Via DJ Nozem I was directed to a very interesting and very important article on Eurozine about European secularism and its role in shaping European identities. The text contains many useful insights and provides a wealth of discussion material. I’ll give one quote for our readers to consider and debate, emphasis mine, but please do and go read everything.
Internal differences notwithstanding, western European societies are deeply secular societies, shaped by the hegemonic knowledge regime of secularism. As liberal democratic societies they tolerate and respect individual religious freedom. But due to the pressure towards the privatization of religion, which among European societies has become a taken-for-granted characteristic of the self-definition of a modern secular society, those societies have a much greater difficulty in recognizing some legitimate role for religion in public life and in the organization and mobilization of collective group identities. Muslim organized collective identities and their public representations become a source of anxiety not only because of their religious otherness as a non-Christian and non-European religion, but more importantly because of their religiousness itself as the other of European secularity. In this context, the temptation to identify Islam and fundamentalism becomes the more pronounced. Islam, by definition, becomes the other of Western secular modernity. Therefore, the problems posed by the incorporation of Muslim immigrants become consciously or unconsciously associated with seemingly related and vexatious issues concerning the role of religion in the public sphere, which European societies assumed they had already solved according to the liberal secular norm of privatization of religion.
The sentence in bold goes to the heart of what I personally feel to be one of the main issues we are dealing with. Sure, Muslim fundamentalists who are ready to throw bombs and cause physical damage are a real threat and get plenty of media attention, deservedly or not. However, I believe the issues are much larger and much more complex. Terrorists, for better or for worse, are still a minority within a minority. There are bigger forces and trends at play here, as Eurozine points out:
The final and more responsible option would be to face the difficult and polemical task of defining through open and public debate the political identity of the new European Union: Who are we? Where do we come from? What constitutes our spiritual and moral heritage and the boundaries of our collective identities? How flexible internally and how open externally should those boundaries be? This would be under any circumstance an enormously complex task that would entail addressing and coming to terms with the many problematic and contradictory aspects of the European heritage in its intra-national, inter-European, and global-colonial dimensions. But such a complex task is made the more difficult by secularist prejudices that preclude not only a critical yet honest and reflexive assessment of the Judeo-Christian heritage, but even any public official reference to such a heritage, on the grounds that any reference to religion could be divisive and counterproductive, or simply violates secular postulates.
Christ on a stick but this is silly. How many EU states still have established churches? Germany, Britain, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark for sure and off the top of my head. Spain and Portugal? Italy? France? Sure, some have a laicist state, but look at the huge influence of the Catholic hierarchies in how those countries are actually run.
“much greater difficulty in recognizing some legitimate role for religion in public life and in the organization and mobilization of collective group identities”
This will come as quite a surprise to the council of Jews in Germany. And to the newly established council of Moslems as well. And to the members of the CDU/CSU political parties, one of whose members is, I don’t know, Chancellor or some such.
As for privatization of religion, the German state is still very much in business of collecting taxes solely for the support of Christian churches. This tax, oddly enough, is called the “church tax.” It’s deducted automatically from each paycheck unless you go to the trouble of opting out.
Good grief.
*smile* I agree, Doug. That is one reason why I put the quote that interested me most in bold. I do believe that our more or less secular societies are under attack from religion in general. That is, religious “politics”.
The article is in essence a criticism on secularism, but there are other interesting bits that can be gleened from it, albeit indirectly. Like this one:
“The fact that Catholic Poland is “re-joining Europe” at a time when western Europe is forsaking its Christian civilizational identity has produced a perplexing situation for Catholic Poles and secular Europeans alike. (…) Anticipating the threat of secularization, the integralist sectors of Polish Catholicism have adopted a negative attitude towards European integration. Exhorted by the Polish Pope, the leadership of the Polish church, by contrast, has embraced European integration as a great apostolic assignment. (…) The Polish Episcopate, nevertheless, has accepted enthusiastically the papal apostolic assignment and has repeatedly stressed that one of its goals once Poland rejoins Europe is “to restore Europe for Christianity”. While it may sound preposterous to western European ears, such a message has found resonance in the tradition of Polish messianism. Barring a radical change in the European secular zeitgeist, however, such an evangelistic effort has little chance of success. Given the loss of demand for religion in western Europe, the supply of surplus Polish pastoral resources for a Europe-wide evangelizing effort is unlikely to prove effective. The at best lukewarm, if not outright hostile European response to John Paul II’s renewed calls for a European Christian revival points to the difficulty of the assignment.”
