Religion in Europe Today

'Sharing our Faith, Sharing our Pride' - Conference on an interfaith perspective on religious identity for young people in Europe

Speech by Baroness Sarah Ludford MEP: "Religion in Europe today"

Thursday 7th December

Ladies and gentlemen, it is a privilege to be here this morning to discuss with you the role of religion in today's Europe.

This is an important and timely event - a real opportunity to build understanding between different faith communities as well as to work from the common ground which you all share to address the challenges our societies face today in terms of diversity and equality, integration and conflict.

Europe has a rich and diverse religious history, and the many faiths which have been followed on this continent throughout the ages have had a major influence on art, culture, philosophy, law, society and political systems. I was in Lisbon yesterday, where my hosts pointed out the Moorish castle which dominates the city's skyline. Muslims and Jews have contributed enormously alongside Christians to European law, medicine, science and culture. The first Asian and first non-white MP in Britain, a Liberal called Dadabhai Naoroji, elected in 1892 close to where I live, was a Parsee, son of a priest.

Today, the largest religion in Europe is Christianity, followed by Islam and then Judaism. But there are many more religions flourishing within Europe - Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Paganism...the list goes on - not to forget, of course, the many people in Europe who are irreligious, agnostic or atheist.

I have no religious convictions or affiliation myself but I do appreciate a spiritual dimension to life. I respect both individual faith and the contribution of religions as an organised force to civic and political life. I always listen with interest to religious thinkers or theological commentaries, even if I don't understand them! I hope you won't think me frivolous when I say that I always wish I had read the Bible better when I go round art galleries looking at Medieval painting.

Religion is an important force in Europe. Faith groups provide a sense of community in what can seem like an individualistic world. Collective worship cuts across generational divides and brings together people from different walks of life.

Faith-based charitable groups play a crucial role in providing social and support services both within Europe and further afield where organisations such as Islamic Relief, World Jewish Relief, Christian Aid, CAFOD or World Vision provide essential humanitarian relief and development in regions of the world devastated by conflict or natural disaster, or crippled by under-development.

Within Europe as elsewhere, religion provides those who follow it with a moral code to guide them in their lives. Whether or not one agrees with the particular values or ethics which different religions promulgate, I acknowledge that having this code of values and ethics is fundamental for many people. I will come back to this question though.

Looking at religion in today's Europe from a liberal perspective, it is the sheer diversity of religions being practiced side by side across the continent that is particularly impressive. Religious pluralism and the unrestricted liberty of expression and association are for me two essential building blocks of Europe's societies.

That is why 2 years ago I co-sponsored what we call a Written Declaration in this parliament deploring the French announcement of a ban on the wearing of religious symbols and clothing in state buildings, which affected not only the hijab, the Muslim headscarf, and the veil properly called, but also the Christian cross, Jewish yamulka or skullcap, and Sikh turban. I regret that since then the French move has been copied and extended but usually in a discriminatory way towards Muslims, and especially Muslim women.

It has been an unfortunate development that, apparently as an election bid, the outgoing Dutch immigration minister - the 'Liberal' Rita Verdonk - got the government to propose banning the wearing of clothing in a public place that covers the face, which means the burqa and probably the niqab too. The justification for so doing has been supposedly, and I quote, 'based on considerations of public order, security and the protection of (fellow) citizens.'

I do struggle to understand how the choice of a Muslim woman to cover her face or not can be considered to have such an impact on public order, security or the protection of citizens! It's not that I think the very subject should be off-limits. It is important that societies and politicians in Europe be able to discuss issues which arouse suspicions or unease if the aim is to increase understanding. But hysteria risks taking over, and it is a sad moment when a country as renowned for its liberalism as the Netherlands, instead of tackling real and pressing issues of integration and social cohesion, taps into populist fears and exacerbates divisions for what seems to be populist political appeal.

Religion has become an emotive issue in Europe today. Of course, if we look through history, it is clear that religion this is very far from being a new phenomenon - unfortunately, religion has often been a cause of division. Or perhaps to be more accurate, men have fought wars using religion as an effective battle cry, presenting religious difference as the crux of their dispute when in fact issues of land, money, economics, political power and natural resources have often provided the spark and the motor of war, if not the label.

In Europe today, one big challenge is that our perception of religion has been disproportionately influenced by extremists. Extremists may make up the smallest proportion of different faith groups, but they also shout the loudest. Today there is a risk that debate becomes polarised between the different extremes. By focussing on the extremes, we lose track of the overwhelming majority of people of all religions who practice their beliefs peacefully.

While there is a lack of understanding between different faith groups, there may be even more of one between faith groups and those of no faith. However, I do not accept that we face a 'clash of civilisations' or a 'clash of 'cultures'. If we face any clash at all, then it is a 'clash of ignorance'.

There is a clear and depressing trend in the rise in religiously as well as racially motivated violence and abuse. Last week, the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia released its latest report. It is difficult to get a proper picture of racially or religiously motivated crime across Europe because of member states' different methods of recording incidents and the varied effectiveness of data collection mechanisms. The failure to effectively record such attacks is a problem in itself and I was shocked to read that Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta and Spain have no official data whatsoever.

