# Modern Euorpe: Freedom of Religion? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 8, 2006, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-euorpe-freedom-of-religion/347485 "2006-03-08T03:17:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-euorpe-freedom-of-religion/347485/21 "2006-03-08T18:13:52Z")
**Tevildo** , I’m still not sure I understand your position. Do you mean that clause 1 of the article that you cited > [@](#): > > 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. is meaningless, and that the only relevant provision is clause 2: > [@](#): > > 1. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Are you suggesting that the courts will ignore clause 1 entirely? or is that because of where they have drawn the line on what qualifies as a reasonable exception under clause 2 means that there is no freeedom to manifest one’s religion? where would the line have to be drawn before you would say that there is freedom to manifest one’s religion? ---
**Author:** ![Tevildo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Tevildo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tevildo)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-euorpe-freedom-of-religion/347485/22 "2006-03-08T18:47:38Z")
> [@Northern Piper](#): > > **Tevildo** , I’m still not sure I understand your position. Do you mean that clause 1 of the article that you cited is meaningless, and that the only relevant provision is clause 2:Are you suggesting that the courts will ignore clause 1 entirely? Meaningless in that it has no practical effect, yes. As long as states are allowed to restrict religious practice by invoking Clause 2, then there’s no effective guarantee of religious freedom. It’s not so much that Clause 1 will be _ignored_, it’s that Clause 2 entitles the legislature and the courts to disregard it. This is common - nay, universal - in rights-based legislation. “You’re free to do anything! Except A, B, C, D… W, X, Y, Z, and anything else we don’t want you to do.” The restrictions are what determine the extent of our freedom, not the blandishments of the “general principle”. > [@](#): > > where would the line have to be drawn before you would say that there is freedom to manifest one’s religion? From a Convention perspective, if it were drafted so that restrictions of our rights were only permissible if they interfered with a _Convention_ right, not on the woolly “health and morals” grounds they are now. A ban on human sacrifice would be acceptable, as human sacrifice infringes Article 2 (the right to life). Wearing a headscarf to school doesn’t infringe a Convention right, therefore - in my opinion - it should be permissible. We _definitely_ should be in GD at this point. Mods? ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-euorpe-freedom-of-religion/347485/23 "2006-03-08T18:56:06Z")
> [@Tevildo](#): > > Meaningless in that it has no practical effect, yes. As long as states are allowed to restrict religious practice by invoking Clause 2, then there’s no effective guarantee of religious freedom. It’s not so much that Clause 1 will be _ignored_, it’s that Clause 2 entitles the legislature and the courts to disregard it. > > This is common - nay, universal - in rights-based legislation. “You’re free to do anything! Except A, B, C, D… W, X, Y, Z, and anything else we don’t want you to do.” The restrictions are what determine the extent of our freedom, not the blandishments of the “general principle”. > From a Convention perspective, if it were drafted so that restrictions of our rights were only permissible if they interfered with a _Convention_ right, not on the woolly “health and morals” grounds they are now. A ban on human sacrifice would be acceptable, as human sacrifice infringes Article 2 (the right to life). Wearing a headscarf to school doesn’t infringe a Convention right, therefore - in my opinion - it should be permissible. > > We _definitely_ should be in GD at this point. Mods? This is still undecided. A case in the UK decided by the House of Lords, dependent on the ECHR decided that a school had unreasonably stopped a girl wearing a near Burka to school. The Court has yet to rule on the French restriction- consider Roe vs Wade and SD at present- still moot until SCOTUS decides formally. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-euorpe-freedom-of-religion/347485/24 "2006-03-08T19:01:06Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > In countries with an established religion 9like denmark) you do pay taxes that support this church. Cite? I do not believe that this is true in the U.K. Absent the Monarch, the Anglican church is funded through donations and investment income. I don’t know if the Lords Spiritual receive expenses etc. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church\_of\_England]Wikipedia article[/url. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-euorpe-freedom-of-religion/347485/25 "2006-03-08T20:05:15Z")
> [@Northern Piper](#): > > 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. But neither of those has anything to do with religion. > [@](#): > > 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. I think you’re right, and I don’t dispute it. I’m only pointing out differences between France and US, I’m not saying one is better than the other. So, when the OP is asking about “religious freedom”, it depends on what perspective he’s coming from. > [@](#): > > 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. Again, this is a difference. In the US, a balance must be struck between the state not establishing a religion, and the right of the people to express their religion freely. ---
**Author:** ![Spiny\_Norman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@Spiny\_Norman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiny_Norman)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-euorpe-freedom-of-religion/347485/26 "2006-03-08T23:44:46Z")
> [@Originally Posted by ralph124c](#): > > In countries with an established religion 9like denmark) you do pay taxes that support this church. > [@Quartz](#): > > Cite? If you’ll take the word of a born-and-bred Dane: There’s a specific church tax that’s earmarked for support of the national church, but you’re free to opt out. Most don’t. The only person forced to be part of the national church is the reigning monarch. The church does dip into the public coffers beyond the income form the church tax, but the consensus seems to be that the church as an institution has been trustred with a cultural heritage as well as a religious one. Even a heathen like yours truly can see that a 12th century cathedral has a cultural value far beyond that of simply keeping the congregation out of the rain, and that there’s a national interest in keeping it intact and preserved. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-euorpe-freedom-of-religion/347485/27 "2006-03-09T00:31:49Z")