Consider also the recent ‘scandal’ about the Pope quoting an ancient guy who said that Islam was inherently violent. That quote was not innocent.It is, I believe, the beginning of an attack on secularity by, among others, the Vatican powerhouse, a new game of power and influence that will appeal to many because of, among so many other things, the terrorist threat coming from Muslim fundies.
The role of the Catholic church in particular in politics is something that needs to be followed closely. All the focus on Muslims nowadays, whatever its merits, obscures the other forces that are operating behind the scenes to (re)gain influence.
Not to mention non-Muslim radicals and potential terrorists like the recent fascist gang in Belgium that were arrested for plotting a coup d’etat. And here in France I am starting to pick up rumours of radical anarchists and lefties hijacking riots and demonstrations to create chaos and disorder. There are a lot of weird concoctions bubbling in the European underbelly, and it is not just Muslim terrorists. Some of these groups are tiny and rather insignificant, but they could cause serious trouble.
Anyway, it is not like the world is about to end. But it is good to sometimes shift our focus a little bit to different things.
And to the members of the CDU/CSU political parties, one of whose members is, I don’t know, Chancellor or some such.
Before WW1 all French parties included “socialist” in their name, except for the socialists. So much for the CDU. There are Christians in the CDU and even more in the CSU, but even there, they are a minority.
How many EU states still have established churches?
Precisely. They are so powerless that we can afford to keep a few bishops as pets. And we can spend public money on the cathedrals that the tourists like. France and Italy are secular. This is not an accident.
This will come as quite a surprise to the council of Jews in Germany.
They are considered an ethnic minority in public oppinion. You will get a lot of lip service about Germans of Jewish Religion, but that’s a political truth.
The author doesn’t consider why Western Europe has become secular. He treats it as an aberration – one that one day might relapse.
In my experience, the Christian answers to the questions a person or society faces today are frequently the wrong ones. Take for instance the hot-button issue of the “sanctity of marriage as a union between a man and a woman”. The religious answer is in direct conflict with the desire to provide freedom and quality of life to everyone.
Is it any wonder we get suspicious of people who claim that their religious beliefs guide them?
Well, there are two options for Europe: either embrace absolute values built on Christianity or continue with relative secular slide towards
biological extinction and domination by Islam.
The problem is that the so called “secular values” channel human beings towards sterile pleasures of life, consumption and living today without thinking about future, which more or less doesn’t exist for them because “God doesn’t exist”. Europe is slowly being dominated by people who believe that future exists, and for that reason they procreate children. The outcome is inevitable: any religion is biologically more viable than secularism.
Numerous European nations had demographic panics in the 1920s and especially the 1930s. Look what it produced: Europe in the 1940s, which the continent has spent more than half a century recovering from. I thought it was self-evident that Europe does not need to go down that road again, but some things, some obvious things, still apparently need repeating.
France and Italy are secular republics because of hard-won victories against, among other things, the arrogation of temporal power by the Catholic Church hierarchy. These are victories worth preserving.
Look down the long swathe of European history from, say, the Latin sack of Constantinople (Christian brotherhood!) through the Thirty Years’ War (though the Germans complain about it the most, it was even worse in the Czech lands and significant parts of Poland) down through Moscow’s ideology of the Third Rome. Christian love was very often administered with the sword (admittedly, ustashe and chetniks preferred the machete, while their 1990s heirs went in for AK-47s) and the other cheek was less often turned than the other fist. Is this what people really want?
And who writes stuff like the original column, anyway? Are these people nuts?
“The problem is that the so called “secular values” channel human beings towards sterile pleasures of life, consumption and living today without thinking about future, which more or less doesn’t exist for them because “God doesn’t exist”.”
This is a variant on that popular slur, ‘all unbelievers are amoral’. I could get into a whole discussion on this, but there’s little point because it’s an argument that’s already been thrashed out plenty of times on the internet, and will quickly lead off-topic. Look up ‘Buddhism’ or ‘humanism’ on Google and you’ll soon find good arguments to the contrary.
