Mapping religious plurality and producing "truth". A dispositive analysis of knowledge production in the study of religions

Published with license by Koninklijke Brill bv | doi:10.1163/18748929-bja10131 © Anne Beutter, 2025 | ISSN: 1874-8910 (print) 1874-8929 (online) This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the cc by 4.0 license. Journal of Religion in Europe 18 (2025) 431–465 brill.com/jre Mapping Religious Plurality and Producing “Truth” A Dispositive Analysis of Knowledge Production in the Study of Religions Anne Beutter | orcid: 0000-0002-5696-1324 Department for the Study of Religions, University of Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland anne.beutt[email protected] Received 26 August 2024 | Accepted 13 February 2025 | Published online 25 November 2025 Abstract Since the 1990s, mapping religious plurality has become a research staple in the study of religions. Drawing on a sample of some sixty projects from the dach (Germany [D], Austria [A], and Switzerland [ch]) region, the article uses dispositive analysis to show these mappings as a response to shifts in scholarly and public discourse as well astechnologicalpossibilities.Thediscursivepractices,materialforms,andinstitutional underpinningsthatconstitutethemapping dispositiveshowtheseprojectsasadiscursive infrastructure that produces valid knowledge about religion in the contemporary world and the positionality of the study of religions in this discursive formation. Keywords religious diversity – religious plurality – mapping religion – dispositive – study of religions – geography of religion Imagine a map—printed or digital. The usual background of muted grays, greens, and blues is dotted with familiar, colorful symbols. They seem to proclaim to the user “Look! Here is, pinned down for your convenience, the notoriously elusive thing we call the local plurality of religions, and all you need to know about it.” During the past three decades, mapping religious plurality in different European local settings has become a staple of empirical research 432 beutter Journal of Religion in Europe 18 (2025) 431–465 in the study of religions (Kühle and Hoverd 2018, 1; Griera 2018, 45; Stausberg 2009, 106; Hafner,Völkening, and Becci 2018, 14).1 The emergence of this type of project is situated at the interface between researchonreligiouspluralityordiversityandspatialresearchonreligion.Both saw a parallel and interrelated increase in interest in scholarly discourse in the 1990s and especially in the 2000s (Knott 2010, 30; Kong 2004, 367). With a reluctant attention to religion developing into a “burst” in cultural geography literature (Kong 2010, 756; Büttner 1985) and with the influence of the spatial turn placing space “firmly on the agenda of the study of religions” (Knott 2010, 31), a new geography of religion discourse has emerged in these two decades. This discourse was characterized by a greater interdisciplinary openness and new topics (Kong 2001; 2010; Knott 2005b): Geographers of religion took up insights from religious studies on the constructed nature of religion (Ivakhiv 2006), while scholars of religion moved toward a situational understanding of (sacred) space as a product of human praxis (Chidester and Linenthal 2005; Smith 1987). This fueled a mutual interest in current issues of powerand identity-related politics of religious space and place (Kong 2001, 213–218, 222– 224). Religiouscommunitiesinthesociopoliticalcontextof pluralsocietybecame topical (Kong 2004, 367; Knott 2010, 30), both in research and in the public eye. Migration (Kong 2010, 760–762; Martikainen 2004), globalization (Knott 2005a, 110–117; Beyer 2011), and locality (Knott 2005a, 118–122) became major themes at the intersection of religion, diversity, and space. The mappings of religion are one specific type of research that emerged at this intersection. Theyfellsquarelywithinthediscussionof “howmigrationimpactsonreligious landscapes of receiving countries” (Kong 2010, 760). However, contrary to the overwhelming focus on Islam, criticized by Kong, they deliberately included “other religions, including new religions and those … outside the ‘world religions’” (762), as well as inner-Christian diversity. Among the strengths of these “localised studies of religion,” Knott saw their “local engagement,” “pedagogical value,” and exploratory potential (2005a, 119f.), but she identified a lack of “attentiontotheorisationof spaceandplaceand the ideological forcesatwork 1 In this article I distinguish “diversity” and “plurality” as follows: “Diversity” is used as an overarching term to designate different models that address and communicate diagnoses and experiencesof multitudeanddifferenceasitpertainstoreligion/s.“Plurality”isusedtodesignatethespecificmodelthatisprevalentinthemappings;onewherethecountingof anumber of differentbutsimilarentitiesunderstoodas“religions”istheguidinglogicof representation. The empirical data I analyze, however, uses the terms “plurality,” “diversity,” “pluralism,” their German equivalents, and the German termVielfalt largely interchangeably. mapping religious plurality and producing “truth” 433 Journal of Religion in Europe 18 (2025) 431–465 within them” (120). While her own work remedied the former (Knott 2005b), thelatterhasbeenaddressedmorerecentlybyareflexiveapproachtomapping studies, with contributions such as Griera, Müller, and Marínez-Ariño (2023), Griera (2018), Prideaux (2014), and Ahlin et al. (2012). Building on these critical examinations of selected projects and on efforts to provide a comparative account of mappings in different localities—as presented in Stausberg (2009), Kühle and Hoverd (2018), or Monnot and Stolz (2018a)—this article takes this endeavor a step further: It will provide a systematic analysis of roughly sixty projects conducted in the dach region in the three decades between 1990 and 2019, giving it an explicit sociology of knowledgetwist.2Thepaperanalyzesthe discursiveformationsthathaveshaped the discipline’s knowledge production by looking at the mappings of plural local religious landscapes as a dispositive in which the study of religions is involved. A dispositive is the constellation of all elements involved in discourse production deployed to address specific discursive problems—or “urgent needs” (Foucault 1978, 120)—by generating knowledge that is validated as “truth” by the power-imbued rules of said discourse (see below). The article conducts a dispositive analysis and asks: What does the emergenceand developmentof mappings of religiouspluralityasa type of research tell us about the material and discursive formations of power and knowledge production, under the influence of which the study of religions has evolved in recent decades? How do the mappings address, model, and represent the idea of the plurality of religions over time? And what “urgent need” is this responding to? Afterintroducingthetheoreticalperspective,itsoperationalization,andthe method, the main section will sketch the mapping dispositive. To show how materialanddiscursivepracticesinterlock(Keller2011a,138),theanalysisstarts by examining how the material forms of representation have changed over time.Itthengoesontolookattherelationshipsbetweenwhattheartifactsdisplay as being diverse, the actors and institutions involved,and the disciplinary and thematic strands of discourse that emerge from these projects. Inthisway,themappingprojectsarepresentedasadispositivebywhichproducers and users of such mappings account for religious plurality and address the perceived societal “urgent need” that is the changing role and form of religion in contemporary (European) societies. The “urgent need” for this specific kind of knowledge came out of a sociopolitical context in which religious change that had occurred in the second half of the twentieth century turned 2 Germany (D), Austria (A), and Switzerland (ch); here also including Liechtenstein. 