religious discrimination research paper

Religious Discrimination in the Workplace: A Review and Examination of Current and Future Trends

• Published: 15 March 2013
• Volume 28 , pages 439–454, ( 2013 )

Cite this article

• Sonia Ghumman 1 ,
• Ann Marie Ryan 2 ,
• Lizabeth A. Barclay 3 &
• Karen S. Markel 3  

13k Accesses

61 Citations

4 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Over the last decade, religious discrimination claims have risen more rapidly compared to most other protected categories under the Civil Rights Act (CRA). The goal of this review paper is to summarize the psychological and HR practitioner-focused research on religious discrimination as it relates to the CRA to understand these religious discrimination claims. In doing so, this review also highlights what future research is needed, and what the challenges and practical implications of religious discrimination are for managers.

Design/methodology/approach

We conduct a systematic literature review of the psychology and business research on religious discrimination.

Building from the literature review and case law, we highlight four trends that contribute to religious discrimination in the workplace: (1) legal ambiguities, (2) increased religious diversity in the American workforce, (3) increasing expression of religious beliefs, and (4) the unique nature of religion.

Implications

The trends identified in our review paper highlight the need for employers to understand and address religious discrimination issues in the workplace and the lack of empirical research in this area points to a critical gap in our understanding of workplace religious discrimination that warrants future research.

Originality/value

In addition to highlighting trends that contribute to religious discrimination in the workplace, this literature review addresses where there are gaps in the existing research that call for further research and offers practical implications for employers and organizations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Examining the effects of exposure to religion in the workplace on perceptions of religious discrimination.

Religious Diversity at Workplace: a Literature Review

Religion and Equality in the Workplace: A Legal-Philosophical Analysis

The cases represented in their respective order are Buonanno v. AT&T Broadband LLC ( 2004 ) , Anderson v. Orange County Transit Authority ( 1996 ), and a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by Carletta Sims against CitiGroup as reported in the Elizabethton Star ( 2004 ).

Allen, C., & Nielsen, J. S. (2002). Summary report on Islamophobia in the EU after 11 September 2001 . Vienna: European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia.

Google Scholar  

American Religious Identification Survey. (2009). ARIS 2008 Summary report. Retrieved from http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf . Accessed 17 July 2012.

Anonymous. (2012). Supreme Court fashions ministerial exception to employment discrimination laws. Bruce R. Hopkins’ Nonprofit Counsel, 29 , 1.

Anderson v. OCTA, Calif. Superior Ct, No. 765255 (June 17, 1996).

Anti-Defamation League. (2011). Religious accommodation in the workplace: Your rights and accommodations. Retrieved from http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom/resource_kit/religion_workplace.asp#f6 . Accessed 17 July 2012.

Asani, A. S. (2003). So that you may know one another: A Muslim American reflects on pluralism and Islam. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science Islam: Enduring myths and changing realities, 588 , 40–51.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ball, C., & Haque, A. (2003). Diversity in religious practice: Implications of Islamic values in the public workplace. Public Personnel Management, 32 , 315–330.

Balser, D. B. (2007). Predictors of workplace accommodations for employees with mobility-related disabilities. Administration and Society, 39 (5), 656–683.

Barron, L. G., Hebl, M., & King, E. B. (2011). Effects of manifest ethnic identification on employment discrimination. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17 (1), 23–30.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Blumenthal, J. A. (1998). The reasonable woman standard: A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Law and Human Behavior, 22 (1), 33–57.

Borstorff, P., & Arlington, K. (2010). The perils of religious accommodation: Employees’ perceptions. Allied academies international conference: Proceedings of the academy of legal. Ethical and regulatory issues, 14 , 1–5.

Boulter, B. (2011). Goldilocks and the three-judge panel: Spencer v. World Vision, Inc. and the Religious Organization Exemption of Title VII. Brigham Young University Law Review , 1 , 33–48.

Bowling, N. A., & Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the victim’s perspective: A theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 , 998–1012.

Brecheen, M., & Kleiner, B. H. (2000). New developments concerning religious discrimination. Equal Opportunities International, 19 , 70–74.

Brody, H. M., & Brito, C. (2007). Reversing claims of reverse religious discrimination. Employment Relations Today, 34 , 77–84.

