A/HRC/31/18/Add.2 manifest their religious convictions, passions and loyalties, perform religious practices and enjoy religious festivities in private as well as in public. 32. A secular State and a religious society can harmoniously exist together, but a secular State cannot at the same time be a religious State, i.e. a State proclaiming an official State religion. Although article 2A, after proclaiming Islam as the State religion, goes on to declare that the Government shall ensure equal status and equal rights of other religions, the contradiction remains. Despite the Government’s assurances that the principle of nondiscrimination (art. 28 of the Constitution) “supersedes” article 2A, members of religious minorities claim that the proclamation of Islam as the State religion still leads to the discriminatory interpretation and application of the laws and decrees. Moreover, family law affairs in the broadest sense are generally governed by religious laws, which may also raise issues under freedom of religion or belief, as will be discussed below (see paras 63 and 64 below). B. Politicization of religion? 33. Although militant interpretations of Islam may not resonate widely in a society generally characterized by a long tradition of interreligious coexistence, the influence of extremists has become a matter of much concern, not only for the Government, but also for civil society organizations and religious communities. 34. However, some of the measures taken by the Government in the interest of upholding secularism seem to lead to the paradoxical result of shrinking the very space that secularism — like democracy — is supposed to provide. 35. Some interlocutors expressed concerns that Government agencies partially compromise the principle of secularism by increasingly employing religious concepts in their political rhetoric, possibly with the intention to appease Islamists militants. In order to combat the “politicization of religion”, measures may be put in place that lead to the “religionization of politics” — ironically even under the auspices of a Government that is committed to upholding the constitutional principles of secularism. In other words, while the Government may be fighting the instrumentalization of religion, it could at the same time be seen as using religion to achieve political goals. This may erode the credibility of the Government’s profession of inclusive secularism. 36. One example that illustrates this tendency is the seeming ambiguity with regard to respect for the self-understanding of Ahmadis; the Special Rapporteur heard different positions taken by Government officials on this matter, ranging from upholding a neutral stance in theological issues to open declarations of Ahmadis as non-Muslims, thus endorsing the view of Islamist militants, which seems strangely at odds with the principle of State secularity. Even though the Government of Bangladesh assured the Special Rapporteur that it does not endorse such views, the Special Rapporteur would like to point out that, from the perspective of freedom of religion or belief, everyone should be respected in their self-understanding and self-definition in matters of religious conviction. Although not everyone can be expected to share the religious self-understanding of anyone else, the Government must in any case ensure that such self-understandings are at least respected, including by public officials. 37. Similar ambiguities have occurred in statements concerning the recent murders of online activists and the death threats that people engaged in such activities have received. While condemning such threats and acts of violence committed in the name of religion and pledging to bring perpetrators to justice, government representatives at the same time have publicly admonished online activists who have expressed critical views on religion, in particular Islam, warning them “not to cross the limits” in their criticism of religion, 8