434 beutter Journal of Religion in Europe 18 (2025) 431–465 into the fiercely contested question of how to practically deal with what was perceived as inexorable pluralization.The general diagnosis of increasing religious plurality was met, on the one hand, with a mix of fascination for pluralism and “new” religions as well as fear of extremism and anomie (Beutter and Kühle, forthcoming). On the other hand, pluralism became the object of contempt in populist and nativist politics growing in Europe (Wolfart 2018). The analysis will show the role and position of the study of religions in this discursive formation producing “truth” about local religion—that is, knowledge that is discursively sanctioned as valid. 1 Mappings as a Dispositive The term mapping project is often used as a collective term for qualitative, descriptive,and comparativestudies thatinvestigatereligiouspluralityin local contexts. The studies document the meso-level of the religious landscape, by surveyingand documenting the religious communities of a city or a region. As a collective term, and also as a self-designation, mapping of religions is usually used, regardless of whether or not the projects in question include any cartographic representations (Martikainen 2002; Stolz and Monnot 2020, 135). Indeed,theanalysiswillshowthatcartographicmapsarenottheraisond’êtreof thedispositive;rather,theyseemtohaveemergedasaconvenientafterthought. Despite the obvious spatial connotation and framework of the mappings, this aspect is only rarely reflected upon explicitly (Knott 2005b, 166). Rather, it seems they “have been caught up in the spatial turn, without engaging directly in theoretical debates about space” (Knott 2010, 36) or the implications of spatial representation of religion (Griera, Müller, and Martínez-Ariño 2023). In the study of religions, the emergence of mapping projects is part of a larger trend that saw research being reoriented toward studying religion/s as contemporary localized forms (Seiwert 2021, 60–66; Prideaux 2014, 36f.; Kühle and Hoverd 2018, 2; Stolz and Monnot 2020, 135f.; Knott 2005a, 118). So too in the literature on religion and space: The earlier preoccupation with major “officiallysacred”(Kong2001, 226)sitesof dominantreligiousgroupswascomplemented by a new interest in the ordinary, small-scale, and private sites of religion in practice (Knott 2005a, 96f.). Mappings are at a middle distance between these two: They still locate the “officially sacred” places of religious groups,butsincetheyfocusonthelocalandonminorityreligions,theyinclude the less conspicuous sacred places—the mundane, makeshift, and often semiprivate—as legitimate parts of the spatial imagination of the religious landscape. mapping religious plurality and producing “truth” 435 Journal of Religion in Europe 18 (2025) 431–465 Early mapping projects marking this shift are the Community Religions Project, Leeds (Knott 1984), and the Religious Field in Turku project (Martikainen 2004, 11–16), both of which started in the 1970s. Also of note are two projectswhichstartedin theearly 1990s:theWorldReligionsin GreaterBoston project, which grew into the internationally renowned Pluralism Project (Eck [1997] 2002; Eck, Pierce, andWagner 2000), and the Religiöse Gemeinschaften in Bremen project (Meier-Hüsing 1990). The heyday of such projects came in the 2000s, a period in which the new approaches consolidated (e.g., Ammerman 2007, or the conceptual outlook of this very journal, established in 2008). And the projects inspired renewed interest in the comparative analysis of the religious group as a sociological object of study (Monnot and Stolz 2018b). We can now see that the emergence of mapping projects as a specific form of research on religious diversity and space is linked to the confluence of three major developments in (1) research discourse on religion, (2) the socialpolitical discourse on religion, and (3) technological possibilities. (1) In the study of religion, a radical cultural turn has taken place since the 1980s. Scholars turned away both from the phenomenological theories andfrompredominantlyhistoricalandphilologicalmethods,andinstead increasingly dealt with lived religion and contemporary contexts. Ethnographic and sociological methods were particularly used for this purpose (GladigowandKippenberg1983;Auffarth,Grieser,andKoch2021;Seiwert 2020,61; KnibbeandKupari2020,158;Knott2005b,166–175).Atthe same time, in the sociology of religion, the secularization thesis lost its hegemony, and the pluralization thesis gained ground (Stark and Bainbridge 1985;HeelasandWoodhead2005;Pollack2003;Liedhegener2018).Moreover, cultural geography advanced a constructivist critical view of maps as mediums of power against a predominantly positivist understanding of mapping (Ash, Kitchin, and Leszczynski 2018; Pavlovskaya 2016; Pickles 2004; Harley 2001). (2) Thisconcurredwiththepopularrhetoricof the“returnof religion,”which notably played out in governance agendas regarding migration, globalization, or multiculturalism (Riesebrodt 2001; Burchardt 2017; Beyer 2011, 186f.; Griera 2018), and in fierce political contestation over them, as discussed above. It equally played out in the popular discourse on “cults,” entailing the development of “cult-watching” infrastructures (cf.Wyttenbach 2023; Usarski 1988; Baumann 1998). (3) This happened at a time when the digital revolution was profoundly changing scholarly knowledge production and dissemination: from digital text-processing to dynamic forms of publication through websites and apps, and from new ways of relating information via hypertext and 436 beutter Journal of Religion in Europe 18 (2025) 431–465 digital databases to the vast array of new options for data-analysis and - visualization developed by digital humanities. In cartography, the digital turn facilitated the evermore far-reaching use of geographical information systems (gis) with their power to aggregate immense amounts of different geocoded data into multilayered digital representations. What is more, from former expert and military use, these digital mapping technologiesbecame widelypopularized(Ash,Kitchin,and Leszczynski2018; Pickles 2004, 145–175; McQuire 2019; Drakman and Gelfgren 2023). Participatory options of popular map mashup applications such as Google Earth, OpenStreetMap, or Google Maps, made the