Religious Education in the Crosshairs

The first two weeks of the new school year are already behind us, and one might think that after the usual turbulent beginnings, which – as every year – abounded in numerous changes, everything would slowly start to settle into place. This time, however, things are different – mounting conflicts on many fronts prevent anyone from growing accustomed to the new order. We perceive the current state of affairs rather as a temporary condition, hanging in suspension. The clock is ticking, and the sense of uncertainty is growing, as we become ever more convinced that in these difficult times for the whole world, the Polish school – a place that ought to be a safe haven for children and young people – is turning into yet another front of chaos. Instead of bridges of dialogue, walls of division are being erected, built through a series of regulations issued by the Ministry of National Education. The ongoing educational experiment – consisting in the simultaneous introduction of a controversial subject, namely health education, and the partial (for the time being, at least) removal of religious education from schools – resembles walking across a minefield and further polarises Polish society. This was not how the school of the future was meant to look, nor was it what had been expected. The revolutionary changes, introduced in stages by Reform 26, are neither wise nor responsible, and certainly do not transform schools into places that are modern, safe, welcoming, and preparing pupils for the challenges of the future – despite such being the promise of this reform in the education sector.

The story of this uncertainty begins in January 2024, when, after the change of government, the first target was the chaplaincy of the Voluntary Labour Corps. The new national commander of the Corps decided, overnight and without consultation, to abolish the national chaplaincy. The national chaplain was removed from his duties as of 31 January 2024. Although legally his position was not as firmly grounded as in the army or hospitals, thirty years of uninterrupted service had demonstrated its social and educational importance. Its sudden removal, justified on budgetary grounds and in the name of “state neutrality”, was the first in a series of decisions that erected an administrative wall between the state and the Church – a trend which the Laboratory of Religious Freedom promptly warned against^[1].

Between March 2024 and January 2025, in less than a year, the Minister of National Education issued three regulations concerning the organisation of religious instruction, completely changing the way these lessons are conducted in schools and dismantling an agreement of over thirty years’ standing. No previous minister of education had dared to reorganise this subject so drastically, denying all those involved in the educational process the time necessary to adapt the curriculum to the new conditions. Issuing a regulation is easy; implementing it in practice is far more difficult. Preparing textbooks and drafting a new curriculum are tasks that cannot be performed overnight, especially under pressure of time. It is worth recalling, therefore, how it came about that, as of 1 September this year, religion classes in schools were cut by half.

The first disputed regulation was issued on 22 March 2024^[2]. It excluded grades from religious education and ethics from being included in pupils’ annual and final averages. Until then, these subjects had formed an integral part of the grading system. From 1 September 2024, pupils still received grades in religion, but these no longer influenced their averages – and thus had no bearing on scholarships, honours, or admission to upper secondary schools. The Ministry justified its decision by claiming that non-compulsory subjects should not count towards the average – as though religious education or ethics were of less value than physical education.

The next regulation, the draft of which was presented on 29 April 2024, altered the rules for organising religion and ethics classes. In short, it allowed for larger inter-class and inter-grade groups, mixing pupils of different ages – all in the name of the “rational organisation of school time”, but with no regard for the established principles of teaching religion according to distinct stages of education. The regulation was finally signed on 26 July 2024 and entered into force on 1 September, despite its temporary suspension by the Constitutional Tribunal on 30 August 2024^[3]. It was then, for the first time, that illogical class combinations became clearly visible, threatening the rights of both teachers and pupils. Above all, however, this amended regulation was issued in breach of Article 12(2) of the Act of 7 September 1991 on the Education System, which stipulates that the conditions and manner of organising religious education in schools shall be determined “in agreement with the authorities of the Catholic Church and the Polish Autocephalous Orthodox Church, as well as other churches and religious associations”. The act was therefore issued in violation of the legally prescribed procedure, and on 27 November 2024, in judgment U 10/24, the Constitutional Tribunal declared it unconstitutional.

Nevertheless, the Ministry of Education ignored the Constitutional Tribunal’s decision. The government, invoking the Sejm resolution of 6 March 2024^[4], has consistently refused to publish the Tribunal’s judgments. The paradox is striking: in that very resolution on eliminating the effects of the constitutional crisis, we read that “public authorities are obliged to observe the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, in particular the principle of legality enshrined in Article 7 of the Constitution, according to which public authorities act on the basis of and within the limits of the law”^[5]. The Constitutional Tribunal is accused of breaching the principle of legality, yet no one appears troubled when that same principle is violated by the Minister of National Education. A classic case of curare confusionem per maiorem confusionem – curing confusion with greater confusion.

Scarcely had the dust settled on this earlier turmoil when, on 17 January 2025, the Minister of Education signed yet another regulation, introducing the most far-reaching changes aimed at marginalising religion in schools. The regulation, which entered into force on 1 September this year, provides for only one hour of religion or ethics per week, and crucially, these classes must be scheduled at either the beginning or the end of the school day. Once again, these changes were introduced without reaching an agreement between the Minister and the churches or religious associations, as was expressly admitted in the Ministry’s Communication of 10 December 2024: “On the issue of reducing the number of weekly religion lessons from two to one, the parties – the Ministry of Education and the representatives of the Churches submitting comments – maintained their respective positions.^[6]” The process of public consultation cannot substitute for the formal procedure of reaching agreement. The Constitutional Tribunal subsequently addressed these changes in two further rulings. In judgment U 11/24 of 22 May 2025, the Tribunal annulled the provisions excluding religion grades from pupils’ averages. In judgment U 2/25 of 3 July 2025, it declared unconstitutional the Ministry’s amendment limiting religion classes to one hour per week. Both judgments were unanimous; yet in practice, the chaos remained, since the state’s administrative walls and the continued refusal to publish the Tribunal’s judgments in the Journal of Laws still obstruct the functioning of schools.

This uncertainty has not gone unnoticed by society. On 3 September this year, Pope Leo XIV, during his general audience, appealed for prayers for pupils, teachers, and parents, asking for “the gift of deep faith on the path of growth”. Polish bishops, in a pastoral letter read in churches on Sunday 7 September, reminded the faithful unequivocally that religion in schools is a constitutional right of pupils and parents. They also stressed that “one cannot live a mature life without the formation of the heart and conscience.”

