Abstract
At the core of Europe’s identity lies a wealth of cultural, linguistic and religious diversity, characterized by plurality. The several forms of religious pluralism in different European countries have been, and still are, bound up with their respective religious traditions. The latter’s socio-religious content, organizational forms and process of integration into the nation-state, have resulted in different types of pluralism such as the French ‘individualistic pluralism’, founded on the religious freedom of the individuals, or the ‘pluralism of the communities’, a reaction to the assertion of modernity (mainly the rise of secularization) as established, for example, in the Netherlands, and to an extent (as ‘communitarian individualistic pluralism’) in the United Kingdom (Champion 1999). Moreover, co-operation between State and religion may involve ‘principled pluralism’, when the State recognizes the public value of religion, or ‘pragmatic pluralism’, when the State collaborates with religion to achieve common goals (Doe 2011, p. 38), such as the preservation of historical chapels, cathedrals, sculptures, frescos and other monuments that bear witness to a long European history of unparallel aesthetic and religious values; the vast variety of spiritual traditions and the plethora of religious cults (i.e. established practices, rituals and rites) are also constituent elements of the same exquisite European culture.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Cf. Danesi Μ. & Rocci Α. (2009) Global Linguistics: Αn Ιntroduction, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 138–9.
- 2.
Pfeiffer J. (1982) Creative explosion: Inquiry into the Origins of Art and Religion, New York: Harper & Row; MacCauley R. & Lawson T. (2002) Bringing Ritual to Mind: Psychological Foundations of Cultural Forms, Cambridge University.
- 3.
Regarding the notion of ‘religious pluralism’ see Baubérot J. (1990) Pluralisme et minorités religieuses, Louvain: Peters; Wentz R. (1997) The Culture of Religious Pluralism. Boulder: Westview; Wydmusch S. (2001) Religiöser Pluralismus: Zeichen der Moderne? Deutschland und Frankreich im Vergleich, Spirita. Zeitschrift für Religionswissenschaft, pp. 8–14; Banchoff Th. (2006) Religious pluralism, globalization, and world politics, New York: Oxford University; Monsma V. & Soper C. (2009) The Challenge of Pluralism, New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
- 4.
See from the relevant German literature: Muckel St. (1997) Religiöse Freiheit und staatliche Letztentscheidung, Die verfassungsrechtlichen Garantien religiöser Freiheit unter veränderten gesellschaftlichen Verhältnissen, Berlin: Dunker & Humblot, p. 169 f.; Jeand’ Heur B. & Corioth St. (2000) Grundzuge des Staatskirchenrechts, Richard Boorberg Verlag, p. 72 f.; Weber H. (2002) Die individuelle und kollektive Religionsfreiheit im europäischen Recht einschließlich ihres Rechtsschutzes, Zeitschrift für evangelisches Kirchenrecht Vol. 47, p. 265 f.
- 5.
Hassan and Chaush v. Bulgaria, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2000-XI, § 62.
- 6.
Serif v. Greece, ECHR Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999-IX, § 53. Cf. Hassan and Chaush v. Bulgaria, § 62 “[Τ]he believers’ right to freedom of religion encompasses the expectation that the community will be allowed to function peacefully, free from arbitrary State intervention. Indeed, the autonomous existence of religious communities is indispensable from pluralism in a democratic society and is thus an issue at the very heart of the protection, which Article 9 affords. It directly concerns not only the organisation of the community as such but also the effective enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion by all its active members. Were the organisational life of the community not protected by Article 9 of the Convention, all other aspects of the individual’s freedom of religion would become vulnerable”.
- 7.
Cha’are Shalom ve Tsedek v. France, Joint Dissenting Opinion, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2000-VII.
- 8.
Lautsi and others v. Italy, No 30814/06, ECHR Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2011. The Court held that in deciding to keep crucifixes in the classrooms of the state schools in Italy, the authorities acted within the limits of the ‘margin of appreciation’ left to the State in the context of its obligation to ‘respect’, in the exercise of the functions it assumed in relation to education and teaching, the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious convictions. Furthermore, the Court considered that no separate issue arose under Article 9 of the ECHR. Cf. McGoldrick (2011) Religion in the European Public Square and in European Public Life – Crucifixes in the Classroom?, Human Rights Law Review Vol. 11 No. 3.
- 9.
Lautsi and others v. Italy, op. cit., §§ 60 and 68.
- 10.
Conseil d’ État (2004) Un siècle de laïcité - Rapport public, Available online at: http://www.conseil-etat.fr. Accessed on March 31, 2014.
- 11.