creation of maps increasingly accessible to nonspecialists. They made it possible to overlay map tiles with different datasets and to embed them in third-party websites such as those of the mapping projects (McQuire 2019, 152). As we will see in the analysis, these processes were important preconditions that enabled the emergence of a tradition of mapping projects.3 Conversely, mappingsof religiouspluralityarean excellentcasefor showinghowthisshifting discourse translated into a persistent, materially based infrastructure of knowledgeproductionandrepresentationthat,inturn,contributedtoproducing the discourse at hand. As coined by Foucault, and elaborated by Keller and Bührmann, amongst others, the idea of the dispositive embeds the discursive as the said, in its practical, material, and temporal conditions. Dispositive analysis thus counters approaches that reduce discourse analysis to a focus on language and text, and instead foregrounds practice and materiality as an integral part of a broader concept of discourse (Diaz-Bone 2022, 9; Keller 2011b, 31; Bührmann and Schneider 2007). A dispositive is a historically specific configuration of heterogeneous elements that, together, make up the concrete, materialized patterns that institutionalize a discourse (Keller 2011a, 259).They include discursive (i.e., mediated by text or language) and nondiscursive practices, material artifacts, people, and institutions. Keller, somewhat rephrasing Foucault’s (1978, 119f.) famous list, describes it as “the sum total of all the material, practical, personal, cognitive, and normative infrastructures of discourse production” and “the relations betweenall such elements” (Keller 2021, 41f.). As such, the dispositive contains and preconfigures the “practices of assertion, bound up with techniques of power”that determinewhatcounts as“truth inthe senseof validknowledgeof 3 Theyarethesubjectof threerelatedarticles(BeutterandKühle,forthcoming;asecondarticle currently under review; and a third I am currently finalizing). mapping religious plurality and producing “truth” 437 Journal of Religion in Europe 18 (2025) 431–465 reality” (Diaz-Bone 2022, 16).The mutual production of knowledge and power finds its practical form in the dispositive. Dispositive analysis thus attempts to unearth how the material and the discursive (as language/text) interlock in a given order of knowledge, practice, and power which produces “truth” (Bührmann 2014, 41–46; Diaz-Bone 2022, 16f.). Morespecifically,dispositivesare“infrastructure[s]of discourseproduction andproblem-solving” (Keller 2021,41) with thefunctionof interveningin practice (Keller 2011a, 258) and addressing societal issues or social problems that the discourse configures and marks as an “urgent need” (Foucault 1978, 120; Keller2011b,41;Bührmann2014,43;Diaz-Bone2022,11).Theygrowoutof social change,andhaveintendedaswellasunintendedconsequences,inthewaythey become realized in practice (Bührmann 2014, 46). Dispositive analysis, therefore, examines “the strategic functions of power in the (practical) solutions of discursively generated societal/social problems” (43). To operationalize the dispositive, I created a sample starting from three pre-existing lists from different projects: One is a bibliography from the mid-2000s found in the archive of the Department for the Study of Religions in Lucerne, one an unpublished pilot study from the study of religions chair in Basel comparing mappings in the mid-2010s (Hoch 2015), and one was published and updated in several iterations (2005–2013) on the website of remid (Religionswissenschaftlicher Medien und Informationsdienst). Thissamplewasexpandedbyfurthersnowballingandbyaliteraturereview, toinclude roughly sixty projectsin the dach region from 1990 onwards. I compiled a database containing the dates and forms of publication, and the institutions responsible for each project. For a selection of projects I conducted a more in-depth document analysis (Davie and Wyatt 2012) to identify further elements of the dispositive that will be discussed here. To do so, I used a standardizeddatasheetforeachproject,coveringsevencategories:(1)preciseform of theproject,(2)topicsandconceptsaddressed,(3)aimsandnormativemotivations, (4) audience, (5) expertise/discipline of authors, (6) financing bodies, and (7) connections between projects. Theselection processfollowedthelogic of theoreticalsampling thatdispositive analysis borrows from grounded theory methodology (Keller 2021, 49f.). Theprojectswereselectedtocoverallthreedecades,toshowdifferencesinthe involved actors and their institutional affiliations, and to cover different forms of publication. The source material for this step was the output of the various projects, such as websites, books, brochures, or leaflets. Apart from samples from the content, I specifically analyzed the front and back matter, forewords, introductions, and (where applicable) conclusions and appendices. For the websites, I analyzed the main page and the “about us” page, as well as the con- 438 beutter Journal of Religion in Europe 18 (2025) 431–465 tent and structure of the menu of the site. Unlike project-internal data, these are the intended publicly accessible outcomes, by which the projects address the societal (including the scholarly) discourse from which they emanate and to which they contribute. 2 Material and Discursive Elements Ageneralideaof theformationof themappingdispositivecanbegleanedfrom the number of mapping projects over time. After a slow start in the 1990s there is a marked increase from the turn of the millennium onwards, with almost three times as many projects published in the 2000s. This trend died down somewhat in the 2010s, when the number of projects halved. The first mapping project in the dach region was a handbook on religious communities in Bremen,producedbythe studyof religionsprogramatBremenUniversity, and published in 1990. Rather than being the original goal of the project, it seems that this handbook emerged as a welcome by-product of an attempt at basic empiricalresearchonthe“interculturalandinterreligioussituationinBremen” (Meier-Hüsing 1990, 9).4 Year by year, more projects followed suit. This rate increased in the 2000s.The database lists eleven projects first published in the 1990s, all of which were located in Germany, thirty new projects in the 2000s, andthirteennewprojectsinthe2010s,nowalsolocatedinSwitzerland,Austria, andLiechtenstein.This trendremainsif wealsoaccountfor new editions from already existing projects (new projects plus further editions: 1990s: seventeen; 2000s:forty-one;2010s:twenty-two).Theimageclearlyshowsthemid-2000sas the heyday of mapping: 40 percent of all the projects listed for the thirty years under scrutiny were published in the six years between 2003 and 2008 alone; thisparallelsthegeneraldevelopmentof researchonreligionandspace,which sawasubstantialproliferationduringthisdecade(Kong2010).Inthelate2010s this productivity takes a dip, before resuming with new projects, especially in Switzerland, in the 2020s. Additionally, it is noteworthy how common long-term projects are in the sample, with one-third of