Slovakia is a democratic republic with a multi-party parliamentary system. After the 1989 collapse of Communism, the dissolution of Czechoslovakia in 1993 meant that Slovakia became an independent state. It is now a member of the EU and NATO. The population of around 5.4 million people is predominantly Catholic. Just under a quarter of the population are non-religious.
| Constitution and government |
Education and children’s rights |
Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals |
Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Constitution and government
Education and children’s rights
Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals
Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values
The state is secular, with separation of religious and political authorities, not discriminating against any religion or belief
Countries: Belgium, Brazil, Central African Republic, Congo, Republic of the, Ecuador, Estonia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Japan, Kenya, Kosovo, Mongolia, Namibia, Nauru, Netherlands, São Tomé and Príncipe, Slovenia, South Africa, South Sudan, Suriname, Taiwan, Ukraine
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in all or most state-funded schools with no secular or humanist alternative
Countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Brunei Darussalam, Comoros, Croatia, Egypt, Eswatini, Ghana, Iran, Iraq, Kenya, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe
No formal discrimination in education
Countries: Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Congo, Republic of the, Czech Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Iceland, India, Japan, Korea, Republic of, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Mali, Mongolia, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Netherlands, North Macedonia, Russia, São Tomé and Príncipe, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Sweden, Taiwan, Timor-Leste (East Timor), United States of America, Uruguay
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
Religious courts or tribunals rule directly on some family or ‘moral’ matters; it is legally an opt-in system, but the possibility of social coercion is very clear
Countries: Comoros, Ethiopia, Gambia, Jamaica, Kenya, Lebanon, Niger, Philippines, Senegal, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom
No religious tribunals of concern, secular groups operate freely, individuals are not persecuted by the state
Countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, Congo, Republic of the, Czech Republic, Dominica, Ecuador, Estonia, France, Ghana, Guatemala, Iceland, Japan, Korea, Republic of, Kosovo, Latvia, Luxembourg, Namibia, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, São Tomé and Príncipe, Slovenia, Sweden, Taiwan, Uruguay, Venezuela
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
No fundamental restrictions on freedom of expression or advocacy of humanist values
Countries: Bahamas, Belgium, Czech Republic, Iceland, Jamaica, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Romania, Slovenia, Sweden, United States of America
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition
No condition holds in this strand
No condition holds in this strand
No condition holds in this strand
No condition holds in this strand
Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition
Localised or infrequent but recurring and widespread social marginalisation or prejudice against the non-religious
This condition is unusual in that it is applied in cases where there is some social discrimination, but it is not pervasive or nationwide. This condition is applied when there is sufficient background evidence to warrant the assertion that discrimination is not anomalous but widespread, and this condition may be applied for example even where if there is no legislative discrimination or where the non-religious may have legal recourse against such discrimination. However, societal discrimination (i.e. discrimination by peers, as opposed to state or legal discrimination) is not easily measured, and for this reason the Report does not currently have similar more severe boundary conditions to capture higher levels of social discrimination per se. In principle these may be introduced in future. However, we consider that countries with actual higher levels of social discrimination against the non-religious will generally already meet other higher level (more severe) boundary conditions under this thematic strand.
The dominant influence of religion in public life undermines the right to equality and/or non-discrimination
Applied when the influence of religion on public life undermines others’ rights, such as SRHR, women’s rights, LGBTI+ rights.
May be applied when the influence is overt (i.e. when religious laws are applied to undermine others’ rights) or covert (i.e. where religious pressure groups exert influence to affect policy)
Countries: Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Chile, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Eswatini, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Hungary, Iran, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Liberia, Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Oman, Paraguay, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, Zambia
Use of Conscientious Objection clauses resulting in the denial of lawful services to women and LGBTI+ people
Complete tyranny precludes all freedoms of expression and thought, religion or belief
Applied when overriding acts of oppression by the State are extreme, to the extent that the question of freedom of thought and expression is almost redundant, because all human rights and freedoms are quashed by authorities.
