A 2017 Pew Research Center survey found that in more than 80 countries, governments either officially endorse a specific religion or provide preferential treatment to one religion over others. Islam is the most commonly endorsed religion, with 27 countries officially designating it as their state religion, mostly in the Middle East and North Africa. On the other hand, 13 countries, mostly in Europe, endorse Christianity as their state religion.
In addition to endorsement as state religion, another 40 governments officially favoured a particular religion, and in most cases, this religion is a branch of Christianity. Christian churches receive preferential treatment in 28 countries, more than any other officially favoured faith. The preferred religion status translates into practical benefits, such as states providing funding or resources to religious groups.
Europe stands as a continent deeply influenced by Christianity, and so do North America, South America, Australia and Africa. Let us delve into the paradoxical relationship between Christianity and ‘secularism’ in Europe, especially the Nordic countries, where despite much-touted ‘progressive values’, Christianity remains the state or preferred religion. Additionally, the apparent hypocrisy in the assessment of universal religious freedom by powerful Western nations, particularly in relation to non-Christian faiths, raises questions about the true extent of secularism in these nations…or maybe it reveals the actual nature of secularism, an idea which evolved in Europe as a way of loosening the deadly grip the Catholic Church exercised over the continent till the Middle Ages.
Christianity’s deep-seated historical roots in Europe have played a pivotal role in shaping societal norms and governance structures. The Church’s historical influence is evident in the intertwining of religious and political institutions. What many in the non-West don’t get is that while ‘secularism’ may mean separation of Church and State, it developed as a compromise between two equal powers. While the State exercises power over secular/temporal matters like economy & defense, the Christian Church in many ‘advanced’ Western nations is given full leeway to dominate the country’s socio-religious life and is also given preferential treatment denied to other religions, as we will see.
Christianity as State/Preferred Religion in Europe
As of 2017, several European nations, including United Kingdom (England), Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Greece, officially acknowledge Christianity as their state religion. This acknowledgment often stems from historical traditions, highlighting the enduring connection between religious and political spheres.
In 30% of countries with a state religion (i.e. 13 out of 43 such countries), Christianity is declared as the official state religion. Most of these countries (9 out of 13) are in Europe – they are UK where Anglican (Protestant) Christianity is the state religion; Lutheran (Protestant) Christianity in Denmark, Iceland and Norway; Catholic Christianity in Liechtenstein, Malta and Monaco; and Orthodox Christianity in Greece and Armenia.
Moreover, out of 28 countries that recognize Christianity as a preferred religion, 12 of those are in Europe: Italy, Spain, Finland, Poland, Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Andorra, Belarus, Georgia, and Moldova. Although Lithuania & Serbia give preferred status to multiple religions, Christianity is the dominant religion there too. For some reason, the Pew survey did not include Vatican City, the independent country surrounded by Rome, Italy, which is the headquarters of the Roman Catholic Church.
So a whopping 24 countries in Europe, out of total 44, i.e. over half have Christianity as a state or preferred religion. Even countries like Switzerland or Germany that do not have an official state/preferred religion, guard their Christian civilizational identity zealously or fund Christian organizations like Misereor and KZE which are involved in missionary work overseas.
Americas and rest of the world
Coming to the Americas, Costa Rica and Dominican Republic have Christianity as the state religion, while it is the preferred religion in Argentina, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru.
And while the most powerful nation in the world, USA, has no official religion, its Judeo-Christian underpinnings can be clearly seen by any socio-political observer, especially during election time when Presidential candidates often make customary appearances in Church to indicate that they are ‘God-fearing, good Christian people’.
The National Prayer Breakfast, an annual feature of American political life in Washington DC, is designed as a forum for the political, social, and business elite to assemble, network and engage in Christian prayer together. With the event’s highpoint being an address by the US President, it is hosted by the US Congress (legislature, similar to Bharat’s parliament) and includes all American legislators, the U.S. Cabinet, the diplomatic corps in Washington and more than 3,000 guests from a variety of walks of life. The event was conceived by Christian evangelists like Billy Graham as a consecration of the governing class to the service of Jesus, and started in 1953 with the approval of then US President Eisenhower.
While the U.S. Constitution does not mention God, nearly all state constitutions reference either God or the divine. God also appears in America’s Declaration of Independence, the Pledge of Allegiance and on US currency. Roughly half of American adults say that the Bible should influence U.S. laws. Today, US is the home base of most of the powerful global Christian evangelical organizations like Joshua Project, which are involved in predatory proselytization and ethnocide of indigenous religions in Asia, Africa and other parts of the world.
Australia and UK parliamentarians also have their own versions of the National Prayer Breakfast, and many would be surprised to know that the UK upper house of Parliament (House of Lords) has 26 places reserved for archbishops and bishops of the Church of England.
Hypocrisy towards Bharat
The West has appointed itself as the guardian of ‘universal religious freedom’. But what does this mean, given that the Western nations are themselves immersed in a Christian monotheist milieu which looks askance at Hindu Dharma as a ‘strange, polytheist’ religion at best, or ‘satanic/demonic’ at worst. The paradox emerges whether such countries can claim to be guardians of religious freedom and secularism, even in the sense that secularism is practiced in Europe? This apparent hypocrisy raises questions about their true commitment to equal treatment of all religions.
Shockingly, many countries in Europe do not even grant Hindu Dharma the legal status of a religion – Hindu marriage, Hindu temples and Hindu schools have no legal recognition there.
Despite the espousal of ‘freedom of religion’ in the West, there is a skewed evaluation when it comes to non-Abrahamic faiths, especially Hindu Dharma. Their consistent negative evaluation of nations like Bharat on ‘religious freedom’ smacks of bias, as any move by Bharat to protect its Dharmic practitioners like Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, Sarna etc from unscrupulous Christian evangelists is branded as ‘discriminatory’. In contrast, Bharat ensures the freedom to practice all religions without promoting the idea that the world must convert to Hindu Dharma.
The prevalent proselytization efforts by local churches in the West, their constant denigration of Hindu deities and beliefs, stand in stark contrast with Bharat’s approach and that of Hindu religious groups. Even today, if Hindus move to the West, there are chances that they encounter someone from the Church who asks them to attend a mass, or gives the promise of ‘eternal salvation’ if they convert, or just the pressure to convert to Christianity in order to conform to the majority culture or rise in their career like we saw in the case of American politician Piyush ‘Bobby’ Jindal.
The hypocrisy lies in these nations’ preference for Christianity, even when they say they “allow” the practice of Hindu Dharma and instead run down a truly pluralist country like Bharat. Hindus and all Bharatiyas must realize the double standards inherent in such an approach, and reject the premise that allowing Abrahamic proselytizers to operate in one’s country is a sign of ‘religious freedom’.
