semitic incidents, including failure to respond to vandalism and hate speech. In Moldova, authorities also failed to prosecute threats and verbal attacks on Jehovah’s Witnesses.105 And in Greece, the government reportedly did not respond to two separate attacks on churches in Athens by anarchists. In one incident, the anarchist group set fire to Saint Basil Church and named its opposition to the church’s sexism and stance on homosexuality as a reason for the attack.106


There also was an increase in the number of governments in Europe (from 17 to 20) that regulated religious clothing in some way. For example, Austria enacted a ban on full-face veils in public spaces that went into effect in October of 2017.107 And in Germany, the federal parliament implemented a ban on soldiers and civil servants wearing full-face coverings.108

撒哈拉以南非洲的 GRI 得分中位数保持不变(2.6) ,仍然是该地区自2007年以来的最高得分中位数。一些国家的政府继续限制妇女的宗教服饰(详情见概述)。例如,在利比里亚,穆斯林妇女报告说,如果她们不摘下头巾拍摄选民身份证照片,选举官员就不允许她们登记投票,但她们说,天主教修女和其他戴传统头巾的妇女可以戴头巾拍照。

Sub-Saharan Africa’s median GRI score stayed about the same (2.6) and remained the highest median score for the region since 2007. Governments continued to restrict women’s religious dress in several countries (see Overview for more details). For example, in Liberia, Muslim women reported that they were not allowed to register to vote by election officials if they did not remove their headscarves for voter identification photos, but said Catholic nuns and other women wearing traditional head wraps were permitted to wear their head coverings for their photos.109

自2016年以来,美洲的中位数得分略有下降(从2.2降至2.0) ,当时政府限制措施的中位数达到了历史最高水平。到2017年,政府对宗教团体使用某种程度武力的国家(从2016年的10个减少到7个)已经减少。政府在面对歧视和虐待时未能保护宗教团体的国家也有所减少(从6个减少到3个)。

The Americas’ median score declined slightly (from 2.2 to 2.0) since 2016, when the median level of government restrictions had reached an all-time high. By 2017, there were fewer countries (seven, down from 10 in 2016) where governments used some level of force — such as detentions, physical abuse or killings — toward religious groups. There also was a decline in the number of countries (from six to three) where governments failed to protect religious groups in the face of discrimination and abuse.


Social hostilities by region

全球社会敌对行动指数中位数从2016年的1.8上升到2017年的2.1,是自研究基准年(2007年)以来报告的最高水平。分数上升的地区有2个(亚太地区和东南亚撒哈拉以南非洲) ,下降的地区有1个(中东-北非) ,稳定的地区有2个(欧洲和美洲)。

The global median score on the Social Hostilities Index (SHI) increased from 1.8 in 2016 to 2.1 in 2017, the highest level reported since the baseline year of the study (2007). Two regions had increases in their scores (Asia-Pacific and sub-Saharan Africa), one had a decrease (Middle East-North Africa), and two regions held steady (Europe and the Americas).110

中东和北非仍然是社会敌对行动中位数最高的地区(4.3) ,是全球中位数(2.1)的两倍以上。然而,该地区20个国家的得分中位数从2016年的4.6下降了,延续了去年的趋势,仍远低于阿拉伯之春之后2012年6.4的历史高点。2017年人数略有下降,部分原因是报告的宗教团体试图阻止其他团体开展活动的案件减少,以及对皈依的敌对行动减少。

The Middle East and North Africa remained the region with the highest median level of social hostilities (4.3), more than double the global median (2.1). However, the median score for the 20 countries in the region declined from 4.6 in 2016 — continuing a trend from the previous year — and remains well below the all-time peak of 6.4 in 2012, following the Arab Spring. The modest decline in 2017 was partly due to fewer reported cases of religious groups attempting to prevent other groups from operating and fewer hostilities over conversions.

欧洲的 SHI 得分中位数保持稳定,为2.6,在所有地区中排名第二。在该区域45个国家中的33个国家,有组织的团体(例如新纳粹团体)继续试图以其宗教观点主宰公共生活。

Europe’s median SHI score remained stable at 2.6 – the second-highest out of all regions. Organized groups (such as neo-Nazi groups) continued to attempt to dominate public life with their perspective on religion in 33 out of 45 countries in the region.

撒哈拉以南非洲组织的社会敌对行动的中位数从2016年的1.6上升到2017年的2.2,是所有地区中上升幅度最大的。使用暴力或威胁使用暴力强制执行宗教规范的团体明显增多(详情见概览) ,而且该区域因皈依和改变宗教信仰而产生的敌对行动也有所增加。此外,在越来越多的国家(从2016年的15个增加到2017年的20个) ,宗教团体试图阻止其他团体开展活动。例如,在毛里塔尼亚,在宰牲节祈祷期间,努瓦克肖特大清真寺的伊玛目对什叶派伊斯兰教日益增长的威胁发出警告,并鼓励政府切断与伊朗的关系,以遏制伊朗什叶派伊斯兰教的传播。

Sub-Saharan Africa’s median level of social hostilities increased from 1.6 in 2016 to 2.2 in 2017, the largest rise out of all regions. There was a notable increase in groups using violence or the threat of violence to enforce religious norms (see Overview for more details), as well as increased hostilities over conversions and proselytizing in the region. In addition, in a growing number of countries (from 15 in 2016 to 20 in 2017), religious groups sought to prevent other groups from being able to operate. For example, in Mauritania, during Eid prayers, the imam of the Grand Mosque of Nouakchott issued a warning against the growing threat of Shiite Islam and encouraged the government to cut ties with Iran to curb the spread of Iranian Shiite Islam.111


Sub-Saharan Africa also had the only country in the study (Mali) to have a large increase in its score (see Chapter 1 for details). And another country in the region — the Central African Republic — experienced an escalation in clashes between armed groups divided along religious and ethnic lines, prompting a United Nations official to warn that early signs of genocide were present.112

在亚洲和太平洋地区,SHI 得分的中位数从1.8上升到2.1,反映了全球中位数得分。据报道,这一地区的宗派暴力事件出现了增长。在巴基斯坦,什叶派曾多次成为激进组织“坚格维军”(Lashkar-e-Jhangvi)和巴基斯坦塔利班(Pakistani Taliban)的袭击目标,包括2017年1月的两次袭击,导致80多人死亡。在缅甸,佛教民族主义者和僧侣在年内攻击基督教皈依者和穆斯林。

In Asia and the Pacific, the median SHI score rose from 1.8 to 2.1, mirroring the global median score. There were reported increases in sectarian violence in the region. In Pakistan, Shiites were targeted several times by the militant group Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and the Pakistani Taliban, including two attacks in January 2017 that left more than 80 people dead.113 And in Burma (Myanmar), Buddhist nationalists and monks attacked Christian converts and Muslims during the year.114


Out of all five regions, the Americas remained at the lowest level of social hostilities in 2017, with a median SHI score of 0.4.