the projects running for ten or more years, and a few for over twenty years (e.g., Basel since 2000; Lucerne and Saxony since 2004/2005). Some are actively updated, others are more latent. However, 4 For direct quotations, the relevant work is cited. For general reference to a project, a shorthand indicating the place and date of first publication is used (e.g., Bremen 1990); see list of mentioned projects in the digital appendix. All English quotes from German texts are translations by the author. mapping religious plurality and producing “truth” 439 Journal of Religion in Europe 18 (2025) 431–465 through the sustained availability of their data, these projects remain part of thediscourse, potentiallycarrying olderlayersof discourse, andevolvingalong the way. Apartfromthe sheer increaseinnumbers, intheearly2000swealsoseethe mappingprojectsbecomingmoreself-awareof beingpartof aninterlinkeddiscourse. This can be seen in cases such as the second edition of the handbook on religions in Bremen mentioning “a whole series of similar overview studies in other German cities” (Meier-Hüsing and Otten 2003, 11), that the first editionhadsupposedlyinspired. Adiscursive occurrencethat aimed totransform individualprojectsintoamoreconcertedacademiceffort,oratleasttoconnect local attempts at mapping religious landscapes, was the interdisciplinary conference jointly organized by remid and the Institute for the Study of Religions in Leipzig in 2003 (remid 2003). It is no surprise that remid was instrumental in this, since it articulated this vision of an interlinked discourse early on: its project Marburg-Biedenkopf 1995 was the first—and, until the early 2000s, the only—project to explicitly situate itself as part of a series of “city studies” (Ruttmann1995,8f.),anditisonremid’swebsitethatoneof thelistsusedhere for sampling was published (remid 2013). Followingtheideaof thematerialanddiscursiveelementsbeinginterlocked in the dispositive, I will now unpack these components step by step, starting with the material artifacts of publication, followed by the actors and institutions, and ending with the textual discursive elements, the aims, themes, and urgent needs. 2.1 Artifacts of Representation and Units of Analysis A closer look at the material formats of the project outputs over the three decades reveals a clear trend away from print, toward more dynamic forms of publication.This may be read as a direct expressionof the changes in available technology, namely the internet, which was made public in 1993, and made its way intogeneralusein Germanyoverthe courseof the2000s.Notsurprisingly, in the 1990s, all publications were in print. Notably, though, one of the projects (Hannover 1997) started updating its content on a web page in 1999.5 For reference, in 1999, not even 20 percent of the German population used the internet (Statista 2023), let alone hosted websites and used it for interreligious or science communication. In the 2000s roughly half of the projects used websites 5 The web page (wcrp Hannover 1999) ran until early 2013. A reason for the early website use might be its association with the World Expo 2000 in Hannover, for the guests of which it fashioned itself as a “religious calling card” (Wirth 1997, 7). 446 beutter Journal of Religion in Europe 18 (2025) 431–465 figure 6 Screenshot of the map on the Vienna 2011 website (printed in Hoch 2015). As is often the case, the map cannot be displayed on the archived web page. 2018, the map includes a rough estimate of the number of adherents, which is displayed by circles of different sizes at a location on the map (Figure 7). The central unit of analysis often differs in different parts of the documentation, especially when a combination of media is used—this can be used as a deliberate tool, and thus be addressed explicitly in the analysis (e.g., Geneva 2012, see Figure 8; Munich 2008). 2.2 Infrastructures and Actors What the projects end up presenting as diverse is the result of an interplay between the unit of analysis, the scheme of classification, and the form of representation. The scheme of classification, and thus the arrangement of information, depends on the medium used, as does the form of representation. The unit of analysis depends on research pragmatics, such as the decision in the Bremen 1990 project to abandon the initial goal of including non-organization-based formsof religion,asaresultof timeandresourceconstraints,whilenonetheless acknowledgingtheirimportance fromatheoreticalperspective(Meier-Hüsing 1990, 10). First and foremost, however, the unit of analysis depends on the explicit or implicit heuristics of how “religion” is defined and operationalized for analysis and representation (cf. Ahlin et al. 2012, 403). Intheir“practiceof engagingwithspaces,places,landscapes”(Ivakhiv2006, 172), mappings articulate and spatialize their respective meaning of religion mapping religious plurality and producing “truth” 447 Journal of Religion in Europe 18 (2025) 431–465 figure 7 Most of the over 800 pages of the Potsdam 2018 mapping (Hafner, Völkening, and Becci 2018) consists of descriptions of groups, while the map figures prominently on the cover. It displays the religious buildings, religious traditions and estimated membership numbers. by demarcation. In Ivakhiv’s deconstructive view, “the spaces in which the religious domain is clearly articulated as distinct from the secular … appear as products of a very particular activity, a purification involving practices of sacralization and desacralization, with various supporting mechanisms and ongoing maintenance to keep this separation in place” (172). Putting the “religious”dotsonthe“secular”graybackdropanddistinguishingthembydifferent colors or symbols, the theoretical and practical decision of which groups to 448 beutter Journal of Religion in Europe 18 (2025) 431–465 figure 8 Screenshot of the Geneva 2012 interactive map with filter options “currents,” “period of establishment,” “language of ritual” (https://info-religions-geneve.ch/carte/). Apart from the map, the site contains, amongst other things, general descriptions of religious traditions, lists of religious groups, and comparative analyses. map tiles by stamen design, under cc by 3.0. data by openstreetmap, under cc by sa). include and how to classify them are acts of such purification. And the mapping dispositive is part of the mechanisms of maintenance as it reifies specific distinctions between the religious and the secular (cf. Griera, Müller, and Martínez-Ariño 2023, 174f.), as well as between and within religious traditions. This can turn not only against actors at the “fringes” of the religious field, but also against dominant players, as Griera, Müller, and Marínez-Ariño (2023, 170–171) have shown. Both the definitions of religion and the classification systems depend on theoretical considerations, and ultimately on the normative positions and sociopolitical aims of the authors, organizations, and funding bodies behind the project in question; as the author of MarburgBiedenkopf 1995 succinctly remarks: “the structure of [these] books … has a tendency to unwittingly reveal the