Search

Religious freedom is more than a moral ideal. It is a measurable factor shaping national trajectories, social cohesion, and long-term peace. Religious freedom intersects in critical ways with issues of security, extremism, and terrorism. Contrary to secularization theories, religion is on the rise with 75% of the globe expressing some kind of religious affiliation. With this increase comes a challenge. Religion contributes to human flourishing, belonging, and resilience. However, political actors and extremist groups often harness religion for power, exacerbating conflict and repression. Religious freedom is on a concerning decline with alarming trends in “us vs. them” narratives, social hostilities, and government restrictions. 83% of the world now lives in contexts with significant restrictions on religion.

Research demonstrates that where human dignity is upheld and religious freedom is protected, violence is less likely to take root. Integrating religious freedom into security frameworks is critical due to how identity, belief, and belonging shape social and political behavior. Sustainable security depends not only on strength, but on judicious restraint, social inclusion, and religious literacy.

Colleagues Jeremy Barker, Mitch Foor, and I recently examined the ‘state of the field’ in research related to religion and security, extremism, and terrorism in an article for a special issue of The Review of Faith & International Affairs. Below, I summarize eight key points from our research review along with recommendations for practitioners, policymakers, and researchers.

1. Religious Freedom and Security Are Deeply Connected

Religious freedom intersects directly with security, extremism, and terrorism but is often overlooked. In a global environment shaped by rising authoritarianism, populism, and repression, religion is on the rise and has become more visible in public life. At the same time, global indicators show religious freedom in a concerning decline. Government restrictions in the name of security and social hostilities targeting religious groups are at record highs. Yet evidence increasingly shows that suppressing religious freedom undermines security.

2. Repression in the Name of Security Often Backfires

States frequently frame religion, or religious communities, as security threats. This securitization approach is visible in authoritarian regimes and democratic societies alike. Anti-extremism laws, surveillance, restrictions on religious dress or worship, and favoritism toward dominant religions are commonly defended as necessary for stability.

In practice, these measures often deepen grievances, erode trust in institutions, and validate extremist narratives. Discrimination and unequal treatment, whether imposed by law or reinforced through social hostility, can radicalize moderate actors, weaken social cohesion, and increase popular support for violent movements. Repression aimed at silencing dissent frequently plants the seeds for longer lasting and more destructive conflict.

3. Extremism Is Not Inherent to Religion

Religion itself is neither inherently violent nor inherently peaceful. Every religious tradition can be mobilized toward either conflict or peace. Outcomes depend heavily on political context, leadership, and state behavior. Simplistic explanations that blame religion obscure other pertinent drivers of extremism and terrorism.

Extremism is best understood as a survival justification for in-group hostility against an out-group that can manifest in methods, mindset, and ideology. Extremism appears across the religious and ideological landscape; no group is immune. Today’s threat environment includes Islamic, Jewish, and Christian movements, far right and left movements, ethno-religious nationalisms, and even militant secularism. Treating extremism as an isolated problem of “the other” fuels cycles of polarization.

4. Religious Freedom Reduces the Risk of Violence

Research points to a consistent pattern: where religious freedom is protected, societies tend to be more stable; where it is violated, insecurity grows. Restrictions on religion, especially when applied unevenly, generate grievances and fuel extremist ideologies that can escalate into violence and terrorism. Favoring a majority religion can be just as destabilizing as repressing minorities, as it removes checks on power and encourages exclusion.

By contrast, protecting religious freedom facilitates peaceful expression, civic engagement, and nonviolent political participation. When religious communities are allowed to organize openly, educate their members, and participate in public life, extremist actors lose legitimacy and popular support. Legal protections for religious freedom correlate with lower levels of terrorist activity even when other risk factors are considered.

5. Beware of Mutual Radicalization

Overly repressive state responses and security policies framed in religious terms can trigger a dangerous process of mutual radicalization. Extremist violence pushes governments toward harsher measures; those measures then reinforce extremist claims of persecution and injustice, driving recruitment and escalation.

Mutual radicalization is also visible on societal and transnational levels. For example, Islamist extremists, far-right Christians, and Jewish nationalists frequently amplify one another’s rhetoric, each validating the other’s worldview. Terrorist attacks and violence can shift electorates toward authoritarian leaders who deploy religiously charged language and militarized responses, further restricting civil and religious liberties. The result is a self-reinforcing cycle of repression and radicalization.

6. Coercion Alone Rarely Defeats Terrorism

Evidence from decades of counterterrorism efforts shows that force alone is rarely effective. Military campaigns, harsher punishments, mass surveillance, and collective targeting often fail to dismantle extremist movements and may prolong them. Terrorist groups frequently collapse not because they are crushed, but because their tactics lose popular support. Repressive state actions can keep them alive by supplying grievances and legitimacy.

More effective approaches combine negotiation, political inclusion, and incentives with lawful, careful security enforcement. Upholding religious freedom while enforcing laws is not a contradiction; it is a strategic necessity.

7. Practical Guidance for Policymakers and Practitioners – What is Effective?

Protecting religious freedom should be treated as a core governance and national security priority. Policies should clearly distinguish between religious identity groups and individuals who commit or incite violence. Collective blame, discriminatory surveillance, and broad restrictions on religious practice are counterproductive.

Political rhetoric has security consequences and can actively fuel escalation. When exclusionary rhetoric intersects with inequality, poor governance, and repression, the risk of radicalization and violence rises sharply. Leaders must resist framing security challenges in ways that stigmatize entire communities or undermine democratic institutions.

Religious literacy is critical from early warning and prevention to crisis response and recovery. Engaging religious actors in peacebuilding, development, and humanitarian work along with exercising restraint in security enforcement reduces the risk of backlash, mutual radicalization, and prolonged conflict.

8. Suggested Priorities for Researchers: What Is Unknown?

More interdisciplinary and multicultural research is needed to understand how religious freedom interacts with mechanisms of inequality, grievance formation, and violence. Key gaps remain in explaining how religious beliefs translate (or fail to translate) into violent behavior, the role of economic factors and relative deprivation, and the unique challenges faced by ethno-religious states and their relationship to security. Lastly, better tracking of sub-national and incident-level trends and integration of religious inequality into development and security metrics is essential.