Index1. State, Church, and Religion in Denmark............................................. 91.1 Introduction to the socio-legal frame.................................................. 91.2 Religion in Denmark – the law......................................................... 121.3 Religion in Denmark – the sociology ............................................... 141.4 From 2001 to 2011............................................................................ 171.5 New government – new paradigm? .................................................. 182. Structural and Methodological Reflections........................................192.1 Legal reports: case law and templates .............................................. 192.2 Danish elite interviews ..................................................................... 192.3 Methodological reflections on the Danish qualitative interviews .... 212.4 Responsibilities................................................................................. 242.5 Structure of the report ....................................................................... 253. Religion and Family in Denmark........................................................ 273.1 Basic principles of Danish family law.............................................. 273.2 State recognition of religious marriages and authority to performmarriages................................................................................................. 293.3 Divorce ............................................................................................. 333.4 Marriage contracts and the access to divorce ................................... 363.5 Contested divorce and conflicting demands ..................................... 383.6 Alternative dispute resolution and the persistent issue of paralleljurisdiction .............................................................................................. 403.7 Freedom to enter into a contract ....................................................... 423.8 Mixing norms? Separating norms? ................................................... 45

6Index3.9 On international private law ............................................................. 463.10 The question of same-sex marriages in Denmark........................... 473.11. Conclusions regarding religion and family in Denmark................ 504. Religion and the Labour Market in Denmark................................... 524.1 General introduction to Danish labour law....................................... 524.2 Religion and the labour market in general........................................ 534.3 Working hours and holidays............................................................. 544.4 Religious dress and grooming codes in the labour market ............... 574.5 Religious requirements on the labour market................................... 594.6 Subtle changes .................................................................................. 685. Religion and Public Space in Denmark.............................................. 715.1 Basic principles on religion and public space in Denmark............... 715.1.a Between the secular and the secularised.................................... 745.1.b Legislation: ................................................................................ 765.2 On symbols; between the symbolic and the deviant......................... 775.2.a The role of religious leaders ...................................................... 785.3 Places of worship .............................................................................. 795.3.a Places of worship - churchyards and cemeteries ....................... 795.3.b Places of worship - buildings..................................................... 815.3.c Protection as monuments ........................................................... 845.4 Schools and religion in general......................................................... 845.4.a On choice of schools:................................................................. 855.4.b Christian Knowledge in schools ................................................ 855.5 Religious dress codes in institutional public space........................... 88

5.5.a The special case of religious headwear in courts....................... 915.6 On shaking hands:............................................................................. 935.7 The Royal Family ............................................................................. 945.8 Conclusions: ..................................................................................... 956. State Support for Religions in Denmark............................................ 976.1 General introduction to the law on state support for religions ......... 976.2 On state support for religious elements in the media ..................... 1006.3 State support for theFolkekirke......................................................1016.4 Subventions to different projects .................................................... 1166.5 Public funding of religious leaders' training................................... 1186.6 Public funding of religious heritage ............................................... 1216.7 Conclusions: ................................................................................... 1217. Conclusions: Basic Tensions of Religion and Secularity in Denmark1237.1 Main results from the four areas of basic tensions ......................... 1247.1.a Religion and family law........................................................... 1247.1.b Religion on the labour market ................................................. 1277.1.c Religion in the public space..................................................... 1327.1.d State support for religions........................................................ 1357.2 Concluding reflections on the general basic tensions..................... 1387.2.a Possible tensions between individual and collective autonomyregarding religion.............................................................................. 1387.2.b Possible tensions between collective religious freedom and otherbasic human rights ............................................................................ 1407.2.c Possible tensions between religious freedom and public orderand/or security .................................................................................. 140

8Index7.2.d Possible tensions between formal equal treatment of religiousand non-religious individuals and collectives before the law and moresubstantive equal treatment............................................................... 1417.3 Danish conclusions of general relevance for the European andnational public ...................................................................................... 1417.4 Possible recommendations: ............................................................ 146Appendix A: Bibliography ....................................................................... 148Appendix B: The Danish interviewees with brief introductions .............. 152Appendix C: Quotations from the interviewees ....................................... 157Appendix D: Basic tensions in governance of religious diversity............ 222Appendix E: Danish interview questions ................................................. 228

1. State, Church and Religion in Denmark1.1 Introduction to the socio-legal framePresenting a status of Danish legislation and the regulation of religion is bynature a complex task that includes capturing political discourse, reflectingtheological discussions on especially theFolkekirke,1and formulating acareful analysis of administrative and legal practice. It would have been astraightforward task if relations between the Danish State, the Church andReligion had conformed to the rudimentary models suggested by SilvioFerrari (Ferrari & Bradney 2000) or by Roland Minnerath (2001).However, the Danish regulative model of these matters differs in severalspecific ways. Regarding its history and its legal state of affairs, Danishregulation of religion cannot be said to conform to a single model based ona civil judicial structure that would allow the churches to act independently,as is the case in Germany, nor can it be claimed that Denmark has aconcordat or bilateral agreement between state, church and religion as inthe case of many countries with majority Catholic churches. Nor isDenmark a secular country with a clear separation of religious communitiesfrom the state, as is to some extent the case in France and even more so inthe United States (Christoffersen 2010B).Rather, Denmark has a history of regulating religion that on the one handrepresents a particular understanding of Lutheranism in a majority contextafter the European wars of religion (1524-1648,cujus regio, ejus religio),and on the other hand presents some tense and difficult compromises inDanishrealpolitik.Since the introduction of the democratic constitution of1849, Danish regulation of religion has firmly established the EvangelicalLutheran Church as one of the four pillars of Danish society (§4 of theconstitution, Christoffersen 2010A) coupled with a dual constitutionalpromise of autonomy and establishment. On the one hand, a law wasenvisaged that would establish theFolkekirkeas a self-determining andautonomous institution independent of, but supported by, the state (§66 and§4), and on the other hand, a law was to be framed to regulate on equalterms the status of other religious communities with an expectation ofsimilar freedoms and responsibilities granted to theFolkekirke(§69).However, no such laws were ever passed and instead of becoming asocietal institution supported by the state, theFolkekirkestill resemblesmore a state church than anything imagined by Martin Luther (Andersen2010, 393). Furthermore, the constitution applied a legal framework forIt is common at this stage of a study to discuss how to translate the name of themajority Evangelical Lutheran church in Denmark, which literally means the nationalchurch or the people’s church (see Christoffersen 2010A). We have chosen to use theDanish nameFolkekirke.1

10Structural and Methodological Reflectionsexplicit recognition by royal decree of the few religious communities thatwere already a reality in 1849. Among these is the Jewish community(Danish:Mosaisk Trossamfund),which was recognised already in 1685.This system of administrative recognition was extended after theintroduction of the constitution to include a list of Christian churches, suchas the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Russian church inCopenhagen, the Norwegian, the Swedish and the English (Anglican)Churches, the reformed churches, the Baptists, and the Methodists. Thesystem of recognition was changed just after the Second World War so thatreligious communities such as Muslims and Buddhists who arrived after1960 have only been ‘approved’ by the Minister of Church Affairs. Theyare thus relegated to the administrative competences of the ministers andpermanent secretaries of changing ministerial departments and offices(Christoffersen 2012).During the 19thand 20thcentury several attempts were made to re-igniteboth the political and public debates and to re-open the legislative agendaspromised in the 1849 constitution. Three short-lived crises and subsequentchanges managed to put religion on the political agenda, only for it to beneglected in the dawning reality of the succeeding governments. The firstchange came in 1849, when three commissions were set up to clarify andbegin the promised legislative processes. The first two commissions of1853 and 1868 were marooned in internal disagreement amongst thedifferent wings of theFolkekirke,while the Church Council of 1883 thatwas set up to finally produce a workable political, ecclesiastical, and legalcompromise was disbanded in 1901. By this time the entire politicalstructure had been reformed with the introduction of the parliamentarysystem, the end of any effective political power of the king, and theformation of governments based on the mandate of the popular vote.The second change came with the politico-economic arrangement of1933 that aimed, firstly, to end a general conflict on the reduction of wagesbetween unions and employers; secondly, to avoid a threatening crisis forDanish agricultural exports; and thirdly to open up for social reforms thatwould build the foundation of the modern welfare state. Although religionand church affairs had resurfaced in the Church Council that was activefrom 1928 to 1939, the religio-political agenda gave way to the socialreformist agenda of the Social Democrat party, which in turn backed awayfrom a traditional leftist opposition to established religion. This reframedand re-systematised the entire social welfare system and made it primarilyan issue of state rather than of other actors, including the churches. Inresearch on the subject (Østergaard 2005, Hansen, Petersen & Petersen2010 and others) there is widespread disagreement as to whether theDanish welfare state is built on Lutheran ethics – in their adaptationfollowing N.F.S. Grundtvig (1783–1872), who stressed individual

Structural and Methodological Reflections11engagement and voluntarism – or it is the product of a social democraticagenda that succeeded to the extent of its own obsoleteness – or it is acombination of both normative and ideological sources. Whatever the case,the very nature of the crisis of the 1920s and 1930s paved the way for thesocial and economic empowerment instituted in the settlement of 1933.Danish welfare became a matter for the state, and religious issuesdisappeared once again from the political agenda.A third attempt was made by a commission (strukturkommissionen) setup in 1964 to establish the nature of the relationship between the state, thepeople, and theFolkekirke.The Social Democrat Minister of ChurchAffairs, Bodil Koch (1903-72), wanted to know how best to establishchurch and religion as the ‘marrow and muscle of the people’.Unfortunately, the work of the commission ceased with a change ofgovernment and the death of the minister. The result was the reaffirmationof Danish church law by permanent secretary August Roesen (1909-87) onthe argument that theFolkekirkehad become a part of publicadministration and in effect had no independent governance. All matterspertaining to theFolkekirkewould be regulated by Parliament and theMinister of Church Affairs, while the 10 bishops would remain ‘inspectors’of theFolkekirkeand consultants to the Ministry (Roesen 1976; Huulgaard2004, 29).The two promised sets of legal norms that would ideally give autonomyto theFolkekirkeand equality of religion at least among other religiouscommunities (ideally speaking also in relation to theFolkekirke)nevercame into being. The political and public debates always ended withoutsubstantial change, the legislative agenda was never revived, and theadministrative handling of religious issues remained the law of the land.Over time, the best of worlds envisioned by the constitution made way forthe dual reality of regulating religion in Denmark. Firstly, the sociologicalreality that the actual number of “other religions” was insignificant, andsecondly, the closely related political reality that there were no problems tomention, no dissidents, no media attention, and most importantly, no votesto be gathered in a political engagement with religion, on the contrary.From the time of the 1849 constitution until very recently, religionfunctioned as amodus vivendithat declared Denmark to be Christian byhistory and culture on the one hand, and secular in all legal, public, andadministrative matters on the other. This has now been not only challenged,but is perhaps also being found to be a myth.This presentation of the state of affairs of Danish regulation of religionproposes in the following (1.2) a short introduction to the legal andnormative realities of contemporary Denmark, and continues with (1.3) abrief description of the basic sociological realities. Under (1.4) the morerecent frame from 2001 to 2011 – from 11 September 2001 to the Arab

12Structural and Methodological Reflectionsspring – is presented as the actual frame of the RELIGARE survey. Lastly,(1.5) there are a few comments on the change of government of October2011 and how this seems to open up for new waves of discussion on theroles of religion and secularity in Danish society and also more concretelyon the promises from the constitution.1.2 Religion in Denmark – the lawOn the surface, religion in Denmark is, legally speaking, embedded in twodifferent regulatory regimes. TheFolkekirkeis regulated as a public,administrative body in public law, whereas all other religious communitiesare regulated under private law as associations, charities or privateinstitutions. From a legal, organisational, and administrative point of view,there is thus little qualitative difference between theFolkekirkeand anyother public administrative body. This is the conclusion to be drawn fromRoesen’s interpretation. The other religious communities are regulated justlike any other private association with no regard for the idea that theorganisation or community is religious.This regulatory approach can be said to be pragmatic with a conclusionderived from a legal fact. As such, Roesen’s interpretation is very much inline with the jurisprudence of legal realism, which in the framing of DanishProfessor of Law Alf Ross (1899-1979) was the prevalent jurisprudence inthe second half of the 20thcentury (Ross 1946, 1957). The legal realism wesee in Denmark is part of a broader trend called the Uppsala school of legalthinking that was inspired by Swedish philosopher Axel Hägerström (1868-1939). He, and thus in turn legal realism, was rooted in reason and apositivist approach to legislation, which places law as a necessarycondition for organised social life (Bjarup 2005, 2010). Legal realism ismarked by the pragmatic conclusions to be drawn from legal positivismand it denies that there is any valid law that is not positively established,such as natural law or religious informal law.It is within this understanding that Denmark claims to be secular.Secularism is not a matter of public policy or a product of deliberatelegislation. The legal and political pragmatism that claims this secularismconsiders itself realist, and maintains that in legislation and administrationthere is no consideration of the legal conclusions to be drawn from religion.Secularism is pragmatic and therefore understood as realistic. It is,difficult, however, to see where secularism was historically and structurallyembedded in Denmark.Most striking are the changing interpretations of Martin Luther’s idea oftwo kingdoms, a spiritual and a secular. These two normative kingdomshave periodically been understood as establishing a distinction betweennormative theological and spiritual arguments on the one hand and secularlegal and organisational ruling norms on the other, meaning that all

Structural and Methodological Reflections13legislative and organisational powers also with regard to the Church werein the secular hands of the King, Parliament etc. In later periods, not leastin the current 21stcentury, the argument reappears or perhaps even prevailsthat the difference should also include a distinction between on the onehand the outer organisation of the Church as a spiritual entity, led underspiritual legal norms by religious leaders, and on the other hand the secularaffairs of the state, led by democratic regimes (Andersen 2010).No matter how the theological interpretations are to be understood, it is ahistorical fact that the institutions of State and Church were built on thesame foundations, and there seems to be what has been called an ‘internalconvergence but an external divergence’ (Modéer 2010, 61). Or rather,separation was unimaginable and distinction was imprudent, for being thehead and legislator of both State and Church the King had absolutejurisdiction. The overlap in structure can be seen in the promulgation of theDanish Lawfrom 1683, in which the Penal Code was ordered according tothe prohibitions and directives of the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:2-17;Deut. 5:6-21). As such, the law enacted by God in the commandments wascodified and policed by the King. Furthermore, those who were Danishwere by definition ChristianLutheran,and those not Christian Lutheranwere by the same logicforeigners.As mentioned, a clearer distinction between State and Church was addedin the constitution 166 years later, but it stopped just short of separation.The first four articles of the constitution can be said to demarcate thejurisdiction or, figuratively speaking, erect the pillars on which the modernstate was built. The first articulates the geographical territory of Denmark,the second establishes the monarchy, the third enacts the division of powersand the principles of justice, and the fourth establishes theFolkekirke(Zahle 2006; Christoffersen 2010, 147): “The Evangelical Lutheran Churchshall be the Established Church of Denmark, and as such shall be supportedby the State”.This means that although theFolkekirkeand minority religious affairswere to be regulated autonomously, they were to be kept within theorganisational frame of the constitution. In this sense, theFolkekirke– inparallel analogy to the Monarchy and the institutions of power – was bothconstituent to, and subject to, the rule of law and democracy as defined inthe rest of the constitution.To the extent that Denmark can be said to be secular, it is so in the logicof legal realism, and the Danish paradigm of regulating religion exposesitself to the same criticisms that legal realism did. This includes the notionsof non-voluntarism, scepticism, and the insistence on laws that must bebased on social fact and regulate social behaviour. However, based onactual social realities, the normative power of religious morals seems to beresurgent.

1.3 Religion in Denmark – the sociologyDenmark is commonly thought to be a homogeneous country with onelanguage, one faith, and one people (Gundelachet al2008, 15). However,if this was ever the case, it is certainly not any more. A brief overview ofthe basic quantitative data concerning demography, religions in Denmark,and Danish religiosity is therefore in order, before supplementing andcomparing with the qualitative data from the socio-legal RELIGAREsurvey.Looking for demographically reliable numbers regarding religiosity inDenmark is difficult, because public registration of religious affiliation isillegal. This means that the numbers used by Danish scholars are generallygathered either from polling or from the faith-based organisations that areable to supply them, and they are then calibrated by looking at otherstatistics, at other countries, at migratory patterns and so on. In such cases,it is important to differentiate between proper membership and otherdegrees of affiliation and engagement, and scholars should be aware of theproblems of defining or limiting one religious group as opposed to another(Warburg 2007, 6-7). Regardless of how the scholar proceeds, any surveyis likely to favour one group, one denomination, or one interpretation andalienate another. However, no matter how many caveats and reservationsresearchers bring along with their quantitative surveys, the number willusually be boiled down accordingly.In 2009, the national agency ‘Statistics Denmark’ ran the numbers fromthe Central Person Registry and concluded that as of January 1stthere were4,492,121 registered members of theFolkekirke(Lodberg 2009, p. 12).This translates into about 81.5% of the entire population. As of July 2011,the number of members was 4,463,981, the equivalent of 80.2%(www.dst.dk). These numbers are as precise as they get, but there is acertain margin of error. Amongst the errors is the fact that as anadministrative default the tax returns count people who have not activelyopted out of being members of theFolkekirke.This means that the numbergiven includes new taxpayers, migrants, and people of other faiths whothink theFolkekirkeis worth supporting. And thus the number does notreflect the actual number of Christians affiliated with and/or baptised intotheFolkekirke.Furthermore, the numbers are considered ‘soft’ becausesociology of religion scholars are able to demonstrate that the number ofmembers who celebrate on a regular basis is as low as between 2% and10% (Religion i Danmark 2011).As for the second largest religion in Denmark, Islam, the numbers are alittle harder to come by, and most rely on estimates. Jacobsen (2010) inYearbook of Muslims in Europeestimates a rough 225,000 Muslims, tyingclosely withPew Forum on Religion & Public Life(2009) which estimates

Structural and Methodological Reflections15226,000, whileInternational Religious Freedom Report(2010) maintains amore modest 199,000 and theCIA World Fact Bookis further off with110,200 Muslims in Denmark (Jacobsen, 2012). Using the numbers mostagree on, we can estimate Muslims to constitute roughly 4.0% of the entirepopulation. The demographic problems mentioned above are accentuatedin the case of Muslims, because it is unclear who is to define who is aMuslim and who is not. There are many different denominations andobservations within Islam, and even deeper levels of engagement andcommitment, not to mention the fact that these statistics are often blind tothe difference between ethnicity, nationality, and proper religiousaffiliation (Jeldtoft 2009, p. 9-14). In addition, media and public politicalagendas make Muslims out of people that never were, such as orthodoxChristians, Armenians, and all those who do not consider themselvesmembers of any faith (Spielhaus 2010). The fact of the matter is that thenumbers mentioned are operationalised for the very purpose of producing asingle number (Jacobsen, 2012). As for organisation, only an estimated10% of the 225,000 are associated with a recognised or approved Muslimcongregation (Religion i Danmark 2011, 7). In Denmark, most Muslimsstill organise according to their ethnic and language dividers, and thus theyhave so far been unable to unite different wings and factions of Islam underone networking organisation that is capable of representing them to thestate and the rest of Danish society. There have been several attempts atcreating such umbrella organisations, the largest of which are the UnitedCouncil of Muslims, Danish Muslim Union, Muslims in Dialogue and afew others (Jacobsen 2007, 156-157).The third largest religious group in Denmark is the Roman Catholic, whoas the Catholic Church in Denmark are enumerated at 39,067 memberswith 47 different congregations. Also here numbers are soft. Based onestimations of participation at the services, immigration from typicallyCatholic countries, and estimation of double or default membership of theFolkekirke,the number of Catholics in Denmark is most often estimated atlittle more than 50,000 (1% of the Danes). The Catholics in Denmarkfollow the Holy See in Rome and are under the authority of Danish-bornbishop, Czeslaw Kozon. From the reformation to the constitution of 1849Catholics in Denmark were considered as resident foreigners, but from1682 they were allowed to practise their somewhat ‘deviant’ faith (Oftestad2010). With the introduction of freedom of religion in 1849, the RomanCatholic Church was re-established in Denmark – with considerablegrowth around 1900. Again in recent years the number of Catholics inDenmark has multiplied, and the Roman Catholic Church is now thefastest growing church in the country. This is mainly due to the ability ofthe Catholic Church to attract and maintain immigrants from Catholic

16Structural and Methodological Reflectionscountries as well as European migrant workers, especially after Polandjoined the European Union in 2004 (Religion i Danmark 2011, 31).The fourth group to be mentioned specifically are the Jews, who as of2011 are an estimated 8,000 according to the Jewish Community inDenmark (www.mosaiske.dk). Others estimate somewhere between 5-6,000 (Religion i Danmark 2011, 16), and others again, also includingindividuals of Jewishbackground,would estimate around 15,000 (BLinterview, 2011). In sharp contrast to the Catholics, membership of themainstream Jewish Community in Denmark is in steep decline, as therewere roughly 3,000 members in 2000, but are now only between 2,400 and2,200 (Religion i Danmark 2011, 98). An ultra-orthodox and a reformJewish community exist alongside the old, mainstream community. Thehead of the mainstream community is Chief Rabbi Bent Lexner whofunctions both as rabbi to the congregation in rituals and celebration and ashead of the interim rabbinical triumvirate, ‘Beth Din,’ which settlesdisputes on a formal and an informal basis (BL interview, 2011).The religious landscape further includes an approximate 77 Christianand Christianity-inspired organisations and another 50,000 or so believers(including Baptists, Pentecostals and others); there are roughly 25,000Buddhists and 11 Buddhist groups with 7,200 members; there are some13,000 Hindus and 8-9 Hindu organisations with approximately 6-800members (Religion i Danmark 2011).Last but not least, it is prudent to mention those who are not affiliatedwith any faith. Of these, there is an estimated and growing number of 10-13% (Religion i Danmark 2011). A New-Age-inspired journal has a print-run of 85,000 copies, which is more than all the main Christian journalsand newspapers put together. Only the Bible Society has a print-run whichis higher.From the numbers mentioned above, from interviews, from reports madeby official and independent agencies and researchers, it is safe to concludethat freedom of religion exists in Denmark to a very great extent.Moreover, most religious groups report that there are few conflicts overissues of pluralism, acceptance, and accommodation (e.g. BL interview,2011). Also, it can be maintained – as a former Prime Minister did – thatDenmark is a secular country that respects, but limits, the space availablefor religion. Thus, not much research needs to be done before it becomesapparent that freedom of religion is perhaps not carved in stone and thatvery profound differences have been present since the Reformation andwere present when the Danish constitution was enacted in 1849. Neitherculture, nor language, nor religion are static; they must be debated,reinterpreted and reconstructed in our ongoing deliberation of what wewere, who we are, and who we are becoming. This is reflected in the recentchanges in the public debate and in political agendas, where religions these

Structural and Methodological Reflections17past 25 years seem to be resurgent. This means that it is difficult tomaintain secularism understood as strict separation; it must rather be seenas distinction and differentiation within those conglomerate institutions thatare both state and religion.Administration and government, by extension, remain secular, but howsecularism as a concept applies to the discourses, to legislation, to publicdebate and to communities, remains to be seen throughout the report.1.4 From 2001 to 2011A whole series of cases concerning the management of the inner life of theFolkekirkehas emerged in the latter part of the 1990s and continuedthrough the last decade. These concern everything from baptism as thebasis for church membership and the duties of pastors as employees to thesanctity of a church that harbours refugees and the financial independenceof theFolkekirke.Such cases have led to a growing realization that theFolkekirkeis a church that has autonomous regulative rights andresponsibilities. However, the limits of these rights to regulate the innerand doctrinal aspects of the church should be tested continuously in thecivil courts, in order to keep within the existing rights allowed by the stateand the European Union. Provisions of the government or theadministrative departments of state should not be the regulators.The sub-theme of Islam also materialises in this period and becomesgradually more explicit in the debate. Commentators from the right,secularists, and the more conservative sections of theFolkekirkestarted tomake themselves heard in response. It was an unfortunate coincidence thata general election was held in November 2001, since under the impact of11 September 2001 the political debate on ‘what to do about foreigners andrefugees’ focused largely on the Muslims in Denmark. The final majortightening of immigration and refugee law was pushed through by the newcentre-right government to place Denmark among the most restrictivecountries in the European Union at the time.It is important to note that since 2001 Denmark has in many ways beenfunctioning at two different levels, with little overt relationship between thetwo. In the public debate – in the media and in national politics – there hasbeen a strong polemic over the question of ‘foreigners’ and Islam, oftenused almost interchangeably. The Mohammed cartoon crisis of 2005-06took place in this context (Christoffersen 2006; Christoffersen 2010). Theother level has been the local, especially in the areas characterised bysignificant ethnic plurality, not least in certain districts of the three largestcities: Copenhagen, Aarhus, and Odense. Here there has been a strongrecord of constructive integration activity supported by local governmentand local voluntary associations both secular and religious.

18Structural and Methodological ReflectionsExamples of how religion as such has been kept out of the continuouslegislative agenda in parliament and relegated to the administrative level ofgovernment are as follows: The Danish state’s general understanding ofreligion and to some extent its social welfare dimension; the current lack ofa constitution for the church; the debates on values, on ‘Danishness’, onimmigration and on Islam; the Mohammed cartoon crisis; and perhaps evenmore relevant and recently, the Danish government's support of therevolutions in the Middle East and the military action in Libya. However,and this is the breadth of the contrast, apart from over the economy almostevery public debate over legislation has been in one way or another relatedto values, immigrants, policing diversity, war in Afghanistan, Iraq andLibya, and so on.Even though this report takes its point of origin in an ongoing internaldebate about how to understand the political events of the past and thepresent, it will very soon become clear how a national debate on values hasbeen emerging in the past ten years which has had a distinct influence onthe Danes’ reinterpretation of their Lutheran heritage, the responsibility ofthe welfare state and the role of religion in the public sphere. A nationaldebate is forming and the very essence of the distinct ‘Danish model’ is onthe agenda.1.5 New government – new paradigm?In its political foundational document, the left-of-centre government thattook office in 2011 envisages a commission to suggest changes in legal andeconomic governance of theFolkekirke,and the Danish Society for ChurchLaw has published a draft report titled ‘A Constitution for the Church anno2011’ in an attempt to re-ignite both the public and the political debateabout the future of the church (Christensenet al2011).Any future model must be built on a firm legal basis out of concern forthe inner life of theFolkekirkeand the equality of religious communities. Itwill have to simultaneously strengthen, accommodate and clarify thetriangular relationship between the secular state, the free religiouscommunities, and the re-establishedFolkekirke.It seems the original intentof giving theFolkekirkeand religious communities their own distinctlegislation and freedom to organise their internal affairs would not onlyovercome some of the many challenges posed today, but would inaccordance with European legislation and the desires of the religiouscommunities absolve the need for a distinct Danish model that in identityand values protects Denmark against the religious other and the illusory‘unknown’.

Structural and Methodological Reflections2.1 Legal reports: case law and templatesThis report is written as a Danish contribution to the EuropeanCommission’s Seventh Framework Programme project ‘RELIGARE –Religious Diversity and Secular Models in Europe.’ The RELIGAREproject may be seen as a socio-legal comparative investigation building itsresults on different types of data collection all related to the four topics ofinterest within RELIGARE, namely: Religion and Family Law, Religionand Labour Law, Religion and Public Space, and Religion and StateSupport.Early in the life of RELIGARE it was decided to establish a databasewith reports of legal cases relevant to these four fields of interest. Thedatabase is limited in time to the years from 2000 and onwards. It contains20 Danish court cases from this period, which will all be included in thediscussion in this report.It has also been decided to establish templates in order to give a clearand concise series of answers on sub-topics within the four fields ofinterest. Each of these templates contains information regarding the basiclegislation in the area. Each mentions in short form the relevant legal cases(which are correlated with the database) and formulates recommendationsfrom the national research team within the field of interest. The Danishteam has discussed the content of the templates parallel with the content ofthis report. The recommendations as expressed in the templates are thusbuilt on legal knowledge of relevant legislation and legal cases, and on theresults of the qualitative interviews. All the information from the templatescan therefore be found in this report in relation to the relevant fields ofinterest.The reports on Danish case law and the Danish templates are collectedby law student Badar Shah under the supervision of Professor HannePetersen, Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen. Therecommendations in the templates have been discussed within the fullDanish RELIGARE team.2.2 Danish elite interviewsIt was decided from the beginning of the project to establish knowledge onthe function of law and religion relations within the four fields of interestthrough conducting a series of qualitative interviews with elite persons.2The study has been planned in a work compendium aimed at thisdimension. The Danish team member Professor Lisbet Christoffersen hasFor a discussion of the concept of elites and for the relevance of studying elites seeJytte Klausen 2005, 215 ff.2

20Structural and Methodological Reflectionsbeen present from the beginning. The interviews are conducted in sixEuropean states, chosen so that they represent the existing models for State,Law, and Religion relations and also reflect existing normative or religioustraditions.3Denmark was selected in order to show current elite reflectionson a traditionally strong state influence in religious governance combinedwith a traditionally strong presence of Protestantism.The Danish RELIGARE group conducted 20 interviews in 2011 withnine females and eleven males. They represented people aged from 26 to79 as well as minority and majority perspectives on religion, both older andmore recent ones.After we finished the interviews and sent selected quotations to theinterviewees for approval, two of the male interviewees decided that theydid not wish to contribute to the study. Among the remaining intervieweesare five elite individuals from political, administrative, and judicialcontexts in Denmark and the European Union. There are two spokesmenfrom labour unions and other nationally independent organisations. Thereare six elite people from Christian churches and comparable religious andfaith-based organisations. There are five central voices, both secular andreligious, from the public discourse. All interviewees are Danish nationals.It should be stressed, as all our interviewees have done, that nobody speakson behalf of the organisations that they are normally linked to in public.The interviewees were identified in order to give voice to differentpositions in Danish society with regard to religious and secular norms. Theidea was to have both male and female interviewees from differentgenerations, with different religious backgrounds, representing as nuanceda picture of institutional functions as possible. The Danish survey thereforeincludes politicians from parliament and the municipalities, leading civilservants, judges, members of labour unions, as well as of organisations incivil society such as human rights institutions and academia.The focus on elites means that this qualitative survey is focused onestablished understandings and norms rather than on the recent shifts ofpositions or changes from below. Precisely therefore, the clear changes andcritiques concerning established law in these interviews are even morerelevant to focus on. It is characteristic of elites that they are attuned tosociety. Characteristic for them is that they may hold power in theirposition, they are good communicators, they are often very busy, and theymay have something to defend and protect at the same time as having anThe other countries with qualitative interviews are France (traditionallyCatholic/Secular with major Muslim immigration); Netherlands (traditionally pluralisticwith a predominance of Reformed Christianity); England (traditionally Anglican withcontemporary pluralism); Bulgaria (traditionally Orthodox with major minority ofbefore ruling Muslims); Turkey (secular state with absolute majority of Muslims).3

Structural and Methodological Reflections21active interest in profiling either themselves or a certain view on thequestions raised. This qualitative survey aims to show the clear interests,positions, and profiles among elites with regard to the issues raised.It has not in itself been difficult to establish contact with relevantinterviewees, except as regards representatives from Hindu and Buddhistmilieux, where we did not succeed in establishing contact within the giventime-frame. Most of the other interviewees we approached willingly agreedto give an interview.4The interviewees were identified after severaldiscussions in the Danish team, which demonstrates a very central pointwhen it comes to this Danish survey. Denmark is a very small country,with only 5.5 million people, and many individuals are fairly well-knownthrough their public profiles. Some of them thus have dual identities,meaning that they are seen as representing not only, for example, a legalidentity but also a religious one at the same time.The individual profile was clearly established as we began eachinterview by asking the interviewee about his or her combined identity.This not only presents their professional but also their personal, social, andreligious background. In a society where religious affiliation is notfrequently asked about, albeit tacitly known of most, this way of openingthe interviews has been very interesting and conducive to a full result.Appendix B gives a short biographical introduction of each interviewee,including information regarding not only their professional, but also theirpersonal life and background as well as their religious or non-religiousposition. Each individual interviewee has approved their introduction.2.3 Methodological reflections on the Danish qualitative interviewsLooking at the list of interviewees, one might think that theFolkekirkeisunderrepresented compared to its numbers in the population, whereasIslam, other-Christian, and other-faith backgrounds and norm-sets seemoverrepresented.A closer look, however, reveals what is obvious in Danish society assuch, that all interviewees have dual identities, many of which combine aprofessional background with a link of some kind to theFolkekirke.Ofthese professionals, most represent a conventional cultural-Christianunderstanding of not only Christianity, but also of the role of the

22Structural and Methodological ReflectionsFolkekirkein Danish society. By including these reflections we providemost dimensions of their relation to theFolkekirke.This also means that even though they are all identified on the basis of afairly clear single identity, they each have a much broader interest in thefields which also form part of the background for their agreeing to give theinterviews. Thus all supposed secular interviewees have a religious ormixed identity either religious or secular or even very secular.Many interviewees also have dual identities with regard to nationalbackground. There is an adopted child from South-East Asia, a spouse of anational from another European state, while a third has left theFolkekirkein favour of an eastern religion; this was not part of his public identity, butpart of his reflections on the topic. A fourth is a convert to Islam. A fifth isadministratively stationed abroad, and so on.It is characteristic that only the interviewees representing humaniststandpoints, the church’s Home Mission, and one of the Muslimrepresentatives, all male and in their 30s, have rather singular identityprofiles. At the same time, their standpoints are as a rule close to eachother, even though one might have expected otherwise.There is a clear generational dimension in the responses. A traditionallink to theFolkekirkeis seen as normal for the interviewees around the ageof 60, whereas interviewees around 40 all have very clear, reasonedstandpoints – ranging from supporting theFolkekirketo fighting for itschange. The only interviewee with a definite rejection of any religiousorganisation is the single female in her 20’s.There is also a gender-dimension in our interviews. All our intervieweesare well-educated and have – or have access to – well-paid and highlybranded jobs. Especially the women, however, seem to represent what canbe seen as a class journey and a journey into higher education morecommon than in the previous generation. Most of them have kept a relationto religion during this journey. Religion generally and theFolkekirkespecifically have provided room for reflection, a space for thankfulness,and time to grieve. These women – and probably also some of the men,especially those relating to theFolkekirke– represent a traditionalintertwined identity, for at the same time they do not want the church todecide over them or for them. Pluralism, flexibility, concrete contextualisedanalyses and solutions combining secular and religious norms are verycharacteristic for them. There are of course exceptions, also among thewomen. One woman has decided to establish a public voice from theformal position of a housewife. She fights against politicised religion insociety and for the role of theFolkekirke.Generally, we see a late religiousmodernity among the female interviewees – in contrast to what could becalled moral panic with regard to a supposed role for Islam in the West orthe decay of values. It was our prior assumption that the male interviewees

Structural and Methodological Reflections23would demonstrate a greater ambivalence and to a larger extent leantowards traditional solutions depending on their religious background. Itremains contested in the report, however, whether the male religious andsecular leaders are more traditional than the female secular and religiousleaders.The qualitative interviews are supported by a general framework phrasedand structured by the leader of the work compendium, Professor VeitBader, Amsterdam. Subsequently an interview guide in Danish wasproduced in order to make the common idea of the ‘basic tensions’ clear ina Danish context. Lisbet Christoffersen usually made the first contact toeach interviewee through mail or telephone. Agreement on participationwas followed up by a standard mail from Karen Giødesen, who worked asresearch assistant on the project, confirmed interviews, and sent thenecessary papers in order for the interviewee to prepare. All the interviewswere conducted by Lisbet Christoffersen, many of them together with PhDfellow Niels Valdemar Vinding. It was stressed both in the preceding mailand at the beginning of each interview that it would take the character of aconversation, led by Lisbet Christoffersen, and that the focus would be onthe interviewee’s reflections on each of the given questions.Most of the interviews were conducted at the office of the intervieweeand each interview took between one and two hours. All interviews havebeen transcribed into Danish and collated by Karen Giødesen. These filesare known only to the members of the Danish RELIGARE team, but theyare protected by confidentiality; it was promised to each interviewee thatthe transcription – in part or in entirety – shall not be used by anybody else.Within the European frame it had been agreed that all transcribedinterviews should be translated into English and placed on the internaldatabase. After having conducted the first two interviews, a long processwas established in order to have the first interviewee accept the full,transcribed version. However, this took a disproportionate amount of time.The second interviewee refused to approve a full transcription on thegrounds of his role in Danish public life. The group then changed strategy.A short version was to be identified by the interview leader andsubsequently approved by the individual interviewee. However, this provedcounterproductive to the survey, as both the interests of the intervieweesand of the survey in our small country have to do with what they say andthink in the context of the study. The final agreement with the intervieweeswas that each should approve all direct quotations from the interviews. Onthe basis of a draft of this report, a document with the relevant quotationsfor each single interview person was presented and approved.Danish society being what it is, and the elite interviewees being open-minded in answering, our responsibility is to find a feasible manner toreflect this trust in our presentation of the findings, both in relation to the

24Structural and Methodological ReflectionsEuropean project and in relation to the Danish audience. The strategy herepresented now seems satisfactory to all parties.The question of anonymity is also difficult in a small country. As it is,any scholar with knowledge of Danish state and religion affairs candecipher the list of interviewees in Appendix B. We have neverthelessdeliberately chosen not to use full names, since even though the persons arefairly recognisable in a Danish context, the possibility of tracing theiridentity in a broader European context has been minimised through the useof initials.52.4 ResponsibilitiesThe transcribed interviews from the Danish survey consist ofapproximately 600 single-spaced pages. Lisbet Christoffersen and NielsValdemar Vinding have read through these pages carefully. ProfessorsJørgen S. Nielsen and Hanne Petersen have likewise had the chance to readall the interviews and have contributed with general reflections on theresults.Niels Valdemar Vinding holds a Bachelor of Theology and a Master ofIslamic Studies degree. He is currently writing a PhD on Islam in Europe.Lisbet Christoffersen is Professor of Law, Religion, and Society atRoskilde University. They have written the report in collaboration and arejointly responsible for the result.Vinding wrote a full first draft of chapter one on the situation inDenmark today. Christoffersen wrote a full first draft of chapter two onstructure and methodology. Vinding wrote full first drafts of the chapterson Religion and Family Law and on Religion in the Public Space.Christoffersen wrote full first drafts of the chapters on Religion and theLabour Market matters and on State support for Religions. The concludingchapter was written together.Draft versions were also discussed with Professor Jørgen S. Nielsen,Director of the Centre for European Islamic Thought and leader of theDanish RELIGARE group, and with Hanne Petersen, Professor of LegalCultures and member of the Danish RELIGARE group. The discussionstook the form of several half-day seminars with the assistance of KarenGiødesen and Badar Shah. The foci of these meetings were themethodology, the main findings, relations to the reporting instruments usedin the RELIGARE context, the concluding chapter, and the finalrecommendations.

