Freedom as Social Practice: Reconstructing Religious Freedom in Everyday Life

Abstract

This article examines how religious freedom is enacted and redefined through everyday practices in pluralistic urban settings. Moving beyond the classical notion of negative liberty as non-interference, it explores the social conditions that enable or constrain the practical expression of religious life. Drawing on forty-three qualitative interviews with religious leaders and civic actors in Florence, Italy, the study analyses how religious freedom is experienced across institutional contexts such as hospitals, schools, prisons, workplaces, and sport facilities. The findings reveal a persistent tension between formal legal rights and their uneven implementation in daily life. While legal guarantees are generally upheld, structural barriers and discretionary practices often hinder access to religious expression. At the same time, informal interactions, local networks, and dialogical engagement play a key role in supporting the concrete exercise of religious freedom. The article argues that freedom is not simply a legal status but a social process, realized through relational and institutional arrangements. By foregrounding the role of everyday interaction in shaping the conditions of freedom, this study contributes to broader sociological debates on pluralism, normativity, and the social foundations of institutional life.

1. Introduction

Discussions of religious freedom have long been shaped by secular paradigms that emphasize the absence of state interference, centering on what Isaiah Berlin (1969) famously termed “negative liberty.” In the context of religion, negative liberty generally denotes the right to practice one’s faith without legal or political impediments. Yet this perspective, while vital, is incomplete for understanding how diverse religious communities navigate everyday life in contemporary pluralistic societies. As Veit-Michael Bader (2007) and Tariq Modood (2013) have argued in their works on democratic secularism and multiculturalism, legally enshrined religious rights do not automatically translate into fully realized freedoms for religious communities—particularly in urban contexts where the interplay between social norms, political processes, and cultural perceptions is highly complex.

Building on Peter L. Berger (1979)’s critique of a purely “secular” framework, this article demonstrates how religious freedom can be more comprehensively conceptualized by focusing on the interplay between negative and positive liberty. The latter concept, which Berlin (1969) also defined but critiqued for its potential political encroachment on individual autonomy, highlights the enabling conditions necessary for the flourishing of religious identities and practices. These conditions include not only official legal protections but also social structures, cultural norms, and institutional opportunities that empower religious actors to pursue their own visions of faith in public life. Arjun Appadurai (2006)’s work on cultural capacities, while not specific to religious pluralism, underscores the importance of resources, community support, and shared social spaces in enabling diverse groups to express themselves fully. Applying this theoretical lens to religion illuminates the ways in which “positive freedom” is essential to a robust, lived experience of faith.

Despite the apparent relevance of positive freedom for understanding contemporary religious life, its empirical manifestations remain underexplored. The focus of this study, therefore, is to examine how grassroots interactions, informal networks, and everyday relationships among religious communities in Florence, Italy, contribute to the emergence of positive religious freedom. Going beyond purely formal dimensions—such as the legal right to worship—this research uncovers how interfaith dialogue, civic partnerships, and neighborhood-level initiatives can help convert freedom from external interference into the freedom to actively shape religious life in public. In so doing, the study also addresses James A. Beckford (2003)’s call for deeper sociological inquiry into the dynamic processes by which religious pluralism is negotiated and enacted on the ground.

Empirically, this article is based on forty-three in-depth interviews with leaders, members, and facilitators of multiple faith communities in Florence, complemented by insights from local administrators and civic actors engaged in interreligious dialogue and cooperation. These interviews were designed to move beyond formal legal or institutional accounts, focusing instead on participants’ personal experiences of navigating religious diversity in workplaces, schools, hospitals, prisons, and social clubs. The research questions guiding this exploration are twofold: “What forms of positive religious freedom are enabled by grassroots and informal networks of religious communities in urban contexts?” and “What kind of ‘deprivatization’ of religion is driven by these experiences of freedom?” Through these questions, the study captures not only the micro-level dynamics of interfaith cooperation but also the broader sociopolitical processes shaping religious expression in Italy’s historical urban centers.

The contribution of this article is twofold. First, it provides an empirically grounded account of how positive freedom is constructed, experienced, and sometimes contested within a specific, multi-faith context. This approach shows that legal freedom alone can remain largely symbolic without the social and institutional mechanisms that facilitate religious actors’ agency in public spaces (Breskaya et al. 2024). Second, by applying the philosophical dichotomy of negative and positive freedom to contemporary religious practices, the study expands current debates on religious pluralism to include the relational and phenomenological dimensions of faith. This insight resonates with the argument advanced by Maria Dimova-Cookson (2021), who stresses that positive freedom is inseparable from moral, value-based considerations—an insight that is particularly compelling when investigating the moral commitments underlying interfaith cooperation and civic engagement.