4. 在25个人口最多的国家中,埃及、印度、俄罗斯、巴基斯坦和印度尼西亚在2017年对宗教的总体限制最高

4. Among the 25 most populous countries, Egypt, India, Russia, Pakistan and Indonesia had the highest overall restrictions on religion in 2017


More than 5 billion people – or three-quarters of the world’s population – live in the planet’s 25 most populous countries, including China, India and the United States. Looking at restrictions in these countries can give insight into how large segments of the world’s population are affected by government restrictions and social hostilities involving religion, although not everyone within each country’s borders is impacted equally.


In 2017, among the 25 most populous countries, Egypt, India, Russia, Pakistan and Indonesia had the highest overall levels of both government restrictions and social hostilities involving religion. The countries in this group with the lowest overall scores were Japan, South Korea, South Africa, the Philippines and Brazil.


The highest government restrictions among the most populous countries occurred in China, Iran, Russia, Egypt and Indonesia, with all ranking in the “very high” category of restrictions. Meanwhile, the lowest-ranking countries were South Africa, Japan, the Philippines, Brazil and South Korea. These countries fell into the “low” category of government restrictions, with the exception of South Korea, which had a “moderate” level of government restrictions on religion in 2017.

印度、埃及、尼日利亚、巴基斯坦和孟加拉国是涉及宗教的社会敌对行动最多的人口稠密的国家,这五个国家的敌对行动都“非常激烈”。在世界上人口最多的25个国家中,日本、韩国、中国、越南和伊朗的社会敌对程度最低;这些国家要么是“低” ,要么是“中等”。

The very populous countries with the highest levels of social hostilities involving religion were India, Egypt, Nigeria, Pakistan and Bangladesh, with all five experiencing “very high” levels of hostilities. Japan, South Korea, China, Vietnam and Iran had the lowest levels of social hostilities among the world’s 25 most populous countries; all were either “low” or “moderate.”

在一些国家,政府的限制程度与社会敌对程度大致相当。例如,2017年,埃及和巴基斯坦在政府限制和社会敌对行动方面的得分“非常高” ,而日本在这两个指标上的得分都“很低”。在其他情况下,这两个分数差别很大。在2017年的研究中,中国是198个国家中政府限制水平最高的国家,但社会敌对程度较低。2017年,在所有国家中,伊朗的政府限制排名第二,仅次于中国,但是在涉及宗教的社会敌对行动中,伊朗只经历了“温和”水平。

In some countries, levels of government restrictions roughly matched levels of social hostilities. For example, Egypt and Pakistan had “very high” levels of both government restrictions and social hostilities in 2017, while Japan scored “low” on both indexes. In other cases, the two scores diverge sharply. China had the highest level of government restrictions among all 198 countries in the study in 2017, yet it had low levels of social hostilities. And Iran had the second-highest government restrictions score among all countries in 2017 – behind China – but experienced only “moderate” levels of social hostilities involving religion.

2017年,在25个人口最多的国家中,没有一个国家的政府限制指数(GRI)得分出现大幅变化(2.0分或更多)。两个国家——越南和刚果民主共和国——在 GRI 得分上略有上升(1.0至1.9分)。越南从“高位”上升到“非常高位” ,而刚果民主共和国从“低位”爬升到“中位”

In 2017, none of the 25 most populous countries experienced large changes (2.0 points or more) in Government Restrictions Index (GRI) scores. Two countries – Vietnam and the Democratic Republic of the Congo – experienced modest increases (1.0 to 1.9 points) in GRI scores. Vietnam moved from “high” to “very high,” while the Democratic Republic of the Congo climbed from the “low” category to “moderate.”

当涉及到社会敌对指数(SHI)的变化时,没有一个人口最多的国家有大的变化。然而,土耳其、伊朗、日本、南非和俄罗斯这五个国家的排名则略有下降。与宗教有关的社会敌对行为,日本从“温和”降至“低”水平,而南非的得分从“高”降至“中等” ,俄罗斯则从“非常高”升至“高” 与此同时,埃塞俄比亚的 SHI 分数略有增加,敌对行动从”中度”转为”高度”。

When it comes to changes in Social Hostilities Index (SHI) scores, none of the most populous countries had large changes. However, five countries – Turkey, Iran, Japan, South Africa and Russia – had modest declines. Japan declined from “moderate” to “low” levels of social hostilities involving religion, while South Africa’s score went from “high” to “moderate,” and Russia moved from “very high” to “high.” Meanwhile, Ethiopia had a modest increase in its SHI score, shifting from “moderate” to “high” levels of hostilities.




This is the 10th time Pew Research Center has measured restrictions on religion around the globe.115 This report, which includes data for the year ending Dec. 31, 2017, generally follows the same methodology as previous reports.


Pew Research Center uses two 10-point indexes – the Government Restrictions Index (GRI) and the Social Hostilities Index (SHI) – to rate 198 countries and self-governing territories on their levels of restrictions.116 This report analyzes changes in restrictions on an annual basis, focusing on the period from 2016 to 2017.


The study categorizes the direction and degree of change in each country’s scores in two ways, numerically and by percentile. First, countries are grouped into categories depending on the size of the numeric change in their scores from year to year on the two indexes: changes of 2 points or more in either direction, changes of at least 1 point but less than 2 points, changes of less than 1 point, or no change at all. (See chart at right.)

通过逐年比较两个指数(GRI 和 SHI)的得分,计算每个国家限制总体水平的变化。当一个国家在 GRI 和 SHI 上的分数朝同一个方向变化时(两者都增加或者都减少) ,变化量越大决定了分类。例如,如果该国的 GRI 分数增加了0.8,而其 SHI 分数增加了1.5,则该国被归入总体“1.0-1.9增加”类别。当一个国家在一个指标上的得分增加而在另一个指标上的得分减少时,变化量之间的差异决定了分组。例如,如果该国的 GRI 分数上升了2.0,而 SHI 分数下降了1.5,那么该国就进入了总体“0.1-0.9增长”的类别。当一个国家在一个指数上的得分保持不变时,另一个指数上的变化量被用来分配这个类别。

Changes in overall levels of restrictions are calculated for each country by comparing its scores on both indexes (the GRI and the SHI) from year to year. When a country’s scores on the GRI and the SHI changed in the same direction (both increased or both decreased), the greater amount of change determines the category. For instance, if the country’s GRI score increased by 0.8 and its SHI score increased by 1.5, the country was put into the overall “1.0-1.9 increase” category. When a country’s score increased on one index but decreased on the other, the difference between the amounts of change determines the grouping. For example, if the country’s GRI score increased by 2.0 and its SHI score decreased by 1.5, the country went into the overall “0.1-0.9 increase” category. When a country’s score on one index stayed the same, the amount of change on the other index was used to assign the category.

