A/CONF.189/PC.1/7 page 31 B. Evaluation of content and scope 117. On the basis of this study of various forms of intolerance, discrimination or oppression on both racial and religious grounds, it is possible to make the following six basic comments. Comment No. 1 118. Just as in separate, or single, forms of discrimination, no religion, State or human group is safe from intolerance or discrimination.125 This statement deserves some elaboration. “One of the most basic of human rights is that of religious liberty”, as Leonard Swidler justly wrote [1986], “for religion is perhaps the most comprehensive of all human activities ... Since this is so, it also, however, tends towards absolutism and authoritarianism …”.126 This tendency is often more noticeable when there is competition among several religions, and when they coexist within a multi-ethnic social situation, or even when the society in question is ethnically homogeneous, inter-denominational rivalries can take on an ethnic dimension under the influence of certain events, wars, economic discrimination, etc.127 119. Moreover, aggravated discrimination tends to intensify or become more likely to occur when the State itself officially adopts the religion of the majority or of the ethnically dominant minority, or subscribes to a particular ideology. The State religion or the religion of the State is not, of course, a characteristic of the religion, but of the State. However, if in its Constitution the State professes its adherence to a particular faith, some will see the mere profession of that faith whatever the good intentions of the State - as a form of discrimination against the ethnic or religious minority or minorities. In the area of legislation, moreover, some such States adopt clearly discriminatory provisions, as we have seen, in order to impose the constitutionally established religion or ideology, and therefore a particular vision of society and of the universe, on members of ethnic or religious minorities.128 This is no doubt one of the most unacceptable violations of an individual’s right to have and practice his religion and that of his ancestors. It is true, as the Special Rapporteur has noted, that “States which are or claim to be based on religion may be either exclusive - for the benefit of the predominant religion alone - or open and respectful vis-à-vis other religions” (E/CN.4/1998/6, para. 42). However, to the extent that everything ultimately depends on the goodwill of the State, the personality of those in office at any given moment, and other unpredictable or subjective factors, there is no serious guarantee in law that the State will at all times respect minority ethnic and religious rights. 120. In States with a range of religious and ethnic identities, the constitutional profession of an official religion, a State religion or a religion of the State, may be politically or historically justified, but by its very nature it carries the seed of aggravated discrimination.129 As Gordon Allport [1954] puts it, a possible root cause of religious intolerance stems from the fact that religion usually encompasses more than faith. Often it is the focus of the cultural tradition of a group.130 He notes that this applies to the majority of religions. Therefore, when the State itself announces its religion in its Constitution, the law ceases to reflect the ethnic and religious variety of the society, and the way is opened to arbitrary action and intolerance.