Structural and Methodological Reflections25As part of the process, the relevant quotations were checked byGiødesen, who also received confirmation and approval from theinterviewees of each of the Danish quotations used in the report.Christoffersen focussed especially on framing the report, on methodologyand on discussions of the results of the interviews. Each chapter reportingresults from the interviews opens with a contextual frame and gives apresentation of the main legislation. These parts were cross-referenced withthe findings from Shah and Petersen. Shah was also responsible for thetranslation of all Danish quotations into English. Finally Nielsen checkedthrough the entire report.We wish to thank the Theological Educational Centre, Løgumkloster, fortheir kind and generous hospitality while we were writing the report. Wealso wish to thank the European Commission’s Seventh FrameworkProgramme and the RELIGARE management and leadership for theopportunity to contribute with insights from the Danish context. Thanksalso to Jakob Dorph Broager for helping with the transcriptions and toLeila Stockmarr for helping with the early interviews. We are also gratefulfor the contributions of Karen Giødesen and Badar Shah, whose continuousassistance and support have been invaluable, and to Edward Broadbridgefor checking the English text.Above all, we wish to thank the Danish interviewees for their time andcommitment to this report. We hope it truthfully reflects their thoughts,while we must nevertheless emphasise that sole and entire responsibilityremains with the authors.2.5 Structure of the reportThe paper of November 2010, ‘Basic Tensions’ by Veit Bader (AppendixD), which was discussed in the steering group on the basis ofrecommendations from other work compendium leaders, served tostructure this investigation as a series of tensions or conflicts betweenrights.At a meeting in Sofia in October 2011, RELIGARE decided to formulatea series of topics for so-called template issues. The templates are formulaepresenting legal structures, current legal cases, and recommendations inone overview. The idea is that the socio-legal report and the templatesshould include the same list of topics, that is: should answer the samequestions. Some of the questions are slightly different from the series oftopics stemming from the ‘basic tensions’ paper. The common agreementis that the socio-legal reporters should reflect also on topics included in thenew list and as far as possible offer a response to them.The report was then organised around the new list of topics, followingthe template issues and thus making it easier to compare legal and socio-legal knowledge. The report is introduced through a discussion of general

26Structural and Methodological Reflectionsquestions: the basic tensions. Each of the four fields is also introducedthrough a discussion of general issues within that field, stemming from theDanish socio-legal investigation. The report thus combines a reading of theresults of the Danish interviews with relevant reflections of twooverlapping, but not identical, lists of questions (basic tensions andtemplate issues).Each of the four fields contains a short introduction on the legal statuswithin the field. This legal status builds on and includes information placedby the Danish team into the data bank of legal cases and into the list oftemplates.Thus the socio-legal data in the report – the quotations from theinterviews – function as a critique and discussion of the legal situationtoday. The structure of the report allows for use of the templates aspreliminary information about the legal status within the area, combinedwith recommendations where relevant. The report can then be read as anin-depth analysis of the same topics.

3. Religion and Family in Denmark3.1 Basic principles of Danish family lawIn 1536 the Reformation introduced a secularisation of Danish family law,meaning that the competence area shifted from church law to state law. Thestate upheld the church as the main provider of the legal status of marriageand in principle this has never been completely separated.Marriage.A couple who therefore wish to establish a legal marriedrelationship may marry according to Danish law (Law on marriage anddivorce, LBK nr 38 of 15/01/2007). The condition is that marriage isbetween two adults (polygamy is prohibited), and the parties must both beover the age of 18. Marriage may be performed at the mayor’s office orwithin theFolkekirke,since the pastors in theFolkekirkeare authorised bylaw to perform marriages with civil validity. In addition, priests in otherchurches, the Chief Rabbi, and a group of imams have been authorised toperform marriages under the condition that the religious community isapproved to have this function and that at least one of the parties is amember of that community. The legal conditions for such marriages areunder Danish law, meaning that the religious marriage by a pastor in theFolkekirkeor in, say, the Roman Catholic Church does not give thatmarriage any legal dimension of being religious (Lutheran or Catholic).The practical understanding among people, however, may be different.Divorce.Divorce is only possible if the couple has been officiallymarried and the state authorities dissolve the marriage, for no religiousleader has any official role with regard to divorce. Failing this, there can bea case on interpretation of a contract on the economic dimension of themarriage and on custody of the children. TheFolkekirkeis not authorisedto grant a divorce, nor can the local minister in any other church. Pastorsare always willing to give advice or help facilitate reconciliation if sowished by the parties involved, but this happens on an individual basis, andthere are many secular, established or alternative, counselling servicesavailable in Denmark. When discussing divorce in the Danish context,there is a general, albeit pessimistic, common impression – based onstatistics – that roughly half of all marriages end in divorce. Usuallydivorce is granted following a one-year period of separation and custody isgranted following administrative decisions or court decisions on relevantfactors and the wishes of any children involved. If there are circumstancesthat call for an immediate divorce, such as domestic violence or infidelity,the civil courts may grant these as well.Cohabitation.A couple that are of age can choose to live togetherwithout any legal consequences and with no legal formalities. The onlycondition is that both parties are over the age prohibiting sexualintercourse, which is 15. If one of the parties is under 15, the case can be

28Religion and Family in Denmarkbrought before the courts as a criminal law case. Cohabitation iswidespread in Denmark, and also common among religious groups who donot follow Danish family law. In Muslim milieux this way of living ismapped in a recent report on concepts and norms within practices parallelto the Danish legal system (Liversage & Jensen 2011). The report namesthese practices among Muslim groups ‘Nikah-relations’. This type ofrelation seems to be widespread and is established under the blessing ofimams from different groups, including imams who have the official rightto perform official marriages.Custodyis a public law decision. The parents can make internalagreements and arrangements, but either (or any) of them can always bringa case before the public administration, and the social authorities alwayshave a final say over custody of children living in Denmark.Economic relations through and after marriage.The general principle inDanish law is that the parties share burdens, responsibilities, and fortunesequally, each of them taking care of their own economy but withresponsibility for the other. In the case of divorce the general principle isthat the property is shared equally – and at death there are similarprinciples. However, all principles regarding the equal sharing of economyin a marriage can be changed through contract, except that the coupleremain equally responsible for maintaining each other.Freedom of contractis thus the basic principle with regard to economicrelations in family law, a contract which can always be interpreted undergeneral norms by the courts.Private International Lawprinciples are of course only relevant if thefamily has a relation to another country than Denmark. Contrary to mostEuropean countries the basic principle in Danish Private International Lawis domicile. Consequently, Danish domicile means the case is broughtunder Danish law, even though one or both parties are not Danish citizens.Domicile means in the Danish context the place where the parties live withthe intention of staying there, i.e. both an objective and a subjective factor.If a legal status – such as marriage – is performed under the law of anothercountry, the question with regard to Danish law is only whether or not thisstatus can be recognised, that is: whether or not the couple can beacknowledged as a married couple. There is no question of acknowledgingany foreign legal consequences of the marriage, since – according to thebasic principle – these will be judged under Danish law. A case of divorceor other conflicts over status that is brought in Denmark will be judgedaccording to Danish law, not according to foreign law.These general norms are nevertheless modified through the NordicConvention, the EU Convention, and the Hague Convention.Relevant cases:

Religion and Family in Denmark29CRD2001.1998-540-84– Following a divorce, a parent adhering to HareKrishna was denied full custody over their child.U.2002.690Ø– The courts refused to recognise an Islamic divorce andsentenced a man to 60 days in prison for bigamy.V2003.B-1791-03– A previous religious marriage was not recognised bythe court, whereas a divorce from a second wife was allowed.U.2005.2314Ø– After a divorce, the Islamic concept of Mahr wasexplained and the courts deemed it analogous to a gift.OE2006.B-3980-05– Following a divorce, a child custody contract madeby an imam was nullified by the court.OE2008.B-1005-08– Following a divorce, the mother feared that thefather of the three children would transport them to Pakistan for a morereligious upbringing. The court deemed that there was no flight risk.3.2 State recognition of religious marriages and authority to performmarriagesThe Danish state grants key religious personnel of all the recognised andacknowledged religions the authority to perform a marriage ritual that isrecognised by the state.All of the interviewees we spoke to on the legal status of marriage, thereligious dimensions of marriage, and the protection of legal rights confirma general respect for public order. Many interviewees made it clear that theinternal affairs of a religious community were safely within publicdemands.As a human rights lawyer, JC sees the religious performance of marriageas an obvious element in freedom of religion that should be granted withreference to the civil code. If religious communities want recognition oftheir marriages it must be within the established Danish public order:JC: “They must interpret what their religion warrants them. In my view, in ademocratic society one must try to regulate it by saying that the basis of oursociety is that we do it this way. If they desire something else, then they mustcarry the burden of the argument that there is something else, something contraryto what is valuable to us; something which we have democratically decided mustbe like this. So in a way, they are subject to the decisions of Danish democracy.”(Quote 3.01)

PVB, the young female left-wing politician, herself a theologian, is askedwhether or not it would be easier just to have a civil marriage and let thereligious communities decide themselves on their different sorts of blessingetc:PVB: “This is the right solution, which is always dropped onto the suggestiontable and which I myself have suggested whenever the issue has been same-sexmarriages, when it’s about something we don’t […] When it becomes difficult inregard to the marriage authorities within these authorised faith communities, thenit is much easier to say: Let’s pull it all away, and then nobody is allowed to do it.You could also imagine that you begin a dialogue with the imams about what thecomponents of Danish society are, because I believe the other approach can resultin a lot of shadowboxing or it can make it so that you never truly understand whatis going on. Then you undermine the authority of the imams. Some would thinkthat that is quite all right. I would think that it would be unfair to all those whoknow how to follow the rules.” (Quote 3.03)

Also the bishop from theFolkekirkesees the right to perform marriage aspart of a traditional freedom of religion in Danish society. He sees thetendency to understand the religiously performed marriage as alsoincluding religious-legal norms, but he does not think that would change ifmarriages had to be performed civilly before the religious ceremony:PSJ: “It’s clear that you draw in some religious traditions, that is, you bring incultures and traditions, that’s obvious. But the access given to religious leaders –including pastors in theFolkekirke– doesn’t lie in the fact that the religiousleaders are bringing a religious order into the marriage. That’s not part of theconcept of marriage in Denmark, as I see it. That also goes, by the way, for peoplehaving a civil marriage at the city hall and then being religiously wed at theFolkekirkeor by the imam or something. There is no religious law to be broughtin there. The religious marriage is merely a blessing, which in Denmark can drawin Danish civil law – nothing more.” (Quote 3.04)

A fairly new trend revealed in the interviews is that most want anadditional religious celebration of the holy commitment of the marriage.And this is where the material can demonstrate a wide-ranging concern fora clear distinction between the religious and the civil dimension ofmarriage – even though the Lutheran bishop doubts whether it would reallychange anything, as we saw in the former quotation.SA, who is a lawyer herself and an observing Muslim, points to the needfor this distinction. In Islam, she says, the rules dictate that two witnessesare enough to make the marriage public. Precisely because this is notenough according to Danish law, the Muslims have resourcefully begun torefer to this religious and ceremonial act as an engagement:SA: “Here’s an example, I have been invited to an engagement here on Saturday.It’s funny that they call it an engagement because what they’re actually doing is,there is an imam that will wed these two people. So in my eyes, these two peopleare Islamically ‘halal’ for each other, they can do whatever they want with eachother, as they are married within the Islamic rules at the very least. So when I seea marriage performed by an imam who has the necessary marriage authority, thenthat is a marriage, even though some would call it an engagement.” (Quote 3.06)

When asked about the possibility of a conflict with existing law, sheimmediately responds that a Muslim religious marriage in the minds ofMuslims is ade factomarriage. When asked to reflect on her ownexperiences, she relates both the core problem of two competing ideas ofmarriage and her own position on the matter:SA: “I very much presume that the imams tell people that they should beregistered afterwards at the municipality as being married. In fact, I’ve neverreally thought it over because I’ve always thought that. […] that once you’remarried by an imam, then you’re married! I’ve never thought about it in that way.It hasn’t ever interested me either, whether I’m married or not in accordance withDanish law because Islamically, I am married! What I am according to Danishlaw, I’ve never really been interested in that. I must admit that.” (Quote 3.07)

32Religion and Family in Denmarkis so, because he wishes to stay independent and to keep marriage as asacred institution. However, his point is exactly that Muslims shouldregister themselves with the authorities, but that this is not hisresponsibility, and he insists that the authorities should take care of thelegal aspects and leave the sacred, religious, Muslim dimension of marriageto people like him:AWP: “So we are a few, and I’m one of them, who have chosen not to seekmarriage authorisation from the municipality because I am not interested at all inperforming civil marriages. I am utterly indifferent to that in a religious context.Of course, I advise people when they come to me solely for a religious marriage. Iadvise them to also have a civil marriage performed. [...] If you need to make yourrelationship halal, of course there are some specific things that need to be done forit to become halal, and I will of course advise people to do those things. But thereI also tell people that when I perform this marriage, they don’t automaticallyreceive the rights one has, automatically, in a civil marriage. They have to beaware of that.” (Quote 3.09)

Before we conclude on the potential conflicts of such an understandingand distinction between secular and sacred in the institution ofmarriage, it is relevant to turn to the other religious minorities inDenmark to discuss the recognition of religious marriage and how theysee the problems and possible conflicts.ET, an elderly Catholic who serves as advisor to the Danish Catholicbishop, also begins with reference to the sanctity of marriage anddevelops his understanding of a valid and proper marriage from there:ET: “Marriage is a sacrament, and it is the couple that announce it to each other.”Q.: “It’s not the priest that announces it?”ET: “The priest is a witness and he is the one witness that is authorised todetermine that now they have married each other. In Danish, we use the word‘wed’, but in reality, he does not wed them, it is they who wed themselves. One ofthe basics of Catholic marriage law is that one cannot be wed to another person ifit isn’t entirely voluntarily; if you’re not authorised [to be married]; if you’re notsane or not able to take care of your affairs.” (Quote 3.10)

The question of contract or explicit agreement in the marriage – and thevery idea of a need to register the marriage – has everything to do with thepossibility, if not probability, of the marriage ending either in divorce or inthe death of one of the spouses. The imam, the Catholic advisor, and theRabbi all stress the symbolic and religious aspects of the religiousmarriage. The reason for this is of course the social importance of anexplicit recognition before both the community and God. This is theimportance that prompts the imam, AWP, to distinguish between thereligious and the civil. There is a theological sense to this that adds anotherimportant aspect to the religious marriage: when a couple marry, they comecloser to God, and when the couple divorce, they distance themselves fromGod. This seems to be true also for Roman Catholics, as can be seen in thestructural reluctance to make an annulment.3.3 DivorceAs mentioned, much if not most of the public interest in religious marriagehas to do with the conflicts that arise from the end of marriage – either indivorce or in death. As most of the conflicts relevant to this survey arederivative not of the marriage itself but of the divorce, issues of disputeresolution, matrimonial property (e.g. Mahr), custody, guardianship, and soon, will be treated in due course.In order to give proper language and nuance to the conflicts of divorcediscussed in the survey, we need to distinguish further in the complex ofmarriage and divorce between the secular and the religious. In doing so, wefollow Liversage & Jensen (2011), who in their report onParallelPerceptions of Law in Denmarkoperate with the intersection of the tworelevant aspects of marriage and divorce. In order to map the possibletension and conflicts, they ask, firstly, “Did the couple divorce according toDanish law?” and, secondly, “Did the couple divorce according to thereligious norms?” (Liversage & Jensen 2011, 86). If the answer to bothquestions is either “yes” or “no” they are either still married or completelydivorced. The tensions emerge when the answer to the first question is“yes”, but to the second is “no”. This is what has been called a ‘limpingmarriage’ and leaves the couple in the same legal uncertainty when facing adivorce as if they never registered the marriage civilly in the first place.The frame presented by Liversage & Jensen and the complexity of theissue is confirmed when we address the interviewees on the issue ofdivorce.

SA: “... there are some Muslims who believe that if you are Islamically wed, thenyou must also get divorced according to Islam. But there is no such thing, becauseif she married according to Danish law and she receives a Danish divorce and itbecomes public, then in accordance with Islamic rules, the publication of herdivorce is final, also in an Islamic sense. So I see a lot of people – not as many asthere used to be – who marry, and they are registered as married, then they carryout a divorce yet continue to live together. Maybe they want the social benefits, Idon’t know, but it is actually a sin in Islam that they do this because it has beenmade public that they are divorced, yet they continue to stay together. And thenthe husband says: But we’re not divorced according to Islam! They have nounderstanding! They don’t understand the legality in Islam that once it is madepublic, then it is a divorce – he has declared that he has had himself divorcedaccording to Danish law. Whether it’s Danish law or not, that doesn’t matter;Islamically, it counts. Quite a lot of people aren’t actually aware of this.” (Quote3.12)

SA points to the implications of divorcing legally in the Danish system.She maintains that if the couple divorce legally, they are also divorcedaccording to Islamic principles, as it is public to the community. However,there seems to be some internal disagreement on, or lack of, Islamic legalunderstanding internally in the community in this regard, as there isevidence to suggest that the husband can maintain social and religiouspower over his wife even in a ‘limping marriage’. This leaves her in thesame situation as if the marriage was never registered in the first place. Inaddition there is a difference between the genders in gaining access to adivorce.NB: “A man can basically say; ‘I am divorcing you’ and then be divorced. It’s abit more difficult for the woman because she can’t just say “Now I’m out of this”,even though there are different opinions about this – but I’ll get back to that – in atraditional sense, then the woman would have to go to the qadi, the mufti, andagain to a mediation council and then if her reasons were good enough, then shewould be able to seek divorce. Something else that has to be taken intoconsideration is the contract she entered when they married. If there were anyspecial conditions for divorce and if they are included, then it would also bepossible for her to seek divorce.” (Quote 3.13)

Roman Catholics do not allow for divorce, but there is an option of havingthe marriage dissolved or annulled. As an implication of the marriagesacrament, the legal effects of the marriage continue to be in place for aslong as they both live.Q.: “They can live separately but the legal effects remain?”ET: “Yes. The thing that may become a problem is whether you were evenmarried the first time around, if it actually was enforceable; if you were soimmature that you in reality could not take responsibility for your actions. Maybeif you were mentally ill, yes, then you’d have to say that the marriage never tookplace to begin with. Often, you use the expression that you can “have yourmarriage annulled”, but that’s not accurate; the question is, whether you can saythe marriage is “null”, i.e. annulled not as an action but annulment as an assertion.The assumptions were never there.” (Quote 3.15)

In the Catholic case, the annulment of marriage or the deeming of amarriage as void is done by a marriage court that examines the evidenceand deliberates on the preconditions of the marriage and whether or not it isinvalid. The parties have legal recourse to the very top of the canonicalsystem in Rome, where legal experts rather than the parties in question willspeak on behalf of the marriage and against the claim of its invalidity.ET fully recognises the importance of the sacrament of marriage, butquestions the procedures and difficulties in changing the status of themarriage:ET: “I believe that it’s a wrong system, because while I do acknowledge theindissolubility of marriage, I also believe it is unrealistic to put your faith in sucha court to determine what actually happened during the marriage. What youshould do is, you should give them an extensive course on what marriage is allabout. Then you can say, ‘Now you know how it all goes and then you must settlethe matter with your conscience and the Lord.’ So you with your conscience andafter you have been taught, say that this is how it is, and you admit and sign it infront of God and man, then we will use that as our basis. In reality, I think it’sridiculous that you try to reach an objective decision in many of these cases.”(Quote 3.16)

36Religion and Family in Denmarkaren’t divorced if you’re talking about the Roman Catholic Church. It’s sodifficult to have your marriage annulled.”Q: “Those kinds of cases exist not just with Catholics but also in the Jewishcommunities and in Muslim circles.”PSJ: “Yes, well I can’t do much about that and I don’t think secular society can domuch about it either. But within those respective religious societies, the actualitiesmust at some point be acknowledged.”Q: “With this type of case, would you consider them mediation institutions?”PSJ: “The Catholic man that goes and gets a divorce and cannot have his marriageannulled, he’ll still go and do what he thinks is right after a few years, but then hecan’t get married. Those are heavy implications for the man in question; he isexcluded from Holy Communion and so on. Very serious implications. But theseare implications that cannot be solved here, by us, in the secular society.” (Quote3.17)

Here HC, the female leader of a diaconal project, has a very clear focus onthe weak party and therefore argues for one law for everybody:Q: “Now when you’re talking about uniform rules, do you mean specifically orare you referring to the bigger picture?”HC: “It’s mostly the bigger picture, I mean, again based on the differentdiscussions I have listened to or read up on, like whether we need special, privatecourts to solve family feuds or conflicts – or infidelity vows, I nearly said – orother conflicts regarding that and other things.”Q: “What is this outlook that you want to protect?”HC: “I want to protect the weak.”Q: “Who is ‘the weak’?”HC: “That will of course always be an individual assessment but as I see it, or as acitizen in society, what I will try to support is that the weaker side has anopportunity to appeal to a third party.” (Quote 3.18)

Thus the attempt to reconcile the marriage either by mediation or byeducating the parties on the social and religious implications of eitherending or voiding the marriage is similar in the case of Muslims, Jews, andCatholics. We return to mediation when treating the implications ofalternative dispute resolution.3.4 Marriage contracts and access to divorceMany of the interviewees stress the purpose of having an explicit andlegally binding marriage agreement. This is important when consideringboth the terms of the marriage and the terms of its termination.In the Muslim environment there is an explicit recognition of theunequal access of the partner to a divorce. A practice is emerging thatequalises the access to divorce and challenges traditional Muslim familylaw. NB explains the change and sees it as a convergence with the properand usual way of terminating a marriage:

Religion and Family in Denmark37Q: “In Danish Muslim society, are marriage contracts being made?”NB: “Yes [...] Where individual conflicts arise, that occurs when there isn’t anagreement on the divorce, right, and especially from the husband's side: he doesn’twant to let go for example and the wife says: ‘Yes, I just want to be rid of you’,right.”Q: “Do the contracts oblige the men more so than traditional family law? Do themen also need reasons listed in the contract to be divorced?”NB: “They’re already there to begin with and partially also for the women; forexample if the husband is violent or doesn’t fulfil social, emotional, sexual needs,doesn’t help economically… these are reasons enough that a woman can say, ‘youknow what? You’re not giving me my monthly contribution, this isn’t workingeconomically and we don’t have enough to live on, so I want to divorce you’.”(Quote 3.19)

As NB stresses here, the termination of the marriage is valid or appropriateif the marriage is mismanaged or if either of the parties feels mistreated.Here, the contract adds some sort of automaticity to the procedure. The factremains, however, that such a contract is difficult to maintain becauseconflict in itself is not enough to make the community accept the divorce.Rather, there seems to be a logic which dictates that conflicts in themarriage can be resolved as long as they do not concern the preconditionsor basics of the marriage. There can be no divorce without reason, andseldom without reconciliation attempts.NB: “No, they need some reasons. They can’t just have a divorce. There are somemoral and ethical rules that apply, so they can’t just say; ‘I don’t like youanymore!’ That wouldn’t be reason enough for a divorce. So a man can’t justcome home one and say, ‘I want a divorce from you because you’ve been wearingthat blue dress. I don’t like it.’ That wouldn’t be reason enough and that is why,when the cases usually go into these mediation agencies, you’d want to hear ifthere is a good enough reason. You could call upon the local imam or mufti forthese things […] Where the differences lie, as I’ve understood them, is that awoman can actually ask for a divorce but when she does, she has to go to amediation council and have some specific points of complaint, points that are inaccordance with Islamic law, just like with the man. There are just – maybe youcould say – stricter demands that the woman needs to fulfil. The demands are a bitmore strict.” (Quote 3.20)

3.5 Contested divorce and conflicting demandsWhat the contract does well, however, is to stipulate the demands andrights of the parties in case of divorce. That is not a concern in itself withthe access to divorce of a marriage that is not recognised. In the Muslimcase, this is relevant in the question of Mahr, that is, the amount of moneyor property which in a Muslim marriage is an obligation of the husband tothe wife.Recently, Rubya Mehdi and Jørgen S. Nielsen publishedEmbeddingMahr in the European Legal System(DJØF forlag, 2011), which discussesthe implications of introducing Mahr into the legal system. They point tothe fact that European courts are opening up much more to questions ofMahr than any other aspect of Islamic family law. This is partly becauseMahr is so important to families in the community, and partly, as SAexplains, because it is relatively easy to demonstrate a violation of themarriage contract through reference to Mahr.SA: “If you enter into an Islamic marriage with all the rules and duties and rightsthat come with it, what can occur is, for example, let’s say the husband doesn’twant to pay his dowry. Then what do you do? Then – it’s actually very easybecause I get these kinds of questions once in a while – then you can say, ‘If thedowry isn’t paid, then you can go public and say: ‘I am not married, the dowryhasn’t been paid’.’ And then it doesn’t matter what he says, then he has to provethat the dowryhasbeen paid, and if he can’t do that, then in the eyes of the public,you aren’t married. That’s easy enough. But there is another problem, such as:‘He doesn’t provide for me. What do I do?’ She can’t go to the municipality forexample and say ‘My husband isn’t providing for me!’ because according toDanish rules, he’s just her boyfriend if she hasn’t been registered as married.That’s when they are forced to go to an imam or an upstanding and respectablecitizen or his family members and say, ‘Look at this! My husband isn’t fulfillinghis duty to provide for me.’” (Quote 3.22)

He relates several incidents and the cases he refers to demonstrate preciselythat the harassment begins once the legal and civil divorce has been grantedbut before the Rabbi can finalise the religious divorce. Because the civilcourts deal with issues regarding children and lingering economic issuesfrom the marriage, the Rabbi naturally waits for the courts to finish theirwork. The harassment then begins, because a Jew cannot marry againbefore the religious divorce is finalised. If there is indeed no reason savemalice and no lingering issues like custody, the Rabbi will push the divorcethrough, but according to his testimony, this can easily take a few years.In the most extreme of these cases the Rabbi, imam, priest or pastor hasan option which most of them say they seldom use. They have thepossibility of making the specifics of the malicious harassment public andknown to the religious community.BL: “I can tell you that in one of the cases I have actually thought of publicisingit: to make it known that this guy is simply … because he is active in thecongregation, he has a huge network, and he knows many people. That’s what youwould do in Jewish congregations around the world, there you would simply say,‘This man or that woman …’ I haven’t done that though. I think our congregationis too small to be able to bear it” (Quote 3.24)

SA relates that this kind of thinking is common in the Muslim communitiesas well, and even well-known in the Islamic traditions.Q: “Are there any sanctions, some sort of pressure within the Islamic legal way ofthinking that you can apply?”SA: “If we have an Islamic court where women could go, then yes, then therecould be some sanctions. If for example he doesn’t follow his rules, then he couldreceive some admonitions and then he can … Now you’re asking me legal,Islamic questions. I could just look it up in the different legal schools, how it is,but there are some sanctions and it can end in there being no marriage at all if hedoesn’t abide by the rules that he should. She also has the right to some things.But when we’re talking about Denmark, then you can’t use the rules we’re talkingabout. Then you use social pressure instead.”(Quote 3.25)

From what SA relates it is clear that not only can marriages in Islam beseen to be limping, but that there is a system of justice that lacks some ofthe internal components for imposing sanctions or checks and balances inmatters of family law. Instead, the community becomes a public court andexecutive in order to force the couple in question to resolve the conflict.ET relates similar cases from the Roman Catholic context, such as thecase of a non-Catholic woman who was divorced and then later married aCatholic husband. For her, it was not socially acceptable to take part inHoly Communion. It is possible to deny a member of the Catholiccommunity access to Holy Communion, but it happens only in extremecases, and ET would not think it proper to do so in this day and age:ET: “That’s what church law says, but it’s not observed in a lot of places.Divorced and remarried couples walk up to the altar and they aren’t rejected. Itcould be that a priest would privately tell them that this isn’t allowed. But notmany priests would say that. If somebody walks up and they don’t intend toprovoke, then they won’t be turned away. Nobody walking hand in hand up to thealtar will be denied on the spot. You just don’t do that.” (Quote 3.26)

3.6 Alternative dispute resolution and the persistent issue of paralleljurisdictionAs with marriage, the social and religious implications of divorce on thecommunity are significant. This is not to say that they are not important tothe individuals involved, but the religious leaders in the survey seem tofocus on thecommunalaspect. Before we turn to the question of disputeresolution with all the overarching communal, social, and symbolic aspects,and the much-contested problems of parallel jurisdictions, there is alsoevidence to suggest that a benign and private solution is possible.SA bases her reflections on personal experiences in which a divorcedwoman – although the Danish system granted her the custody of herchildren – decided together with the father to live their lives according toIslamic principles. The example is presented here in order to demonstratethat there is a clear sense of a dual and overlapping consensus between thetwo legal systems, without endangering the rule of law or Islamicprinciples. The solution that the couple in the example reached is originaland conducive to both the public order and Islam in Denmark.Q: “When you say that they belong to the father, what legal system are you basingthis on?”SA: “This is of course according to Islam, because the couple are trying to live inaccordance with Islam and he is their father and they live with him. That doesn’tmean they can’t live with her when they want to. They’ll go there, when they needmoney, sometimes, or when they’re upset with their father, and then they will goto her. But anyway, they have split it up so that when the children reached the age

Religion and Family in Denmark41they were supposed to, Islamically, then they had to live with him. That’s how theIslamic rules are, right? [...] If she says, ‘OK, I get the child because the Danishlaws have given him to me, I have automatic custody,’ well then she can decide,by using her granted custody, to share the child with her ex-husband. So I can’tsee… I mean it’s not a breach of Danish law, because Danish laws give plenty ofspace to make deals. Only if there is a sudden dispute and a disagreement, that’swhere it can be tricky, because then the man might say; ‘I have a right accordingto Islam and so on’ and then the woman would say, ‘Yes, as a Muslim, I won’ttake that from you because of course you’re to have a right to the child when youwant to take care of him or when you want responsibility for him.’ That’ssomething she can decide, given that she is the one with the parental custody.”(Quote 3.27)

We also asked the Member of Parliament, PVB, about alternativedispute resolution:Q: “Is it imaginable that the religious societies themselves established somealternative methods of conflict resolution, for example via imams, rabbis,matrimonial courts?”PVB: “Certainly, I could imagine that happening, but now you have to be carefulyou don’t end up with the same problems as the English archbishop who hadexactly these suggestions and ideas as to how you can solve some of theproblems, and I think that could happen. The only thing I sometimes worry aboutis that in Danish case law and Danish legislation, women and children havealways been subordinate and worse off, when it comes to legal certainty, and it’scommon knowledge that traditionally in many faiths, the women and children aresubordinated legally and traditionally. The thing is that the struggle to oppose thishas to come from someplace within. And then if you allow the fact that it’s notjust religious norms being a factor in these mediations …” (Quote 3.28)