theological or sociological background of the authors” (Ruttmann 1995, 8). However, pragmatic decisions depend not only on such normative aims, but equally on the available resources. These, in turn, depend on the relative position of power the actors hold in the discourse and, concomitantly, what funding providers the projects have access to. mapping religious plurality and producing “truth” 449 Journal of Religion in Europe 18 (2025) 431–465 This leads us to the actors and institutions involved in the production of the mappings, and their intended audience. A general overview of the sample shows that the mapping projects were most commonly conducted either at a university or similar research institution, or by different kinds of ngos—both religious and secular. Only a handful were initiated by public authorities, and another handful in educational or journalistic contexts. Out of the twenty-one university projects in the sample, sixteen were conducted or supervised by researchers connected to chairs for the study of religions, most of them during the 2000s. The rest were produced by various theology departments. The most common ngos to engage in mappings of local religionwereinterreligiousinitiatives(nineoutof thenineteen);sixmorewere conducted by initiatives formed by study of religion students or graduates, and three of the nineteen ngo projects were produced by entities within the Catholic or Evangelical churches. It is interesting to note that funds for this kind of research only rarely come from classical research foundations. Instead, funding is mainly secured either from local public authorities, such as the Cantonal Office for Culture (Berne 2008)ortheOfficeof Integration(Vienna2011),orfromreligiousorganizations, especially interreligious initiatives and churches. Further avenues of funding are foundations, university-related financial resources, and sponsorships from theprivatesector.Therealsoseemstobeahighprevalenceof voluntaryorlowpaid work being poured into these initiatives, such as student researchers, volunteers within the ngos, and, in some of the early German projects (Bremen 1990, Marburg-Biedenkopf 1995), research positions financed through Arbeitsbeschaffungsmassnahmen.6 For a type of research more geared toward the general public than most, the intended audience remains conspicuously vague. Almost half of the projects analyzed in depth either do not refer to the intended audience, or merely gesture broadly toward a general “interested public.” Most of the projects from an interreligious or confessional background tend to address religious organizations and individuals engaged in interreligious dialogue as their public. By contrast, the projects based in the study of religions focus more on media professionals, public administrators, schoolteachers, and researchers as their intended audience. Looking at the actors involved, the funding, and the intended users, we see the mapping dispositive being thoroughly positioned at an interface between 6 A scheme for subsidized employment, as a measure to reintegrate jobseekers into the workforce, in times of high unemployment in Germany. 450 beutter Journal of Religion in Europe 18 (2025) 431–465 public discourse and (religious) civic engagement, on the one hand, and the academic study of religions, on the other. The ngos formed by study of religions graduates are emblematic of this positioning. 2.3 Aims, Themes, and Urgent Needs This positioning is also mirrored in the topics the different projects mention, leading us not only to their theoretical concepts; here, we can also uncover the projects’ overarching aims and thus (hidden) normativities. These constitute the discursive (as language/text) aspect of the mapping dispositive, and lead to the identification of the “urgent needs” the dispositive responds to. Afirstmajorstoryline(Keller2011a,235)thatemergesfromtheanalysisisthe transformations in the “religious landscape of late modernity” (Martikainen 2004, 2; Ahlin et al. 2012). Across the three decades and the different discursive positions, the analyzed materials commonly identify a lack of empirical knowledge about the makeup of religion in situ—in light of the (dramatic) changes brought about by large-scale societal trends—as a motivation behind their research endeavor. The topical terminology that discursively flags these trendsisthatof “secularization”and“pluralization,”“immigration”and“globalization,” and “individualization” and “alternative forms of religion or spirituality.” Additionally, thequalificationof howtoapproachthepluralityof religions thatresultsfromthesetrendsrangesfromanendeavorto“getagriponthenew complexity”7 (Ostenrath and Schneemelcher 2003, 6 [Bonn 2003]), to appreciation for the colourful diversity (Hafner, Völkening, and Becci 2018: 9), to the reminder that “religion is still there, despite it all” (Halle 2001). When it comes to how exactly these transformations are addressed in the mappings, the aims that can be attributed to a sociological perspective differ from a more anthropologically minded, study of religions one. The former wants to understand the change, the latter its erstwhile result. Or, more figuratively:Whereone wantsto“measurethe congregationallandscape”(Körs2018, 120) in order to “differentiate between different degrees” of plurality (Krech 2009, 140 [North Rhine-Westphalia 2006]), the other wants to give insight into religiouslifeworlds(Bremen1990,Bonn2003,Graz2010),andpainta“portrait” (Vaud 2017) of the communities that make up this religious landscape. Vaud 2017 does this quite literally, using artistic photographic portraits, which make up a large part of the printed publication (Marzi 2020). The approach that is most characteristic of the mapping dispositive is the secondof thesetwo.Inallthreedecadesinvestigatedhere,theprojects—being 7 In the original, “neue Unübersichtlichkeit.” mapping religious plurality and producing “truth” 451 Journal of Religion in Europe 18 (2025) 431–465 ethnographic and, at times, historical in outlook—set out to “document” the status quo, and “take stock” (Vaud 2017,Vienna 2011, Bremen 1990, Berlin 1992) of “all the participants in the religious field” (Potsdam 2018, Vaud 2017), especially the minorities.They aim to provide evidence of the plurality of religions (Baumann 2005, 61 [Lucerne 2004]), and to make it “transparent” (Graz 2010, St. Gallen 2012, Bonn 2003)—to give a “comprehensive image” (Berlin 2003). They see their output as an “accurate snapshot” (Regensburg 2000, St. Gallen 2012, Marburg-Biedenkopf 1995), or as the latest “building block of a local contemporary history of religions” (Hannover 2013, Geneva 2012, St. Gallen 2012). Interestingly, this approach is shared by both study of religions and interreligious initiatives in the sample. Where these two approaches differ, however, is in how broad a concept of religion is applied. The latter—interreligious initiatives—tend to be more narrowly oriented according to the world religion paradigm (Hannover 2013); some projects explicitly exclude “small groups of believers and cults” (Yonan 1993, 5). The former—study of religions approaches—tend