As for how this relates to demographics, the reasons for Europe’s low fertility are many and often poorly understood, as I’m sure other commenters can explain better than I can. However, I find it ridiculous to propose that people’s principal motivation for procreation is to continue their God’s work, whether or not they believe in one.
Europeans don’t have fewer children because they are secular and don’t believe in a future. It is a side-effect of modern life. It is because the women now have jobs, know about contraction, expect to see all their children survive, save up for retirement etc. Ironically, some of the countries that have the lowest reproduction rates are the ones that haven’t reacted to this new situation and make it difficult for families with *two* working parents to juggle children and careers.
The essence of seculars is NOT that they don’t believe in anything, but that they believe (strongly) that they can find the truth by reasoning. They don’t need a 2000 or 1400 year old book.
Numerous European nations had demographic panics in the 1920s and especially the 1930s. Look what it produced: Europe in the 1940s,
If you die from side effects of medical treatment, the original diagnosis may still be valid. You can’t make that conclusion.
The religious answer is in direct conflict with the desire to provide freedom and quality of life to everyone.
Thereby making exactly their point. Secular values are primate. Whether we like this or not is beside the point. The development is over a century old and unlikely to reverse.
But what are the consequences?
>Posted by Soren
>Europeans don’t have fewer children because they are secular and don’t believe in a future. It is a side-effect of modern life. It is because the women now have jobs, know about contraction, expect to see all their children survive, save up for retirement etc.
Tell that to the Americans. 300 million and climbing, with a per capita income higher than all the European countries you are discussing.
[E]ither embrace absolute values built on Christianity or continue with relative secular slide towards biological extinction and domination by Islam.
1. Your assumption that absolute values are necessary is provocatively interesting.
2. Your assumption that absolute values must be of religious origin, likewise.
3. Your assumption of inevitable “biological extinction and domination by Islam” is risible.
“3. Your assumption of inevitable “biological extinction and domination by Islam†is risible.”
This is not an assumption but projection. I live in London where there were no mosques before the WWII. There are over 50 mosques now. There are also numerous converts to islam, particularly women. These women want to have children more than any full-time job outside home.
It is true that job interferes with child-bearing. There is a positive feedback here: less children translates over time to lower supply of skilled labor and higher pressure on women not to take any time off for children. This is a vicious circle.
Promotion of “secular values” based on “reason” goes directly against long-term biological survival. “Progress” is supposed to be linked to abortion, contraception, divorce and homosexual unions. There is no room for stable biological families with children.
I don’t want to mention excesses of “reason” in French Revolution, Soviet Union, Cambodia… At the same time one should not forget that modern science developed in Christian Europe and nowhere else, and that faith and reason could and should go together (e.g. Thomas Aquinas). Otherwise we have either secular fanaticism or religious fanaticism.
>Posted by Scott:
>Tell that to the Americans. 300 million and climbing…
If you look at America in detail, you’ll see that population growth is slow in the rich (and religous) white segment. America grows due to immigration and because recent immigrants still behave as if they were still in their (poor) home country.
This is not an assumption but projection. I live in London where there were no mosques before the WWII. There are over 50 mosques now.
All things equal you can project a rise of the islamic segment of the population. Within the timeframe you can make reasonable predictions they won’t come close to a majority. Neither can you predict future devotion to the orthodox interpretation.
If you want to look on the darker side, Europe has experience fighting a religion as such, which is unthinkable in the USA.
Promotion of “secular values” based on “reason” goes directly against long-term biological survival. “Progress” is supposed to be linked to abortion, contraception, divorce and homosexual unions. There is no room for stable biological families with children.
Reason does no such thing. Reason is a tool. It tells you how to achieve a goal, but not which goal to achieve.
You can say that science tells you that the Darwinian purpose of man is reproduction and act accordingly. It is true that Europe (and other wealthy regions & subpopulations) have a problem with reproduction. That doesn’t mean that the nuclear family and a return to it are the only or best means of fixing that.
In fact, if you want reproduction you should allow homosexual unions. If the trait has a genetic basis, you’ll eliminate it this way.