Buonanno v. AT&T Broadband LLC, USDC, No. 02-MK-0778 (April 1, 2004).

Carter, B. G. (2010). The strengths of Muslim American couples in the face of religious discrimination following September 11 and the Iraq war. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 80 , 323–342.

Center for Immigration Studies. (2002). Immigrants from the Middle East: A profile of the foreign-born population from Pakistan to Morocco. Retrieved from http://www.cis.org/articles/2002/back902.pdf . Accessed 17 July 2012.

Civil Rights Act of 1964. (1964). Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq .

Cohen, F., Jussim, L., Harber, K. D., & Bhasim, G. (2009). Modern anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97 , 290–306.

Coon, L. L. (2001). Employment discrimination by religious institutions: Limiting the sanctuary of the constitutional ministerial exception to religion-based employment decisions. Vanderbilt Law Review, 54 , 481–546.

Crandall, C. S. (1994). Prejudice against fat people: Ideology and self-interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66 , 882–894.

Creusere v. James Hunt Constr., 83 F. App’x 709, 711 (6th. Cir.2003).

Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1994). Reactions to stigma: The moderating role of justifications. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), The Ontario symposium vol. 7. The psychology of prejudice (pp. 289–314). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Cromwell, J. B. (1997). Cultural discrimination: The reasonable accommodation of religion in the workplace. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 10 , 155–172.

Curtis, H. P. (2004). Ex-Disney employee sues over dress code. Sun - Sentinel, 3a.

Derous, E., Nguyen, H. H., & Ryan, A. M. (2009). Hiring discrimination against Arab minorities: Interactions between prejudice and job characteristics. Human Performance, 22 , 297–320.

Deschenaux, J. (2011). Nontraditional workplace harassment lawsuits increasing. Retrieved from http://www.shrm.org/LegalIssues/FederalResources/Pages/Nontraditionalwww.shrm.org/LegalIssues/FederalResources/Pages/Nontraditional . Accessed 17 July 2012.

Dobson, S. (2010). Calm amidst the storm, reflection rooms provide privacy, peace and religious accommodation at work. Canadian HR Reporter, 23 (17), 23.

Elkhatib v. Dunkin’Donuts, Inc., No. 02 C 8131, 2004 WL 2600119 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 15, 2004).

EEOC. (2003). Muslim/Arab employment discrimination charges since 9/11. Retrieved November 22, 2004 from http://www.eeoc.gov/origin/z-stats.html .

EEOC. (2008a). Religious discrimination. Retrieved April 22, 2009 from http://www.eeoc.gov/types/religion.html .

EEOC. (2008b). Best practices for eradicating religious discrimination in the workplace. Retrieved March 15, 2012 from http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/best_practices_religion.html .

EEOC. (2011a). Charge statistics FY 1997 through FY 2010. Retrieved January 31, 2011 from http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/charges.cfm .

EEOC. (2011b). Compliance manual section 12—religious discrimination. Retrieved January 31, 2011 from http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religion.html .

EEOC. (2011c). Abercrombie and Fitch sued for religious discrimination [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/6-27-11a.cfm . Accessed 17 July 2012.

EEOC. (2011d). Court finds for EEOC in religious discrimination suit against Abercrombie and Fitch [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-15-11a.cfm . Accessed 17 July 2012.

EEOC. (2011e). Taco bell owner sued by EEOC for religious discrimination [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-28-11.cfm . Accessed 17 July 2012.

EEOC .(2011f). Supercuts settles EEOC religious discrimination and retaliation lawsuit [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-14-11.cfm . Accessed 17 July 2012.

EEOC. (2011g). Questions and answers: Religious discrimination in the workplace. Retrieved October 5, 2011 from http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/quanda_religion.html .

EEOC v. White Lodging Services, Corp. W.D. Ky., No. 3:06-CV-353 (March 31, 2010).

Eliezer, D., Townsend, S. S. M., Sawyer, P. J., Major, B., & Mendes, W. B. (2011). System-justifying beliefs moderate the relationship between perceived discrimination and resting blood pressure. Social Cognition, 29 (3), 303–321.

Elizabethton Star (2004). CitiGroup settles religious discrimination lawsuit filed by former employee. Retrieved from http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ybQOAAAAIBAJandsjid=w4IDAAAAIBAJandpg=2632%2C2145955 . Accessed 17 July 2012.