The non-religious are barred from some government offices (including posts reserved for particular religions or sects)
Countries: Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Comoros, Eritrea, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar (Burma), Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
There is systematic religious privilege
Countries: Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Belize, Botswana, Brazil, Cambodia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Latvia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Madagascar, Malta, Moldova, Nepal, Palestine, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Togo, Tunisia, United Kingdom, Vanuatu, Zambia, Zimbabwe
There is a nominal state church with few privileges or progress is being made toward disestablishment
Religious or ideological indoctrination is utterly pervasive in schools
There is state funding of at least some religious schools
Countries: Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Belize, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Comoros, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Denmark, Dominica, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, Kosovo, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia, Morocco, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Switzerland, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Kingdom, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yemen, Zimbabwe
State-funded schools offer religious or ideological instruction with no secular or humanist alternative, but it is optional
Countries: Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, Gambia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Italy, Kiribati, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Moldova, Monaco, New Zealand, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Spain, Tanzania, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom, Vanuatu, Venezuela
Expression of non-religious views is severely persecuted, or is rendered almost impossible by severe social stigma, or is highly likely to be met with hatred or violence
The non-religious are persecuted socially or there are prohibitive social taboos against atheism, humanism or secularism
Countries: Algeria, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Maldives, Nigeria, Oman, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Turkey
There is significant social marginalisation of the non-religious or stigma associated with expressing atheism, humanism or secularism
Countries: Bangladesh, Barbados, Colombia, Egypt, Georgia, Ghana, Guyana, Iraq, Malaysia, Poland, Samoa, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Uganda
Expression of core Humanist principles on democracy, freedom and human rights is brutally repressed
Countries: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Brunei Darussalam, Chad, China, Eritrea, Iran, Kuwait, Mauritania, North Korea, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
Expression of core humanist principles on democracy, freedom or human rights is severely restricted
Countries: Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Brazil, Burundi, Central African Republic, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eswatini, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Laos, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Morocco, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Philippines, Russia, Rwanda, Samoa, Somalia, Sudan, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Expression of core humanist principles on democracy, freedom or human rights is somewhat restricted
Countries: Andorra, Armenia, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Congo, Republic of the, Côte d'Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Israel, Jordan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Mozambique, Myanmar (Burma), Niger, Panama, Paraguay, Poland, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Turkey, Tuvalu, Uganda
Some concerns about political or media freedoms, not specific to the non-religious
Countries: Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Austria, Bangladesh, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Denmark, Dominica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, France, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Ireland, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Korea, Republic of, Kosovo, Kuwait, Laos, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Serbia, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Tonga, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Zambia
Religious authorities have supreme authority over the state
State legislation is partly derived from religious law or by religious authorities
Countries: Algeria, Bangladesh, Comoros, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Malaysia, Morocco, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Qatar, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates
Preferential treatment is given to a religion or religion in general
This condition is applied where there are miscellaneous indicators that organs of the state offer various forms of support for a religion, or to religion in general over non-religious worldviews, suggesting a preference for those beliefs, or that the organs of that religion are privileged.
Countries: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burundi, Canada, Cape Verde, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, San Marino, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, United Kingdom, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Zimbabwe
Official symbolic deference to religion
Countries: Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Croatia, Cyprus, Djibouti, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eswatini, Finland, Germany, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Kiribati, Korea, Republic of, Laos, Latvia, Liberia, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Moldova, Monaco, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Singapore, Tanzania, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States of America, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe
Religious or ideological instruction in a significant number of schools is of a coercive fundamentalist or extremist variety
This condition highlights countries where schools subject children to fundamentalist religious instruction with no real opportunity to question fundamentalist tenets, or where lessons routinely encourage hatred (for example religious or ethnic hatred). The wording “significant number of schools” is not given a rigid quantification (sometimes the worst-offending schools are unregistered, illegal, or otherwise uncounted); however the condition is not applied in cases where only a small number of schools meet the description and may be anomalous, as opposed to being indicative of a widespread problem.