Overall, this article brings to light the ways in which religious freedom, if narrowly defined as the absence of legal constraints, cannot fully capture the forms of collaboration, mutual support, and community-building that enable religious life to flourish. By showcasing the socio-relational underpinnings of positive freedom, the study demonstrates how interfaith networks in Florence are shaping new models of religious co-existence that transcend the limits of a purely secular viewpoint. Ultimately, the findings underscore the importance of incorporating both negative and positive freedom into theoretical frameworks and policy debates, providing a more nuanced understanding of religious pluralism in modern urban contexts.

2. Theory

Questions of liberty and pluralism have occupied a central place in sociological and philosophical debates about religion, particularly in societies where multiple faith traditions coexist. Isaiah Berlin (1969)’s influential distinction between negative and positive liberty offers a starting point for examining how religious freedom unfolds in such contexts. From this vantage, negative liberty underscores the absence of external constraints—most notably legal prohibitions—on religious practice. It posits freedom as a defensive shield protecting the individual from state or societal interference. While indispensable, this perspective alone does not fully capture the relational and material conditions that enable faith communities to realize their religious aspirations. Berlin himself noted that the idea of positive liberty, when expanded into the collective realm, can risk intrusions on individual autonomy, thus opening a debate on whether and how such liberty might become overbearing.

In Italy, freedom of religion is guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution and further reinforced by Article 8, which empowers the State to conclude bilateral agreements (intese) with non-Catholic religious communities. In the health sector, Ministry of Health Circular No. 19942 (3 April 2000) recommends that every public hospital provide a multi-faith meditation and prayer room accessible to all denominations. Although the circular is not legally binding, it signals the State’s broader commitment to religious pluralism in public institutions. In practice, however, implementation is uneven and depends on local administrations and the internal policies of individual facilities.

Despite these reservations, a growing body of scholarship has argued that recognizing and facilitating positive liberty—the capacity to act on one’s values in concrete, empowered ways—is crucial for understanding the lived experiences of religious diversity. Veit-Michael Bader (2007) and Tariq Modood (2013), for instance, have shown how multicultural and democratic-secular frameworks can broaden the scope of religious freedom by granting communities the autonomy to shape their own religious spaces and practices. This more expansive perspective attends to legal and political structures but also emphasizes local civic processes and informal social arrangements—conditions that render liberty not just a matter of formal protection but also of tangible support for collective well-being.

Philosophical reflections on positive liberty have gained further traction through empirical research that highlights persistent inequalities in religious expression. Will Kymlicka (1995)’s exploration of liberal multiculturalism indicates how legal structures alone may be insufficient without institutional and cultural resources that enable minority religious communities to flourish. In line with this view, Steven Pfaff et al. (2022) employed correspondence experiments to investigate whether street-level bureaucrats, such as public school principals in the United States, discriminate against certain religious groups. Their findings indicate a gap between formal guarantees and practical realities, illuminating the subtle biases that can hinder the actualization of positive liberty. Similarly, Tony Glendinning and Steve Bruce (Glendinning and Bruce 2011) have explored attitudes toward religion’s public presence in the United Kingdom, emphasizing how reluctance to accommodate religious practice beyond private settings challenges a more expansive vision of freedom. Recent field experiments by Amelie Aidenberger and Malte Doehne (Aidenberger and Doehne 2021) also reveal everyday discrimination faced by Muslim women, again showing that bias can persist even in liberal democratic contexts committed to religious freedom in principle.

The concept of deprivatization has become equally relevant for understanding these processes. Public theologians and sociologists of religion—from Richard John Neuhaus (1984)’s foundational critique of the “naked public square” to more recent assessments by Griffith and McAlister (2007)—argue that religion retains significant visibility and influence in contemporary public life. Rather than fade into purely private domains, faith traditions engage political, social, and cultural arenas, often seeking to exercise what José Casanova (1994) famously described as a “public role.” For Martin Riesebrodt (2000), such public reassertions of religion can dismantle simplistic secularization assumptions and invite deeper inquiry into how religious pluralism operates in practice.

Critical to this inquiry is the recognition that positive liberty, particularly in the religious sphere, is inseparable from moral and communal values. In her chapter on “Moral and Personal Positive Freedom,” Maria Dimova-Cookson (2021) contends that all forms of freedom entail normative assumptions—whether implicit or explicit—that shape collective life. She argues that the difference between negative and positive liberty hinges not solely on the presence or absence of legal obstacles but on the social frameworks through which moral and cultural commitments find expression. This insight resonates with scholarship by James A. Beckford (2003), who observes that dynamic religious pluralism involves ever-evolving social contracts that uphold diversity. Accordingly, religious freedom cannot be evaluated solely by referencing codified legal protections; rather, it must be understood in light of the cultural and institutional ecosystems within which faith communities operate.

