Europe: not quite the secular paradise you’d think

December 22, 2014 • 8:00 am

by Grania

There is a tendency in atheist circles for Europe to be held up as a place where religion has been all but relegated to the bin, and secularism reigns supreme. It’s true that in comparison to the USA, there is a difference. People on the whole do not make public displays of religiosity or piety, even those who self-identify as religious view it as a private matter and proselytizing is rare, and viewed with a mixture of embarrassment, pity and faint amusement.

However, Europe still has the relics of religious influence in its legislation and in fact many countries have laws enforcing things that would be regarded as unthinkable.

Germany requires its residents to officially declare their religion and pay a church tax. You can opt out, but the government collects taxes on behalf of religion.

Italy has compulsory crucifixes in school classrooms, and the European court of human rights actually overturned a 2009 court ruling to ban on them as they violated Italy’s secular constitution.

The Republic of Ireland still has regressive anti-abortion laws, the Catholic church still own about 90% of the tax-payer funded schools and it introduced blasphemy legislation as recently as 2009.

France finally signed same-sex marriage into law in 2013, but also put in an exemption for nationals of 11 countries that prohibits them from marrying in France, to “respect the religious identity of the countries”.

Northern Ireland is trying to introduce a “conscience clause” into law, that would allow business owners to refuse service to customers (read, gay people) on the basis of “strongly held religious convictions”.

Unfortunately, it is by no means a foregone conclusion that increased secularism results in saner legislation. Religion is still afforded a disproportionate deference, even when it results in the trampling of rights of those country’s inhabitants.

126 thoughts on “Europe: not quite the secular paradise you’d think”

  1. You mention Germany, Italy, France and Ireland (N & S), but surely the UK deserves a lot of condemnation on this!

    Laws that *require* people to worship the Christian god for example!

    Specific exemptions from equalities legislation that allow STATE-FUNDED schools to turn away pupils and decline to hire teachers, just because they don’t have the right religious beliefs!

    A while ago I wrote about this in: Britain’s 10 worst violations of religious equality.

    Hopefully WEIT can join in the pressure to secularise the British government and establishment to the same extent that the population is already largely secularised.

    1. I read your blog posting. I can only really get a bit pissed about a couple of them (Bishops in the Lourdes and tax exemptions), and they’re pretty wide ranging in society in general, not just the contemptible shites of religion.

      Laws that *require* people to worship the Christian god for example!

      The only thing I can see in your list that even vaguely fits that bill is the requirement for “religious education” in secondary schooling. Now, this may be treated differently by different teachers (is there a National Curriculum for it? Now that’s a nice hand grenade to pull the pin from and drop into the debate), but the comparative religion that we studied was actually moderately interesting, and reasonably even-handed. The Methodist lay minister who taught it would possibly have preferred it if I’d taken the opt-out option which was available to some of the assorted god-botherers, but I made sure that for the 3 years we had to attend, the atheist position was firmly put in every appropriate session. The teacher hated having to deal with absence of belief in every session about belief. I only got beaten up for it a few times too.
      But, at the end of the day, it’s all about education. This is an SEP. (Someone Else’s Problem.) In the unlikely event that I’m ever involved in recruiting someone with less than a decade of post-graduate experience, I might care. But otherwise, not.

      1. On compulsory worship: The law is the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 which requires that: “each pupil … shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship” where the worship is “wholly or mainly of a Christian character”.

        Parents have a right to opt their kids out, but the kids have no right to opt themselves out until sixth-form (age ~17). A lot of schools simply ignore this law, but that doesn’t change the fact that the law is there and was renewed as recently as 2006 (Education and Inspections Act 2006).

    2. “You mention Germany, Italy, France and Ireland (N & S), but surely the UK deserves a lot of condemnation on this!”

      I have smoke coming out of my ears !!!
      – It is NOT ‘Ireland N’, it is NORTHERN IRELAND, a SEPARATE country from the REPUBLIC of IRELAND !!!
      – AND Northern Ireland IS, IS, IS the UNITED KINGDOM !!! SO your “surely the UK deserves” part just shows your ignorance – I am fuming here !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      2. Calm down! At least the whole/rest of the UK wasn’t described by just “England”! (Which I think Diana got away with elsewhere.)

