This article argues that governments play a considerable role in shaping citizens’ attitudes toward Muslim immigrants through the way they regulate religion. European democracies are far from secular, and matters of religious regulation cannot be reduced to abstract values or constitutional clauses. Under conditions of high state support of religion, accommodating new religious minorities involves not only the changing of existing rules but also giving up on long-standing traditions and everyday habits. As a result, citizens see religious newcomers as a threat to their way of life and react with animosity to their practices and demands. We support our argument by combining newly designed survey items with original data on religious regulation in 26 Swiss cantons. Our findings contradict the extant literature and have important implications for the democratic challenges in Europe, the quality of modern immigration societies, and the role of religion in democracy more generally.
AlmondG. A.VerbaS. (1963). The civic culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2.
BaderV. (2007). The governance of Islam in Europe: The perils of modelling. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 33, 871-886.
3.
BlalockH. M. (1967). Causal inferences, closed populations, and measures of association. American Political Science Review, 61, 130-136.
4.
BlumerH. (1958). Race prejudice as a sense of group position. Pacific Sociological Review, 1, 3-7.
5.
BowenJ. (2007). Why the French don’t like headscarves: Islam, the state, and public space. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6.
CaponioT.BorkertM. (Eds.). (2010). The local dimension of migration policymaking. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
7.
CeobanuA. M.EscandellX. (2011). Paths to citizenship? Public views on the extension of rights to legal and second-generation immigrants in Europe. The British Journal of Sociology, 62, 221-240.
8.
ChristmannA.DanaciD.KrömlerO. (2011). Ein Sonderfall? Das Stimmverhalten bei der Minarettverbots-Initiative im Vergleich zu andern Abstimmungen und Sachfragen [A special case? Voting behavior in the Swiss Minaret referendum in comparison to other referendums and issues]. In VatterA. (Ed.), Vom Schächt- zum Minarettverbot: Religiöse Minderheiten in der direkten Demokratie (pp. 171-190). Zürich, Switzerland: Verlag Neue Zürcher Zeitung.
9.
CrandallC. S.EidelmanS. (2012). Bias in favor of the status quo. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 6, 270-281.
10.
DancygierR.DonnellyM. (2014). Attitudes toward immigration in good times and bad. In BermeoN.BartelsL. M. (Eds.), Mass politics in tough times (pp. 148-184). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
11.
DeutschK. W. (1976). Die Schweiz als ein paradigmatischer Fall politischer Integration [Switzerland as a Paradigmatic Case of Political Integration]. Bern, Switzerland: Haupt.
12.
DriessenM. D. (2010). Religion, state, and democracy: Analyzing two dimensions of church-state arrangements. Politics and Religion, 3, 55-80.
13.
DurhamW. C.Jr. (1996). Perspectives on religious liberty: A comparative framework. In van der VyverJ. D.Witte Jr.J. (Eds.), Religious human rights in global perspective: Legal perspectives (Vol. 1, pp. 1-44). DenHaag, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
14.
EnyediZ. (2003). Conclusion: Emerging issues in the study of church-state relations. In MadeleyJ. T. S.EnyediZ. (Eds.), Church and state in contemporary Europe: The chimera of neutrality (pp. 218-232). London, England: Routledge.
15.
FacchiniG.MaydaA. M. (2009). Does the welfare state affect individual attitudes toward immigrants? Evidence across countries. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 91, 295-314.
16.
FetzerJ. S. (2000). Public attitudes toward immigration in the United States, France, and Germany. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17.
FetzerJ. S.SoperC. (2005). Muslims and the state in Britain, France and Germany. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
18.
FetzerJ. S.SoperC. (2012). An ecological analysis of the 2009 Swiss referendum on the building of minarets. In HelblingM. (Ed.), Islamophobia in the West: Measuring and explaining individual attitudes (pp. 101-111). London, England: Routledge.
19.
FoxJ. (2006). World separation of religion and the state into the 21st century. Comparative Political Studies, 39, 537-569.
20.
FoxJ. (2008). A world survey of religion and the state. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
21.
FoxJ. (2011). Building composite measures of religion and state. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion, 7, 1-39.
22.
FoxJ. (2013). An introduction to religion and politics: Theory and practice. London, England: Routledge.
