Secularism is one of the bedrocks of European liberal democracy. Across the continent, people take it for granted that governments are separated from religious institutions. Even in countries that maintain an official established religion (such as England or Malta) secularism is essentially followed in practice.
But is all that changing? Is secularism now under threat in parts of Europe? We had a comment sent in from Jon on our ‘Suggest a Debate’ page, arguing that immigration is fundamentally changing European society, and is putting secularism under threat.
According to a 2012 Eurobarometer survey, 72% of people living in the EU define themselves as Christian, whereas only 23% think of themselves as atheist or agnostic (and 2% define themselves as Muslim, whilst less than 1% call themselves Buddhist, Sikh, Hindu, or Jewish). It’s true that religious minorities are often concentrated in urban areas, and they seem to receive a disproportionate amount of (often negative) attention via the media. But it seems a stretch to argue that immigration is ‘threatening’ European secularism.
Is secularism under threat in Europe? Or has Europe never been more secular? Are fears about the erosion of secularism being overblown? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below, and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reactions!
122 comments Post a commentcomment
State supported secularism is by definition discriminatory and anti-democratic – methinks such secularism has some very difficult days ahead.
On the contrary. State-supported religion is discriminatory against everyone who doesn’t follow it. It’s also non humanist and a rather primitive mentality. Secularism keeps religion and mythology in the person’s private sphere, where it belongs, and keeps government impartial to any mythology.
@Lisa Religion doesn’t belong only in the person’s private sphere. An attempt to enforce that is a perversion of secularism. Secularism has to be a two-way thing. States should not be interfering in the religious sphere, whether that be private expressions of religion or public expressions of religion both of which are recognised human rights.
Yes and the end of secularism would be the end of democracy, freedom, science…
Franco
You are completely right!!
Separation of State from Religion led to scientific revolution, industrial revolution and massive economic gains.The States that religion still dominates continue to languish economically much to the detriment of the welfare of there people
Muslims do not separate Mosque and State the way we do Church and State so the more muslims we let in the more secularism will be threatened. To add to this all of our fundamental Western values and Rights inuding our Securiyy is threatened by islamic migration to Western Countries. EG what happens when a naive Westerner accidentaly/unknowingly insults the honour of a Afghan Pashtun, these muslims come from a cultur where honour is restored with blood/murder. What happens when Micheal the Frenchman takes the virginity of Fatima the headscarf Muslima?
Will they both be honour killed?
I know they are controvertial questions but sadly more and more necessary questions.
I find it’s more of a threat from the far reight wing like Swedish Democrats, And and so on
Ingemar you are a leftist naive fool.
Not in my nation.
It’s there and it’s going to make it’s presence felt much faster than you even realize.
Why is there an chaplet in the photo? It’s not Christianity who is threatening secularism in Europe.
The secularism goes to the end in Europe. The future is to the religions. The faith is not an opium for the people, but their vitamin.
And their end too, in that perspective.
.
Don’t worry, when Turkey joins the EU you will all be living under Islam so there will be no argument amongst different religions simply because there will be only one.
Ivan, Turkey will not be joining. It is now official. Have you missed a few episodes?
@Yasmine
Not that I disbelieve you [I know many do given your emotional and irrational and illogical track record] but would you please provide sources for your assertion on Turkey NOT being allowed to join the EU please?
Tarquin, I am sorry but I will not be posting here information that is widely available in the media. The purpose of this page is to debate and not to summarise the news. As to your characterisation and insults, I am sorry that you have no arguments of any substance to post and have to resort to this quality of posts. Equally, you haven’t provided any credible information that Turkey will be joining, following on the latest events (not that it would have joined otherwise, but anyway…). I will not be responding to you further, as I am not prepared to enter some exchange centring on spinning and corrupting the contents of my posts, delivered with bad manners and hiding behind the T&C’s of this page, which are basically that we remove anything we don’t like, we don’t abide by freedom of speech or human rights’ norms…
Yes, it is under threat. Never before have I seen so many politicians promote a religion and force it upon us in all parts of our society. From using pools, to school lunches and even censoring facebook comments against said religion. Even after we are constantly attacked in the name of said religion, we keep being force fed it. It is wrong not to accept it. And some EU politicians sitting in the EU commission go as far as stating it is part of our heritage, culture and that politicial Islam, which is Sharia Law, should be part of the EU.
So, it is not OK for muslim children to eat at schools meat that is not Halal, but yet it is OK to force a non muslim child to eat halal meat? It is OK to criticize christians, which Europe is mayority christian, yet it is not OK to criticize Islam.
So yes, secularism is threatened in Europe, by governments forcing Islam on us. At times you would think we live in a muslim country, under sharia law. Wonder if muslim governments promote christianity as our Western governments promote Islam? Answer is no.
Yes it is. And shouldn’t be.
You are making sure of that.
First of all you have to find the definition of secularism.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/secularism
To be secular a society must be free of all religious faith and worship. And Europe is no such thing. If it was there would be no acceptance of mosques, churches, synagogues and so on. They would not exit. And more importantly, there would be no such tolerance of the thing called a burka or burkini.
There would be no tolerance of swimming pools being closed to men or individuals who are not Muslim on certain days, there would be no religeous schools or faith schools.
Has anyone give one thought to how girls who go to so called secular schools, and sit beside other students who are covered from head to toe because they are simply girls, who are taught to be ashamed of their body to the point where theirs is covered ‘religiously’ under the guise of ‘modesty’ whilst boy are left to run freely. How can that in any way be seen as secular, or, offering equality?