> [@kellner](#): > > Your beliefs do not make you stand above the law (and where do they, anyway?) Any place which is controlled by fanatics who agree with you, of course. If the local law enforcement/government/populace is terrified of the fanatics ( or _are_ the fanatics ), you can get away with anything. If the local villagers decide you’re a witch and stone you, the government may not even here of it; the locals who disagree won’t dare tell. For that matter, look at what faith healers in America get away with without getting hauled away for fraud or endangering other’s lives. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 8:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-euorpe-freedom-of-religion/347485/28 "2006-03-09T08:15:39Z")
> [@Spiny Norman](#): > > If you’ll take the word of a born-and-bred Dane: There’s a specific church tax that’s earmarked for support of the national church, but you’re free to opt out. Most don’t. The only person forced to be part of the national church is the reigning monarch. Right, so it’s specific to Denmark, not all countries with an established religion. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 8:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-euorpe-freedom-of-religion/347485/29 "2006-03-09T08:59:54Z")
> [@Spiny Norman](#): > > If you’ll take the word of a born-and-bred Dane: There’s a specific church tax that’s earmarked for support of the national church, but you’re free to opt out. Most don’t. The same is true of Spain, where you may check a box on your tax form for a tithe to be sent to the Catholic Church, although judging from the “Check your box!” posters I saw in various cathedrals, it seems to be an opt-in rather than an opt-out. This isn’t quite what you’d call an established church, though, as the Spanish constitution forbids such. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Clam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3bc359/32.png) [@Happy\_Clam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Clam)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-euorpe-freedom-of-religion/347485/30 "2006-03-09T22:27:32Z")
> [@Northern Piper](#): > > 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. Well, yes and no. IANA Frenchman (Heaven Forfend!), but I believe that in part the (over?) rigorous seperation between all forms of government (including schools) and all forms of religion comes from France’s somewhat checkered past, as far a freedom of religion is concerned. Intermittently Catholic, France has endured a variety of cases of religious persecution, from the explusion of the Hugenots to the Dreyfuss Affair. In addition, throw in the French Revolution and its aftermath (i.e. the next 200 years of French history), when Catholics were regarded as suspicious agents of the papacy, and you can see why the establishment of the third (or was it fourth?) republic was accompanied by the openly stated desire to mould the indiviudal inhabitant into a “citizen of France”- which includes, among other things, not being overtly religous (or, as the recent banlieu riots apparently taught us, black.) ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Clam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3bc359/32.png) [@Happy\_Clam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Clam)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-euorpe-freedom-of-religion/347485/31 "2006-03-09T22:36:11Z")
Curses, I don’t know how to edit (pity the newb). I just wanted to add that the answer does of course differ from country to country, but that there is no “Western European” country where at least some basic freedom of religion is not recognized. Turkey or Belarus, on the other hand… Still, said “freedom of religion” might not be quite what a US citizen would think of as such. In my own native Blighty, for example, not only do we have a sovereign who is also head of the church, but the spiritual leader (the Archbishop of Canterbury) is appointed by the Prime Minister, and we have a variety of Bishops sitting in our Upper Legislative Chamber (The Lords Spiritual, as they are known). Nevertheless, religious tolerance is probably embraced to a greater extent than in most other world nations (or was until 7/7/05), and cases of religous discrimination and persecution are, at worst, remote. This may or may not be because an estimated 40% of the country ia atheist. Actually, scratch all that. We don’t have freedom OF religion- we have freedom FROM religion. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2006, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-euorpe-freedom-of-religion/347485/32 "2006-03-09T22:52:08Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > 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. I’m not so sure. If it were framed on theoretically non-religious grounds, it might stand up for a while. But if it were presented as trying to abolish a marker of religious identity, it would probably fall down. It might depend on where in the US, & what court. Of course, many parts of the US have Christian minorities which cover their girls’ heads. So that’s different. > [@](#): > > 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. I imagine W. Bush reading that sentence & getting an erection. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-euorpe-freedom-of-religion/347485/33 "2006-03-10T01:32:34Z")
