How can a society protect religious freedom and still protect people from harm?

One common answer is to protect belief while judging harmful acts. Freedom of religion is a principle that supports the freedom to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance, but Article 18 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights allows restrictions only when necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. In practice, countries use different tools, and each draws criticism.

The first tool is to judge acts. In 1878 the US Supreme Court held in Reynolds v. United States that religious duty was not a defense to a criminal indictment. The second is a law aimed at groups: France's 2001 About–Picard law targets movements deemed "cults" that undermine human rights and fundamental freedoms; some commentators allege it infringes religious freedom while proponents say it reinforces it. A third is closer oversight: after the Aum Shinrikyo attacks Japan placed the group under surveillance in 2000, and after Shakahola Kenya's president appointed a commission of inquiry and a task force to review the regulations governing religious organizations.

One tool was rejected: forcing people out. When New York's legislature passed bills in 1980 and 1981 that would have allowed involuntary deprogramming, the governor vetoed them because they violated religious and other constitutional freedoms. The balance is always contested, and this lesson describes the options without choosing one.