This act of child abuse is a violence against the psyche of all girls who have to succumb to such horror, as well as to the girls who have to sit beside such depravity without any understanding of the reason why their friend is unworthy of being seen. Why they must question are they not also banned from sight. Are they somehow ‘bad’ or ‘evil’ for showing their arms legs and hair? No secular society would encourage such a spectacle. Not if they are preaching at the same time, equality. The confusion with all of this is enough to make any child schizophrenic. Male of female.
Another anomaly are boys in turbans with hair rolled up under it not to be removed for swimming or some such. How secular is that? Religious mutilation of children, both boys and girls.
So, we already do not and have not lived in a secular society. In fact we have not only tolerated child abuse under the guise of religious tradition, but have openly encouraged it. Although, not Christian religion that is taking a beating every day. No crosses in school, but, teachers allowed to wear full covering including a veil as they struggle to educate with thick unfathomable accents and no face signals.
This is a ridiculous subject to even attempt to discuss.
This link is as an addendum to the above post I wrote.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3723423/Outrage-France-waterpark-booked-Muslim-women-burkini-day.html
Catherine has hit the nail on the head: a liberal and secular society should not be tolerating practices which are neither secular nor liberal but quite the opposite are opposed to it. With regards to this article about the burkini day in France…if someone seriously think that closing the pool to everyone else for the sake of a small group of people (whatever or whoever they are) using it in isolation constitutes a case of those individuals getting out and participating in society, obviously, they are on something…
And, by the way, the burkini is anti health and safety, as many of those women wear it outside of the pool as well and by the time they get in the water, it is full of dust bacteria etc.
@Yasmine, the human skin is covered in dust and bacteria too. With regards to religious garbs, if it does not violate a state law, and is worn by somebody because they chose to do so to remain true to their faith then what exactly is the big deal?
Duncan, swimming pools require that you take a shower before you go in the water. However, a full-body costume would not be washed under the shower and would carry more bacteria. The burka is part of legislation introduced by the Assyrian empire in 2000BC intended to regulate and restrict the role of women in public spaces. The law demanded that all pious women cover themselves apart from prostitutes. So the implication of wearing this is that whoever wears it is pious and respectable but whoever doesn’t is promiscuous and indeed this is how Muslim men seem to have perceived Western women in a number of sex attacks reported in the media lately. This belief is also not compatible with Western standards which are for democracy and equality regardless of the sex of the person. I personally find the hijab offensive, as I don’t wear one. Whether you see a problem with it, depends on whether you endorse Western democratic values and to what extent you want to follow Muslim values. In my view, unless you respect the local culture and values, you should not be allowed to live here.
@Yasmine, what kind of showers remover the bacteria from human skin? I’d also question just how much dead skin particles etc. are removed from the skin during what is lets face it, a hasty showering. Nobody paying to go swimming wants to spend too long not in the pool.
As to your other comment about western values, for me they include right to religious freedom and freedom of expression. I am against women being made to wear a burkini (or any other type of garment) but I would fight a war if need be for their right to chose to wear it. Banning it is in my opinion just as wrong morally (and legally, under my country’s laws) as enforcing it as mandatory.
Fighting a war for the burkini is jihad, Duncan. Thank you very much. Just to show you why it should be banned. And yes, it can. There is freedom of religion but there is public order and protecting your own values as well. I am sad to hear that your religion is about clothes. Mine’s about faith.
Oh and by the way running water and soap do remove bacteria and I have seen the guards send people back to the changing rooms for smelling of sun cream. It is true. Life in Europe really is as organised as this, whether you want to believe it or not. And we want it to stay this way.
Keep jihadis well out of Europe. There are plenty of countries where they can go and wear the burkini without a problem. Don’t let them kill us over here over it.
@Yasmine, are you deliberately misunderstanding what I say or is this fear of the burkini so set in your mind that you think defending someone’s rights and freedoms with respect to it is a terrorist act? If lady gaga had worn something that looked like this and there were no religious connections to it at all would you still be calling for it’s abolishment? Where exactly did I say my religion was about clothes? My religion calls for peace on earth and good will to all mankind. Sadly, sometimes it is necessary to fight oppression, which is what you are calling for.
Lately ther is a threat against the christianity and the western way of ife “Secularism” In Europe there was alwyas a inlux of migrants within the European continent with the majority of migrants to be christians. This issue needs a lot of discussion Europe oblides to protect its borders and its national from the invations of other nationals.
European borders not “deals” and talks
Sweden, f.ex., already started becoming an islamic country with separated swimmingpools to women and men.
Same in English and French southern coast.
Yes, it is under threat.
No, frankly it’s not. There will be scare mongering and incitement to hatred from many sources. Extreme Islamists(not actually following the rules of their faith they claim to wish to die and kill for), the media, opportunistic politicians, and of course let’s not forget the nationalists. But by and large secularism will go on short of a very extreme action from someone in power.
Take a look at Sweden, at the UK, at the Netherlands, just as a few examples. Trash the political correctness and assume it. Denying it by now is nothing but irresponsible.
I beg to differ. The islamists are the ones that are really following islam. Check youtube videos by the Masked Arab for more detailed information. Better still read the koran and hadiths.
Yes,it is.We need to wake up and act.
You speak of percentages and majorities but how much Ebola or Aids some need to get the disease ? Not much…Same with the migrant fundamentalisy hell bent on imposing through violence their anti secular sharia laws to destroy Europe… They don’t need to be a majority to install terror, keep on bringing the enemies of democracy in.