Holland is considering a [ban on the burka.](http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=20721&con=45&sec=33) ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-euorpe-freedom-of-religion/347485/34 "2006-03-10T03:43:19Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > 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: > . Actually, until the recent law, french courts had consistently ruled against a general ban of headscarves in schools. They only upheld sanctions against students when there was a specific reason to do so, like safety reasons (students operating machine tools in a technical school when they’re operating said machines, for instance) or when in this specific case, whatever the student was wearing amounted to religious proselytism (say, a big “accept Jesus as your savior” on a student’s clothes would probably have been a no-no, though I’m unaware of any such case). However, contrarily to the USA, french courst traditionnally don’t review the constitutionnality of laws, though there’s theorically nothing preventing them from doing so (they used not to review laws that contradicted treaties, either, but have been doing so for maybe 15 years or so, so it might happen in the future with the constitution though I doubt it). The only exception being the Constitutionnal Council, but it can only review a law if it’s presented to it by a number of MPs, and given that the all political parties supported the law, this didn’t happen. I think that in all likehood this law isn’t contitutionnal, though. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-euorpe-freedom-of-religion/347485/35 "2006-03-10T03:50:13Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > Could a school district legally ban tee shirts, or buttons or posters on the grounds of orderly conduct that said for instance: There’s no school districts in France, but in all likehood, yes, schools could have banned any of the slogans you mentionned even before this recent law and courts would have upheld the decision. Religious proselytism hasn’t been allowed in public schools since 1905. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-euorpe-freedom-of-religion/347485/36 "2006-03-10T04:02:30Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > 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). I don’t think so, though I’m not sure what you mean exactly. For instance in Germany, you’re perfectly free not to pay the part of the taxes that are given back to churches, and anyway you can choose what church you want your taxes to be given to. But maybe you’re thinking about other kind of taxes. By the way, in France, in the Alsace and Lorraine regions, priest, rabbis, etc… are paid by the government, since these regions were part of the German empire when the laws of separation of the church and state were passed, so they never applied there. So, some small part of my taxes are indeed used to fund churches. Churches are also tax-exempt in France. But then, like in the US, so are plenty of other non-profit organizations, so I’ve no issue with that. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-euorpe-freedom-of-religion/347485/37 "2006-03-10T04:07:07Z")
> [@Tevildo](#): > > 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,. I would as usually note that the ECHR doesn’t cover only western europe but also eastern europe. For instance, Russia is part of the convention. It’s unrelated to the EU. Not saying that you didn’t know that, but many people are confused about this. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-euorpe-freedom-of-religion/347485/38 "2006-03-10T04:47:23Z")
> [@Happy Clam](#): > > Well, yes and no. IANA Frenchman (Heaven Forfend!), but I believe that in part the (over?) rigorous seperation between all forms of government (including schools) and all forms of religion comes from France’s somewhat checkered past, as far a freedom of religion is concerned. Intermittently Catholic, France has endured a variety of cases of religious persecution, from the explusion of the Hugenots to the Dreyfuss Affair. In addition, throw in the French Revolution and its aftermath (i.e. the next 200 years of French history), when Catholics were regarded as suspicious agents of the papacy, and you can see why the establishment of the third (or was it fourth?) republic was accompanied by the openly stated desire to mould the indiviudal inhabitant into a “citizen of France”- which includes, among other things, not being overtly religous (or, as the recent banlieu riots apparently taught us, black.) Basically, the french republic established itself _against_ the catholic church that fought it teeth and nails during all the 19th century, always supporting the conservatives, the monarchists, the bonapartists, etc… This extremely drastic division between progressive/republicans/anti-clericals and conservatives/anti-republican/churchgoers lasted well into the 20th century (actually, I still witnessed expressions of it quite recently in the backward region where I’ve been brought up) and was arguably the most important political issue under the third republic. At some point you’d have barely been able to be a republican and go to church without being considered a traitor by both sides. However, this deep attachment to laicity isn’t anymore a hot issue, and nowadays is mostly upheld by teachers who have traditionnally be the vanguard of the fight against clericalism (school teachers used to be nicknamed the “black hussars of the Republic” and many an old movie depict the traditional fight between the village’s teacher and the local priest), and apparently kept to some extent the flame alive. However, though they had been (generally speaking) amongst the most vocal supporters of the scarf ban, generally on the basis of protecting laicity, teachers and school admninistrators weren’t the only ones. Important also were the concerns of feminists who were worried as the scarf was in their eyes a symbol of women’s (in this case, girl) oppression, hence not acceptable. This issue, I think , gained the anti-scarf side a lot of support amongst politicians. I remember that the statements of muslim feminists during parliament’s hearings seemed to weight a lot. Also, there was of course concerns about the the spreading of radical islam and the desire to keep it in check. There was also a lot of popular support simply due to the fact that many people don’t like seeing scar-wearing girls in schools, people and politicians who don’t like the fact that (some) muslim immigrants don’t seem to want to integrate and become real french with a beret and a baguette, racism, the fears about “muslim invasion” fueled by the currently influential rhetoric of the extreme-right, and so on… Eventually, everybody from the extreme-left to the extreme-right was supporting the ban for different reasons. So, I would say that in my opinion, though it played a part, the traditionnal french “laicite” wasn’t the determining factor but for many (though not all) a convenient pretext or secondary argument. This law rather meant, IMO “we don’t want veil-wearing women in France for various reasons, so let’s ban the veil at least in school since it’s the only place where we can conveniently do so”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-euorpe-freedom-of-religion/347485.md?page=1)