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Education entirely disregards the voices of the faithful and promotes a new subject – health education. Of religion, not a word. A veil of silence has fallen over issues connected with religious freedom in Polish schools, as if consigning religion classes to the first or last hour of the day were, like a wave of the Ministry’s magic wand – which has already conjured more than one “miracle” – enough to make the problem vanish. In effect, an informal wall of separation is being built: religion is isolated, its teachers are marginalised, and its impact on the intellectual development of pupils is increasingly questioned.

Educational reform is necessary, yet the pace at which these changes are being introduced surprises everyone – school authorities, teachers, pupils, and parents alike. The fear of returning to school is no longer driven by physical threat, but by the unpredictability of a system in which the law, the constitution, and educational standards are subject to instrumentalisation and political fluctuations. All these events line up along a timeline that makes it plain: the foundations of religious education in Poland have been seriously undermined. A wall that ought to be a bridge of cooperation still stands – and further dominoes may topple at any moment. Religious education has found itself in the crosshairs – for it is easiest to fight against something that does not shout, does not protest, and bears no party colours. And if, in the process, the very idea of education in values is undermined? Well, in the modern school, health, a screen, and smiling statistics will suffice. Conscience is no longer part of the curriculum.

Team of Religious Freedom Laboratory

^[1] The Dissolution of the National Chaplaincy of the Voluntary Labour Corps and Its Implications for Religious Freedom: https://laboratoriumwolnosci.pl/likwidacja-krajowego-duszpasterstwa-ohp-a-wolnosc-religijna/.

^[2] Regulation of the Minister of Education of 22 March 2024 amending the Regulation on the Assessment, Classification and Promotion of Pupils and Students in Public Schools, Journal of Laws 2024, item 438.

^[3] Regulation of the Minister of Education of 26 July 2024 amending the Regulation on the Conditions and Manner of Organising Religious Education in Public Preschools and Schools, Journal of Laws 2024, item 1158.

^[4] Resolution of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland of 6 March 2024 on Eliminating the Effects of the Constitutional Crisis of 2015–2023 in the Context of the Activity of the Constitutional Tribunal, Official Gazette 2024, item 198.

^[5] Ibid.

^[6] End of Consultations on the Organisation of Religion Classes in Schools, Ministry of Education and Science, https://www.gov.pl/web/edukacja/koniec-konsultacji-dotyczacych-organizacji-lekcji-religii-w-szkolach.

Health education and religious freedom

There is an ongoing debate in the Polish public sphere about a new, currently optional subject called "Health Education." Its creators announce that it is intended to introduce an "anthropological change" into school education. Among other things, this change involves a departure from the perspective known from the existing subject "Family Life Education."

The concept of the program assumes that it will be holistic in nature, i.e., it will integrate the physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual aspects of a child's development. However, the program makes no reference to the spiritual sphere, including religious worldviews. In this way, the subject completely ignores the religious identity of the student, which has a significant impact on the mental and emotional sphere of the child.

Importantly, the health education curriculum for primary schools does not use the word "religion" even once, not even in the context of religious freedom, which clearly shows that there is no room in it to discuss differences in approaches to many health issues resulting, among other things, from the religious worldview of the child and their parents. In contrast, in the curriculum for secondary schools, references to religious issues are only found in the context of discrimination and, notably, sexual health, especially miscarriage and abortion. In this case, however, the aim is to draw attention to their "ethical determinants," i.e., the positions of various philosophical, religious, and worldview currents.

In the new approach, the concept of marriage practically no longer appears, and marital relationships are equated with other forms of relationships—collegial, friendly, or partnership—suggesting that there is no difference between them. Relationships are divided only into "formal" and "informal." This also applies to the understanding of human beings, their sexuality, and its forms of expression.

The ethical criteria proposed in "Health Education" do not refer to ethical or religious traditions, but to the liberal principle of voluntariness in determining moral norms. According to many commentators, this constitutes an aggressive form of indoctrination of young people – conducted under the guise of classes on health and sexuality, and in isolation from the beliefs of parents. Meanwhile, in the Polish education system, schools are supposed to support parents in the upbringing process, not replace them¹ .

However, the way in which supporters of the introduction of this subject refer to religion as the motivation for parents to withdraw their children from classes en masse requires special attention. Instead of engaging in a substantive discussion with arguments—e.g., those of the Polish Episcopate—concerning anthropological and ethical issues, religion is presented as an obstacle to concern for health, proper nutrition, and knowledge about sexuality. The Catholic Church is accused of bad intentions and a lack of will to fight pathologies, which is supposed to justify the marginalization of religion in the public sphere. This type of deliberate polarization builds a narrative that religion is an irrational and ideological choice, while it is "Health Education" – according to its authors – that is supposed to be the new anthropological framework.

The Ministry of Education did not respond to the letter from the Polish Episcopal Conference, which presented arguments pointing to the controversial manner in which the subject was introduced, its content, the omission of the voice of the Churches, and the abbreviated public consultation² . The very fact that bishops are speaking out on this issue is already being criticized as inappropriate political interference , often accompanied by offensive terms directed at clergy ("gentlemen bishops").

In public statements, the Minister of Education refers to religion as "superstition" and "superstition" ³. This raises questions about the awareness of those responsible for the ministry in the area of religious freedom. Regardless of the aggressive policy of imposing new anthropological visions, combined with limiting religious education in Polish schools, it is worth taking a closer look at the vision of religious freedom that is being promoted in this way. According to this vision, religious motivation has no right to be expressed publicly, is ridiculed, and the consideration of the religious dimension in the process of educating and building a child's identity is marginalized, despite the legal provisions contained in the Polish Constitution guaranteeing precisely such education and axiology (Article 53).

The discussion surrounding the new subject is thus another example of the weakening of concern for religious freedom in Poland – for respect for religious beliefs and for the rights of parents to raise their children in accordance with their own convictions. Instead of respect and dialogue, the ministry responds to parents' decisions with attacks, ridiculing their views and suggesting that they are harming their children.