NO , religious groups had incredible success on the last elections for the EU Parliament . They had incredible success on national elections in many countries just few examples : Croatia , Poland , Slovakia , Hungary , Sweden , Norway , Germany . But I could fin out some of the reasons for their success . 1. They opened borders for Arab Muslims to fuel nationalism and they used that nationalism on elections 2. They used anti gay filling to get supporters 3. They created new political groups under names like : Liberals , Center , Green , Democratic … and they find out how to win elections but they never told who they are , they sabotaged elections . In Croatia they can never receive over 30% of votes but they used scam to create government and that government collapsed after 5 Months , now they are going to have new elections . Similar situation in Sweden , Swedish government is close to collapse . Polish government is for sure going to collapse and German can’t even elect they government , stupid all that . We should STOP all financing of religious organisations .
It is indifferent what they consider themselves. One thing is culture, another is daily practice. No one marries if they don’t want to and most don’t do it in a church. Most children are born out of wedlock. It is not a few muslims in a few countries that will change any of it but the rise of fascist parties in big EU countries like Poland, France, etc with their mania of telling others how to live.
As for Germany, it has never been a secular state unfortunately … the German state even collects taxes for the church. So the question would rather have to be: How can we ensure that the principle of secularism is applied in European states in the first place?
just ask the junioproffspring that is hunting pokemons
Hard to say. Many differences for example between Iceland, Switzerland and Russia.
And what do you think about secularism in Asia or South America?
The problemas is not if the secularism is in danger. The problem is how to integrante in a secular society, a minority of emigration which doesn t share the value of secularism and is not open to adopt it rules of the liberal society, thats a great challenge of our time
Get your facts straight. For example The Netherlands has 5% Muslims, growing to 10% in 15 years time, if you include refugee family reunion. With concentrations in areas in Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, Gouda and Utrecht of 30% or more.
On the other hand, 72% Catholic may be valid for East Europe. But in NL Christians are going to 40% or less. Rest is mainly atheist.
And we’ve all seen in Yugoslavia how 10% Muslims vs small Catholic group and atheists worked out.
There will be no-go zones for atheists and Christians, areas of cities where sharia law is practically enforced.
So secularism will hold, but not everywhere.
Yes we’ve all seen how that worked out:
The Yugoslav wars in which the main agressors were Catholic nations (Croatia and Serbia and Muslim bosniaks and Albanian kosovars were mainly the victims. To illustrate:
Srebrenica: More than 8.000 Muslim bosnians were massacred by Catholic Serbians.
The most interesting part? They all lived in relative harmony before the event.
If you’re going to qoute history, try not to warp it too much.
How about don’t invite in millions of islamic immigrants that have no interest in our political systems and just want sharia law……
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/democracy.aspx
How about asylum? You don’t want human rights here in Europe?
The concept of asylum Ede is to give it to someone with whose cause you sympathise because this cause is being fought against in their home country. To cover our faces and eat halal is not really part of our customs and aspirations. If you give asylum to the wrong people you can end up having to look for asylum yourself. We also have human rights. They are not only for Muslims.
So, your argument is that secularism is under threat, not because of the immigration of non secular cultured peoples, but from the political elite too scared as coming across as bigoted or too accommodating of other cultures to enforce their own laws on minority groups?
The numbers given in the introduction are from 2012. I think the discussion should start with numbers from 2015 per country, including the recent changes related to the refugee crisis. Projections for the next ten years, based on the population growth of religious groups should be included as well.
Numbers generally don’t include a prejustice, except if wrong and incomplete numbers a deliberately used.
Deliberate or not makes no difference. Wrong or incomplete numbers always give the wrong answer.
Not only in Europe… In the entire world…
The correct title was “Is the imported Islamic culture a threat to democracy ?” And the answer is abviously yes as sharia laws rejects democratic / secularism values and calls for their destruction by all means possible, violence and terrorism included.
Here is the figure of Migrants to Europe in 2015.
https://hydrablog.csusm.edu/2015/12/number-of-migrants-entering-eu.html
And here is an interesting link to consider.
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/key-topics/population
What we must ask our governments is why they keep the true figures of mass immigration into Europe from outside its borders? Why do they appear afraid to tell their citizens the truth?
How can secularism not be affected by millions of people entering Europe from alien cultures that have absolutely no idea what secular means? Why should Europeans and their satellite states be forced to pay taxes to support people who are incapable of supporting themselves. Why are the countries where these people left, not being forced to, A) Pay for every one of them who enter Europe by illicit means? And, B) Not forced to repatriate them at their own cost?
Is this secular???????
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44vzMNG2fZc
The answer is: “It is a humanitarian crisis.” But this is a rather superficial argument, if the refugee crisis results in an democratic crisis. It is also not an valid argument for open boarders to everyone. Open european boarders for everyone, without control, allowing illegal mass migration into Europe.
The official argument was: “The boarders cannot be controlled”. Obviously an wrong argument, as the closed Balkan route shows; see page 5 in the Frontex Western Balkan Quarterly ( http://frontex.europa.eu/assets/Publications/Risk_Analysis/WB_Q1_2016.pdf ). In Q1 there where 217 815 illegal boarder crossings, an reduction of -84% related to the previous quarter. The asylum application number, which is sometimes cited by some politician is misleading. Since it can take month before an refugee can apply for asylum and if he cannot apply he generally will stay in Europe. Thus 217815 refugees implies, that Europe must build the equivalent of two large cities for refugees. Cities with an islamic majority, who I think will not accept secularism.
I post on developments related to the refugee crisis; see https://plus.google.com/collection/UnV7o.
Such statements, regardless of their ridiculousness have nothing to do with secularism.