其次,本报告按百分位数对每个国家的政府限制和社会敌对程度进行了分类。作为基准,它使用了研究的基准年(截至2007年年中的一年)的结果。2007年年中,每项指数前5% 的得分被归类为“非常高” 排在第二位的15% 的分数被归类为“高” ,接下来的20% 被归类为“中等” 得分最低的60% 被归类为“低” 请参阅右边的表格,了解由2007年中期数据确定的索引得分阈值。这些阈值适用于所有随后年份的数据。

Second, this report categorizes the levels of government restrictions and social hostilities in each country by percentiles. As the benchmark, it uses the results from the baseline year of the study (the year ending in mid-2007). Scores in the top 5% on each index in mid-2007 were categorized as “very high.” The next highest 15% of scores were categorized as “high,” and the following 20% were categorized as “moderate.” The bottom 60% of scores were categorized as “low.” See the table to the right for the index score thresholds as determined from the mid-2007 data. These thresholds are applied to all subsequent years of data.


Overview of procedures

皮尤研究中心用来评估和比较宗教限制的方法是由皮尤研究中心前高级研究员和跨国数据主管 Brian j. Grim 在与其他皮尤研究中心工作人员协商后开发的,以 Grim 和 Roger Finke 教授在宾夕法尼亚州立大学宗教数据档案协会时开发的方法为基础。目标是制定可量化、客观和透明的措施,衡量政府和社会团体对宗教活动的影响程度。这些调查结果被用来对国家和自治领土的两个指标进行评级,这两个指标可以重复,并且可以定期更新。

The methodology used by Pew Research Center to assess and compare restrictions on religion was developed by former Pew Research Center senior researcher and director of cross-national data Brian J. Grim in consultation with other Pew Research Center staff members, building on a methodology that Grim and Professor Roger Finke developed while at Penn State University’s Association of Religion Data Archives.117 The goal was to devise quantifiable, objective and transparent measures of the extent to which governments and societal groups impinge on the practice of religion. The findings were used to rate countries and self-governing territories on two indexes that are reproducible and can be periodically updated.

这项研究超越了以前在几个方面评估宗教限制的努力。首先,皮尤研究中心对来自12个国家的数据进行了编码(分类和统计) ,为研究结果提供了高度的可信度。皮尤研究中心编码员只关注具体的、有充分证据的事实,而不是观点或评论。

This research goes beyond previous efforts to assess restrictions on religion in several ways. First, Pew Research Center coded (categorized and counted) data from more than a dozen published cross-national sources, providing a high degree of confidence in the findings. Pew Research Center coders looked to the sources for only specific, well-documented facts, not opinions or commentary.

其次,皮尤研究中心的工作人员使用了广泛的数据核实检查,以反映这类研究普遍接受的最佳实践,如双盲编码(编码者看不到对方的评级) ,评级者之间的可靠性评估(检查编码者之间的一致性)和仔细监控的协议,以协调编码者之间的差异。

Second, Pew Research Center staff used extensive data-verification checks that reflect generally accepted best practices for such studies, such as double-blind coding (coders do not see each other’s ratings), inter-rater reliability assessments (checking for consistency among coders) and carefully monitored protocols to reconcile discrepancies among coders.


Third, the coding took into account whether the perpetrators of religion-related violence were government or private actors. The coding also identified how widespread and intensive the restrictions were in each country.


Fourth, one of the most valuable contributions of the indexes and the questions used to construct them (see the section on the coding instrument on page 70) is their ability to chart change over time.


Countries and territories

这项研究涵盖的198个国家和自治领土的人口占世界人口的99.5% 以上。它们包括截至2017年的193个联合国会员国中的192个,加上6个自治领土——科索沃、香港、澳门、巴勒斯坦领土、台湾和西撒哈拉。关于这些领土的报告并不意味着对这些领土的国际政治地位应采取什么立场,只是承认这些领土上的事实情况需要单独分析。

The 198 countries and self-administering territories covered by the study contain more than 99.5% of the world’s population. They include 192 of the 193 member states of the United Nations as of 2017, plus six self-administering territories – Kosovo, Hong Kong, Macau, the Palestinian territories, Taiwan and Western Sahara.118 Reporting on these territories does not imply any position on what their international political status should be, only recognition that the de facto situations in these territories require separate analysis.


Although the 198 countries and territories vary widely in size, population, wealth, ethnic diversity, religious makeup and form of government, the study does not attempt to adjust for such differences. Poor countries are not scored differently on the indexes than wealthy ones. Countries with diverse ethnic and religious populations are not “expected” to have more social hostilities than countries with more homogeneous populations. And democracies are not assessed more leniently or harshly than authoritarian regimes.


Information sources


In the latest year of the study, Pew Research Center identified 20 widely available, frequently cited sources of information on government restrictions and social hostilities involving religion around the world. This study includes four sources that were not used in the baseline report on religious restrictions. (See page 69 for more details on the new information sources.)


The primary sources, which are listed below, include reports from U.S. government agencies, several independent, nongovernmental organizations and a variety of European and United Nations bodies. Although most of these organizations are based in Western countries, many of them depend on local staff to collect information across the globe. As previously noted, Pew Research Center did not use the commentaries, opinions or normative judgments of the sources; the sources were combed only for factual information on specific policies and actions.


Primary sources for 2017


U.S. government reports with information on the situation in the United States


As noted, this study includes four sources that were not included in Pew Research Center’s first report on global restrictions on religion: Freedom House reports; Uppsala University’s Armed Conflict Database; the “Freedom of Religion or Belief” newsletters of Human Rights Without Frontiers; and the Global Terrorism Database.