Meanwhile, religious freedom, closely linked to freedom of conscience, is a fundamental human right and the foundation of democracy and other freedoms. This was recently demonstrated (once again) by the US Supreme Court in its June 27 ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor⁴ concerning the inclusion of books addressing LGBTQ issues in the English language curriculum in Montgomery County elementary schools in Maryland to make education more inclusive. The so-called "storybooks" featured characters and themes related to sexual orientation and gender identity. The complaining parents demanded the option to exclude their children from participating in this program, citing their religious freedom and parental rights. The parents did not question the inclusion of the books in the curriculum; they simply wanted to retain control over how and when their children would be exposed to content that, in their view, conflicted with their religious obligation to raise their children in the spirit of their faith on issues of gender, marriage, and sexuality. The Supreme Court, which accepted the case by a 6-3 majority, ruled that parents have a constitutional right to exclude their children from a curriculum that conflicts with their religious beliefs. In considering the case, the Court applied a principle it developed in 1972 in Wisconsin v. Yoder⁵ . According to this principle, state policies violate the right of parents to freely practice their religion if they "significantly interfere with the religious development" of children by placing them in environments that are "hostile" to their religious beliefs and exert "pressure to conform" to different views. The ruling emphasized that public education is a public good that cannot be made conditional on the waiver of religious freedom rights. Is the Polish Ministry of National Education so blinded by attempts to ideologically standardize students that it is willing to restrict the fundamental rights of parents? The jurisprudence of American courts consistently shows that the right to religious freedom of students and parents must be protected and taken into account in the education process—not ridiculed or marginalized. History has repeatedly shown that the loss of freedom begins with the loss of religious freedom. It is worth remembering this.

The Religious Freedom Laboratory Team

Blasphemous Images from the Paris Olympics Opening. A Handful of Reflections

On July 26, viewers around the globe witnessed the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games in Paris. Unfortunately, instead of a ceremony celebrating sporting competition and associated virtues such as perseverance in effort and systematic pursuit of goals, we received a spectacle fitting into the left-liberal woke project, containing elements of blasphemy. At this moment, it is worth asking what conclusions can be drawn from this event by people who care about decent representation of Christianity in the public sphere.

Firstly - this example clearly shows that the postulate of neutrality in the public sphere can be relegated to fairy tales. This is an impossible state to achieve - public space is an arena of clash between different values (or rather, increasingly often, values and anti-values). It is a dynamic space - one cannot achieve an optimal state by abandoning the battlefield at some point. Those who do not enter public space with a proposal of their own axiology retreat, giving ground to their opponents.

Secondly - it would be great naivety to think that this was a one-time outburst by a small group of "artists" that the organizers and sponsors of the Olympics completely did not expect. What we could observe is one of the fruits of the alliance between left-liberal political forces and international global capital, which spares no expense to implement these (anti-)values in life. It is high time to reject two types of illusions that are still present in the thinking of a considerable part of Christians and conservatives: the first is faith in a minimum state, which in principle should limit the promotion of a specific axiology in public life (here the argument often falls "what if our opponents take power and promote their values through the state apparatus"? Well, that's exactly what they're doing, regardless of previous conservative choices - politics is not a gentlemen's club operating on the principle of reciprocity). The second is faith in the purposefulness of appeasing big capital to harness it for promoting pro-Christian and pro-family attitudes.

Thirdly - observing discussions conducted on platform X (Twitter), we saw multiple attempts to ridicule expressions of outrage voiced by people scandalized by the spectacle (these were not only Christians). On one hand, we can note the standard division in Polish public debate of the world into the enlightened, culturally knowledgeable West and the obscurantist, backward public opinion in Poland - an argument from the "emperor's new clothes" cycle, nothing new. On the other hand, we see cynical attempts to use Russian aggression against Ukraine to promote left-liberal ideas - this way of arguing tries to convince that since critical voices about the inauguration also come from Russia, it means that this criticism is pro-Kremlin and pro-Putin. Those who use this type of rhetoric seem not to notice that introducing a sharp dichotomy in the form of "rainbow West vs traditional Russia" plays right into Putin's hands, who will use this image to show that European civilization is on an inevitable path toward such (anti-)values as those presented at the Olympics opening ceremony. Furthermore, we could note attempts to attribute hatred to critics (on the basis of: you yourselves would like to kill, just like those who attacked the Charlie Hebdo editorial office), as well as statements that the ceremony's authors chose Christianity as the object of mockery, rather than, for example, Islam, because... Islam does not recognize graphic representations - so are we to blame ourselves for not taking the path of iconoclasm? Generally speaking, we can define this strategy as gaslighting, that is, psychological manipulation used against a victim who, as a result of these measures, is ultimately supposed to doubt whether they were really harmed.

Fourthly - Evil is the absence of good, it is a force that feeds on creation, which can only distort and deform what exists. J.R.R. Tolkien summarized this in literary fashion:

"No, they eat and drink, Sam. The Shadow that bred them can only mock, it cannot make: not real new things of its own. I don't think it gave life to the orcs, it only ruined them and twisted them; and if they are to live at all, they have to live like other living creatures" (The Lord of the Rings. The Return of the King).

"For the Orcs had life and multiplied after the manner of the Children of Ilúvatar; and naught that had life of its own, nor the semblance of life, could ever Melkor make since his rebellion in the Ainulindalë before the Beginning: so say the wise" (Silmarillion).

The Olympics opening ceremony is a good illustration of this phenomenon on two levels. On one hand, we see that Leonardo da Vinci's "The Last Supper" was subjected to deformation, an artifact of Western civilization that is inextricably linked to Christian faith. On the other hand, we see that arguments were used to explain this performance and defend it from criticism that are essentially a distorted version of Christian values and virtues, such as love, equality, acceptance. This event is therefore an example of how enemies of Christianity try to use values flowing from it against itself¹.

At this point, it is worth examining the Polish context - I mean the situation related to the statement by Przemysław Babiarz, who was commenting on the course of the ceremony. Editor Babiarz, commenting on the performance of John Lennon's song "Imagine," stated that it presents a communist vision. And although this is not a particularly controversial claim, as indicated by both the song's lyrics and statements by its author², a wave of criticism fell upon the editor, especially on platform X (Twitter). Despite the fact that Przemysław Babiarz has worked at Polish Television for over 30 years, on July 27 he was suspended from his duties and will not be commenting on the Games. Here we can see clearly that the left-liberal faction uses arguments related to tolerance and human rights in a highly instrumental way, according to the principle described by Frank Herbert among others: "When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles."