PVB thinks it would be interesting if the decisions from such an institutioncould be brought before the common courts in society.Again, HC as leader of diaconal work has an even more focussedperspective on the weak party:HC: “It may be that mediation is a tool that could be used, but again, these middleroads, I’m a bit worried that there could be assaults; I mean, bringing the victimand perpetrator together – and I feel it’s too close for comfort, that it’ll be theweak party that again ends up losing.”Q: “So the legal development within criminal law regarding mediation, you arequite hesitant towards it?”HC: “Yes, I mean what I fear is that…some of it is that it’s such a pleasant way tosolve things and then we become good friends, and that’s of course a caricature,but that’s the sort of thing I fear is behind this, instead of looking at theunpleasantness and the things that may cause problems, to say, ‘We must decidein favour of the person or persons who have been wronged’.” (Quote 3.29)

42Religion and Family in Denmark3.7 Freedom to enter into a contractAlternative dispute resolution is quite a common practice and is used inmany aspects of public and private life; most often it does not require thelaw’s support. However, a recurrent topic in the Danish debate in recentyears is the question of whether or not religious mediation is producing aparallel jurisdiction. When confronted with this dilemma, mostinterviewees point to the freedom to enter into a contract and – if notforced, and willingly – agree as they wish.Alternative dispute resolution has been in effect in Denmark within theJewish community for a very long time.BL: “We have situations where the Chief Rabbi is called when there are conflictsbetween two Jewish parties. It’s not very often but it has happened. […] Itrequires that both sides be prepared for the fact that it’s a legal decision,something you basically have to accept right from the start. It’s not like I can sendout the police or someone else in such a case. But it happens. Not very often. Andthat’s what is misunderstood when we’re talking about shari’a and all that,because it doesn’t have anything to do with shari’a, besides, it’s alwaysproblematic to talk about, but it’s absolutely clear that here you have an incidentwhere two Jews have a case in which they say, ‘We would like the rabbi to decidefor us.’ […] And that is based on the parties having to agree on the decision.”…In some places you have congregation rabbis and then you have some rabbisthat are employed in what’s called Beth Din, which is the Jewish court. But wedon’t have that here. […] So I choose two religious people to be a part of that.Ultimately, I never sit there on my own. It doesn’t require, what can I say, specialtraining or something; the job, it’s like arbitration; […] It’s all based on twopeople having a pretty religious predisposition.” (Quote 3.30)

The Copenhagen imam, AWP, has a clear understanding of how arbitrationand mediation is used in Denmark. His context is the developments inEngland, and he reflects the seriousness of the matter:AWP: “In Denmark, you’re working all the time with arbitrary courts or purearbitration. For example, when you’re bargaining: that’s not a court, that’sarbitration, but it’s binding for the parties that have sat down at the table, there,it’s binding. You could definitely create some arbitration court in Denmark thatonly deals with special kinds of cases. And I believe there is a need for courtssuch as these because as things are right now, for example, a lot of divorce casesend up coming to me. But who am I? I mean, I’m some old hippie from Djursland[in East Jutland, ed.]; why do I have to be a part of divorce cases? What qualifiedme for that? My qualification is a small word, consisting of four letters [i.e.‘imam’], but I don’t think that’s good enough. Instead, if we could create somekind of arbitration court with, let’s say, ten qualified lawyers, caseworkers, socialworkers and I don’t know what, some kind of magistrates and then you could callthem in three at a time and then you’d have three judges there working a five-hoursession every other Thursday or some such and people could come and thosestepping in through that door, they would lay down a symbolic amount to beallowed to walk in and then they’re also saying: This will bind us. That way, you

From a complementary aspect of Muslim life in Denmark, NB points to theneed for a publicly recognised institution that will be able to handle theissues that the imams are struggling with, especially in securing women’sequal access to divorce:NB: “There are some imams who say, ‘We need a body that also has support fromthe government, an official recognition, legitimised.’ And you could go in andpractise family law […] warrants, that would help women that are, let's say,trapped in their marriages, in accordance with Islam. With that you needmediation in some cases, especially if it’s the woman that’s seeking a divorce;Both men and women are able to ask for a divorce in Islam but the requirementsare a bit different for each and that’s why you need a mediation council, and someimams would say that that’s important […] I don’t believe you can use the term‘court’. I believe this has to be done cooperatively. If there has to be a mediationbody – let’s just use the words ‘mediation body’, a Muslim mediation body – thenit would have to be a multidisciplinary collaboration between the legal, social, andeconomic aspects […] I see that we need a place we can send these women to.What authority do I have to write a letter which would be approved? I could do itif they asked me, but I think these women should have a formalised, structuredplace they can go to. Some of these women, they call on imams in differentplaces, they spend so much time trying to figure it out; they become confused,sometimes they become sad when they can’t get the solutions they want. I thinkwe need a body that takes cares of these things and to try to work out somethingtogether.” (Quote 3.32)

The imams both recognise the danger of addressing issues of criminal lawin these cases and reflect further on the danger of risking equality of law:AWP: “There has to be one punishment for one crime. I mean, it shouldn’t be thatyou’re punished by different people for the same crime. But if you could findsome tools in other traditions that could help with social rehabilitation or help insome shape or form, well, then I think that would be excellent.”Q: “I wasn’t actually thinking you’d be punished twice, but you could be judgedhalf and half in two different paradigms, so you have…”AWP: “No, no. I don’t think so, because that’s when you would need multipleparallel legal systems at the same time; No, I don’t think that would be a goodidea… I mean in Denmark you’ve used that when you’ve shot people inAfghanistan or Iraq, then the Danish side has actually gone out and paid bloodmoney. But that’s because that’s a tradition in that part of the world.”Q: “It’s not something that belongs here?”AWP: “No, not unless it can somehow stop an escalation or some other type ofconflict that hasn’t necessarily developed into something criminal but where itnevertheless could do so, unless a penalty is paid.” (Quote 3.33)

The issue of blood money is difficult to consider, because it is oftenmisrepresented through many of the bleak associations and ideas itprovokes. When we ask TB, who is a judge and skilled mediator herself,she distinguishes between criminal matters and the lingering social,religious, and emotional tension that often follows serious crimes.Mediation is there to prevent escalation and serves the same purpose asblood money:TB: “Well I am a mediator at heart and I think that anything that is capable ofbeing mediated upon, that’s best for all sides. If they can sit down and figure it outthemselves, then that would be the best way. If it’s myself as a mediator in a legalsystem or it’s a schoolteacher, imam etc. sitting there, being a part of a facilitatingstaff, I don’t really care about that. If it fails, then they always have thecourtrooms they can go to… In my world, mediation is only ever finished whenall parties have come to an accepted agreement. Then it’s their deal and not thedecision of the mediator. I believe [… but,] that if they have signed a clear-cutagreement, then they may still go to the courts and say there was coercion andargue that the agreement was made under false pretences, but otherwise, it wouldbe a binding agreement.” (Quote 3.34)

When JC, the human rights advocate, is asked about the question ofmediation with the religious communities and the possible binding legaleffects and awards of such mediation, he is slightly hesitant, but hedevelops the circumstances under which he sees it as acceptable:JC: “If it’s within reason, and where that begins and ends, that’s up for discussion.But of course, if there is some kind of family argument in Nørrebro and an imamcomes and says that this guy needs a good caning, that won’t do. But we don’teven use physical punishment anymore. My basic view is that one shouldn’t beafraid that the rules and systems of other countries will be acknowledged inDenmark. Or that there are deals being made across the dinner table at home thatwe can fairly keep ourselves out of. It’s obvious that if you say, ‘I killed your sonbut I talked it over with the imam!’ then I would still say that we can’t do that,since we cannot decide the matter ourselves because it’s the state that has theauthority to do so…. Then you’re coming back to the question: Is this withinreason? Is this normatively acceptable? The idea that people are forced intomaking agreements that everybody thinks are fair, you’d probably be able to livewith that, but if you’re coerced, using informal coercion, society would say that isentirely unreasonable. That’s what society is trying to fight against, when we’reagainst mediation by imams. We don’t oppose the reasonable and balanced‘Jewish Community’ mediation with open-minded, educated, and free parties thatneed a solution. What we oppose, when we’re even having the discussion, is whenthe exercise of power is too great.” (Quote 3.35)

Religion and Family in Denmark45This is where most of our interviewees have an opinion and want tocontribute.3.8 Mixing norms? Separating norms?Most of what has been presented thus far tries to give a status andoverview of the possible conflicts that may emerge. Most of theinterviewees have something to contribute, but we have limited thefamily law section of the report to give a representation of the differentpositions. However, as the interviewees have significant insights intothe problems that may arise and an outlook on the whole of society, it isof relevance to enter into the wider discussion: Do we need to mix thereligious and secular norms? Is it possible to distinguish between them,or do we need to do something to separate them? Do we need to nuancethe language and keep the law legal and religion religious, withoutmixing these?Q: “Are shari’a and canon law so clear-cut, clearly separated from other legalsystems that you can say: ‘Now I’m using shari’a, now I’m using Danish law?’”SA: “I think that there are some things that are confused in your questions; shari’ais a very large code of law that can be used differently, depending on thesituations, the legal schools and so on, but shari’a as a code of law is made to beused in a Muslim society. And then you can say that I, as a private person – it’salso a part of shari'a that I pray, I wash myself in a certain manner, that I have aspecific opinion on different things; but I don’t see it as […] I don’t separate itfrom my real life, I don’t think that when I run a red light, I’m breaking shari’a,but rather, I’m thinking of safety concerns and the law and if I get a ticket, I’ll geta ticket, which I’ll obviously pay, but I don’t stop and wonder that this is shari’aand this is Danish law. […] I think that’s because I see Danish laws as the rules ofthe game that apply where I live. It may be that there is a religious rule I can’tfollow through on but that’s just how it is, because I live here. I have anopportunity to affect them and I’ll do what I can as a Muslim in Denmark to affectthose rules; and that’s why I wrote that response to the legal committee. The rulesthat apply are something that is determined collectively and then I’d have tochoose: Do I follow that rule or not? I’ve chosen, in some cases, to follow therules that apply because that is the most appropriate for my life, but at other timesI might say; I can’t comply with this rule, instead I will follow the rule of myreligion.” (Quote 3.36)

46Religion and Family in Denmarkthing to happen, then we’re forced to critically re-evaluate the concept of freedomof religion. That’s how it is… and then they’d say, ‘Shouldn’t you have a clearidea about what it is you’re criticising?’ No, we have to look at it directly and say,right, and we’ll have to say outright that we don’t want underage marriages andwe don’t want polygamous relationships. Why isn’t polygamy all right? […] I useit as a test on people; if people say that that is none of the government's businessand that people should be able to marry as they want, then they fail my test. Imyself think it’s tough to argue for it, because it really is: Why don’t we thinkpolygamy is all right? Why do we think that? It’s very difficult; that’s because wehave a cultural, moral, and religious baggage with us, whether we realise it ornot.” (Quote 3.37)

We ask CS, a senior official in European politics, about this and he tends toconcur with KWH and also point to the importance of distinction.However, he stresses that conflict resolution on an informal basis isacceptable if the legal system remains transparent and consistent as tosecure the rule of law:CS: “... I don’t really think it belongs [in the legal system]. What you do in a legalsystem, that’s value-based, and where do those values come from? They stillcome from something in Christianity or something normative or someplace else.Where I’ll have an issue, that’ll be if people take something from Islam orsomewhere, and then give it a special status, and then at the same time they takesomething from Hinduism, and then you take a fourth piece and you make acompound of different methods of conflict resolution which results in a lack oftransparency and a lack of understanding. And in the end, people say, ‘What’sreally the legal position here, because apparently, you can choose?’… then we’llgo shopping. It’s a kind of supermarket. And that sounds very fancy, but in realityit’s superficial” (Quote 3.38)

What is implied in the quote here is the importance of stressing that inprivate, people can agree on mediation as they like, while not beingeither forced or coerced into accepting thepremiseof the mediation. Inpublic, however, the legal system must remain consistent andtransparent, and must not become a supermarket or subject to justice-shopping or forum-shopping, that is, addressing a forum where oneexpects a favourable outcome.3.9 On international private lawThe logic at work in forum-shopping can be extended across internationalborders. Although international private law is a system to ensure differentnational conceptions of family law are enforceable across borders, there isa danger of an increase in shopping around. Especially after severaldecades of migration and increased globalisation with its proliferation oftransport and communication, the option to travel to the opportune forum isavailable.

Religion and Family in Denmark47There is not much evidence from the religious interviewees to point tointernational forum-shopping being a problem that differs from localforum-shopping. When we speak to JC, he stresses the fact that within thecontext of recognition of different jurisdictions for freedom both to enterinto agreements and to resolve private conflicts, there is no substantialdifference between religious concerns and the secular concerns.JC: “... We have a world where we normally acknowledge that if Colombian lawapplies to a marriage, then that can be used here in Denmark. They once lived inColombia and then they moved up here and after six months they had a divorce.Then that is the way it is regulated. On the one hand, that’s the consequence of usalways doing it that way. People have the freedom to make the agreements aboutthe solutions that they choose. To me, conflict resolution by an imam isn’t worsethan all the other types of conflict resolution, so long as it’s within reason.”Q: “Religion can’t be used as an argument in reality?”JC: “I’m trying to justify it from a secular viewpoint when I say that no, that’s notwhy, but at the same time I want to say yes, thatiswhy, that there should beroomfor it. Religion can play a special role in how people regulate their internalrelationships and there should be room for that. If you don’t recognise the openpoint of view, then you end up suppressing a lot of good ways to regulaterelationships and solve conflicts. You have to be careful with that.” (Quote 3.39)

We ask the religious leaders to reflect on the overlap of jurisdictions andthe possibility of forum-shopping, both locally and globally. Rather thanpointing to the legal aspects of the problem, most mention the deeper andmore complicated social aspects of a ‘limping marriage’ and otherexamples of uncertain family status. There are social problems that cannotbe solved legally and there are legal problems that cannot and must not besolved socially. But we are seeing a field of problems where there is anoverlap between the legal, the religious, and the social. Moreover, it is notjust that these problems overlap, in a few cases the social and legal normsfor resolving them are even competing against one another. In Denmark,there is one field of problems that has been debated heatedly in 2011 andthat is to do with same-sex marriages and the question of what can belegally imposed on the religious communities.3.10 The question of same-sex marriages in DenmarkIn June 2012, the Danish parliament passed a bill allowing same-sexmarriages to be performed in theFolkekirke.Eight of the ten bishopsdrew up a new wedding ritual, and the first gay couple were dulymarried in the same month. There were a number of protests, mostlyfrom within the church, but there were also legal considerations to befaced, one of these being on jurisdiction. The Minister of ChurchAffairs and Equality, Manu Sareen, argued that it was a question ofequality and that pastors in theFolkekirkeshould be allowed freely to

48Religion and Family in Denmarkdecide if they wish to perform same-sex marriages. Although this hasbeen passed into law for pastors, all other church staff are bound by lawto perform their normal duties at same-sex weddings. The conflict isalso one of jurisdiction and legal competence, which is an unresolvedquestion lingering from the constitutional promise of ‘regulation of theFolkekirke’in the 1849 constitution.The second ongoing discussion is precisely about whether or not thechurch – and other religious communities – should even beabletoprovide marriages for couples of the same sex. This question is seenfrom all sides as a religious one.As part of the interviews we ask several of the religious respondentsfor their opinion on the matter: PSJ from theFolkekirke,ET from theCatholics, LMH from the Baptists, while DN spoke as a humanist.PSJ was chair of a committee under the Ministry of Church Affairs,trying to resolve this question with regard to theFolkekirke.Hisposition is clear: it is an obligation for theFolkekirketo performmarriages also for homosexuals, not only for political reasons – beingthe church supported by the state – but especially for theologicalreasons:Q: “So internally, within theFolkekirke,would you say: ‘We have to, because wehave the theology for it’? Is it that sort of an argument?”PSJ: “Yes, yes. Yes, yes. I believe we should. I believe that we are now talkingabout something on principle. We should do it for pastoral theological reasons, fortheological reasons. While I’m hesitant to say the opposite position is goodtheology, it’s only because it’s the starting-point for their basic theology that iswrong. They’re not proper theological starting-points. You can’t have that view ofthe Bible as a basis for theology from that angle, according to my bestconvictions.” (Quote 3.40)

Religion and Family in Denmark49by the religious communities – and the belief that freedom of religion alsoentails a right to define which types of marriages the religious communitywants to bless or perform:ET: “Now there’s talk of having gender-neutral marriages. I would say that in thiscase, secular society could make such a system. You can have a political opinionon that and – independent of my Catholic perception regarding homosexuality – Ihave the view that incorporating such a system would in reality weaken society’sprotection of the ordinary marriage and thus of the family and children. I believe,for purely social and anthropological reasons, that it would be a wrong decision.Then it will be like, suddenly you can’t have legislation that takes families intoaccount because it also has to apply to all the others. That would be like banningthe wearing of the cross just because you don’t want others to wear a headscarf.That is why I am against it. It would be a sign of secularity if you said that theindependent churches are also obliged to have gender-neutral marriages. The basicproblem here is that freedom of religion isn’t just for the individual but for thecollective. They say the pastors of theFolkekirkewill be independent but thechurch itself will not. It’s hardly a practical problem because there are enoughpastors in theFolkekirkethat will happily go along with it.” (Quote 3.42)

ET points to an important aspect of the problem: freedom of religion is notjust an individual freedom, it is also collective. Leaders of churches outsidetheFolkekirkefear that being forced to accept same-sex marriages will be acondition for becoming authorised. The legislation has ensured the right forother religious communities to decide this matter at community level. Thedebate is mainly, as we have seen, who speaks on behalf of theFolkekirke?Who can commit an institution to a matter of policy, when the issue is socontentious? Is it violating the rights of members and pastors in theFolkekirketo make same-sex marriage a matter ofpublicpolicy? When weasked LMH about the matter in 2011, it became clear that other religiousand faith-based organisations in Denmark would not agree to such a policy.As a religious institution, LMH’s organisation wants to avoid the dilemmaentirely.Q: “If Parliament changes the marriage law and you could marry homosexuals,how would you react to that?”LMH: “What we have talked about is that we don’t wish to be put into thatdilemma. So I think we would give up our right to perform marriages. [...] Thereare those who would say that they recognise a homosexual couple or also seehomosexuality as love from God, as a sign of it being legitimate and that it shouldalso be registrable and be blessed as well. And then there are those that say it hasnothing to do with love; it is a delusion, maybe even a disease, and it’s somethingyou pray to be cured of, or you should just stay celibate for the rest of your life, ifyou have those tendencies. So we have the entire spectrum. […] In some ways, weprobably feel that, at least some of us, where we just say: There are moreimportant things to discuss than that. I mean, in reality we think that it’s such asmall part in the role of a church, but it ends up as astampin some way. That’s

LMH talks about the organisation handing over their state recognition andthe benefits that come from that, if forced into the dilemma. There is a clearsense that the dilemma is the problem, not so much whether or nothomosexuals have the right to be married in theFolkekirke.The core of thematter is that the dilemma will destabilise the organisation, withdevastating consequences.DN from the Humanist Association has a clear solution to the problem:DN: “A completely gender-neutral marriage law, where you say that people wholove each other and want to commit to a partnership with each other and committo the different legal obligations, following cohabitation in secular society, byentering into a marriage. These are included regardless of what the differentreligious groups believe the marriage concept to contain in their own eyes. So it’sa legal term we use in Denmark, and it is first and foremost the relationshipbetween the citizens and the state that is interesting. What the individual faiths outthere want to do afterwards, that’s none of my business, but what we have chosento call a marriage from the government’s side, that… if you have other criteria,then you follow them. What you’re doingout there,that doesn’t have any legalvalidity for us, since it’s just your own ceremonial and symbolic construct.”(Quote 3.44)

DN takes neutrality to its logical conclusion. He leaves religion in peace tobe religion, he leaves the state institutions as a matter for the state, and thelaw can be the law. And the effect is a gender-neutral marriage law thateveryone can agree on.From the well-respected diaconal organisation HC is of the same opinionand argues the case for an independent, neutral marriage with an optionalreligious ceremony for those who so wish within their own faiths andcommunity.HC: “For many years now I’ve had the conviction that I don’t think there shouldbe a legal marriage formalisation, not in the church either. […] I think that havinga marriage formalisation which is equal wherever – again, this is repeating a pointin what I say – at the city hall or wherever it is, is that society makes the decisionabout that, and you can say those who wish to, can go to their respective religiouscommunities and receive a blessing or whatever you want to call it.” (Quote 3.45)

Religion and Family in Denmark51deliberation – that is up to them. It does not really matter whether thesolutions are inspired by religion, as long as they do not break Danishfamily law.On the other hand the interviewees from the Islamic context have manyobservations on the conditions and validity for establishing and dissolvingmarriages. They try to avoid forum-shopping but feel their own lack ofauthority. They formulate concerns, but have difficulty presentingsolutions.The Roman Catholic and Jewish interviewees feel that their internalmarriage courts or tribunals or advisory institutions are precisely that:advisory and not mandatory. It is a recurring problem that the issuesaround a possible divorce are of little or no concern when a couple enterinto marriage. There is little or no correlation between the one and theother, in the sense that the one is a matter for God and the other is a matterfor the community.

4. Religion and the Labour Market in Denmark4.1 General introduction to Danish labour lawThe Danish labour market is basically and in principle market-regulated.General rulings are made through agreements between the parties.Legislation is foremost in use when parliament finds it necessary toestablish norms for all, whether they be members of labour unions or not,in order to protect the most vulnerable on the labour market. The generalapproach is therefore a freedom of contract within the legal framework setby collective agreements and law.As a member of the International Labour Organisation and of theEuropean Union, Denmark has implemented the relevant treaties and notleast the relevant regulations and directives ordering the labour market inrelation to rules against discrimination.6Danish national legislation has a wide range of applicable laws againstdiscrimination in the workplace. From the introduction of the 1849constitution right up to recent legislation, two principles are fundamental:That employees cannot be discriminated against on the basis of theirreligious beliefs; and that religion cannot be used as an argument forestablishing special favours on the labour market. This double code in theDanish approach may have resulted in a fairly secular understanding of thelabour market, but it also means that nobody cares if nobody cares.This is also the line followed in case law:U.2008.1028Ø– The applicant was not hired due to her refusal to eatduring Ramadan. The court awarded compensation to be paid to theapplicant.OE2008.B-821-07– The plaintiff was a Jehovah’s Witness and left abirthday reception at work. Claiming it was against her religion, sheresigned. The court found in favour of the defendant and the dismissal ofthe member of Jehovah’s Witnesses was upheld.U.2005.1265.H– A woman chose to wear a headscarf and was lawfullydismissed from work after violating the company dress code. The courtdeemed her dismissal acceptable.U.2001.207.V– A man’s religious beliefs were revealed to a hiring boardand he was deemed unfit to work with others and his contract wasterminated. The court found the contract termination to be unlawful.6

Religion and the Labour Market in Denmark53U.2000.2350.Ø– An intern was not accepted due to her headscarf. Thestore had no official dress policy and the court found the dismissal to bediscriminatory.In practical terms, although the law protects against discrimination in theworkplace, cases seem to show that if there is a valid reason to dismiss anemployee – i.e. a reason not directly related to their religious beliefs andcustoms – then the courts will allow it.4.2 Religion and the labour market in generalAs mentioned in chapter one, an important element in the general transitionfrom state religion to freedom of religion in the mid-19thcentury was thatreligion should no longer have any influence on the individual’s access tocivil and political rights (Constitutional Act, section 70). From the outsetthis constitutional norm has been understood as a prohibition against takingany account of the religion of an individual applying for a public post suchas judge, teacher, doctor, etc. Over time the requirement of belonging to theFolkekirkeas a precondition for becoming a civil servant has been takenout of all legislation.The second part of the same section in the constitution underlines thatreligious requirements cannot be justified for evading the fulfilment of anygeneral civic duty. In the general understanding, this means that theindividual cannot use religious arguments for asking favours, or for notfulfilling duties related to job-functions.On this background, the general understanding in the Danish public hasbeen that the labour market is secular, unless it is a question of clearlyreligious functions and workplaces. In addition, institutions run byreligious organisations must argue their case if they are to oblige theiremployers to take part in and pay loyalty to religious norms and rituals.This secular approach to the labour market has been the generalunderstanding – with no real distinction between a public and a privatesector.A series of questions regarding formally private institutions with publicfunctions have made the secular approach to the labour market increasinglyproblematic, however. These include the strange anomaly of the faithschools in Denmark, privately run yet overwhelmingly funded by publicmeans and satisfying public demand. Likewise, the distinction betweenprivate and public formal ownership is increasingly seen as not necessarilythe most relevant distinction, where function and general legislation withnot only vertical but also horizontal effects must be taken into account.By the same token, questions regarding the visibility of religious identityand/or norms within the public labour market and the accommodation ofthese have also come onto the agenda. These include, for instance, public

54Religion and the Labour Market in Denmarkinstitutions such as schools that are seen as representing not necessarilystate ideals, but rather common ideals and norms.4.3 Working hours and holidaysThe Danish calendar is still based on a protestant understanding ofChristian holidays, though with certain Danish specialities included.7Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, all three including the following day, arerespected in public life and on some of the most central holidays the publicpeace must be kept with no disturbance from music, football and so on.Other Christian holidays, Constitution Day (5thJune), and all Sundays arecommon holidays with a protection of the services of worship in theFolkekirke.These days form part of the common agreements on the labourmarket as days off for all employees, meaning that anyone who has to workon these holidays is paid extra. Nonetheless, there is no right to argue thatone does not wish to work on Sundays or on Christmas Day; everyone hasto take their shift and nobody can use the argument of religious custom,such as going to Sunday service, to avoid it. Religious practices are notseen as a legitimate argument for extra days off, or even that special dayoff (Christoffersen 2011).The calendar does not include any of the holidays of the minorityreligions. This goes for the special Roman Catholic holidays, as well as forthe religious festivals of Islam and Judaism. Consequently Catholics,Muslims and Jews, as well as, for instance, Jehovah’s Witnesses are givenno favours parallel to the Christian holidays.Most of the problems that can arise in this area find solutions on a basisof accommodation, either among the workers themselves or from theemployer. There is, however, a rising concern that this is not enough. Asthe imam from Copenhagen suggests, there might be good reasons forchanging the national holiday calendar. These go beyond the strictlyreligious arguments.AWP: “I actually think it would be an advantage for the entire labour force if youwere allowed to move your days off to a greater extent than is allowed today. Iknow for example in the transport sector, bus-drivers and train conductors and allthose, Muslims are really appreciated there because they don’t mind working atChristmas while a lot of ordinary Danish non-Muslims would prefer not to workat Christmas.” (Quote 4.01)

The Jewish community has been part of Danish society for hundreds ofyears and much accommodation can be reached through negotiations. Anexample is the question of exams on official Jewish holidays. The rabbireflects on the lengths they go to in order to meet the most frequentdifficulties, but observes that the problems that nevertheless arise areresolved benignly and swiftly.BL: “[I] write to the Ministry of Education every five years and request that theofficial exams shouldn’t be at that time because that’s a Jewish holiday. Andgenerally, that’s something that is accepted. And I would say such things happensometimes. Last year, I actually had two students ... they had been told to show upfor an exam on one of the Jewish holidays coinciding with Pentecost … and therethe teacher had told them that there was no option for a make-up exam and nooption to take it again at another point in time. So they turned to me and I wrote tothe principal or whatever he’s called and I said this and that and how it was aproblem for them and how was he going to deal with it and after about tenminutes, I got a reply back, ‘I have announced that they don’t have to take theexam’… so I would say overall, things can be solved.” (Quote 4.04)

Such a preparedness to be accommodative is not widespread, yet even thehumanist observer among our interviewees would argue for anaccommodative approach, also with regard to establishing space for dailyprayers:DN: “My personal advice to companies when I’m asked about this, is that I thinkthey should think things through when you do that kind of thing becauseotherwise you’ll end up making people more ethnic than they actually are. Youhave to concentrate on the fact that co-workers are co-workers and then you haveto see if you can’t separate the private and the religious from your work. I actuallydon’t see it as a big problem. It can be an issue in companies employing low-skilled labour such as cleaning companies and factories, which often have peoplebeing a bit more religious since religion plays a bigger role for that group ofpeople. They want these things to be available, kind of like how the Danes wouldlike to have an exercise room. So I think you have to go into a negotiation toaccommodate that. Do we ensure that the workers will stay by taking thesemeasures? I think it’s dangerous to make prayer rooms from the start, in somedivinity’s name, because that emphasises some differences rather than…” (Quote4.06)

Religion and the Labour Market in Denmark574.4 Religious dress and grooming codes in the labour marketAs can be seen from the quotation from the Lutheran bishop above, thereseems to be a close relation in the labour market between questions ofreligious practice and religious symbols. The question of dress codes hasbeen contentious over the last ten years. The courts have made it clear thatthe employer is allowed to establish clear dress codes, but that if there isnodress code, then the employee has a certain freedom, limited only bygeneral, public order arguments. All in all there are many voices in favourof much more accommodation with regard to religious dress, because whatthere appears to be no problem provided decent manners and the ability tocommunicate are upheld.8For some observers from the general public the basic requirement is tobe dressed decently, but there is also a dimension of how public institutionstreat their citizens. This concerns those who need the help of the personsemployed by the institution in question.BP: “Yes, I generally feel that if you work in a public office then you need to haverespect for the institution you are at and respect for the people that come there. Idon’t condone low-cuts or jewellery all over the place or thigh-highs or evenmaking much of a ruckus about your own faith to the people that come there.They need to have the feeling that in this place, things are handled by unbiasedpeople who know the rules and not much else. If it was ostentatiously so, then Iwould have a problem with it... but you have to be able to see the hands and havea sensible and attentive conversation that doesn’t involve you sitting there andthinking, ‘I wonder what’s going on underneath all that.’ Then you shouldn’t havesuch a job. Also, it’s a choice that you make if you feel like demonstrating yourreligion because you’re also choosing not to work with certain jobs.” (Quote 4.08)

We are facing a real conflict here, since central leaders from Muslimmilieux do not see any problem in any sort of religious clothing at workand would also accept a burka for a woman who had small children in daycare:AWP: “In my time as a head teacher, I’ve had a woman wearing a burka hired in akindergarten class. But then, I knew that when she came into the kindergarten, shewould take the veil off and would tumble around with the children just likeanybody else. She was a damn good teacher.”Q: “Can she also be a child-minder?”AWP: “I guess she could if the parents of the children in her care think it’s alright.The one I had was a damn good teacher, educated in Denmark, and since the sameschool had just been put under stricter supervision by the Ministry of Education, Icould see that they were about to fall over backwards as she sat there and theywould peek at her through the corners of their eyes. And when she suddenlyFor further elaboration, see Christoffersen, L (2012 (forthcoming): “A Quest for anOpen Helmet,” in: A. Ferrari (eds.)Burka Affairs across Europe.Farnham: Ashgate.8

Even though there seems to be a real conflict in approaches here, it is ourgeneral impression that the norms in Danish society are changing towardsmore accommodation and more inclusiveness when it comes to dress codesand working hours. This seems limited only by decent behaviour andreverse accommodation, meaning that not only the employer, but also theemployee, must try to accommodate the whole situation and also includemore secular colleagues.Here the Lutheran bishop steers more or less towards the middle. Hedoes not want to strip religious women of their veils, and he has noproblem with the religious symbols as long as it is possible to establishcontact through recognition of each other’s faces:PSJ: “For myself, I’d say that if a person wears a cross, I wouldn’t mind that atall. If a person comes up with a crescent, I wouldn’t challenge that, or a headscarffor that matter. It’s all right. However, I would say that we live in a culture wherewe see each other face to face and see each other eye to eye, so in that regard,something that completely covers the face would not be acceptable. But on theother hand, I wouldn’t dream of banning it in society. On streets and roads. Well,I say if you want to cover yourself completely, that’s OK, but I would like to saythat I wouldn’t hire a person like that.” (Quote 4.11)

The Lutheran bishop maintains that the ability to see the face is the key. Aslong as this minimum of visual sociability is there, anyone is allowed towear a veil, a scarf or any other vestment. This is important in the Danishcontext, as professionals in both private and public sector healthcareinstitutions have argued that banning the veil is a cultural or religiousassault on the individual wearing it. Although the bishop partially agrees,there are a series of additional concerns.PSJ: “There needs to be another approach, because otherwise I think it willpressurise some people too much. So I think in this case you have to be sensitiveto what exactly is going on in their lives. Very often, the women wearing thesehave had difficult struggles, probably with both their fathers and their mothers toget an education and especially an education that they’re passionate about –

Religion and the Labour Market in Denmark59maybe even for the right to marry in a certain way, and then, to sort of soften theblows on these cultural fights, they wear the headscarves. I’ve certainly heardsome cases of that happening. So I don’t think I need to get involved and decideanything. That only makes them look suspicioius. There have been strugglesfought that we can’t even begin to imagine and we shouldn’t interfere in that.”Q: “But isn’t there within the Christian groups in Denmark and among theMuslims and maybe even the Jews in Denmark, a rising fundamentalism? I mean,religious groups becoming stronger and creating stronger religious norms for theirown people which are making it even harder to change?”PSJ: “That’s a good question. There is no doubt that the press is all the timefocusing its attention on the pastor who hangs a Danish Christmas pixie from thegallows outside his church as coming from the Devil, to the imam who doesn’tcompletely denounce stoning, or even the rabbi who gets it in the neck for takinga stance on the settlements on the West Bank. But to a certain extent, it’s aphenomenon created by the media.” (Quote 4.12)

4.5 Religious requirements on the labour marketAll our interviewees agree with the general norm that it is necessary toformulate religious requirements of key staff within churches and religiouscommunities. A Catholic priest is required to follow Catholic norms, forexample.Similarly, all of them support the general idea that no religiousrequirements should be allowed on the secular labour market. For instance,the exclusion of Muslims from certain jobs on principle is clearly seen asdiscriminatory and therefore illegal.Even though this is the general self-understanding in Danish society,also among the interviewees, this sample nevertheless gives surprisinginstances of religious discrimination in the public labour market. Here is atheologian from the Baptist church [where only adult baptism is practised,ed.]:LMH: “I wouldn’t mind being a hospital chaplain for example or a prisonchaplain, but I can’t do that because to do so, you have to be a Lutheran priest. Ifind that discriminating. I know the reasoning, because let’s say somebody comesand wants to baptise their child, well, I wouldn’t baptise them, right? Or there canbe many other questions. But I think it would enrich our society if there was moreequality and if there were different kinds of hospital chaplains or prisonchaplains.” (Quote 4.13)