to be broader, as in Vienna 2011 or Potsdam 2018, which deliberately extended the sample to all manner of groups—humanists and yoga schools included—as long as they evinced a “comprehensive cosmological and moral outlook on the world” (Hafner, Völkening, and Becci 2018, 11). A second major storyline is the idea of knowledge production and education about religions, as a means to counter prejudice and intolerance, and to further social cohesion and community relations. While this is found across all three decades analyzed, there has been a shift in focus, which directly links to the discursive and sociopolitical context. During the 1990s Germany saw a wave of xenophobic hate crimes (Green, McFalls, and Smith 2001), addressed in, for example,Halle2001,aswellasaheateddebateoncultsandsects(Seiwert2004; Baumann1998)8thatwasmentionedcriticallyin,forexample,Berlin2003,and in the affirmative, in, for example, Erlangen 1999. After the turn of the millennium, the September 11 attacks, and the bombings in Madrid in 2004 and Londonin2005,setthetoneof thedebate.Accordingly,“cults”aremostlyatopicin projects from the 1990s, while the contrasting of fanaticism, fundamentalism, intolerance, and violence with ideas of tolerance and respect is addressed in projects in both the 1990s and the 2000s, but not in the 2010s. Going into the 2010s, the topics within this storyline become more diffuse, which may hint at acertainnormalizationof theexperienceof thepluralityof religions;whilethe “reduction of social tension” (Vienna 2011, Hannover2013) and prejudice (Graz 8 As reflected in the Enquete Commission and its findings (Deutscher Bundestag 1998). 452 beutter Journal of Religion in Europe 18 (2025) 431–465 2010) are still mentioned, so are encounters in a multicultural society (Geneva 2012). Efforts to encourage the use of mappings as tools in teaching the study of religions, both in schools and universities (Hannover 2005, Munich 2008, Geneva 2012, Lucerne 2016), or as a response to new legislation (Vaud 2017), emerge as topics. Last, the internal plurality of religious traditions becomes a more visible topic (Potsdam 2018, Zurich 2019, St. Gallen 2012). During the heyday of the mapping projects in the 2000s, the study of religions was confronted with an ambiguous climate, torn between the wish to advocate for recognition and acceptance of religious minorities and immigrant religion, the disavowal of intolerance and violence, and the fear of religious fundamentalism. This is aptly captured in the introduction to the Bonn 2003 project that, taking a study of religions perspective, stresses the importance of approaches to the new religious plurality that neither “call for the defence of the Christian West” nor “idealise intercultural conviviality.” Both of these stances are attributed to the utter lack of “serious information on that which is either mistrusted as ‘foreign’ or celebrated as ‘exotic’” (Ostenrath and Schneemelcher 2003, 7). Producing data on how religion and religious plurality are practiced, to counter and relativize public opinion (Potsdam 2018, Halle 2001, Bonn 2003, Marburg-Biedenkopf 1995), is an aim that has remained relevant across the three decades. It is shared by both the anthropological study of religions and the interreligious actors in the dispositive, albeit with differing sensibilities. The latter group champions interreligious dialogue and encounter (Regensburg 2008, Graz 2010, Hannover 2013), to make visible and impart knowledge on lesser-known communities, to foster interreligious understanding (Halle 2001, Berlin 1992). The former, by contrast, often identify as leveling actors (e.g., Vienna 2011, Potsdam 2018, Halle 2011, Marburg-Biedenkopf 1995, Bonn 2003) entering a discourse stacked against certain minorities, to counter the disproportionately lacking or negative visibility of certain groups (cf. Griera 2013, 230), and the implicit or explicit exclusion following the world religion paradigm(cf.BaumannandTunger-Zanetti2018, 202).Hencethecallsfornonpartisan knowledge production from both of these discourse coalitions (Keller 2011a, 254)—although the very idea of what could constitute “nonpartisan” knowledge is itself contested. The question of the role of insider vs. outsider descriptions is an illustrative case in point, as the qualifications range from apologetic vs. “neutral and factual” (e.g., Vienna 2011), on the one hand, to “self-expressions emerging from one’s faith” vs. the “cold lexical view from the outside” (wcrp Regensburg 2008, 9; or Graz 2010), on the other. Two central urgent needs can be discerned in the analysis of the aims and themes,astheycutacrossthedifferentnormativeanddisciplinarypositionsas mapping religious plurality and producing “truth” 453 Journal of Religion in Europe 18 (2025) 431–465 wellasacrossthethreedecades.Theseurgentneedswereflaggedbythechangingsociopolitical discourseand werereactedtobythevariousactorsdiscussed here,leadingtotheformationof themappingdispositiveasarecurringpattern of response.First,thedispositivedealswiththeperceivedchallengeof changes inthereligiouslandscapeandintheformof religiouspracticeinEuropeanlatemodern societies—particularly the question as to how these changes play out in the local setting, and how they should thus be navigated and governed. Second,thedispositiveaddressesthe perceivedchallengeof religiousminoritysituations, community relations, societal cohesion, and (religious) conflict. Both urgentneedsweresupposedtobecounteredbytheproductionof valid,empirically grounded knowledge, and the mapping dispositive is a recurring pattern for doing exactly that. As such, the mapping dispositive can be considered a precursor to the increasingly large-scale, interdisciplinary, and policy-oriented research programs that started running in the early 2010s (Davie 2013, xiii). Forthestudyof religionstospeaktothisgrowingsocietalattentionto—and problematization of—the plurality and diversity of religions became possible because of the reorientation of the discipline toward contemporary issues. To answer to these two urgent needs was a move not only to showcase expertise, but to claim relevance and legitimacy (Beutter and Kühle, forthcoming). 3 Conclusion When browsing through the projects, one feature caught my eye: the recurring presenceof Grusswörter.Thesewelcomeaddressesarehighlyvisiblefragments of discourse, that are uncommon in German-language academic publications. They are most often written by mayors or other political actors, such as representatives of migration and integration departments, or, at times, by university professors or representatives of the established churches. All of these qualify as highly prestigious Sprecherpositionen (Keller 2011a, 234) that flag legitimacy and relevance within the discourse, hinting at the institutionalized infrastructure of power and knowledge that undergirds the individual utterance. They can thus be read as attempts to stabilize a claim to the legitimate form of knowledge—the “truth” about the matter—and as emblematic of the discursive configuration of power and knowledge that the mapping dispositive responds to. In the case of the mayors, it is an informal act of politically acknowledging the plurality of religions as a given that is relevant for the greaterpublictoknowabout andisworth engagingwith. In addition, thepresence of Grusswörter is a testimony to the mapping dispositive’s position at the interface of public and scientific discourses. 