Estreicher, S., & Gray, M. J. (2006). Religion and the US workplace. Human Rights, 33 , 17–20.

Ettorre, B. (1996). Religion in the workplace: Implications for managers. Management Review, 85 , 15–20.

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82 , 878–902.

Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C. L., Gelfand, M. J., & Magley, V. J. (1997a). Antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: A test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82 , 578–589.

Fitzgerald, L. F., Swan, S. C., & Magley, V. J. (1997b). But was it really sexual harassment? Legal, behavioral, and psychological definitions of the workplace victimization of women. In W. O’Donohue (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Theory, research, and treatment . Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Gallup Poll. (2006). Religion. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/1690/Religion.aspx . Accessed 17 July 2012.

Kern v. Dynalectron Corp., 577 F. Supp. 1196 (N.D. Tex. 1983).

Minkus v. Metro. Sanitary Dist., 600 F.2d 80 (7th Cir. 1979).

Gervais, W. M., Shariff, A. F., & Norenzayan, A. (2011). Do you believe in atheists? Distrust is central to anti-atheist prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101 , 1189–1206.

Ghaffari, A., & Çiftçi, A. (2010). Religiosity and self-esteem of Muslim immigrants to the United States: The moderating role of perceived discrimination. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 20 (1), 14–25.

Ghumman, S., & Jackson, L. (2008). Between a cross and a hard place: Religious identifiers and employability. Journal of Workplace Rights, 13 , 259–279.

Ghumman, S., & Jackson, L. (2010). The downside of religious attire: The Muslim headscarf and expectations of obtaining employment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31 , 4–23.

Grossman, R. J. (2008). Religion at work. HR Magazine, 53 (12), 26–33.

Gutek, B. A., & Koss, M. P. (1993). Changed women and changed organizations: Consequences of and coping with sexual harassment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42 , 28–48.

Gutek, B. A., & O’Connor, M. (1995). The empirical basis for the reasonable woman standard. Journal of Social Issues, 51 (1), 151–166.

Gutek, B. A., & Stockdale, M. S. (2005). Sex discrimination in employment. In F. Landy (Ed.), Employment discrimination litigation: Behavioral, quantitative and legal perspectives (pp. P229–P255). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Harrison, D. A., & Sin, H. (2006). What is diversity and how should it be measured? In A. Konrad, P. Prasad, & J. K. Pringle (Eds.), Handbook of workplace diversity (pp. 191–216). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.

Hebl, M. R., King, E. B., Glick, P., Singletary, S. L., & Kazama, S. (2007). Hostile and benevolent reactions toward pregnant women: Complementary interpersonal punishments and rewards that maintain traditional roles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (6), 1499–1511.

Heller, L. (2007). Modifying the ministerial exception: Providing ministers with a remedy for employment discrimination under Title VII while maintaining First Amendment protections of religious freedom. St. John’s Law Review, 81 , 663–699.

Henle, C. A., & Hogler, R. (2004). The duty of accommodations and the Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2003: From bad policy to worse law. Labor Law Journal, 55 , 155–164.

Hodge, D. R. (2006). Moving toward a more inclusive educational environment? A multi-sample exploration of religious discrimination as seen through the eyes of students from various faith traditions. Journal of Social Work Education, 42 , 249–267.

Hodge, D. R. (2007a). Progressing toward inclusion? Exploring the state of religious diversity. Social Work Research, 31 , 55–63.

Hodge, D. R. (2007b). Religious discrimination and ethical compliance: Exploring perceptions among a professionally affiliated sample of graduate students. Journal of Religion and Spirituality in Social Work: Social Thought, 26 , 91–113.

Huang, C. C., & Kleiner, B. H. (2001). New developments concerning religious discrimination in the workplace. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 21 , 128–136.

Inman, D. F., & Inman, R. A. (2003). The workplace religious freedom act: ADA problem under a new name. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 6 , 41–51.

Jolson, M. A. (1974). Employment barriers in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 38 , 67–74.

Jones, E. E., Farina, A., Hastorf, A. H., Markus, H., Miller, D. T., & Scott, R. A. (1984). Social stigma: The psychology of marked relationships . New York: Freeman.

Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25 (6), 881–919.

Kelly, E. (2008). Accommodating religious expression in the workplace. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 20 , 45–56.

King, E. B., & Ahmad, A. S. (2010). An experimental field study of interpersonal discrimination toward Muslim job applicants. Personnel Psychology, 63 , 881–906.

King, E. B., Shapiro, J. R., Hebl, M. R., Singletary, S. L., & Turner, S. (2006). The stigma of obesity in customer service: A mechanism for remediation and bottom-line consequences of interpersonal discrimination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (3), 579–593.

King, J. E., & Williamson, I. (2005). Workplace religious expression, religiosity and job satisfaction: Clarifying a relationship. Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion, 2 , 173–198.

Landy, F. (2005). Employment discrimination litigation: behavioral, quantitative and legal perspectives . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lee, R. D. (2003). Workplace discrimination against Muslims, Arabs, and others since September 11, 2011. Journal of Individual Employment Rights, 10 , 273–297.

LeVine, R. A., & Campbell, D. T. (1972). Ethnocentrism . New York: Wiley.

Lips-Wiersma, M., & Mills, C. (2002). Coming out of the closet: Negotiating spiritual expression in the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17 , 183–202.

Lubin, J. (2004, December 7). How to stop the snubs that demoralize you and your colleagues?. Wall Street Journal , pp. B1.

Major, B., & Kaiser, C. R. (2005). Perceiving and claiming discrimination. In L. B. Nielsen & R. L. Nelson (Eds.), The handbook of research on employment discrimination: Rights and realities (pp. 279–293). New York: Springer.

Major, B., McCoy, S. K., Kaiser, C. R., & Quinton, W. J. (2003). Prejudice and self-esteem: A transactional model. European Review of Social Psychology, 14 , 77–104.

Mallett, R. K., & Swim, J. K. (2009). Making the best of a bad situation: Proactive coping with racial discrimination. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 31 (4), 304–316.

Malos, S. (2010). Post-9/11 backlash in the workplace: Employer liability for discrimination against Arab- and Muslim-Americans based on religion or national origin. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 22 , 297–310.

Mitchell, T. L., & Kovera, M. B. (2006). The effects of attribution of responsibility and work history on perceptions of reasonable accommodations. Law and Human Behavior, 30 (6), 733–748.

Moran, C. D. (2007). The public identity work of evangelical Christians. Journal of College Student Development, 48 , 418–434.

Morgan, J. F. (2004). How should business respond to a more religious workplace? SAM Advanced Management Journal, 69 , 11–19.

Nichols, J. L. (2008). The influence of coworker justice perceptions on worksite accommodations and the return to work of persons with disabilities. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 39 (3), 33–39.

Noyes v. Kelly Services Inc., 488 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2007).

O’Reilly, C., Caldwell, D., & Barnett, W. (1989). Work group demography, social integration, and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34 , 21–37.

O’Leary-Kelly, A., Bowes-Sperry, L., Bates, C. A., & Lean, E. (2009). Sexual harassment at work: Moving research forward. Journal of Management, 35 , 503–536.

Rawtuszko, M. (2009). Communication in the conditions of diversity. Kobieta i Biznes, 1–4 , 53–56.

Risley v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 929 F.2d 701 (6th Cir. 1991).

Rodriguez v. City of Chicago, 156 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. September 21, 1998).

Rudin, J. P., & Harshman, E. (2004). Keeping the faith but losing in court: Legal implications of proselytizing in the workplace. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 16 , 105–112.

McClure v. Salvation Army, 460 F.2d 553, 558–60 (5th Cir. 1972).

Schneider, K. T., Hitlan, R. T., & Radhakrishnan, P. (2000). An examination of the nature and correlates of ethnic harassment experiences in multiple contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 , 3–12.

Schulze, R. W., & Kleiner, B. H. (1999). New developments concerning religious accommodation in the workplace. Equal Opportunities International, 18 , 67–71.

Shaheen, J. G. (1997). Arab and Muslim stereotyping in American popular culture . Washington: Georgetown University Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.

SHRM. (2008). Religion and corporate culture . Alexandria: Society of Human Resource Management.