60Religion and the Labour Market in Denmarkbrief: Is it acceptable to expect religious loyalty from the cleaner in thechurch? The two other questions are another version of the same topic.Secondly, which normative requirements can a religious organisation(such as a private school or kindergarten) performing secular functionswith the support of public means demand from their employees in general?In brief: Is it acceptable to require the Catholic faith of a Mathematicsteacher in a Catholic school?Thirdly, should clearly religious or ethos-based organisations requireloyalty or active support from all employees?These questions have been dealt with by the Equal Status Councilrecently in the case of a broad Christian diaconal organisation whichrequires all active employees and volunteers to be members of theFolkekirke.The Council decided that such requirements should only beapplied to key staff, and not to cleaners, for instance. The argument ofmany religious organisations is that they do not distinguish between thevalues of the jobs and that they need a common obligation from everyoneactive in order to be sure of fulfilling their aims. Interestingly, this was alsothe general norm among our interviewees, even though some would stillstick to the distinction between key members of staff and the cleaner.We discussed these questions with nearly all the interviewees, beginningwith the chair of the organisation of social workers. We formulated asituation where one of her members applied for a job in a clearly religiousdiaconal organisation that was looking for a ‘committed Christian socialworker’:BP: “I actually think that’s illegal, just like you can’t just ask for a male or afemale. I don’t think that’s acceptable. Maybe you wouldchoosethat ... but I’mnot sure you’re allowed to do that.”Q: “What would you say was required before such an institution could function, inthis mix of professional and religious spirit, as it were?”BP: “It’s clear that you must state the core values on which you are based. Therecan be no doubt that if it’s been stated that the work is based on Christian values,then most Danes would know what that is.”Q: “And that would be something you could ask of the applicant?”BP: “Yes, clearly. Like if you couldn’t ask at Toms [Danish ConfectionaryCompany] whether you find the thought of standing on an assembly lineappealing. I think it’s all right. But I don’t think it’s all right to ask if you’re amember of theFolkekirkeand then choose people based on that.”Q: “So you’re saying that you can’t ask about people’s inner convictions butyou’re allowed to ask how they will relate to the workplace they’re going to be at?And how they can behave at that workplace?”BP: “Yes, and whether they can imagine themselves working under the values andnorms they’re presented with. That’s obvious, and you’d do that pretty mucheverywhere. In our country we have a particularly accommodating family policy,so if somebody has sick children, we allow them to stay home for a few days. It’sthe same idea.” (Quote 4.14)

This line of argument is the same among almost all our interviewees. Itseems to be acceptable to declare the core values of the organisation andthe employer, and require that the employees are loyal towards thisfoundation. But it seems less important for our interviewees to question anapplicant about their personal faith.When asked how much emphasis should be placed on personalconvictions in secular jobs and how much on the rules of the workplace,the Lutheran bishop, PSJ, illustrates the point:PSJ: “Faith considerations, I believe that is important. Sexuality, on that I’m notsure, I don’t think that it matters much in that regard, I’m probably more theproduct of a Christian enlightenment, where it is the professionalism that shouldbe emphasised.”Q: “Is it part of the theology of some faith group or independent church that theirtheology should be shown in practice? Such as, we won’t hire divorcees, we won’thire gays, we won’t have women who have had an abortion; we won’t hire themto begin with, and if they have an abortion, we’ll fire them – What is your stanceon that?”PSJ: “I wouldn’t say that’s fair.”Q: “And that’s what I’m asking about; would you say that society should acceptthis kind of legislation?”PSJ: “No. Now we’re in the grey areas. No, I wouldn’t.”Q: “Would you say that society should accept via its legislation that people wearreligious symbols, but that society shouldn’t accept legislation that can lead tohiring or dismissing people based on their faith?”PSJ: “Yes. There can be some religious justification. I mean, when there is aspecific religious society, you can say they have specific beliefs, which I canunderstand if the employer wants to stress this. But other than that, I don’t thinkyou should be able to fire people based on their ethics.”Q: “There was a case where a foreign missionary society wanted a believer ontheir finance staff. Would you say that if they advertised for a financial co-workerwho in his faith could support them and be loyal to them and actively contributeto the organisation, you would accept that?”PSJ: “Yes!”Q: “I have a personal limit, namely that at a workplace, you cannot ask peopleabout their inner faith, but you can ask them about their outer practice. Is that arelevant distinction for you?”PSJ: “Yes, it could very well be. I’ve never thought about it, so you’re giving mesomething that seems relevant. It’s very typical of theFolkekirketo say that wewon’t scrutinise people’s hearts and kidneys, their inner convictions. I won’taccept that a homosexual cannot be a teacher because of his sexuality. I wouldfind that highly inappropriate. It must be about his convictions, not his sexuality.”Q: “And you would support the government saying that that was legally wrong –that that dismissal was not in accordance with the law?”PSJ: “Yes, I think so; I’d say that I don’t care for it. There you’ve crossed the line.You’re judging on personality there. I wouldn’t be able to accept that.”Q: “In that situation, would you expect theFolkekirketo have an internalmanagement to deal with the issues of decorum? Or would you expect there to be

62Religion and the Labour Market in Denmarksome other common labour law that you could use, or is it a mix of the two? Doyou understand my example?”PSJ: “I do. But I’ll have to admit that I’m not quite sure about it. That’s the thingthat becomes so tremendously difficult with the organisation of the church, whichhas to be changed…”Q: “It has to be changed?PSJ: “Yes, but it has so many implications which are now surfacing. It willprobably be a mix.”Q: “A mix, which would mean you want there to be an internal management but ithas to be framed by rules from a common labour law?”PSJ: “Yes, because what I’m terrified of is that if we say we’re going to have aninternal court in the church... I’m so afraid of the church that can go and develop aparallel legal system. We’re pretty good at that to begin with.”Q: “It’s all slowly coming apart?”PSJ: “Yes. It’ll be an odd institution in society. That’s why I think, I very muchbelieve, that the thing to do is to keep on calibrating our own perceptions withoutbecoming windsocks. As regards legislation, there we have to be as integrated aspossible. At least as ‘theFolkekirke’.I wouldn’t demand the same of the othersbut I wish they thought the same way.” (Quote 4:15)

It seems that this is a position more easily formulated than established inpractice. We did not know when we phrased our questions and identifiedour interviewees that one of them was head of one of the organisationswhich had been through the Equal Status Council with a case on thesematters. The following rather long exchange illustrates how a conflictarose. We can clearly see how different expectations clash whenconsidering the religious, the organisational, the national and the Europeanaspects of the conflict.HC: “Basically it says in our regulations that Danchurchsocial [KirkensKorshær],ed.] seek staff among members of theFolkekirke,and what we’re saying is: Toseek is not the same as to find, so where we find our co-workers, those that fit thecriteria we seek, then there is an option for our board to grant a dispensation. Butnormally, if I can use the word – and this goes for the user-related work – the factof the matter is that we have a ‘brand’ that says we work ‘on the basis of theFolkekirke’and that’s why that is what you’d want to meet. It’s very relevant forus, because we’ve just been brought before the Equal Status Council and had adecision about a fortnight ago that we were in the wrong… in this case, it wasabout an ad for a job application as a consultant which required ‘membership oftheFolkekirke’.There was a lady who took it to the Equal Status Council.”Q: “What about staff in your public section and your private section,respectively?”HC: “We don’t differentiate like that amongst them; they’re all colleagues ofDanchurchsocial. The idea that there are certain shelters with (public/private ed.)operating agreements, that’s mostly a technical thing. But the staff we have are ofall kinds. I mean, as I just said, at Blågårds Plads we have a Muslim – by the way,we have several Muslims hired in the same area because we have some footballclubs and homework help for the boys in the neighbourhood and there are someyoung men, Muslim as far as I know, who run that.”

Religion and the Labour Market in Denmark63Q: “But that’s an exception and as you said, it warrants a certain dispensation.Who is the ‘ordinary’ staff member?”HC: “The ordinary staff member is a member of theFolkekirkeand, as I said,there can be some special cases, such as if the person running the project whereyou want to hire someone demands that it has to be that particular person. […] Wehave both staff and volunteers here and we call them colleagues, all of them. Wehave about 7-8000 volunteers and about 400 employed staff and I think it’smostly the staff we must be talking about here, I don’t know. It’s reallytherethatwe have the requirement of being a member of theFolkekirke.”Q: “OK, so you don’t have that requirement for the volunteers?”HC: “No. But we do demand that they must be able to work based on theChristian life and human values of Danchurchsocial.”Q: “What is your comment to the question regarding the staff of theFolkekirke?”HC: “Well, I find it fundamentally strange that organists don’t have to bemembers of theFolkekirke,since music is the primary source of praise and itestablishes the space for preaching in which the spoken word is heard.”Q: “Would you think that vergers and sextons, that all the staff of theFolkekirke,should be members or at the very least, you could demand some kind of loyalty?HC: “Yes, regarding loyalty, I would say, even from experience, that vergersworking in the churchyard are commonly sought out for conversation by thepeople walking around.”Q: “Staying with the labour market, I place your organisation in a field where youcan make demands on leading staff – that’s how I would interpret thejurisprudence. And you can demand some loyalty from the remaining staff. Whatis this case you mentioned?”HC: “We’ve actually had numerous cases; I believe all of them started by theCentre for Racial Discrimination and Equal Treatment. They’ve worked verydiligently with these things and in that connection they targeted Danchurchsocial.We’ve never received any reprimands before, I must add. The latest one, as I said,was about a consultant being part of the diaconal activities which we carry out atDanchurchsocial. That person has to advise the leaders on their diaconal activitiesand other diaconal activities related to theFolkekirke,which is what it is, andthat’s why we had the requirement, even though there wasn’t anyoutsidecontactin that position as an adviser on diaconal activities. […] Basically, I’m a supporterof equal treatment for everybody. I can’t really see round all the corners in thesecases which you have briefly summarised. To begin with, you could say that itdoesn’t happen in ordinary work relations that your private life, how you live yourlife, has any weight, besides the fact that you can pull the loyalty card or otherexpectations of loyalty and say, ‘You have damaged the product of yourcompany’, if you’re sort of translating it, by discrediting it in your way of life. Itwouldn’t be out of the ordinary fornon-religiousbusinesses that something likethat…”Q: “Some kind of decorum concept?”HC: “Yes, that your entire persona, including your free time, including how youtalk about your workplace and so on… that’s very common, even if there arecertain consequences if you’re writing on Facebook how stupid your boss is andall that kind of stuff, right? We have very fluid borders even in this context.”(Quote 4.16)

64Religion and the Labour Market in DenmarkWhen the question is turned around, the answer is the same: personal faithis an internal and private question, but the employer is allowed to requireloyalty when the person is at work. Unless the organisation has such a clearprofile that loyalty is not enough, one is also allowed to requirecommitment. The judge reflects here on our intentionally provocativequestions:Q: “A person who continuously shows in his actions and his vocabulary that he isthwarting the company or has some other religious view?TB: “It must be incorporated under the rules of what an employee can expect andtolerate from his employees and clearly you can’t tolerate that your employee isfrustrating the company so explicitly. You can also make dress codes that apply toall.”Q: “Now, these are nice, well-behaved employees this employer has, so they don’tsay anything. But as soon as they’re off, then they cross the street and it’s clearthat they go off to another religion. … Obviously they have a different view andthey are still dishwashers [with you, ed.]. Maybe it’s a verger who not onlywashes the floors but is also there to welcome funeral guests and create theatmosphere of the house.”TB: “I’m beginning to be a bit unsure regarding vergers. There, I think we’re at alevel where I could imagine that it mattered that you belong to the same club thatyou’re working in. But really, what you’re saying doesn’t really change myopinion. It’s a question of free time. As long as you’re behaving decently andloyally at work. By loyalty, I don’t mean that you can’t have a different opinion,nor do I mean that you can’t express it. You just need to be an employee thatdoesn’t workagainsthis workplace.”Q: “Let’s assume that at the local office of the Christians’ Trade Union [the 3rdlargest in Denmark, ed.] that there are some morning devotions, where you singhymns, read a prayer and read from the Bible. Then you hire an employee who isvery good at the union work but doesn’t want to be a part of the morningdevotions. Could you fire him?”TB: “I think that there should be enough leeway so you could say, They don’thave to come to the morning devotions but they could still perform the workthey’ve been hired to do.”Q: “Let’s say we have a teacher at a significantly Christian free school which is onthe religious right in Denmark, where you’re clearly opposed to abortion, divorce,and homosexuality. One of the teachers has an abortion, the second one gets adivorce and the third one turns out to be openly homosexual and they are fired.What would you think of these instances? Or we could just say they don’t gethired in the first place because during the job interview, they are asked about theirsexuality, their stance on abortion and family relationships. They say it’s illegal toask them these questions and so they come to you.”TB: “As I understand it, we’re dealing with a Christian free school where theseare basically the ground rules, this is how it is. As teachers, they have to presentthemselves on a level where it can’t be argued that they’re actingagainsttheschool foundation. I would say that as an employer, you shouldn’t tolerate that,because there is a core value belief for the school and because at that level itmatters to the parents that there is a common basis. That’s why youhavethisschool. What I’m thinking is, that I’m using the discrimination rules I know. With

Religion and the Labour Market in Denmark65these, I think you could reach the result I’m talking about.”Q: “Exactly, it’s about a combination of this ethos within the business and whatloyalties you can demand, vis-à-vis both attitude and action, partly when you wantto hire them and partly when you want to fire them.”TB: “To begin with, you can say that it’s clearly discriminating that you start off aconversation with a possible future employee by asking whether they have anyplans for getting pregnant, and if they do, would they opt for an abortion. But herewe’re dealing with a business where it’s a core value that you have to accept as anemployee if you want to work there. Otherwise, you’ll have to stop workingthere.” (Quote 4.17

The answers from centrally placed lawyers elsewhere in society follow thesame lines of argument – on the widely held belief that it is all a questionof qualifications for a job.There are in fact no clear answers. The reflections and interpretations arerelated to the concrete context and the concrete questions. Which type oforganisation? How clear is it that there are core values related to theorganisation? What is the actual nature of the job? How interlinked arevalue-based practices to the job? And many more such questions. Whenasked where to draw the line, KWH, the female theologian, argues forliberty on behalf of the employer to freely manage, for instance, a Christianfree school under the current legislation:KWH: “I think you should be allowed a certain degree of freedom when you’redealing with the law on free schools. Otherwise, you can just say, ‘We don’t wanta law regulating free schools’, because you can’t have your cake and eat it. If youwant Christian free schools, then you can’t prevent them from having an old-fashioned Christian view about certain things. So I think that would be strange.Yes.” (Quote 4.18)

The same type of reflection can be found among the religious leaders in oursample. The leader from the Pietist Christian movement:HOB: “I think the situations will often depend just as much on how people dealwith it themselves. For instance, I mentioned somebody who has remarried. Youcould even take a step further back and talk about a divorcee. To me, there’d be adifference there. Another example could be that we had an employee who got adivorce. Can that person still be an employee? To begin with, I’d say yes, but thatdepends on what the cause of the divorce is and how the person in question thinksabout it and what they are going to do about it and so on. So it would very muchbe contingent on a conversation. But it would be a conversation on a number ofother areas as well, I mean, it could very well be like the situations where we havehad people who havelefttheFolkekirke.In such a case we still retain our identity,that we are a workplacerelated totheFolkekirke.But… if you had reached anagreement that you could still work there, then you’d still be hired… there has tobe a decent length of time, but with loyalty and a good trust in each other.” (Quote4.19)

When examples are related to double discrimination (e.g. religionandsexuality), the answers are more difficult:HOB: “Of course you can end up in situations where we’ve had a job opening andsomebody applies for the position and the person is qualified but there wouldbe… now I’m not sure about sex but there would be a case where, for example, ifit was about sexuality, that somebody would say that we won’t hire that personbecause it goes against our core values.”Q: “Or would you fire the person in question because he started to practice hishomosexuality (Yes). Would you say that this is how it should be, this is how youshould be allowed to organise yourselves or…? How do you view the legitimacybehind the legislation in regard to your practice?”HOB: “The word ‘discrimination’ is such a strong word. Discrimination can meanthat if you end up saying nobody is discriminated against, then it means that it’salmost an open floodgate for the individual to set the agenda for other people. Ifully support that if it’s about people being discriminated against because of theirsexuality and in that way are almost publicly ostracised and so on, I’m clearlyopposed to that. In other words, I believe that when it’s about society, or should Icall it the Evangelical-Lutheran in the secular regiment, I believe there should beenough room for people to…”Q: “When you talk about the secular regiment, would that be Toms Chocolatefactory or Føtex [supermarket chain, ed.] or…?”HOB: “I would say yes, where there is a piece of work, construction work orwhatever. But obviously if there is… if you could say there is a level of ideology,of theology, as with us, then there isn’t just a set of work rules that apply butthere’s a faith foundation which istheidentity for that activity. So I think that thebalance must be that the organisation with a profile says, ‘This is what we standfor and we hire people within this frame, and if you can fit in with that’…, wellthen there have to be some pretty good reasons for us not… I mean there can beother qualified applicants but there shouldn’t be any discrimination there. Andthen I actually thought about those cases that have actually happened: Christianfree schools, where the word is actually ‘Christian’, well fine, there’s a label onthat then. There is a reason that you’d create a free school, kind of like if it was aRudolf Steiner school or a…”Q: “But is that a reason where you would also expect there to be a resonance inthe demand for how people live their life outside the school? – I mean the teachersexercising their privacyoutsidethe school? Again, is it the homosexuality? It maynot be that they’re practising their homosexualityinschool, right, but in theirprivate homes where they live with a homosexual partner or have a homosexuallifestyle?”HOB: “Yes, I would say so. Because as you say, if we’re using the schoolexample, if you’re an adult, a teacher there and really, you’re carrying the identityand behaviour of the school with you, then you have a certain way of being, evenin your private life, and that will most likely not be hidden, so it would appear as acontrast and I believe for a school board, that’s a very a sticky situation to be in.”(Quote 4.20)

Religion and the Labour Market in Denmark67of not touching on the individual’s personal faith, but focusing on the corevalues of the organisation:Q: “Regarding the choice of the best person for the job, does it matter what theindividual feels about Islam, also with the different ideologies within Islamitself?”NB: “No, you can’t deliberately go into the religious area, but you can ask abouttheir relation to humanity and ask about how they view diversity, because we haveso many Muslim students at the school – How do you view the way we run ourprivate free school? We do this and that, what do you think of that? That way, youget some answers from them. But I don’t think we should put down an ultimatumthat a Muslim free school needs a Muslim headteacher.” (Quote 4.21)

We end this discussion with some rather surprising reflections from thelegal scholar, revealing that the days of easy answers are over:JC: “My basic position would be that the organisations that are atheist or religiousshould be able to keep themselves together without getting Trojan horses withintheir ranks. If that means that in relation to other faith-based communities youallow them a broader scope, I can live with that. You can also say that thestarting-point is that faith-based communities have a larger degree of freedom.TheFolkekirkedoesn’t, because it’s theFolkekirkeand you’re just going to haveto live with the slightly tighter regulation.”JC: (commenting on two specific cases from ECtHR (those of Schüth & Obst inGermany): “I would say that if you’re employed in a church or a Mormon

68Religion and the Labour Market in Denmarkcommunity or a Jewish community, then there are rules to abide by there. Don’tcome and use the legal system to make nonsense because you want to be anorganist there. That’s just tough on you, you’ll just have to play the organsomeplace else. That would be my position. It’s just too ridiculous to be turnedinto an international human rights violation that a religious organisation can’tdecide on something that’s of fundamental value to them. You violate the valuesof a religious organisation by sleeping around or whatever it is the other guy hadbeen doing.”Q: “Would that also be your position if we were in the labour market with areligious ethos? For example in Denmark, with The Danish Deaconess Foundation,Danchurchsocial or a church kindergarten. In a church kindergarten, would youaccept that here we have a leadership that says it is a clear-cut kindergarten for theChristian church and we won’t hire anybody who has had an abortion?”JC: “Yes, I think I would. There can always be a situation where you have to say,hey, this is where we draw the line. There are thousands of people and it’s just onebookkeeper who’s had an abortion because she was raped. There can always beborderline cases but my position will always be that these organisations need tosome degree to be able to have an employment ban; like this is what we want andthis we don’t want in our midst. Then you can discuss whether they’re actuallygoing to manage that. Again, you have to say that if you have an alternative, Imean, if you could be an organist someplace else, then you’re going to have tolive with that. If you’re a railway worker and if there was only one employer,that’d be a different case. They can lose their livelihood if they can’t work there.”JC: “Fundamentally, I believe that if you want to work in a religious organisation,then you have to live with the fact that you need to be religious. I hope that thepeople working at the Institute for Human Rights don’t feel the need to thinkabout human rights in a specific fashion. More than that, I have my own freedomto interpret and I hope my co-workers also believe that. I think it’d be difficult tohave an employee who went about all the time and criticised everything abouthuman rights. What would you do here then? ... the guy who won the freedom toopt out of the union closed shop and become a member of the Christian tradeunion, he was applying for a job at the Co-op supermarket knowing that he had tobe a member of SID [Specialist Workers Union, ed.], so then he provoked a legalcase out of that. I think the case should have been dismissed as tomfoolerybecause it was just an opportunity for him to deliberately create a situation whichthe Court of Human Rights shouldn’t have been involved in.” (Quote 4.24)

Religion and the Labour Market in Denmark69dress codes and thus not be allowed to wear religious garments. Mostinterviewees know these court decisions and they accept them to a certainextent as valid for private organisations and enterprises. Nor in general dothe interviewees see any problem in the wearing of small religious symbolsat work. However, when it comes to traditional religious clothing, thestandpoints are divided. Both Muslims and Catholics would accept a veil,while others would fight against any religious clothing since they think itdoes not belong in a secular working space, or they argue that religiousclothing is only related to women and is thus a symbol of suppression ofwomen. One of our young male respondents actually explains that henormally changes to religious clothing in his home environment. The judgeis furious over the legislation prohibiting her wearing religious clothing incourt – at the same time as there being a general rule that everyone on thebench must wear a gown, She sees the rule against religious clothing as anexample of the attempt to reject a more pluralist way in general.All interviewees adhere to the general rule that discrimination on thebasis of religion in the general labour market is prohibited and has been sosince the Danish constitution of 1849. Some see rules on religious clothingas an attempt at unacceptable indirect religious discrimination, even thoughcourt cases and legislation rule differently.When it comes to churches and religious core organisations in theircapacity as employers, the subtle changes are obvious. Ten years ago, mostemployers in Danish society would argue that loyalty and personalconviction requirements for employers – even in the religious coreorganisations – must be applied on very limited grounds and only inrelation to core workers, such as pastors and religious leaders.Among our interviewees there is a growing and surprisingly broadacceptance of general requirements demanded for membership, but also forpersonal conviction from almost everyone within a religious coreorganisation, especially if the organisation is rather small or has a clearmission statement. Organisations working for foreign mission in Africa arean example. The Lutheran understanding of a ‘calling’ as being related notonly to ordained pastors, but also to lay persons – combined with anunderstanding that it is no less ‘fashionable’ to be the servant or the cleanerin an organisation – makes this a topic where formal law apparently doesnot quite fit with the general understanding among the interviewees. Thisalso goes for the humanist interviewee, who would accept high demandsfor loyalty from all people employed in religious core organisations.When it comes to faith-based organisations such as private schools orsocial organisations with a religious ethos, our interviewees are moredivided. The general trend of change is also visible here, which means thatmany are prepared to accept requirements of loyalty. It is no longer enough

70Religion and the Labour Market in Denmarkto declare that one is not working against the ideas of the organisation. Onthe other hand this area is where the legal cases can be found.As long as employers only require personal conviction or loyalty, manyemployees accept this. However, if an employer demands a certainmorality, and especially claims that family morals could influence thepossibility of offering an applicant a job in a religious organisations, itwould still be seen as very foreign to Danish society. We have mentionedexamples of court cases from other European countries, such as those ofSchüth v. Germany (Chamber Judgement 1620/03, 23.09.2010) and Obst v.Germany (Chamber Judgement 425/03, 23.09.2010). Such cases are not yetaccepted outright among Danish leaders. We all face divorces, even in ourclosest family, as the Lutheran bishop sighed.

5. Religion and the Public Space in Denmark5.1 Basic principles on religion and the public space in DenmarkWhereas questions of both family matters and the labour market are to alarge extent legally based and even legally driven through legislation andthe courts, this is not the case when it comes to religion and the publicspace in Denmark. Of course there is legislation to cover many of theindividual cases such as teaching Religious Knowledge in public schools,or the existence of religiously-led private schools, or even the wearing ofreligious clothing in certain institutional contexts and in relation toreligious buildings, churchyards and so on. We shall introduce theseregulations in relation to each of the topics in the present chapter.The overall situation, however, is driven much more by political norms,by identity concepts, and by constitutional traditions. Summing up theDanish debate on public space, it would be tempting to reduce the entirematter to a question of secularism and symbols. As such, each of thesubtopics of this part of the report appear to concern either the secular, orthe symbolic, or both. But this would be a very reductionist approach andthe realities of the interviews suggest a much deeper complex.There are two ends of the spectrum when we turn to symbols andsecularism. At the one end, either no symbol is accepted in the publicsphere, or, at the other end, every symbol is accepted. On the otherspectrum, we have either a secular public space, where religion is welcomeand where everyone is allowed and allotted their say, or a public spacewhere none of the religions are present. In both cases it is possible to findan all-in model (or an opt-in model) or an all-out model.In the following, each of these four positions will be presented andconsidered by the interviewees and thus the conflicts regarding publicspace will emerge. In the ongoing debate, strong arguments for each ofthese positions materialise. It is moreover remarkable to see that conflictemerges when the internal logic of each argument collapses and the state ofaffairs is moved into a middle position between either no, or all, symbols orno, or all, religions.Before addressing the legal issues and the many particular aspects andquestions raised in this section of the survey, the interviewees reveal that itis important to make clear these four key positions as they frame the wholedebate. None of the positions dominates in the Danish debate and it is verytelling of the current situation that one former Liberal prime minister, LarsLøkke Rasmussen, even challenged the position of another former Liberalprime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, whom he succeeded.HOB, who is a Christian theologian and a critical voice in mainstreamreligious debates in Denmark, has a clear opinion about the public space in

72Religion and the Public Space in DenmarkDenmark. Although he represents a wing of Lutheranism, the frustrationthat shines through his remarks is representative of the frustration thatmany of the religious interviewees express.HOB: “Sometimes, I think it’s a bit of a shame about Danish society that it’salmost as if we’re trying to legalise neutrality. And what is ‘neutral’? What is‘normality’? We can’t forget that, being Christian, there are different expressionsof that. For me, there are numerous phases to it and… the first phase is that – evenaccording to the constitution – we wish to hold on to Denmark as a Christiancountry. It may be a question simply of historical circumstances but still, it’s partof our Christian and/or Danish cultural heritage to be Christian. So in that sense Ibelieve that the Christian strain, even the religious symbols and expressions thatare present in it, must take some kind of preference. And I believe that should alsobe legal in the public space.” (Quote 5.01)

Whether or not the Danish heritage of Evangelical Lutheranism commitsDenmark and the Constitution to be contested, the conclusion that HOBdraws – that religion in the public sphere is legitimate and acceptable – isvery significant.BL, the Chief Rabbi, has an observation that follows closely on theremarks of HOB. As head of an old and acknowledged Jewish Communityin Denmark, the Chief Rabbi’s mere presence has been widely accepted atleast since the Constitution of 1849. This was proved especially duringWorld War II.BL: “I think I experience, I don’t know if it’s just me but I think, I believe that theJewish community today, has become a… it’s viewed differently in Denmark thanit was 25 years ago. Back then Jewish society was apartof Danish society. TodayJewish society is part of the society that belongs to the foreign community.”Q: “So it’s part of the foreigners as well? I mean, not just a part of the Danishminority that needs protection but belongs among the foreigners?”BL: “Yes, because people, it goes for people, it actually also goes for politiciansas well: the whole deal with distinguishing between Muslims and others, theycan’t figure that out.”Q: “It’s very interesting but very problematic.”BL: “There is no doubt that Jews in Denmark are more alienated today than theyhave been.” (Quote 5.02)

Religion and the Public Space in Denmark73interviews, because there’s actually…’ – now you’re getting to the core of it. Ifyou ask colleagues from the heyday 30 years ago, back then it was pretty difficultbecause you were considered odd if you were interested in theology. We don’thave to be seen like that again. Not at all, in my opinion. On the contrary, I thinkwe’re met with a sympathetic understanding. You can see for yourself, nothingcan touch you without it being watched by the press, both the scandalous but eventhe social interventions really, and even the religious interventions. It’s veryinteresting because there is no doubt that it’s not just a fad people are going alongwith, I mean it’s not, how shall I put it it, bound into the church.”Q: “So what you’re saying is that religious values have become more recognised(Yes) and accepted or in demand?”PSJ: “In demand, and I also think recognised because otherwise there wouldn’t bethis apparent interest in it.”Q: “But at the same time, it has become more problematised?”PSJ: “Much more problematic and this is a rising trend. You can see it both in thepublic institutions and even in large private businesses which wouldn’t have beenafraid to support the church in the past; something being ‘religious’, that’s alsobecome dangerous. That’s an issue that I believe leads back to 2001. And agrowing problem all around the world. It really has dawned on western Europeansthat religion is something deep within people, it’s something that drives verystrong but also very large ideas. Somewhere, you know that there is a potential forpeace in this, but there is also a large potential for violence and opposition.”Q: “With what you’re saying, is there a part that says that theFolkekirkehas beena ‘given’ in Danish society and now that part has become – what?”PSJ: “What you have to say is that it’s clear that there areotherreligions inDenmark now. We have always, most of the time, lived with the Jewishcommunity being more or less a Copenhagen phenomenon. Now we’ve also got alot of Muslims in the country and that’s not just limited to Copenhagen. It hasbecome a national phenomenon.” (Quote 5.03)

AWP, who is a convert to Islam, is in a unique position as a DanishMuslim to reflect on Danish Islam as opposed to merely Islam in Denmark.He knows by heart what Danishness looks like and has, like the ChiefRabbi, an outlook on the Danish religious landscape and the role of religionin the public sphere.AWP: “Christianity has many outlets and means of expression which areconditioned by history, social conditions, interpretations by the pastors, cultures,and all kinds of things, and movements of course, within Christianity. The samegoes for Islam. The grand and exciting experiment at the moment is: What doesIslam look like, when Islam is lived through a Danish sense of self-understanding? … We are face to face with where we as Muslims must find thisidentity, like how I as a Dane need to keep my Danish identity while at the sametime having to grapple with my religion; while others, let’s say children of newlyimmigrated families or some such, they have to deal with their Danish identitywhile still keeping a hold on Islam. I haven’t become an Arab, I haven’t become aTurk, I haven’t become a Pakistani, and I haven’t even become a city person. I’ma Jutlander, and well, I probably have something of Nørrebro [tough Copenhageninner city suburb, ed.] in me. The whole thing about keeping your own identity

Very few other people are able to speak to the best of the Danish mentalitywhile at the same time chastising the Danes for their tendency to benarrow-minded and focused on a local, irrelevant frame. The imam speaksplain Danish to Danes, but talks of Islam because he himself – in himself –is able to bridge the gap between the two. In a sense he brokers one to theother. He clearly demonstrates that Islam is, like Christianity, in the samesituation in the public space. As things change, religion is part of theresponse to, and the reflection of, this change.5.1.a Between the secular and the secularisedIf we wish to retain our focus on the divergencies in the Danish debate onreligion in the public sphere, we need to distinguish between the two. Byanalogy, ET stresses the importance of this distinction and explains why:ET: “A secular Denmark? Secularity isn’t the same as secularism. You can verywell be patriotic without being nationalistic, you can be social without being asocialist, and you can be a locally-oriented, ‘commune’ supporter without being acommunist. […] The set-up is that we have a secular society and that’s a goodthing because secularism is the basis for freedom of religion. We don’t have asecularist society though some are trying to convince us that they wouldpreferasecularist society. A secular society rejects religion and that’s not what the Danishsociety does. Our constitution starts by mentioning the church that needs to besupported by the government; and by the way, the other faiths are mentioned aswell. What’s interesting is that it’s not just the religion of the majority that ismentioned in the constitution but also the religion of theminority.Their right toexist is determined in the constitution itself. That is, we are secular in the sensethat we don’t dismiss religion. We are not hostile to religion. On the contrary, weare accepting of religion.” (Quote 5.05)

Religion and the Public Space in Denmark75that determines how we build our society; there is freedom. We can argue all thedays of the week whether we need a monarchy, a republic, free abortion or not,and we don’t look up our answers in religious codices to figure it out. But at thesame time, we have a close connection to religion; we even have a state thatsupports it… A secular society is exactly the kind of society that can beinterwoven with the religious aspect but where you still have the freedom to arguehow a secular society should be built up. I would say the secular society is Danishsociety. […] “You could also say that I’m secular because I’m Christian. […]That’s the freedom that I really have from Christianity, that’s something you canuse. There’s also the fact that secularity is freed from Christianity. There is nolegal code, no shari’a, no paragraphs; we can openly argue because this is therealm of Caesar; here we can argue.” (Quote 5.06)

From KWH and her understanding of the secular growing out of theChristian there comes a freedom to argue and a freedom to stick with whatwe believe. DN, who has been a spokesman for the Humanist Association,wants to keep that very same neutral space in which we can manifest ourreligious and other opinions. However, he adds a further distinctionbetween the public sphere and the state sphere. His point is that if we trulywant a free discussion and debate – as KWH does – the state sphere and itsinstitutions should be clearly neutral, so that the public sphere may beutterly open for all sorts of symbols and expressions.DN: “The public space is the space we all occupy, all the time. There are twokinds of public space: There is the governmental public space and then there is thepublic space that means we are outside our private lives. These two spaces aredifferent because in the public space there is room for different viewpoints. [In thebroad public space] we can clash all we want and I will stand my ground and saymy point of view is better than theirs, but they have just as much right as me tohave their own point of view. The other kind of public space, and that’s whereI’ve been and where the Humanist Association is very active, that’s aboutgovernmental institutions, that is, everything from the welfare office to the libraryto the public school and all those other places which are religiously neutral.”(Quote 5.07)

76Religion and the Public Space in Denmark5.1.b Legislation:It seems appropriate at this point to introduce the Danish constitutionalprinciples and the relevant legislation on the topic ‘Religion in the PublicSpace.’The Constitution of 1849, most recently revised in 1953, is published asLaw no. 169 of 05/06/1953.In its first four sections it identifies thefounding stones of Danish society: the territory; the monarchy; theseparation of powers; and the existence of theFolkekirke,as suchsupported by the state. Each of these four sections is further regulated andthe preconditions of the existence of these corner stones are laid down inthe subsequent chapters. As for theFolkekirkeand the obligation for thestate to support the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the precondition isfreedom of religion for each individual person as well as a prohibition onreligious discrimination outside the religious area (Christoffersen 2010A).Besides its function as the church for 80% of the Danes, theFolkekirkealso runs the public civil registration in the country and most of the publiccemeteries, though the ten main cities run their own cemeteries. Otherreligious communities can gain approval for opening a cemetery, which hasbeen the case for the Jewish community, for some Reformed and Catholiccommunities, and, after lengthy discussion for Muslim communities. AMuslim burial ground was opened in 2006. This is regulated according tothe law on burials (Begravelsesloven),LBK nr. 665 of 16/06/2010.On the question of teaching religion in the public school, this isregulated through the law on public schooling (Folkeskoleloven -LBK nr.998 of 16/08/2010).The subject ‘Christian Knowledge’ is taught as anordinary exam topic at all levels from lower primary to upper secondary,though with the possibility for individuals to withdraw from classes onreligious grounds. It is also possible to open private schools based onreligious ideas and norms. (Christoffersen 2012B).The national legislation of Denmark touches upon differing burialcustoms and the specifics within them. In 2010 the government analysedthe use of the burka in the public space as well as in public institutions.Legislation was passed with regard to wearing religious clothing incourtrooms. However, with regard to religious clothing or symbols inschools, there is a decided lack of legislation. There has simply been noneed to address the issue.This is the relevant case law:U.2001.910.V– A tombstone engraved with the words “Hell’s Angels”was not allowed to be raised in a local churchyard by the local churchcouncil. The court found in favour of the church council.U.2001.83.H– A group of students prayed in the school cafeteria and werereprimanded for it. They were then given a separate prayer room.