454 beutter Journal of Religion in Europe 18 (2025) 431–465 Here, we come full circle, to see how the mapping dispositive—with its printed and digital artifacts, the actors involved in their production, the institutions funding and facilitating the research, and the storylines, aims, and themes they propel—forms “discourses as institutionalised practices of assertion, bound up with techniques of power that produce truth—truth in the sense of a valid knowledge of reality” (Diaz-Bone 2022, 16). Dispositives are “infrastructures that emerge out of a discourse (or several discourses) to deal with the real-world phenomena addressed by the discourse in question” (Keller 2021, 41). The relationship between discourse, as language and text (such as the theoretically or value-based themes and goals), and practice, as real-life activity (such as creating representations of the local plurality of religions in books and websites, let alone their use in teaching situations or for interreligious encounters), is neither straightforward nor unidirectional (Keller 2011a, 259). Nevertheless, the analysis has shown how the shifting discourse over the last three decades has translated into a persistent, materially based infrastructure of knowledge production and representation. This infrastructure is enmeshed insociopolitical,academic,andreligiouspowerrelations,which,inturn,reproduces the discourse at hand. Central elements of how the mappings model and represent the idea of the plurality of religions are the local groundings of lived religious practice, generally structured along the lines of the religious communities, their places, and the religious tradition by which the analyses label them. In this, the world religion paradigm remains prevalent, while more dynamic, non-organizationbased forms are a challenge not only to the discourse in general, but also for the empirical form of representation that is the mapping. They thus remain invisible and uncharted (cf. Griera, Müller, and Martínez-Ariño 2023, 177). Nevertheless, the mapping dispositive transformed a diffuse feeling of change into an emblematic image of the local religious landscape. “Maps as symbolic representation of the materiality of places of worship, instantiate diversity, a category and a religious reality that is otherwise abstract and disembedded” (Griera, Müller, and Martínez-Ariño 2023, 175)—with all the valuation and silences, constructions, and reductions this presupposes and entails. Moreabstractly, not onlyismap—despiteits “ontologicalpower”(Pavlovskaya 2016, 157)—not territory; it is meaningful practice that brings place into being (Smith 1987, 26–28, 96–117). Part of this meaningful practice is the creation of maps—both in a narrow and a broad sense—and these maps will say as much about the space they make sense of as about the discursive conditions from which this sense emerges. Consequently, as Smith reminded us, “maps are all we possess” (1978, 309), meaning that we cannot do away with representation; mapping religious plurality and producing “truth” 455 Journal of Religion in Europe 18 (2025) 431–465 it is all the more important to understand the infrastructure and its anchoring in knowledge-power relations that our representations grow out of and respond to. Read as a dispositive, this infrastructure is mandated to deal with two “urgent needs”: (1) the perceived challenges of shifts in the local religious landscape, and, more generally, the changes in the role and form of religion in contemporary society, and (2) the societal tensions and political conflicts arising from and attributed to the religious minority situation related to these shifts. The study of religions shares these themes with the other actors, and it fights for the visibility of its distinct perspective—hence the focus on science communication to the public, to sharpen the profile of the study of religions (e.g., Steinbeiss 2015, 95 [Vienna 2011]) in the broader discourse. In the dispositive, there are a number of different discursive coalitions that we may identify: (1) the more anthropologically informed study of religions, (2) the sociology of religion, (3) professionals in education, (4) professionals in integration work and policy, (5) interreligious initiatives, and (6) “cultwatching” actors. These coalitions are interested in: (1) the documentation of religion as it is lived in the locality, (2) the transformations through pluralization and secularization, (3) material for teaching about religion, (4) information for migration, policy, and intercultural work, (5) interreligious peacebuilding and understanding, and (6) theological evaluation and apologetics, respectively. However, these discourse coalitions are not hermetically sealed camps—rather, they evolve as coeval initiatives, with selective or locally prestructured alliances. Thus, the analysis of the mapping dispositive has not only shown these projects to be a discursive infrastructure for producing valid knowledge about religion in the contemporary world; its material forms and institutional underpinnings have had the power to shape what is known to be relevant and true about religions in the local setting. The analysis has also shown the study of religions as a distinct voice and decisive player in this discourse, and, at the same time, it has exemplified how the discipline is intricately entwined with competing and coalescing discursive positions, as well as with technological, institutional, and material conditions, all interlocking in the dispositive. Acknowledgments I would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers of this journal for their insightful and inspiring comments and critiques. For their valuable input to 462 beutter Journal of Religion in Europe 18 (2025) 431–465 Yonan, Gabriele. 1993.Weltreligionen in Berlin: Einheit in derVielheit, Berlin: Ausländerbeauftragte des Senats. YouBeOn. 