自由之家的报告取代了自2008年年中以来一直没有更新的人权第一报告。乌普萨拉武装冲突数据库提供了受与宗教有关的武装冲突影响的人数的信息,补充了其他资料来源。国际人权无疆界的《宗教或信仰自由》通讯已经取代了哈德逊研究所出版物《世界上的宗教自由》(Paul Marshall 著) ,该出版物自2008年发行以来一直未更新。国际人权无疆界是一个总部设在布鲁塞尔的非政府组织,在世界各地设有分支机构。

The Freedom House reports have replaced Human Rights First reports, which have not been updated since mid-2008. The Uppsala Armed Conflict Database provides information on the number of people affected by religion-related armed conflicts, supplementing other sources. The Human Rights Without Frontiers “Freedom of Religion or Belief” newsletters have replaced the Hudson Institute publication “Religious Freedom in the World” (by Paul Marshall), which has not been updated since its release in 2008. Human Rights Without Frontiers is a nongovernmental organization based in Brussels that has affiliated offices throughout the world.

自2013年以来,皮尤研究中心组织一直使用来自全球恐怖主义数据库的数据,连同国际危机组织的国家报告、乌普萨拉大学武装冲突数据库和美国国务院的年度国家恐怖主义报告,来获取有关宗教恐怖主义的信息。(早期报道中使用的一个来源是美国政府的世界范围事件跟踪系统(Worldwide Incident Tracking System,简称 WITS) ,该系统已经不能在网上使用了。) 在2013年之前,该报告仅仅依靠国际危机组织的报告、乌普萨拉数据库和美国国务院的报告来获取与宗教有关的恐怖主义信息。全球恐怖主义数据库是世界各地最全面的恐怖主义资料来源之一,也是美国国务院关于恐怖主义的国别报告的来源。因此,增加这一来源提供了更多关于恐怖主义的背景和信息,而不会因为增加了以前没有的信息而使报告产生偏见。

Since 2013, Pew Research Center has used data from the Global Terrorism Database, maintained by the University of Maryland’s National Consortium for Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), along with the International Crisis Group’s country reports, Uppsala University’s Armed Conflict Database and the State Department’s annual Country Reports on Terrorism, for information on religion-related terrorism. (One source used in earlier reports, the U.S. government’s Worldwide Incident Tracking System, or WITS, is no longer available online.) Prior to 2013, the report relied only on the International Crisis Group reports, the Uppsala database and the State Department reports for information on religion-related terrorism. The Global Terrorism Database is one of the most comprehensive sources on terrorism around the world and is the source for the U.S. State Department’s Country Reports on Terrorism. The addition of this source thus provides greater context and information on terrorism without biasing the reporting through the addition of information that was not previously available.

虽然这项研究中提到的一些宗教限制的增加可能反映了更新和 / 或更好的信息来源的使用,皮尤研究中心的工作人员每年监测来源信息变化的影响,并没有发现总体信息偏差的证据。(关于其他的讨论,请参阅2014年报告《宗教敌对状态达到六年来的新高》中的“潜在偏见”部分。)

While some of the increases in religious restrictions noted in this study could reflect the use of more up-to-date and/or better information sources, Pew Research Center staff monitor the impact of source information variability each year and have found no evidence of overall informational bias. (For additional discussion, see the “Potential Biases” section in the 2014 report, “Religious Hostilities Reach Six-Year High.”)


The coding instrument


As explained in more detail below, Pew Research Center staff developed a battery of questions similar to a survey questionnaire. Coders consulted the primary sources in order to answer the questions separately for each country. While the U.S. State Department’s annual reports on International Religious Freedom generally contained the most comprehensive information, the other sources provided additional factual detail that was used to settle ambiguities, resolve contradictions and help in the proper scoring of each question.

调查问卷,或编码工具,产生了一套关于每个国家的限制的数字措施。它还使人们能够看到政府的限制如何与更广泛的社会紧张局势以及私人行为者的暴力或恐吓事件相互交织。本报告所用问题清单的编码工具见附录 d。

The questionnaire, or coding instrument, generated a set of numerical measures on restrictions in each country. It also made it possible to see how government restrictions intersect with broader social tensions and incidents of violence or intimidation by private actors. The coding instrument with the list of questions used for this report is shown in Appendix D.


The coding process required the coders to check all the sources for each country. Coders determined whether each source provided information critical to assigning a score; had supporting information but did not result in new facts; or had no available information on that particular country. Multiple sources of information were available for all countries and self-administering territories with populations greater than 1 million. Most of the countries and territories analyzed by Pew Research Center were multi-sourced; only small (predominantly island) countries had a single source, namely the State Department reports.


Coding the United States presented a special problem since it is not included in the State Department’s annual reports on International Religious Freedom. Accordingly, Pew Research Center coders also looked at reports from the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI on violations of religious freedom in the United States, in addition to consulting all the primary sources, including reports by the United Nations, Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, the International Crisis Group and the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office, many of which contain data on the United States.


The coding process


Pew Research Center employed strict training and rigorous coding protocols to make its coding as objective and reproducible as possible. Coders worked directly under an experienced researcher’s supervision, with additional direction and support provided by other Pew Research Center researchers. The coders underwent an intensive training period that included a thorough overview of the research objectives, information sources and methodology.

国家由两名程序员进行双盲编码(程序员没有看到对方的评级) ,最初的评级被输入电子文档(编码工具) ,包括每个事件的详细信息。编码人员首先使用拥有最全面信息的信息源填写每个国家的编码工具。每个编码人员的协议是回答每一个问题,关于哪些信息可在最初的来源。一旦程序员完成了这个过程,他或她就会转向其他来源。随着新的信息的发现,这也被编码和来源适时注意。每当出现模棱两可或矛盾之处时,就使用提供最详细、记录最清楚的证据的来源。

Countries were double-blind coded by two coders (coders did not see each other’s ratings), and the initial ratings were entered into an electronic document (coding instrument) including details on each incident. The coders began by filling out the coding instrument for each country using the information source that had the most comprehensive information. The protocol for each coder was to answer every question on which information was available in the initial source. Once a coder had completed that process, he or she then turned to the other sources. As new information was found, this was also coded and the source duly noted. Whenever ambiguities or contradictions arose, the source providing the most detailed, clearly documented evidence was used.


After two coders had separately completed the coding instrument for a particular country, their scores were compared by a research analyst. Areas of discrepancy were discussed at length with the coders and were reconciled in order to arrive at a single score on each question for each country. The data for each country were then combined into a master file, and the answers and substantiating evidence were entered into a database.


After data collection for all countries was completed, Pew Research Center coders and researchers compared the scores from calendar year 2017 with those from the previous year, ending Dec. 31, 2016. They identified scores that had changed and analyzed the substantiating evidence for each year to make sure the change was substantive and not the result of coder error. Throughout this process, the coding instrument itself was continually monitored for possible defects. The questions were designed to be precise, comprehensive and objective so that, based on the same data and definitions, the coding could be reliably reproduced by others with the same results. At the same time, Pew Research Center has attempted to minimize changes to the coding instrument as much as is possible to ensure all changes between years are the result of actual changes in restrictions and hostilities, not changes in methodology.