Religious schools have powers to discriminate in admissions or employment
Countries: Argentina, Armenia, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Equatorial Guinea, Finland, Germany, Haiti, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, Lebanon, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Morocco, Myanmar (Burma), Sri Lanka, Uganda, United Kingdom, Zimbabwe
State-funded schools provide religious education which may be nominally comprehensive but is substantively biased or borderline confessional
There is a pattern of impunity or collusion in violence by non-state actors against the nonreligious
Systemic religious privilege results in significant social discrimination
Countries: Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Eswatini, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, Oman, Palestine, Paraguay, Qatar, Russia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Zimbabwe
Some religious courts rule in civil or family matters on a coercive or discriminatory basis
Countries: Bangladesh, Comoros, Egypt, Haiti, Jamaica, Malaysia, Nigeria, Palestine, Philippines, Singapore, Turkey
‘Apostasy’ or conversion from a specific religion is outlawed and punishable by death
Countries: Afghanistan, Brunei Darussalam, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Yemen
‘Apostasy’ is outlawed and punishable with a prison sentence
Blasphemy or criticism of religion is restricted in law and is punishable by a fine
Countries: Australia, Austria, Barbados, Brazil, Cambodia, Finland, Italy, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Moldova, Montenegro, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Saint Lucia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Kingdom
Concerns that secular or religious authorities interfere in specifically religious freedoms
Countries: Angola, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Congo, Republic of the, Denmark, Ethiopia, Germany, Ghana, Haiti, Hungary, Italy, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Malawi, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, North Korea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Serbia, Singapore, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam
State legislation is largely or entirely derived from religious law or by religious authorities
Countries: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Brunei Darussalam, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Maldives, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
There is an established church or state religion
Countries: Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Finland, Georgia, Haiti, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Liechtenstein, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritania, Monaco, Morocco, Myanmar (Burma), Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Tuvalu, United Kingdom, Yemen, Zambia
Anomalous discrimination by local or provincial authorities, or overseas territories
Countries: Cameroon, Dominica, Ethiopia, France, Ghana, Guinea, India, Jamaica, Malawi, Malaysia, Mexico, Micronesia, Mongolia, Niger, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Rwanda, Switzerland, Thailand, Tonga, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in at least some public schools (without secular or humanist alternatives)
Countries: Argentina, Armenia, Belize, Cambodia, Chad, China, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Georgia, Germany, Guinea, Haiti, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Palestine, Peru, Philippines, Samoa, Switzerland, Thailand, Uganda, United Kingdom
Government figures or state agencies openly marginalize, harass, or incite hatred or violence against the non-religious
Countries: Afghanistan, Egypt, Hungary, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan
Government authorities push a socially conservative, religiously or ideologically inspired agenda, without regard to the rights of those with progressive views
Countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, China, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Grenada, Hungary, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Russia, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Slovakia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe
Discriminatory prominence is given to religious bodies, traditions or leaders
Countries: Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Denmark, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Finland, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kiribati, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Micronesia, Moldova, Morocco, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, Nigeria, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Qatar, Romania, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Tonga, Tunisia, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe
‘Blasphemy’ or criticism of religion is outlawed and punishable by death
‘Blasphemy’ is outlawed or criticism of religion (including de facto ‘blasphemy’ laws) is restricted and punishable with a prison sentence
Countries: Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Comoros, Cyprus, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, Gambia, Germany, Grenada, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Morocco, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, Oman, Palestine, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Qatar, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, São Tomé and Príncipe, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Tanzania, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Vanuatu, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Quasi-divine veneration of a ruling elite is enforced, or a single-party regime holds uncontested power, subject to severe punishment
Legal or constitutional provisions exclude non-religious views from freedom of belief
Countries: Argentina, Burundi, Canada, Eritrea, Haiti, Jordan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Morocco, Oman, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Tonga
It is illegal to register an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization, or such groups are persecuted by authorities
Countries: Afghanistan, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, China, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Kuwait, Maldives, Morocco, North Korea, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
Prohibitive interreligious social control (including interreligious marriage bans)
Countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar (Burma), Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