        Substitute “GB” for “UK” there and it’s fine. Even though most people (including Brits) treat GB and UK as synonymous. And in sports events, “Team GB” includes athletes from NI!

        It’s complicated …

        https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/British_Isles_Euler_diagram_15.svg/512px-British_Isles_Euler_diagram_15.svg.png

        /@

        1. No I didn’t do that that was Ben. You and I had to explain what the UK was and which countries were in the Commonwealth. 🙂

          1. I thought he lumped the Irelands together. Oh, well, the important thing is that we remember it was Ben.

            😀

          2. LOL! I remember because Ben was so confused and we kept throwing imagery at him to explain.

          4. Oh the 5 eyes. Yeah, I lazily just wrote England where it’s the UK that has the whole deal. I guess, I just think of England as the masters with me having my last name of MacPherson.

        2. Y’all expect me to distinguish between the “British Isles” and the “British Islands?!”

          If England, Scotland, & Wales are Great Britain, does that mean “Britain” is synonymous with England?

          How did Isle of Man, Jersey, & Guernsey end up out of the UK? And do we have to consider them at all? 😀

          1. Yep.

            No, Britain NE England! It is Great Britain in contrast to Lesser Britain = Brittany from Roman times (or earlier, from Ireland [island]: Ptolemy’s “mikra Brettania”).

            /@

          3. Just to confuse – or perhaps elucidate – things further, after Ant’s splendid exegesis, I recommend Stephen Oppenheimer’s ‘The Origins of the British’ (in which – the category ‘British’ – he includes, for convenience, the Irish) – the book draws modern genetics and linguistics and is fascinating in its analysis of where the various ‘British’ probably came from, as well as in its suggestion that Old English is related more closely to Old Norse than it is to the West Germanic languages it is generally grouped with, a suggestion that I almost wholly intuitively fell rings true (I shall be reading the arguments more carefully).

          4. Thanks. (The Euler diagram is from Wikipedia, btw.)

            English reflects the fact that the British Isles were where westward migrations stopped (until the discovery of the New World) and while basically Anglo-Saxon has been influenced in vocabulary, pronunciation and grammar by the languages of, amongst others, the earlier “Celtic” peoples and the later Vikings. It is a mongrel. See _Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue: The Untold History of English_ by John McWhorter.

            /@

          5. Holland vs. the Nerherlands mixed in with calling people Dutch is almost as confusing.

          7. Macedonian Greeks who speak Macedonian, not Greek & there language is closer to Serbian or Croatian.

          9. Then there are the Americans we call “Pennsylvania Dutch” who aren’t Dutch at all. They are of German descent. Somehow “Deutsch” got morphed to “Dutch” and now everyone thinks they came from Holland.

          10. GBJames:
            > Then there are the Americans we call “Pennsylvania Dutch” who aren’t Dutch at all.

            As a child I wondered why people in the Netherlands are called “dutch” although it’s the Germans who call themselves “deutsch”. 🙂

          11. As I recall, ‘dutch’ and ‘deutsch’ are fundamentally the same wotd and mean ‘people’ or ‘nation’.

  2. Yes, and those state laws on behalf of religion should simply be a reminder of how bad it could be in the United States if not for the founders and their work back in 1787. Thanks also to the boys from Virginia – Madison and Jefferson.

  3. You havn’t mentioned Blighty but here’s a couple.

    One third of UK schools are state funded faith schools and you often have to of visited the local church for x number of weeks to even get your kid. They openly discriminate against other faiths.
    http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jun/14/taxpayers-should-not-fund-faith-schools

    The Gov recently blocked Humanist weddings in England as it might offend other faiths.
    http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/dec/16/non-believers-push-legal-recognition-humanist-weddings

    Unwinding 2000 years of religious privilege is going to take time. Even tho opinion is on our side.

  4. > France finally signed same-sex marriage into law in 2013

    After surprisingly energetic resistance from the local Catholics. Streets filled with people using the same inane catchphrases as their American counterparts.

    Surprising, that is, for those French folk who, like me, thought that nobody here took that stuff seriously. Not here, not nowadays. (This despite being raised in Catholic schools)

  6. In Spain the Catholic church is still a powerful organisation, allied with the conservative party.

    USA is more “religious” because all empires thought and think they have been chosen by God to rule the world.