Pew Research Center staff generally found few cases in which one source contradicted another. When contradictions did arise – such as when sources provided differing estimates of the number of people displaced due to religion-related violence – the source that cited the most specific documentation was used. The coders were instructed to disregard broad, unsubstantiated generalizations regarding abuses and to focus on reports that contained clear, precise documentation and factual details, such as names, dates and places where incidents occurred.


Pew Research Center staff compared coders’ scores for all questions for each of the 198 countries and territories included in the study, computing the degree to which the scores matched. The inter-rater reliability score across all variables was 0.69. This score is similar to scores in the previous two reports in this series (0.70 and 0.74). Scores at or near 0.7 are generally considered good.


The data-verification procedures went beyond the inter-rater reliability statistics. They also involved comparing the answers on the main measures for each country with other closely related questions in the data set. This provided a practical way to test the internal reliability of the data.


In previous years, Pew Research Center staff also checked the reliability of the coded data by comparing them with similar, though more limited, religious restrictions data sets. In particular, published government and social regulation of religion index scores are available from the Association of Religion Data Archives (for three years of data) and the Hudson Institute (for one year of data), which makes them ideal measures for cross-validation. The review process found very few significant discrepancies in the coded data; changes were made only if warranted by a further review of the primary sources.


Restriction of religion indexes


The Government Restrictions Index is based on 20 indicators of ways that national and local governments restrict religion, including through coercion and force. The Social Hostilities Index is based on 13 indicators of ways in which private individuals and social groups infringe on religious beliefs and practices, including religiously biased crimes, mob violence and efforts to stop particular religious groups from growing or operating. The study also counted the number and types of documented incidents of religion-related violence, including terrorism and armed conflict.


Government Restrictions Index


Coding multiple indicators makes it possible to construct a Government Restrictions Index of sufficient gradation to allow for meaningful cross-national comparisons. An additional advantage of using multiple indicators is that it helps mitigate the effects of measurement error in any one variable, providing greater confidence in the overall measure.

皮尤研究中心编码了20个政府限制宗教的指标(见附录 d:结果摘要)。这20个项目一起创建了 GRI。在两种情况下,这些项目代表了几个密切相关的问题的集合:将五种人身虐待类型的衡量标准合并为一个变量(GRI q. 19) ,将衡量政府偏袒方面的七个问题合并为一个总体偏袒量表(GRI q. 20是一个简要变量,显示一个国家是否在七个问题中的一个或多个得分最高)。

Pew Research Center coded 20 indicators of government restrictions on religion (see Appendix D: Summary of results). These 20 items were added together to create the GRI. In two cases, these items represent an aggregation of several closely related questions: Measures of five types of physical abuses are combined into a single variable (GRI Q.19), and seven questions measuring aspects of government favoritism are combined into an overall favoritism scale (GRI Q.20 is a summary variable showing whether a country received the maximum score on one or more of the seven questions).

Gri 是一种细粒度的衡量标准,将20个项目加在0-10的指标上,0表示政府对宗教的限制非常低,10表示限制非常高。构成 GRI 的20个问题按从0到1的标准等级进行编码,而答案之间的等级则允许在较小程度上对特定的政府限制给出部分等级。计算并按比例调整指数的总值,使其最大值为10,可能范围为0至10,方法是将各变量之和除以2。

The GRI is a fine-grained measure created by adding the 20 items on a 0-to-10 metric, with zero indicating very low levels of government restrictions on religion and 10 indicating very high levels of restrictions. The 20 questions that form the GRI are coded in a standard scale from zero to 1 point, while gradations among the answers allowed for partial points to be given for lesser degrees of the particular government restriction being measured. The overall value of the index was calculated and proportionally adjusted – so that it had a maximum value of 10 and a possible range of zero to 10 – by dividing the sum of the variables by two.


A test of whether the 20 items were statistically reliable as a single index produced a scale reliability coefficient of 0.90 for calendar year 2017. Since coefficients of 0.7 or higher are generally considered acceptable, it was statistically appropriate to combine these 20 items into a single index.


Social Hostilities Index


In addition to government restrictions, violence and intimidation in societies also can limit religious beliefs and practices. Accordingly, Pew Research Center staff tracked more than a dozen indicators of social impediments on religion. Once again, coding multiple indicators made it possible to construct an index that shows gradations of severity or intensity and allows for comparisons among countries. The summary of results contains the 13 items used by Pew Research Center staff to create the Social Hostilities Index.


The SHI was constructed by adding together the 13 indicators based on a 0-to-10 metric, with zero indicating very low impediments to religious beliefs and practices and 10 indicating very high impediments. The various questions that form the index are coded in a standard scale from zero to 1 point, while gradations among the answers allow for partial points to be given for lesser degrees of the particular hostilities being measured. The indicators were added together and set to have a possible range of zero to 10 by dividing the sum of the variables by 1.3.


As with the Government Restrictions Index, various types of violence and intimidation were combined. A test of whether these 13 items were statistically reliable as a single index produced a scale reliability coefficient of 0.85. Since coefficients of 0.7 or higher are generally considered acceptable, it was statistically appropriate to combine these items into a single index.


How examples are coded

每种类型的政府限制或社会敌意的例子通常都在 GRI 或 SHI 的单一措施中计算。例如,限制改变宗教信仰(分享一个人的信仰,意图说服另一个人加入信仰)也不算是限制皈依(一个人改变他们的宗教)。然而,在某些情况下,个别的限制或敌对行动可能是更广泛的限制或敌对行动的一部分。例如,一个宗教团体的成员对另一个宗教的个人的暴民攻击可能是一个孤立的事件,并且仅仅在问题石问2:是否存在与宗教有关的暴民暴力?然而,如果这种攻击引发宗教团体之间的反复攻击,这也可能是一种宗派或社区暴力的迹象,根据定义,这涉及两个或两个以上的宗教团体在反复冲突中对峙。在这种情况下,暴徒的袭击也将被计算在问题史 q. 3之下:在宗教团体之间是否存在宗派或社区暴力行为?(见结果摘要)

Examples of each type of government restriction or social hostility are generally counted in a single measure on the GRI or SHI. For instance, a restriction on proselytizing (sharing one’s faith with the intent of persuading another to join the faith) is not also counted as a restriction on conversion (an individual changing their religion). In some situations, however, an individual restriction or hostility may be part of a broader set of restrictions or hostilities. For instance, a mob attack by members of one religious group on an individual of another religion may be an isolated event and counted just under question SHI Q.2: Was there mob violence related to religion? However, if such an attack triggers repeated attacks between religious groups, it also might be an indication of sectarian or communal violence, which by definition involves two or more religious groups facing off in repeated clashes. In such a case, the mob attack also would be counted under question SHI Q.3: Were there acts of sectarian or communal violence between religious groups? (See the summary of results.)