23.
FoxJ.AkbabaY. (2013). Securitization of Islam and religious discrimination: Religious minorities in Western democracies, 1990-2008. Comparative European Politics, 13, 175-197.
24.
FoxJ.AkbabaY. (2014). Restrictions on the religious practices of religious minorities: A global survey. Political Studies. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/1467-9248.12141
25.
FoxJ.FloresD. (2009). Religions, constitutions, and the state: A cross-national study. The Journal of Politics, 71, 1499-1513.
26.
GelmanA.HillJ. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
27.
GianniM. (2005). Muslime in der Schweiz: Identitätsprofile, Erwartungen und Einstellungen [Muslims in Switzerland: Identity Profiles, Expectations and Attitudes]. Bern, Switzerland: Eidgenössische Ausländerkommission.
28.
GillJ. (2008). Bayesian methods: A social and behavioral sciences approach. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
29.
GrimB. J.FinkeR. (2006). International religion indexes: Government regulation, government favoritism, and social regulation of religion. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion, 2, Article 1.
30.
GrimB. J.FinkeR. (2007). Religious persecution in cross-national context: Clashing civilizations or regulated religious economies?American Sociological Review, 72, 633-658.
31.
GrimB. J.FinkeR. (2011). The price of freedom denied. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
32.
HaS. E. (2010). The consequences of multiracial contexts on public attitudes toward immigration. Political Research Quarterly, 63, 29-42.
33.
HadfieldJ. D. (2010). MCMC methods for multi-response generalized linear mixed models: The MCMCglmm R package. Journal of Statistical Software, 33, 1-22.
HafnerF.GremmelspacherG. (2005). Beziehungen zwischen Staat und Religionsgemeinschaften in der Schweiz [Relationship between state and religious groups in Switzerland]. In BuserD.BergerN.HafnerF.MundC.SpeiserB. (Eds.), Menschenrechte konkret—Integration im Alltag (pp. 67-86). Basel, Switzerland: Helbing und Lichtenhahn.
36.
HainmuellerJ.HiscoxM. J. (2007). Educated preferences: Explaining attitudes toward immigration in Europe. International Organization, 61, 399-442.
37.
HainmuellerJ.HiscoxM. J. (2010). Attitudes toward highly skilled and low-skilled immigration: Evidence from a survey experiment. American Political Science Review, 104, 61-84.
38.
HainmuellerJ.HopkinsD. J. (2014). Public attitudes toward immigration. Annual Review of Political Science, 17, 225-249.
39.
HallP. A. (1986). Governing the economy: The politics of state intervention in Britain and France. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
40.
HansonG. H.ScheveK.SlaughterM. J. (2007). Public finance and individual preferences over globalization strategies. Economics & Politics, 19, 1-33.
41.
HelblingM. (2012). Islamophobia in the West: Measuring and explaining individual attitudes. London, England: Routledge.
42.
HelblingM. (2014). Opposing Muslims and the Muslim headscarf in Western Europe. European Sociological Review, 30, 242-257.
43.
HirterH.VatterA. (2010). Analyse der eidgenössischen Abstimmungen vom 29. November 2009 [Analysis of the Federal referendums of November 29, 2009] (VOX Survey Report). Bern, Switzerland: Gfs.bern/Universität Bern.
44.
HopkinsD. J. (2010). Politicized places: Explaining where and when immigrants provoke local opposition. American Political Science Review, 104, 40-60.
45.
HopkinsD. J. (2011). National debates, local responses: The origins of local concern about immigration in Britain and the United States. British Journal of Political Science, 41, 499-524.
46.
HuddlestonT.NiessenJ. (2011). Migration Integration Policy Index III. Brussels, Belgium: British Council and Migration Policy Group.
47.
InglehartR.BakerW. E. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 56, 19-51.
48.
JoppkeC. (2009). Veil: Mirror of identity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
49.
KalkanK. O.LaymanG. C.UslanerE. (2009). “Bands of Others?” Attitudes toward Muslims in contemporary American society. The Journal of Politics, 71, 1-16.
50.
KastellecJ. P.LeoniE. L. (2007). Using graphs instead of tables in political science. Perspectives on Politics, 5, 755-771.
51.