First and foremost. Europe is not secular. Many if not al nations have Christian parties of parties of Christian background lobbying their beliefs and forcing them on to everyone. For instance the Dutch SGP party stil believes women should be confined to housekeeping and actively tries to pass legislation to stimulate this. Meanwhile I know of no muslim parties whatsoever and most politicians of islamic background embody the separation of state and church.
So while we all point our fingers at Muslim immigrants, Christian parties entrenched in our society are the actual threat to secularism. Most Muslims flee from a state where there is no secularism, what are the odds they want to install sharia law here? And even if they wanted to, they have no means as there are no muslim parties who advocate such laws. And I’ll gladly support a law banning parties from all religious backgrounds from politics to stop any such thing from happening.
As for your other arguments: Most immigrants aren’t able to support themselves simply because we don’t allow them to. We alienate them, discriminate them. (Refugees are not allowed to have jobs)(In the Netherlands people with non-western names are three times less likely to get a job offered even if they have the same qualifications) If we want them to become part of our society and contribute, we should allow them to.
Second: You’d seriously think we can force a guy like Assad (or any other country for that matter) to pay for everyone who flees from his terror? You’re severely delusional.
Jurre, you seriously think they all flee from Al-Assad? What about ISIS who have committed genocide, slaughtering entire villages of non-Muslims? Don’t you think that the 5% of Christians in Syria would be fleeing from them. And with regards to your questions whether we think they will want Sharia law here. Well, you don’t need to ask at all. Some of them have already waged violent Jihad over here and that’s beside the ones that arrive here covered in their hijabs and demanding halal food at the refugee centres, so, obviously, these are people who from the word go have no intention of integrating but want to practice jihad, ie practice and spread Islam. You are also referring to Christian partied as not being secular. However, Christianity officially teaches people to be peaceful and to blend in. Islam demands to be spread by force if peaceful means don’t work. Excuse me, but how can you even compare? If people don’t want Christian parties, they can simply not vote for them. If they don’t like Islam though, they can still be blown up and forced to eat Halal meat in spite of their will. Are we talking about the same thing? I have had enough of people like you twisting facts and making excuses trying to supposedly play the role of the liberal. I am sorry, I am not convinced. You cannot accept women in hijabs and say that you are liberal.
@Yasmine, a few counterpoints. Firstly, you seem to be quoting statements about the Islamic teachings that have been drummed up by anti-muslim propaganda. Secondly halal food is their religious requirement. Or are you suggesting we also ban the practice of kosher food for European Jewish citizens? What about communal wine and wafers for Catholics? Anything linked to Easter or Christmas must obviously also not be allowed. Ban valentines day (a christian saint celebration forced onto us) and those Santa costumes should clearly be a criminal act to wear! Do you get where I’m going with this? Obviously immigration needs to be monitored and controlled, especially in light of those being radicalized, but that doesn’t mean we should be radicalizing in the opposite extreme. We have laws in place to deal with crimes. More needs to be done in enforcement of those laws. Being terrified of the Muslims ‘coming to get you’ only seems to help prevent acceptance and peaceful coexistence. Witch I rather thought was the whole purpose of secularism.
Duncan:
1. Just because a particular group of people have said something that you don’t like, doesn’t make their statement wrong.
2. I have not suggested banning any kind of meat. However, I find it unreasonable that people come to Greece, a country 98% Christian, and demand that it caters for their religious practices. NO ONE is forced to come to Greece and unless they are prepared to live by Greek cultural standards, they should be discouraged from coming.
3. The Eucharist can be taken at Church by whoever wants it. What is your point and problem with this?
4. Christmas and Easter are local European traditions which are banned in Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia. Why should we ban our own celebrations exactly, according to you?
5. When you say that St Valentine’s is being forced on you, do you mean that you are being forced to go to church to celebrate it? If it annoys you, you may be living in the wrong country.
6. Secularism means people don’t present themselves as Muslims and try and force their religion on others. It doesn’t mean, we ban everything apart from Islam.
@Yasmine, I think you’ve completely missed my point. I was attempting to show you just how isolationist your viewpoint is by showing you how our ‘western’ traditions (kind of offensive to the indian christian community by the way) that are connected to non muslim religions are not only freely celebrated by non christians (atheists for example) but Jewish religious practices and garments are also not being attacked, and are generally accepted by the masses. Despite their supposedly being religious tolerance across Europe, people are to abandon being muslim if they want to live in Europe? Why precisely is it do you think that those monsters who recruit vulnerable people (children and the mentally unstable) to kill ‘in the name of god’ (lies lies lies!) are getting so many willing volunteers? Could it be that you looking down on their religious and cultural practices with distaste and disapproval might maybe be generating a sense of separate (us against them) and not being accepted? Maybe? Nobody gives it a second thought I they see someone in a Santa outfit around Christmas, why is a woman in swimwear near a swimming area the cause of so much spite and venom coming to the surface? Easter eggs are ok, but halal food options shouldn’t be available?
This to me is one slippery path which if it isn’t rejected by all free willed European leads to Muslims being forced to go on a register and wear an armband in public so everyone can see that they are the muslim and should be singled out and made to feel scared and hated. I have the good fortune to have only read about the last time similar ideologies took route in Europe, but it will be over my dead body that it happens again.
Sounds like you missed the point of mine, Duncan. Just read again.
@ Yasmine, I really don’t think I did miss your point. I think your point of view is one of fear, panic or hatred and has no bearing on reality. You imply that muslim culture and western culture cannot peacefully coexist despite the fact there has been far more evidence of muslim-western peace than there has been western-western peace over the last 800 years. And what’s more is the bloodiest spats of western-muslim violence have been initiated by us, not the Muslims. But since this doesn’t play to your view of all Muslims are out to destroy us or force us to be muslim too, no don’t you will neither believe me or check history books to find out I’m right. If you let fear and hatred rule your decision making then those who seek to attack your way of life have won.