On the one hand, there is private freedom, and on the other, political freedoms—traditionally seen as always at risk of spilling over into an illegitimate and dangerous strengthening of political authorities in ethical matters and personal choices. Instead, negative freedom emerges as a fundamental premise, which remains incomplete unless supported by enabling and empirical forms.

In the religious sphere, this aligns with Maria Dimova-Cookson’s observation that any form of effective freedom depends on more or less explicit value-based premises, however mediated or pluralistic they may be. As a result, the internal articulation of the concept of freedom shifts within the domain of positive freedom—among its more or less dialogical and pluralistic forms—rather than between an abstractly legal freedom and a positive one loaded with moral presuppositions.

Indeed, the interplay between informal networks and religious practice is especially salient. Drawing on interfaith dialogue research, Mohammed Abu-Nimer (2001) and Eboo Patel (2016) demonstrate that encounters among diverse religious groups can generate new forms of trust, cooperation, and collective identity. These everyday interactions often function as sites for the empirical manifestation of positive liberty. They enable groups to coordinate community resources, engage local institutions, and negotiate the moral and practical terms under which religion appears in the public arena. David J. Houston, Patricia K. Freeman, and David L. Feldman (Houston et al. 2008) add that such interactions have significant implications for public administration, underscoring how religious actors may shape policy-making, social services, and civic dialogue when given the capacity to operate beyond the merely defensive space afforded by negative liberty.

Taken together, these theoretical insights—from the foundational negative/positive liberty distinction to empirical research on discrimination, deprivatization, and interfaith engagement—underscore the need for an integrated perspective on religious freedom. By foregrounding both negative freedom (legal guarantees) and positive freedom (institutional, cultural, and social support), the scholarship converges on a common theme: formal rights alone seldom suffice to bring about the flourishing of diverse faith traditions. Instead, moral frameworks, collective values, community networks, and sociomaterial dimensions must also be taken into account, illuminating the broader conditions that allow religious groups to translate abstract rights into lived realities. This study builds on these debates, investigating how collaborative activities and informal partnerships among religious communities in Florence represent concrete expressions of positive liberty—expressions that, if overlooked, risk perpetuating a view of religious freedom that is purely theoretical rather than meaningfully enacted.

Following Abu-Nimer (2001), we understand interreligious dialogue (ID) as “sustained, purposive interaction across confessional boundaries aimed at mutual transformation.” Such settings enlarge positive religious freedom because they furnish the relational resources—trust, reciprocity, shared know-how—that enable minorities to exercise their rights in public arenas otherwise shaped by majority norms.

3. Method

The research is based on a sample of forty-three qualitative interviews with individuals involved in various capacities in the dynamics of interreligious engagement in the city of Florence. The sample has been selected to encompass a diverse range of participants, including religious leaders, spokespersons or members of interreligious groups and associations promoting interreligious dialogue, elected and appointed public officials [This category includes mayors, city-council members, and senior local administrators (assessori)], and other privileged witnesses (Appendix A,

Table A1. Interviewed classification.