According to the political philosophy of John Rawls, the capacity for genuine toleration and mutual respect, that is inherent to the human nature, gives hope that the diversity of worldviews in a democratic society may represent not merely pluralism, but reasonable pluralism: i.e. toleration within the religious sphere and acceptance of the fundamental values of a democratic society. Thus, a reasonable pluralism might contain, e.g. a reasonable Catholicism, a reasonable interpretation of Islam or a reasonable atheism; being reasonable, none of these doctrines will advocate the use of coercive political power to impose conformity on non-believers Cf. Richardson H. & Weithman P. (eds.) (1999) The Philosophy of Rawls. A Collection of Essays V: Reasonable Pluralism, New York, London: Routledge; Wallner J. (2003) Rawls und Religion: Zur religionsrechtlichen Konzeption im Werk von John Rawls, Österreichisches Archiv für Recht und Religion No. 50, pp. 554–87.
- 12.
Lautsi and others v. Italy, op. cit., §§ 66.
- 13.
See Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland, judgment of 18 January 1995 on crucifixes in courtrooms (ATF 121 I 42) and judgment of 26 September 1990 on crucifixes in classrooms (ATF 116 Ia 252); German Bundesverfassungsgericht, judgment of 16 May 1995 on crucifixes in classrooms (BVerfGE 93, 1) and judgment of 17 July 1973 on crucifixes in courtrooms (BVerfGE 35, 366).
- 14.
Taylor P. (2005) Freedom of Religion: UN and European Human Rights Law and Practice, Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–2.
- 15.
G.A. Res. 217A(III), UN Doc. A/3/810 (1949).
- 16.
G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), 21, U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 52, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171.
- 17.
G.A. Res. 36/55, UN Doc.A/36/51 (1982).
- 18.
Cf. Gabrielli V. (1998) Le droit de l’urbanisme et les ‘nouveaux mouvements religieux’: le cas des Témoins de Jéhovah, Mémoire polygraphié, Sophia Antipolis: Université de Nice, p. 44 f.
- 19.
Cf. Lupu I. & Tuttle R. (2002) Historic Preservation Grants to Houses of Worship: A Case Study in the Survival of Separationism, Boston College Law Review No. 43.
- 20.
See for example the case of Manoussakis v. Greece, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV. In the Manoussakis case the ECtHR concluded that Article 9 of the ECHR had been violated because the Greek authorities had tended to use the possibilities afforded by the relevant law to impose rigid, or indeed prohibitive, conditions on the practice of religious beliefs by certain non-Orthodox movements, in particular by hindering the construction of places of worship by Jehovah’s Witnesses; see Konidaris I. M. (2005) Legal Theory and Practice on Jehovah’s Witnesses [in Greek], Athens: Ant. Sakkoulas, p. 448 f.
- 21.
Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment No. 22: Article 18 (Freedom of Thought, Conscience or Religion), July 30, 1993 (CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 4 § 4).
- 22.
Report of the Special Rapporteur on Tajikistan, A/HRC/7/10/Add. 2 (27 November 2007), § 55.
- 23.
Lupu I. & Tuttle R., op. cit., p. 1176.
- 24.
Standard-setting in UNESCO, Conventions, Recommendations, Declarations and Charters adopted by UNESCO (1948–2006) (2007) Leiden - Boston: UNESCO Editions/Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, p. 708.
- 25.
Ibid., p. 326 f.
- 26.
Ibid., p. 326; cf. Article 2 of the Declaration on the Responsibilities of the Present Generations towards Future Generations (adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO at its 29th session, Paris, 12 November 1997): “It is important to make every effort to ensure, with due regard to human rights and fundamental freedoms, that future as well as present generations … are able to preserve their cultural and religious diversity”.
- 27.
See the full text of the Kiev Statement on the protection of religious properties within the framework of the World Heritage Convention, in: http://whc.unesco.org/en/religious-sacred-heritage/. Accessed on March 31, 2014; cf. Quebec Declaration on the Preservation of the Spirit of Place, adopted at the 16th General Assembly of ICOMOS in 2008, as well as the Resolution 17GA 2011/35’ Protection and enhancement of sacred heritage sites, buildings and landscapes’ adopted at the 17th General Assembly of ICOMOS (available online at: whc.unesco.org. Accessed on March 31, 2014).
- 28.
Official Journal of the European Union, C 83, 30.3.2010, p. 122.
- 29.
Ibid., p. 55.
- 30.