“You imply that muslim culture and western culture cannot peacefully coexist”
Duncan if that is what Yasmine is implying then she is correct. What has happened in the past 800 years is immaterial, the vast majority of normal people (i.e. those not looking for excuses or justifications) are concerned with what is happening right here and now, and as long as you have Islamic extremists there will not be peace between Muslims and the west
So if you have a solution to eradicate extremism then I (and the rest of the civilised world) would love to hear it
You have someone here posting that he would go to war=kill over the burkini. Murder is illegal, isn’t it? I thought that there was a law against incitement of hatred and crime and terrorism in particular. The police needs to be called here. What is going on?
@Paul, first again let me reiterate that the Isis suicide bombers and other recently radicalised people committing murder in Europe and turkey etc. Are not in fact Islamic according to those documents, and even the head of the CIA. As for how to prevent people becoming radicalised. There is no one complete solution. But things that will go a long way are more active policing and intelligence services with regards to those guilty of (I’ll use UK crimes, but I believe similar charges exist across Europe) inciting violence and conspiracy to commit murder. Since radical recruiters are guilty of either/both of those. Better border control needs to be a factor in limiting and monitoring the movements of those suspected of being terrorists. Facial I’d recognition technology as standard on cctv systems publicly controlled. A central intelligence sharing network for terrorist suspects on as international a level as can be obtained. But also tighter monitoring of weapons trading legal or otherwise. Then of course there’s reducing the chances of radicalisation occurring through good will and understanding. If people get to interact in community situations it removes this fear of the unknown and different. And for these purposes I would say both sides need this. Neo nazi groups such as EDL in England going round in groups attacking innocent people will make those people feel like they need to form groups of their own. What’s worse it is guilt by association. Beating a muslim shopkeeper half to death in no way punishes those responsible for the atrocity that caused the retaliation. To paraphrase Dr King We all need to sit down at the table of brotherhood. When I was growing up, we had a community centre on my street. A place children could socialise and interact in a fun environment, a few arcade machines, pool tables a dance floor and a sweet and drink vendor. We knew the people who lived around us on a first name basis. We had Caribbean and oriental immigrants living in our community and they were part of our community. Nobody ever attacked them for not being white British, and frankly I suspect if anyone had tried they’d have had half the street to deal with. Modern lifestyles often get in the way of community, people working shifts and not spending as much time interacting with those nearby. Look at me, on my phone talking through the internet instead of to the person sat next to me. I don’t exactly know how to fix the community deficit that exists today, the worldwide web isn’t going away and companies are unlikely to drop the 24 hour working concept. Particularly in care industries. But as long as you don’t know the people you see when you walk down the streets there will be fear and fear leads to hatred. Doesn’t really matter if everyone on the planet looked, talked and worshipped the same or not at all. It would still cause unsocial actions.
@Yasmine, why do you not manage to read what is put? I did not say anything about being willing to go to war for the burkini. What I said I would fight a war for was peoples right to wear it.
In more lengthy terms so as to hopefully remove any and all question about this whatsoever. I was talking about defending human rights and freedoms. If your attack had been against the popes pointy hat, or mickey mouse ears I would have still argued the same. Other than to prevent indecent exposure, people should be allowed to wear what they dam well want to!
Here is the response to your claim that people should be allowed to wear what they want, Duncan. Those that are not prepared to accept our laws and social standards but want to fight wars against them, should not be allowed to stay here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.A.S._v._France
@Yasmine, 1stly wearing clothes is not against our laws.
2ndly deportation of criminals who were born in a country goes against our laws.
3rdly, I would put it to you that anyone who does I fact try to oppress somebody’s right to freedom of expression is in violation of our laws. By your argument you need to leave. . . . . .
Has p-correctness & tolerance become a self-contradictory principle or a threat?
The present concept of the atheist, elitist & the political oligarchy- to achieve a questionable “correctness at any price”- has unbalanced a once stable system & created confusion & anger among society, whilst promoting a strange closeness in its opposition.
The paradox of (unlimited) tolerance arises when a general tolerant society holds “antagonistic- popular” views towards intolerance of others, and hence is intolerant of it. The once tolerant individual or society would by definition be intolerant of intolerance which in turn is labeled as not political correct.
Will it be the survival of the “fittest” or the most pc correct?
Hasn’t the overly correct & complicated system paralyzed common sense? In the end it will fail everybody, since nobody within such society can feel safe nor protected by the State anymore. What has gone wrong or missing?
Misconceived political correctness you are referring to.
As long as we keep making excuses for people blowing themselves up in the name of religion and we bend over backwards so that they can eat their own meat at the canteen, bring their theocratic sense of style and dress, and bully us out of celebrating our own holidays, yet, it is.
And another thing…, people keep referring to leftist ideology etc. Religion has nothing to do with either left wing or right wing. Jihad is opposed to core leftist principles, such as freedom of speech, equality of the sexes etc..so anyone who truly believes in leftist ideas, cannot tolerate or make excuses for jihad. And, no, jihad does not have to be violent. There are peaceful means of dominating as well, but the result is the same: theocracy.
In addition, the fact that we are being targeted by violent jihad should not make us turn to Christian extremism and religious domination in political life. People can practice their religion privately.
* yes, it is.
typo…
@Yasmine, nobody has ever stopped me from celebrating my religious holidays. Nobody has ever tried to. I have never once encountered a muslim who has verbally or physically attacked or intimidated me because of my faith.
