Countermovement Mobilization and State Raids on Minority Religious Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An ongoing study of government raids on minority religious communities in 19 Western‐style democracies over seven‐plus decades shows a dramatic increase in raids beginning in the 1990s. Two distinct and related patterns are found to explain this escalation in frequency. Both patterns involved countermovement mobilization by coalitions of oppositional groups that effectively framed new or nontraditional religious movements (NRMs) as threats to their own members and the larger society, thereby prompting state actions of social control. The patterns are distinguished by a new relationship of countermovement actors to the state. In one pattern, we found the development of a transnational network forging a common collective action frame, movement ideology, and organizational strategy. Seizing political opportunities in the wake of increasing concerns regarding child endangerment, countermovement actors targeted NRMs as harbingers of child abuse and pressed authorities to take action. In the second pattern, we found a concentration of raids in one country (France). Here, the oppositional networks were not simply third‐party interest groups but were fully integrated into the state apparatus, hence awarded power and given extraordinary influence. Consequently, state raids increased exponentially. The study also provides five years of new data from a previous report examining their impact on the larger set of findings and identifying new trends.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".