Relations between religions and the state in Europe

¶ … religions and the state in Europe

State interference in religion in Germany and Austria

The question of a state interfering in religion occurs when a group of religious believers feel that it is superior to other believers and decides to issue an order for the commoner to behave in a particular manner due to their religious beliefs. The latest situations regarding the importance of religion are concerning the Islamic faith. In this month, there has been a fatwa from leaders of Muslims in America saying that the attacks of September 11 were not religiously justifiable. There were also criticisms of the fatwa, saying that it was so broad that the fatwa was meaningless and should have mentioned specific groups of Muslims for the incident. Thus the fatwa was viewed as an instrument for the improvement of image for Muslims rather than discussing the entire issue. Another widely condemned attack has occurred in Britain and there were two groups of Muslims who denounced the same, and among them one said that suicide bombing could be justified against an attacking power, while the other group said that such an attack could not be justified. The problem is getting worse as Islam unlike Christianity has no ordained clergy or central authority who can hand down orders. Thus there have been fatwa from Iran asking for violence and fatwa from America condemning it.

Thesis Statement:

Religion is a personal matter and no authority has any right to issue orders to a believer saying how he should act as a believer in a religion.

Why these countries are chosen for analysis?

The aim of this paper is to study the influence of the state using its powers for the support of one religion in a particular form or the other. In the case of these two states, it is important to realize that both these states are very near each other, the populations of the two states are from the same basic ethnic stock, and in many cases they have been even ruled by one king or emperor. Thus in normal course, the religion or religious tendencies should have been the same, but has that happened?

Analysis of religion in Germany and Austria:

In the analysis of religion in these two countries, let us go alphabetically and first look at Austria. The rulers of Austria were the Habsburgs and the leading political representatives of Roman Catholicism during the period of conflict with Protestant Reformation in Central Europe during the entire sixteenth and seventeenth century. Let us remember that Protestant Reformation started to a large extent in Germany. Even today, Austria is a predominantly Roman Catholic country. At the same time, the Habsburgs were religiously heterodox and the real reasons behind the start of many of the smaller denominations that exist even today. This spirit of religious tolerance has come from the enlightened absolutism of the late eighteenth century. This freedom was then fixed to the soul of Austria with the constitution of 1867. Even at the end of the eighteenth century, twelve religious communities were recognized officially in Austria - Roman Catholic; Protestant which was Lutheran and Calvin; Greek, Serbian, Romanian, Russian, and Bulgarian Orthodox; Jewish; Muslim; Old Catholic; Methodist and Mormon.

However the principal role was then for the Roman Catholic Church or Vatican and the status was decided through a number of treaties or concordats between Vatican and the Republic of Austria. This led to the influence of the Catholic Church continuing in public life even after 1918. One of the ways that this happened was that many members of the Church hierarchy openly supported the Christian Social Party. This got a response from the other parties and the Social Democratic Workers' Party became anti-clerical in the period between the two World Wars. Some of the Roman Catholics also tried to have a form of "political Catholicism" and this meant that they were both anti-Liberal and anti-SDAP. These sympathies are very deeply rooted and had led to the formation of a "Christian Corporate State" in 1934.

That sort of a situation is not possible now as the position of religion is clearly defined in the present constitution with articles 14, 15 and 16. These clearly state that full freedom of religion and conscience is guaranteed to all. The enjoyment of civil and political rights has been made totally independent of any religious beliefs, at the same time the performance of civil duties cannot be influenced by religious beliefs. The little confusion that arises is from the sub-clause "No one shall be forced to perform any religious rite or to participate in any religious ceremony except in so far as he is subject to another who has legal authority in this matter."

What will be the interpretation of this law by a judge cannot be anticipated. The rights clearly state that all recognized churches and religious societies will have the public right to conduct their worship, regulate and administer its internal affairs independently and remain in possession and enjoyment of all its establishments, institutions and property to be used for the purpose of religion, education and charity. The societies are however subject to the general laws of the state. Even when a particular religion is not officially recognized, they are permitted to worship in private as long as their religion does not interfere with laws or public morals.

The situation in recent times has changed, and the Roman Catholic Church has not given public and active support to any particular political party. There was one occasion when they became actively involved and that was in 1970s when the question came up of legislation for abortion in Austria. This also changed the attitudes of the political parties towards the Church and the Socialist Party of Austria developed a more accommodating attitude to it, and this could not have been thought of in the period before the Second World War. In the meantime, changes have also taken place in the religious affiliations of the population and according to the 1991 census the majority of Austrians were with the Roman Catholic Church. The share of population with them was 77.9% as compared to the 87.2% share that was with them in 1971. The share of Protestants also declined during the period and the major group among them, the Lutherans or members of the Augsburg Confession declined from a share of 5.7% in 1971 to 4.8% in 1991. Similarly the share of Calvinists or members of the Helvetic Confession dropped from 0.3% earlier to 0.2% in the same census.

The question naturally comes as to which religion gained adherents, and the answer is simple - the Austrians who do not profess any religion and their share increased from 4.3% in 1971 to 8.6% in 1991. This is probably helping one of the political parties which say that there should be no religious affiliation. This reminds us of the infamous saying "Religion is the opium of the people." Without getting personal about religion, one can clearly say that in Austria when the state interference has been removed, the status of all religions is shifting to a common ground.