Religion and the Public Space in Denmark77Afterwards, a student was again found praying in the cafeteria and wasexpelled for it. The court found in favour of the school and deemed theexpulsion acceptable.There is little Danish case law regarding the thematic issues of places ofworship and full-face veils in school. In regard to veils and headdresses,there have been some cases in the workplace but none that pertain toschools. In regard to places of worship, there has been some mediacoverage of Muslim burial grounds and the construction of mosques butnone of those issues has ever escalated into actual court cases.5.2 On symbols; between the symbolic and the deviantMany of the questions dealt with to some extent by legislation but to amuch higher degree by public debate, concern the conflict between thesymbolic and the deviant.The burka was mentioned in the previous section. Although we return tothe discussion about the burka in much greater detail later in the report,there is a need to say something here about religious symbols and how wesee them in the public sphere. The burka in and of itself is not necessarily areligious symbol and, if anything, is as much a product of history andculture as it is of religion. However, it is oftenseenas a religious symbol,and it influences the debate about religion in the public sphere as if itwas.The significant thing about symbols is that they are the individualexpression of, or contribution, to the common norms on which we build oursociety and of which the public sphere is the face.In order to appreciate the nuances of the debates on religion in theDanish public sphere, we need to see the spectrum of symbols from thosethat truly express the very core values of society to the symbols that clearlychallenge these values. However, it is important to remember that there islittle agreement on what the core values are in Denmark, which is whatsparks the tension. In addition, there is a communicatory aspect to symbolsin that the meaning thought to be embedded in the symbol is often onlydiscernable to those who know or agree while those who disagree only seethe contrast. As such, the burka may mean freedom of religion orexpression to one interviewee while it is oppressive and deviant to theother.On the matter of symbols in the Danish public sphere, JC is asked howhe perceives the symbols that are religious by nature and used in public:JC: “We’ve had a very long tradition of having a cross in our flag, and it’s nolonger a religious symbol to the Danes. It’s a flag symbol. Most Danes thinkthey’ve disconnected and no longer see a cross and that’s why it doesn’tsymbolise a religious manifestation that there’s a cross in the flag. This can bemisunderstood when people come here, like if we go to Turkey and see thecrescent, where you realise it’s a Muslim symbol and you realise this [the cross in

78Religion and the Public Space in Denmarkour flag] is a Christian symbol but it has lost that significance in everyday life.There was a person who raised the question whether it was legal to have theJelling stone [with its carved crucifix] on the inside of our passport. […] I findthat the number of religious symbols in the public space is quite modest inDenmark when compared to all kinds of other countries. Or at least equal to andjust as modest as in many other countries. Our position is still that we considerreligion a private matter. That’s why it’s possible that I as a Dane sometimesdisconnect, which I have done, but it could still be there for others and maybe youshould work on toning it all down. But I must admit, before the rise of the issue, Ihadn’t even thought about it.” (Quote 5.08)

As he reflects on the question and the problem of symbols in the publicsphere, JC agrees at the abstract level on the existence of the dilemma. Onthe one hand, religion is a private matter, and on the other, the religioussymbols are not offensive. JC thinks of the flag and the old Nordic Christfigure in the passport as symbols that have become so common or acceptedas to symbolise the very core of society rather than anything problematic ordeviant. Most of the interviewees agree that these basic symbols are notcontested, but DN criticises the ‘fetishisation’ of the latent religion in thesesymbols.DN: “TheFolkekirkebecame a state church and it’s been one for a long time andthat sort of rubs off. Symbols have a way of meaning something in one era and itbecomes a bit disconnected with what it actually started out as. […] I’m not intothe whole symbol fetish and I don’t think they have that power. Symbols are whatwe make them and read into them, and we people renew something and then let itdie again. I see no reason to start making some kind of … it’s a bit reminiscent ofthe Soviet Union where they changed history so it fitted the new way of doingthings. You have to take history into consideration. That was then and here we aretoday. But to start changing it so it fits the present, I don’t think that’s a goodidea.” (Quote 5.09)

In the Danish context the relevance of the discussion of symbols in thepublic sphere has reappeared, as we shall see when we address the issue ofreligious symbols and headwear in the courts and other public institutions.This discussion also draws on aspects of the secular nature of the publicsphere.5.2.a The role of religious leaders:Religious leaders and key religious personnel play an important role in thepublic sphere. We ask the Bishop in Copenhagen on the role andimportance of religious leaders in the public space.PSJ: “Well, that’s changed quite a lot, and here I may say something that isperhaps a bit beyond my station but it’s important. You can see that in January Iwas persuaded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to arrange a peace conference

Religion and the Public Space in Denmark79with the Iraqis [asylum seekers. ed.], so the Danish People's Party [right-wing,ed.] thought that it was wrong of us to accept, that their religious leaders playedthe role that they did. But I have to say that if you want peace in Iraq then we needpeace amongst the religions and we need peace amongst the different… It’s easyto sit up here [in Scandinavia] and say religious leaders have no political power.In that way, we’ve been thoroughly removed from power, and I think that’s fine,but that’s not the case in other parts of the world.”Q: “Well, partly that’s not the case in other countries and partly Denmark fallsinto that category, (“Yes”) and that’s why you hosted the conference. But you alsomention the initiative from Copenhagen, where the political leadership says, ‘Herewe have a rise in violence and it’s religiously justified; we need to bring in thereligious leaders. And that’s something new in Denmark.”PSJ: “It’s something new in Denmark, but I also think that… clearly I’veexperienced it myself a few times as a bishop that when you say something,something you yourself think is ordinary church commentary from the sidelinesand then it goes pow! in the public space…”Q: “So what you’re saying is that not least the bishops in theFolkekirke…havetheir congregations become much larger?”PSJ: “Yes, I think they have. Everybody… I mean, even the pastors’ pulpit hasbecome much bigger… We can also see that some think there’s too much of that,that we interfere too much… The pastors, they’re saying, interfere too much in thepublic debate.” (Quote 5.10)

5.3 Places of worship5.3.a Places of worship – churchyards and cemeteriesAs things currently are in Denmark, everyone has the right to be buried inthe local cemetery even if it is an Evangelical Lutheran churchyard. Theonly exceptions are ten of the largest municipalities where there arepubliccemeteries. Some of the recognised and approved religious minorities havetheir own cemeteries, but most are referred to the Christian churchyards,perhaps with a corner set aside for other religious groups.We ask the Lutheran bishop whether the cemeteries should still beblessed as Christian and how they should perform their obligations towardspeople of other faiths:Q: “There’s an actual debate going on in Denmark whether they’re going to makea new chapel, a new hospital chapel which is a place where… no, wouldn’t youdescribe what a hospital chapel is?”PSJ: “Yes, but it is, how shall I put it, a room created for a rite of passage betweenlife and death. […] And those rooms have so far, for some people, probably beenconsecrated as Christian churches for Christian use and that would mean that theyalso have the necessary religious symbols, that’s a given. When a Christian pastorcomes in… in that way it’s easy to be a Danish theologian because the words andthe prayers sanctify the room. It needn’t be consecrated to begin with.”Q: “So you would want the room to be without religious symbols, without anyseparate consecration and then the priest or imam, the one using the room, couldmake it into the religious room?”

80Religion and the Public Space in DenmarkPSJ: “That would certainly be very good. As Protestants we really don’t have anyproblem doing that. There could be other Christian groups that have more troublewith this method, but I think we might have to be more vigilant with that.”Q: “Churchyards and burial grounds in Denmark are the starting-point. There are2,000 churchyards around the country belonging to theFolkekirkeandconsecrated to Christianity. Ten other cemeteries are run by municipalities, buteven they are Christian and then there are some separate sections. Should wecontinue to consecrate cemeteries?”PSJ: “Yes, I think we should. I actually think we should. I’ve just been asked whatI think about atheists having a say and I have to say, I don’t even know why theyask because if they don’t believe in anything, does it matter where you areburied…? I mean, I think... and it’s not to be cheeky that I’m saying it, I just don’tunderstand how it’s an issue. So it wouldn’t matter for them if they’re put six feetdown, it’s not consecrated for their sake.”Q: “Where you see the problem, that’s with the Muslims or the Jews or what?”PSJ: “That’s something completely different, I mean just like out at the WestCemetery [in Copenhagen], then we need sections. Catholic churches as well andso on ...” (Quote 5.11)

A recent subject of discussion has been the old Jewish Cemetery inCopenhagen. The issue is complex. The municipality of Copenhagenhelped finance renovation of the cemetery and part of the agreement wasthat the cemetery should be opened up to the general public. However, thiscaused some concern in the Jewish community, as there have been issuesof sacrilege in the past.As part of the survey we ask the mayor responsible for integration,AMA, about the issue and pose the same questions to the Chief Rabbi.Both recount the case and their experiences:AMA: “... What I was a part of was the opening of the Jewish cemetery… wewent along to restore it and one of the requirements for us giving so much moneyto it, was that it should be opened up. Well it hasn’t been as much as I wanted, butit has been opened up. There are actually quite a lot of people that are interested inthat.”Q “Has there been a new sort of rostering system or has it been completely openedup, like a park you can just walk into?”

The Chief Rabbi, BL, adds:BL: “Two years ago I become aware that there’s some money that can be appliedfor in the Copenhagen Municipality for a specific purpose. I put my thinking-capon and made a proposition that we should open the burial ground at Møllegade.It’s actually a pretty amazing area. It’s been closed for a number of years forsecurity reasons and so on and the decision has been well received by pretty mucheverybody and in no time there was a grant of 1 million kroner. Very nice and allthat. And then we get a letter from the municipality that now that we have 1million kroner, it can be turned into an open burial ground. So I write to them:Dear friends, opening such a cemetery, this isn’t the Assistens Cemetery [apopular municipal cemetery in Copenhagen], this means we need security. Firstand foremost, we need security. One requirement is that we can’t be open all thetime but we will have specific opening hours. But there is no understanding forthat; they don’t get it at all.”Q: “What you’re saying is that it can’t be a park where there is public access?”BL: “Exactly. And they don’t get that. If I say this million is given on thecondition that – and it’s the officials, I have to say – is given on the condition thatyou stay open, then I have to spend time and energy to explain to them that it’slike this: we can open three times a week but it’ll be four hours three times, andthen we’ll see how things evolve. And you can see right here, I’m just mentioningit as an example, there are things that you always have to look at, what is that?,because there is nothing immediately… I understand the officials on this becausethere are certain rules on how you do it. They can’t immediately relate to thisproblem, which is the way we do things.” (Quote 5.14)

There seems to be a miscommunication here, with the municipalityexpecting the cemetery to be opened up as a public park, while the JewishCommunity has serious concerns for the possible mistreatment orvandalism of the graves and the cemetery. Somehow, the municipality isassuming that the Jewish minority should open up in some analogy with theopen public cemetery in the same Copenhagen district. However, theminority perspective makes all the difference. Public cemeteries are openbecause many of the institutions of theFolkekirkeare part of the commonpublic sphere. The assumption that the two religions can be treated thesame – although not clearly equally – is a stumbling-block to the Jewishcommunity.5.3.b Places of worship – buildingsThe most urgent matter regarding places of worship in Denmark concernsthe building of purpose-built mosques to service the Muslim communitiesin the larger cities. So far, Muslims have organised prayer rooms andcultural associations in private homes and apartments with the support of

82Religion and the Public Space in Denmarkthe community or international organisations. There are a few examples ofentire houses being converted for worship, but so far there is no purpose-built mosque in Copenhagen. The municipality has been supportive of theidea, but does not see it as a public responsibility to facilitate the process orbe proactive on the matter.There seem to be several aspects to the controversy as it currently stands.One regards funding the project and whether the state should be involved,another is whether international organisations and governments can co-finance it. There is also the question ofwhoshould build the mosque.Internal divergence within the Muslim organisations appears to beinsurmountable. Naturally, it is the imams among the interviewees whoreflect most on the matter. NB argues that the most tangible need forDanish Muslims today is a mosque where they can meet, pray together, andenter into dialogue with one another and people of other faiths.NB: “The Muslims need a mosque [and] the role of the state is to facilitate thebuilding of a mosque. Now, I said ‘mosque’ to begin with; I don’t think it’s themost important task but we’ll deal with it first. The state should facilitate thisproject, not just the mosque but also facilitate a dialogue that says: ‘Everybody iswelcome here; having a mosque is not a problem.’ […] I would say the state hasto pay for a part of it – whatever the Muslims can’t get themselves, which isproblematic since deep down, the state may not want funding to come from Iranor Saudi Arabia. […] It would be Danish Muslims, it would be Danish authorities– whether you want to call it the state or the authorities, that doesn’t matter… buton the other hand, I wouldn’t mind if other Muslim countries or western countriesgive and support the project, as long as the expectations are sorted out. Theexpectations are that there shouldn’t be any influence from Iran on local mattersregarding the mosque or Muslims in Denmark.” (Quote 5.15)

There is little agreement on the matter, and in the to and fro between theinterviewer and AWP, the Copenhagen imam, the various aspects on thebuilding of the mosque become apparent. In his own provocative style,AWP sketches the issues of responsibility, funding, participation of thestate, and even the public aspects of such a building project.Q: “Who’s going to finance a proper mosque in Copenhagen?”AWP: “The Muslims.”Q: “The Danish Muslims or Muslims from abroad?”AWP: “They can all do it. All those that want to. Non-Muslims can do it too!”Q: “Thanks. Even foreign states?”AWP: “Foreign states as well – as long as there are no conditions. That would bethe ultimate criteria for accepting any kind of support from anywhere, I wouldsay, despite the fact that in Denmark, you’ve been out building churches anddeciding for yourselves who stands in the pulpit. So yes, I don’t think we’re goingto have somebody from outside telling us who is to preach in the mosques ofDenmark.”Q: “Should the state get involved in financing the building?”

Religion and the Public Space in Denmark83AWP: “Well, I don’t have any problems with that. I think that’s fine.”Q: “Organisationally, who would support such a project?”AWP: “The Muslims in Denmark.”Q: “Can they do that?”AWP: “Yes, they can. The Muslim Joint Council can do it. They have the size andstrength to pull it off.”Q: “Should the state or the municipality do something?”AWP: “No, they shouldn’t. They must just grant the permissions required to carryout the project in accordance with the legislation covering the different areas.”Q: “Could there be minarets?”AWP: “Yes, sure.”Q: “Should they be able to call to prayer?”AWP: “No, because that doesn’t make any sense. People don’t come to praybecause we call out across Amagerbro Street or something. They don’t. Peoplehere know when it’s time to pray; they go to prayer when it’s time to pray.”Q: “Should they stop ringing church bells because people know what time there’sa church service?”AWP: “No skin off my nose.” (Quote 5.16)

On the face of it the two imams represent two different positions and giveseparate reasons for the limited success so far. But they each point to oneof the two major problems: AWP stresses public intervention and thepolitical tensions of the project while NB points to mismatchedexpectations,Several of the interviewees see these two factors as the main challenge tothe Muslim organisations in the next few years. Some even say thatcollaboration problems and the internal power struggle is the reason whythe Muslim communities have so limited positive impact on the publicdebate on this and other issues. It is a difficult problem, since even if it isthe religious and not the cultural, national, and ethnic differences that trulydivide the Muslims, Islam is by no means a singular entity.NB is constructive and forward-looking, and although he is uncertainhow further collaboration should be managed, he is unyielding in hisanalysis of the necessary first step:NB: “If you ask me what could be a good model, I’d say that I’m pretty unsuremyself, but what I am sure about is that we need cooperation between the Muslimorganisations. Let’s just take two that are the two umbrella organisations whichare the largest, and then you can take an Islamic Shia organisation and say: ‘We’regoing to sit down and figure out how we make a working model on how to run theDanish mosques in Denmark.’ That’s the first step. And then they need to figureout… then I’m pretty sure about which model to follow. We need to create ittogether and the state needs some kind of influence on that. It has to be partlyautonomous, the money shouldn’t be coming from the outside and it has to besomething of a Danish project as much as possible.” (Quote 5.17)

84Religion and the Public Space in Denmark5.3.c Protection as monumentsEven though one would have imagined that the state’s financial support fortheFolkekirkewould also be used for the maintenance and upkeep of theoldest churches in Denmark, this is not the case. All the individual churchbuildings are maintained through the taxes paid by church members, notthrough state tax.There is general agreement that some national body should be investedwith special responsibility for these churches and the cultural heritage, aswell as for the cultural heritage of other religious buildings. A few,including DN of the Humanist Society, nevertheless warn against thespecial treatment of theFolkekirkethat might follow. Not many of theother religious communities have religious buildings of cultural heritagevalue, but a future case could well be the Jewish synagogue inCopenhagen.5.4 Schools and Religion in generalOne of the central issues of the interviews was the question of religiousdiscrimination in schools. The perspective is two-fold. It is a problempartly of discrimination among students and teachers in schools and partlyof discrimination in giving preference to one religion at the expense ofothers. The first is a limited problem and has little to do with the state,whereas the second is a systematic problem and therefore the responsibilityof the state.The only interviewee who mentions inter-religious discrimination inschools is the Chief Rabbi, who points to clashes between Muslim andJewish pupils in the public schools. However, he quickly stresses that theproblem is limited and ought to be easily solved:BL: “That’s our problem today, that the students from the Caroline school [theJewish private elementary school in Copenhagen]… there are some senior highschools that they won’t go on to. In those there are a majority of Muslimyoungsters and experience has shown there are some problems that arise fromthat. We’ve actually experienced that. It’s something that crops up every yearwhen they apply for high schools, then one or two of the youngsters are placed ina high school they don’t want to go to. For some years I had good cooperationwith a principal at one of the Hellerup high schools, and then he’d say: You knowwhat, you just call me and we’ll figure something out.” (Quote 5.18)

Religion and the Public Space in Denmark85Lutheran bishop, who referred to an initiative taken by the city ofCopenhagen in order to combat religious violence:Q: “Couldn’t you, before you continue, explain what you mean by ‘religiousviolence’ in Copenhagen?”PSJ: “Yes, it’s that Muslim converts and Christians are harassed; that Muslimwomen have their headscarves pulled off! That people can do such things, it’sutterly unfathomable and that they’re being yelled after; that a Jew cannot walk onNørrebro with a kippah [Jewish male cap] without risking harassment or attacks.We’re seeing a rise in that. Not monumentally so, but there is a tendency. That’swhy there’s no reason to create a scare campaign, and fortunately the Copenhagenmunicipality is planning a warning campaign and an educational campaign andwe’re three religious leaders who have made ourselves available for this campaignbecause obviously we don’t wish to live in such a society. Of course we don’t.”Q: “And who are the three of you? That is, it’s you and…?”PSJ: “There’s Zubair Hussein from the United Islamic Forum and then there’sFinn Schwarz who is the chairman of the Jewish Community and then there’sme.”Q: “And then there’s the Mayor of Integration in Copenhagen municipality?”PSJ: “Yes, that’s Anna Mee Allerslev in charge there. And I must say, I havetremendous respect for the Copenhagen municipality that they see somethingbrewing up and they hurry to take care of it before it develops into a problem.”(Quote 5.19)

5.4.a On choice of schools:A surprising finding that was confirmed among several of the intervieweeswas that those of a strong religious conviction prefer a private school that isattentive to religion rather than a public one. Religion is assumed to beignored or not sufficiently represented in the public schools and therefore aprivate, religious school is preferred no matter what the nature of thereligious creed.NB confirms this interest and that people often cite religious values andattentiveness to religiosity as the main reasons:NB: “[The children] go to a private school. They go to a private Catholic school inTaastrup. By the way, a lot of people do that and studies have shown that manyMuslims also send their children to Catholic schools because there is a disciplinethere, there are some values you can relate to, which you can recognise and whichyou follow.” (Quote 5.20)

86Religion and the Public Space in Denmarkhymns from the Lutheran tradition. The argument in question is whetherthey are so fundamental to Evangelical Lutheranism that if they are nottaught, a proper understanding is impossible.We put the question to JC, the human rights specialist, as he can reflecton the issue in the light of the European Court of Human Rights grandchamber decision in Folgerø and Others v. Norway (Grand ChamberJudgment 15472/02, 29.06.2007), and can also situate it in the problematicDanish context. We ask whether he thinks it is acceptable to include thehymns and the Lord’s Prayer:JC: “Yes, I actually think you could do that. At least with the songs, right? Withthe Lord’s Prayer, I’d have a tougher time with that. If my daughter came homeand said to me that they had to pray the Lord’s Prayer, then I’d try to make surethat they had an opportunity to say they don’t want to do that. […] On the otherhand, when there are strongly religious Christian cabinet members promotinghymns as a significant aspect of their integration policies, then that has an entirelydifferent tone for me. There’s a difference if it was an integration project launchedfrom above or if it’s a local school being visited by the Crown Prince and [in thatconnection] he was going to something in a church. It depends on the context. Welive up in Lyngby [north of Copenhagen], and there they attend nativity plays andthey go to church and they sing, and it’s a perfectly natural part of their education.But I hope that they also learn about Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, thenature religions and the non-religions in the course of their schooling. There aren’tmany immigrants in Lyngby and those that are, I’d hope that they and theirparents’ religion is addressed in the classroom in a sensible manner. […] Theyalso need to know that there are people out there who believe in somethingcompletely different and it’s about this and that and their fundamental beliefs arelike this and that. That’s why I personally don’t think it should be called ChristianKnowledge. I think it should be called Religious Education. Christianity is anatural part of it, and in a country like Denmark it takes up a lot of space. I think itwould be a huge disservice to us all if we don’t educate each other in what theprinciples of Islam are, for example, since about 250,000 people in Denmarkactually profess Islam. If you don’t know about the five pillars of Islam by thetime you reach 7thgrade, then I believe we have failed.” (Quote 5.21)

PVB, the female Member of Parliament, does not see the school topicas ‘religious classes’. When asked whether the subject should be called‘religion,’ ‘Christianity’ or ‘Life stance,’ she explains the topic asfollows:PVB: “80% of the subject should still reflect that culturally, it is a Christian nationwe are in. But the exemption clauses are a remnant of the past, and the contentdescriptions of the subject have also become a remnant more recently, from a timewhen there were no differing perceptions. The subject has become much betterthan its reputation… the content description of Christian Knowledge. We’re goinground discussing how it’s all so bad, but it’s not! There is room for the majorreligions and there is room for many things in the subject, but the exemptionclauses come from back then when proselyting was allowed in the subject.”

AMA, the Mayor of Integration in Copenhagen, addresses the problem ofthe very wording and name of the mandatory classes on religion in school:AMA: “I fully believe that we need to have teaching of religion instead ofteaching of Christianity. I believe that Christianity should be a large part in theteaching of religion, since it is a large part of our culture and our history. It has aspecial place and it will probably stay that way for many years to come. It needsto have a central place in religious education. The most important thing for me isthat we have religious education instead of solely Christian education… thenyou’ll just have to accept it, if some students don’t want to participate. Jehovah’sWitnesses are also exempt from Christian Knowledge. We’ve made part of ourintegration policy into this cooperation between Christians, Jews, and Muslims.… That was during a time with some unfortunate cases where some youngMuslims, in my eyes, abused their religion to say, ‘We are Muslim and that is whywe harass Jews and Christians’. It was a hot topic in the media but fortunately, wedidn’t see much of that in Copenhagen, but it was something that the mediapicked up on.” (Quote 5.23)

We would be naïve not to think that there is a preferential treatment of themajority religion in Denmark. Although there are several provisions to helpalleviate the differences, school is one of those places where the secularisedChristian traditions keep showing up. But that should not mean that theteaching of other religions should not be qualified and up to standard. Thisfailure has unfortunately been the experience of NB, the imam:NB: “... it’s important in a post-secular society that we talk about these things. It’sOK to celebrate Christmas; it’s OK to have Christmas parties in the school; it’sOK that you have confirmation classes [in school time, ed.]; but it’s not OK thatyou can’t teach about Islam when half the students or 90% of the students areMuslims and four years have passed in school and you haven’t even touched uponit, haven’t even properly discussed it. What’s important is that the education,what’s being taught and the curriculum, that it’s put together along with Muslimorganisations, theologians and so on, just like in other European countries. It’s a

88Religion and the Public Space in Denmarkproblem: I was for example at a high school – just to give an example – wherethere was a ‘Religions Day’ and there was a student who asked me, ‘How can youas an imam accept that Muslim women can’t go to heaven because it says so inthe Koran?’ And I said, ‘Where did you hear that?’ ‘Our teacher taught us that.’ –And she was sitting right next to us …. It’s things like that that can make meangry and upset, that we still don’t have factual information about other religionsin Denmark. Many of the writers writing about Islam in Denmark, they alreadyhave an agenda, they already have a predisposition on how they’re going topresent Islam and how it’ll end up reaching you.” (Quote 5.25)

BL, the Chief Rabbi, who shares the acceptance of a dominant Christianityfor historical and pragmatic reasons, similarly stresses not only the need fora proper and serious introduction to the religions, but also the possibility ofan exemption from both classes and curriculum. This brings us back to thedebates after the decision on Folgerø and Others v. Norway, where theoption of exemptions was part of the case.BL: “I discussed this with Bertel Haarder [Former Minister of Education andChurch Affairs, ed.] some time ago, when we were talking about exemption fromeducation and I told him I believe that the real problems arise during the earlyclasses. There I think it’s necessary for Muslim families and Jewish families tosay, ‘We want the child exempt from religious education because it is heavilybased on Christianity and the New Testament and all that, and it’ll be terriblyconfusing’ or some such. But on the other hand, I can easily say that the upperclasses of primary school or high school should have religion as a class. Of courseit can be a problem if a Jewish student or a Muslim student has an exam in, I don’tknow, the Sermon on the Mount, or something. You could say that’s aprofessional opinion; that the student has to go through that, I don’t really thinkthere’s any problem with that.” (Quote 5.26)

5.5 Religious dress codes in institutional public spaceThere are two aspects of the contemporary discussion on religious clothingthat concern headwear and uniform. The one has to do with wearing the theburka or the full face veil in public in general, and the other has to do witha highly relevant and hotly debated issue of judges and lay judges wearingany religious symbols.The two issues are intertwined in the debates, and in these matters wesee how presumptions of both symbols and secularism are tenets of thediscussion.As has been the experience in the interviews, it is often the imams whoframe the problems most clearly, partly because it concerns them, but verymuch also because the question of headwear in Islam is far from being asstraightforward as is often generally assumed:NB: “Principally, I think that you should respect all religious symbols, evenburkas. But there can be some practical limitations, practical challenges where, for

Religion and the Public Space in Denmark89example, wearing a burka or a cross that is really ‘big’ – I’ve seen that – that’simpractical. It can also be a t-shirt where it says something religiouslyprovocative. And then you have to…”Q: “So it can be too visible and thereby provocative, or it can be impractical: youcan’t perform well in your job?”NB: “Yes, it can be impractical in regard to your work, such as schoolteacherswhere mimicry and facial expression and eye contact can be important in theteaching. It can be difficult having a woman with a burka present in, let’s say, akindergarten class. Then that person can – in a dialogue of course – be told, ‘Thismay be hard; so you can be given some other tasks so you could maybe use yourtraining for something else.’ Be welcoming like that. [...] But let’s get back to theburka thing, there’s one very important point: It can also be for religious reasonsthat I’d say ‘no’ because I know that Islam doesnotrequire you to cover yourface. There are some other requirements. And that would make me say that I havea religious reason for not allowing you to wear a burka because this Muslim freeschool has this attitude towards it.” (Quote 5.28)

It is assumed that one cannot be as professional a nurse, or day care helper,or teacher if one wears a burka. But, that is not a reason for discriminationagainst religion in public.HOB: “I believe that if you want to put religion aside, like it doesn’t exist, thenthe public space, and not just the public space… then it’ll only make room forthose that make no distinction and I believe that is wrong. As I said, I believe thepreference should be that we are a Christian country with a Christian culturalheritage and I feel good about that and that it finds expression… if you as a Jewwalk around wearing a kippah, then I don’t think you will be allowed to go farthrough a train or sit there without being ridiculed or harassed. And that’s why Ibelieve that the tolerance level isn’t that high. It could be both the Christian thatdoesn’t understand what it’s all about but it can also be amongst the Muslims. So Ithink there should be room for the cashier in Irma supermarket to wear aheadscarf or wherever you’re sitting, it’s alright by me. But then respect should goboth ways, from Muslim women that the cashier at nr. 2 is wearing a cross, thatthat is also legitimate.” (Quote 5.30)

90Religion and the Public Space in Denmarkhas to do with the signals sent in the public sphere and the signals that goagainst our individual ideas about public order and public peace.AMA: “A good example is the burka – many people think that headscarves arecompletely legitimate. I’ve also spoken to some children who say that this isn’teven an issue at all and these are children you wouldn’t necessarily expect to be soopen. In regard to the burka, it is my position that if it impedes professionalismthen I don’t think it’s all right. If you can professionally and academically provethat wearing a burka makes you a poorer educator because the children becomeuncomfortable… personally and politically, I don’t like burkas but I wouldn’t banthem or something. Nonetheless, I believe that burkas are somewhat oppressive towomen, completely different than the other kinds of headscarves. Just as I don’tcare, politically, for people walking around with a swastika on their back. I alsothink that sends the wrong signals, but we can’t ban that.”(Quote 5.31)

The comparison of the burka and the Nazi swastika, with its subtext ofassumed extremism, is problematic from an academic and a politicallycorrect point of view, but the association in common between the two isone of oppression and a threat to personal safety and comfort. HOB pointsto something that might remedy the situation. Professionalism needs to betaken on its own terms; there is no reason to question it. Likewise, religioussymbols and religion in the public are here to stay, but there might be aneed for publicly expressing an opinion and certain attitudes. Not thateveryone wearing Muslim religious headwear is assumed to be in favour ofshari’a punishments, but that in a public space we must have the courage ofour convictions and enter into discussion on these important issues:HOB: “So the question is, How do we get rid of some of these uncertaintyfactors? If the person in question wants to work and treat the patients that he orshe has, and they live up to the professional standards, then I have no problemwith that. That also goes for the legislation. So if someone’s sitting there wearinga headscarf and you’re not sure if you’re judging based on shari’a or if it is… - inthe courts or in parliament, then I think it’s problematic. I would say it’s a lotabout how you can make clear your convictions and behaviour in this, and that thestarting-point of freedom in mutual respect is there… To suppress that and tosuppress religious expression in the public sphere, that kind of neutrality, I have ahard time believing that it’s sustainable.” (Quote 5.32)

Religion and the Public Space in Denmark91of necessity comes once in a while should not be allowed:DN: “Now we’re entirely in the public space and by that I mean a public hospitalwhere there are no private institutions taking part in the daily operations. It has tobe like that, that everybody is equal; you shouldn’t be met with religious symbolsmaybe other than a pin, used for historical reasons. People like me aren’t allergicto religious symbols, but symbolism is symbolism and that’s where you start toaffect people’s attitudes in a religious direction within the public institutions. Forexample, if there is a priest. I really believe this is a problem because he affectsdying people in a specific religious direction, and he is allowed to do so andproselytise in the place. If he has to be there, and he is allowed there, then therehas to be an alternative as well.” (Quote 5.33)

Before we turn to the special case of the clothing worn by judges, JC givesa word of warning against taking the distinction between the public spherestoo far, because the line is impossible to draw. There is a right for everyoneto have a religion, but not to dictate to others what they can or cannot do.Weighing individual rights against public concern is, as always, the crux ofthe matter:JC: “You can take the judges and you can take the uniformed personnel such asthe military or the police and then you can also take the nurses and say that sincethey’re wearing uniforms, they have to be standardised as well. Then you can takethe librarians since you should be able to walk into a library and receivereligiously neutral counselling and then you remove it from there. Then you cantake the educators since you don’t want them raised like that and so on and so on.There would be no end to it, and it’ll be the individual citizens lording it over theothers since they’d want it their own way. The human rights convention is: ‘Everyparent has the right for their child to be raised in accordance with their ownreligious conviction.’ It’s a beautiful principle but it doesn’t mean you can’t teachreligion, you can’t indoctrinate; there just has to be a balance. But if it becomes sothat every citizen can decide that ‘I don’t want to see this if it offends me’, thenyou’re really exerting excessive power over others in society. It’ll end up being aviolent power, since I will then decide what others can and cannot do. That’s theother extreme that I can see. We can become so sensitive that we can’t tolerateother people, if they aren’t exactly like me.” (Quote 5.34)

92Religion and the Public Space in Denmarkconviction it is difficult not to see this as a disproportionate and invalid useof legislation.SA, a trained lawyer and devout Muslim, helped write the Muslimorganisations’ response to the legislation:SA: “I wrote a response to the parliamentary justice committee at the time fromthe Muslim joint council without saying which religion I belong to. The headscarfthat I wear, it’s like my trousers and my shirt and shoes, and it’s a piece of myclothing. And that’s what they discuss in the preparatory work for the court, wherethey say that if it is sufficient to create an ‘idea’ that I’m a Muslim… then I think:Are you considerate of the people who get convicted if they’ve had a badexperience with somebody wearing glasses? Would they then say, ‘I don’t want tobe judged by that judge because he wears glasses. It gives me a bad feeling. I’msuspicious that he’ll have prejudices.’ That’s kind of ridiculous. I don’t think youshould interfere in what people wear. Fortunately, I have a great deal of backingfrom the legal system because the judges themselves, the judiciary and the barcouncil and the Danish Lawyers and Economists Association and so on, theydon’t take that law seriously.” (Quote 5.35)

Almost all of the interviewees have reflections on the headwear in courtslegislation, but most of the deeper ones come from those who are legallytrained. TB, who is a judge herself, reflects on the motivation for thelegislation:TB: “I honestly believe this proposal was adopted because people are scared ofshari’a and that it may have an influence. But no matter what, it didn’t end upwith the entire jury system and the court system being invalidated. I can be aMuslim without wearing a headscarf. Nobody can see it on me. We have to judgeon the basis of the laws passed in our society. Probably there are some ethnicDanes thinking: Damn, she’s sitting there with a headscarf on and now I’mprobably going to get my hand chopped off or whatever they do in that system.But that’s what’s wrong, if anybody is thinking like that. It’s not that she has aspecific faith.”Q: “So you would expect the judges and jury to represent the Danish legal system.But do we share the common norms that lie behind all that? Do we agree on thecommon values that should be applied in this common legal system?”TB: “I would say that that is something we have to believe, since we don’t really

