Just wondering… At least in Western Europe, is religious practice free? Did this kinda silently evolved out of the lessons learned from WWII? - Jinx
I think religious practice has been pretty free in Western Europe from well before World War II. I would have said, as a broad generalisation, that the process of establishing the freedom of religious practice was completed in the nineteenth century.
Which is not to say that there might not still be the odd glitch, particularly in those countries that still have state churches.
Maybe…but the events of WWII prove that not everyone had religious freedom, right? - Jinx
If you’re referring to the Jews, that’s true but it was more of a temporary aberration under Nazism than a historical reality. In fact, one of the reasons that the Jews in Germany were so late to realize their danger is that Germany used to be one of the most liberal countries in its religious attitudes, and Jews had become the most assimilated there.
Mrs. S., born and raised in Greece, tells me that the Greek Orthodox Church, very definitely the state religion, still has a stranglehold on Greek culture and, to some extent, government. For instance:
-
The public schools in Greece, paid for by public taxes, are administered through the Orthodox Church. Non-Orthodox students (Albanian Muslim immigrants, for instance) are not allowed to participate in some school-organized events.
-
Until very recently, the national ID card (Americans cringe at the very thought.
)included the required information of the holder’s religion. If that religion was anything but Orthodox, it’s harder to get a job, public services are delayed, etc. etc. When the E.U. mandated that this information be stricken from the card, the church fought back bitterly. I’m not sure of the current status. -
Due to accumulation of donations and bequests from wills, the Orthodox church owns a huge percentage of Greek property and business. Whenever the government tries to enact some popularist measure that the church feels might threaten their primacy, they threaten to close down the economy and have, in fact, caused some business dislocations in decades past.
And so on. The list could go on ad nauseum. Now that Greece is a member of the E.U. and enjoying the economic benefits thereof, the E.U. and the Greek national government are attempting to bring Greek law and culture more into line with the rest of Europe…but the Orthodox Church is fighting tooth and nail every inch of the way.
A clarification:
It is not illegal to be of a different religion in Greece. They have some Catholics, a smattering of Jews, a handful of Protestants, and a large number of Muslim immigrants from Albania. Some districts in Athens are gradually turning into what we would call Albanian ghettoes.
But then, it was not illegal to be a black living in the U.S. South during the 1950’s. It just makes it difficult to lead what we would call a normal life.
The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 9.
No, in other words. If a European state considers that a particular form of religious belief is contrary to “public order, health or morals”, it can ban it.
The second parapraph is about specific manifestations, not beliefs. e.g. even if your religion encourages polygamy, that won’t protect you if the state decides to ban polygamy. Your beliefs do not make you stand above the law (and where do they, anyway?)
In addition to that the European Convention on Human Rights is of course only a lowest common denominator, the individual countries are free to grant additional rights.
Don’t fringe Religions face more scrutiny in Europe than in the US? I seem to remember a big flack over Scientology not too long ago.
It also depends on how you define “free”. In France, at least, religious freedom is viewed differently than in the US. The ban on headscarves in schools, for instance, would not stand up to a court review in the US. And even though it may be largely symbolic, the British Monarch is recognized as the head of the Anglican Church. Imagine if the US’s head of state was also seen as the head of a particular relgion.
As Kellner points out, that second clause of the article from the European Convention is aimed at manifesting the beliefs, not the belief itself. Are you saying that in the United States, anyone is free to manifest all religious beliefs?
[ul]Can a devout Sikh carry a large, functional dagger onto a commercial airplane in the United States, notwithstanding federal airline security laws, because that is a manifestation of his religious belief?
[li]Can old-line Mormons practise polygamy in the United States? [/li]
[li]Can participants in religious ceremonies in the United States use any drug they wish, even if the drug is on Schedule I of the federal drug laws?[/ul][/li]
That last one is actually before the SCOTUS right now, with the federal government arguing in favour of the restriction. See this article: The Supreme Court Hears Its First Religious Case with Roberts at the Helm.
I would suggest that restrictions on manifestations of religious beliefs are well-accepted in the United States, just as in Europe, if the restrictions are based on reasons of public safety, public morals, and so on.
No - just answering the OP’s question:
I don’t recall the US coming into the discussion at all.
I guess I’m not sure I understand your position. Are you taking an absolutist position: that religious practice can only be said to be “free”, in response to the OP, if there are absolutely no restrictions on it? That seems to be what your blanket “No” suggested, based on the quoted portion of the European Covenant.
