"A More Secular Europe, Divided by the Cross"

[Gawdzilla Sama]

A More Secular Europe, Divided by the Cross

BRATISLAVA, Slovakia — Stanislav Zvolensky, the Roman Catholic archbishop of the Slovak capital here, was thrilled when he was invited to Brussels three years ago to discuss the fight against poverty with the insistently secular bureaucracy of the European Union.

The European Commission at first ordered Slovakia to revise its monks-in-halos design for a commemorative euro coin.
“They let me in wearing my cross,” the archbishop recalled.

It therefore came as a rude surprise when, late last year, the National Bank of Slovakia announced that the European Commission, the union’s executive arm, had ordered it to remove halos and crosses from special commemorative euro coins due to be minted this summer.

“There is a movement in the European Union that wants total religious neutrality and can’t accept our Christian traditions,” said Archbishop Zvolensky, bemoaning what he sees as rising a tide of militant secularism at a time when Europe is struggling to forge a common identity.

In a continent divided by many languages, vast differences of culture and economic gaps, the archbishop said that centuries of Christianity provide a rare element shared by all of the soon-to-be 28 members of the fractious union. Croatia, a mostly Catholic nation like Slovakia, joins next month.

Continues...

Keep up the good work, Euros.

[JimC]

I wonder if it is truly militant secularism, or a fear of offending a militant muslim minority that sees christian symbols as tools of privilege and oppression?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I wonder if it is truly militant secularism, or a fear of offending a militant muslim minority that sees christian symbols as tools of privilege and oppression?

It's a rejection of secularism. The "militant" part is purely to slander the movement, tar with the same brush to increase the fear. It's dirty fighting, but they are religious folks.

[Audley Strange]

Common identity. White totalitarians who once believed in Christianity. What more do you need?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Common identity. White totalitarians who once believed in Christianity. What more do you need?

They just don't see anything wrong with reversing the time flow and returning to the 14th Century.

[Brian Peacock]

I wonder if it is truly militant secularism, or a fear of offending a militant muslim minority that sees christian symbols as tools of privilege and oppression?

It's a rejection of secularism. The "militant" part is purely to slander the movement, tar with the same brush to increase the fear. It's dirty fighting, but they are religious folks.

Indeed. Religionists can be secularist too. In fact, not only was secularism a principle formulated by medieval Catholicism (to limit the sticky-fingered interference of Princes and Robber Barons in Church affairs), but it also benefits all religions to operate within a secular social framework. Catholics would no more countenance the state imposition of Islamic principles or doctrine than Muslims would countenance the imposition of Jewish precepts, so removing religious notions and considerations from the operative role of the state in effect renders all religions functionally equal and equivalent. This is the only reasonable basis by which to protect people's rights to a freedom of religion and a freedom from religion.

Why would anyone complain about removing the iconography of a particular religion from coinage or paper money - or public buildings or a State's operational protocols - unless they were basically of the opinion that their particular religion must be given a special, protected position in society?

The charge that secularism is (and by extension that secularists are) anti-religious just doesn't stand up, whereas the the charge that religions invariably seek to have their won faith-tradition elevated above all others does.

For example, if Catholics wish to join with Muslims to fight and overcome the thread they both perceive is embodied in secularism then they are also predisposing themselves to a future fight between Catholicism and Islam for 'top-dog' position in their desired non-secular world.

[JimC]

I wonder if it is truly militant secularism, or a fear of offending a militant muslim minority that sees christian symbols as tools of privilege and oppression?

It's a rejection of secularism. The "militant" part is purely to slander the movement, tar with the same brush to increase the fear. It's dirty fighting, but they are religious folks.

Indeed. Religionists can be secularist too. In fact, not only was secularism a principle formulated by medieval Catholicism (to limit the sticky-fingered interference of Princes and Robber Barons in Church affairs), but it also benefits all religions to operate within a secular social framework. Catholics would no more countenance the state imposition of Islamic principles or doctrine than Muslims would countenance the imposition of Jewish precepts, so removing religious notions and considerations from the operative role of the state in effect renders all religions functionally equal and equivalent. This is the only reasonable basis by which to protect people's rights to a freedom of religion and a freedom from religion.

Why would anyone complain about removing the iconography of a particular religion from coinage or paper money - or public buildings or a State's operational protocols - unless they were basically of the opinion that their particular religion must be given a special, protected position in society?

The charge that secularism is (and by extension that secularists are) anti-religious just doesn't stand up, whereas the the charge that religions invariably seek to have their won faith-tradition elevated above all others does.

For example, if Catholics wish to join with Muslims to fight and overcome the thread they both perceive is embodied in secularism then they are also predisposing themselves to a future fight between Catholicism and Islam for 'top-dog' position in their desired non-secular world.

Good points, well made...

[Jason]

In God We Trust.

[JimC]

In God We Trust.

Sure, but there's enough wriggle room for that entity to be Allah, or Jahweh...

However, it is certainly a case of oppression by mono-theists...

[Jason]

I think the old E pluribus unum was more befitting for a nation of the free personally. It accomodated all religious ideologies, or lack thereof, equally.