Religious Freedom Lab Team

Faith Under Fire - 25 Years Since the Enactment of the US International Religious Freedom Act of 1998

This October marked the 25th anniversary of the United States Congress's enactment of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA). This law, a groundbreaking act for its time, made the protection and promotion of religious freedom a priority of US foreign policy, something which, for the agendas of other countries worldwide, often remains more an aspiration than a practical implementation. Under this very law, the United States appointed an Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom and established the special United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), which monitors the universal right to freedom of religion or belief outside the US, providing policy recommendations to the President, the Secretary of State, and Congress¹. Complementing USCIRF's work is the publication of annual reports assessing violations of religious freedom in numerous countries².

However, despite these valuable and immensely important efforts for the entire international community made by the United States, religious persecution persists. The anniversary of the IRFA's enactment is therefore an opportunity to revitalize and re-engage in achieving the goals of ensuring everyone, everywhere can enjoy religious freedom. The creators of the IRFA understood the significance of religious freedom as a fundamental human right and a unique part of American history. Religious freedom enables individuals to peacefully guide their daily lives by their convictions and practice their faith without coercion or restrictions from government or social forces. We know the positive impact of religious freedom because it forms the foundation of democratic and inclusive societies, ensuring rights for all regardless of belief, while simultaneously defending the space for inquiry, debate, and freedom of conscience within religiously diverse communities. Such openness is in the interest of not only the United States but also Europe, including Poland, as it can help prevent the spread of violent ideologies and protect religious minorities. The emphasis on commitment to religious freedom, a hallmark of American diplomacy, is something no other nation does to the same extent and with the same reach, which can further make it a reference point for policymakers representing the interests of other states. It is an obvious fact that US diplomatic engagement in protecting religious freedom does not always yield positive results. As evidence, it should be recalled that despite the State Department officially designating Burma, China, and Iran as "Countries of Particular Concern" (CPC) as early as 1999, repression in these countries continues, and worse, is intensifying.

This important 25th anniversary of the International Religious Freedom Act also falls at a particular time, in which millions of people in many war-torn corners of the world are suffering, and thousands of them are losing their lives. October of this year will be remembered as the date of an unprecedented escalation of the decades-long conflict between Israel and Palestine, in which religion also plays its role, which has real repercussions in other regions of the world. A rise in antisemitic and anti-Muslim incidents has been observed in, among others, Europe, the USA, Canada, Argentina, China, and South Africa³. We cannot therefore stand still and hope that the tools created in the last century will increase their effectiveness in the next, because that has not happened, as we are reminded almost daily by news of another escalation of conflicts between nations, which to a lesser or greater extent exploit religion for their own ends. Diplomacy remains an invaluable tool that allows the United States, and following their example, other like-minded countries sharing the same values, to shine a light on the current situation and insist on change. Public statements of concern issued by high-ranking officials may, of course, complicate bilateral relations, but the defense of freedoms and human rights is far more important here. In the current situation, however, this may not be enough. A dormant societal sensitivity to the fate of current armed conflicts combined with a lack of awareness about their sources certainly will not improve the situation of persecuted individuals. The average American or European has little chance to speak out publicly in defense of the oppressed and silenced, which is why they expect their elected representatives to do so on their behalf. In practice, no one in their right mind wants their business partner to be someone who openly violates fundamental human rights, including religious freedom. Similarly, we do not want our partners and allies to be states that suppress the peaceful practice of religion. It is therefore crucial to publicly support the joint efforts of like-minded states which, transcending religious and political differences and geographical borders, cooperate with religious leaders and civil society groups for religious freedom. The gold standard for drawing attention to the problem of religious persecution has become the annual reports published by both the US Department of State and the Commission on International Religious Freedom, which comprehensively depict current threats to adherents of various religions and allow for an analysis of the state of religious freedom in a given country over more than a decade. A still unfulfilled task before us is to develop possibly uniform methods and tools for reporting violations of religious freedom not only within authoritarian countries, where direct acts of religion-based violence occur, but also within countries with a democratic system, where incidents of microaggressions or intolerance towards specific religious groups can become a prelude to much more dangerous social movements. The currently created systems for monitoring religious freedom are selective (analysis covers only selected countries), often methodologically incompatible, which hinders making accurate diagnoses regarding the expected outcome of observed social trends, as is the case, for example, in Europe. We must accept that there are no perfect places for a specific religion to flourish, which is why we must strive to develop conditions that will favor, rather than suppress, its practice. This must be done peacefully, through dialogue, with respect for the differences between the participants of such talks and agreements. The exchange of experiences is here as essential as it is necessary to realize the slogan "Religious freedom for everyone, everywhere"⁴.

In summary, the United States can be proud of its leadership in promoting religious freedom worldwide. This reflects very well the American people, for whom religious freedom is the so-called "first freedom" enshrined in the First Amendment to the US Constitution. However, the defense of international religious freedom is not solely in the interest of the USA. Religious freedom is a key pillar of global peace, stability, and human rights. When people of all faiths and beliefs can freely practice and express themselves without fear of persecution, it protects individuals from harm, fosters tolerance, and helps create a safer world. Such an outcome reflects the values and interests not only of America but of every democratic society based on Christian values.