In the UK, where at least we do have rigorous data collection mechanisms, I was disturbed to learn that racially or religiously aggravated offences recorded in England and Wales between April 2004 and March 2005 stood at 37,028 - 2,032 more than the previous year.

Increasing understanding between religious communities and reaching out to the non-religious in our society is one of the main challenges faced by faith communities, governments, and citizens across Europe today. That is of course why conferences such as this one, and the conference I organised last year aiming to stimulate dialogue and identify how Europe's 15-20 million Muslims can be both protected from discrimination and encouraged to integrate, are so important. In this vein, I welcome the efforts made by the Pope to build bridges between Catholicism and Islam, particularly in the light of his comments in September, through his visit to Turkey last week.

We need to find a way to reconcile the different values of our societies and religions across Europe. One of the best examples of the failure to do this was the dispute over cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed. A free and independent media is an essential requirement of a liberal democracy. Violent protest, some of it orchestrated, is unacceptable as a response to perceived offence. With their response, Islamic fundamentalists did a serious disservice to moderate Muslims, just as Christian and Jewish fanatics tar their religions.

I strongly believe that religion should be no more protected against offence or satire than politics. But incitement to violence is a different matter and we need to find satisfactorily precise legal instruments to criminalise incitement to hatred of people on grounds of their religion without criminalising criticism of religions.

But the cartoons furore did not come out of nowhere. It came against a background of serious ongoing discrimination and deprivation suffered by Muslim communities, as well as the outrages of Iraq, Guantánamo Bay, and stereotyping through anti-terrorism or 'stop and search' laws.

We must work much harder to combat poverty, exclusion and stereotyping which ghettoises people as much as their own lack of confidence or own lack of effort to integrate. Integration is a two-way street where the onus on the host society to be welcoming and to make an effort is at least as great as on newcomers.

The misuse and confusion of language and labelling can be a problem. For example, I do not believe that protests by young French north-African Muslims last year were Islamic riots, but that is what Commissioner Frattini has erroneously suggested in a recent speech. They were in fact caused by the reality that these young people are struggling under the weight of unemployment and serious social problems, although there were inevitably a few sheer troublemakers. Making sure that we analyse corrrectly is essential if we are to ensure that not every protest is conflated with a religious protest.

We face an interesting challenge in finding the right role for religion in Europe. You will recall the fierce debate which surrounded the issue of whether or not the draft Constitutional Treaty should include a reference to Europe's common 'Christian heritage'. If the remarks attributed to German Chancellor Angela Merkel in August that following meetings with the Pope she had 'emphasised the need for a constitution and that it should refer to our Christian values' are to be believed, we certainly face some stormy debates during the forthcoming German Presidency! I do not think it is appropriate to make reference to any one religion. It seems clear to me that this will cause division and leave Europe's non-Christian religious groups wondering why their values are not worthy of mention.

I believe in a secular state, one in which state and church are separate (which means I would 'disestablish' the Church of England) and no one religion is entrenched - theocracies are as illiberal a concept as a one-party state. Religions or faith bodies should not be given special privileges such as representation in parliament as happens for the Church of England in Britain's upper house. But I do not want a state or society which is hostile to faith and believe that religious bodies should have space to contribute to public debate and be listened to, like other respected NGOs. The European Commission President's dialogue with religious leaders should be inclusive and extend to secular and humanist organisations as well.

I find faith leaders often progressive allies on issues of social justice, equality and non-discrimination, on combating poverty, on issues, on international peace, justice, conflict prevention and promotion of human rights,. The Archbishop of Canterbury is right to express severe doubts about the morality and legality of the UK modernising its nuclear arms.

But I do find a lot, not all but a lot, of faith-motivated thinking on the family, gender equality and womens' reproductive rights and homosexuality to be conservative or even reactionary. I would like religions to examine whether they could contribute more to contemporary morality by looking more at values - how we can ensure people show respect and commitment in their personal sexual and family lives - rather than the maintenance of conventional and historical structures which many people now reject.

Of course, some of what is presented as thinking inspired by faith may just be good old traditional male supremacy! The liberal values of the majority must be entrenched in law and not be surrendered to unenlightened attitudes presented as religious ones.

Governments in Europe and the EU institutions do have a role to play in promoting understanding between different religious groups as well as between religious and non-religious groups. Politicians certainly do not help when their response is disproportionate or when they use popular concerns about issues such as immigration or extremism for their own political advancement.

The role of politicians as I see it is quite simple. Respect for diversity and a pluralistic civic environment must be jealously guarded. Respect for difference can bring us closer together and politicians must seek to strengthen a social framework which values rather than fears religious pluralism. Debate and dialogue will be the main tools in bridging the divides between faith communities and drawing on the different communities to act as agents for positive change within our societies more broadly.

I look forward to hearing more about your experiences and insights and most importantly, I hope that you are able to suggest concrete ways forward.