Religious groups control some public or social services
Countries: Algeria, Argentina, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Denmark, Germany, Haiti, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Malawi, Malaysia, Malta, Marshall Islands, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Rwanda, Solomon Islands, Switzerland, Tunisia, United Kingdom
It is illegal to advocate secularism or church-state separation, or such advocacy is suppressed
Countries: Afghanistan, Brunei Darussalam, Comoros, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Maldives, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
The non-religious are barred from holding government office
There is a religious tax or tithing which is compulsory, or which is state-administered and discriminates by precluding non-religious groups
Countries: Argentina, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Haiti, Hungary, Italy, Pakistan, Peru, Rwanda, Samoa, Sweden, Switzerland
Religious control over family law or legislation on moral matters
Countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
It is illegal or unrecognised to identify as an atheist or as non-religious
Countries: Comoros, Egypt, Eritrea, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Malaysia, Maldives, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, United Arab Emirates
Some concerns about children's right to specifically religious freedom
This condition may apply if specifically religious education, religious materials, or specific religious denominations are so tightly controlled that children are in fact over-protected from exposure to religion and are likely unable to explore or construct their own worldview in accordance with their evolving capacities. This condition helps us to classify states (perhaps with secular constitutions) which have criminalized specifically religious beliefs or practices. This condition is not applied if the restricted beliefs or practices are found to be outlawed due to their being of an extremist variety. While this condition does not directly reflect discrimination against non-religious persons or non-religious ideas, it does represent an overall threat to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief; such restrictions could spill over to affect non-religious beliefs later; and they pose a risk of backlash against over-zealous secular authorities or even against non-religious individuals by association.
Countries: China, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Cuba, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Guyana, Italy, Kazakhstan, Laos, Madagascar, Mexico, North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Tajikistan, Togo, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe
State-funding of religious institutions or salaries, or discriminatory tax exemptions
Countries: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bhutan, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Eswatini, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Korea, Republic of, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Montenegro, Myanmar (Burma), Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, North Macedonia, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Suriname, Switzerland, Thailand, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yemen, Zimbabwe
It is made difficult to register or operate an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization
Countries: Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Egypt, Eritrea, Malaysia, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palestine, Senegal, Somalia, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan
| Severe Discrimination |
| Systemic Discrimination |
| Mostly Satisfactory |
| Free and Equal |
Constitution and government
According to the Slovak Constitution (Article 1), the state does not affiliate itself with any specific religion.
The right to freedom of belief and religious (or non-religious) expression is outlined in the Constitution.
“The freedoms of thought, conscience, religion, and faith are guaranteed. This right also comprises the possibility to change one’s religious belief or faith. Everyone has the right to be without religious belief. Everyone has the right to publicly express his opinion.”
— Article 24(1), The Constitution of the Slovak Republic
The government has been criticized for policies that favor the Roman Catholic Church, and to a lesser extent other religious groups’ sizeable followings in Slovakia, over newer or minority religions or beliefs. In particular, an extensive concordat between Slovakia and the Vatican, signed in 2000 and subsequently expanded in 2002 and 2004, increased Catholic influence in state schools and the armed forces, as well as increasing government funding to Catholic institutions. The government avoided some criticism of this agreement by then extending similar, but lesser, benefits to eleven other religious groups. Total government funding to religious groups was €52.8 million (c. US $55.69million) in 2022. While the traditional churches have been granted annual valorization of the state funding almost regardless of the decrease in their member base, new churches struggle to achieve official registration.
According to the US State Department,
“Some members of religious groups continued to state their groups’ reliance on direct government funding limited their independence and religious freedom, and they said religious groups self-censored potential criticism of the government on sensitive topics to avoid jeopardizing their relationship with the state and, consequently, their finances. There were no reports, however, that the government arbitrarily altered the amount of subsidies provided to individual religious groups.”
Since 2017, a law has been in effect in Slovakia that practically makes registering new churches impossible, thus creating a monopoly for already registered churches. Unregistered religious groups said the public tended to distrust them because of their lack of official government recognition. Unregistered groups are prohibited from carrying out activities related to practicing religion.
Religious privilege and concordats
The separation of Church and the Slovak Republic as outlined in the Constitution is undermined by state-funding of religious institutions and the guarantee of freedom of belief is also compromised by requirements that favor certain religions over others.
The connection between religion and politics has been widely disputed since Slovakia gained its independence in 1993, as state financing of religious institutions compromise the separation of Church and state as outlined in the Constitution.