KeslerC.BloemraadI. (2010). Does immigration erode social capital? The conditional effects of immigration-generated diversity on trust, membership, and participation across 19 countries, 1981-2000. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 43, 319-347.
52.
KoopmansR. (2013). Multiculturalism and immigration: A contested field in cross-national comparison. Annual Review of Sociology, 39, 147-169.
53.
KoopmansR.MichalowskiI.WaibelS. (2012). Citizenship rights for immigrants: National political processes and cross-national convergence in Western Europe, 1980-2008. American Journal of Sociology, 117, 1202-1245.
54.
KoopmansR.StathamP. (1999). Political claims analysis: Integrating protest event and political discourse approaches. Mobilization, 4(1), 40-51.
55.
KoopmansR.StathamP.GiugniM.PassyF. (2005). Contested citizenship: Immigration and cultural diversity in Europe. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
56.
KriesiH.TrechselA. (2008). The politics of Switzerland: Continuity and change in a consensus democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
57.
KunovichR. M. (2004). Social structural position and prejudice: An exploration of cross-national differences in regression slopes. Social Science Research, 33, 20-44.
58.
KuruA. T. (2009). Secularism and state policies toward religion: The United States, France, and Turkey. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
59.
LijphartA. (1977). Democracy in plural societies: A comparative exploration. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
60.
LutzG. (2012). Élections fédérales 2011. Participation et choix électoral [Federal elections 2011: Participation and electoral choice]. Lausanne, Switzerland: Selects-FORS.
61.
MadeleyJ. (2003). A framework for the comparative analysis of church–state relations in Europe. West European Politics, 26(1), 23-50.
62.
ManatschalA. (2011). Taking cantonal variations of integration policy seriously—Or how to validate international concepts at the subnational comparative level. Swiss Political Science Review, 17, 336-357.
63.
ManatschalA. (2012). Path dependent or dynamic? Cantonal integration policies between regional citizenship traditions and right populist party politics. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35, 281-297.
64.
ManatschalA.Stadelmann-SteffenI. (2013). Cantonal variations of integration policy and their impact on immigrant educational inequality. Comparative European Politics, 11, 671-695.
65.
ManevskaK.AchterbergP. (2013). Immigration and perceived ethnic threat: Cultural capital and economic explanations. European Sociological Review, 29, 437-449.
66.
McLarenL. M. (2003). Anti-immigrant prejudice in Europe: Contact, threat perception, and preferences for the exclusion of migrants. Social Forces, 81, 909-936.
MeulemanB.DavidovE.BillietJ. (2009). Changing attitudes toward immigration in Europe, 2002–2007: A dynamic group conflict theory approach. Social Science Research, 38, 352-365.
69.
MinkenbergM. (2002). Religion and public policy: Institutional, cultural, and political impact on the shaping of abortion policies in Western democracies. Comparative Political Studies, 35, 221-247.
70.
MinkenbergM. (2008). Religious legacies, churches, and shaping immigration policies in the age of religious diversity. Politics and Religion, 1, 349-383.
71.
MonsmaS. V.SoperJ. C. (2009). The challenge of religious pluralism: Church and state in five democracies (2nd ed.). Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield.
72.
NewmanB. J. (2013). Acculturating contexts and Anglo opposition to immigration in the United States. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 374-390.
73.
NorrisP.InglehartR. (2004). Sacred and secular: Religion and politics worldwide. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
74.
PehrsonS.VignolesV. L.BrownR. (2009). National identification and anti-immigrant prejudice: Individual and contextual effects of national definitions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72, 24-38.
75.
PenninxR.KraalK.MartinelloM.VertovecS. (Eds.). (2004). Citizenship in European cities: Immigrants, local politics and integration policies. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
76.
PzreworskiA. (2009). Is the science of comparative politics possible? In BoixC.StokesS. C. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative politics (pp. 147-171). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
77.
QuillianL. (1995). Prejudice as a response to perceived group threat—Population composition and anti-immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe. American Sociological Review, 60, 586-611.
78.
RoddenJ. (2009). Back to the future: Endogenous institutions and comparative politics. In LichbachM. I.ZuckermannA. S. (Eds.), Comparative politics: Rationality, culture, and structure (pp. 333-357). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
79.