Now let us get into the religious position of the other country - Germany. It would be useful to remember that both these countries are actually parts of one country and this can be seen in the fact that they speak a language which is similar and both were parts of the Holy Roman Empire. The separation came in the first half of the seventeenth century due to the last of the great wars of religion, in what is now called as the Thirty Years War which lasted from 1618 to 1648. This was a direct struggle for power between Protestants and Catholics and also between the local kingdoms forming parts of the empire. At the end of the war, France became the most powerful state in Europe as it succeeded in replacing the Habsburgs in both Spain and the Holy Roman Empire of Germany. The worst loser was probably Germany as it separated into some 300 separate states. The Catholic portions of Austria were with the Habsburgs and they probably lost the most during this war. They could not think of consolidating under their rule any more. Germany was split into Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists in different states. The religion of the ruler determined the religion of the people. (The Seventeenth Century)

The two states to emerge as the most powerful in the region were Catholic Austria and Lutheran Prussia, and they formed for the basis of the loose confederation which was still called the Holy Roman Empire. Here one can clearly see the influence of religion in creating countries, and thus the religion of some individuals created different states. This of course may be called the interference of religion into states and not the interference of states into religions. How did all this start? In 1517, it was Martin Luther who challenged papal authority as he viewed the authority as commercialization of his religion. This led him to start the second major religion in Germany -Protestantism. This makes it clear that there were views of religion being also something other than pure belief in a path to reach God even in those days.

The strength of the Protestants increased in North Baden and northeast Bavaria, and was not at a very high level till Germany was unified under Prussian leadership in 1871. The leaders of Germany at that time were under Otto von Bismarck and he was seeking a method to weaken the leadership of Roman Catholics and their influence. This led to the start of Kulturkampf in the early 1870s. Other direct steps were also taken like prohibiting the Jesuit order in Germany and expelling the members of Jesuits from Germany. The entire procedure was outlined in Prussia under the "Falk laws" which were named after Adalbert Falk who was the minister of culture under Bismarck. This fixed various laws for all clergymen and that included compulsory German citizenship and attendance at German universities for clergymen, state inspection of schools and state confirmation of all parish and Episcopal appointments. Thus one can see that in this case in Germany, the state was enforcing changes on religion. Of course the changes were not in terms of religious practices and ethics, but direct action against some specific religion so that the development of the religion is made difficult. There is a distinct difference from the situation in Austria as the rulers there had a belief in a different religion from the rulers in Germany.

Going ahead in time, the relations between the Roman Catholic Church and the German State improved through negotiations between the state and Vatican, yet the actions taken under Kuturkampf had developed a hate among Roman Catholics for this group of states and specific enmity towards Prussia. This is also reflected in the population break up of Prussia where two thirds of the population was Protestant and the balance was Catholics. This continued up to World War II. Among the provinces of this country, Bavaria was a stronghold of Roman Catholics and there were a large number of Roman Catholics in Baden-Wurttemberg, Saarland and most parts of Rhineland. In most other parts of Germany, it is the Protestants who were in a majority.

This is almost the opposite of the situation in Austria. When political changes in the country took place under Hitler, the established churches did not contest the supremacy of the state, except some individual churches. A Nazi, Ludwig Muller was installed as the Lutheran bishop in Berlin. Hitler was raised as a Roman Catholic, but respected only the power and organization that the church showed, and did not practice its religion. One of the first diplomatic successes of Nazis was concluding a concordat with the Vatican in July 1933, and this shows, that the church also acted like a state. Through this agreement, the Vatican collected the right to maintain its schools all over the nation, but assured the Nazis that the clergy would not participate in political activity. The government was also given a right of having a say in who would be appointed as Bishops. The changes of areas of diocesans would also be subject to government approval.

The interesting point to note is that the church is agreeing to the state in having a say in its religious operations. However, the Nazis did not obey the terms of the concordat and over a period of time, all schools of Catholics had been wound up. After this period, the situation of Germany became with two parts coming up and the communists taking over in East Germany. Thus one can see that the interference from Germany was direct and often with direct effects, whereas in Austria, the effects were through the religious beliefs of the political leaders. The two states also clearly believed in two separate religions though culturally the two states are quite close.

Extension of the experience of Germany and Austria to other countries:

The most important part of the experience is that both the countries, with different religions as part of their core beliefs had a relationship between the church and the state. Whether the relationships succeeded or not, the answer is that the relationships took place as both states felt the church to be an important source of depository for public beliefs and trusts. At the same time, it is often thought that the state has to be ideally neutral in all dealings with its entire people, and not choose between religions. This is viewed as the rule of neutrality for the states. This belief supposes that it is possible for the states to always act without taking any notice of religion in any form, or even of the specific religious beliefs of that group of people. Let us take a case in United States where this is the general view as it is felt that this will lead to better service to the people.

There was a famous case in 1988 called Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association where the Supreme Court ruled that three Indian tribes in California could not stop the Forest Service from permitting road building and logging on their sacred lands. One assumes that the judges thought that they were acting neutrally and were not really concerned with the religious feelings of the Indians involved. However even the judges admitted that the tribes would be devastated due to the action of the government. This would not happen to a religious symbol of a strong religious group. In other words when religion remains a strong source of belief among citizens, there will always be an influence of religion on the people and the strength of the supporters of the religion on the government whether that is officially accepted or not.