Smith, D. (2004). Workplace religious freedom: What is an employer’s duty to accommodate? A review of recent cases. The ALSB Journal of Employment and Labor Law, 10 , 49–65.

Stockdale, M. S., Berry, C. G., Schneider, R. W., & Cao, F. (2004). Perceptions of the sexual harassment of men. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 5 , 158–167.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey: Brooks/Cole.

Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding. (1999). Religious bias in workplace: the Tanenbaum center’s 1999 survey of employees—executive summary . New York: Author.

Thyer, B., & Myers, L. (2009). Religion discrimination in social work academic programs: Whither social justice? Journal of Religion and Spirituality in Social Work: Social Thought, 28 , 144–160.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C 2000e(j), 1994.

Townley Eng’g & Mfg. Co., 859 F.2d 610, 618 (9th Cir. 1988).

Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison. (1977). 432 U.S. 63.

Tolani v. Upper Southampton Township, 158 F. Supp. 2d 593 (E.D. Pa. 2001).

VNU Business Media. (2004). Taboo no more . WLNR, 1377221.

Von Bergen, C., & Bressler, M. (2011). A matter of conscience: do conflicting beliefs and workplace demands constitute religious discrimination? Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, 3 , 1–14.

Webb v. City of Philadelphia. 562 F.3d 256 (3d Cir. April 7, 2009).

Weiner, B., Perry, R. P., & Magnusson, J. (1988). An attributional analysis of reactions to stigma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55 , 738–748.

Willness, C. R., Steel, P., & Lee, K. (2007). A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of workplace sexual harassment. Personnel Psychology, 60 , 127–160.

Wyld, D. C., & Cappel, S. D. (1992). Believing in employment discrimination: The case of Forrest Mims, scientific American, and Title VII protection. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 5 , 1–11.

Zaheer, B. (2007). Accommodating minority religions under Title VII: How Muslims make the case for a new interpretation of section 701(J). University of Illinois Law Review, 2007 , 497–534.

Zayed v. (2006). Apple computers. F.Supp.2d, WL 889571 (N.D. Cal. 2006).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Shidler College of Business, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, 96822, USA

Sonia Ghumman

Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA

Ann Marie Ryan

School of Business Administration, Oakland University, Rochester, MI, 48309, USA

Lizabeth A. Barclay & Karen S. Markel

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sonia Ghumman .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ghumman, S., Ryan, A.M., Barclay, L.A. et al. Religious Discrimination in the Workplace: A Review and Examination of Current and Future Trends. J Bus Psychol 28 , 439–454 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9290-0

Download citation

Published : 15 March 2013

Issue Date : December 2013

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9290-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Religious discrimination
• Civil rights act
• Religious diversity
• Religious harassment
• Religious accommodations
• Religious expression
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Religion in India: Tolerance and Segregation

• 1. Religious freedom, discrimination and communal relations

Table of Contents

• The dimensions of Hindu nationalism in India
• India’s Muslims express pride in being Indian while identifying communal tensions, desiring segregation
• Muslims, Hindus diverge over legacy of Partition
• Religious conversion in India
• Religion very important across India’s religious groups
• Near-universal belief in God, but wide variation in how God is perceived
• Across India’s religious groups, widespread sharing of beliefs, practices, values
• Religious identity in India: Hindus divided on whether belief in God is required to be a Hindu, but most say eating beef is disqualifying
• Sikhs are proud to be Punjabi and Indian
• 2. Diversity and pluralism
• 3. Religious segregation
• 4. Attitudes about caste
• 5. Religious identity
• 6. Nationalism and politics
• 7. Religious practices
• 8. Religion, family and children
• 9. Religious clothing and personal appearance
• 10. Religion and food
• 11. Religious beliefs
• 12. Beliefs about God
• Acknowledgments
• Appendix A: Methodology
• Appendix B: Index of religious segregation

Indians generally see high levels of religious freedom in their country. Overwhelming majorities of people in each major religious group, as well as in the overall public, say they are “very free” to practice their religion. Smaller shares, though still majorities within each religious community, say people of other religions also are very free to practice their religion. Relatively few Indians – including members of religious minority communities – perceive religious discrimination as widespread.