The influence of the Catholic Church on politics in Slovakia has historical roots: the first Slovak state, a client state of the Third Reich that existed between 1939 and 1945, was led by Catholic priest Jozef Tiso. The clero-fascist regime, whose one-party government issued a number of anti-Semitic laws prohibiting Jews from participating in public life and supported their deportation to concentration camps, had initially been recognized by the Vatican.
The Roman Catholic Church faced heavy persecution under the Communist regime in Slovakia, but all religious orders were allowed to resume their activities following the collapse of Communism in 1989. Property that had been seized was returned, and while the role of religious institutions may not be as influential as prior to Communism, due to the forced laicization of that period, the predominance of the Catholic Church above other religions remains visible in Slovak society.
In 2000, a concordat between the Slovak Republic and the Holy See caused controversy as it ensured that offertories are “not subject to taxation or to the requirement of public accountability”.
In 2006, a row concerning a controversial Vatican treaty that would have allocated new powers to the Catholic Church inadvertently caused the collapse of the Slovak government. The EU were concerned that the proposed treaty constituted a violation of human rights; had the treaty been ratified, Catholic doctors would have been within their rights to refuse to perform abortions and Catholic employees also would have been able to refuse to perform any professional task in accordance with the “conscientious objection” principle. When Prime Minister Mikuláš Dzurinda did not include the treaty in the agenda of government business, the Christian Democrat Movement (KDH) – the main proponents of the concordat – withdrew from the ruling coalition, forcing the government to call an early election.
The connection between the Catholic Church and the State in Slovakia today is evident in the fact that churches receive funding from the State budget, which completely covers the salaries of the clergy, and the rest is disposable almost for any purpose.
In 2015, a proposition to normalize the current financial arrangement regarding State funding of churches was rejected in parliament. However, in 2019, it was modified to prevent the decrease in financing because of the reduction of the church member base.
The Catholic Church also receives revenues from the rental of buildings, forests, agricultural land and building plots that were returned to it following the fall of Communism.
Education and children’s rights
The right to religious education is guaranteed by Act no. 29/1984 Zb.
Article 24 of the Slovak Constitution states that it is churches and religious societies that “organise the teaching of religion.”
On 13 May 2004, the Concordat between the Slovak Republic and the Holy See on Catholic Education was signed. This treaty, along with the Agreement between the Slovak Republic and the Registered Societies on Religious Education, introduces religious education into the Slovak educational system as an elective mandatory subject with the option of attending a secular ethics class as an alternative. Religious studies classes are taught by a member of the clergy and with a focus on one specific religion.
Family, community and society
Of the 18 registered churches in Slovakia, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest and 55.8% of the population identify as Roman Catholic. Other prominent religious institutions include the 5.3% Lutherans, 4.0% Greek Catholics, 1.6% Calvinists, and 0.9% Orthodox. 23.8% of the population is non-religious.
Non-religious people have no governmental support analogous to Churches. They have no association and their rights are defended by two minor public societies (humanists and secularists).
According to a report commissioned by the EU parliament in 2020,
“In Slovakia, a significant increase in opposition against gender equality can be noted since 2013. Most publicly active actors are predominantly Christian religion-affiliated NGOs and the Church itself. They organise numerous lectures, protests, marches, write articles, and publish videos and petition against the “gender ideology” in direct conflict with the traditional family values.”
Abortion
Under current legislation, abortion is legal in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy if there is a threat to health or life of the mother, or risk of fetal impairment.
According to a report commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs in 2020,
“The legal status of abortions in the country is being constantly challenged despite the legally binding decision by the Constitutional Court back in 2007 which safeguarded woman’s rights to reproductive self-determination.”
In October 2021, Slovakia’s parliament narrowly rejected proposed legislation that would have tightened access to abortion. New proposals to revise the law are drafted regularly.
The predominant role of the religious and conservative institutions and actors in the country, and their influence on policymakers across the political spectrum is reported to obstruct women’s access to abortion services. The EU cites lobbying by the Catholic Church as the reason that a pill to induce medical abortion (which was registered by the Slovak Drugs Agency in 2013) has not been authorized for use in practice by the Ministry of Health.