Weronika Kudła PhD

Religious Freedom Lab

Solidarity with Believers in Spain - Threat to Catholics’ Religious Freedom

On the evening of Friday, December 8, 2023, during the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary—patroness of Spain—a manifesto was read before the Rosary prayer in over 50 Spanish Catholic churches. The manifesto expressed opposition to the drastically deteriorating situation for Catholics in the country, where recent measures have banned the public expression of faith in public spaces, specifically through the recitation of the Rosary. This is just one of many restrictions imposed in recent years on believers by the socialist government of Pedro Sánchez, which has been accused of violating the rule of law¹. At the beginning of November 2023, the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE) entered into a coalition agreement with Catalan and Basque separatists to maintain a governing majority. In exchange for the support of Catalan separatists, Pedro Sánchez agreed to grant amnesty to hundreds of individuals facing trials for their involvement in the separatist movement, sparking mass protests across Spain. Catholics also expressed their opposition to the government’s actions by organizing public Rosary prayers for the unity of Spain, which provoked the country’s authorities. On the evening of November 27, authorities ordered the suppression of a gathering of Catholics praying for their homeland on the steps of the Inmaculado Corazón de María church on Ferraz Street in Madrid, located a short distance from the PSOE headquarters. According to confirmed reports, approximately 500 people were present in the area that evening, marking the 26th day of protests by Spanish trade unionists and conservatives across the country. Arrests of peacefully gathered Catholics were made after they refused to disperse and cease their prayers. A video shared on social media showed a 60-year-old woman being escorted to a police van by several officers. Following this incident, the authorities imposed a 48-hour ban on public prayer and other gatherings near the party’s headquarters, covering three evenings from November 28 to 30, 2023. This had the opposite effect, as the number of protesters increased during those days, despite the threat of criminal sanctions.

The events outside the church sparked heated debate across the country. The Spanish Foundation of Christian Lawyers filed a formal complaint against the government delegate in Madrid, who was instructed by the government to shut down the gathering. The Foundation’s president, Polonia Castellanos, did not rule out taking legal action against the local police and announced that the group was prepared to represent anyone detained solely for the act of praying. “This government has launched a true persecution of Christians. They will not be able to intimidate us,” she added². The introduction of such severe restrictions on Catholics’ religious freedom, under the threat of criminal sanctions, represents an unprecedented attack on freedom of conscience and religion, which is a fundamental human right. Unfortunately, as demonstrated by the 2022/23 Annual Report published by the Vienna-based Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination Against Christians in Europe (OIDAC Europe), such actions by state authorities are not isolated incidents. Similar restrictions are being consistently implemented in other European countries, such as the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Germany. These include the creation of so-called “buffer zones” around abortion clinics, where even silent prayers spoken by Christians on the street are criminalized. In the list of 15 countries with the most documented anti-Christian hate crimes compiled by OIDAC Europe from January to December 2022, Spain ranked fourth, following Germany, Italy, and France (Poland holds the fifth position)³.

The Religious Freedom Lab stands in full solidarity with Spanish Catholics, as praying the Rosary for the unity of the Spanish nation does not equate to mixing politics and religion. As stated in the manifesto: “Without the Cross, the Spanish nation cannot be understood. The state has usurped the authority once held by the Church. There are overt religious persecutions and others that are more subtle and dangerous. It interferes in areas where a ruler, unless a tyrant, should never venture. It imposes moral education on the youngest; it punishes with imprisonment for praying at abortion clinics; it bans prayer in public spaces under the threat of fines and arrests. The chimerical neutrality of the Leviathan means nothing more than the desecration and harassment of Christians. The line separating a just regime from a tyrannical one was crossed long ago. Religion is the greatest enemy of every tyrant. However, Spaniards will not yield to grossly unjust coercion. We will no longer fear their impositions and anti-Christian agenda. A Catholic has a duty to bear witness to their faith in all areas”⁴.

Religious Freedom Lab Team

Statement by Bartłomiej Sienkiewicz on Catholic Magazines – Another Step Toward Discrimination Against People of Faith

On March 14, a press briefing was held with the participation of Minister Bartłomiej Sienkiewicz¹. The briefing concerned the recently published list of magazines that will receive funding from the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage. During the briefing, Sienkiewicz made the following statement:

“There will also be no subsidies for denominational magazines run by dioceses, meaning, in essence, magazines of bishops or religious orders. The funds allocated to this program come from citizens, from taxes paid by Poles—believers, non-believers, those of various faiths, agnostics, Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and those with left-wing views. Therefore, the mission of the state is not to spread faith or salvation. This is a secular state, and the funds it allocates to foster public debate are not meant to serve as a form of apostolate. Apostolate is the domain of churches, not the state. For this reason, in this edition of the program, these magazines were not included among the beneficiaries.”

This statement is fraught with misunderstandings. First and foremost, magazines associated with the Church, including those linked to religious orders, are not merely photocopied parish newsletters. Catholic magazines that applied for funding in this program are often periodicals with decades of publishing tradition, featuring articles that address—often, though not exclusively, from a Christian perspective—issues outside the ecclesiastical sphere, such as philosophy, culture, social life, economics, and many other fields. It is worth noting that articles on secular matters often present diverse viewpoints, even within a single publication. For example, in the realm of economics, one magazine might feature both pro-market and pro-social perspectives. One example of a Catholic outlet that did not receive funding is the Dominican monthly “W Drodze”. Let us give voice to the editors of this distinguished magazine, who responded to the minister’s allegations as follows: “We are not a religious order newsletter. We are a nationwide monthly that has been published for fifty years and has endured the harsh censorship of the communist era. We take pride in the fact that our pages have featured contributions from Kazimiera Iłłakowiczówna, Ernest Bryll, Adam Zagajewski, Władysław Bartoszewski, Gustaw Herling-Grudziński, Stanisław Barańczak, Dariusz Rosiak, Małgorzata Musierowicz, Jarosław Mikołajewski, Paulina Wilk, Stefan Szczepłek, and hundreds of others who, with their names, have endorsed or continue to endorse our mission of dialogue. The founders’ vision, to which we remain faithful, was to seek ethical and worldview models that could resonate with both believers and those still searching”².

The views expressed by the minister are all the more perplexing given that, during the rest of the briefing, he declared his commitment to increasing pluralism in public debate, citing, among other things, the funding of conservative magazines such as Krakow’s “Arcana” or “Kronos.” Catholic magazines did not demand privileges or special treatment—they sought to be evaluated on the same terms as other magazines, including those openly declaring their worldview (whether liberal, conservative, or social-democratic). Rejecting their applications solely because they are Catholic is certainly not a step toward broadening discussion or a decision made in the interest of greater pluralism. How, then, can we explain the support for select magazines that are neither left-wing nor liberal? It appears that such actions may serve as a smokescreen. After World War II, the so-called “people’s government” did not attack all fronts simultaneously; it initially focused greater efforts on anti-communist partisans and political opposition, only to later turn to direct confrontation with the Church. The current government seems to be following a reverse sequence.