It is on average easier for lesbian couples to get kids than it is for strait couples so i don’t see how you eliminate it this way.
About Europe being muslim. When will the US be Spanish speaking?
At the risk of making a few heads explode, how about this controversial quote (from: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg18424690.800)
“IF homosexuality is an inherited trait, why do genes for it survive? Because these genes may make women more likely to reproduce.”
Chew on that 😉
Doug,
I wouldn’t say the author is ‘mad’. He’s just more interested in the dialectic of his argument than in the current or historical realities. This is such a common trait in PoMo acedemia that I hardly recognise it anymore.
One more differentiation that would have to be made in a nuanced account is that the role of religion in the muslim public sphere is also deeply influenced by traditional tribal norms. The burqa, IIRC, is not mentioned in the Koran, nor was it all that common until recently. Among the muslim immigrants, it is not just about having a public sphere imbibed with their religion, but also about maintaining tribal customs and power relations.
Lumping everything together under the concept of Islam, the ‘other’ or the eternal Muslim will be rather dangerous for those who want to promote secularism. Rather, the differences have to be explored & then exploited.
On another note, we do need a positive account of secularism. Salman Rushdie gave a good opening shot just after 9-11.The fundamentalist seeks to bring down a great deal more than buildings. Such people are against, to offer just a brief list, freedom of speech, a multi-party political system, universal adult suffrage, accountable government, Jews, homosexuals, women’s rights, pluralism, secularism, short skirts, dancing, beardlessness, evolution theory, sex. These are tyrants, not Muslims. United Nations Secretary- General Kofi Annan has said that we should now define ourselves not only by what we are for, but by what we are against. I would reverse that proposition, because in the present instance what we are against is a no-brainer. Suicidist assassins ram wide- bodied aircraft into the World Trade Centre and Pentagon and kill thousands of people: um, I’m against that. But what are we for? What will we risk our lives to defend? Can we unanimously concur that all the items in the above list – yes, even the short skirts and dancing – are worth dying for?Women biking on short skirts through Amsterdam in the summer. Now there is something to defend!
Now explain to me exactly how Iran (1.8 children born/woman) or Algeria (1.89) is more secular than USA (2.09, every Nordic country (1.66-1.92) way more religious than Poland (1.25), or Iceland (1.92) less secular than Ireland and so on? Are Japanese (1.4) particullary invidualistic?
The reality is that birth rates are down all over the world, with few exceptions, mainly some Arab nations like Saudi-Arabia (4.0) or Oman (5.77!). Yet Kuwait (2.91) for example is much closer tow world average 2.59. For correlation in general, female literacy is pretty good.
Source CIA World Factbook – TFA https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2127.html
I live in London where there were no mosques before the WWII. There are over 50 mosques now.
Wrong! Don’t you read HG Wells? Admittedly the mosque in Woking is in the suburbs, but it’s either ignorant or dishonest to pretend that Muslims didn’t exist in Britain before the second world war.
Further, even if your figures bear any relation to reality, that suggests that we are gaining mosques at a rate of rather less than one a year – or to put it another way, by 2067 there will be rather fewer mosques than churches in London, if current trends continue. (Wheep! Wheep! Linear extrapolation alarm!)
That’s if the latest wave of immigrants, mostly Catholics, don’t start chucking churches up all over the place. More seriously, I am sure you know that this is all essentially because of the arrival of subcontinental immigrants in the 1950s. Considering that the flow reduced dramatically after the 1971 Immigration Act, the fact-driven conclusion is that the natural increase in the Muslim population is not very much, or else there is a significant apostasy rate.
As far as seating capacity in places of worship goes, I wouldn’t be surprised if evangelical/congregational Protestant churches have beaten that in London over the last 10 years.
I say seating capacity, btw, because these denominations seem to have a preference for oligopoly in church-building – not many, but big. British Muslims seem to build many small places of worship. This may reflect different optimal combinations of capital and labour.
“All things equal you can project a rise of the islamic segment of the population. Within the timeframe you can make reasonable predictions they won’t come close to a majority. Neither can you predict future devotion to the orthodox interpretation.”
Again I can project based on the fact that Islam is designed to undermine and dominate the majority.