Effects of consolidating to a new database

在本研究的最初几年,在省一级编写了关于政府武力事件的数量、类型和地点、对宗教团体的社会暴力以及在法律问题上尊重宗教当局的信息。(请参阅2009年12月基线报告第45至48页的数据编码示例。) 每年,该省的数字被加总,并放入单独的国家级文件中。在2011年8月的报告发布后,皮尤研究中心工作人员创建了一个数据库,该数据库综合了所有省级和国家级的宗教限制数据。在此过程中,皮尤研究中心工作人员审查了省级档案与转入国家档案的款项之间的任何差异,并作出了适当的纠正。调整幅度相对较小,对各国的指数得分影响不大,10分指数的平均得分不到0.005分。将数据合并到一个数据库还需要审查关于骚扰宗教团体的数据。特别是,截至2007年年中的骚扰事件被作为开放式问题储存起来,在少数情况下,它们被重新编码,以便与随后几年使用的类别相匹配。

For the first few years of this study, information on the number, types and locations of incidents of government force and social violence toward religious groups as well as deference to religious authorities in matters of law were coded at the province level. (See example of data coding on pages 45-48 of the December 2009 baseline report.) Each year, the province numbers were summed and put into separate country-level files. Following the publication of the August 2011 report, Pew Research Center staff created a database that integrated all province- and country-level data on religious restrictions. During this process, Pew Research Center staff reviewed any discrepancies between province files and the sums that had been transferred to the country files and made appropriate corrections. The adjustments made were relatively minor and had small effects on index scores for countries, on average less than 0.005 points on the 10-point indexes. Consolidating the data into a database also entailed a review of the data on harassment of religious groups. In particular, instances of harassment from the year ending in mid-2007 were stored as open-ended questions, and in a few cases they were recoded to match the categories used in subsequent years.


Beginning with data covering 2012, Pew Research Center stopped collecting data at the province level; all data are coded at the country level.


Changing time period of analysis


This is the seventh time Pew Research Center has analyzed restrictions on religion in a calendar year. Previous reports analyzed 12-month periods from July 1-June 30 (e.g., July 1, 2009-June 30, 2010). The shift to calendar years was made, in part, because most of the primary sources used in this study are based on calendar years.

由于时间框架的变化,以前的研究没有直接报告7月1日至12月期间发生的事件。31,2010. 虽然这漏掉了2010年下半年发生的一些事件,但编码捕捉到了一些具有持续影响的事件,如国家宪法的修改或与宗教有关的战争的爆发。这项研究的研究人员仔细审查了每个国家和地区在这六个月期间的情况,并确保具有持续影响的限制不被忽视。

Because of the shift in time frame, previous studies did not report directly on incidents that occurred during the period from July 1-Dec. 31, 2010. While this misses some incidents that occurred during the second half of 2010, events that had an ongoing impact – such as a change to a country’s constitution or the outbreak of a religion-related war – were captured by the coding. Researchers for the study carefully reviewed the situation in each country and territory during this six-month period and made sure that restrictions with an ongoing impact were not overlooked.


Religion-related terrorism and armed conflict


Terrorism and war can have huge direct and indirect effects on religious groups, including destroying religious sites, displacing whole communities and inflaming sectarian passions. Accordingly, Pew Research Center tallied the number, location and consequences of religion-related terrorism and armed conflict around the world, as reported in the same primary sources used to document other forms of intimidation and violence. However, war and terrorism are sufficiently complex that it is not always possible to determine the degree to which they are religiously motivated or state sponsored. Out of an abundance of caution, this study does not include them in the Government Restrictions Index. They are factored instead into the index of social hostilities involving religion, which includes one question specifically about religion-related terrorism and one question specifically about religion-related war or armed conflict. In addition, other measures in both indexes are likely to pick up spillover effects of war and terrorism on the level of religious tensions in society. For example, hate crimes, mob violence and sectarian fighting that occur in the aftermath of a terrorist attack or in the context of a religion-related war would be counted in the Social Hostilities Index, and laws or policies that clearly discriminate against a particular religious group would be registered on the Government Restrictions Index.

为本研究的目的,”与宗教有关的恐怖主义”一词被界定为具有某种可识别的宗教意识形态或宗教动机的国家以下各级团体或秘密特工对非战斗人员有预谋、出于政治动机的暴力行为。它还包括由具有非宗教身份但影响宗教人士(如神职人员)的团体实施的行为。读者应该注意到,这里的问题是这些团体的政治性质和动机,而不是暴力的类型。例如,如果没有明显的宗教意识形态或偏见,除非爆炸是针对宗教人员的,否则就不能将其归类为与宗教有关的恐怖主义。与宗教有关的战争或武装冲突被定义为武装冲突(一场长期持续伤亡或1000多人在战斗中死亡的冲突) ,在这种冲突中,宗教言论通常被用作使用武力的理由,或者在这种冲突中,一名或多名战斗人员主要通过宗教认同自己或反对派。

For the purposes of this study, the term “religion-related terrorism” is defined as premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatants by subnational groups or clandestine agents that have some identifiable religious ideology or religious motivation. It also includes acts carried out by groups that have a nonreligious identity but affect religious personnel, such as clergy. Readers should note that it is the political character and motivation of the groups, not the type of violence, that is at issue here. For instance, a bombing would not be classified as religion-related terrorism if there was no clearly discernible religious ideology or bias behind it unless it was directed at religious personnel. Religion-related war or armed conflict is defined as armed conflict (a conflict that involves sustained casualties over time or more than 1,000 battle deaths) in which religious rhetoric is commonly used to justify the use of force, or in which one or more of the combatants primarily identifies itself or the opposing side by religion.


Changes to Somalia’s coding


Starting with data covering 2013, researchers changed the way they coded government restrictions in Somalia. In previous years of the study, researchers had coded actions by the al-Shabaab rebel group as government restrictions, largely because the group effectively controlled large swathes of Somali territory. The extent of al-Shabaab control over Somali territory decreased in calendar year 2013, so researchers did not code their actions as government restrictions but rather as social hostilities. Researchers continued to follow this policy when coding data for 2017.


