Should Democracies Have “Recognized Religions”?

Why religious freedom in democracies depends on state neutrality: Recognition becoming preference easily gives rise to an unofficial religious hierarchy and discrimination

On 1^st July 2026, religion correspondent Jeong Seong-su (정성수) of the South Korean daily Segye Ilbo published an opinion column examining an enduring constitutional question: what does genuine religious freedom require of a democratic state? His discussion focuses not on legal prohibitions against religion, but on the more subtle ways in which governments may appear to privilege certain faiths through longstanding public customs and ceremonial practices. The article argues that the true test of religious liberty is found not in the treatment of large, socially influential religious traditions, but in the extent to which minority religions enjoy equal protection and recognition under the constitutional order.

See also Mother Han: Prosecutors Seek 13-Year Sentence

See also Editorial Challenges Prosecution of Mother Han

See also “Church Closure” Risks in South Korea’s New Bill

See also Hunting “Heretics”: Justice Minister Quoting Bible

See also Religion-State: The Danger of Policing Belief

See also Statement Ahead of Final Hearing for Mother Han

The starting point for the discussion is the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. It guarantees every citizen freedom of religion while simultaneously declaring that there shall be no state religion and that religion and government are institutionally separate. Together, these provisions establish a principle of governmental neutrality toward matters of faith. Rather than endorsing or opposing particular religious traditions, the state is expected to maintain an equal relationship with all religions, allowing individuals to determine their own beliefs without official preference or discrimination.

The column observes, however, that constitutional principles and public practice do not always coincide. In South Korea’s public life, the country’s largest religious communities – especially Buddhism, Roman Catholicism, and Protestant Christianity – frequently occupy a prominent place in official ceremonies. Presidents and other senior government officials regularly attend important commemorative events organized by these traditions, while national occasions often include representatives from these major faiths. Such participation may be understandable given their historical development, membership, and social influence, but it nevertheless raises questions about whether repeated state engagement with a limited number of religious organizations creates an appearance of unequal treatment.

To explain this phenomenon, Jeong refers to an academic concept sometimes described as a “recognized religion” (공인교 – 公認敎 – gongin-gyo) structure. The term does not suggest that South Korea has legally established religions comparable to those found in countries with official churches or state-supported faiths. Instead, it describes a sociological situation in which certain religious organizations acquire an unofficial public status because they are repeatedly treated as the primary representatives of religion in national life. Through government protocol, ceremonial participation, and institutional practice, these communities may come to enjoy symbolic authority that exceeds their formal legal position.

From this perspective, constitutional equality may coexist with informal hierarchies in everyday governance. The law itself may treat all religions equally, yet social and political customs can nevertheless communicate that some faiths possess greater legitimacy or representativeness than others. The concern is therefore not one of explicit legal discrimination but of accumulated symbolic preference that gradually shapes public expectations about which religions belong at the center of civic life.

The article places this discussion within a broader historical framework by recalling religious policy during Japan’s colonial administration of Korea between 1910 and 1945. Colonial authorities did not adopt a policy of unrestricted religious freedom.

Instead, they distinguished among religious groups according to political considerations, incorporating some into administrative structures while closely monitoring or suppressing others, particularly those associated with Korean nationalism and the independence movement. Indigenous religious traditions, including Daejonggyo (대종교 – also rendered as Daejongism), experienced especially severe restrictions because of their connection to resistance against colonial rule. In his 1^st July article, Jeong writes,

“This colonial method of rule left behind a way of thinking in which the state classified and managed religions. Although, after liberation, the Republic of Korea declared the separation of religion and state through its Constitution, social practices did not change overnight. Some scholars invoke the concept of a “recognized religion” precisely to explain this historical continuity.”

Jeong does not argue that contemporary South Korea simply reproduces colonial religious policy. Rather, he notes that some scholars view present-day patterns through the lens of historical continuity, suggesting that habits of classifying and managing religious organizations may have left lasting institutional influences. At the same time, he acknowledges that existing historical evidence does not permit definitive conclusions about direct continuity between colonial administration and current governmental practice. The reference to history therefore serves primarily as a context for understanding how institutional traditions sometimes outlive the political systems that first created them.

The column ultimately returns to constitutional principles rather than historical causation. If the state is committed to religious neutrality, it must avoid both hostility toward religion and symbolic favoritism. Equal treatment requires more than the absence of discriminatory laws; it also demands that official conduct consistently reflect impartiality. Repeated ceremonial preferences, even when well intentioned, may influence public perception by suggesting that certain religions enjoy a closer relationship with the state than others.