The minister’s reference to the fact that the funds allocated to magazines come from taxpayers also fails to withstand scrutiny. It is always the case that some taxpayers will disagree with certain expenditures, just as some segments of society oppose funding liberal, conservative, or socialist magazines with taxpayer money. Others, with libertarian leanings, might criticize the very idea of funding magazines at all.

It seems that the minister’s reasoning rests on a flawed assumption that addressing various issues (including secular ones) from a Christian perspective is somehow inferior to approaching them from the standpoint of liberalism, conservatism, socialism, or another ideology—that it is merely an expression of “apostolate,” an irrational “faith.” However, every decision, including opinions or judgments, made in the absence of complete and definitive knowledge is based on a form of faith. This element is present in every secular ideology. For instance, can advocates arguing that their demands (e.g., legal abortion) constitute “human rights” provide conclusive arguments that do not rely on a form of “faith”? The same applies to economics—economic discourse is not pure mathematics; it is significantly shaped by convictions rooted in philosophical anthropology, ethics, and social philosophy.

As noted by Remigiusz Okraska, editor-in-chief of “Nowy Obywatel”³, the list of funded magazines includes publications associated with Catholic-liberal circles—likely referring to outlets like “Znak” or “Magazyn Kontakt.” Both periodicals have long been associated with left-wing liberalism in the political sphere and with the so-called “Catholic left” or “open Church” (particularly progressive liberalism) in the ecclesiastical sphere. Could it be that a declarative “Christianity” or reference to a specific denomination does not provoke the new government’s aversion as long as these outlets align with the current administration’s agenda? Such an approach, however, would be unconstitutional, undermining the principle of impartiality explicitly enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution.

What strategy should the Catholic community, affected by the ministry’s declared discrimination, adopt? Above all, this issue cannot be ignored or relegated to the realm of “Catholic newsletters,” as some might imagine it. Silence will only embolden those who employ economic coercion. The government’s actions should serve as a warning for the future, particularly for those who believe that the inclusion of a few conservative titles on the list of supported magazines indicates the current administration’s impartiality. In post-war Polish history, left-liberal circles once leveraged the Church’s support, only to turn against it, at least from the time of Pope John Paul II’s fourth pilgrimage to Poland (1991)—these issues have already been discussed on our blogosphere⁴. In the current context, it is worth recalling the insightful observation of Professor Andrzej Bryk from Jagiellonian University, who exposed the essence of contemporary liberalism: “It seems to me that Christianity today is the only enemy of the liberal religion (…) as a monistic system that comprehensively encompasses all levels of human existence and tolerates no competitors. Christianity is such a competitor—and that is unbearable because, fundamentally, it is a realistic way of viewing reality.”

Religious Freedom Laboratory Team

Pilgrimage and Religious Freedom: Integration and Tensions

Pilgrimage as a unique form of movement—both physical and spiritual—symbolizes a journey toward the source of values, order, the search for meaning, and the integration of a community in spiritual unity. In this sense, pilgrimages often unite local communities, strengthen social bonds, and constitute an affirmation of religious freedom understood as the right to publicly profess one's faith.

At the same time, the intense dynamism of pilgrimage—materially, logistically, symbolically, and religiously—can generate various tensions. It happens that pilgrims, carrying with them daily worries and spiritual struggles, enter public space in a way that contrasts with the rhythm of life of local residents. Examples include temporary traffic disruptions, noise disturbances, or overloading local infrastructure.

Tensions were revealed, among other places, in Toruń in 2024, when the official involvement of the city authorities in the start of a pilgrimage to Częstochowa was met with criticism from part of the public¹. Outrage was caused by the presence of Vice-Mayor Rafał Pietrucień walking alongside Bishop Wiesław Śmigiel at the head of the pilgrimage, as documented on the official profile of the City Hall. Critics raised arguments about the violation of the principle of state ideological neutrality and the inappropriateness of such symbolism in the context of political expectations for the secularity of public institutions.

It is worth looking at the situation from a different perspective. The presence of a representative of local government authorities at a religious event does not necessarily mean the politicization of religion. In many cases, it is an expression of respect for residents and guests—people who are pilgrimaging as part of the local community, often representing diverse backgrounds, generations, and worldviews. Pilgrimage is not only a traditional Catholic practice—increasingly, it is participated in by seekers, the spiritually unaffiliated, or even representatives of other denominations. An example is the Camino de Santiago, where religiosity takes diverse forms—from a meditative walk to an act of internal search for meaning.

Similarly one-sided are the online comments criticizing pilgrimages:

“Driving a car at 5 km/h behind a pilgrimage… singing through a megaphone at 4 a.m… the amount of trash they leave behind.”

Although such voices express emotions, they can be hurtful and biased. They reduce a complex, communal, and spiritual phenomenon to mere nuisance, ignoring the constitutional right to publicly express beliefs and the cultural dimension of pilgrimage. Religious manifestations in public space are part of social life—similar to parades, memorial marches, or sporting events—and as such, they require mutual understanding and respect for the diversity of civic attitudes.

Pilgrims often return from the journey spiritually renewed and more open to others. Their testimonies frequently mention experiences of quieting down, reflection, and rethinking their own attitudes. Their personal transformation has a positive impact on local communities—stimulating greater empathy, dialogue, and spiritual revival even outside religious circles.

Religious Freedom Laboratory Team

Religious Freedom Lab in the Croatian Parliament: „Europe Sees a Rise in Hate Crimes Against People of Faith”

Although it was expected that Europe would move in a unified direction regarding the protection and respect for religious freedom, it appears to be heading in a different, undesirable direction. This could be one of the conclusions drawn from a conference on religious freedom organized by the Interparliamentary Friendship Group, held in the Croatian Parliament on the occasion of Red Wednesday, a day dedicated to those persecuted for their faith.

The conference was attended by representatives of the Croatian Parliament, as well as the Apostolic Nuncio to the Republic of Croatia, Prelate Giorgio Lingua, the Ambassador of the State of Israel to the Republic of Croatia, Gary Koren, representatives of religious communities, the academic community, and international organizations. On behalf of the Religious Freedom Lab (Laboratorium Wolności Religijnej, LWR) project, Professor Saša Horvat, a member of the expert group, was invited.