At the same time, perceptions of discrimination vary a great deal by region. For example, Muslims in the Central region of the country are generally less likely than Muslims elsewhere to say there is a lot of religious discrimination in India. And Muslims in the North and Northeast are much more likely than Muslims in other regions to report that they, personally, have experienced recent discrimination.

Indians also widely consider communal violence to be an issue of national concern (along with other problems, such as unemployment and corruption). Most people across different religious backgrounds, education levels and age groups say communal violence is a very big problem in India.

The partition of the Indian subcontinent in 1947 remains a subject of disagreement. Overall, the survey finds mixed views on whether the establishment of Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan alleviated communal tensions or stoked them. On balance, Muslims tend to see Partition as a “bad thing” for Hindu-Muslim relations, while Hindus lean slightly toward viewing it as a “good thing.”

Most Indians say they and others are very free to practice their religion

The vast majority of Indians say they are very free today to practice their religion (91%), and all of India’s major religious groups share this sentiment: Roughly nine-in-ten Buddhists (93%), Hindus (91%), Muslims (89%) and Christians (89%) say they are very free to practice their religion, as do 85% of Jains and 82% of Sikhs.

Broadly speaking, Indians are more likely to view themselves as having a high degree of religious freedom than to say that people of other religions are very free to practice their faiths. Still, 79% of the overall public – and about two-thirds or more of the members of each of the country’s major religious communities – say that people belonging to other religions are very free to practice their faiths in India today.

Generally, these attitudes do not vary substantially among Indians of different ages, educational backgrounds or geographic regions. Indians in the Northeast are somewhat less likely than those elsewhere to see widespread religious freedom for people of other faiths – yet even in the Northeast, a solid majority (60%) say there is a high level of religious freedom for other religious communities in India.

Most people do not see evidence of widespread religious discrimination in India

Most people in India do not see a lot of religious discrimination against any of the country’s six major religious groups. In general, Hindus, Muslims and Christians are slightly more likely to say there is a lot of discrimination against their own religious community than to say there is a lot of discrimination against people of other faiths. Still, no more than about one-quarter of the followers of any of the country’s major faiths say they face widespread discrimination.

Generally, Indians’ opinions about religious discrimination do not vary substantially by gender, age or educational background. For example, among college graduates, 19% say there is a lot of discrimination against Hindus, compared with 21% among adults with less education.

Within religious groups as well, people of different ages, as well as both men and women, tend to have similar opinions on religious discrimination.

However, there are large regional variations in perceptions of religious discrimination. For example, among Muslims who live in the Central part of the country, just one-in-ten say there is widespread discrimination against Muslims in India, compared with about one-third of those who live in the North (35%) and Northeast (31%). (For more information on measures of religious discrimination in the Northeast, see “ In Northeast India, people perceive more religious discrimination ” below.)

Among Muslims, perceptions of discrimination against their community can vary somewhat based on their level of religious observance. For instance, about a quarter of Muslims across the country who pray daily say there is a lot of discrimination against Muslims (26%), compared with 19% of Muslims nationwide who pray less often. This difference by observance is pronounced in the North, where 39% of Muslims who pray every day say there is a lot of discrimination against Muslims in India, roughly twice the share among those in the same region who pray less often (20%).

Most Indians report no recent discrimination based on their religion

The survey also asked respondents about their personal experiences with discrimination. In all, 17% of Indians report facing recent discrimination based on their religion. Roughly one-in-five Muslims (21%) and 17% of Hindus say that in the last 12 months they themselves have faced discrimination because of their religion, as do 18% of Sikhs. By contrast, Christians are less likely to say they have felt discriminated against because of their religion (10%), and similar shares of Buddhists and Jains (13% each) fall into this category.

Nationally, men and women and people belonging to different age groups do not differ significantly from each other in their experiences with religious discrimination. People who have a college degree, however, are somewhat less likely than those with less formal schooling to say they have experienced religious discrimination in the past year.

Within religious groups, experiences with discrimination vary based on region of residence and other factors. Among Muslims, for instance, 40% of those living in Northern India and 36% in the Northeast say they have faced recent religious discrimination, compared with no more than one-in-five in the Southern, Central, Eastern and Western regions.

Experiences with religious discrimination also are more common among Muslims who are more religious and those who report recent financial hardship (that is, they have not been able to afford food, housing or medical care for themselves or their families in the last year).