Recent Examples:
“Secular Turkey”: In 1950 50% of Istanbul was Christian. Now 0.5%
Lebanon: In 1960 70% of the population was Christian. Now, less than 30% and falling.
Iraq prior to Saddam rule had 30% Christians. Now, less than 5%.
I can go on: Nigeria, Indonesia, Kashmir…
Europe is particularly vulnerable due to its traditions of “Jacobin tolerance” directed almost exclusively against Christianity. Elimination of Christianity leaves a void. This is why many secular westerners look for an organizing force in life which cannot be provided by moral relativism (based on reaspn) as opposed to absolute moral values based on religion. Jobs are often unfulfilling, churches are under pressure to embrace “progressive agendas” such as abortion, eutanasia or ordaining homosexuals.
At the same time, every Christmas I can hear protests against Christmas trees, carrols etc. This is what is called “talibanization” of the secular progressives.
The number of Mosques in London increased from 2 to over 400 in the last 25 years. This information is 8 years old. London now has 600+ mosques.
“This is a variant on that popular slur, ’all unbelievers are amoral’. ”
No, no! This is a direct quote from Dostoyevsky: “If God doesn’t exist, everything is permitted”.
It is hard to argue that in the absence of absolute values, relative values take over. It is hard to argue that if we reject God, we reject tommorow and rely on today. This is based on reason not on humanist pages on buddhism.
“France and Italy are secular republics because of hard-won victories against, among other things, the arrogation of temporal power by the Catholic Church hierarchy. These are victories worth preserving.”
A bitter irony is that it was only a mere confusion of Caesar and God which are clearly separated in Catholic doctrine. In Islam, political power and religion are intrinsically linked together since Mohamed. Secularists try to fool themselves trying to portray Islam as a religion. Muslims themselves claim it is “a way of life”. It is religious, political and judicial power in the hands of mullahs.
“IF homosexuality is an inherited trait, why do genes for it survive? Because these genes may make women more likely to reproduce.â€
There is another interpretation: in the tribal societies starvation was frequent. Some men would gather and ride other tribes for food helping their own tribes to survive. Bisexual and gay men were more likely to organize the army than heterosexuals. Chew on that! Watch the movie on Alexander the Great!
“Watch the movie on Alexander the Great!”
Which one?
“Bisexual and gay men were more likely to organize the army than heterosexuals.”
Yeah, so they were more likely to die too… How is that going to make their genes survive? Or is it to be assumed that they structurally raped females of rival tribes?
*thinking*
Oh wait, I see a solution. Gays “organized” the army and, being the sneaky leaders they were they stepped back and let all the heterosexuals do the fighting. When all hets were dead, the gays returned home to have sex with the starving females and thus insured their own survival. Of course, they would have produced a considerable number of heterosexual offspring for their next war… or…
*head exploding*
“A bitter irony is that it was only a mere confusion of Caesar and God which are clearly separated in Catholic doctrine.”
135 years ago the Catholic church fought a war against Italy so i wouldn’t call this ancient doctrine. Nor would i say that they aren’t trying to influence Polish, Spanish and Irish politics.
“Yeah, so they were more likely to die too… How is that going to make their genes survive?”
This is not my hypothesis but lets try. There are two ways of dying: (1) from starvation; (2) from fighting/killing. Those who were successfull in organizing an army/gang and the subsequent killing/robbing were more likely to survive and even bring some food to their tribe. Therefore, the tribe which produced more men leaning towards each other could be more successful.
@Sabine, mmkay. Good point in this rather surreal and totally faith-based/nonsense debate. I could take it further and fantasize about how tribes were succesful in producing gay fighters (cross fertilizing?) but I am still scraping parts of my exploded head from nearby walls and shall refrain from steering the thread even further off-topic than it already is. 😉
“Nor would i say that they aren’t trying to influence Polish, Spanish and Irish politics.”
So what is wrong that the Church states what is its position on moral issues such as abortion, eutanasia or gay marriages? As long as they don’t plant bombs to force the point, they absolutely have the right and responsibility to do it. Isn’t this what democracy is about?
True, but the churches are not only involved because of moral issues.