    In this case, “God” means “Destiny,” “History,” the Hegelian expression of the “Spirit” of the times. What Spinoza called “Deus sive natura.” The Greek “All”.

    God as the Lord of Hosts. Power.

    A very Pagan conception of the Deity. And a natural one at that.

  7. The U.S. Constitution calls for separation of church and state and Americans are among the most religious. Among European countries, one can find state religions and theistic laws yet Europeans are less religious than Americans.

    2. In the U.S., with no state religion, religions (historically branches of Christianity) are free to compete. Thus, driving energy into the system like heat into the global atmosphere. Storms appear more frequently.

        1. It’s why Canadians talk to each other about some of the weird religious stuff that goes on in the US while explaining, “no way!”. Sadly, the nuttier people tend to spread their terrible ideas to Canada; let’s hope we can overcome those nuttier ideas.

    1. Has it though?

      The Vatican has Permanent Observer status at the UN and plays both sides of the fence depending on which is to its advantage.

      When forced to respond by the UN on the matter of child sexual abuse, they claimed that they could not enforce the children’s rights treaty because it would violate international law; and yet this week is claiming it has played a key role in the new US-Cuba policy. Also, it’s bishops around the world constantly try to push for Catholic policies to be adopted by secular legislators.

      1. I stand corrected. Although the present geographic boundaries of the Vatican are much smaller than the land governed by the Catholic Church in the past, the political and social power is vast.

        2. This seems to be because the effects of economic policies in those countries (in part) have wrecked civil society, wars (civil and otherwise) fomented by “great powers”, etc. And the poor turned traditionally to the Catholics, but with the stamping out of “liberation theology” and worse, it doesn’t surprise me that there is a “opiate vacuum”.

          1. Thanks for the input. I’ve just always thought that the Catholics had a lock on Latin America, and was so surprised to see the evangelicals making inroads.

            Sometimes it seems as if the economic policy in my country (US) is wrecking civil society.

          2. PS: I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “liberation theology” & Catholics.

            Loved “opiate vacuum.” 😀

          3. Liberation theology was a (relatively mild) movement to work to alleviate poverty, improve lives, etc. from about 40 years ago. It was crushed by the church higher-ups, local governments, and, in many cases, collaborations and supports of big powers (US most notably). Gave rise to the saying: “When I give food to the poor, I am called a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, I am called a communist.”

  9. The “Compulsory Crucifixes” in Italy just reminds me of the Lenny Bruce line – If Jesus had been killed 20 years ago, Catholic School children would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses.

    1. Or like my grandma used to say, “We’re lucky Jesus didn’t slip and break his neck in the shower like your grandpa, then we’d walk around looking ridiculous wearing shower cubicles around our necks.”

      (Based on a not-true story.)

        1. I misread that as ‘compulsory crucifixions’ in Italian classrooms… and was slightly reminded of my own schooldays.

  10. Grania,

    Thanks for this post. Very informative. Another example of “The grass is always greener.”

  11. Enlightening statistics about how unenlightened western civilization still remains. As a pro-reason, pro-science human, I never bought into using litmus tests such as belief in evolution to conclude that a person or society is scientific or mystic. It goes much deeper. I meet many people that ‘believe’ in evolution but have a clear understanding of what it is. I meet athiests that are mystical and believe in astrology and ghosts. Most of Europe is drenched in ancient christian symbolism and relics and it wasn’t until the 50’s that the U.K. repealed witchcraft laws! The U.S. is a relative youngster compared to the ancient European societies with a much longer history of oppression and savagery that almost makes us look like naughty prankster school kids.

    1. Except, of course, that the majority of American citizens, when not forcibly taken there, are descended from people who were very much part of that oppression and savagery and took it with them, together with other better things, to the New World.

  12. The Church Tax in Germany is in fact no longer collected directly by the tax office. There’s a “church tax office” that pretends it’s part of the tax office, but it isn’t.

    Their letterhead reads as if they are “part of” the tax office, but in fact it’s ambiguously written — they are in the same building as the tax office, but that’s all. (Kirchensteuerstelle beim Finanzamt.)