Religion and the Public Space in Denmark93have a list of the people we select for jury service. We choose them because theyare citizens in a certain area and they have to be of all kinds, because they arerepresenting Danish society at large. And it is our obligation as judges. We don’tbecome judges if we don’t apply the Danish legal system and it is our duty to keepthem in line. There are some toads amongst them, very active in the DanishPeople’s Party [right-wing, ed.], asking if the person shouldn’t be deported forexample, and then we say no because you really can’t do that in a case like thisand that’s that.Q: “So these conflicts of value exist, independent of people’s religion?”TB: “Exactly. We are not alike. And it can be all kinds of things that play a role,such as politics. All kinds of things can make the difference.” (Quote 5.37)

The most significant reflection here is that the conflicts from their lives,from their religion, or from other convictions that people bring into thecourts, will always be present. The value-conflict and the personaldifferences are what make the institutions human and accessible, and theprofessionalism, which is an equally constituent part of the courts, is whatmakes the courts, judges, and judgements accountable and consistent.In the interview with SA, she adds a personal reflection on how herreligion is exactly that: it helps her in the serious and pragmatic task as alay-judge:SA: “Yes, but no, I can’t split it up like that because my belief in God is that Godmade everything and everything going around in the world, it comes from God,even for that matter if it’s secular. But I can see how it clashes sometimes. Forexample, I’m also a magistrate in the courts; I remember when this terrible lawcame into effect against religious headwear. There you feel like there is a clash ofreligion with the secular system. There, you try to say as a Muslim, ‘Can I affectthis direction so there is a possibility that I can be both a Muslim and a judge, sayin the city court? So you try to unify it, you try to find a path to the solution.”(Quote 5.29)

94Religion and the Public Space in Denmarkyoung Muslim woman running for parliament, who said that she would notshake the hand of her male colleagues for religious reasons. Similarly, andin fact in consequence, the Chief Rabbi, BL, relates a story from theMinister of Church Affairs at the time who would not welcome anyonewho refused to shake her hand:BL: “I was pointing out certain ethical problems that create conflict betweenreligion and democracy. And that was, for example when Birthe Rønn Hornbech,whom I by the way not only respect but know privately, said, ‘If an imam cameon an official visit to Denmark and didn’t shake my hand as the Minister ofChurch Affairs, I wouldn’t receive him.” There is an area of Judaism as wellwhere some men don’t shake hands with a woman. She has to respect that. Andshe shouldn’t put her personal norms ahead of the religious context. […] I believethat the Danish public is represented by our Minister, and she must be tolerantenough that it is accepted. She has to, in the name of the freedom of religion inDenmark, she has to accept that this is a person of a different system of values[…] I believe she represents Denmark in the official sense, as a society allowingpeople freedom of religion. So I think she’s confusing the issue of imams andMuslims into a context which I do not find worthy of her.” (Quote 5.40)

The remarkable thing about this quote is that the Chief Rabbi refers toit in the context of lay-judges wearing religious symbols. Theprofessionalism that he and other religious leaders maintain as the truecriteria for doing the job is the same professionalism that he does notsee in the Minister of Church Affairs. She is confusing her private andperhaps political opinion with the position of trust that she has onbehalf of the general public.5.7 The Royal FamilyA special public sphere in Denmark is occupied by the Royal Family,which is linked to theFolkekirkethrough section six of the Constitution.This stipulates that the monarch shall be a member of the EvangelicalLutheran Church. This – and the fact that pastors in theFolkekirkeareregarded as civil servants – means that the senior pastors, deans, andbishops are invited to certain events of state such as the Queen’s NewYear’s Audience and participate in religious ceremonies such as royalweddings and baptisms.As regards religious minorities in Denmark there is a slight differencefrom theFolkekirkein their relationship to the Royal Family and stateevents. If the Chief Rabbi requests an audience with the Queen or decidesto attend the funeral of a member of the Royal Family, he will usually begranted the audience in recognition of his role and position in Danishreligious life, based on the acknowledgement of the Jewish society alreadyin 1685 during the days of royal absolutism. However, the Chief Rabbi isnot invited to the annual New Year’s Audience or to regular occasions in

Religion and the Public Space in Denmark95the Royal Family with the Lutheran Queen Margrethe II as head of state.Regarding his public profile, the Chief Rabbi is comparable to the bishopsand this is recognised in the order they each greet the Queen. He is notinvited to the special royal or state occasions, but in practice he has alenient opt-in possibility if both he and the Royal Household deem itappropriate.5.8 Conclusions:There is a very old tradition for what is called free schools in Denmark ofboth religious and political character. Schools of faith must live up to thegeneral requirements and goals for primary and secondary schools, but theydecide themselves on the curriculum necessary to reach these goals, andthey are allowed to supplement this with daily prayers, for instance.However, recent legislation is requiring also these schools to prepare forliving in a democratic society. School leaders are taking it seriously, but itwas not much of an issue in our interviews. The state of course treatspublic and private schools differently – that is the very idea of having thefree schools.Some political parties in Denmark think that especially faith schoolsthreaten social cohesion – others that this pluralityensuressocial cohesion.Among our interviewees some of the young Muslims who have tried tointegrate are now responsible for their children’s upbringing. To their ownsurprise even many of them have placed their children in private schools,including faith schools, because they find the general school environmenttoo secular, especially with regard to moral norms. At the same time theseyoung Muslim and Christian leaders reveal a clear understanding ofglobalisation; they want their children to be able to function in a global age,which is also their argument for using private schools.The traditional religious minorities would of course be glad to be givenstate support for establishing or maintaining their buildings, but they do notwant to pay the price that the Lutheran church pays. So at the end of theday they prefer to be self-sufficient. However, they do want to get fairtreatment, or even support, for constructing their own buildings, which hasnot always been the case. There is perhaps also a lack of professionalismamong the small groups behind the small minorities or the new minoritiesrecently arrived. The state could perhaps help more here – but then itbecomes a political question.In order to appreciate the nuances of the debates on religion in thecourts, we need to see the spectrum of symbols from those that trulyexpressthe very core values of society to the symbols that trulychallengethese values. And it is important to remember that there is little agreementon what the core values are in Denmark; that is what sparks the tension. Inaddition, symbols work as communication, in that the meaning thought to

96Religion and the Public Space in Denmarkbe embedded in them is often only discernable to those who know or agreewhile those who disagree only see the contrast. As such the headwear issuemay mean freedom of religion or expression to one interviewee while it isoppressive and deviant to the other.As legislation becomes symbolic and starts addressing matters of thecourtroom and the aspects that have to do with the protection of values thatare of no concern to the courts, the minorities start opting out of the civillegal system. The religious ‘courts’ of these minorities by contrast becomeplaces where the religious identity is not only welcome, but is encouragedand reinforced. We are seeing a dual creation of new identities. In effect,there is a negative targeting in the public courts – in legislation, in themedia, and in public debates – and a positive affirmation of religiousidentity in the religious institutions.

6. State Support for Religions in Denmark6.1 General introduction to the law on state support for religionsIt is difficult in a Danish context to discuss state support for churches andreligious communities with a focus solely on financial support. For thesubject also includes: the distinction between state, church, and religiouscommunities; organisational support; ownership of church land andreligious buildings; and decisions in the general public on the role ofreligion in the public space. In the last-mentioned case there are manyoverlapping arguments from the analysis in chapter five. While focusinghere on finance (including elements related to financial and juridicalstatus), we have tried to maintain the distinction between secular publicspace where religion is welcome, and public space where none of thereligions are present. From our perspective, the role of religion in the massmedia could also have been analysed in chapter five, but given theguidelines in RELIGARE we have included the discussion here, since it isof course also a matter of economy and law whether or not to transmitreligious services on a daily or weekly basis. The same goes for thediscussion regarding the training of religious leaders and the continuinginclusion of theology as a university subject. Here we are dealing with therole of religion in the general public institutions.Before the Reformation of 1536, the church was an independent legalorganisation, including church buildings, monasteries, and other areasestablished largely on the basis of private funding and endowments. Thesegifts were regarded at the time as personal donations to the church. Thischanged only slightly after the Reformation, when the king took over someof the land owned by especially the bishops. Consequently the bishopswere regarded as royal officials, representing, but also paid for, by the king.Financially, the local community and their pastor were still self-supporting,living off the farmland and supporting each parish with tithes and gifts.This system of financing from within theFolkekirkechanged after 1919,when the state again took over considerable amounts of church land. Theexpropriation meant that it was no longer possible for the parish to live offthe land that belonged to the church, while at the same time the system oftithes was abolished.The economy of theFolkekirkehas since been based on church taxespaid by members of theFolkekirke.Since the late 1960s, pastors havereceived equal salaries, no longer dependent on the size of their vicarage.The tax is collected by the state as a form of organisational support raisedalongside taxes for municipality and state purposes.The state also gives direct financial support, paid by all taxpayersthrough the state taxes. This support is seen as a reimbursement for theexpropriation of the bishops’ land at the Reformation; so the state pays the

98State Support for Religions in Denmarksalaries of the 10 bishops. It is also partly seen as reimbursement for theexpropriations in 1919, so the state also pays 40% of the salary for a fixednumber of pastors. Finally, direct financial state support is seen as areimbursement for civil obligations carried out by the church, especiallythe keeping of civil registration and of public cemeteries except in ten citieswhere the municipality runs these.Also other religious communities, namely the 11 especially ‘approved’,keep books for civil registration and have access to organise cemeteries fortheir own members, but they do not receive any direct financial supportfrom the state. The same is the case for any of the other religiouscommunities, where even maintenance of buildings or cemeteries dependssolely on payments from members. Christian communities outside theFolkekirkedo not have the possibility of asking the state to collect churchtaxes for them, so they receive no indirect organisational support.However, they do have the possibility of deducting their church paymentson their tax returns, an option that is not available to members of theFolkekirke.Another indirect support is that other religious communitiesthan theFolkekirkeare exempted from taxes as companies, whereas theFolkekirke,strangely enough, pays value added tax.It is a complex situation and all the issues raised are resolved bylegislation and approved of case by case by the public authorities as well asby the courts. The explanation for this is that any other approach opens upfor the much bigger question of who actuallyownsthe remaining churchland and buildings. Who indeed owns the expropriated church land from1536 and 1919? Does theFolkekirkeeven ownitself,or is it owned by thestate?In Iceland, to mention a particular example, this has recently beensolved in a political and legal decision that the state owns it all on behalf ofthe people. In Sweden, the opposite solution came about as part of theseparation of church and state in the late 1990s. In Norway as in Denmark,this struggle lies ahead.The relevant legislation is as follows:LBK nr 1352 of 05/12/2010.Lov om folkekirkens økonomi – the law onfinancial affairs within, and financing of, theFolkekirke.For other religious communities, the following legislation is relevant:LBK nr. 1017 of 28/10/2011:Ligningsloven – The law on financialaccountability.LBK nr. 175 of 23/02/2011:Skatteforvaltningsloven – The law on taxadministration;LBK nr. 1376 of 07/12/2010:Selskabsskatteloven – The law on corporatetax.The national legislation in Denmark in regard to taxation is quite extensive

State Support for Religions in Denmark99but it does establish that religious communities other than theFolkekirkeare exempt from taxation and that individual taxpayers can deduct theirgifts to religious communities – except the tax members of theFolkekirkepay. The system is in no way logical.From case law can be mentioned:SKM.2008.760.SR– An unnamed religious society wanted to clarify if itwas exempt from tax. The tax council concluded that any religiouscommunities approved by the Ministry of Justice would be exempt fromtax.SKM.2010.596.SR– A parish council could provide computers for bothunpaid workers and volunteers without triggering a tax. Paid workers,however, were not exempt from the tax.With regard to case law, previously only religious communitiesrecognised by royal decree were exempt from taxation, but as the case lawtestifies, approval by the Ministry of Justice currently has the same effect.U 2008.342 Hwas a spectacular case in the Eastern High Court. Anindependent group of five Roman Catholics claimed the current system wasagainst the constitution and against international human rights on threecounts: the lack of equality in regard to state support for theFolkekirkeandno state support to other religious communities; the fact that citizens whoare not members of theFolkekirkehave to pay a higher price for funerals atcemeteries; and the upholding of civil registration within theFolkekirkerather than at the town hall. The court held: That state support for theFolkekirkewas partly a repayment for earlier expropriations and couldtherefore not be considered to be against freedom of religion for others;that the differential payment for members and non-members of theFolkekirkewith regard to funerals had its basis in the fact that members oftheFolkekirkepay for upkeep of churchyards through church taxes notpaid by non-members; and that civil registrations could be seen as merelypublic administrative obligations discharged by the church for the state.The case has not yet been brought to the European Court of Human Rights.Religious media can apply for the right to open radio channels on equalfooting with other mass media, but there is no legislation giving religiousmass media any advantages, on the contrary. On the other hand, as part ofits public service obligation, the Danish Broadcasting Company (DBC)broadcasts Morning Prayers from theFolkekirkelive from the cathedral inCopenhagen each morning. This must be regarded as a huge indirect massmedia support.TheChristian Daily,a newspaper also with internet services, receivesstate support like other small mass media – there are no advantages ordisadvantages in being a religious newspaper.

100State Support for Religions in DenmarkFinally, it should be mentioned that two Danish universities,Copenhagen and Aarhus, offer degrees in Theology, which is the essentialqualification for all Danish pastors. Twoprivatetheological schools alsoexist, claiming to be more biblical, but they have so far not been given theright to offer public exams. Nor are there any education programmesrelevant for becoming a religious leader within the Jewish or Muslimcommunities (though there are courses available in Sociology of Religion,History of Religion, and Islamic Studies). A BA in Theology from a privateinstitution (the Lutheran School of Theology in Aarhus/Menighedsfakultet)has been accredited for other Protestant churches than theFolkekirke.6.2 On State Support for religious elements in the mediaIt was not clear from the start how the role of religion in the mass mediashould be presented and discussed. It is an area which has been researchedalso in a Danish context, but in other analyses the question has been linkedto the public debate. Thus, when asked about the general relevance of thisinvestigation, the human rights officer answers:JC: “There is a prominence of Christian debaters who fail to reflect on their ownvalues. […] There’s not enough of them at least, with regard to the positions theyplace themselves in. That also goes for a lot of interesting societal debaters.Whoever pushes his message unapologetically and loudest is typically the onewho gets the screen time. It has more to do with the media image… We’ve seen anumber of very strong, and often female, theologians taking a big part in thepublic debate. I see it as the religious Christian aspect playing a much larger roletoday in the public space than it did ten years ago. I think it is a consequence ofthe foreigner and immigrant debate in general, to have a Christian answer to whatis seen as the threat from Islam. That’s why I think they’re getting more screentime, which I don’t think they would have got if there was not such a big debateabout immigrants.” (Quote 6.01)

This observation, that the general picture in the media regarding religionhas changed, is also part of the bishop’s reflections on the role of religionin the public space. There has been a heated debate in recent years as towhether public radio (DBC) should continue to transmit Morning Prayers –which has been the case ever since the DBC started broadcasting. By wayof compromise Morning Prayer has been moved to a secondary radiochannel but is simultaneously also transmitted on a TV channel (withoutlive pictures). Thus, broadcasting religious services is part of the Danishkulturkampf.The bishop comments on this:PSJ: “The religious content on the DBC is being heavily scrutinised. Is it biasedtowards theFolkekirke,is it biased towards religiosity, Christianity…? There aresome that ask… I don’t think so… it’s become very difficult to be too biasedwhen you think that the DBC also has an obligation to explain what ‘Danish’ is all

State Support for Religions in Denmark101about. I’ve just made myself into a spokesperson because all this talk aboutcultural heritage, I don’t really care for it because I’m no custodian, I’m nomuseum inspector. Cultural heritage, that sounds a bit too much like a museum tome. I mean, I participate in a living culture, which is constantly evolving… Weuse our faith to understand, comprehend, and even misunderstand things with,sometimes.”Q: “But would you say, if we take the DBC and the religious aspect and… wouldyou say that they should keep the strong Christian components, with theFolkekirke,and then add in the other religions? Or should they just keep theheavily Christian aspect with theFolkekirke,or should they just try to be moreneutral?”PSJ: “I think they should keep a strong flow of [Christian] communication. Welive in a society where we might just as well acknowledge that the modernwestern world, such as ours, doesn’t work without arguments. You can’t just leanback and say: 80% of us, we’ve always been here and we have the longest historyhere, more than yours. That’s not what I want. Not at all. We need to have thisdiscussion all the time and then have communication. And we should also talkabout Islam and the other religions… and they should, as is already the case, ofcourse transmit from the synagogue. .. All the way round, I mean the entirespectrum, but it can’t help anybody if we suddenly start pretending we’re allatheists. And I also believe that many people calling themselves atheists areunambiguously Lutheran because a lot of them, they probably think that – with alldue respect because I don’t want to be condescending towards non-believers –[the DBC] must reflect the Danish people; and the Danish people are nowcomposed of … we have a number of religions.” (Quote 6.02)

In this reflection, the bishop argues not only that religious transmissionsfrom theFolkekirkeshould be upheld. He also believes that other religiousservices from as broad a group as possible should be part of the publicmedia. They can then defend religious voices in the public space as voicesonreligion as well as voicesfromthe religious communities themselves,and not only for analysis and discussion but also as direct religiousservices.At the same time the bishop underlines that his line of argument is notbased on any idea of cultural heritage. Religions areherein Denmark, theyare part of the current public life, and that is the main reason why theyshould be supportedwithinbroadcasting instead of being forced out ofpublic life.6.3 State support for theFolkekirkeAll our interviewees find it difficult to distinguish financial support for theFolkekirkefrom what could be seen as organisational support or, fromanother point of view, as a question of church autonomy.We have therefore decided in this part of the analysis first to present thereflections from each of our interviewees in more or less full length andonly then to give our own interpretative analysis.

102State Support for Religions in DenmarkThe starting-point is interpretative. In a Danish context, the mostcommon approach is to underline the special role of theFolkekirke,legallyspeaking, and the state obligation according to section 4 of the constitutionto support theFolkekirke,an obligation which for historical reasons relatessolely to theFolkekirkeand which thus establishes a rule of discriminationwithin Danish religious law – a rule of discrimination which is often arguedto be in opposition to general human rights. The constitution establishes asituation where the state has obligations in relation to religion, ininternational human rights perspectives often understood as in oppositionto a norm of state neutrality. It is therefore of interest first to invitereflections from the human rights official:JC: “For me it must be a basic prerequisite in society that even though we don’thave equality of religion, since theFolkekirkeand the protestant/Lutheran beliefhas a different position in Danish society [the other faiths must have someoptions]. I think that you simply have to make sure that everybody has the sameopportunities to express their religion. So that’s why my answer would be thatthey should have made it equal for all, but so be it.”Q: “Some of the other major faiths are saying that since we have a church tax,shouldn’t they also be able to make a demand for taxes?”JC: “I would think that to be fair. If the administrative process was to be figuredout, you could say that I would like to give my 0.85% to religion number 27. Ithink it’s fair that a state should offer that assistance.”Q: “Fundamentally, don’t you have an idea, a vision, that the state should keep allthings religious at arm’s length and not go around helping religious communities?Instead, I’m hearing a view which says it’s part of life so if you give a littleassistance to make it work, then it’s all right?”JC: “Once you’ve said A, then you have to say B as well. If you start saying thatthe members can demand a certain percentage and choose which religion to giveto, then I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t be able to. If it’s more or lesspractical for the others to do so, that is. The basic condition is that we do have aFolkekirke.Are we OK with that? Well, yes we are. Could you change that bychanging the constitution? Yes, you could probably do that too. They did it inSweden and nobody was any worse off. It would become something else. It wouldbe an entirely different tradition.” (Quote 6.03)

Q: “Can you compare theFolkekirkewith other institutions in Danish society,such as A.P. Møller [the international shipping company], that is, a majorbusiness, or the school system, that is, a public administration area, or the sportsworld, that is, a privately-run, business-minded organisation?”PSJ: “Well, I rarely draw parallels, it all fits together – it is in a theological sensethat ithasto be inclusive for as many as possible. … But there should be a changein how the state and the church relate to each other. I don’t doubt for a minute thatif the pledge clause [to theFolkekirke]is upheld, it is necessary for us to give aclear answer, now more than ever. And it’s necessary that something is doneabout this. There are many reasons why. One of the reasons is that theFolkekirkehas become politicised in a negative way. That’s a problem. TheFolkekirkehasbecome really politicised. And I don’t think parliament would want to deal withlegislation on theFolkekirkein the future. I can imagine there being certainpoliticians who would draw a line there. I imagine some kind of Church Board orChurch Council. At present we have the diocesan councils, so fortunately thebishops have someone to consult with. It’s no less necessary on a national level.As I said, I hope the state lives up to its financial obligation.”Q: “The economic relation between theFolkekirkeand the state, that’s what, twoor three elements? They tax members of theFolkekirke,which finances about85% of all the church’s expenses. Then the state budget grants 15% and coversthose expenses, and thirdly, the Minister of Church Affairs determines the size ofthe national church tax that members pay and decides on the budget that themoney is to be used on. These three functions, can you imagine any of them beingchanged?”PSJ: “Yes, the third and the last one, that will probably be changed. There aremany decisions that need to go through a church council or something. And it’sobvious that if it gets around that the laws of the land are being radically changed,then it may come to the point where we’re sitting there discussing whether it’salright that the church is supported by the state. It’s a possibility that we’ll cometo a point where this subject is taken up, I don’t know. It’s not hard to imagine.”Q: “What you’re saying about the registration law, did I understand you correctly,that it’s possible that theFolkekirkewould no longer have a role in the civilregistration of Danish citizens?”PSJ: “Yes, if it no longer has that role, then clearly the state would reconsiderchanging its mind on financial support for theFolkekirke.”Q: “What if we say: there have to be some changes to the relation between thechurch and the state but fundamentally, there should still be some kind of support.That support, in your eyes, is that support solely financial or is it other kinds ofsupport?”PSJ: “It’s also financial, but today the state is increasingly considering itselfsecular. So where theFolkekirkeis to make use of its power, it should also,occasionally, be its conscience. We’ll be that, but not in an inappropriate manner.That is the church’s job. That goes for the Catholic Church, in fact any churchreally. It is the role of all religions. And that role has also been fulfilled, I think.”Q: “Can you imagine drawing the other religions more closely into this role, in anorganisational manner or in other, supportive ways?”PSJ: “That’s how we do it, as you can see. We’re three major religions who gotogether to the Copenhagen municipality and say; ‘Listen, we stand together. We

104State Support for Religions in Denmarkbelieve in different things and we like to argue with each other but we can uniteand fight this threat of violence.”Q: “Could you support that, and should you support that, with organisational orfinancial methods? It has been suggested that like the members of theFolkekirke,other religions could have their members pay a percentage, just like the churchtax, via the state.”PSJ: “I know, there is an excellent piece of work on that. I’ve read it through, itneeded some adjustments… but I think the state could do that.”Q: “In Norway, the model is the opposite: it’s the state that pays the expenses notonly of the Norwegian Church but also the others. And they do something similarin Sweden.”PSJ: “I think the state could take that upon itself. I think the other religionsshouldn’t just be subjected to the law on public access [to their finances]. We maybe subject to it, but then we also receive support from the state. Whether the otherreligions want to be subjected to that, I don’t know. Transparency is in fact anadvantage for our church.” (Quote 6.04)

There is no doubt about the Lutheran bishop’s position: theFolkekirkemust have its own governing body, able to decide over its budget, and therole of the state must change. Financial support is clearly linked toorganisational support, but there is a lack of organisational responsibilitydue to the lack of a body to deal with these questions. The analysis is moredeeply related to the role of religion in the public space: the state mustsupport the idea of having public religions arguing with a voice that differsfrom the political voices on politics, society, and individual needs.The bishop’s reflections are of considerable interest in the Danishcontext: namely, that the clause on theFolkekirkein the 1849 constitutionshould finally be implemented, meaning that the state should stoprunningtheFolkekirkeand startsupportingit, thereby setting the pastors free tohave a public voice. Yet the question may already be redundant, for thecurrent debate on national values is asking: Is Denmark a ‘Christian’country at all? How does the Folkekirke answer this? And what are theconsequences of a yes or a no for the non-Christian communities?The human rights officer in his reflections on the role of Christianity inthe public media mentioned a group of theologians who are very visible inthe public space. Among them is a female theologian who is an appointedmember of the DBC board. She argues that the country as such benefitsfrom the current organisational and financial situation of both theFolkekirkeand the other religious communities in relation to the state. Hereis her line of argument:Q: “So when we in Denmark have a system where the state, financially,structurally, and normatively, supports theFolkekirkeand at the same time givesfull freedom to other religions to fend for themselves without any support giventhere, what is your assessment of that?”KWH: “I think it’s excellent, because I’d say there is nostatechurch, only a

State Support for Religions in Denmark105people’s church, aFolkekirke,and you can argue all you like about that, but Ibelieve it is absolutely crucial. So, as you pointed out, the country isn’t neutral,it’s a Christian country. That doesn’t mean everybody is a Christian, but it meansthe official wrappings are, our flag is, they are our markers. Parliament openswith a church service and so on.”Q: “When you say it benefits the state, did I get that right? Or is it society or thecountry?”KWH: “Yes, it benefits the country”.Q: “Does it also benefit theFolkekirke?”KWH: “Yes, I actually think it does. I think we’re much more privileged than,let’s say, the East German church, which is a lot like us, but is in utter dissolution.As a church, we’re very spoiled. By that I mean we may not know how privilegedwe are and we’re lazy and we don’t care and we care mostly about how large ourvicarages are and all that. But the problem in theFolkekirkeisn’t the structure.The problem is spiritual flabbiness, in my opinion.”Q: “What about the other religions in Denmark? Today the reality is that there isno formal support of any kind. …. That is, priests can acquire the authority toperform marriages… and tax deductions and residence permits are given toforeign preachers. What is your comment on the position of the other religions?”KWH: “They have total freedom. That’s a beautiful thing. You wouldn’t have thatif you were a church in the Middle East, so it’s freedom. And sure, freedom canbe tough, because then you have to fend for yourself, but it’s freedom and it’sbeautiful.”Q: “Shouldn’t theFolkekirkealso have this beautiful freedom? “KWH: “It does. The good thing about theFolkekirkeis that – and these days Ithink it is its strength – it is bound. It is bound to the words of the constitution,which says in paragraph 4 that it’s not just anything we give our support to, it’sthe Evangelical-Lutheran Church. So theFolkekirkehas complete freedom to bean Evangelical-Lutheran Church. It is highly privileged, of course it is, but I thinkit should be too.”Q: “Part of financing theFolkekirkeis that members pay about 85% of itsexpenses, but they pay them through the church tax which is charged alongsidethe municipal tax and the state tax. There have been suggestions that a similarchurch tax could be charged for the Roman Catholic Church and the otherreligions in Denmark, which would have…”KWH: “Yes, it’s another attempt at this equality craze that we are evil, evil, evilpeople, if people aren’t treated equally but… we discriminate! Yes, because we dohave differences, we give privilege to one specific confession, which is theEvangelical-Lutheran. We’ve done so since 1849, 1536, whatever, and we’regoing to keep doing that. We shouldn’t be ashamed of ourselves, we should beproud of ourselves, and I believe that the Catholics should be pleased becausethey enjoy a freedom of religion which they’ve given reluctantly, and they’vebeen very slow in granting it to others. I mean, I’m sorry to put it like this, but alot of heretics have been burned through the ages, yet the Catholic bishop canfreely express his Catholicism here, fortunately.” (Quote 6.05)

106State Support for Religions in Denmarkconfessional binding to not only the gospel, but also to the state, asbenefitting both the state and especially the people. At the same timecomes the argument that freedom of religion is total in Denmark (preciselybased on this concept), in contrast to both Catholic traditions and currentMuslim or at least Middle Eastern practices. There is much provocation fornon-Folkekirke Danes in this way of thinking – but are there also anylessons to learn about degrees of freedom both for religious communitiesand for individual religious persons in different systems?This understanding is now under increasing pressure among elites inDanish society. The newly-elected Member of Parliament, herself apractising member of theFolkekirkethroughout her life, formulates thechanged understanding of the need for both theFolkekirkeand the state toestablish some kind of distinction between them and perhaps give a form ofautonomy to the church:MB: “It is my impression that within the last 10 to 15 years, state intervention inchurch matters – and I’m not talking about internal matters but matters of financeand structure – has been on the increase. When the state starts to interfere in thedetail, something happens to a church: something happens to the life around theparish councils, something happens to the commitment of the appointed staff inthe churches. If you have the traditional triangle of the state, the market, and civilsociety, the church has evolved more into the state area. But at the same time, it’salso become more involved in the market area. Many speak in the terminology ofthe free market when we’re talking about theFolkekirketoday, and bothdevelopments, I believe, are unfortunate. Then I’d rather that we ask, ‘What aboutcivil society, what are the tasks of the congregation?’ That is, if the congregationreally is the cornerstone of the church, what is their role? Have we in realitysucked the life out of the congregations by saying this is done or fixed by thestate. Are we saying ‘we as a church will adapt to our consumer base’? – I mean,there are people actually talking about the ‘customers’ in theFolkekirke;they talkof selling the message, they talk of marketing and so on. To me, that is an alienterminology with regard to what the church should really be about, what is thecore of the church, the being itself. I mean the important thing is to preach thegospel, and how do we frame this preaching so the church becomes a livingchurch? So I would much rather give power and space to the civil population – inthis case the congregations – so they can bear more, of their own free will. Andthat’s the liberal aspect of it, you could say.” (Quote 6.06)

State Support for Religions in Denmark107In the existing system pastors are civil servants. This arrangement isseen by many as being to their advantage: they have a fixed salary likeeveryone else in modern society, they have regular holidays where they arenot on call, and the Pastors Association is a professional body that looksafter their interests through collective negotiations and agreements. Thus,the few pastors who are employed outside theFolkekirkeare not coveredby any good collective agreements and only have an individual contract towork with. There are former pastors from free churches who have bitterlytasted the lack of legal security, but not enough of them to make theirvoices heard. Perhaps they can become part of a reorganisedFolkekirke.We discuss the matter with the leader of a diaconal organisation, a formerchair of the Pastors Association, expecting her to stand up for their rightswithin the existing system – but she wants change:HC: “As for theFolkekirke,I believe it needs some kind of constitution and it’sbeen needing it for a long time. I’ll probably get a thick ear for saying this becausenobody has really been wanting to do so, but it’s got a lot to do with laying out theeconomy, the theology, the law and all that. Because the system as it is rests on anunderstanding that has been quite close with all the players, including members ofparliament. But that’s no longer there, and in the next generation the politicianswill have completed backed away.”Q: “What’s the main problem that a constitution would fix?”HC: “It has to embrace the church’s’ own administration of its economy,including the question of property ownership, because a lot of emotions are tiedup with the bricks. I’m a pastor in one of the parishes where a church is closingdown but it hasn’t actually been closed down yet. There are some deep emotionsthere, embedded in the building itself … But then you have to figure out whetherit’s part of the cultural heritage and thus the responsibility of society or whetherit’s a church, run as a church, and a place for the congregation to gather.” (HC, p17)Q: “Should you still charge the church tax alongside the municipal and thenational tax?”HC: “That doesn’t seem very natural to me, because there’s already anindependent association. It’s just a mess that you call it a church tax, it doesn’thave anything to do with taxation but it’s probably because it’s charged at thesame time. It’s a membership fee and really, you could call it that.”Q: “So in the future, who is going to administrate and organise the economy in theFolkekirke?”HC: “That would be the church itself. So it’s a good thing that there is the civilregistration, because then you have some tools at your disposal, I think” (Quote6.07).