If that is the meaning of free religious practice, I can’t think of a country where that test is met, and we’re talking solely in the abstract.
I used the U.S. examples to illustrate that it is commonly assumed that there can be restrictions on particular exercises of religion, while agreeing that the jurisdiction does meet the common idea of free religious practice. If I’ve misunderstood you, I’d be interested in hearing where I’ve gone wrong.
And how does the banning of religious symbols in French schools fit into this? I can buy a public saftey arguement wrt daggers, but head scarves, yarmulkes and “large” crosses? :dubious:
In the US, religious freedom has two parts: the state is forbiden to “establish religion” and the poeple are free to exercise their religion. That freedom, of course, is not unlimited. You are not free to sacrfice your firstborn son to Mithra or even Yahweh, but your freedom cannot be infringed lightly. There have even been rulings that Native Americans can use otherwise illegal drugs as part of their religious ceremonies. In France, at least, there seems to be a willing to put national identity above religious identity. Without commenting on the goodness or badness of that policy, I think we can say that it differs in a significant way from the US position. I’m not sure how those French rules are viewed from a British or German or other European perspective.
Concerning the establishment part, I think the European and American view is different as well. And while the European actions might be largely symbolic, they would be struck down by the courts in the US faster than you can say Church of England.
Could a school district legally ban tee shirts, or buttons or posters on the grounds of orderly conduct that said for instance:
“There is only one God, and that God is Allah”
or
“The Jews are God’s only chosen People”
or
“Jesus Christ died for our sins and salvation is only available through him”
or
"God is a sign of an overactive sense of fear and an underactive spirit of scepticism’
???
I think on par with banning KKK and swastika t-shirts in school to maintain a learning environment, in spite of guarantees of free speech.
My understanding is that the French are concerned that public displays of religious symbolism in the schools, in the current charged social setting in France, may be equivalent to “fighting words” and disruptive to the primary function of the state schools - to teach kids. Hence, an across-the-board ban. I might not have reached that conclusion myself, but then, I’m not living in a country that recently went through a week of rioting.
The French also view the ban as part of the separation of church and state - the state schools are to be religiously neutral, and that neutrality can be impaired if a large number of students wear religious symbols. Again, I’m not sure I’d draw the line at that point, but then, we don’t have their history of a church that had a great deal of control over public institutions, such as the schools.
Well, this is a similar issue to free speech. I agree that it would be unreasonable to have absolutely free speech (no law of libel, no provision for commercial or military confidential information), and similarly unreasonable to have absolute freedom of religious practice (human sacrifice has already been mentioned). However, if a state controls speech or religious practice beyond the limits necessary to prevent interference with other basic rights, I don’t personally believe we can describe that state as permitting “free speech” or “freedom of religious practice”.
As has already been mentioned, the prohibition of Islamic headscarves in French schools gives an indication of how far religious freedom can legally be constrained in Europe. I personally believe this is an unacceptable restriction, hence my motivation to answer “No” to the original question.
My apologies if this is now in GD territory.
You don’t seem to understand that Europe isn’t a single country. A single law that applies to all European countries can only be a lowest common denominator. A single law like that doesn’t even exist for North America. Does that mean there is no reliogious freedom in North America, because the different states (in the sense you used that word for Europe) could ban religious freedom without being stopped by “North America”?
So your answer “No” to this question is wrong. “Yes” would be just as wrong. Some European countries have very strong protection of the freedom of religion. In others it’s not quite as strong. But in most European countries, religious practice is free.
In countries with an established religion 9like denmark) you do pay taxes that support this church. I’m quite sure you have total freedom of religion, but you do support the established church. Which is similar to the support in the US (churches are tax-exempt).
A disquisition on the rôle of the ECHR and the principle of “margin of appreciation” is probably out of place here, but I can write one if asked to. The OP asked about “Western Europe” - insofar as there is one legal code (the Convention) that covers western Europe, then I would still claim that it does not guarantee freedom of religious practice, and, in certain areas of western Europe (notably France) it does not, in my opinion, exist.
Please do.
Also, please explain why you think the answer to “At least in Western Europe, is religious practice free?” is “Not, because the ECHR doesn’t guarantee it” rather than “That depends on the different countries and their constitutions, for some, the answer is yes, for some, the answer is (arguably) no”?