Doctors are exempt from providing abortion services under a conscientious objection clause. According to the EU, the evidence indicates that,
“the number of healthcare providers who refuse to provide abortion or sterilization in Slovakia remains currently on a level where the access of women to abortion is not significantly restricted. However, in some regions where influence of the religious and conservative institutions and actors is incredibly strong, no abortion providers are accessible, and women need to travel to the bigger cities to find a facility willing to perform an abortion.”
In addition, in conservative regions health care providing institutions as a whole may misinterpret the rules to apply conscientious objection to the institution as a whole.
LGBTI+ rights
While homosexuality is not illegal in Slovakia, same-sex unions are not protected in law and some privileges available to heterosexual couples are denied to same-sex couples. In 2014 a constitutional amendment banned same-sex marriage. A referendum on the ban in 2015 sent a mixed message, with over 90% of those who voted agreeing that marriage should remain heterosexual-only. However, in an apparent victory for liberal and pro-LGBTI+ rights campaigners – who had called for a boycott of the referendum – only 21.4% of eligible voters turned out, voiding the poll (which required a 50% turnout to be valid). More than half of the population rejected the introduction of registered partnerships in 2019, and the latest investigations have brought promising results.
The LGBTI+ community is facing attempts to ban their partnership and parenthood rights in Parliament, for which extremists and several mainstream Catholics are commonly voting. The proposal failed to get enough votes at first reading to proceed to a second reading on 17 March 2023.
In 2022, a terrorist attack on a gay bar in Bratislava was recorded, which claimed two lives. On this occasion, Archbishop Orosch issued a circular for priests, in which he explained to them that the victims of this attack were not innocent. Christian members of Parliament protested against the statement of the European Parliament, which condemned this attack and described it as interference in Slovakia’s internal affairs. The coalition leader (Igor Matovič) and opposition leader (Róbert Fico) both made homophobic statements ahead of the elections in 2023.
Religious minorities
Theoretically all religions and belief systems should be equally protected under the Constitution, but the members of government are reported to regularly make anti-semitic and anti-Muslim statements. The State criminalizes holocaust denial.
The Slovak government has become known for its tough stance on immigration from Muslim countries and reluctance to accept asylum seekers from the Islamic world. Slovakia is among the four countries that refused to implement the EU settlement scheme and Prime Minister Robert Fico has made anti-Muslim statements in the past, promising to “protect Slovakia” and that he “will never allow a single Muslim immigrant under a quota system.” In May 2016, Fico stated that “Islam has no place in Slovakia”.
Freedom of expression, advocacy of humanist values
Freedoms of speech and of the press are protected by the Constitution, and these rights are generally respected in practice. However, there have been concerns that some media outlets sometimes face political interference. Journalists continue to face verbal attacks and libel suits by public officials, though these have decreased in frequency in recent years. Criminal libel laws are reportedly used to silence criticism.
According to Freedom House,
“In 2021, the government “embarked on a major overhaul of media legislation,” introducing new laws that would impose severe penalties for disseminating “false information.” International media rights groups have criticized the proposed legislation, expressing fears that it could be used to restrict media independence and curtail press freedom. The legislation remained under consideration in parliament at year’s end.”
Defamation of religion
According to the US State Department,
“The law prohibits the defamation of a person’s or group’s belief, treating a violation as a criminal offense punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment.”
According to Article 423 of the Criminal Code, “Defamation of nation, race and belief”:
“Who defames publicly
a) any nation, its language, any race or ethnic group, or
b) a group of persons or an individual because of their real or supposed belonging to a certain race, nation, nationality, ethnic group, because of their real or supposed origin, skin color, religious belief or because they have no religion,shall be punished by imprisonment for one to three years.
(2) The offender shall be punished by imprisonment for two to five years if he commits the act referred to in paragraph 1
a) as a member of an extremist group,
b) as a public official, or
c) from a special motive.”
In 2020, an opinion writer was accused of defaming Catholics in a 2018 article in which he mocked and sharply criticized a Catholic priest, who is reportedly known for his radically conservative social views and links to the far-right. The charges were reportedly dropped later in the year.