108State Support for Religions in Denmarkidentity in a changed structure.It is thus fair to argue that the common approach to understanding state,church, and religion relations – including organisational structure,economic basis, and state support – has changed, especially amonginterviewees speaking from within theFolkekirke.It is not so long ago thatsuch an interview among elites would result in a clear vision parallel to thatof KWH – this is our model and we should keep it. It is also striking thatthe arguments for changing the model do rest, as one might have expected,on an understanding of international human rights. Those who envision achanged organisation and changed forms of economic support do so fromthe perspective that that would support both the church and the state better.In other words, it is the basic and very Danish understanding of what servesthe people which has changed.We also ask interviewees from other faith communities the samequestions about state support for religious communities in the form of botheconomic and organisational support. The main question is whether oneshould strive towards stripping theFolkekirkeof support or give statesupport to other religious communities. First the interviewee from theCatholic Church:ET: “Regarding state support of churches and religions, I would distinguishbetween grants and services. Grants is like the state paying the salaries of thebishops and 40% of the pastors’ pay checks. Service is like the tax authoritiescollecting the money that people have to pay. We don’t want grants, we wouldprefer not to be paid by anybody other than ourselves, but we would like to havesome help to do some things. There is no doubt that if theFolkekirkedidn’t havethis arrangement… then it would’ve gone bankrupt a long time ago.” (Quote 6.08)

The argument is that the collection of church taxes through the state taxsystem is much more effective and thus gives a much higher degree offinancial security than a system of collecting them at the Sunday service –Members of faith communities have the further incentive that they candeduct their gifts on their income tax returns, an option unavailable toFolkekirkemembers. In order to gain a higher degree of financial security,the Catholic Church in Denmark suggested a couple of years ago that otherreligious communities than theFolkekirkecould get state support for theircollections. Today the church tax is a sort of membership fee, collected bythe state for theFolkekirkeand at a different rate in different areas of thecountry. The state could collect the fee that each church member shouldpay and thereby support the other religious communities. The systemwould need to be adjusted with regard to whether there should be aprevious acceptance from the individual members of the church, or theyshould only be allowed to opt out of the system with the consequence thatthey also opted out of their church. There are also other technical details,

State Support for Religions in Denmark109experiences of such a system are positive in countries such as Norway,Iceland and Sweden as well as in Italy, all of whom have different churchtax systems outside the majority church.The proposal from the Catholic Church in Denmark has been supportedby the National Council of Churches in Denmark(Danske Kirkers Råd)and was also discussed in the central committees of the former centre-rightgovernment, who nevertheless rejected the idea with the formal argumentthat the state is obliged by the constitution to support only theFolkekirke.There were political arguments behind the rejection. The then government,supported by the Danish People’s Party, could not stomach the idea ofcollecting membership fees for Muslim communities. The currentgovernment has not yet reacted to the same proposal. With regard toMuslim communities one of the most recent discussions in Danish societyhas been precisely on financial support, namely who should pay for thebuilding of a mosque in Copenhagen.Currently nobody has a full overview of the economy in faithcommunities outside theFolkekirke.Independent organisations andcharities in Denmark are normally obliged by law to inform publicly abouttheir entire economy. But religious communities are exempted from thelaw, because it was mistakenly thought that the Ministry of Church Affairswas supervising them. This means that there is a loophole in the legislationwhich prevents members of religious communities from accessinginformation about their economies: equally there is no right for eitherpublic authorities or the public as such to access information aboutfinancial data within faith communities.We asked ET about this loophole. Does he think that the religiouscommunities ought to be transparent and accountable?ET: “When it comes to demands that can be made on the faith communities, I amvery minimalistic. What demands do you make on a professional organisation,associations and businesses? It’s true that if you have any kind of business, thensomebody is making money and of course you have to account for that and paytaxes. As for public access into the situation of faith communities, I feel theburden of proof should be on those that want it. What are they going to use it forand why do they need it? What is it all about?”Q: “The question of leadership, organisation, budget, finances – would you accepta reasonable access by the public, similar to what the public has access to in themajor companies?”ET: “If they’re not an actual business and they don’t pay taxes, then no. We’recontinually closing in on the question of the law on funds. Those that say it shouldapply carry the burden of proof and argumentation. They must tell us what thepurpose of it is, if it is to be included. What purpose does it serve that the publichas that knowledge about these communities? That’s not certain at all. I’m quitepragmatic when it comes to that. I know what happens when journalists don’thave anything to print and parliament members don’t have political issues in needof questioning and response and when officials are sitting there, spending billions

110State Support for Religions in Denmarktrying to answer completely inane questions. We simply don’t have the strength todo that. If we suddenly had more resources, then they’d be used for somethingother than this silliness. So I ask, What is the legitimate purpose that the state andthe public need this insight? In what’s written about the church tax, we write thatsociety is granted a lump sum. They don’t need to know what each individual haspaid because then they’d be looking into their private economy. We must trustthat the Inland Revenue Service is functioning properly. They say 40 millionkroner have come in, then you’ll get 40 million, but the church often has toaccount for how the money’s been spent internally. That’s also for the sake of themembers.” (Quote 6.09)

In relation to the building of a mosque the current situation is that such abuilding will require economic support from abroad, i.e. Saudi Arabia. Onthe one hand there is no argument against this, since the Danish state alsosupports the 53 Danish Lutheran Churches. On the other hand there is ageneral feeling that if the Danish state was to support the Muslim faithcommunities in better ways, e.g. by collecting membership fees, then therewould not be the same need for economic support from other countries.We ask one of the Muslim interviewees about this in relation to thefinancial security of Muslim groups in Denmark and whether or not hewould prefer indirect state support in the form of organisational help tocollect membership fees or other things. We also ask whether or not thestate should have a role with regard to religious communities in general:AWP: “The state already does that since theFolkekirkegets part of its fundingfrom the state, so you already have a state-funded religion; but then the otherreligions can get a § 8a with approval and then get some tax deductions for theirmembers. And that’s all fine, but I think it should be changed. There are a lot ofmodels you can look at; there’s the Norwegian one and the Swedish and theItalian and all these different ones you can look at, how you can make sure there’sa better financial option for the religions, or like the Italian one, where you canpay to both cultural institutions and religious ones, and so on. It can be changed sothings are a bit more evenly spread.” (Quote 6.10)

The financial foundation of a mosque is a hot political issue, alsobecause there is a general feeling that even though money doesn’t smell, itmight draw certain obligations with it. The Mayor of Integration inCopenhagen comments:AMA: “I’ve been on the offensive with that agenda and I’ve said, I’m happy asthe integration mayor in Copenhagen that our second biggest religion now has aplace where they can practice their religion. For me, freedom of religion is aboutyou being able to practice your religion within a decent framework. I’ve also saidthat I’m happy we’re getting a mosque, but I’m happier, politically, for the onebeing built on Amager. We’ve had a good, constructive dialogue all the waythrough with the Muslim Joint Council. They have an independent board. I’maware that the financing in both places cannot be achieved without outside

State Support for Religions in Denmark111funding. We still don’t know where the money is coming from. It wouldn’t do forany of us if the money was from states we’re not that fond of. But again, as longas it is not illegal… Doesn’t AP Møller sometimes deal with those we don’t quitelike and do we ever do anything about that?”Q: So you think that in reality, we should have more active policies on religion inDenmark so the state and the municipalities could give financial aid in theconstruction of religious buildings?”AMA: “I’ve thought a bit about that. I wouldn’t mind it at all, if the state or themunicipalities would start doing it. You’d just need to find the right frame ofmind, since it’d be a sensitive subject. Then you would also be making demands, Ithink.”Q: “What kind of demands would you make?”AMA: “One of the reasons I really like the mosque on Amager is that it has anindependent board. They’ve also said that they will preach and do their Fridayprayers in Danish.”Q: “I’ve sometimes made myself a proponent of transparency and beingaccountable or publicizing the names of the leaders in the organisation and thatthe structure of the organisation is transparent. There has to be a public insightinto what funds are going in and out.”AMA: “You’re absolutely right. If you give public support to some – if youfinance something in other organisations, then you of course have certainrequirements and then the same requirements would apply here.”Q: Would you make the same demands if there were no state money involved?”AMA: “I don’t know. Perhaps I would encourage it instead of demanding it. Thething is that politically we work in general terms, that is, we start withencouragement and then initiate a dialogue. If that doesn’t work, then you couldconsider a demand, but I haven’t thought much about it.” (Quote 6.11)

The political vision formulated here concentrates more on the possibility ofbuilding a mosque in the near future, but is also closely concerned with theorganisational structure behind it. However, when asked about rules ontransparency and accountability that the mayor and her party wouldnormally favour, she is more hesitant, comparing a faith community withthe biggest multinational firm in Denmark instead of with near relations inan organisation. In so doing she shows clearly that – at least to Danish ears– this is a delicate topic.The Rabbi too was asked about financial support for religiouscommunities and about transparency:BL: “I’ve been asked several times: What about the Swedish model? And then I’dsay, I’ll tell you, when I’ve found a mathematician to calculate whether it’s worthit. The thing is that I’m not sure. The Jewish community is getting smaller andsmaller – it is: the Jewish society is shrinking, not least because people areleaving; the youngsters are going to Israel and so on. So I’m not sure it’s theproper way to go, to say that every member triggers some kind of payment. Buton the other hand, I think there are some things that you should begiven.Forexample I think the registration, the fact that I work for the state, that should beeligible for funding, just like the sacristan, because my secretary spends a whole

112State Support for Religions in Denmarklot of time on all of that. On the other hand we consider that an advantage, abigger advantage than most others, because we have such a need to go back intoour ancestry, much more than other communities around here.”Q: “So the performance ratio is not proportional?”BL: “No, not at all.”Q: “Would you want it to be? What would it take?”BL: “Again, that’s the question of what really lies in the word ‘funding’? If thereis a requirement of accountancy or some such along with the funding, then it’smore problematic, because I still believe that it’s a very important part of Danishsociety that the religions are allowed to keep to themselves as long as they behave.That’s a very important thing.”Q: “Does the Jewish community have public records? (B: yes) which theyautomatically present to the authorities in a … on the homepage (B: yes) or somesuch? So what you’re talking about here, that’s some kind of regulation that goesbeyond public records because you already do that?”BL: “Yes.” (Quote 6.12)

The Jewish community comprises a mere 7,000 people and cannottherefore support a complex administrative system. But given this, therabbi is not arguing against financial support, only against more controlthan transparency itself, which he is very much in favour of.The Secretary General of the Baptist Association also has manyreflections on both state favour of theFolkekirkeand possible financial ororganisational support for other faith communities as well as directives ontransparency and so on. The point of departure in state relations withreligious communities, including Baptists, is that the state ought not to dealwith religious affairs, be they financial, organisational, dress codes etc.State support for theFolkekirkeis against the normative ideals of theBaptist church, also in Denmark. Asked more specifically about theproposal from the Catholic Church that faith communities should be onequal footing with theFolkekirkein collecting membership fees, theSecretary General answers:LMH: “We’ve actually debated this in the Baptist church. I believe there weresome people that were proponents of us charging a church tax for Baptists as well.However, we can’t reach agreement on it. I don’t think it will happen, because wehave this attitude... most people have the attitude… that state and church shouldn’tmix. In the 1970s there was a lot of talk about ‘associations’, and there were a lotof youth associations who got government grants. That movement has gone prettymuch the opposite way in the 2000s where a lot of associations have beendissolved because they’ve said, ‘We shouldn’t think about grants, we shouldactually make it a virtue to be financially independent … and not think about howwe’re going to squeeze as much as possible out of the public coffers. That’sunethical – and it’s not the Baptist way.’” (Quote 6.13)

State Support for Religions in Denmark113understanding of what a faith community ought to be. Thus also in relationto majority support and structural discrimination:Q: “So you think that you should legally privatise theFolkekirkeand at the sametime, you should, politically, culturally, or morally, include all the churches andreligion a bit more in the public space? Is that what you mean?”LMH: “Yes, I think it could be put like that. I think that equality would mean thatwe all had the same opportunities to… I don’t know if it’s called judicialopportunities… I can tell you what it’s about. I’d like to be a minister in a hospitalfor example or in a prison and I can’t become one because it has to be a Lutheranpastor. I find that discriminating. I know the reasoning behind it, because what ifsomebody comes and wants to baptise their child, then I wouldn’t baptise them,right? Or there can be all kinds of issues. But I think it would enrich our society ifthere was more equality and if there were different kinds of priests in hospitalsand prisons. Or if there was no difference on who has to pay to be buried in thechurchyards. Then there are the public cemeteries, like we’d be married at the cityhall and then have a church marriage ceremony afterwards, or go to the mosque orthe Jehovah’s Witnesses or wherever we want to go and get some kind ofblessing. To me, that’s equality and religious recognition of each other.” (Quote6.14)

The newly-elected liberal Member of Parliament is also asked whether ornot the state should support other religious communities in theirorganisation, structure, or finances. Even though her general understandingis that Denmark is a Christian country, her approach to organisational andfinancial matters is more liberal, focusing on the establishment of equalopportunities for all faith communities:MB: “With the other religious communities, I believe that even though weshouldn’t be afraid to say that Denmark is a Christian country and we live in aChristian society, then I’m very attuned to the fact that we actually enjoy – andshould preserve – the freedom of religion. I would like to see a developmentwhere the church economy and the state economy are separated. Many find itoffensive that the state pays the salaries of the pastors and if you’re an atheist or aBuddhist why should you be paying for the pastors in the national church? But Ihave a feeling, and I want support for this, that you could actually do this –separate their finances. The state should continue to pay for the preservation ofour cultural heritage, the old churches and so on, everybody would understandthat. I feel that you could easily say theFolkekirkeshould be paid for [solely] bythe church tax. Period. If you separate that, then you remove some reasons forobjections for a lot of people. – Things like that muddle the debate… Let’s startby doing something that should be simple enough! Along with that, I’m also opento the idea that the state could demand church tax, or whatever you call it, fromthe Catholics and I don’t know whether Muslims are even allowed to dosomething like that but anyway, the major religions. You say to them, ‘If youwant society to provide the same services that we give to theFolkekirkethen we’llprovide that for you as well.’ It can’t be that difficult, bureaucratically, if youknow who the members of the different communities are. And that way, I think

She thus supports the Baptist and Catholic view that the current situationincreases inequality among faith communities in a way which is neither fairnor necessary. Also the theologian who is a left-wing Member ofParliament argues along the same lines. It is a matter of recognition:PVB: “As it is today, we’re turning our back on the religions, we see them, almostall the religions, even the Jewish community and the many Muslim communitiesand the Catholics, as sects. It’s just before I think they have a sect-like status. Sothey’re recognised on paper but on the other hand, you can’t have legislationtelling people their religion is exactly like the national church. The Catholics wantthe state to charge membership fees, and in civil registry to handle thingsdifferently, and so on. That has been refused outright, without any reasoning,other than that the majority are something specific. That’s not recognition. Youcould imagine that if the state demands membership fees of the religions, just liketheFolkekirkecharges through taxes, then you could ask for transparency withregard to accountancy, with regard to what practices the religions have whenpeople opt out of them, what goes on when people join, what are their rights andduties towards these religions and so on.”Q: “What if the religious communities say, ‘That’s all very well, the rights givenare nice but we’re not interested in public access to our accounts and budgets andwe’re not interested in knowing about least of all supervision with regard to therights and options for our members”?”PVB: “I think that’s problematic, because I don’t want a model where religion iscompletely in the realm of the private sector, outside the reach of the public, but Idon’t want us to be a non-secular society either. I would like a middle road wherewe make religion part of the society and community, somewhere between the stateand the free market; I think that would be in the best interest of the religions, eventhough they don’t believe that – to be part of society, with regard to both rightsand duties. I would like to start this dialogue on how best to do this withoutoffending the religious communities and without being suspicious of them. But Ialso think we should move towards a position where they don’t have the status ofa sect and I think a lot of them have that today.” (Quote 6.16)

State Support for Religions in Denmark115these groups are ‘religious’, a position which she sees as discriminatory:BP: “Yes, currently there is a strong discussion regarding ethics andprofessionalism because we are challenged, on both fronts, with the currentpolitical discourse and direction which is increasingly creating poorer conditionsfor socially vulnerable Muslims and others with a non-ethnic Danishbackground.”Q: “What do you mean by that? What are you thinking of?”BP: “Yes, a series of new rules have come into force which de facto discriminatein Denmark. For example, we’ve now got ‘start-aid’, which is a sort cash aid, halfas much as what’s usually given, and it’s given to people who haven’t lived inDenmark for 7 out of the last 8 years all told. That aid is conditioned by a lot ofthings and the fact is that over 90% of the recipients have a non-westernbackground. Then we have what we call the 450-hour rule, which will soonbecome a 250-hour rule, which is a rule that requires married couples receivingaid to each do 450 hours of regular work within the past two years to keep theirbenefit, to be able to get the aid. If they can’t do that, then the one that’s beenmostly away from the workforce loses his aid and then that’s what you’ll have leftto live on, including the children. That rule simply homes in on non-westerners.Together, these two rules mean for example, what we at SFI call ethnicsegregation, where many are evicted from their apartments since they can’t paythe rent. If you’ve been following the political development over the years, it’svery clear: one special clause after another, going ahead without anybodymentioning ethnic minorities.” (Quote 6.17)

The last voice to be included in this discussion on organisational andfinancial support from the state for theFolkekirkeand other religiouscommunities, plus the related questions on equal opportunities or equalityas such, belongs to the high-ranking civil servant from the EuropeanCommission:Q: “Is it a political goal to support religion in some form or other out of regard forthe freedom of religion?”CS: “I think you should look at what religion really is: Is it religious schools, is itreligious kindergartens, is it nunneries, is it preservation of buildings, is it payingfor the bishops’ vestments? I mean, there is probably a long list of things whereI’d say that some of these services provided are similar to some others, providedby others, which could just as well have been provided by the state. And thenthere are some which are very ‘close to the altar’, which is where they should bedealt with. … You could say that on this end of the scale, that’s the job of the stateor it could co-financed, and the other things are what the congregation has to payfor, because they form part of their own values so they must finance thatthemselves. Then, if the Danes say that we’re all in this together and we want anational church that pays for that, then you could make some sort of agreement onit. But I honestly can’t see why we pay for the strictly religious assignments of theFolkekirkebut we don’t pay for the Muslim equivalent. And really, I think weshould do that: it also gives a bit of an insight into what’s going on within thesecommunities.”Q: “So you actually think it’s a good idea that the state charges a church tax for

116State Support for Religions in Denmarkthe members of theFolkekirkeand then does the same for the Muslims and soon?”CS: “I must admit that one of the reasons I’m still a member of theFolkekirke–that is one of the reasons, not the only one – is that I believe the tribal instinct isso deeply ingrained within us that we want to channel it some place where itwon’t mess things up. A national church under democratic control is a goodconstruction. It could be spread further.”Q: “That would mean that when I use words like transparency and accountability,they wouldn’t be foreign words to you with regard to religious communities?”CS: “No, no, not at all. I think that would be fine. And it goes for the CatholicChurch and the Muslims; it goes for all of them. I think that’s fair.” (Quote 6.18)

Here is no hesitation: members ought to pay for themselves for the morereligious area of their economy and could get state support for the morecommon dimensions, such as schooling etc. And all religious communities,no matter how they are financed, ought to be bound to general norms oftransparency and accountability – these are also general norms, not onlysupported by the European Commission, but simply part of ‘acquiscommunautaire’ [common agreement].6.4 Subventions to different projectsThis distinction between finance for the more religious dimension andfinance for the more social dimension is of course central in an analysis ofstate support for religious communities.We discussed the question with the minister who leads a major Christiancharity organisation focussing on the social needs in society. Our questionsconcerned information:Q: “Who finances Danchurchsocial’s work and who are your staff?”HC: “In 2010 our revenues were DKK 211 million. About 35% of that comesfrom gifts, including contributions from charity shops, and about 65% from stategrants.”Q: “… the 35% goes under your ‘privately collected means’. Is that because thework is voluntary?HC: “Yes, exactly, and because it differs from state means. We collect a lot byworking closely with municipalities or the state, from funds from differentministries or from cooperation agreements with the municipalities or what we callParagraph 18 grants, which is money the municipalities get from the state to passon for voluntary work. So it’s a hodgepodge of various kinds of collaborationwith the state. A bit half and half.” (Quote 6.19)

State Support for Religions in Denmark117positions as a hospital imam in Denmark today, as there are with hospital pastorsand so on. So that’s why you can’t appoint me or somebody else as a hospitalimam or a ‘hospital chaplain’ as they would say in England. So as part of my notquite official work but as part of my position at the hospital I also have theresponsibility of taking care of people who die, who need a funeral, who needcare, support, heart-to-heart conversations, who need mediation and havequestions about bioethics, blood transfusions, abortions, autopsies or just being amediator at a hospital with, for example the respirator issue – does turning it offequate to murder? – to try to see what can be done when a patient or their relativesask me, ‘Is it alright in Islam to turn off his respirator? What about sedatives, howmuch can he get so he passes peacefully away? And so on… these are all issuesthat I need to relate to in my position as imam at the hospital. So that’s just givingyou an overview of what I do.”Q: “Who finances this organisation? And what is the purpose of this organisationfor which you are coordinator?”NB: “It’s a visiting service, it’s a cultural mediation of sorts we’ve got here andwe also teach and advise the personnel at the hospitals.”Q: “So this cultural mediation is in regard to both patients and personnel?”NB: “Yes. The mediation goes on between patients, relativesandthe personnel.Sometimes, it can also be between patients and relatives if a conflict arises. Othertimes, it’s just practical stuff, but then it’s not mediation as such. For example, ifyou need to bring a family member from another country to visit a cancer patient,a patient terminally ill, no, I don’t like the word – a ‘palliative’ patient, then we’ddo some practical work where we can come in and… or a letter of complaint… weare 35 volunteers in the team. I am the only one appointed as coordinator. So it’s avolunteer service.”Q: “I understood, before we began this interview, that there are four largehospitals in Copenhagen which have come together to finance this culturalmediation team (yes). What reasons do the hospitals have to do that? What is theirthinking, what needs have they seen which have made them set aside a part oftheir budget labelled ‘cultural mediation’?”NB: “It’s something to do with freedom of religion, with the constitution, with thehuman rights declaration…”Q: “So it’s simply been the freedom of religion?”NB: “Freedom of religion, Joint Commission Standards, an accreditationscompany, American, where all hospitals are accredited and some of the standardsthat they have involve spiritual support for patients and relatives. So we have thenew, Danish quality model launched at the end of 2009, [IKAS, Institute ofQuality Assurance and Accrediting in Health Care, www.ikas.dk), a semi-officialorganisation which launched the Danish model of quality for all private and publichospitals in Denmark with a set of standards, over 100 of them, which are nowbeing implemented in municipalities, apothecaries, and so on.”Q: “Is spiritual caring part of those standards?”NB: “Religious and cultural support for patients and relatives is included, and inthe guidelines there are things like diet, decency, clerical assistance, and one lastthing which I can’t recall right now, that’s all included. This goes for everyone – itisn’t directed just at Muslims, it’s a cultural and religious support. It’s the firsttime, as far as I know, that hospitals now have specific standards for religion andculture. It’s never happened before. The reason for this, I think, is the Americanaccrediting organisation, which has included it. Then suddenly the hospitals are all

The Christian diaconal organisation, led by HC, is more than 100 years old,and Danish society is used to such organisations, even though there is littlecommon knowledge that, for instance half their income comes fromvoluntary work. We have included this long quotation from the hospitalimam, because the very existence of non-Lutheran religious service in thegeneral public is very new in Danish society. It compares with theSecretary General of the Baptist Association, who would like to work as ahospital or prison chaplain, but cannot get this type of job due to herconfession. There is no doubt that state support for these areas of publicwelfare will in future take stock of a changed understanding ofconfessional claims and standards.6.5 Public funding of religious leaders’ trainingTheological research and training has been part of Danish universities sincethe first university was established in 1492. The Faculties of Theology atthe universities of Copenhagen and Aarhus are not confessional. Butalthough neither staff and nor scholars need belong to any confession, allpastors in the Danish Lutheran Church are required to have a degree inTheology. The two faculties are therefore seen by some as being part of thestate support for theFolkekirke.Others understand them as a natural part ofthe highest possible training for pastors in a field within the existing labourmarket. Three of the Danish universities also include research and teachingon topics in relation to Islam, including Islamic Religious Studies and aCentre of European Islamic Thought at the Faculty of Theology inCopenhagen.Even though this centre is established at a Faculty of Theology and eventhough Theology as a subject is non-confessional, there is no doubt that thecourses are largely oriented towards Lutheran Christianity. In consequencethe evangelical churches have set about establishing their own pastoraltraining, Roman Catholics follow university training in other countries, andMuslims have to go to England or Germany for academic training. Forsome time the debate has been whether to establish formal theologicaltraining in Islam in Denmark. We asked some of our interviewees aboutthis including the hospital imam:NB: “Yes. Definitely! It also has to be interdisciplinary. It has to be across theboard, I mean things like, What is ‘Muslim counselling’? for example. But alsothings like confidentiality, social conditions, how Denmark is structured…internships, so you could learn about… on an equal footing with the hospitalchaplain training that you can get at places such as Løgumkloster Theological

State Support for Religions in Denmark119Training Centre. Something like that.”Q: “Like an extra training after an MA in Theology. In your opinion, what kindof academic education should the universities offer?”NB: “If that’s what you’re talking about, normally we call it ‘imam training’. It’snot that really. Firstly it’s theological training; you can’t just become an imambecause you’ve studied Theology, but I think you could easily offer extra courses,and even a master’s degree in interaction with the other Muslim organisations inDenmark, making it a theological training in Islam. Maybe just a bachelor’s atfirst, and then work up towards a master’s degree.”Q: “In coordination with the other Muslim associations in Denmark... What isneeded for those with this training to get a job afterwards?”NB: “What’s needed is some kind of recognition of their study, and clearly it willbe recognised if it’s being offered by the universities.”Q: “Who should recognise it? Is it the universities, that is, the Ministry of Science,Innovation and Higher Education, or is it…?”NB: “Yes, or the Ministry of Education. It doesn’t matter, as long as there isrecognition that we have a Bachelor of Theology degree which everybody cantake, something that’s non-denominational, which is scientific and so on. There issome criticism that we cannot have an imam training because it is religious andnot scientific and so on, but we have examples from many European and Muslimcountries that you can have a theological schooling that is academic and notreligious. The confessional element, as I see it, is important on another level, ifyou’re to function as an imam, but you can do that elsewhere, also with theuniversities, just like with the pastoral seminaries, which also have a connection tothe theological faculty. So definitely… !”Q: “So you could really just build it completely parallel to the university degreesin Theology with subsequent confessional training.”NB: “Yes. And if you could see that there weren’t enough enrolments – if theresimply wasn’t enough demand – then you could create a model that includedNorway and Sweden, a Scandinavian model, together with some of the otherfaculties, maybe even draw Aarhus in, I don’t know… in that way, make a solidmodel, structured. That could be an idea, maybe you could think of other models.The question is whether these people, those that have taken a Muslim theologicaltraining course, whether they will be able to use it afterwards. They’d need jobs:Municipalities, universities, social institutions, mosques, prisons, hospitals. Andyou also have priests in various institutions and companies, they’ve been talkedabout. There are a lot of options, but this of course requires an open discourse thatit comes onto the agenda. Instead of just saying: Imams don’t know anything,they’re good for nothing, and just look at that stupid statement he’s made; theydon’t even know how things work. You have to say: ‘OK, we would like to tellyou how it works but we’ll do it together, in cooperation, where you also get todecide the curriculum, with the other Muslim umbrella organisations. Instead ofisolating, involve! That’s what we’ve been seeing so far; imams and theologianshave been isolated, they’ve not been involved together and really, that’s the realproblem, as I see it. Some higher-ups are saying: ‘We don’t need them at all: theyare a problem and they’re making things worse.’” (Quote 6.21)

120State Support for Religions in Denmarkrecognition in relation not only to Islamic education, but also to all types oftheological training.However, there is also a price to pay for being an imam on the statepayroll or even just being in public, as opposed to private, education. Notall are prepared to pay such a price:Q: “As I understood you earlier, the role of an imam is quite broad. Could youimagine it being the work of an imam to be partially paid and then to travel roundthe public schools and give talks there, or be part of an education corps, orwhether that should be somebody else…?”AWP: “No, I don’t think it should be the imams, and I’d actually also say that thatis my position is today, where I’m notpaidto be an imam, that’s the most idealposition. That’s because then I don’t have to answer to anybody but myself andGod and the congregation I face, but I’m on no payroll. I see it as a problem forthose that are on a payroll because you have to be a bit loyal to the hand that feedsyou.”Q: “But then in a municipality or a region… to employ a couple of consultantsfrom the teachers’ training colleges….?”AWP: Yes, that could be a solution. I just think we lack a debate on the issue. Justas we need other debates in Denmark, I think we need a debate on this entirereligious education subject as a whole, because if it lies in some old adoptedforms which are basically not good enough for the society we have today…Q: But you’d like some imam training?AWP: Yes.Q: What kind of labour market would it be used for if you also believe it is anideal form not to be paid?AWP: It’s possible that some of them could be paid, but then they have to be paidin some way that’s from a neutral platform. For example, imagine a mosquewhere they have a board and the board deals with the day-to-day matters andcould even be the ones to appoint and dismiss an imam, because somebody has todo it, but where the salary of the imam comes from a fund and not from the boarditself, that is, where the board has a formal function with regard to appointmentsand dismissals but they’re not the ones paying the wages, so you avoid that.Q: What is it that you want to protect: is it the freedom to preach that you want toprotect?AWP: Yes, it is. But that also includes the inner freedom to preach. So you canstand there and look your congregation in the eye.Q: Could you imagine if they simply said, ‘Out of concern and protection of theMuslim freedom to preach, we’re appointing imams as state officials?AWP: No, because then you’re under a ministry, no no, that’s the last thing thatI’d want… it’d be terrible to have a political boss. No. [laughing] That’s doublybad goes double. Internal freedom to preach. But also protection against outsideinfluence, I mean wouldn’t... that’s the last thing I could imagine, that Muslimswould be under some ministry or other and there’d a publically elected politiciansitting there, bossing around what you can and can’t do. No thank you!” (Quote6.22)

State Support for Religions in Denmark1216.6 Public funding of religious heritageReligious buildings in Denmark are funded by those religious communitieswho wish to have them built. That goes for both the building and themaintenance. Thus, the financial support from the state to theFolkekirkedoes not include any funding of church buildings. They are kept up throughchurch taxes paid by members only. Thus, for instance, church membersalone paid for a recent restoration of the popular tourist sight of OurSaviour’s Church in Copenhagen with its golden spire and an outsidestairway to the top, even though it cost over€10million.Our general understanding from the interviews is that it is seen as morerelevant for the state to pay for such a restoration of a church building thanto pay for more confessional purposes or for the salaries of pastors. Itwould also be easier for other faith communities to both receive andrequest public support for buildings, cf. the discussions regarding themosque. However, we did not ask directly about this in the interviews, andcannot therefore present any relevant quotations.6.7 ConclusionsThe Danish constitution of 1849 established a distinction between theFolkekirkeand other religious communities in their relation to the state.The distinction can be maintained for as long as the Lutheran church is thechurch of the majority of the population. As such, the state is obliged tosupport it, while retaining the right to decide on the internalstructureof thechurch. Others interpret the constitution in more moral or religious terms.In its Lutheran heritage, the state is obliged to support precisely thischurch, thus maintaining it as a central dimension in Danish society. Otherchurches or religious communities should not have autonomy vis-a-vis thestate, but should follow the general rules and norms in society, except whenit comes to regulation of thereligiousfunctions of the church orcommunity.As can be seen from this chapter both understandings of the differentialtreatment of the Lutheran church compared to other religious communitiesin Denmark are changing in the 21stcentury, and they are changingquickly. Among the leaders here interviewed it suddenly became aminority standpoint to argue for intertwinement between the state and theFolkekirke;the majority argued for achangein relations, both in order tolet the church become more ‘church’ and in order to establish betterconditions for other religious communities.What these better conditions should comprise is not quite clear, however.Total freedom has its advantages and many leaders are not prepared to giveup any of these. On the other hand financial security also matters, as doesthe opportunity for training etc. Nothing can be concluded on these points,

122State Support for Religions in Denmarkexcept that the question of state support is central for those who areinterested in the role of religion in the secular 21stcentury society.On the other hand it is also our common and general understanding onthe basis of these interviews that the European Union or the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights should not do anything about the inequality ofreligions in Denmark, or state support for religious communities or thestatus of theFolkekirke.To find solutions for the future in this area is amatter for the Danes alone. The general feeling is also that there is notmuch political leverage in trying to analyse the area. Nevertheless, thecentre-left government is setting up a commission to present an overviewof the problems and the possible solutions.

7. Conclusions: Basic Tensions of Religion and Secularity inDenmark

9

The aim of this report is threefold, and this being so our conclusions willfollow a threefold structure.First,we present conclusions on the basic tensions and conflicts ofgovernance of religious diversity. The survey set out to investigate howreligious and secular leaders as well as governing institutions in Denmarkunderstand the relations between law and religion in a contemporarycontext and how they see the basic tensions and conflicts unfolding (On‘Basic Tensions,’ by Professor Veit Bader, see Appendix C). This isexamined specifically within the four chosen research areas of theRELIGARE project: religion and family law, religion and the labourmarket, religion in the public space, and state support for religion. Thechapters in the report follow these, and thus the conclusions in section 7.1below will begin by summarising the results from the four research areas.Because the basic tensions were identified as both generalandspecific,they also raise a series of overall questions to be answered. These concernthe tensions between individual and collective autonomy, between religiousfreedom and other human rights, between religious freedom and a securityissue, and between formal equal treatment and substantive equal treatment.In section 7.2 we have identified these possible overall basic tensions oflaw and religion relations in Denmark. We see this part of the investigationas related to the introductory chapter on the situation in Denmark at thetime of writing. Here we ask how is Denmark changing and are thereEuropean tendencies visible also in the Danish context. We shall focus onhow and where the Danish state, church and religion relations are currentlyunder pressure.Secondly,the aim of the investigation is to present Danish empiricalresearch results and through these establish a framework for comparisonwith other European models. The hypothesis behind the common socio-legal investigation in the RELIGARE project was that in Europeancountries a path dependency exists in relations between law and religion inthe four chosen fields of research. This path dependency may be related tothe internal self-perception in the major religions of the country. On thebasis of this hypothesis, six countries representing different majoritymodels were identified for socio-legal investigation. In the Danish contextthe question was: To what extent can a Lutheran influence be identified andThis conclusion is written according to the model already mentioned pp. 20-21.However Hanne Petersen has contributed to this chapter with additional written input.The conclusion has been discussed at meetings involving the full Danish RELIGAREteam. The ideas presented here thus reflect views supported by the full team.9

124 Conclusionsto what extent is it still visible and of contemporary importance in relationto law. These conclusions are given in section 7.3.Thirdly,in the final section, 7.4, of the conclusion, we will present somelimited and general recommendations that address themselves to both theinternational European research and policy agenda and to the domesticDanish state of affairs.7.1 Main results from the four areas of basic tensions7.1.a Religion and Family LawAmong the interviewees from the legal and administrative sphere andamong the leaders from the Danish national church, theFolkekirke,thequestion of religion and family law is the most surprising. The generalunderstanding among representatives of the majority perspectives is thatlaw is secular, that secular law holds jurisdiction, and that establishedreligion has little to say regarding conflicts in family matters, because thelaw governs the family with concern for public order. If people need othersolutions regarding family and religion, this is open to discussion andalternative resolution. For most interviewees it is of little importancewhether the practical solutions chosen are inspired by religion, as long asDanish family law is upheld and public order is maintained. This is thestarting-point for a democratic society, some of the interviewees argue. Incases that are potentially conflicting, our collective societal responsibilitiesembedded in the family take priority over individual religious matters forthe interviewees, who thus tend to represent collective rather thanindividual interests. This goes for gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and politicalconvictions as well as religion. In relation to these issues multiculturalism,tolerance of dissent, and a diversity of practice are well established, and allof the interviewees stress that minority religions enjoy freedom of religionand a fair amount of accommodation.That said, problems and areas of conflict do exist within the fields ofreligion and family law, and the establishment and the minority religiousleaders differ over the issue of what constitutes a marriage. In theinterviews the Muslim, the Catholic, and the Jew all stress the importanceof the symbolic and religious aspect of marriage – and subsequently ofdivorce. In this perspective, marriage is the proper order for social life andremains at the core of the family. The administrative establishment seemsto agree with this focus on marriage as a cornerstone of the public order.However, the state claims thede factojurisdiction to define marriage not asa religious institution, but as a publicly-recognised status equally availablefor all to enter into and to dissolve accordingly. Furthermore, rules andpractices for divorce differ between minority religions and the norms andrules governing divorce for the majority community, whether marriage is

Conclusions125considered to be religious or secular. This concerns also same-sex orgender-neutral marriage. Same-sex marriage is a divider within mostreligious groups, including theFolkekirke.It points on the one hand to thecontested limits of secular state governance of religious organisations andon the other hand to contested minimum standards of the internal autonomyavailable to religions.Our Muslim interviewees reflect widely on the conditions for, and thevalidity of, establishing and dissolving marriages. Imams argue for thepreservation of time-honoured family regulations and insist, for example,on mandatory mediation before divorce as well as distinguishing betweenthe civil and the religious institution. They do this to protect not only thereligious institution but also the social and economic interest of women andchildren upon entering and dissolving marriage. They recognise statejurisdiction in principle, they try to revive the so-called ‘limping marriages’or partial divorces, and they struggle against opportunistic forum-shopping.However, they have limited social authority and impact, and although theystress their concerns, they have no authoritative and uniform solutions topresent.Faced with the same questions regarding recognition of marriage,divorce, and religious mediation, interviewees from Catholic and Jewishcontexts see no initial parallel to the situation for Muslims, especiallybecause they feel that their internal marriage courts or tribunals or advisoryinstitutions are precisely just that: advisory and not mandatory. Accordingto them this becomes very clear in their internal teaching and their socialregulations, and they insist that no one is forced into anything. However,they consider using social pressure where this is a last resort in order toachieve a fair solution.Overall it must be stressed, as it is by the interviewees, that most of thestruggles and conflicts mentioned can be limited to one of two types. Someof the conflicts are deliberately malicious or products of sociallyunacceptable behaviour on behalf of a few rotten apples, but these are veryfew and may be found at all levels of most societies and have little to dowith religion. The rest of the conflicts are products of misunderstandings,ongoing re-negotiations and reinterpretations that are the well-known signsof a society in change and people struggling to understand their newidentities and new lives.However all our interviewees – Muslims, the Catholic and the Jewish aswell as the Christian majority and minority respondents – warn againstthree likely overall scenarios of conflict:Firstly,in their view there seems to be widespread confusion,mythmaking, and misunderstanding concerning religion in general in theDanish population at large. The media, the politicians, the radical religiousprotagonists and the old entrenched believers produce between them more

126 Conclusionsof a cacophony of outcries than a constructive dialogue. Most of theinterviewees call for greater clarity of thought, principles, language anddiscourse when addressing the conflicts of religion and family law.Because the social and religiousmodus vivendiamong minorities has onlyrecently become a matter of public affairs, a state of exclusion of minorityaffairs has existed that is now being remedied. However, in the presentsituation of uncertainty and confusion well-established social and religiousways of handling marriage and divorce in the minority religions aresometimes mistaken for either social abuse or for misrepresentations bylegal counterparts. The Nikah marriage (the contract between bride andgroom), for example, is not a legally established institution and should notbe mistaken for such. There is a need for a general understanding that insome instances religious and customary practices grant social and culturaland religiouslegitimacyto relations or dissolution of relations in the local,religious communities without this requiring formal legal recognition byDanish law. In addition, in the religious communities and in society at largethere is a further need to understand that certain relations require formallegal recognition in Danish society by Danish law in order to secure certainlegal consequences, such as custody, inheritance and so on.According to most of the interviewees, the holy commitment in marriagemust be celebrated socially and religiously. Legal public order must governthe secular aspects of relationships between adults, including marriage. Nosingle interpretation of marriage – either religious or secular – should takepriority over another, but a distinction must be knowingly maintained for anew legal intertwinement to be established. In this context it should also beremembered that the last half-century has witnessed considerable changesin lifestyle and relations between adult members of the majoritycommunity, no matter whether they are self-identified as being religious orsecular. Increasing numbers of divorcees, cohabitating couples, and singlehousehold members have given legitimacy to more complex forms ofintimate relations and family life. Complexity in family life and family lawis thus not only a religious/non-religious issue, but also an issue ofreconstitution of family life in late modernity.Secondly,and this is an aspect of the first point, the deliberate obscurityof certain aspects of socio-religious life remains counterproductive andleads to the use and manipulation of subversive strategies that have alwaysbeen applied in any social sphere. In the interviews, there are plenty ofexamples of malicious harassment, provocation, and foot-dragging byspouses. Religious minority leaders consider instruments of social pressureas reactions to this, such as making such harassment publicly known in thecommunity. Religious leaders seem to focus more on community solidaritythan on individual aspects of divorce. Parties in divorce cases sometimesfind models of dual and overlapping consensus between the two systems,

Conclusions127such as mothers gaining custody in Danish courts and sharing it withfathers according to Muslim norms. It is important to stress that whiledeliberate harassment and malicious intent is unacceptable, there must beroom for the authority of families to regulate the minor issues of their ownlives.Thirdly,there is reason to consider the possibility of ‘mixinginstruments’ from different traditions in order to reach acceptable solutions.Alternative dispute resolutions might be more open to such solutions andlegal innovations. Some interviewees warn against being afraid of otherlegal systems and rules being acknowledged in Denmark. The interviewsalso demonstrate that minority religion members individually mix normsaccording to their ‘religious conscience.’ There is not much evidencepointing to a more international than a local forum shopping. But there areoverlaps between legal, religious and social norms and practices whichmay create uncertain family status.7.1.b Religion on the Labour MarketThe Danish labour market is regulated by collective agreements betweenthe labour market parties and is supplemented by international conventions,which in the last 40 years or so has meant increasingly by EU-regulation.Industrial labour contracts used to be considered public and collectivesecular contracts covering secular relations. It is true that in the 19thcentury, Protestant religious affiliation had sometimes been required foraccess to specific jobs, but such requirements were gradually eradicatedfrom the end of the 19thto the beginning of the 20thcentury. Collectivelabour agreements represented a secularisation model and accommodationto changing production and a changing labour market. Around the turn ofthe 21stcentury this secular model is being challenged. Individuals voice anincreasing demand for freedom for their practical and symbolic expressionof religious affiliation in the workplace. Conversely, employers aredemanding loyalty and decorum from employees and are claiming theprerogative to appoint and dismiss them accordingly. An ambivalentrecognition of such demands for religious performance, loyalty, anddecorum from both employees and employers is expressed by several ofthe interviewees. Their views on regulation and their evaluation ofemerging practices and norms are characterised by a certain ‘confusion’ orlack of clarity. As with religion and family law, one of the basic tensions isexpressed as contradictory and ambivalent views of the governingprinciples and norms. Neither easy nor clear solutions can be given. Thelimits to reasonable demands, the categories of personnel who canjustifiably be met with such demands, and the nature of the communitiesthat may legitimately present such demands are unclear.