	Gender	Age	Role	Qualification	Religion
Interview 1	Woman	71	Religious leader	Master’s degree	Jewish
Interview 2	Man	64	Elected and appointed public officials (Florence council member)	Master’s degree	Catholic
Interview 3	Man	67	Privileged witness	High School diploma	Catholic
Interview 4	Man	80	Privileged witness	Master’s degree	Catholic
Interview 5	Woman	67	Leader of an interreligious group	High School diploma	Catholic
Interview 6	Woman	51	Privileged witness	Phd	Muslim
Interview 7	Woman	73	Privileged witness	Master’s degree	Catholic
Interview 8	Man	46	Religious leader	Master’s degree	Evangelical-Protestant
Interview 9	Man	59	Religious leader	Phd	Evangelical-Protestant
Interview 10	Man	51	Religious leader	Master’s degree	Jewish
Interview 11	Man	71	Privileged witness	Master’s degree	Catholic
Interview 12	Woman	69	Religious leader	Master’s degree	Evangelical-Protestant
Interview 13	Man	61	Religious leader	Phd	Muslim
Interview 14	Man	70	Religious leader	Postgraduate specialization	Jewish
Interview 15	Man	69	Religious leader	Master’s degree	Evangelical-Protestant
Interview 16	Woman	66	Religious leader	Phd	Evangelical-Protestant
Interview 17	Man	53	Religious leader	Master’s degree	Muslim
Interview 18	Man	62	Religious leader	Middle School diploma	Hare Krishna
Interview 19	Woman	70	Religious leader	High School diploma	Buddhism
Interview 20	Man	28	Privileged witness	High School diploma	Muslim
Interview 21	Man	37	Religious leader	Bachelor’s degree	Muslim
Interview 22	Woman	25	Privileged witness	High School diploma	Muslim
Interview 23	Man	82	Privileged witness	Master’s degree	Not affiliated with any religion
Interview 24	Man	66	Elected and appointed public officials (Florence council member)	High School diploma	Catholic
Interview 25	Man	78	Leader of an interreligious group	Phd	Jewish
Interview 26	Man	65	Religious leader	Master’s degree	Catholic
Interview 27	Man	59	Privileged witness	Master’s degree	Catholic
Interview 28	Man	71	Leader of an interreligious group	Master’s degree	Interreligious aspiration
Interview 29	Man	71	Privileged witness	Master’s degree	Muslim
Interview 30	Man	57	Elected and appointed public officials (Florence council member)	High School diploma	Catholic
Interview 31	Man	55	Religious leader	Master’s degree	Jewish
Interview 32	Man	46	Religious leader	Master’s degree	Evangelical-Protestant
Interview 33	Man	60	Leader of an interreligious group	Phd	Catholic
Interview 34	Man	65	Religious leader	Postgraduate specialization	Lakota Sioux
Interview 35	Man	74	Elected and appointed public officials	High School diploma	Catholic
Interview 36	Man	70	Religious leader	Phd	Catholic
Interview 37	Man	50	Religious leader	Master’s degree	Adventist
Interview 38	Man	63	Leader of an interreligious group	Phd	Catholic
Interview 39	Man	55	Religious leader	High School diploma	Buddhism
Interview 40	Man	79	Elected and appointed public officials	Master’s degree	Evangelical-Protestant
Interview 41	Man	40	Religious leader	Post-degree specialization	Evangelical-Protestant
Interview 42	Woman	61	Religious leader	Phd	Evangelical-Protestant
Interview 43	Man	77	Elected and appointed public officials	Master’s degree	Catholic

). All five civil-society organizations referenced in the article publicly self-identify as interreligious in their official statutes and on their websites. Each also maintains a governing board that includes representatives from at least three distinct faith traditions. This broad selection aims to capture a multifaceted perspective on the current state of religious pluralism and interfaith relations in the city.1

The interview outline focuses on exploring the direct experiences of the subjects interviewed, as well as their opinions and reflections on the situation of religious pluralism and religious freedom in Florence. The questions were designed to encourage in-depth responses, allowing participants to reflect on their personal experiences, challenges, and insights regarding interreligious cooperation, as well as their views on the political, social, and cultural implications of religious diversity in the city. The interviews were conducted using a semi-structured format, with the same set of questions being asked to all participants. The open-ended nature of the questions enabled the interviewees to share their personal stories and perspectives (Bickman and Rog 2008), providing rich qualitative data that highlights the complex realities of interreligious engagement in Florence. The interviews also explore the empirical forms of interreligious cooperation and the obstacles to religious freedom in specific settings such as workplaces, schools, hospitals, prisons, and sports clubs. Participants were asked to reflect on their experiences regarding the challenges faced by individuals or religious communities in these contexts, particularly in relation to the exercise of religious practices, the accommodation of religious beliefs, and the presence of potential conflicts arising from religious diversity.

The interviews were carried out between July 2024 and February 2025, either in person or via remote communication platforms, depending on the preferences and availability of the interviewees. The data collected was analyzed thematically, focusing on recurring patterns and key themes related to the dynamics of interreligious dialogue and cooperation, religious freedom, and pluralism. Particular attention was given to the role of local institutions, religious communities, and civic organizations in fostering or hindering interfaith cooperation.

4. Results

The results of the 43 interviews reveal a wide range of real situations in which religious freedom is hindered and restricted. In this regard, the interview texts simultaneously highlight a set of limitations to the full expression of religion in various contexts—workplaces, hospitals, gyms, schools, and prisons—as well as a corresponding plurality of dialogue practices that help to partially overcome these restrictions. As already mentioned in the introduction, this range of situations is generally framed by two different and nuanced versions of the idea of freedom, both widely present in the interviews: the formal and negative idea of liberty, understood as the absence of constraints, and the positive and collective version of liberty, seen as the collective and practical implementation of this legal guarantee. This is a meaningful example of the distinction explained above:

Interview 42 (Director of a cultural center, Protestant) The norms that provide the strongest protection are all constitutional norms and the entire body of legislation derived from them, which naturally safeguards individual rights. The problem arises when it comes to the collective expression of this freedom of religion.