    It used to be the job of the tax office to collect the church tax, and this was promptly confirmed in 1933 by the Pope in his Konkordat with the Nazis. But in fact it was Hitler who eventually repealed the law that made the tax office directly responsible for collecting it. The churches set up their own offices to administer the gathering of the tax under the auspices of the tax office, which collects the money and then hands it over to the churches — €11 billion per year, without the slightest control or oversight on how it’s spent.

    Here ends today’s lesson in German bureaucracy. It may be corrected and amended by others who know more about it than me, but I tried my best.

    1. Very thorough description, Yakaru. In addition, I want to correct one point of Grania’s article:

      > Germany requires its residents to officially declare their religion and pay a church tax.

      Only members of the Roman Catholic Church, the Old Catholic Church, and the Evangelical Church have to declare their church membership for tax reasons. All others are regarded as “other” (including nonbelievers).

      In addition to the christian church tax offices, the federal tax offices disclose income information to the Jewish Community so that they can base their membeship fees on it.

      1. “Evangelische” normally gets translated as “Protestant” – is there a specific denomination that is also called “Evangelical” that the money goes to, or is it somehow a variety of Protestant ones?

    2. I remember when my German (and Catholic) friend told me about the church tax. She told me that churches in Germany were very wealthy because of it.

      1. If they’re registered as belonging to a church (or rather, apparently as Wunold says above, those particular churches), which happens automatically with baptism, yes, they do have to pay it. They do have the option of officially leaving the church (of course there’s a compound noun for this: Kirchenaustritt). But doing that now has a charge of €180 and of course it can upset other family members and cause arguments. And of course, if you’re catholic, it means you will burn in hell for eternity.

        Despite this, people having leaving the church recently at the rate of thousands each month, because of child abuse scandals.

        The form they sent me asked if I’d been baptized, and which church etc. And left all mention of having to pay money until the end. I ignored it (I wasn’t born in Germany), and waited to see what they’d do. They sent another very snarky letter implying drastic consequences if I didn’t respond, so I went and talked to them. There I found out it’s basically bluff.

        The Tax Office will help those particualr churches get funded, but no other religions and no other churches.

        The idea of secularism here is extremely limited. There have been demonstrations here recently against Muslims. People simply don’t want Muslims here. It’s nothing to do with ISIS. They just don’t want anyone whose face doesn’t fit. The country is still suffering from the Nazi era and for the east, the communist era.

        That said, there’s nothing like the aggressive evangelism that happens in the US. Religion is largely a private matter and mostly ignored. Any politician who stood up and said they believed in God would be laughed at for talking irrelevant nonsense.

        1. Where did you get the amount of 180€ ? Kirchenaustritt#Austrittsgeb.C3.BChren states that it’s 5-60€ (mostly 25-30€).

          The numbers of people leaving the churches fluctuated heavily around 200.000-400.000 per year (2013: 178.805 Catholics, less than in each year of 1991-2000). Alas, I don’t see much influence of the child abuse scandals.

          Seeing people in germany as mostly islamophobic or xenophobic is too simplistic in my opinion. Apart from demonstrations against islam (not muslims) or immigration, there are many demonstrations for solidarity and the multicultural society. Many radical right-wing demonstrations face counter-demonstrations, often with many more participants.

          Could you explain your view that secularism in germany “extremely limited” although politicians would be ridiculed for appealing to god? Besides, the latter isn’t quite true, since members of the major political party CDU/CSU – the Christian Democratic Union and Christian Social Union – often stress their foundation in christianity.

          2. Thanks for the correction about the fees.

            Given the topic of the post, I was just noting some tendencies here that don’t seem to get mentioned that often in discussions between atheists in the US.

          3. Christianity in Germany seems to me far more passively present in public life & politics than in the US. Politicians who mention it use it more in terms of cultural identity. I perceive that as quite different from the US, where politicians are challenged on it and are likely to claim or imply that God wants them to do certain things and God will intervene at times.

          4. That’s a good point about the cultural identity and I think it applies in other European countries too. Bearing in mind that, for many centuries, the most impressive buildings were castles and cathedrals, and much of history was tied up with politico-religious struggles.
            When I was in Paris the places I (an atheist tourist) went to see first were the Eiffel Tower, Montmartre, the Gare du Nord, and Notre Dame.

