Paul Cliteur's "State and Religion Against the Backdrop of Religious Radicalism" presents five models of state-religion relations, and argues that a religiously neutral state that neither encourages nor discourages religion is best able to meet the challenge of radicalism and promote the integration of religious and ethnic minorities. This article argues that the search for appropriate forms of state-religion relations should aim at equal protection of interests, which is not identical with neutral treatment: in some situations, conditional state support for religious groups may be in the interest even of non-believers. This article further suggests that some forms of state neutrality are in no-one's interest. In particular, Cliteur's argument concerning the civil service, by drawing on a model of pure bureaucratic subordination, runs the risk of legitimating a "religiously neutral electoral tyranny."

Additional Metadata
Persistent URL dx.doi.org/10.1093/icon/mou029
Journal International Journal of Constitutional Law
Citation
Ryan, P. (2014). The multicultural state and the religiously neutral state: A reply to Paul Cliteur. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 12(2), 457–463. doi:10.1093/icon/mou029