Something on Buddhism and moral relativism from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
Bhikkhu Bodhi, an American Buddhist monk, wrote:
“By assigning value and spiritual ideals to private subjectivity, the materialistic world view, threatens to undermine any secure objective foundation for morality. The result is the widespread moral degeneration that we witness today. To counter this tendency, mere moral exhortation is insufficient. If morality is to function as an efficient guide to conduct, it cannot be propounded as a self-justifying scheme but must be embedded in a more comprehensive spiritual system which grounds morality in a transpersonal order. Religion must affirm, in the clearest terms, that morality and ethical values are not mere decorative frills of personal opinion, not subjective superstructure, but intrinsic laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality.â€[3]
“True, but the churches are not only involved because of moral issues.”
Show examples.
Sabine, here is a nice article:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_n5_v53/ai_13255815
For what it is worth, I do believe that politics in religious institutions, as in any other organization, is inescapable and even necessary.
The number of Mosques in London increased from 2 to over 400 in the last 25 years. This information is 8 years old. London now has 600+ mosques.
Posted by Alice at October 26, 2006 6:29 PM
Links and cites, please. I very much doubt your facts. If there were only 2 mosques in London in 1981, that would have been fewer than Bradford. And what are you doing quoting supposed information that you yourself admit is eight years out of date?
“Secular Turkey”: In 1950 50% of Istanbul was Christian. Now 0.5%
Bullshit. Who would this 50 per cent have been? The Greeks were kicked out in the 1920s after they unwisely tried to colonise Turkey.
Lebanon: In 1960 70% of the population was Christian. Now, less than 30% and falling.
Errr, that is definitely wrong. It’s unlikely Lebanon has ever had a 70% Christian majority. For political reasons the fiction of Christian primacy is maintained, and nobody has counted since independence for fear of the consequences. Assuming you didn’t just pull the number out of your arse, it’s probably Lebanese Forces/Phalangist propaganda.
Iraq prior to Saddam rule had 30% Christians. Now, less than 5%.
So Iraq wasn’t an Islamic country before 1968? Are you insane?
Christians in Istanbul – source:
http://www.indonesia.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=61179&sid=8aaa6253c77fe37e053efa0b88e0ac8a
Unfortunately the links are too long. You can google for yourself.
Forum Kebebasan Berpendapat Lintas Agama :: View topic – Exodus …
The collapse of Christians in Turkey occurred earlier than in some … Christians made up almost 50% of Istanbul’s population in 1900; today exactly 1%. …
http://www.indonesia.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=61179&sid=8aaa6253c77fe37e053efa0b88e0ac8a – 55k –
That link is broken, and anyway seems to go to a php bulletin board at a site I’m not allowed to read at work….*activates superior technology that will bury your crude censorship*…
“Faith Freedom International is a grassroots movement of ex-Muslims. Its goal it to unmask Islam and show that it is an imperialistic ideology akin to Nazism disguised as religion and to help Muslims leave it, end this culture of hate caused by their “us” vs. “them” ethos and embrace the human race in amity. We strive for the unity of Mankind through the elimination of the most insidious doctrine of hate. ”
Ah. Any chance of a credible source?
Also, something tells me this organisation is lying in its whois record, where it claims to be located in Qom, Iran.
Further, the nearest I can find to your claim is an unsourced remark on some mad-right hatesite that applies to 1914, not 1950. So which is it: 1900, 1914 or 1950? It can’t be all three. As I am sure you are aware, the Greek government immediately after 1918 tried to stake out a big chunk of Anatolia as a colony, got into a war with Kemal Ataturk’s secular nationalists, and got their people kicked out (they were evacuated from Smyrna by the British navy – Hemingway wrote a cracking short story about it). Under a League of Nations agreement, Greece swapped its Turkish minority for Turkey’s Greeks. As some 1.5 million people left in this process, your claim is in the field of “simply cannot be right”.
I agree there are problems with internet sources. Therefore, let’s turn to common knowledge:
1. Lebanon had Christian majority in 1960
2. Secular Turks were less than kind to Armenian Christians
If you don’t want to go that far back,
look at Sudan and Nigeria. Or read some news about “disaffected youths” from Paris. You may continue to explain it away, but you must admit some problems.