            As another example, here in NZ, Christchurch (the most ‘traditional’ city in its arcitecture) was wrecked by an earthquake, and that included massive damage to the old Cathedral. The Anglican Diocese wanted to demolish it and rebuild. Many of the people of Chch regard it as _their_ cathedral, not the church’s, and are demanding that it be repaired – not for any religious motive, but for architectural or sentimental reasons.

          5. As atheist debaters point out regularly, the artists and craftsmen go where the money is. For many centuries, the churches had most of the money, so it’s not surprising the most impressive buildings and pieces of art in history are religious ones.

            Today however, it’s difficult to determine the motivations behind the people’s admiration of religios buildings and art. Within the same group of supporters, some may do it for religious motives, others for cultural or non-religious personal reasons. So it’s not a reliable indication for public religiosity.

            One example of a controversial reconstruction is the Dresden Frauenkirche, because the rebuilding removed the church ruin as a war memorial. The reconstruction costs of €180 million were financed two thirds by fund-raising campaings and one third from public funds. The golden tower cross was made by the son of one of the British bomber pilots who destroyed the church. I suspect many different kinds of motivations behind this combined effort.

          6. Religious art is still art. I appreciate architecture, painting, etc. mainly for its human qualities and artistic merit. What initially inspired it is less relevant. I would support maintaining the cathedrals, for instance, as museums. Note that the Vatican is partly a museum already.

          7. I agree with Rickflick. I view Notre Dame for example as a historic building, not as a religious edifice.

            I’d be in favour of spending public money restoring Christchurch Cathedral, simply because of its distinctive style and the fact that it fits in with its surroundings. I don’t care if they hold daily church services in it or turn it into a museum, it’s worth preserving as the centrepiece of the Square.

      2. If it’s not obligatory, it’s not a tax. “Tax” is demanding money with menaces, backed up by the coercive power of the state. Since states tend to reserve the right of using coercive force unto themselves, vigorously, they tend to crack down on other extortionists (banks, loan sharks, muggers), or tax them themselves (banks).

        1. Not paying your church tax is indeed generally punishable in all German states and can (in “serious cases” and in theory) bring you into prison.

          The degree of penalty varies from state to state. In Lower Saxony it is penalized as “Kirchensteuerhinterziehung” (§ 370 AO – an offence of a somewhat higher order), in the other states as “Kirchensteuerbetrug” (lesser penalties).

          If you love German Legalese you might find the following decision of the German Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof) regarding the above-mentioned offences illuminating:

          http://www.hrr-strafrecht.de/hrr/archiv/08-08/index.php?sz=11

          To add insult to injury: Until the mid-1990s non-church members married to a member of a state church also had to pay church tax as the tax is based on a couple’s “main income” (imagine a senior physician “without denomination” married to a State Protestant nurse). Legislation was only changed because government feared problems/resistance in the eastern states (former GDR) where more than two thirds of the populace are without denomination.

          To add another aspect: “Disparagement of an established creed” (§ 166 of the German Criminal Code) can bring you into prison for up to three years (Polish legislation with its maximum penalty of two years shows more leniency). Unfortunately the regulation is still happily applied today. There’s a case pending at Munich District Court (Amtsgericht) at the moment. Bavaria’s policy towards “anti-religious activities” is rather tough in general: Some years ago (must have been in 2006) Munich police prohibited a chocolate munch organised by a students’ association on Good Friday. The event was to be held indoors but it had been publicly advertised and as it was “incompatible with the character of the holiday” (“a public silent holiday and a day of mourning”) would have “offended the feelings of the believers”.

          1. Surprisingly, all day shopping on Sundays (very common in the Advent season) doesn’t seem to hurt the feelings of the believers.

          2. EXACTLY that – the believers´ .
            If challenged, it would fall.
            As soon as a higher-up faithhead feels up to play a little symbolic anti-capitalism, it is gone.

          3. (“a public silent holiday and a day of mourning”) would have “offended the feelings of the believers”.

            And that didn’t offend the forces of Mammon? Shocked. I’m shocked I tell you!

  13. Don’t forget about Poland. Catholic Church is a big problem here. I don’t want to mention all obvious things like: gay rights, women rights, ban of euthanasia, etc. In Poland there is a comission of goverment and church which has stong and negative impact on my country.