Official Journal of the European Union, C 340, 10.11.1997 p. 133; cf. Wieshaider W. (2007) The Principle of “Unity in Diversity” and Law of Religion in Europe, in: Unger F. & Eder M. (eds.) Religion and European Integration. Religion as a Factor of Stability and Development in South Eastern Europe [=Proceedings of contributions from the Maribor Symposium 2005, Book series of European Academy of Sciences and Arts 6], Weimar: Verlag und Datenbank für Geisteswissenschaften, pp. 89–102.
- 31.
Cf. Evrigenis D. (1993) Réflexions theoriques sur la Declaration commune relative au Mont Athos, in: Tachiaos A. (ed.) Mount Athos αnd the European Community, Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, p. 13 f.; Konidaris I. M. (2003) The Mount Athos Avaton, Athens: Ant. Sakkoulas, p. 9 f.
- 32.
In practice, the European Commission, Directorate-General for Education and Culture, ensures a coordinating role over the activities managed by other Directorate-Generals with regard to culture. In terms of regional policy, the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) has recognized the potential of activities related to heritage in generating both employment and growth and has funded various types of project involving historical buildings and sites. See Chapuis M. (2009) Preserving our Heritage, Improving our Environment, Volume I, 20 years of EU Research into Cultural Heritage, European Commission/Directorate-General for Research Environment, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, p. 9 f.
- 33.
Official Journal of the European Union, C 83, 30.3.2010, p. 121.
- 34.
Pluralism and religious diversity, social cohesion and integration in Europe Insights from European research (2011) European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, p. 56 f.
- 35.
Ibid., p. 22 f.
- 36.
Official Journal of the European Communities, 15.6.1981, C 144, p. 92.
- 37.
Official Journal, 14.03.1997, C 83, p. 91.
- 38.
Official Journal of the European Communities, 28.6.1999, C 182, p. 21.
- 39.
Council of Europe Treaty Series (CETS) No. 199, Faro, 27.X.2005. Cf. the ‘Conclusions of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on the promotion of cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue in the external relations of the Union and its Member States’ in: Official Journal C 320, 16.12.2008 pp. 10–2.
- 40.
Preamble of the Faro Framework Convention. See the official text of the Convention online at: http://conventions.coe.int. Accessed on March 31, 2014.
- 41.
Article 5 (Cultural heritage law and policies) of the Faro Convention.
- 42.
According to Article 4 (Rights and responsibilities relating to cultural heritage): “The Parties recognise that: a. everyone, alone or collectively, has the right to benefit from the cultural heritage and to contribute towards its enrichment; b. everyone, alone or collectively, has the responsibility to respect the cultural heritage of others as much as their own heritage, and consequently the common heritage of Europe; c. exercise of the right to cultural heritage may be subject only to those restrictions which are necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the public interest and the rights and freedoms of others”.
- 43.
Its is well known that the ‘principle of sustainability’ draws on and connects with many different disciplines and fields; see for example Vos W. & Meekes H. (1999) Trends in European cultural landscape development: perspectives for a sustainable future, Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol 46, No. 1, pp. 3–14; Littig B. (ed.) (2004) Religion und Nachhaltigkeit: Multidisziplinäre Zugänge und Sichtweisen [Vol. 46], Münster: LIT Verlag; Tweed C. & Sutherland M. (2007) Built cultural heritage and sustainable urban development, Landscape and Urban Planning, Vo. 83, No. 1, pp. 62–9. For an introduction to the ‘principle of sustainability’ within the primary scope of Environmental Law, see Richardson B. & Wood S. (eds.) (2006) Environmental law for sustainability: a reader, Oxford: Hart Publishing; Bosselmann K. (2008) The principle of Sustainability. Transforming law and governance, Hampshire: Ashgate.
- 44.
Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society, op. cit., Explanatory Report (Notes under Article 9).
- 45.
Ibid. (Notes under Article 7).
- 46.
See Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Doc. 6032, April 13, 1989.
- 47.
Full text of the above Resolution available online at: http://assembly.coe.int.
- 48.
Ibid. Cf. the verbatim wording of the Draft Resolution (Doc. 6032), op. cit.
- 49.
See Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Doc. 8826, September 27, 2000.
- 50.
Recommendation 1484 (2000) Management of cathedrals and other major religious buildings in use, that was adopted by the Standing Committee, acting on behalf of the Assembly, on November 9, 2000.
- 51.
Bizzaro F & Nijkamp P. (1996) Integrated Conservation of Cultural Built Heritage [=Serie Research Memoranda 12], Amsterdam: Vrije Univeriteit; Pickard R. (ed.) (2001) Policy and Law in Heritage Conservation, New York: Spon Press, 2001, p. 8 f.
- 52.
Recommendation No. R (98) 4, Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 17 March 1998 at the 623rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.