Interview 20 (Member of a religious association, Muslim) So, as I told you, the essential, necessary, and important aspects of freedom fortunately do exist, thank God. However, there are mechanisms that might make it somewhat restrictive or not as fully applied as one would hope or as it is ideally intended to be.

As a consequence of this distinction, several interviewees highlight a condition of “half-liberty” that prevents believers of other religions from fully expressing their faith in everyday life and situations, despite the fact that Florence is recognized as a particularly privileged city in the field of religious dialogue. In particular, some issues are mentioned in the majority of interviews—almost in every one: the problem of a mosque, as Florence has long lacked and still partially lacks a decent place of worship for the Muslim community; discrimination against Muslim women who wear the hijab (traditional Muslim headscarf) in public spaces such as shops or gyms, or the difficulties in obtaining women-only time in swimming pools; the exclusion of many minor religious communities from interreligious cooperation initiatives; and the preferential access granted to majority religion ministers in places like hospitals and prisons.

Interview 41 (Protestant pastor) Regarding hospitals, the situation is also extremely delicate because only ministers of worship from religious denominations that have an agreement (intesa) can enter, and even then, not easily. To give an example—because frankly, I got fed up—whenever I visit someone... The law states, just as it does for clergy, that if it does not interfere with medical activities, a minister of worship from a recognized religious denomination, with an official ID, can enter outside of meal times. And that makes perfect sense, because if a person needs to talk or needs support, they should be allowed to receive a visit. Of course, you can’t enter while the doctor is examining them—you wait—but you should be able to enter outside of meal times. Yet, this does not happen easily. I have been turned away more than once where I was before, and even here in Florence, it happened once. What can you do? File a lawsuit? If you do, you’ll win. But in the end, I found a solution—though I must say, I don’t like it. When I visit people in the hospital, I wear a clerical collar, I dress as a priest, and then they say: Please, go ahead! But that’s not right.

The complexity and layering of the two concepts become particularly evident in the case of religious freedom. The empirical forms of negative freedom, along with their respective obstacles, primarily concern access to non-discriminatory treatment within public institutions such as hospitals, schools, and prisons, in relation to dietary regulations, the opportunity to observe religious precepts regarding clothing, fasting, and ritual prescriptions such as the Jewish Sabbath. However, in a broader sense, it also includes fundamental requirements such as public recognition or the availability of a place of worship, which are typically associated with the concept of “positive freedom” in Berlin’s sense. Indeed, while the basic level of negative freedom is considered present and guaranteed by all interviewees—described by one as “a very basic idea” (Interview 10)—this level, in some cases, is reduced to a truly elementary dimension: the “right to gather and pray” (Interview 9) or the fact that “no one prevents you from praying” (Interview 8) and that “if you are Jewish or Muslim, no one says anything to you” (Interview 1). Consequently, positive and social religious freedom is explicitly understood as an implementation and, above all, a “removal of obstacles” to this shared and everyday exercise of this guarantee:

Interview 21 (Muslim minister) No, on this I can say that no one prevents you from praying, no one, in terms of the freedom to practice it. But it is not encouraged—just granting freedom is not enough, right? Our Constitution promotes it. All the terminology: promotes, removes obstacles. But I haven’t seen any obstacles being removed. On the contrary, there seems to be a sort of delegation or a distant inquiry.

Interview 20 (Member of a religious association, Muslim) So, as I told you, the freedom at the bare minimum—what is essential and important—fortunately exists, thanks to God. However, there are mechanisms that may make it somewhat restrictive, perhaps not applied as one would wish or as the ideal ambition envisions.

As can be observed in the cited passages, definitions of negative and formal freedom, understood as an acquired given, are always accompanied by the articulation of practical and contextual conditions that must complement it, as if they were its shadow. According to this way of understanding formal freedom as a necessary but insufficient sphere, the type of freedom that Berlin defines as “negative” no longer appears to be in irreconcilable opposition to social and positive forms of freedom.

The most significant aspect highlighted in the interviews, therefore, is their emphasis on how cooperative, interpersonal, and everyday dialogical practices serve as mechanisms through which, across different public spaces, freedom is concretized. This concrete overcoming, according to the interviewees’ accounts, depends—at varying degrees and through different manifestations—on the intensity, frequency, and depth of direct, daily dialogue (the form of dialogue engaged in by subjects in everyday life situations, contexts, and environments, ranging from schools to associations) which differs from the more official exchanges confined to institutions and religious leadership.

The interviewees’ perspectives cover a broad spectrum of nuances based on this assumption of layered freedom. Some emphasize the distinction between a fully acquired basic legal level and the shortcomings in the second; others take a more drastic stance, highlighting the absence of comprehensive religious freedom (affecting both levels, despite the “possibility of praying” without restrictions). Finally, some take a more optimistic view of the progress made in overcoming issues of discrimination, transforming mere formal possibility into a concrete reality and enabling full integration of pluralism.