2024. “Young Believers Online: Mapping Onand Offline Identifications of Urban ReligiousYouth,” https://app.youbeon.eu/. Appendix table a1 List of projects mentioned in the analysis Project (Current) title Central publication(s) Basel 2000, 2003 Inforel (Baumann 2000) www.inforel.ch [28.01.2025] Berlin 1992, 1993 Weltreligionen in Berlin. Einheit in der Vielheit (Yonan 1992) Berlin 2003 Religion in Berlin. Ein Handbuch (Grübel 2003) Berne 2008 Religiöse Gemeinschaften im Kanton Bern. Ein Handbuch (Rademacher 2008) Bonn 2003 Glaubenssache. Religion in Bonn (Ostenrath and Schneemelcher 2003) Bremen 1990 Religiöse Gemeinschaften in Bremen. Ein Handbuch (Meier-Hüsing 1990; Meier-Hüsing and Otten 2003) Bremen 2003 Stadtplan der Religionen http://www.stadtplan-der-religionen󰎦 .de* Erlangen 1994, 1999 Sehnsucht nach Heil. Neben den Kirchen: neue Religiosität, Esoterik, Sekten und Psychogruppen in Erlangen (Koch 1999) Essen 1994 Religiöse Gemeinschaften in Essen. Die religiöse Landschaft neben den grossen Kirchen (Gantzel, Kimmeskamp, andVentur 1994) Freiburg (ch) 2000 Kirchen,Wohnungen und Garagen (Bleisch Bouzar 2005) Geneva 2012 E’église en ashram. Cartographie de la diversité religieuse à Genève http://info-religions-geneve.ch [28.01.2025]; (Knobel 2014) Graz 2010 Religionen in Graz www.religionen-in-graz.at.tf* (Strobl 2010) Halle 2001 Inmitten der Stadt. Halle zwischen Säkularisierung und religiöserVielfalt (Cyranka 2001) Hamburg 1994 Lexikon der Hamburger Religionsgemeinschaften. Religionsvielfalt von A bis Z (Grünberg, Slabaugh, and Meister 1994) Hannover 1997, 2013 Religionen in Hannover http://www.religionen-in-hannover.de* (Wirth 1997) mapping religious plurality and producing “truth” 463 Journal of Religion in Europe 18 (2025) 431–465 table a1 List of projects mentioned in the analysis (cont.) Project (Current) title Central publication(s) Hannover 2005 Fremd und doch vertraut. Eindrücke religiöserVielfalt in und um Hannover. (Franke 2005) Kiel 2004 Interreligiöser Stadtplan https://interrel-kiel.de/kieler-stadtplan󰎦 -der-religionen/ [28.01.2025] Lucerne 2004, 2005, 2016f., 2023 Religionsvielfalt im Kanton Luzern www.unilu.ch/rel-lu [10.03.2024] (Relsem Luzern 2004) Marburg 1993 Religion—Kirchen—Konfessionen. Glaubensgemeinschaften in Marburg (Ruttmann 1993) Marburg-Biedenkopf 1995 Vielfalt der Religionen. Am Beispiel der Glaubensgemeinschaften im Landkreis Marburg-Biedenkopf (Ruttmann 1995) Munich 2008 Schulprojekt http://www.schulprojekt.religionswisse󰎦 nschaft.uni-muenchen.de/schul_projek󰎦 t/index.html* Northrhine-Westphalia 2006 ReligiöseVielfalt in nrw http://religion-plural.org/* (until 2011); http://plureligion.net* (from 2012); (Krech, Hero, and Zander 2008) Potsdam 2018 Glaube in Potsdam. (Hafner, Völkening, and Becci 2018) Regensburg 2000, 2008 Offene Türen. Regensburger Religionsgemeinschaften stellen sich vor (RfP-Regensburg 2008) Ruhrgebiet 2009 Vielfalt undWandel. Lexikon der Religionsgemeinschaften im Ruhrgebiet http://www.religion-ruhrgebiet.de* (Geldbach 2009) Saxony 2005 Religion vor Ort https://www.religion-vor-ort.de/ [10.03.2024] St. Gallen 2012 Mit Gallus den Religionen auf der Spur. Religiöse Gemeinschaften, Kirchen und spirituelle Bewegungen im Kanton St. Gallen. (Gässlein 2012) Vaud 2017 Credo. Une cartographie de la diversité religieuse vaudoise; Cartographie de la diversité religieuse et spirituelle du canton de Vaud; (Marzi 2020) https://cic-info.ch/realisations/cartogra󰎦 phies/vaud/ [28.01.2025] Vienna 2011 Kartographie der Religionen in Wien http://kartrel.univie.ac.at* Zurich 2004 Die 370 Kirchen, religiös/spirituellen Gruppierungen, Zentren und weltanschaulichen Bewegungen der Stadt Zürich (Humbert 2004) For the full list of projects please contact the author. * these websites are no longer active but can be accessed through The Internet Archive’s WaybackMachine (https://web.archive.org/) 464 beutter Journal of Religion in Europe 18 (2025) 431–465 References to List of Projects Baumann, Christoph Peter, ed. 2000. Religionen in Basel-Stadt und Basel-Landschaft. Projekt ‘Führer durch das religiöse Basel’. Basel: Manava-Verl. Bleisch Bouzar, Petra. 2005. Eglises, appartements, garages. La diversité des communautés religieuses à Fribourg = Kirchen, Wohnungen, Garagen: die Vielfalt der religiösen Gemeinschaften in Freiburg. Fribourg: Academic Press. Cyranka, Daniel, ed. 2001. ‘… mitten in der Stadt’. Halle zwischen Säkularisierung und religiöser Vielfalt. Halle: Verlag der Franckeschen Stiftungen zu Halle. Franke,Edith, ed.2005. Fremd und doch vertraut.Eindrücke religiöserVielfalt in und um Hannover. Marburg: Diagonal-Verlag. Gantzel, Christine, Wolfgang Kimmeskamp, and Ralf Ventur. 1994. Religiöse Gemeinschaften in Essen. Die religiöse Landschaft neben den grossen Kirchen. Marburg: Diagonal-Verlag. Gässlein,Ann-Katrin,ed.2012. MitGallusden Religionenauf der Spur.ReligiöseGemeinschaften,KirchenundspirituelleBewegungenimKantonSt. Gallen.St.Gallen:Edition spi. Geldbach, Erich, ed. 2009.Vielfalt und Wandel. Lexikon der Religionsgemeinschaften im Ruhrgebiet. Essen: Klartext. Grübel,Nils,ed.2003.ReligioninBerlin.EinHandbuch;einProjektder‘Berlin-Forschung’ der Freien Universität Berlin. Berlin: Weißensee-Verlag. Grünberg,Wolfgang, Dennis L. Slabaugh, and Ralf Meister, eds. 1994. Lexikon der Hamburger Religionsgemeinschaften. Religionsvielfalt in der Stadt von A–Z. Hamburg: Dölling und Galitz. Hafner, Johann, Helga Völkening, and Irene Becci, eds. 2018. Religiöse, spirituelle und weltanschauliche Gemeinschaften: Beschreibungen und Analysen, Würzburg: Ergon. Humbert, Claude-Alain. 2004. Religionsführer Zürich: 370 Kirchen, religiös-spirituelle Gruppierungen, Zentren und weltanschauliche Bewegungen der Stadt Zürich. Zürich: Orell Füssli. Knobel,Brigitte.2014. D’égliseEn Ashram.CartographiedeLaDiversitéReligieuseàGenève. Genève: cic Centre intercantonal d’information sur les croyances. Koch, Oliver. 1999. Sehnsucht nach Heil. Neben den Kirchen: neue Religiosität, Esoterik, Sekten und Psychogruppen in Erlangen; eine Publikation in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Evangelischen und Katholischen Bildungswerk Erlangen. Neuausg. Neuendettelsau: ErlangerVerlag für Mission und Ökumene. Krech, Volkhard, Markus Hero, and Helmut Zander, eds. 2008. Religiöse Vielfalt in Nordrhein-Westfalen:Empirische Befunde, Entwicklungen und Perspektiven der Globalisierung vor Ort, Paderborn: Schöningh. Marzi, Eva. 2020. Credo. Une cartographie de la diversité religieuse Vaudoise. Lausanne: Éditions Antipodes. mapping religious plurality and producing “truth” 465 Journal of Religion in Europe 18 (2025) 431–465 Meier-Hüsing, Peter. 1990. Religiöse Gemeinschaften in Bremen. Ein Handbuch. Marburg: Diagonal-Verlag. Meier-Hüsing, Peter, and Dirk Otten. 2003. Handbuch der religiösen Gemeinschaften in Bremen. 2. Aufl. Bremen: Edition Temmen. Ostenrath, Krischan, and Wilhelm-Peter Schneemelcher, eds. 2003. Glaubenssache. Religion in Bonn. Bonn: Wissenschaftsladen. Rademacher,Stefan,ed.2008.ReligiöseGemeinschaftenim KantonBern.Ein Handbuch. Bern: Ott. Relsem Luzern. 2004. Religionsvielfalt im Kanton Luzern. Religionswissenschaftliches Seminar, Universität Luzern. RfP-Regensburg. 2008. Offene Türen. Regensburger Religionsgemeinschaften stellen sich vor. 2., rev. Aufl., 1.500 Ex. Wenzenbach: Schwedhelm. Ruttmann, Hermann. 1993. Religionen—Kirchen—Konfessionen. Glaubensgemeinschaften in Marburg. Edited by Religionswissenschaftlichen Medienund Informationsdienstes e.V. remid. Marburg: remid. Ruttmann, Hermann, ed.1995.Vielfalt der Religionen. Am Beispiel der Glaubensgemeinschaften im Landkreis Marburg-Biedenkopf. Marburg: Diagonal-Verlag. Strobl, Anna. 2010.Was Graz glaubt. Religion und Spiritualität in der Stadt.Vol. 19.Theologie im kulturellen Dialog. Innsbruck; Wien:Tyrolia-Verlag. Wirth,Ewald.1997. Religionen in Hannover.Hannover:hg.vomwcrpundAktionskreis der Religionen und Kulturen Hannover, Hannover: wcrp. Yonan, Gabriele. 1992. Weltreligionen in Berlin: Einheit in Der Vielheit. 2. aktualisierte und erg. Aufl. Berlin: Ausländerbeauftragte des Senats.