Muslims who have a favorable view of the Indian National Congress party (INC) are more likely than Muslims with an unfavorable view of the party to say they have experienced religious discrimination (26% vs. 15%). Among Northern Muslims, those who have a favorable view of the INC are much more likely than those who don’t approve of the INC to say they have experienced discrimination (45% vs. 23%). (Muslims in the country, and especially Muslims in the North, tend to say they voted for the Congress party in the 2019 election. See Chapter 6 .)

Hindus with less education and those who have recently experienced poverty also are more likely to say they have experienced religious discrimination.

In Northeast India, people perceive more religious discrimination

Less than 5% of India’s population lives in the eight isolated states of the country’s Northeastern region. This region broadly lags behind the country in economic development indicators. And this small segment of the population has a linguistic and religious makeup that differs drastically from the rest of the country.

According to the 2011 census of India, Hindus are still the majority religious group (58%), but they are less prevalent in the Northeast than elsewhere (81% nationally). The smaller proportion of Hindus there is offset by the highest shares of Christians (16% vs. 2% nationally) and Muslims (22% vs. 13% nationally) in any region. And based on the survey, the region also has a higher share of Scheduled Tribes than any other region in the country (25% vs. 9% nationally), and half of Scheduled Tribe members in the Northeast are Christians.

Indians in the Northeast are more likely than those elsewhere to perceive high levels of religious discrimination. For example, roughly four-in-ten in the region say there is a lot of discrimination against Muslims in India, about twice the share of North Indians who say the same thing (41% vs. 22%).

Much of the Northeast’s perception of high religious discrimination is driven by Hindus in the region. A slim majority of Northeastern Hindus (55%) say there is widespread discrimination against Hindus in India, while almost as many (53%) say Muslims face a lot of discrimination. Substantial shares of Hindus in the Northeast say other religious communities also face such mistreatment.

The region’s other religious communities are less likely to say there is religious discrimination in India. For example, while 44% of Northeastern Hindus say Christians face a lot of discrimination, only one-in-five Christians in the Northeast perceive this level of discrimination against their own group. By contrast, at the national level, Christians are more likely than Hindus to see a lot of discrimination against Christians (18% vs. 10%).

People in the Northeast also are more likely to report experiencing religious discrimination. While 17% of individuals nationally say they personally have felt religious discrimination in the last 12 months, one-third of those surveyed in the Northeast say they have had such an experience. Northeastern Hindus, in particular, are much more likely than Hindus elsewhere to report recent religious discrimination (37% vs. 17% nationally).

Most Indians see communal violence as a very big problem in the country

Most Indians (65%) say communal violence – a term broadly used to describe violence between religious groups – is a “very big problem” in their country (the term was not defined for respondents). This includes identical shares of Hindus and Muslims (65% each) who say this.

But even larger majorities identify several other national problems. Unemployment tops the list of national concerns, with 84% of Indians saying this is a very big problem. And roughly three-quarters of Indian adults see corruption (76%), crime (76%) and violence against women (75%) as very big national issues. (The survey was designed and mostly conducted before the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic.)

Indians across nearly every religious group, caste category and region consistently rank unemployment as the top national concern. Buddhists, who overwhelmingly belong to disadvantaged castes, widely rank unemployment as a major concern (86%), while just a slim majority see communal violence as a very big problem (56%).

Sikhs are more likely than other major religious groups in India to say communal violence is a major issue (78%). This concern is especially pronounced among college-educated Sikhs (87%).

Among Hindus, those who are more religious are more likely to see communal violence as a major issue: Fully 67% of Hindus who say religion is very important in their lives consider communal violence a major issue, compared with 58% among those who say religion is less important to them.

Indians in different regions of the country also differ in their concern about communal violence: Three-quarters of Indians in the Northeast say communal violence is a very big problem, compared with 59% in the West. Concerns about communal violence are widespread in the national capital of Delhi, where 78% of people say this is a major issue. During fieldwork for this study, major protests broke out in New Delhi (and elsewhere) following the BJP-led government’s passing of a new bill, which creates an expedited path to citizenship for immigrants from some neighboring countries – but not Muslims.