Parliamentarian Marijana Petir, the conference organizer who has also participated in initiatives undertaken by the Religious Freedom Lab, emphasized that Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world. However, she also highlighted a clear rise in antisemitism, particularly following Hamas’s attacks on Israel, making Jews—after Christians—the most endangered group in Europe today.

“We cannot silently stand by as human rights are violated; we are called to act. Therefore, the aim of this conference is to draw attention to religious persecution worldwide and raise awareness to promote Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” Petir stressed.

In his opening address, the Deputy Speaker of the Croatian Parliament and envoy of the Speaker, Željko Reiner, warned that technology enables people to express their thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes, but these opportunities often become fertile ground for hatred, intolerance, and extremism.

Three lectures followed. Katharina von Schnurbein, the European Commission’s Coordinator on Combating Antisemitism, highlighted the sharp increase in antisemitism in Europe following Hamas’s attack on Israel and Israel’s response. She presented extensive data on daily attacks against Jews in Europe, particularly in the Netherlands and Germany, noting that Germany records 29 attacks per day. The surge in antisemitism is particularly evident on social media, prompting her to call for the suppression, control, and verification of information disseminated through these channels.

Dr. Martin Kugler, President of the Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination Against Christians in Europe (OIDAC Europe), presented the organization’s latest report. From September 2022 to August 2023, 749 anti-Christian hate crimes were recorded across 30 European countries, including 38 physical assaults and three murders of Christians. Kugler warned of an alarming 44% increase in anti-Christian hate crimes and acts of vandalism in Europe, highlighting a 75% rise in church arsons and vandalism between 2021 and 2022. He pointed to France, where two to three serious attacks on churches occur weekly. He also noted that the media often shows little interest in hate crimes committed on the basis of faith and fails to report on them.

The final lecture was delivered by Marcela Szymański, Editor-in-Chief of the Religious Freedom in the World report and head of the EU office of ACN (Aid to the Church in Need), who also participated in the most recent Religious Freedom Lab conference. Szymański discussed global threats to religious freedom and highlighted the challenges in monitoring and recording attacks on Christians. She pointed out issues such as the unknown proportion of believers in many countries and the deliberate underreporting of these numbers to introduce laws that gradually restrict the rights of religious individuals (whether minorities or majorities) with the aim of completely eliminating religious practices. Many violations of religious freedom go unreported due to state involvement, rendering actions such as reporting to the state futile. Szymański emphasized that religious freedom is particularly threatened today through social media.

During the discussion, Professor Saša Horvat (Religious Freedom Lab) drew attention to the numerous initiatives of the Religious Freedom Laboratory project concerning religious freedom and the need for direct protection of victims, which have provided an objective insight into the situation in Poland and Europe. He highlighted that the project included activities focused on prevention and education for broader segments of Polish society to foster a better understanding of the concept of freedom of conscience and religion, thereby better protecting this fundamental human right.

Saša Horvat

Religious Holidays and Ideological Neutrality

Long before Christmas, long before Advent, and recently even before All Saints' Day celebrated on November 1st, holiday decorations referencing Christmas began appearing in many stores. They typically disappear quickly once the gift-buying season is over, thus revealing their commercial character, which we have probably already grown accustomed to and which is the subject of cultural and sociological analyses.

Something else is intriguing about this phenomenon – something directly related to religious freedom, as many of these displays in shop windows, ornaments, and decorations deliberately eliminate certain religious symbols. A similar phenomenon can be observed on holiday posters at bus stops or on city bulletin boards, where holiday greetings from local governments appear.

The greeting cards sent during this period can essentially be divided into two groups: one avoids any religious reference like the plague, both to Jesus Christ (who comes into the world in Bethlehem, and this very fact is the subject of celebration and joy for many of Christ's followers worldwide) and to the nativity scene in its traditional form, with shepherds, animals, and the Holy Family. The other group of cards references these religious elements but consequently faces ostracism and criticism as an allegedly unacceptable form of imposing one's own views on others, violating the principles of state secularism and ideological neutrality. Do this accusation and the practice stemming from it have any justification in the concern for religious freedom? What do similar decisions to eliminate religious references from holiday cards, resistance to singing Christmas carols, and refusal to allow nativity scenes in public places indicate?

It is worth first noting that displaying nativity scenes, nurturing the custom of nativity plays, Christmas carols, and holiday cards with motifs of Christ's nativity does not constitute a form of coercion or imposing one's beliefs on others, just as displaying Renaissance masterpieces in museums is not that either. Raphael's Transfiguration or Michelangelo's frescoes referencing biblical scenes are not declarations of faith by the museums that exhibit them publicly. Imagine that, guided by a misunderstood principle of neutrality, museum curators began covering up the Madonna, Jesus, leaving only the landscapes to be admired. Would this be a sign of respect for the work of Raphael or Michelangelo? And yet, it is precisely this type of practice we are dealing with in the case of subtle attempts to hide Christ among presentations of the Nativity scene. Sending holiday cards that contain religious motifs, often belonging to the treasures of Polish culture, is – contrary to the narrative of supporters of secularism and laïcité – not so much an attempt to indoctrinate the viewer as it is respect for one's own culture and heritage. In a way, it is also a commonsense resistance against being aggressively forced to abandon what is the essence of religious celebration accepted in a given country, a defense against cultural amnesia and a situation where something unknown or shameful is celebrated. It would be like celebrating Teacher's Day without mentioning teachers or Polish Armed Forces Day without remembering soldiers and their sacrificial service to the homeland.

However, in this attitude of subliminally exerting influence or social pressure not to show religious elements in the name of supposed neutrality, lies a broader ideological intention, which is related to so-called secularism. This is an attempt not just to omit, but even to change the essence of a religious holiday by emphasizing its secondary aspects. Thus, secularism emerges not so much as protection against an attack by religion (which is how it is justified by its supporters, who see it as a barrier against the dominance of religion in public life), but as an aggressor entering the territory of religion and trying to modify it in the public perception. It is a postulate to de-religionize something inherently religious in the name of ideological assumptions. After all, neutrality means something else: it is the absence of preference for any option, not the marginalization of one of the paths.