An interesting aspect is that this transition from possibility to actual practice is identified precisely in the reality of interreligious cooperation, which is carried out daily in a spirit of “working together” among communities and associations:

Interview 1 (Religious leader, Jewish) The first thing that comes to mind is that the middle school exams were scheduled by the schools—and I believe schools have the freedom to set the dates—on the occasion of a very important religious holiday of ours. This is a complete lack of respect and freedom. I don’t think there is religious freedom. I am very upset with the schools, and when I spoke with the councilor in charge of education at the time, she told me, “There is teaching autonomy.” Well, I don’t believe that. Schools should be secular, and then there is a religion class that one can choose to attend or not.

Two associations illustrate how self-declared ID is operationalised: Association A manages a shared prayer space with rotating stewardship among Buddhist, Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim members; Association B runs a weekly food-distribution service staffed jointly by volunteers from different religions. In both cases, the governing boards meet monthly to set policy, satisfying the ‘sustained, purposive interaction’ criterion of ID. If the cooperative nature of this dialogue is consistently emphasized by each interviewee and every religious community involved in Florence, there remains a wide range of perspectives on the level of cooperation achieved. Notably, the degree of optimism often appears to be influenced by the respondents’ religious affiliation. Majoritarian communities (like some official spokespersons of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Jewish community) tend to assess the effectiveness of these collective efforts in a less critical manner.

5. Public Expression of Faith and Obstacles

5.1. Prisons

There are several specific issues related to the prison context, where ministers assist believers of many religious denominations, with a significant presence of Muslim faithful. A first issue mentioned by some interviewees concerns the inadequacy of spaces designated for prayer, which are overcrowded and cannot adequately meet the needs of the faithful of every denomination in a dignified manner.

Interview 16 (Protestant pastor) And then, since during the years I spent in Florence I frequently visited the prison, even there—although it is not under the jurisdiction of the municipal administration—it was not always easy to enter the prison and secure a dedicated space for evangelical worship for evangelical inmates that was not scheduled at the same time as Mass. This was because, at times, food packages were distributed during Mass, so naturally, inmates wanted to attend. For this reason, we tried to request a different space for worship, maybe one or two hours later. And then, well, with COVID, everything stopped, and we never really managed to resume. It’s possible that now there is a more structured evangelical presence within the prison.

A second issue that has been repeatedly reported is the difficulty in observing religious dietary requirements, making it challenging to provide meals that align with specific dietary laws and restrictions, such as halal food. Interviewees highlight that this issue, which is generally present in many public institutions, is even more severe for those incarcerated in penitentiary facilities.

Interview 1 (Religious leader, Jewish) For example, if one is invited to a reception at the Town Hall, the Town Hall ensures that suitable food is provided for Muslim representatives, does not place wine in front of their seats, and also provides appropriate food for Jewish attendees. If the Town Hall takes this approach for the New Year’s Eve reception, why not extend it further? I am not at all saying that it should necessarily be possible to provide suitable food in schools or prisons, but it is a signal. You can’t just give such a wonderful symbolic gesture—the interfaith New Year’s Eve meal at the Town Hall, where everyone is present and can find food that suits their needs—perfect, but it should be extended elsewhere. That is, when speaking at the Town Hall, people are very kind, but this also needs to be reflected in the small details of everyday life, in public spaces.

An equally critical problem for the effective exercise of religious freedom in prisons is the overall detention conditions and the dignity of detainees. Some interviewees point out that in certain institutions, such as Sollicciano, there is a context of severe tension and suffering which, combined with the frequency of suicides, makes the role of the minister of worship even more complex, assigning them not only a role of spiritual assistance but also one of mediation and peacemaking. Access to prisons for spiritual assistance appears to be uneven, especially for ministers from non-Catholic or minority faiths. In some cases, evangelical leaders reported difficulties in obtaining the necessary permissions, which they attributed to unclear institutional rules:

Interview 32 (Adventist pastor) If you are a pastor, even though your name has been registered with the Ministry of Justice and you are officially listed among those ministers authorized to enter prisons at least at the regional level, etc., etc., etc., you still struggle to get in. You have to go through a whole process, and many times I have ended up going home empty-handed, telling myself that I would have to come back next time. In the meantime, I would have to make calls and follow up with the administration just to assert a right—the right to enter a prison. So, probably, hospitals and prisons are the places where I have most strongly felt the denial of a fundamental right: the right to one’s own religion, to one’s own faith.