- 53.
Declaration on the protection and rebuilding of places of worship in Kosovo and the wider Balkans, adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 18 July 2001, at the 761st meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies. Full text available online at: https://wcd.coe.int/. Accessed on March 31, 2014.
- 54.
Singh R. P. (2008) The Contestation of Heritage: The Enduring Importance of Religion, in: Graham B. & Howard P (eds.) The Ashgate Research Companion to heritage and identity, Ashgate Publishing Company, p. 134.
- 55.
Doc. 8270, Report of the Committee on Culture and Education. Parliamentary Assembly debate on January 27, 1999 (5th Sitting).
- 56.
European Declaration on Cultural Objectives, Adopted by the 4th Conference of European Ministers responsible for Cultural Affairs (Berlin, 1984); cf. D’Angelo M. & Vespérini P. (1999) Cultural Policies in Europe: Method and Practice of Evaluation, Council of Europe Publishing, p. 16 f. and 88 f.
- 57.
Resolution 885 (1987). See Doc. 5778, Report of the Committee on Culture and Education. Final text adopted by the Assembly on October 5, 1987 (13th Sitting). Cf. Recommendation 1291 (1996) ‘on Yiddish culture’: Doc. 7489, Report of the Committee on Culture and Education. Final text adopted by the Standing Committee, acting on behalf of the Assembly, on March 20, 1996.
- 58.
Recommendation 1162 (1991). See Doc. 6497, Report of the Committee on Culture and Education. Final text adopted by the Assembly on September 19, 1991 (11th Sitting).
- 59.
Recommendation 1556 (2002). See Doc. 9399, Report of the Committee on Culture and Education. Final text adopted by the Assembly on April 24, 2002 (13th Sitting).
- 60.
Ibid.
- 61.
Resolution 1510 (2006) See Doc. 10970, Report of the Committee on Culture and Education. Final text adopted by the Assembly on June 28, 2006 (19th Sitting).
References
Carrera, S., & Parkin, J. (2010). The place of religion in European Union law and policy competing approaches and actors inside the European Commission. RELIGARE (Religious diversity and secular models in Europe – innovative approaches to law and policy) Working Document No. 1.
Casanova, J. (2004). Religion, European secular identities, and European integration. Transit No 27.
Champion, F. (1999). The diversity of religious pluralism. International Journal on Multicultural Societies, 1(2), 40–54.
Doe, N. (2011). Law and religion in Europe. A comparative introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Donders, Y. (2002). Towards a right to cultural identity? Antwerp: Intersentia.
Fornerod, A. (2010). Funding religious heritage. RELIGARE working paper (Religious diversity and secular models in Europe. Innovative approaches to law and policy) No 5, European Commission, European Research Area.
Frowein, J. (2007). Religion and religious symbols in European and international law. In W. Brugger & M. Karayanni (Eds.), Religion in the public sphere: A comparative analysis of German, Israeli, American and international law [=Max Planck Institut für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht 190] (pp. 243–252). Heidelberg: Springer.
Haynes, N. (2008). Research report on church-state relationships in selected European countries. Commissioned by the Historic Environment Advisory Council for Scotland (HEACS).
Kalb, H., Potz, R., & Schinkele, B. (2003). Religionsrecht. Wien: WUV Univesitätsverlag.
Odendahl, K. (2005). Kulturgüterschutz: Entwicklung, Struktur und Dogmatik eines ebenenübergreifenden Normensystems [=Jus Publicum 140]. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Pesendorfer, P. (2009). Staatliche Akzeptanz von religiösen Riten und Symbolen. Wien: Verlag Österreich.
Potz, R. (2009). Religious freedom and the concept of law and religion in Austria (Human dimension implementation meeting). Warsaw: Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
Taylor, C. (1994). Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Villaroman, N. (2012). The right to establish and maintain places of worship: The development of its normative content under international human rights law. In S. Ferrari & S. Pastorelli (Eds.), Religion in public spaces: A European perspective (pp. 295–322). Farnham: Ashgate.
von Campenhausen, A. F., & de Wall, H. (2006). Staatskirchenrecht. Eine systematische Darstellung des Religionsverfassungsrechts in Deutschland und Europa. München: C. H. Beck.
Willaime, J. P. (2010). European integration, Laïcité and Religion. In L. Leustean & J. Madeley (Eds.), Religion, politics and law in the European Union (pp. 17–30). London: Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tsivolas, T. (2014). Current Developments and Political Trends. In: Law and Religious Cultural Heritage in Europe. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07932-5_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07932-5_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-07931-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-07932-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)