    1. Exactly! Poland is probably the most religious country in Europe, or at least in the European Union. The concept of separation of church and state is foreign to the majority of the population there and certainly to many politicians. The Catholic Church has numerous priviledges, underscored by the concordat with the Holy See signed in 1993, shortly after the fall of communism. Polish anti-abortion law is very restrictive, and there are calls to tighten it even further, which are obviously religiously motivated. Religion is taught in public schools (opting out is possible, but often creates hurdles), and blasphemy laws are on the books, albeit rarely enforced.

        1. Damn those corrupt youngsters!
          Literally. Pitchforks ; burning tar , specially trained donkeys. Damn them and their free-thinking ways!

  14. Thanks for this post! And I fully agree. Even in the Netherlands, there is still a lot of influence of protestantism on the general mindset. There’s political parties with religious affiliations, too. And while in many respects it is a secular country, I think these influences should not be forgotten. Frans de Waal sometimes points this out and I think he sometimes gets unfairly criticized for it.

  15. This is why I’ve noted that the European attitude towards religion has been more growing apathy than antagonism.

    A rational culture should view religion as a bad thing, not just regard it with indifference.

  16. Europe means a lot more than just the Western part.

    + Poland has a problem with abortion. Anything short of killing the mother is against the law.
    + which does not stop Malta to ignore even the well being of the mother.
    + Romania pays quite good wages to priests, monks and nuns. Higher-ups in the church can go being assimilated with high government officials as wages and benefits.
    + Romania has religious education in schools, paid by the state and where the children are enrolled even if the parents are against “because we don’t have enough people to take care of a few children”.
    + most of Europe pays for the church buildings
    + Romania is again a case where the government is spending a huge amount to build new churches
    + all over Europe, members of the parliament and ministers dispose of large sums of money which they can allocate based on personal preference. They are not questioned about these discretionary funds and most of them go to the churches.

  17. Grania,
    Thanks for posting this important topic. As a suggestion to Professor Ceiling Cat, since he has readers from most countries, maybe he could invite a reader from each country to write a guest post on the status of secularism in their country.

    The compilation would be interesting reading and also a valuable resource.

      1. Thanks! Australian and NZ atheists are generally pretty happy to be where they are too, despite their colours on that map. I can’t help thinking the threshold for ‘severe discrimination’ is set a bit low.

        1. Or, considering the far more obvious social and political discrimination against atheists in the US (rated ‘mostly satisfactory’), trying to put nations on a single discrimination/tolerance scale simply fails.

        2. I think you are right. They are a bit strict.
          Someone from Denmark had the same complaint.

          The red color for New-Zealand is explained by:

          ….
          However there is some discriminatory law and an extant ‘blasphemy’ law with a possible prison sentence, against the letter of the constitution. … There is no record of a successful prosecution under this law, but it remains on the books.

          1. I suspect it’s only still on the books precisely because nobody has ever been prosecuted under it. If anyone tried to use it there would be an outcry, I think, and the politicians would get around to repealing it.

            In fact, having lived here for 50 years, this is the first I’ve ever heard of it.

            And as for any other discrimination against atheists, I’ve never heard of any. I think if anyone tried, they could face prosecution under the Human Rights Act.

            Both our last PM Helen Clark and our current one John Key (from opposite sides of the political fence) are non-religious.

            So IMO that map shows the unwisdom of basing judgements on odd and irrelevant peculiarities.

          2. For some it sure does, for others not.
            As far I can tell this list only states facts.

            Luckily a lot of countries have laws that are not enforced. I think in most “real democratic” countries it’s not a real problem to be an atheist.

            But I must admit it was for me a relief that in my country they abolished our ‘blasphemy’ law fairly recently (2006).

            After 1966 there was no serious case. Then, A
            well known writer was charged with blasphemy for describing sexual intercourse with God reincarnated in a “one-year-old mouse-grey donkey”. He was acquitted in 1968.

            After that the bar for blasphemy was pretty high.

          3. I think the ‘facts’ it states are not closely related to reality.

            Take one of the few green dots on the map – Sierra Leone. Granted it (according to Wikipedia) has a muslim-Xtian mix which does NOT lead to violence (very good). But in 1991 there started a decade-long civil war that killed 50,000 people. Guess where I feel safer as an atheist?

            Obviously then, legal niceties are very far from the whole story.

