It has been in the news a bit, at least this past year.
I remember reading this article about the Pope’s distress over “the church’s rapidly waning influence in Europe.” (Googling the title of the article will bring up many similar stories.)
Plus, the stories about Muslim girls being forbidden to cover their heads in French public schools has brought attention to the debate over public displays of religion in Europe (particularly France, of course, with its emphasis on separation of church and state.) Here’s another Wikipedia entry on Conspicuous religious symbols in French schools.
You can’t. Who’s Christian and who’s not is largely a matter of self-identification. I’m a regular church goer who considers himself a Christian, and I don’t meet some of those “criteria.”
Current trends won’t continue. We had a thread about this not so long ago where this little scare statistic was quoted to put the wind up the Americans. But of course for it to be true we must assume that both immigrant birth rates and immigrant religious practice will remain constants. If we considering changes over the previous century there is nothing to suggest why they should.
I find the rise of the pick’n’mix, believe-what-suits-you religions far more worrying than the decline of christianity. It suggests that people still need religion at a basic level, but now simply can’t be bothered with one that asks you to follow rules and stuff. Use that as a basis of your belief system and what happens to the rest of your life?
There is, be it noted, an error of transference in the OP that nobody has picked up on as yet – the quote makes reference to the decline of Christianity as a majority religion in Europe – and the consequence inferred by most posters is the total decline of Christianity. I’m certain there are a lot of Christians across Europe – a fair number, from a wide variety of countries, post on an international Christian message board I used to be active on. In general, they take stances equivalent to the “liberal Protestant mainstream” and “liberal Catholicism” here. Lack of majority status does not mean total extinction; there are many healthy stable European churches in a variety of denominations.
I would have to agree with those positing a decline in influence, though. But that is in many ways beneficial – only when the Church espouses a humane-centered standard corresponding to Christ’s teachings, as opposed to its own moral ukases, will it influence Europeans generally – and IMO that’s a good thing.
Yes, I’m afraid you are wrong – at least about the religious leaders not commenting on this. The gradual erosion of the significance of religion in society has been commented on at great length by, I suppose, all the religious leaders at some point; including several successive Archbishops of Canterbury. The decline in church attendances is debated yearly by the Church of England, and I know that I personally have seen it reported on several times.
I suppose the reason you and Filthy Beast haven’t been aware of it is that it hasn’t been BIG news. As you say, the change in status quo has been gradual, over decades – by now everyone is perfectly aware that most people don’t go to church, so why report it? Occasionally we’ll get some editorial comment in a newspaper, or a debate on late night TV, or some hypocritical tut-tutting about the C of E’s latest initiative to get bums on seats on Sunday; but by and large, everything that could usefully be said about the situation was said thirty to forty years ago, and nothing much has changed in the interim.
Europe is a patchwork of nations, cultures, languages and religions among which Christianity in general has in my view still the most followers, if they are practicing or not. The way how the religion is practiced and influences people differs largely between nations and inside these nations there is even a significant difference between rural and urban societies
If you believe something as alien as “Creationism” is on the rise in Europe:
Can you expalin where (= in which nation) and how something that has no other foundation then what some Christians want to see in Biblical texts, could become a recognized part of the education system?
I can’t imagine any EU schoolprogram having such clear fairy-tale nonsense on its curriculum as if it has a rightful place there (let alone that it could be seen as a replacement of evolution-teaching ) without causing public indignation and scandal and having the licence of the school in question to distribute any sort of officaly recognized certificate or diplome revoked.
Serbia isn’t really a good example, that Minister’s actions notwithstanding. The announcement of that policy was met with shock and horror from the public and within days it had been reversed and the Minister sacked.
Closer to home, Ian Paisley’s Free Presbyterian Church is creationist. I’d be surprised if their Scottish counterparts, the Wee Frees, wasn’t as well.
The South of Ireland is, of course, a perfect example of religion’s diminishing influence on society. However the Church was a really destructive force here so most people think that’s a good thing.