SaroglouV.LamkaddemB.van PachterbekeM.BuxantC. (2009). Host society’s dislike of the Islamic veil: The role of subtle prejudice, values, and religion. International Journal of Intercultural, 33, 419-428.
80.
SchlueterE.DavidovE. (2013). Contextual sources of perceived group threat: Negative immigration-related news reports, immigrant group size and their interaction, Spain 1996–2007. European Sociological Review, 29, 179-191.
81.
SchlueterE.MeulemanB.DavidovE. (2013). Immigrant integration policies and perceived group threat: A multilevel study of 27 Western and Eastern European countries. Social Science Research, 42, 670-682.
82.
SidesJ.CitrinJ. (2007). European opinion about immigration: The role of identities, interests and information. British Journal of Political Science, 37, 477-504.
83.
SnidermanP. M.HagendoornL. (2007). When ways of life collide: Multiculturalism and its discontents in the Netherlands. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
84.
SnyderR. (2001). Scaling down: The subnational comparative method. Studies in Comparative International Development, 36, 93-110.
85.
StolzJ. (2005). Explaining Islamophobia. A test of four theories based on the case of a Swiss City. Swiss Journal of Sociology, 31, 547-566.
86.
StrabacZ. (2011). It is the eyes and not the size that matter: The real and the perceived size of immigrant populations and anti-immigrant prejudice in Western Europe. European Societies, 13, 559-582.
87.
StrabacZ.ListhaugO. (2008). Anti-Muslim prejudice in Europe: A multilevel analysis of survey data from 30 countries. Social Science Research, 37, 268-286.
88.
TajfelH. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
89.
TajfelH. (Ed.). (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
90.
ThelenK. A.SteinmoS. (1992). Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. In SteinmoS.ThelenK. A.LongstrethF. (Eds.), Structuring politics: Historical institutionalism in comparative analysis (pp. 1-33). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
91.
ThomasE. R. (2006). Keeping identity at a distance: Explaining France’s new legal restrictions on the Islamic headscarf. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 29, 237-259.
92.
TingleyD. (2013). Public finance and immigration preferences: A lost connection?Polity, 45(1), 4-33.
93.
TraunmüllerR. (2012). Zur Messung von Staat-Kirche-Beziehungen. Eine vergleichende Analyse neuerer Indizes [Measuring State-Church-Relations. A Comparison of New Indices]. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft, 6, 207-231.
94.
TraunmüllerR.FreitagM. (2011). State support of religion: Making or breaking faith-based social capital?Comparative Politics, 43, 253-269.
95.
Van der MeerT.Te GrotenhuisM.PelzerB. (2010). Influential cases in multilevel modeling: A methodological comment. American Sociological Review, 75, 173-178.
96.
Van der NollJ. (2010). Public support for the ban on headscarves: A cross-national perspective. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 4, 191-204.
97.
van OorschotW.UunkW. (2007). Welfare spending and the public’s concern for immigrants: Multilevel evidence for eighteen European countries. Comparative Politics, 40(1), 63-82.
98.
VatterA. (2011). Vom Schächt-zum Minarettverbot. Religiöse Minderheiten in der direkten Demokratie [From the Ban of Kosher butchering to the ban of minarets: Religious minorities in direct democracy]. Zürich, Switzerland: Verlag Neue Zürcher Zeitung.
99.
VatterA.MilicT.HirterH. (2011). Das Stimmverhalten bei der Minarettverbots-Initiative unter der Lupe [Examining Voting Behavior in the Swiss Minaret R]. In VatterA. (Ed.), Vom Schächt- zum Minarettverbot: Religiöse Minderheiten in der direkten Demokratie (pp. 144-170). Zürich, Switzerland: Verlag Neue Zürcher Zeitung.
100.
WeldonS. A. (2006). The institutional context of tolerance for ethnic minorities: A comparative, multilevel analysis of Western Europe. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 331-349.
101.
WrightM. (2011). Policy regimes and normative conceptions of nationalism in mass public opinion. Comparative Political Studies, 44, 598-624.
102.
WrightM.BloemraadI. (2012). Is there a trade-off between multiculturalism and socio-political integration? Policy regimes and immigrant incorporation in comparative perspective. Perspectives on Politics, 10, 77-95.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