Indians divided on the legacy of Partition for Hindu-Muslim relations

The end of Britain’s colonial rule in India, in 1947, was accompanied by the separation of Hindu-majority India from Muslim-majority Pakistan and massive migration in both directions. Nearly three-quarters of a century later, Indians are divided over the legacy of Partition.

About four-in-ten (41%) say the partition of India and Pakistan was a good thing for Hindu-Muslim relations, while a similar share (39%) say it was a bad thing. The rest of the population (20%) does not provide a clear answer, saying Partition was neither a good thing nor a bad thing, that it depends, or that they don’t know or cannot answer the question. There are no clear patterns by age, gender, education or party preference on opinions on this question.

Among Muslims, the predominant view is that Partition was a bad thing (48%) for Hindu-Muslim relations. Fewer see it as a good thing (30%). Hindus are more likely than Muslims to say Partition was a good thing for Hindu-Muslim relations (43%) and less likely to say it was a bad thing (37%).

Of the country’s six major religious groups, Sikhs have the most negative view of the role Partition played in Hindu-Muslim relations: Nearly two-thirds (66%) say it was a bad thing.

Most Indian Sikhs live in Punjab, along the border with Pakistan. The broader Northern region (especially Punjab) was strongly impacted by the partition of the subcontinent, and Northern Indians as a whole lean toward the position that Partition was a bad thing for Hindu-Muslim relations (48%) rather than a good thing (39%).

The South is the furthest region from the borders affected by Partition, and Southern Indians are about twice as likely to say that Partition was good as to say that it was bad for Hindu-Muslim relations (50% vs. 26%).

Attitudes toward Partition also vary considerably by region within specific religious groups. Among Muslims in the North and West, most say Partition was a bad thing for Hindu-Muslim relations (55% of Muslims in both regions). In the Eastern and Central parts of the country as well, Muslim public opinion leans toward the view that Partition was a bad thing for communal relations. By contrast, Muslims in the South and Northeast tend to see Partition as good for Hindu-Muslim relations.

Among Hindus, meanwhile, those in the North are closely divided on the issue, with 44% saying Partition was a good thing and 42% saying it was a bad thing. But in the West and South, Hindus tend to see Partition as a good thing for communal relations.

Poorer Hindus – that is, those who say they have been unable to afford basic necessities like food, housing and medical care in the last year – tend to say Partition was a good thing. But opinions are more divided among Hindus who have not recently experienced poverty (39% say it was a good thing, while 40% say it was a bad thing). Muslims who have not experienced recent financial hardship, however, are especially likely to see Partition as a bad thing: Roughly half (51%) say Partition was a bad thing for Hindu-Muslim relations, while only about a quarter (24%) see it as a good thing.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Beliefs & Practices
• Christianity
• International Political Values
• International Religious Freedom & Restrictions
• Interreligious Relations
• Other Religions
• Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures Project
• Religious Characteristics of Demographic Groups
• Religious Identity & Affiliation
• Religiously Unaffiliated
• Size & Demographic Characteristics of Religious Groups

How common is religious fasting in the United States?

8 facts about atheists, spirituality among americans, how people in south and southeast asia view religious diversity and pluralism, religion among asian americans, most popular, report materials.

• Questionnaire
• Overview (Hindi)
• இந்தியாவில் மதம்: சகிப்புத்தன்மையும் தனிப்படுத்துதலும்
• भारत में धर्म: सहिष्णुता और अलगाव
• ভারতে ধর্ম: সহনশীলতা এবং পৃথকীকরণ
• भारतातील धर्म : सहिष्णुता आणि विलग्नता
• Related: Religious Composition of India
• How Pew Research Center Conducted Its India Survey
• Questionnaire: Show Cards
• India Survey Dataset

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

•  We're Hiring!
•  Help Center

Religious Discrimination

• Most Cited Papers
• Most Downloaded Papers
• Newest Papers
• Save to Library
• Last »
• Religious Diversity Follow Following
• Organizational Climate Follow Following
• Employee engagement Follow Following
• Religion-State Relations. Follow Following
• Organizational Behavior Follow Following
• Freedom of Religion Follow Following
• Crime in Religious Communities Follow Following
• Community Cohesion Follow Following
• Indirect Discrimination Follow Following
• Equality Act 2010 Follow Following

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• Academia.edu Publishing
•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024