Sending cards depicting the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem is not a declaration of faith by an office, but an expression of care for identity and respect for the true motives of celebration. These motives are important for a certain social group and tolerated by other groups. For it is difficult to achieve true tolerance if we pretend the other side doesn't exist, we don't hear their views, or we interpret them in our own way. On the contrary, tolerance involves recognizing the identity of the other and working together, based on respect stemming from human dignity, for the common good. There is no other school for learning such tolerance than getting to know another person with their culture, history, and also religion.

Behind the removal of cultural and religious references to the Christian dimension of Christmas lies, in fact, hostility towards religion. Justifying this hostility with supposed concern for neutrality or secularism is a shortcut. It is not about being tolerant 'despite' who we are as citizens of different religions and worldviews, but 'amidst' these strong expressions of our identity – because religion is a strong self-identification. Discovering the holidays of other religions or denominations: Orthodoxy, Protestantism, Islam, and many others, especially when these religious minorities live among us, is one of the attitudes that has a huge impact on social peace and friendly cooperation of everyone in building the common good. While admiring Christmas nativity scenes, singing carols, sending holiday cards – it is worth remembering this.

Agnieszka Brzezińska PhD

International Day Commemorating the Victims of Acts of Violence Based on Religion or Belief

On 22 August, the agendas of many countries and international organizations remind us of the victims of violence motivated by religion or belief. This day is observed as the International Day Commemorating the Victims of Acts of Violence Based on Religion or Belief (IDVAVRB), which was established in 2019 by the United Nations General Assembly. Although the idea of honoring the victims is extremely important, the topic of religious freedom still remains on the margins of public debate – it rarely makes the front pages of newspapers, does not capture media attention, and does not go viral on social media. Therefore, it is valuable to place this issue in the spotlight on at least one specific day of the year, shining a beam of light on this fundamental human right, which continues to be denied to millions of people around the world.

As Marta Petrosillo, editor-in-chief of the Religious Freedom in the World (RFR) report prepared by Aid to the Church in Need (ACN), whose latest edition will be published on 21 October this year, emphasizes: “If religious freedom is denied to one group, sooner or later it will also be denied to others.” It should be remembered that religious freedom is not only a human right, but also our shared responsibility, which is why it is so important to take action against violations of religious freedom not only globally, but above all locally. A ray of hope lies in the growing awareness of the issue among civil society as well as some governments.

An exemplary practice is the appointment of special rapporteurs for religious freedom by certain governments and international organizations, as more and more people recognize that protecting this right requires concrete tools and mechanisms of support. A distinct challenge, however, remains the actual effectiveness of their activities. Strengthening education on religious freedom, promoting interfaith dialogue, and responding to cases of discrimination or violence motivated by religion are key steps that allow the building of societies that are more tolerant, just, and safe for all people.

Every voice raised in defense of religious freedom matters. When we engage locally, we can notice problems that escape the attention of larger institutions. By supporting initiatives within our community, we contribute to building an atmosphere of respect and dialogue. At the national level, there is space for action through the media, non-governmental organizations, or educational initiatives. These shape public debate and demonstrate that the right to practice one’s faith—or not to practice any faith—is a common good. On the international stage, we can exercise the right to inform, cooperate, and apply pressure on institutions that have a real impact on the protection of human rights. Collective actions, even small ones, create a chain of solidarity. Religious freedom is not just an abstract slogan. It becomes real when someone stands up for a person being discriminated against, when someone dares to say, “this is unjust.” In this way, the responsibility for protecting this freedom becomes a shared duty for all of us.

22 August is a good occasion to look inward, into our own conscience—the inner compass that guides us toward the right direction in our daily choices. Life does not unfold in a vacuum: at work, at school, or in social interactions, we constantly encounter other people—bearers of diverse national, ethnic, cultural, historical, and, ultimately, religious identities. It is in these encounters that the challenge arises: can we respect their beliefs and practices, even if we do not share their faith? Religious freedom is not an abstract principle enshrined only in constitutions and international treaties; it is a concrete reality of everyday life—the right of a student to wear a symbol of their faith, of an employee to refuse participation in practices contrary to their conscience, of a neighbor to peacefully celebrate holidays according to their own tradition. Too often we forget that respecting religious freedom does not mean renouncing our own identity, but rather living with integrity and sensitivity toward others. Without this sensitivity, the law remains an empty record, and society becomes a place of quiet competition rather than dialogue. Therefore, this day should be regarded as an invitation to reflection: does my inner compass guide me toward genuine respect for the freedom of others?

The Religious Freedom Laboratory was established to promote and protect this fundamental human right, which continues to face new challenges. The social, economic, and cultural environment around us is constantly changing, creating new fields for reflection and action. It is here that tensions emerge—between tradition and modernity, between the need for community and individual choice, between respect for diversity and attempts to limit it. Our mission is not only to analyze these phenomena but also to inspire actions that strengthen dialogue, mutual respect, and the real protection of religious freedom in everyday life.

The reports we have prepared, documenting cases of violations of the right to religious freedom, demonstrate that the proper respect for the right to freedom of conscience and belief is also an issue in Poland. The events recorded over a six-year period (2019–2024) indicate that in our country there have been physical attacks on believers—both clergy and laypeople. Cases of various forms of vandalism are also frequent, including the destruction and desecration of places of worship, religious symbols, and objects of religious devotion. Moreover, there have been restrictions on the public practice of faith, discrimination based on religious beliefs, and incitement to hatred on the grounds of religious differences.

Behind each of these categories of violations are real people, carrying their own beliefs and experiences, who either become victims of discrimination, hatred, or violence because of their faith, or are connected to a particular place of worship. On a day like today, 22 August, we do not want to forget them, nor do we want to repeat their histories or make the same mistakes.

Situational contexts in which religious freedom collides with other freedom-based rights continue to multiply, and new spaces are emerging—such as the digital sphere—where the risk of marginalizing religion also exists. Therefore, our active engagement is all the more necessary—not indifference, not silence. Every act of opposition to injustice, every word of support, every attempt to defend the right to freedom of conscience and belief can become a small but real step toward a society in which diversity is not feared but valued. Religious freedom will not defend itself—it is up to us to become its advocates.

Team of Religious Freedom Laboratory