Crimea coding

从2015年的数据开始,研究人员将发生在克里米亚的事件编码为俄罗斯 GRI 和 SHI 评分的一部分。这是为了反映俄罗斯对克里米亚事实上的控制,而不是作为皮尤研究中心关于该领土法律地位的立场,联合国承认该领土是乌克兰的一部分。

Starting with data covering 2015, researchers coded incidents occurring in Crimea as part of Russia’s GRI and SHI score. This is to reflect Russia’s de facto control over Crimea, and is not intended as a Pew Research Center position on the de jure status of the territory, which the United Nations recognizes as part of Ukraine.119


Changes to Yemen’s coding


Starting with data covering 2016, researchers changed the way they coded social hostilities in Yemen. In previous years of the study, researchers had coded actions by Houthi rebels as social hostilities. In 2016, however, Houthis formed their own government and had control of territory that is home to more than half of Yemen’s population.120 For this reason, researchers coded actions by the Houthi in 2016 as government restrictions rather than social hostilities and continued to do so in 2017.


Displacement coding


Starting with data covering 2016, researchers changed the way they coded displacement caused by religion-related conflict or terrorism. Previously, researchers would record displacement figures that were reported in any sources. During the coding period covering 2015, researchers continued to code displacement figures in this way but also recorded displacement figures from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as well as the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre in order to compare the results. Researchers found that the figures from the UNHCR and IDMC more closely matched United Nations estimates for new displacements in the calendar year than did the previous method of capturing displacements, which tended to overestimate the number of new displacements in a coding year because the figures often included the totalnumber of displaced people from a country and not necessarily the newly displaced. Therefore, beginning with the data covering 2016, researchers exclusively used UNHCR and IDMC figures to more conservatively estimate the number of new displacements in the coding year. Displacement was only coded in countries with active religion-related conflict or terrorism in order to avoid including displacements from other types of conflicts or terrorism.


Country constitution audit

研究人员对2007-2014年的国家宪法进行了编码审计。虽然绝大多数国家的宪法在是否包括宗教自由条款方面编码正确,但也有少数国家修订了编码。这些国家包括墨西哥、哥斯达黎加、斐济、伊朗、牙买加、多米尼加、乌拉圭、喀麦隆、肯尼亚和莫桑比克。这些修正使这些国家的全面报告评分变化很小,并没有改变前几次报告所反映的总体趋势。2014年,墨西哥和哥斯达黎加这两个国家的得分发生了变化,从一个类别变成了另一个类别。墨西哥2014年的 GRI 得分从“高”下降到“中” ,而哥斯达黎加2014年的 GRI 得分从“低”上升到“中”

Researchers conducted an audit of country constitutions for coding covering the years 2007-2014. While the vast majority of country constitutions were correctly coded as to whether they included religious freedom provisions, there were a few countries where the coding was amended. These included Mexico, Costa Rica, Fiji, Iran, Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, Uruguay, Cameroon, Kenya and Mozambique. These amendments resulted in minimal changes in these countries’ overall GRI scores and did not alter overall trends represented in previous reports. Two countries – Mexico and Costa Rica – had score changes that pushed them from one category to another in 2014. Mexico’s 2014 GRI score decreased from “high” to “moderate”, while Costa Rica’s 2014 GRI score increased from “low” to “moderate.”


Potential biases


As noted earlier, the primary sources indicate that the North Korean government is among the most repressive in the world, including toward religion. But because independent observers lack regular access to North Korea, the sources are unable to provide the kind of specific, timely information that forms the basis of this report. Therefore, North Korea is not included on either index.

这就提出了两个关于信息来源潜在信息偏差的重要问题。第一个问题是,资料来源是否充分涵盖了限制外来者进入并可能试图掩盖或歪曲其在宗教限制方面的记录的其他国家。获取途径相对有限的国家拥有多个主要信息来源,这些信息是皮尤研究中心用于编码的。其他宗教限制方面的二级定量数据集也涵盖了这些数据集,这些数据集使用了类似的编码方案,包括早年宾夕法尼亚州立大学格里姆宗教数据档案协会(ARDA)项目产生的国务院编码报告数据(4个数据集) ;哈德逊研究所宗教自由中心的专家使用 ARDA 提供的索引进行的独立编码(一个数据集) ;以及贝克特宗教自由基金会对各国宪法进行的内容分析(一个数据集)。皮尤研究中心的工作人员用这些做交叉验证。因此,与人们的预期相反,即使大多数限制获取信息的国家也往往得到监测宗教限制的团体的相当广泛的报道。

This raises two important issues concerning potential information bias in the sources. The first is whether other countries that limit outsiders’ access and that may seek to obscure or distort their record on religious restrictions were adequately covered by the sources. Countries with relatively limited access have multiple primary sources of information that Pew Research Center used for its coding. Each is also covered by other secondary quantitative data sets on religious restrictions that have used a similar coding scheme, including earlier years of coded State Department report data produced by Grim at Penn State’s Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA) project (four data sets); independent coding by experts at the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Liberty using indexes also available from ARDA (one data set); and content analysis of country constitutions conducted by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (one data set). Pew Research Center staff used these for cross-validation. Thus, contrary to what one might expect, even most countries that limit access to information tend to receive fairly extensive coverage by groups that monitor religious restrictions.


The second key question – the flipside of the first – is whether countries that provide freer access to information receive worse scores simply because more information is available on them. As described more fully in the methodology in the baseline report, Pew Research Center staff compared the length of State Department reports on freer-access countries with those of less-free-access countries. The comparison found that the median number of words was approximately three times as large for the limited-access countries as for the open-access countries. This suggests that problems in freer-access countries are generally not overreported in the State Department reports.

只有在涉及与宗教有关的暴力和社会恐吓时,消息来源才报告说,较自由出入国家的问题比较多。然而,《社会敌对行动指数》包括若干措施,例如第8章(”宗教团体本身是否试图阻止其他宗教团体开展活动?”) 史问题11(“女性是否因违反宗教着装规定而受到骚扰?”) 不太容易受到这种报告偏见的影响,因为它们反映了一般的社会趋势或态度以及具体事件。考虑到这些限制,关于社会敌对行动的编码信息似乎是对绝大多数国家情况的公平衡量,也是对关于政府限制的信息的宝贵补充。

Only when it comes to religion-related violence and intimidation in society do the sources report more problems in the freer-access countries than in the limited-access ones. However, the Social Hostilities Index includes several measures – such as SHI Q.8 (“Did religious groups themselves attempt to prevent other religious groups from being able to operate?”) and SHI Q.11 (“Were women harassed for violating religious dress codes?”) – that are less susceptible to such reporting bias because they capture general social trends or attitudes as well as specific incidents. With these limitations in mind, it appears that the coded information on social hostilities is a fair gauge of the situation in the vast majority of countries and a valuable complement to the information on government restrictions.

