A More Secular Europe, Divided by the Cross

[SecularMotion]

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.

“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.

The coins, designed by a local artist, were intended to celebrate the 1,150th anniversary of Christianity’s arrival in Slovak lands but have instead become tokens of the faith’s retreat from contemporary Europe. They featured two evangelizing Byzantine monks, Cyril and Methodius, their heads crowned by halos and one’s robe decorated with crosses, which fell foul of European diversity rules that ban any tilt toward a single faith.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/18/world/europe/a-more-secular-europe-divided-by-the-cross.html?hp&_r=0

[WovenGems]

1. Why?

Are some religions so bad at recruiting they have no choice but to take over the schools to convert those too young to know better? And is that why our fundamentalists keep trying to get creationism into our schools?

If you are losing and not cheating then you aren't trying hard enough. That was joke we told back in the seventies and we never thought anybody would take it to heart.

[Igel]

2. Did you read the NYT article?

Nothing to do with schools. Not even sure the word's mentioned or implied.

Europe has a very large Xian history. Symbols are all over the place. France has removed all symbology from the public sphere--a raging case of anticlericalism that it's preached elsewhere in Europe. It's not neutral to religion--as long as religion knows what corners it's allowed to exist in. Since the government is largely the center of civil society, that means "corners" is the right word.

It goes so far as to reinterpret things that were religious in origin or symbol as non-religious. If a religious meaning *must* be given, then, well, okay. But avoid it. If a non-religious meaning can be adduced, it must be adduced.

In a Europe that's trying to be united, that means division.

Try a parallel. The United States decides to be neutral wrt Spanish. Kids can speak Spanish--but not in government offices. In fact, "Juan" must be pronounced officially as "JOO-wahn," to make it English. Cuba (pronounced "kyu-bah&quot was run by Fidel ("FIE-dle&quot Castro. Tacos are to be called "meat foldovers," made with wheat or corn cakelets. Not because it hates Spanish. It's fine with Spanish. But not in the public sphere. Names like "Santa Clara" or "Colorado" merely represent prior strains of European hegemony and imperialism, and are merely "European names." Why do all this? Because there are those who take offense at the role Spanish and Spain (and it's breakaway colonies) played in the SW US and don't like having Spanish play a role today. To be inclusive of Spanish would be divisive.

Seem stupid? Insanely so, to be sure. But the very idea of Cyril and Methodius sans crosses and halos is insane.

[cbayer]

3. I think more secularism and better separation is badly overdue in parts of Europe.

Leaving arguments for or against the monarchy to the side, the fact that the Queen is the head of the Church of England is problematic right there.

Good article. I'm not sure I walk away with seeing more division, but more a sense of change which could lead to more religious tolerance and less religious government.