1. This isn’t “common knowledge”. That Lebanon is a Christian country is a notion invented by the French colonial government and kept alive for political reasons (chief among which is the avoidance of another civil war). By 1960 it was already a dubious proposition.
2. No they weren’t. Secular Germans were pretty rough on Jews. Christian Americans weren’t exactly delightful towards the Sioux. Everyone has a skeleton in their cupboard. Some more than others, admittedly. The point is not to put any more skeletons in there.
3. The problem is not with “internet sources”, it’s with people who insist on repeating utter rubbish.
“Christian Americans weren’t exactly delightful towards the Sioux.”
Are you talking about secular soldiers and frontier bandits or nuns?
Indeed the problem is with people repeating rubbish.
No, I’m sorry, I think one of us just failed the Turing test.
Yeah, I also thought that I was talking to a machine:).
The essence of seculars is NOT that they don’t believe in anything, but that they believe (strongly) that they can find the truth by reasoning. They don’t need a 2000 or 1400 year old book.
Truth? Reason can show you consistency. Eg. If you believe that all men are born equal, it’s unreasonable to have inherited slavery of one race only.
But the basic premise cannot be arrived at by pure reason. You need to start with something, like human nature, or religion.
“Now explain to me exactly how Iran (1.8 children born/woman) or Algeria (1.89) is more secular than USA (2.09, every Nordic country (1.66-1.92) way more religious than Poland (1.25)”
Poland is a special case. In 1980s around one million young people left that country. They had ~3 million children but these are not Polish children anymore. And again those who were born in Poland in 1980s are massively emigrating to Western Europe (some say more than 1 million have already left). Polish families of childbearing age still average well over 2 kids but there are less and less young families in Poland.
This doesn’t explain why the TFR on Poland is so much below 2. Emigration has only a smallish effect.
These numbers are misleadingly labeled “per woman”. If in 1980 1 million of young people left Poland, then 3 million young people were born outside Poland are missing from the population. Additional 500,000 young ladies left since 2004. If we take ALL newborn children and divide by ALL women left then the number will be smaller. Why not divide by the number of women in childbearing age?.
Last year Poland had 384,150 newborn babies.
Half of those born in Polish families outside Poland are young ladies (~1.5 million plus 0.5 million of those who left). 2 million women would in the worst case scenario give birth to to 2*1.25=2.5 million children during 5-7 years. This would at least double the birthrate.
First of all, the reason European countries have allowed large numbers of muslim immigrants is because they are secular and, somewhere, subconsciously, expect the muslim immigrants to be secular.
Second, if European countries were to acknowledge a role for religion in their societies, they would naturally come to have a negative view of muslim immigrants and the expression of muslim political consciousness which follows.
So, either you have a secular Europe which also demands that its muslim immigrants have a secular view of the role of religion in society, or, you have a Europe where religion plays a role in society and politics and which does not accept muslim immigration or immigrants (with its natural consequences regarding Turkish membership in the EU).
“So, either you have a secular Europe which also demands that its muslim immigrants have a secular view of the role of religion in society, or, you have a Europe where religion plays a role in society and politics and which does not accept muslim immigration or immigrants (with its natural consequences regarding Turkish membership in the EU).”
I see something different. Secular France started building mosques. Its secular rules begin cracking vis-a-vis islamic pressures. The pressures will grow with the size of Muslim population generating ever greater numbers of “disaffected youth.” The traditional hostility of the secular French Republic against Christianity stands. If the trend continues, and I don’t see why not, we are not talking about religious Europe in general, because Christianity always had limited political ambitions in comparison to Islam. We are talking about the third category: islamic Europe, wide open for Turks and North Africans. Secularism is so much centered on fight against Christianity that once Christianity is destroyed in Europe, secularism will have no reason to exist.
Read all the secularist comments above. All are strongly anti-Christian, specifically anti-Catholic. All are violently directed against roots of European culture. Islamic problem is downplayed to the fullest. Thus I must conclude that secularism in Europe plays a very destructive role at this point of its history. President of Iran sees it very clearly when he states “Europe is not going to be a problem.” When Mohamed was asked which metropolis falls first: Constantinople or Rome he predicted that Rome will be second. Ottomans dreamed about entering to St. Peter’s Basilica on horses. I am afraid it will be more pedestrian.