5.2. Workplaces

In the case of workplaces, the forms of expression of religious freedom—and consequently, the related obstacles—concern the ability to pray, the recognition of religious holidays with corresponding leave, even for non-Catholic believers, and the possibility, especially for women, to wear religious clothing and symbols such as the hijab. The problematic situations highlighted by the interviewees relate to the fact that, while the constitutional principle of equality in religious freedom is formally recognized, it is not effectively implemented due to the absence of a comprehensive legal framework on the matter. This lack means that the recognition of rights—such as religious holidays or prayer time—is left to the discretion of individual employers.

Interview 38 (Coordinator of an interfaith group, Catholic) Honestly, veiled women report insults and similar incidents, as well as discriminatory attitudes from employers, for example. X wife told me that when she was doing her internship as a pharmacist, the pharmacist told her, “Ah, if you come without the veil, it would be better because my clients might feel uncomfortable.” She refused. In the end, it was in both of their interests, so she stayed. The pharmacist’s son explained to the slightly unsettled customers that there was nothing to be disturbed about. But this just shows that people really feel these things firsthand, right?

5.3. Hospitals

Regarding hospitals, religious freedom also entails the possibility of having an adequate place of worship for all faiths, receiving spiritual assistance with equal ease regardless of religious affiliation, and being able to observe different religious practices without hindrance. Additionally, as in prisons, there is the issue of halal or kosher meals. The need for a place of worship finds a virtuous interfaith solution in the “room of silence” at Careggi Hospital, although not all interviewees report the same level of satisfaction with its shared management.

Interview 2 (Public official, Catholic) An example I could give is the new Meyer Hospital in Florence, one of the largest pediatric hospitals in Italy. For several years now, driven by a growing focus on the spiritual and inner well-being of individuals—in this case, children and families facing serious health challenges—there has been an opportunity to create a large, beautifully designed multipurpose space. This space primarily accommodates Catholic rituals, but it also allows for the practice of other religious rites and moments of faith, particularly in times of hardship. It provides an environment where different forms of prayer and spirituality can be expressed.

Interview 18 (Hare Krishna minister) So, the problem is often in the implementation. For example, there are national laws stating that every hospital should have a meditation and prayer room. Some hospitals have created them—at Careggi, we inaugurated one, and in Siena, we did too—but then they are just left there, and nothing really happens. What’s often missing is the desire or the will to apply these measures, to take action, or to make it easier for religious communities to participate. I understand that when working at the municipal or state level, there are always numerous regulations to navigate.

According to some interviewees, there are significant bureaucratic hurdles to visiting hospitalized believers. Adapting hospital regulations to religious precepts often presents challenges. For example, Jewish parents of sick children may face difficulties: hospital regulations do not allow both parents to stay overnight with the child, yet religious law prohibits them from driving home on the Sabbath.

Interview 1 (Religious leader, Jewish) For example, at Meyer Hospital, there have been cases of sick Muslim children whose mothers, for religious reasons, cannot stay alone in the hospital. However, hospital rules do not allow both parents to be present at the same time, which limits access to care for these children. Similarly, if a Jewish child is hospitalized on a Saturday, their parents might not be allowed to stay overnight. This can be especially challenging if the family lives far away. I once encountered a case where a child had an accident near Elba and was airlifted to the hospital. The father followed by car, but when they arrived, he was not allowed to stay overnight in the single room where his child had been placed—only the mother could stay. Since it was the Sabbath, he had nowhere to go. If he had stayed at a hotel, it would have been too far to walk back to the hospital, and he also had to figure out how to arrange his meals.

Lastly, the issue of religious dietary requirements is only resolved in some healthcare facilities:

Interview 1 (Religious leader, Jewish) Hospitals—it’s extremely difficult in hospitals. Now at Careggi, it is possible to have food labeled for what can be eaten, but not everywhere.

Interview 10 (Rabbi) Let me give an example: we have the prescription to eat kosher. If someone has a long hospital stay—for instance, in Rome, some hospitals have arranged with kosher catering services to provide kosher meals within the hospital. It’s true that here, due to our much smaller numbers, this happens less frequently, but it can still happen. Of course, we also need to be proactive, but having a bit more support from institutions would perhaps be desirable. That being said, we are certainly met with an open ear.

5.4. Gyms and Sport Clubs

In gyms and sports clubs, the issue that hinders the full exercise of religious freedom is related to the acceptance of women’s clothing (for example, in swimming pools and particularly regarding the hijab) and the willingness to create women-only classes. This specific need to adhere to religious precepts concerning the relationship between men and women—especially relevant for Muslim women—is, according to some interviewees, not sufficiently accommodated.2 As a result, access to regular sports activities and the public facilities that host them is restricted.