How many people do you know that make excuses for suicide bombers? Which, I’d like to point out is in fact for the will of a politics leader (aka another person, not god).
And what’s more you imply someone who is pro freedom of thought, opinion and expression cannot truly tolerate people choosing to submit their freedom? The way to eventually stop all this maddening and senseless hatred and violence on both sides is to remove the sides. Muslims living in Europe need to feel European within themselves. This cannot be achieved without tearing down the metaphorical walls that keep the cultural differences from blending into the next generation of culture in the mixing pot of an open society.
@Yasmine, you seem to be suggesting the closure of all places of worship, advertisement of religious events and the banning of religious leadership. Or did you have some other form of idea of how religious practice should be done privately? If so please elaborate because as a Christian part of my religious practices are not to kill, not to steal and to love my neighbour (which I interpret as meaning have mercy and tolerance for people around me) so if I can no longer practice my religion in public, does that mean I must kill and steal and hate my neighbour when I go out of my house? Will Buddhists be required to have contempt for all living things and be compelled to try to obtain a state of ignorance when in public? You can perhaps see why your comment may need less ambiguity here.
Duncan, yes, I do know people who make excuses for suicide bombers. You’re one of them. If you are a Christian, you would know about practicing your religion in private and I don’t need to tell you about it. Your claim that you haven’t been attacked by a Muslim personally is obviously redundant because of the so many “terrorist”/jihadi attacks in Europe this year.
@Yasmine, kindly direct me to where I made an excuse for suicide bombers?
I point out simply that of the many Muslims I have spoken to, not one has been critical, or aggressive towards me for my beliefs. Many atheists are less enlightened on my right to religious freedom. How many Muslims have you spoken to about religion? What is more, suicide bombers are in fact more often than not non Muslims or lip service Muslims with no real understanding of Islam. Isis documents for example point to roughly 71% of recruits having no to little knowledge of Islam, at least based on the assumption the media are telling the truth, I have not seen the documents in person.
I am still very much in the dark about the workings of your concept of privately practiced religion, the fact I am a christian in no way grants me clairvoyance and you phrased it so very very ambiguously. I pray in private and communally in church. And I practice the teachings of Jesus in private and public alike. Your suggestion would very clearly affect this, but in what way depends on clarification.
Secularism has no pillars anymore, by the way.
Yes, if there are enough Muslims with European passports who, under the rules of democracy, may elect their own leaders as mayors and MPs. Depending on how extreme the views of those leaders are, this could put secular rule under threat. We can see this process already happening in Turkey, even though it is not a European country, but they chose an Islamist, neo-Osmanist as their president and now secularism is gradually being replaced with Islamic rules. Londoners elected a Muslim as a mayor, but he does not seem to be that extreme. The danger for secularism depends on whether there are Muslims in the governing authorities and to what extent they favour Sharia law.
@ Maia Alexandrova:
The Muslim Mayor of London has started with it though. He wants to ban, or, has banned, pictures of women in bikinis in the London underground. What is next I wonder? Also he is a Blairite in disguise, he ran on a socialist ticket but is more right than left.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/06/13/londons-muslim-mayor-ban-bikini-images-public/
And
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/why-sadiq-khan-cannot-escape-questions-about-extremists-a3230486.html
How long will it be before this rose opens its bud and shows the real colour of its petals?
How Londoners elected this guy is an enigma. He had trails of Muslim groups with banners following him, which were blatantly anti semitic and this group were gleeful when he won.
London, of course, is heavily ethnic. And the groundswell is spreading throughout the home counties like wildfire.
This is how it starts…first one is not that extreme, second one is slightly more traditional, third one just about gets away with it and the fourth one imposes Sharia law. It is a matter of public opinion gradually getting accustomed to it. Jesus said give to Jesus what belongs to Jesus and to Cesar what belongs to Cesar. However, Islam demands jihad and allegiance to Mohammed over allegiance to the state. There is no distinction between the two.
If you genuinely think that London, England or the UK would ever regress to a point where religious oppression or intolerance are mainstream dispite the long and bloody path we have walked to get beyond that then you have clearly been radicalised yourselves!
From refugees to aggressors: the story of Islam in Ethiopia, by Raymong Ibrahim:
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/2014/12/15/europe-should-learn-ethiopias-islam-lesson/
Here is a link all Europeans should read. It is a direct explanation of why Europe has failed. And still further explains the inability and lack of any kind of connectedness the ruling elite have with those they profess to govern. Secular or otherwise, they have failed miserably.
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/06/24/a-brexit-blow-to-the-establishment/
A blow to which establishment, Catherine? The British Colonial one? Or is it just a case of running away from change and political modernity back into the arms of same old British elites? You have been brainwashed I’m afraid.
@Yasmine, I rather like to think of the fact we will no longer have EU politicians as we will have fewer politicians. We may not win the war against oppressive rule, but each victory needs to be savoured :)
Ein paar nüchterne Zahlen:
“Seit der Gründung der Republik Türkei am 29. Oktober 1923 hat sich die Bevölkerungszahl bis 2014 etwa versechsfacht. 1927 lebten in der Türkei knapp 13,7 Millionen Menschen, 2003 waren es knapp 70 Millionen. Am 31. Dezember 2014 lebten 77.695.904 Menschen im Land und Ende 2015 78.741.053.”