关于宗教活动的社会障碍的数据可以更有信心地用于在开放程度足够的国家之间进行比较,其中包括编码所涵盖的十分之九以上的国家。格里姆和皮尤研究中心全球态度研究主任 Richard Wike 的一项分析,通过比较公众舆论数据和格里姆和宾夕法尼亚州立大学专家前几年报告中编码的数据,测试了国务院关于宗教实践的社会障碍报告的可靠性。他们的结论是,”国务院报告中体现的对社会宗教不容忍的理解与人口调查和个人专家意见的结果是可比的”

Data on social impediments to religious practice can more confidently be used to make comparisons among countries with sufficient openness, which includes more than nine-in-ten countries covered in the coding. An analysis by Grim and Richard Wike, Pew Research Center’s director of global attitudes research, tested the reliability of the State Department reports on social impediments to religious practice by comparing public opinion data with data coded from the reports in previous years by Grim and experts at Penn State. They concluded that “the understanding of social religious intolerance embodied in the State Department reports is comparable with the results of population surveys and individual expert opinion.”121


Coding harassment of specific religious groups

与以前的报告一样,本研究报告概述了特定宗教团体面临政府或社会骚扰的国家数目。这基本上是 GRI.Q. 11的交叉表列(“是否有任何级别的政府骚扰或恐吓宗教团体?”) 以及第一种宗教仇恨或偏见。(“个人是否因宗教仇恨或偏见而受到骚扰或恐吓?”) . 为了本研究的目的,骚扰的定义包括在基于宗教身份针对个人或群体的犯罪的主要来源中的任何提及。这些罪行可能包括人身攻击和直接胁迫,也可能包括更微妙的歧视形式。但是,带有偏见的意见或态度本身并不构成骚扰,除非它们以明显的方式被采取行动。

As in previous reports, this study provides a summary of the number of countries where specific religious groups faced government or social harassment. This is essentially a cross-tabulation of GRI.Q.11 (“Was there harassment or intimidation of religious groups by any level of government?”) and the first type of religious hatred or bias measured in SHI.Q.1.a. (“Did individuals face harassment or intimidation motivated by religious hatred or bias?”). For the purposes of this study, the definition of harassment includes any mention in the primary sources of an offense against an individual or group based on religious identity. Such offenses may range from physical attacks and direct coercion to more subtle forms of discrimination. But prejudicial opinions or attitudes, in and of themselves, do not constitute harassment unless they are acted upon in a palpable way.


As noted above, this study provides data on the number of countries in which different religious groups are harassed or intimidated. But the study does not assess either the severity or the frequency of the harassment in each country. Therefore, the results should not be interpreted as gauging which religious group faces the most harassment or persecution around the world.


Categories of government restrictions and social hostilities

本报告首次包括的概览中描述的类别是通过将具有共同点的索引变量组合在一起创建的。它们只包含作为 GRI 和 SHI 索引的一部分的变量。下表显示了类别组和每个组中包含的变量。

The categories described in the Overview – included for the first time in this report – were created by grouping together index variables that share commonalities. They onlyinclude variables that are part of the GRI and SHI indexes. The following tables show the category groups and the variables included in each group.

为了计算分类值,国家对分类中每个变量的得分被加上并乘以一个倾向权重。这是因为这些类别包含了不同数量的变量,而且含有更多变量的类别需要加权,因此它们的得分并不总是高于含有更少变量的类别。权重是使用类别组中的概率倒数来计算的。例如,一个变量被列入一般法律和政策类别的概率是24分之5(该类别中有5个变量,总共有24个政府限制变量)。所以倾向得分是:1 /(5 / 24)4.8。

To calculate the category values, the country’s scores for each of the variables in the category are added and multiplied by a propensity weight. This is because the categories have a different number of variables included, and the categories with more variables need to be weighed down so their scores will not always be higher than the categories with fewer variables included. The weight is calculated using the inverse of the probability of being in the category group. For example, a variable has a five out of 24 chance of being included in the general laws and policies category (five variables in the category, 24 government restrictions variables total). So the propensity score is: 1 / (5/24) = 4.8.

为了将 GRI 和 SHI 类别分数放在0-10的范围内,GRI 类别分数乘以(10 / 24) ,而 SHI 类别分数乘以(10 / 13)。

To place the GRI and SHI category scores on a 0-10 scale, the GRI category scores were multiplied by (10/24) and the SHI category scores were multiplied by (10/13).

皮尤研究中心通常使用中位数来显示全部指数(GRI 和 SHI)分数的全球和地区差异。这一决定是十多年前在研究开始时做出的,目的是防止少数异常值(得分极高或极低的国家)扭曲区域或全球平均值。Gri 和 SHI 都由足够多的变量组成,中位数得分经常反映了地区之间的重要差异,以及随着时间的推移限制水平的变化。

Pew Research Center generally uses medians to show global and regional differences in scores on the full indexes (GRI and SHI). This decision was made more than a decade ago, at the beginning of the study, to prevent a few outliers (countries with extremely high or extremely low scores) from skewing the regional or global averages. Both the GRI and SHI are comprised of enough variables that median scores often reflect important differences between regions as well as changes in levels of restrictions over time.


For the eight subcategories of government restrictions and social hostilities described in this report, however, researchers chose a different approach. Since each subcategory includes a much smaller number of variables, global and regional means (as opposed to medians) allow for more granular analysis. If medians were used, year-over-year change in many regions (as well as globally) would be more difficult to see. In addition, regional median scores in certain subcategories would be zero, even though many countries in those regions (albeit fewer than half) have nonzero scores.

浏览 3574
赞成 0
反对 0
收藏 0
评论 0

对全球宗教迫害增加现象的更精确观察:机译  2019-07-22 03:33  搜索直达:c1053860   刷新   线路1   线路2   线路3   线路4   线路A   线路B   线路D 

(2019年7月15日,美国皮尤研究中心,Pew Reserch Center)调查了198个国家的宗教政策及实践情况,结果显示,从2007到2017年,人们因宗教信仰遭受暴力的国家数量从39个增至56个。中国是198个国家中政府限制水平最高的国家,其次是伊朗。



网门大陆网址 https://x.co/ogate | 网门安卓版 https://x.co/ogatea | 网门电脑版 https://x.co/ogatew