This issue becomes particularly significant when considering minority religions. Large, well-established religious organizations generally possess sufficient social acceptance and institutional resources to participate confidently in public life. Smaller or newer religious communities, by contrast, often lack comparable visibility and may already face social suspicion or misunderstanding. According to the argument advanced in the column, constitutional guarantees demonstrate their greatest value precisely when they protect those groups whose beliefs or practices fall outside the mainstream.

Such protection, however, should not be misunderstood as immunity from legal accountability. Religious freedom does not exempt any organization or individual from compliance with criminal law or other legal obligations. Allegations of fraud, abuse, violence, or other unlawful conduct must be investigated and prosecuted regardless of the religious identity of those involved. The crucial principle is that legal judgments should rest on objective violations of law rather than on the popularity, size, or public reputation of a particular religious movement.

Jeong concludes that the health of a democratic society can be measured by the extent to which it preserves genuine neutrality among competing religious traditions. Government institutions should neither establish official religions nor create informal systems in which only a small number of faiths receive consistent public recognition. Instead, constitutional equality should extend equally to majority and minority religions, old and new religious movements alike. Jeong emphasizes,

“Korea is a country with no established state religion. It should now become a country that also avoids creating a ‘recognized religion’ structure – that is, an ‘invisible state religion’. That is what the Constitution means by religious freedom, and it is, ultimately, the form of society that comes closest to the essence of democracy.”

See also Mother Han: Prosecutors Seek 13-Year Sentence

See also Editorial Challenges Prosecution of Mother Han

See also “Church Closure” Risks in South Korea’s New Bill

See also Religion-State: The Danger of Policing Belief

See also Hunting “Heretics”: Justice Minister Quoting Bible

See also Statement Ahead of Final Hearing for Mother Han

See also New Law, New Standards for Religious Reporting

Text: Knut Holdhus, editor

Featured image above: Religion becoming preference in democrarcies like South Korea. Illustration: ChatGPT, 3^rd July 2026 

Related to democracies having “recognized religions”: Religion Between Engagement and Withdrawal

Also related to democracies having “recognized religions”: South Korea’s Slide Toward Authoritarianism

And also related to democracies having “recognized religions”: Shocking Pretrial Detention of Faith Leader (95)

More, related to democracies having “recognized religions”: State Failure and Non-State Peace Projects

And more, related to democracies having “recognized religions”: Korea: Can Religion and Politics Be Disentangled?

Also related to democracies having “recognized religions”: A 10-Minute Visit to Mother Han in Detention

Even more, related to democracies having “recognized religions”: Denying Allegations: Hak Ja Han (82) in Inquiry

Also related to democracies having “recognized religions”: SKorean Court’s Sharp Criticism of Prosecutors

And also related to democracies having “recognized religions”: Detention: Harsh Cell Conditions Spark Outcry

More, related to democracies having “recognized religions”: Ugly: Arrest Warrant Sought for Hak Ja Han (82)

And more, related to democracies having “recognized religions”: Critics Warn of “Authoritarian Drift” in SKorea

Even more, related to democracies having “recognized religions”: Court Decision to Prolong Detention Condemned

Still more, related to democracies having “recognized religions”: Co-Founder, 82, Questioned 9 Hours by Prosecutors

Also related to democracies having “recognized religions”: Democratic Party’s Assault on Family Federation

And even more, related to democracies having “recognized religions”: Mother Han (82) in Poor Health in Damp, Cold Cell

And still more, related to democracies having “recognized religions”: Korean Crisis: “True Democracy Must Serve Heaven”

And yet more, related to democracies having “recognized religions”: Faith Leaders Protest State Assault on Religion

And more, related to democracies having “recognized religions”: Trump Raises Alarm Over Church Raids in Korea

Even more, related to democracies having “recognized religions”: Mike Pompeo Calls Probe of Co-Founder “Lawfare”

Still more, related to democracies having “recognized religions”:  Korean Faith Crackdown: USA Urged to Confront It

Yet more, related to democracies having “recognized religions”: Korean Bribery Scandal: Media Clears Federation

And also related to democracies having “recognized religions”: Raids Blur Line Between Justice and Politics

More, related to democracies having “recognized religions”: Heavy-Handed Raid on Sacred Sites Condemned