“Der Anteil der nichtmuslimischen Bevölkerung ist in der Zeit von ca. 2,5% auf 0,2% gesunken. ”
Quelle Wikipedia: https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demografie_der_T%C3%BCrkei
“Die Geburtenrate Deutschlands ist die niedrigste innerhalb der Europäischen Union, mit 8,4 Neugeborenen pro 1.000 Einwohner im Jahr 2012. In diesem Jahr kamen 673.544 Kinder zur Welt. Die Geburten pro Frau im gebärfähigen Alter lag 2012 bei 1,38. Allerdings stiegen die absoluten Geburtenzahlen in den Jahren 2013 (682 000) und 2014 (715 000) wieder an.
Dabei zeigt sich, dass die Geburtenrate der Frauen mit Migrationshintergrund überdurchschnittlich ist. Im Jahr 2008 hatten Frauen der Jahrgänge 1959–1973 ohne Migrationserfahrung im Schnitt 1,44 Kinder, diejenigen mit Migrationserfahrung 1,95 (darunter Frauen türkischer Staatsangehörigkeit durchschnittlich 2,60 Kinder). Am wenigsten Kinder hatten deutsche Frauen ohne Migrationshintergrund der Jahrgänge 1974–1992 (0,33), am meisten türkische Frauen der Jahrgänge 1933–1958 (3,59).
Quelle Wikipedia: https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demografie_Deutschlands
Zur Mathematik der demographischen Entwicklung siehe auch https://plus.google.com/116010873343713831202/posts/BSMNvYxJHiW
Bitte die Zahlen aus der Wikipedia kritisch hinterfragen und gegebenfalls korrigieren – danke im voraus.
Gibt es einen Zusammenhang zwischen der Gleichberechtigung von Mann und Frau in einer Religion und der Geburtenrate?
http://eblanademocraticmove.blogspot.ie/2016/09/europeto-ban-burkini-or-not-to-ban.html
To ban or not to ban? The burkini incident and the future of secularism and multiculturalism in Europe
Ban! Ban all religious symbols from civil society. Want to pray to your imaginary friends? Go to a praying site. And tax religions like any other business, no more hand outs from governments and no more influence in politics. But I’m sure the virus of political correctness will in turn action our politicians to continue to relax our laws to allow these institutions to control, influence, lobby the people and the public institutions. Business as usual. And then we get surprised with nationalist and right wing politicians gaining momentum…
@Jaoa, firstly I’d like to point out that God is not an imaginary friend. You can chose to disbelieve that if you wish, but don’t demean what you fail to understand.
Secondly if you try to ben me from wearing a crucifix in public then you’ll have a fight on your hands, same goes for priests and their dog collars and so on and so forth.
Thirdly religions are not businesses, they are religions.
Fourthly, you cannot prevent any organisation involving human interaction (that will have an impact on how people think) from having an effect on politics. It will happen regardless.
Fifthly, please kindly stop blaming religion for all the woes in the world (typical atheist viewpoint) when the fact is they are all either caused by natural disasters or people.
Yes it is, and the EU as usual is doing nothing
Doing nothing?? By the contrary, they are doing everything they can to make sure all traces of democracy and secularism are erased from the continent. And they are doing a pretty good job…
No Vatican, no Taliban
it is. I don’t know who paid what sums of money just to ignore constitutions and basic human rights for the sake of religions. Scientology was battled almost in a “nuclear” way, now some religions are given a pass like its cool. Double standards, PR over law system weird new age rules are destroying law systems and societies in whole eu.
Scientology was/is having an impact on pre existing laws. Aka euthanasia, child welfare and so on. What examples of other mainstream religions where human rights and other laws are being ignored?
No, Christianity is under threat – and not just in Europe, but across the world: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/13/christianity-under-global-threat-persecution-says-report
Why the Christian symbolism on the picture? If secularism is truly under threat in Europe, it’s certainly not because of Christians, but because of Islam.
Actually, if seculism is under threat then it’s because of people’s attitudes. At no point have I met a muslim who has tried to force me to be muslim, or to make my daughter cover herself from he’s to toe in public.
As for why there’s christian symbolism, is it not a form of religion? Was it maybe chosen out of political correctness as it’s less likely to offend the islamaphobes than seeing an Islamic symbol?
My point being peoples views are what’s threatening seculism. It shouldn’t actually matter what type of picture is at the top of this discussion. But somehow it does, because of the people of Europe seem to be gaining an increasing dislike of a particular religious group. To the extent they are talking about persecuting their religious freedoms. Based on (in some cases at least) a fear of Sharia law somehow becoming legally mandated in Europe, which is completely absurd. But they naturally fail to see the irony of oppressing freedom in order to preserve freedom. That is why secularism is currently in danger.
yes offcourse………….
A rather interesting read: https://aeon.co/essays/is-migration-making-europe-more-secular
There are now too many diverse cultural expectations about religion, its role in political life, and the degree to which it can be criticised or mocked. The more muscular religiosity of some migrant communities, among other factors, is provoking European governments to restrict religion firmly to the private sphere, and to render the public sphere a strictly secular one.
yes like never was, some countries are starting to have secondary religion courts that overpose the constitution. Europe was the foundation of democracy and now everything can go wrong.
The UE still is the worst enemy of democracy and it’s the EU creating this problem (once again) with its absurd external and immigration policies. So to solve it we need to fix, or end, the EU asap.
This is Christian Europe Europe is christian and pagan… no islam, no judaism
So wrong. Paganism was mainstream before Christianity, before paganism was probably a long list of other forms of polytheisms and sun/moon worship. Judaism is basically the religion that Christianity and then Islam are formed from. Moses was the Jewish people’s prophet, just as Jesus was Christianity’s (although in this case Jesus became referred to as the son of god, resulting in the holy trinity etc.) and Mohammed being the prophet of Islam. So without Judaism you cannot have Christianity. Paganism has not been a mainstream religion in Europe for centuries, and frankly what exists today I highly doubt actually comes close to the traditional practice of that religion. Not least because human sacrifice would be dealt with by the authorities.