I was not aware that creationism being taught in UK Schools. I am amazed and dissapointed.
To get back to the subject of the thread even though christianity seems to be in decline, the results of the 2001 census are as follows:
Religion (all people)
Christian 42079417 - -
Buddhist 151816 - -
Hindu 558810 - -
Jewish 266740 - -
Muslim 1591126 - -
Sikh 336149 - -
Other 178837 - -
No Religion / Religion not stated 13626299 - - -
Not yet found any data on the rest of Europe.
Which shows that even though church attendance may be falling many people still nominally class themselves as christian.
Personally I look forward to the day when all religion is debunked and the human race can survive without the crutch of myths of afterlife(s) etc.
At least evolution is being taught allong side creationism, in that school in England. I would fear a case where creationism allone was taught. I remember being taught about creationism in school in UK, but evolution was also taught and only one was taught as based on scientific understanding.
Also, don’t count the number of subscribers to that school too highly. Any school being bankrolled by a local millionare is going to offer decent education even if some of their ideas on Biology are a bit skewed.
I don’t see the problem. There are area’s of life where following rules is a necessity. Grammar if you want to be understood, your country’s laws if you don’t want to be arrested. Religious and a-religious people alike have no problem with that.
But one’s personal belief system? Do you really want to be *told * why we are on Earth? Do you want to follow rules in determining, just for yourself, what makes a life (your life) worthwhile? Or would you prefer, instead, to search the accumulated wisdom of centuries untill you find an explanation that “feels right” to you?
But many sociologists have been discussing ‘secularization theory’ since the 1960s, with the work of Bryan Wilson, in particular, having attracted much comment. Not all sociologists agree that secularization is that significant a transformation. That’s why they’ve argued so much about it.
Well, people are, if not inherently sinful (a religious concept), at least weak in will. Frankly, if I could pick between more strict and less strict belief systems, I would definitely opt for the latter. People pick what suits their wants, and their wants almost always include more lax moral rules.
That’s why mix-n-match religions are so dangerous, along with the fact that by choosing their own belief systems, the practitioners are basically playing at being G/god, saying what deity “may” or “may not” exist.
On the whole I would rather decide for myself which food to eat, whether to drink alcohol or not, when to have sex etc rather than it be imposed upon me by a book written hundreds or even thousands of years before. BTW I am not having a go at any particular book here.
I also believe that it is possible to live and have a moral code without religion. In fact as I do not believe in an afterlife, IMHO therefore killing someone is the most heinous crime possible.
See, this looks like you’re saying that people who aren’t Jewish/Christian/Muslim actually believe that Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah is real but choose not to worship him. While I’ve used that rhetorical device before (if only because I don’t believe that God, as described in the orthodox (small-o) theology deserves my worship), it’s not the case for most atheists/agnostics/pagans/etc. We just don’t believe that Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah exists. It’s not a case of picking and choosing the more lax belief system. It’s a case of not believing there’s any basis for the more strict one.
Besides the fact, of course, that “more strict” and “more lax” are subjective in themselves. I’d say that a belief system that requires you to treat other human beings well without actually giving more than vague guidelines is much more difficult a moral framework to actually live than one which minutely outlines each and every possible interaction. To me, it’s the difference between trusting yourself to figure out what the right thing to do is, and searching for some cosmic parent-figure to spell it out for you.
Couldn’t help seeing a parallel between Maastricht reference to “good riddance” and the US religious right who voted for the re-born Bush, using the same term as shown in this cite:
It is interesting to note the reaction of Americans to fellow countrymen who are fleeing to Canada. From the right, this is seen as treasonous, disgraceful behaviour. There is almost a sense that right-wingers think leaving is such a humiliation to a country that was founded as a haven for immigrants seeking freedom from other repressive tyrannies, that it should be illegal. At the very least, the message from the right is “good riddance”, and “don’t expect to be allowed back”.
I prefer the Dutch context of using the term “good riddance”, rather than the context used by the intolerant “liberal-hating” Bush voters.