            Practical example: Where would I feel safer holding a sign that said “God is dead”, Auckland New Zealand (“severe discrimination”), or Missisippi (“mostly satisfactory”)?

            Umm, I just read the whole section in the report on New Zealand. While the text is generally accurate, I would absolutely reject the conclusions they drew from it. Fuck me, I never noticed what a religious hell-hole I was living in! [/sarcasm]

  19. Traces of the old state church in Sweden:

    1. The monarch has to be a member, or resign.

    2. The former state church is still named Church of Sweden.

    3. Like Germany taxes are collected on behalf of the church if you haven’t opted out.

    Their resistance against wedding homosexuals or other minorities have been put to rest. That is, I think priests can still opt to refuse, but they fix someone else to do it.

    Nowadays churches can drive confessional schools, but they are mostly kept in line. E.g. stealth creationism is attempted once in a while but vetted out.

    1. Nowadays churches can drive confessional schools

      “confessional”? “Congregational”, perhaps?

    2. Sorry, second question. First, actually.

      Traces of the old state church in Sweden:
      1. The monarch has to be a member, or resign.

      Has there (yet) been a monarch who is both a member of the Swedish Wombat Botherers (or whatever church is obligatory) and a service attending (“serving”) congregant of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (blessed be His Noodly Appendage!)?
      Bloody hell – big waves are back!

  20. “Germany requires its residents to officially declare their religion and pay a church tax. You can opt out, but the government collects taxes on behalf of religion.” – J. Coyne

    You can opt out by cancelling your church membership; but if you do so, you have to pay a Kirchenaustrittsgebühr, i.e. an exit fee, in 15 of the 16 Bundesländer (states of Germany): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchenaustritt#Austrittsgeb.C3.BChren

    Religious Disaffiliation in Germany: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_disaffiliation_in_Germany

    1. OMG they’ve thought of everything. It’s just like that sneaky airport tax you have to pay before leaving a country.

      1. You don’t have to leave the country by plane, so I don’t see anything “sneaky” about that. It’s more that services do have costs and these costs are usually passed down to the consumers, more or less visible.

        2. It’s sneaky when you have bought your ticket, know nothing about the fee and then show up at the airport to be told you need to cough up $20 in the local currency or you won’t be allowed to leave the country.

          1. In that case I would find them sneaky, too. (Provided that I really couldn’t know about them and wasn’t just negligent.)

          2. I wasn’t negligent. Later they stopped doing that and put it in to the ticket cost so it was paid with the ticket. Probably too many people got stranded and it started to become a problem.

          3. I really hate Las Vegas, but flew there once to rent a car to drive to Grand Canyon. The airfares were considerably cheaper to LV than to other nearby airports. HowEVer there were about 5 sneaky added taxes between the sirport and the car rental, so we really didn’t save anything.

    2. Myron wrote:
      > You can opt out by cancelling your church membership; but if you do so, you have to pay a Kirchenaustrittsgebühr, i.e. an exit fee, in 15 of the 16 Bundesländer (states of Germany).

      To be exact and fair, the fee is charged by the processing authority, not by the church you’re leaving. The Wikipedia article you linked to alludes that this fee was found constitutional by the Bundesverfassungsgericht as it covers the administrative costs.

      You may in turn charge your parents however if they baptised you as a child. 😉

      1. You may in turn charge your parents however if they baptised you as a child.

        I’ll bring popcorn. How many cases are running, and where’s the video?

  21. No mention of today’s news: Turkish President Erdogan declared that birth control is “treason”.

    He has also stated that women are not equal to men, proposed to limit abortion rights, morning-after pill and Caesarian sections.(Opposing C sections and birth control… that takes a special touch…)

    Maybe it’s irrelevant if you do not consider Turkey as part of Europe….

  22. Denmark update:

    -State religion. ( Freedom of religion, but not on equal terms. )

    -Monarchy. ( Still widely popular regardless of religious apathy. No political relevance or power whatsoever. )

    And then there’s probably a delicious assortment of various old forgotten laws on the books somewhere out there.

    Christianity’s leftovers are everywhere and most people just tag along in order to get things done. Baptism, Confirmation, Wedding, Funeral. The only people talking about God and religion at these events are the ones getting paid.

    The rest of us are are just going through the motions in order to get to the reception as smoothly as possible.

Comments are closed.