Religions have more rights than humans.
that’s real problem.
Depending which secularism are you referring for…
We don’t have to mix both pizza and gulash before accomplishment of our faith.
We don’t have to mix religion with political laws.
There must be millions of stories
about…
Get out here Christians, that does not even make sense, your not from Israel.
? Want to take another stab at that statement so I know what you’re trying to say?
Yes, it is! And christians are the first to threaten it. But not the only ones.
Christian right here, vehemently defending seculism. I don’t like the way you just grouped any and all christians together in a negative way. Not very tolerant of you.
Secularists took over Europe through bloody revolutions and massacres in 1789, 1917 & 1945, and have been leading Europe to its own destruction ever since.
There is no secularism as far as we concern in christianity. The photo above is about to misslead thinking and match christianity and secularism in the same pack. Furher more it is wrong to use the same criteria when the stake is on church and having the same judgement about christianity. Secularism is not a phenomenon, on the contrary is about a religion activism that may not seen. So it cannot be measured or examined because of the mysticism that is attouched with. Christianity and church are religion historical phenomenon because of the straight historical reaction regardless of the human barbarianism. Nevertheless secularism is systematically subgraded in europe cause of the unreligion politics. Modern european policy is about to cut off religion effect and submit it to an economical hygemony,which is the prelliminary stadium to another hygemony. Furher analysis can be easily found in bibliography search.
It is mostly thro the moment of party’s like Swedish Democrats, nationalists and a like
Secularism doesn’t threaten anybody, religion does.
When has religion threatened anyone? Religious leaders have sometimes, and this should of course not be tolerated. But they are/were just people with a position of power within the religion, not the religion itself.
It’s a very devious question!
I don’t mind if anyone’s got a faith. I mean the Christians and the Muslims and the Indian elephant guy. But please know that you’re all wrong and that you should leave the normal people alone. :D
Those who are socially and politically sensitive, for them its so funny to think about the secularism and democracy in Europe and how can it work together!!!
for example, France….studies are indicating based on the current birth rate in france after few decades the majority of french citizens will be muslims and the native French people become minority probably they will be Christians and few agnostics and aeithists. till that stage French might be secular in border line. after that imagine…..a democratic election(probably the last democratic election in French history) all muslims are voting to their party…..muslim party will come in rule…democratically…..and then the majorities opinion may to implement sharia law…..offcourse the govt may claim or answer to hungary or to poland that time, that we are implementing the majorities wish….yes then sharia law will be implemented democratically!!!……….then you know what is sharia?? right?? then democratically they will remove secularism…….democratically the official religion will be islam…….democratically the womens must wear head scarf…..in the public just like in Saudi now…….democratically non muslim people are not allowed to practice any non Islamic faith in public ……may be home churches might be allowed lets hope for that……democratically the pubs and nightclubs might be closed…..the native french may not be eat pork and drink wine and bear toooo…….democratically no more public romance and love…..that might be criminal offence…..democratically all churches and public squares will fill with the half moon sympols…istead of christain and europian arts…..the French missionaries may left with two choice either convert to islam or to get beheaded and the nuns may left with two choices too either marry a muslim man or convert to islam. So gradually and immediatly a big transformation has done like the guest become the host and the host become the refugee not even a guest !!! ……wow oh god so nice it will be. I am only feel concerned that ….will all our agnostic and aiethist brothers and sisters will they enjoy the same rights and freedom of expression in that days???…………in the same way how they criticising Christianity and argued Europe is not Christian!!!!? and will be they able to confront with the Islamic authorities to separate the religion and state un a civilised way without a riot?? ahhhh we all know the generosity and civilisation of muslim leaders, so we can hope something better like a secular state under sharia law !!! but one thing you must be a muslim if u want to enjoy this secularism !!!………one thing is sure with islam secularism will not work in the world…..except islam with all other faith and religions…the secularism ….it is a beautiful concept.
yes. even in now days in Europe the administration is democratic. that means majority’s opinion must get respected. but whats hapening actually? the majority of europeans don’t want secularism in Europe( all the survey studies are reporting, even in france 80% doesn’t belive that secularism will work) also they don’t want Islamic culture or seed of islam in Europe, but the authorites are not concerned about the citizens will and they are just implementing blind policies very impulsively without taking a collective opinion. they are not prudent in their duty which the people have given to safeguard the nation and the citizens……how we can call this as a democratic ruling? what a contradictory is this? and people are not reacting too……so I think something is wrong in the europian democracy now days……there is a big gap between peoples and leaders…..so the Europe may become like some Asian democratic coutries after sometime. because in those land peoples doesn’t know that they have the power, they are giving the power to leaders to act according to the majorities wish and they do not know that the leaders are supposed to serve the citizens. and off course the leaders are thinking that they are the king and all citizens should serve them…….and leaders are buying vote by cash from individuals……so” the price of democracy is internal vigilance” so we have to re think and react if the democracy is not in the right maaner in our society. the democracy in constitution will not work unless the citizens are not becoming the executives of the democracy…….
so my dear friends….my humble request is that, lets form a Christian secular Europe……where the barbarianism cant grow… and we don’t need fear about christainity and Vatican it will not interfere in the individuals freedom….even if they want to change people they are doing it with love and respect to individuals…..so let it be like this how was the Europe just before one decade ago, like no muslims…..a fully Christian continent…but church and state is separated….let it continue like this….lets realise which is not good and lets don’t receive a babrbarian people and culture in our continent that in the name of secularism…..!