5.5. Schools

Regarding the situation in schools, the issues raised by the expression of religious freedom concern various aspects, only partly overlapping with those in other contexts: the display of the crucifix in classrooms, religious symbols and clothing worn by students, access to meals that respect the religious dietary requirements of each individual in school cafeterias—along with appropriate training for staff to accommodate such needs—the observance of non-Catholic religious holidays, the teaching of Catholic religion, and finally, the availability of designated spaces for prayer.

Interview 2 (Public official, Catholic) We oversee the entire school cafeteria management sector. Our cooks—several dozen staff members who, in my opinion, and we’ve organized specific training courses for them—needed to have at least a basic understanding of the needs and requirements of schoolchildren, especially Muslim children, but really all children, who come from different religious backgrounds and have different experiences and relationships with food. I think that’s fairly clear, but we can’t afford to take everything for granted. So, a cook who has a better understanding of the cultural—and therefore also religious—needs of at least some of the children they are serving meals to, if given the opportunity to learn about them…

The presence of the crucifix in classrooms is perceived by followers of certain religious denominations as a violation of the secular nature of the State. They believe it should be replaced by the celebration of different religious observances and, if applicable, the display of other religious symbols as well.

6. Enabling Factors for the Expression of Faith

The analysis of the interviews reveals a complex set of enabling factors that, either across various settings or specific to particular contexts, facilitate the expression of faith and allow the transition from merely formal (negative) freedom to a positive and lived form of religious freedom. In line with the theoretical reflections, these factors lie at the intersection of institutional conditions, cultural resources, and interpersonal relationships. First and foremost, a central role is played by everyday dialogical processes between religious communities and local actors such as schools, associations, and public administrations.

It is within these networks—often more effective than official spaces—that the capacity to recognize concrete needs (such as access to places of worship, respect for religious times, and mediation in healthcare or educational practices) is activated, along with the removal of practical obstacles to the exercise of faith. In particular, the building of interpersonal trust, the presence of religious leaders with a dialogical outlook, and the sensitivity of public officials emerge as key resources for turning legal rights into concrete possibilities. In contexts like schools and hospitals, where regulatory constraints intersect with habits and established practices, the enabling factor becomes the willingness to engage in mutual adaptation, which allows religious minorities to feel recognized without compromising the secular nature of institutions. In sum, the enabling factors identified are not rooted solely in laws but manifest through the relational and institutional capacity to promote inclusive co-existence, where religious freedom is not only defended from restrictions but also actively supported and accompanied in its full realization in everyday life. As already anticipated in the theoretical section, this makes it possible to recognize a non-state public sphere made up of experiments in mutual support, associative networks, and regular forms of encounter, including the sharing of everyday moments such as meals, through the exchange of different dietary habits. This kind of reciprocal support also manifests in the convergence of different religious communities during critical moments, such as the eviction of the previous mosque in Florence, positioning itself as a complement to institutional efforts in these areas.

7. Conclusions

This article shows how religious freedom in pluralistic societies cannot be fully grasped through the lens of negative liberty alone. While legal protections against religious discrimination are essential, they represent only a starting point for understanding the complex and situated experiences of faith communities. Drawing on qualitative analysis of interfaith dynamics in Florence, the article illustrates how positive liberty—understood in Isaiah Berlin (1969)’s sense as the availability of concrete opportunities and supportive conditions—plays a decisive role in shaping the lived realities of religious actors. Interviewees identify obstacles to effective religious agency as difficulties in translating formal, abstract freedom into the concrete, daily practice of positive liberty. This is particularly evident in cases involving access to public institutions, such as prisons and hospitals, by religious leaders. Strategies to overcome such challenges are situated in a realm that lies beyond both negative liberty and formal institutional structures (Bazzani 2023b). Echoing Maria Dimova-Cookson (2021)’s argument that all freedom is grounded in moral and communal values, the findings indicate that access to worship spaces, civic participation, and interreligious cooperation are not ancillary to religious freedom but constitutive of it. The example of mosque construction, the political contestations surrounding it, and the interfaith solidarity networks mobilized at the community level to support this effort are especially illustrative in this regard. Without these enabling conditions, the right to believe remains abstract and symbolically hollow (Bazzani 2022, 2023a). Furthermore, the study responds to James A. Beckford (2003)’s call for a sociological understanding of religious pluralism that acknowledges its dynamic and negotiated character. As the interviews reveal, positive liberty is often cultivated and sustained through informal networks, grassroots partnerships, and everyday practices—what Appadurai (2006) would describe as the “cultural capacities” that enable agency. The associations that self-identify as interreligious and were examined here demonstrate a form of faith deprivatization that extends beyond religious leadership and complements a pluralistic social ethos.