128 ConclusionsThe interviews disclose a discrepancy between contemporary formallegislation and the prevailing views of the interviewees and we see newclaims being made about both religion and secularity. In our topology, it isimportant to keep in mind the fourfold working distinctions between (i) theexplicitly religious labour market, (ii) the religious or social organisationsthat perform a public or publicly-sponsored assignment (iii) the privateorganisations and businesses that employ both religious and non-religiousstaff, and (iv) the secular and public organisations such as the municipality,the hospital, the armed forces, and the schools. Until recently, theFolkekirkehad been understood as one of the public institutions in thistypology, with a clear Evangelical-Lutheran ethos and with explicit statesupport.The first of these four categories consists of explicitly religiousorganisations, churches and the other religious communities distinct fromFolkekirke.Questions here are related to whether or not distinctly religiousorganisations with a diaconal, missionary, or faith based school ethosshould be placed in this category. Within this category the ethos is explicit,and from the interviews it seems that the faith communities do notdistinguish between the value and importance of the jobs performed. Allwork together for the greater benefit of the religious foundation of thecommunity or organisation. There is agreement that crucial members ofstaff such as priests/ministers and secretary-generals must be religiouslycommitted to the ethos and worldview of the organisation. On the questionof other employees outside these, there seems to be disagreement.Although court cases demonstrate that it is illegal to discriminate inemploying co-workers of one faith only, interviewees accept that loyaltyand adherence to the organisation’s principles can be demanded. Religiousaffiliation could be likened to a brand or a trademark, where disloyalty tothe ‘product’ cannot be tolerated. Not only membership is demanded, butalso to some degree personal conviction from nearly everyone within areligious core organisation. This opinion is growing and is surprisinglywell established, especially if the organisation has a very clear missionstatement and especially and/or is rather small. This change means that thetraditional distinction between personal faith and general loyalty to thereligious organisation no longer sustainable in many corners. It seems asthough these religious organisations are claiming a ‘personhood’ andidentity, which would grant them the rights and protections toinstitutionally perform their collective beliefs as if the community ororganisation as an employer was indeed an individual.The really hard cases for this faith-based labour market seem to arisewhen the interviewees from religious organisations and institutions areasked about the employment of divorcees and homosexuals. Discriminationof such individuals is strictly forbidden in Danish legislation, but the

Conclusions129‘deviance’ from discrimination law in favour of more restrictive anddirectly or indirectly discriminatory religious norms is visibly significant.From the interviews, it seems explicit that co-workers jeopardise theiremployment if revealed to be divorced or homosexual, and their continuedaffiliation depends on their conduct. If the divorced employee has initiatedthe divorce or if the homosexual is not in the least ashamed, this could beseen as disloyal and contradictory to the ethos of the organisation. Suchcases are highly problematic, and the freedom of religion principles seeminadequate to navigate the issues.The second of the four types of employer in the labour market of interestfor this report are the faith-based organisations such as private schools orsocial organisations with a religious ethos such as diaconal work. Here theresponses of the interviewees are more divided. As with the previouscategory the general trend is also visible here, namely that many areprepared to accept requirements of loyalty not seen before. It is no longerenough to declare that one is not working against the ideas of theorganisation; explicit loyalty to the governing social mission and normsincluding appropriate behaviour is demanded. In this area it is likely fordifficult cases to be found.The tensions concerning loyalty, behaviour and active support of thefoundation seem to fall into two areas. Firstly, what is acceptable withregard to secular jobs within semi-religious organisations? Here thedefining question in the interviews was; “…is it acceptable to expectreligious loyalty from the cleaner in the local church?” Secondly, whichnormative requirements can a faith-based organisation – such as a religiousprivate school or kindergarten – performing secular functions with thesupport of public means demand from its staff in general? Here thedefining question remains: “is it acceptable to require the Catholic faith ofthe schoolteacher of Mathematics?”As long as the employers require only individual conviction or loyalty,many employees accept that. In Danish society, however, it would be seenas alien for an employer to demand a certain morality, or claim that familymorals could influence the possibility of getting a job in faith-basedorganisations. The interviewees mention examples of court cases fromother European countries, such as the cases of Schüth v. Germany(1620/03, Chamber judgment 23.09.2010) and Obst v. Germany (425/03,Chamber judgment 23.09.2010). Such claims are generally not in tune withDanish popular and legal culture, which means that most Danish faith-based organisations and Danish leaders are not ready to make such radicallegal claims.The third of the four types in our distinction are the private organisationsand businesses that employ both religious and non-religious staff.Businesses are privately-run in principle for the sake of business and as

130 Conclusionssuch are part of the non-religious labour market. However, they stillemploy a wide range of people, who bring their religion with them whenthey come to the workplace. Similar to the public institutions, there are noreligious demands on employers, and any possible violation ordiscrimination is likely to be directed towards the employee. However, andthis has been a strong claim in Danish cases, businesses do have aprerogative on directing uniform codes, grooming codes, and the wearingof explicit religious symbols. In the same way that religious organisationsclaim ‘a religious brand,’ so do businesses claim an ethos or a ‘corporateculture’ that needs to be respected. Primarily, this means that public ethicalstandards and professional standards must be met. However, it also meansthat a conservative brand store can remove employees from customercontact or even have back office personnel dress according to the corporateuniform code. In this regard, the interviews reveal an inclination towardsseparating or downplaying the religious from the professional. This meansthat the complete abolition of religious symbols might be a step too far, butcreating prayer-rooms may be too great a concession to religion. Not all theinterviewees agree with this, however. Many of the religious intervieweesadvocate an individually negotiated agreement. One even stressed that anemployer who would not make time for prayer, would need to findsomeone else to hire. Unfortunately, this is a luxury that not everyone canenjoy, and many do find a minimum of accommodation essential for eventheir professional and economic lives. Overall, although the intervieweesapproach the matter from different angles, most find that the legislation andlitigation should be kept to a minimum and that there should be greaterroom for informal agreements between employer and employee within thelimits of the law and reasonable accommodation.With the fourth of the four typologies, the secular and publicorganisations, we enter the totally public domain. This public, secularlabour market seems primarily challenged by two basic tensions. One is thequestion of the individual religious performance of the employee,especially illustrated by the use of the veil, and the other is the need fortime off for religious holidays other than the dominant, historicallyChristian, legally authorised and protected holidays. Here the views aredivided. Some interviewees think that employers should accept the veil,while others would argue against any religious clothing as beinginappropriate to a secular workplace. Similarly, some male intervieweeshold that religious clothing is only related to women and symbolises theirsuppression. Several of the interviewees were furious over the legislationprohibiting religious clothing in courts combined with a general rule thatall judges must wear a gown while on the bench. The legal professionals inthe interview see this legislation as an example of trying to turn away amore female pluralist mode of clothing in general, while playing symbolic

Conclusions131legal politics at the same time. All adhered to the general rule thatdiscrimination on the basis of religion is prohibited in the general labourmarket. Some saw rules prohibiting religious clothing as an example of, orattempt at, indirect religious discrimination, even though court cases andlegislation rule differently. However divided the interviewees were as tothe interpretation and role of religious headwear, almost all agreed that fullcoverage of the face in theburkawas unacceptable, no matter howprofessional or qualified the wearer might be. It should also be mentionedthat theFolkekirkehas been understood classically as a general publicinstitution with only very few possibilities for requiring religious loyaltyfrom anyone but the bishops, deans and pastors. The interviewees drawinspiration for this from changes elsewhere in Europe. But this too seemsto be changing; it might be possible in future to formulate religious loyaltyrequirements of others working within theFolkekirke.The question of holy days was an interesting one that addressed theLutheran heritage and the established ways of the majority. Lutheransecularism is reflected in work and vacation regulations and traditionscovering school and work. The general holidays are closely linked to theChristian calendar, which enjoys practical protection. The holy days ofminority religions, such as Ramadan and Rosh Hashanah, receive nosimilar consideration. There is a tendency among interviewees fromminority religions towards suggesting a freedom to agree on thedistribution of religious holidays on an ad hoc basis. Each according totheir religion could arrange their work-hours, and Christians, Muslims, andJews might even benefit mutually from covering each other’s holidays.Such a freedom to change the public holidays may not gain general andpopular support, but it is nevertheless a clear expression of the ‘flexibility-with-job-security’ brand of public business typical to Denmark.Overall the current state of religion on the labour market clearly reflectschanging social norms and legal landscapes. Practical solutions have beenreached through individual and employer driven accommodation based ona principle of fairness. The focus on ‘identity politics’ of the differentreligious attitudes in the labour market seems to be gaining much attention.However, thismodus vivendiis no longer considered sufficient by severalof the interviewees. The proper degree of consideration for religiousidentity remains contested by the different religious communities. Thedanger it seems is that religious belief or corporate loyalty will gainsuperiority as a protected right of organisations on the labour market and toa destructive degree downplay the importance of protecting against otherdiscrimination such as class, gender, professionalism, sexuality and so on.

132 Conclusions7.1.c Religion in the Public SpaceMany of the issues regarding religion and the labour market seem to besimilar or comparable to the problems of religion in the public sphere. Anumber of the key agents and organisations are the same and many of thesub-issues from the other areas of interest feed into the question of thepublic and private, sacred and secular. However, issues and concerns in thepublic sphere are less likely to be covered by general national legislationand case law than the other areas. Political norms, identity concerns, andconstitutional and media traditions play a more important role.In the RELIGARE focus on tensions and potential conflict, the publicsphere is the most likely place for such conflicts to unfold. This is not onlywhere we meet each other, this is also a space that most claim access to andacceptance from. This is the natural place for political norms to beexpressed and here debate will focus on the circumstances we share, thevalues we must discuss, and the commonalities that everyone must tolerate.In order to give structure to a debate about the Danish public sphere wesuggested a tentative analytical diagram of two spectra of availability ofsymbols and exposure of secularism respectively. At the one extreme of theone axis there can be no symbols in the public sphere and at the other everysymbol is allowed. On the other axis, the one extreme is a secular publicspace where none of the religions are present, and at the other extreme is apublic sphere where religion is welcome and where everyone is allowedand allotted their say. At the centres of each these axes, we find the neutralpositions. Within such a diagram, we find the possible positions that framethis complex debate.Perhaps the most common concern regarding religion in the public spaceis the public tone and the public discourse. Dominant Lutheran secularism,traditionally understood as a neutral or benign position, is questioned byChristian minority representatives and the leaders from other religiousgroups. Yet the evidence of the Christian tradition, its history and heritageis visible and even influential everywhere. Church bells ring at least everySunday morning, churches are a part of every small town, Christian namesare common, Christian references are frequent in literature and media, andalthough most people call themselves ‘cultural Christians’ theFolkekirkeenjoys an 80 % membership rate and most of these members haveincorporated Christian holidays and celebrations into their lives. That said,the Christian interviewees see a marked reduction in public Christianvirtues and voices and in general they fear for the continued role of religionin the public space.The reason for this has to do with the tone in the struggle between thereligious and the secular. Religion nowadays enjoys a popularity andattention unprecedented these past 50 years, yet the religious values areincreasingly being scrutinised in the media and in the public. This

Conclusions133continued contestation has an impact on public religion. The Jewishminority no longer considers itself an undisputedly accepted community,making up part of Danish society, as they did 25 years ago, and is nowfeeling somewhat alienated. Representatives of the Christian ‘majority’ feelmore ‘religious’ and less cultural and national than before. A DanishMuslim convert and imam reflects on the need to mould and expressreligion in a new context and to build bridges between different parts ofsociety.Nevertheless, the secular seems as important a bulwark as theEvangelical-Lutheran heritage for the Danish understanding of religion inthe public space. As the Catholic advisor reminds us: just as we may besocial without being socialist or national without being nationalist, we maybe secular without being secularist. The secular is a distinction and not aseparation, and according to some of the interviewees, this is a product ofthe Lutheran Christian mind-set. Christianity is understood as promotingfreedom and freedom is the hallmark of the secular ideals. In the publicspace, being secular is an inclusive argument that addresses itself to thereligious argument. TheFolkekirkecontinues to enjoy normative gravity,and more or less ‘secular Christianity’ is considered a public good thatdespite its widespread appearance excels by knowing when to limit itself inthe public space. Danish society must have a number of common andcrucial public service institutions where religion remains neutral and a non-issue. Among these are the municipality, the hospital, the public schoolsand many of the other welfare institutions.Some of the fundamental problems arise when we start consideringsymbols in the public space. As a general trend religious symbols andheadwear are considered perfectly acceptable in theory by the interviewees.Symbolism as personal expression is widely tolerated, but there are seriousdifficulties about where to draw the line and how to receive and understandthe symbolic expressions. Indeed, much of what seems a symbol to othersin fact holds little symbolic value for the wearer and many of the symbolsactively communicated go unnoticed in the public. Symbols representingmajority Lutheran secular culture, such as the cross on the Danish flag, arehardly perceived as religious, whereas minority symbols are predominantlyinterpreted as religious even though they may also be custom, fashion,tradition, empowerment or protest. Religious dress codes are in generalseen as very strong symbols, also in the general public, attracting verymuch attention. We see the strong confrontations in this field as runningbetween strong symbolic languages. Since symbols work ascommunication, themeaningthought to be embedded in them is often onlydiscernable to those who know or agree, while those who disagree only seethe provoking contrast. As such, certain headwear may mean freedom of

134 Conclusionsreligion or expression to one interviewee while it is interpreted asoppressive and deviant to the other.One of the other serious conflicts presented in the interviews comes as aconsequence of the legislation banning the wearing of religious symbols inthe judiciary. Enacted in 2009 without any practical cases having beenexperienced prior to it, the law is considered ‘symbolic’ legislation, seen asa response to the perceived symbols. A secular female union leaderconsiders the ‘burka-problem’ a ‘pseudo-problem,’ while lawyers andjudges alike argue that the law will never be recognised as applicable.Another concern regards places of worship. What goes for symbols canalso be seen at places of worship. A symbolic interpretation of the places ofworship in the public sphere is of course legitimate and to some extentappropriate. However, it must be maintained that religious buildings suchas mosques and churchyards are less of a symbolic and aggressive intrusioninto the public and more of a necessity or utility needed in religious life.The building of mosques, the upkeep of churchyards, and the closing ofchurches have received considerable media attention, and the fear of‘foreign’ financial and spiritual influence has dominated the discourse. Ayoung female Copenhagen Mayor of Integration has established a councilof cooperation with the Lutheran Bishop of Copenhagen, the Jewish Rabbiand an imam in order to contribute to a prevention of violent clashesbetween radicalised members of their communities. The involved andinterviewed members consider this very favourably. The mayor alsounderlines the need for a less biased education on religious issues.The last of the major concerns in the public space regards the issue-complex of religion in schools. In Denmark, this is a concern both in thepublic schools and in the religiously oriented private schools. In Danishpublic schools ‘Christian Knowledge’ is taught as an ordinary exam topicat all levels. There is a legally established opt-out possibility, even thoughthe subject content covers not only information about LutheranChristianity, but also about other Christian creeds and other worldreligions. The topic is in some corners still seen as a privileging of themajority belief tradition, and is beginning to be questioned, as is thewearing of Christian religious symbols in the public space. But no seriousdemand for banning such symbols in public schools has been voiced. Freeschools with a religious ethos have been seen as central to the plurality ofschooling in Denmark and are a very old tradition with both religious andpolitical impact. Such schools must meet the general goals for primary andsecondary schools in Denmark, but they decide themselves the planning ofthe curriculum in order to reach these goals, and they are allowed tosupplement them with daily prayers and so on. Recent legislation requiresthese schools to prepare for participation in a democratic society. Suchlegislation is generally challenged by the school leaders, but is not

Conclusions135discussed much in our interviews. In addition, some political parties inDenmark think that religious schools in particular threaten social cohesion,while others see the plurality as ensuring it.A final point is that legislation is apparently becoming more symbolic. Itis addressing matters of the courtroom that have to do with the protectionof values that are of no concern to the business of the courts. Inconsequence minorities are beginning to opt out of the civil legal system.The alternative dispute resolution of the religious courts by contrastbecomes a forum where the religious identity is not only welcome, but isencouraged and reinforced. We see a dual creation of new identities; thereis in effect a negative targeting in the public courts (and in legislation, inthe media and in public debate) and a positive affirmation of religiousidentity in the religious institutions. As such, addressing religiouslycoloured mediation becomes a performative symbolic confession.In sum, in order to appreciate the nuances of the debates on religion inthe public spaces of the courts, the schools and the media, we need to seethe secular in relation to the religious rather that in separation from it. InDenmark, secularism as a political programme rests on the ability to seedistinctions in the intertwined nature of our institutions. Equally, we needto see the spectrum of symbols ranging from those that truly express thevery core values of society to the symbols that truly challenge these values.It is therefore important to remember that there is little agreement on whatthe core values are in Denmark, which is what sparks most of the basictensions. As with several of the other concluding observations, there is adefinite contesting of religion in the public space.7.1.d State support for religionsState support for religions in Denmark can conceptually be divided into (i)direct and indirect economic support, (ii) administrative and educationalsupport, and (iii) support with regard to status in the Danish society. Inpractice these are often correlated, but the distinction is important,especially when mapping out majority domination and possiblediscrimination of minorities.Historically, all religious communities in Denmark were established onthe basis of private funding and later on a system of natural economy.During the 20thcentury the economy within theFolkekirkechanged frombeing based on natural sources and subsistence to being based on churchtaxes. From the late 1960s the pastors within theFolkekirkereceived equalsalaries, no longer depending on the size of the vicarage. These taxes arepaid by the members of theFolkekirke,who still make up the vast majorityof the population. They are collected by the state together with taxes formunicipalities and state purposes. In this way, the state offers a directorganisational and administrative (and in this respect also indirect

136 Conclusionseconomic) support to the majority religious community organised in theFolkekirke.The state further grants direct economic support through thestate taxes, paid by all taxpayers independent of their religious affiliations.One of the historical arguments for this support is (partly) that it serves as areimbursement for the expropriation of the bishops’ land at theReformation in 1536, which required the state to pay the salaries of thebishops – and for further expropriations of church land in 1919. Thereimbursement argument extends to cover payment by the state of 40% ofthe pastors’ salaries. Finally, direct financial state support is seen as acompensation for civil administrative obligations performed by the church,especially the keeping of the civil birth registration and the upkeep of allpublic churchyards.Eleven explicitly recognised religious communities keep civilregistration books and have access to organise cemeteries for their ownmembers. Neither they nor any of the other religious communities receiveany direct financial support from the state for building maintenance oranything similar. Nor can the state collect their financial gifts to the church.Indirectly, however, the members of other religious communities have thepossibility of tax deductions on their personal income taxes of payments toa religious community. This does not apply to theFolkekirke,but some ofthe related religious ethos organisations are exempt. Other religiouscommunities than theFolkekirkeare exempted from business taxes, whichconstitutes a further indirect support, whereas theFolkekirkepays valueadded tax.This economic pattern of support demonstrates an incremental model. Inpractice it has – not surprisingly – privileged the majority religiouscommunity. The existing highly blurred mix of state administration andestablished church finds little support among the leaders with insight intothe system. It is a paradoxical model in that it is confusing, and most likelyindirectly discriminatory, but nonetheless it seems so far to have arelatively high legitimacy amongst taxpayers. Generally payment ofincome tax can be said to have high legitimacy in the majority of thepopulation in Denmark, and payment of church taxes may benefit from thisgeneral attitude. Practical administrative customs, and loyalty towards – orlimited criticism of – the religious and cultural tradition may also play arole, since resignation from membership for economic reasons has so farbeen relatively limited.A Catholic religious interviewee claims that if the DanishFolkekirkehadnot had this tax collection privilege, it would have gone bankrupt long ago.The existing model was supported by a few interviewees, who still upholda reminiscence of their childhood relations between people and church, orby interviewees who would fight to re-establish Danish society as aChristian society. The large group in the middle, who would normally have

Conclusions137supported the model, is increasingly embarrassed by its unfairness towardsother religious communities or towards how it is seen abroad. Theimpression from the interviews is that support for the Danish church modelof finance is on the wane.In Denmark a number of the broadcast media are publicly owned, butrun by appointed boards under government oversight and financed bylicence fees. Generally these cover religious news, but specifically theradio channels cover majority religious issues and church services on adaily, regular, and weekly basis. However, this is seen as part of the publicservice requirements, and the state in no way influences mediaprogramming and editorial decisions or has mandatory coverage demands.Media attention to symbolic religious performance by members ofminority religious communities has been considerable over the last decade,where especially the Mohammed cartoon crisis (2005-06) has producedthousands of articles as well as media and other public discussion. Bycomparison issues concerning economy or the economic privileging of themajority belief community and indirect discrimination of minority beliefcommunities have been insignificant. A few of the interviewees, amongother a female protestant theologian with a significant public profile,defend the majority privileges in a rather sweeping way; in her mediaperformance she has been very critical of especially Islam and symbolicreligious performance. Economic privileges for the majority religions haveled neither to case law, legislative change, nor substantial media debate. Inthis respect, where no ‘fear of small numbers’ exists, the concern isstronger among the majority about minority religious communities andpotential foreign financing of their institutions, such as mosques, schools,and so on.In addition, there is a legal case which was briefly related in theinterviews regarding a concern in the public debate. Being accused by agovernment minister of being in favour of stoning women, a Muslim publicleader had indicted the minister in a defamation case which was decided infavour of the Muslim. His attorney fees were so high, however, that theylaid a serious financial burden on him, whereas the minister’s attorney waspaid by the government office because the minister spoke in office. Thecase sparked popular support in favour of the Muslim and a movementformed to collect donations to help pay his attorney fees. The case points toa practical imbalance between freedom of speech in principle and theposition of government power in the public sphere.In sum, the existing differential treatment results in freedom, but notequality in religious law. Yet there are significant arguments for upholdingit. In spite of the growing internal dissatisfaction with the model thegeneral feeling is that the European Union or the European Court ofHuman Rights should not dictate policy or force change. Solutions for

138 Conclusionsfuture equality in this area should be found on a local level. In itsprogramme of governance, the present government has announced that acommission will be appointed to present an overview of the problems andpossible solutions.The traditional religious minorities would of course be pleased to begiven financial state support for establishing or maintaining their buildings,but they do not want the state dependency that theFolkekirkehas. At theend of the day they may prefer to be self-sufficient. However, they do wantfair treatment with regard to, or even support for, the construction of theirown buildings. This has not always been the case. Small or new minorities,recently arrived in Denmark, often have lower educational levels than themajority society and may suffer from a lack of professionalismorganisationally, linguistically, and in other respects. This could be ascenario where the state might offer help and support in order tocompensate for the indirect economic discrimination of minoritycommunities, and in order to uphold the political legitimacy of theeconomic and legal privileges offered to the majority community.7.2 Concluding reflections on the general basic tensionsThe main question in this survey is whether the tensions and conflictsbetween basic rights with regard to religion are on the increase. The aimwas to see how normative structures hold deeper, implicit religious andcultural biases and how the legal institutions and agents are dealing withthem. Both these questions are concerned with empirical evidence oftensions and normative reflections on what needs to be changed. In thereport we have provided evidence of the specific instances of basic conflictin Denmark and in the various sections we have summarised and concludedon these. The general basic tensions all relate to the following: individualand collective freedom of religion; collective religious freedom and otherhuman rights; religious freedom and public order including security; andfinally formal equality before and in the law. Under the last-mentioned liesmore substantive equal treatment, understood as negative freedoms ofreligion contra positive freedoms of religion. Although these tensions areanalytically separate, the conclusions below will demonstrate that inDenmark they are intertwined and they seem to point to profound andculturally deep-rooted tensions that are perhaps more socio-politicalchallenges than they are strictly speaking legal problems.7.2.a Possible tensions between individual and collective autonomyregarding religion.The Danish system grants total protection of individual freedom ofreligion. Nobody argues that there should be any problem with theindividual right to have, to adapt, or to change religion. On the contrary,

Conclusions139the freedom of religion for people whose religion is organisedoutsidetheFolkekirkeis as secure as is practically possible. Although the state willonly approve religious organisations for marriage registration and taxexemption if they uphold common sense mandatory organisationalminimums, not even such an approval is compulsory. In addition, there areno requirements regarding organisational structure or public access, andreligious communities are not even obliged (as are other organisations inthe society) to inform their own members or the public about theireconomy or their legal basis. Thus transparency and accountability are notconcepts that are compulsory for Danish religious communities, so theirfreedom must seem striking to an outsider.However, when it comes to the 80% of the Danish population who aremembers of theFolkekirke,there is no collective freedom of religion, ifthat concept means freedom from state intervention in religious andorganisational matters. This is in fact the current debate in Danish society,namely, that there is no legal orde factoclarity about a decision-makingauthority or internal autonomy in theFolkekirke.It remains to be seen towhat extent theFolkekirkewill have administrative autonomy to decide foritself the core of religious freedom.In addition, it is necessary to reflect on the numbers of members in theDanishFolkekirke.Membership here is still seen as a majority norm. To beDanish means by default to be part of theFolkekirke;other religions andreligious communities are seen as increasingly alien. Furthermore, theFolkekirkecontributes to general state structures, and sociologicallyspeaking holds influence on certain matters outside the framework of othercommunities.As can be seen from the interviews, this is one of the most heated topicsin Danish law on religion and some sort of autonomy will obviously be theresult. As the Danish model is changing, it will be of great interest to see ifan independent Lutheran transformation is possible and if Denmark willproduce the true, religiously neutral, soft secular model to which it hasbeen aspiring since the 1849 constitution was introduced.The governing principle of future models of state, religion, and churchrelations will be to minimise the tension between collective religiousfreedom and other basic human rights within such a model. Currently inDanish society there is a growing concern about the religious claims anddemands made by organisations and communities on the believers,members, and followers. The freedom to decide individually is on a likelycollision course with the collective concerns.

140 Conclusions7.2.b Possible tensions between collective religious freedom and otherbasic human rightsTensions between different sets of rights regarding religious clothing in thelabour market appear to decreasing. The freedom to work and the freedomto believe are being resolved by the collective powers in the labour marketand there is evidence to be optimistic. However, as businesses move furthertowards accommodation, media and public discourse seem to frameanother possible tension. The deeply rooted question being politicallyexplored by certain parties is whether wearing the burka or the hijab isreally the result of an individual religious understanding, and if so, shouldthe general public then accept them as a common norm in society – orshould the general public even require an open-mindedness not only toother religious customs but also to clothing? As people voice theiropinions, it turns into a second-order problem, for should the general publicbe tolerant towards also those who are not so tolerant themselves? Mostfeelings and reflections in these interviews have to do with whether or notwomen and children can enjoy the same amount of individual freedom ifthe religious communities gain greater autonomy. In this context, it isworth noticing that it comes as a surprise for many of our interviewees thatthey should reflect on family law in relation religion and secularity. In aDanish context family law and labour law only indirectly have to do withreligion, and many wish it to remain so. It is our assessment that we haveseen only the beginnings of conflict with regard to religious norms on boththe religious and the secular labour market.Freedom of speech is well established in Denmark and holds strongpolitical sway in Denmark. However, there is a concern when weighingfreedom of religion against freedom of speech. The defamation caseagainst a government minister, which was decided in favour of the Muslim(see p. 137), illustrates a socio-economic bias against the protection offreedom of religion. The structural and financial pressure seems to bediscouraging for minorities. The case is unique in Denmark and hasreceived a lot of media and political attention; it appears to point toculturally deeper tensions that again are more socio-political than legal.7.2.c Possible tensions between religious freedom and public orderand/or securityThe same fear of pressure from religious groups towards individuals wasvery obvious when it comes to possible conflicts or tensions betweenreligious groups. Most of our interviewees refer to tensions betweenMuslim and Jewish youngsters and explain about initiatives taken in orderto counteract such situations. However, conflicts have not reached a levelanywhere what constitutes a public order/public security situation.

Conclusions141Turning the issue around, there is evidence in the interviews of a concernthat religious problems are misconstrued or misunderstood in the publicdebate. This has specifically to do with Islam and the cases of terrorismseen both nationally and internationally. Although there is no evidence of alegal misconception of Islam as terror and a threat to security, such isclearly implied at many levels of the public debate. In that regard, however,Danish examples do seem to be neither special cases nor the mostillustrative ones.7.2.d Possible tensions between formal equal treatment of religious andnon-religious individuals and collectives before the law and moresubstantive equal treatment.A society such as the Danish does not give much space to negativefreedom of religion. The argument that individuals have the right to live ina social and public context without any religious influence seems to beuncommon. A public sphere without religion seems well-nigh impossiblein Denmark. Of course, you can exempt your children from religiousclasses in elementary school even though these are non-confessional, andyou do not have to watch the Queen address the nation every New Year’sEve and ask for God’s preservation of Denmark each year. The cross on thenational flag is an old crusader symbol, the passport with a picture of thecrucified Christ is part of the national cultural heritage, and the majorreligious Christian celebrations remain public holidays and are supportedby the state through special legislation.There are of course voices in Danish society that wish for more decisivefreedom from religion. Interestingly, however, they are not representedamong our interviewees (even though we had expected a couple to respondthus). This reflects the degree to which Denmark is still a country whereChristianity is supported by public opinion. Whether or not this has to dowith the underlying confessional background or, more likely, with the factthat theFolkekirkehas not been involved in many revolutionary conflictsin the past, is an open question.7.3 Danish conclusions of general relevance for the national and theEuropean publicThe most general conclusion from the Danish study is that there arevarious but not overwhelming tensions and conflicts in Danish society inrelation to both religious and legal norms and their interrelationship. Theseare not easily identifiable ‘basic tensions’ in the way that the concept hasbeen used in the RELIGARE context. The interviewees do not identifyissues concerning freedom of, and from, religion as a basic conflict,especially when looking at distinctly Danish aspects of general relevance.There are of course specific conflicts between individual and collective

142 Conclusionsautonomy; conflict between collective religious freedom and other humanrights; tensions between religious freedom and public order; and sometension over a disproportionate lack of equality, both formal andsubstantial. But legal norms and instruments do not seem to be the mostappropriate tools to solve these conflicts. The tensions in Denmark cannotbe seen as human rights conflicts where individual or collective humanrights are under pressure. The conflicts and tensions illustrated in the reportconcern substantial, complex, and even paradoxical conflicts, debates, ortensions that reflect the nature of the Danish state and the conditions forreligious belief and practice in Danish society. The sentiment is that just asthese relations are intertwined but distinguishable, so are the conflicts.There is a general understanding, even among religious minorities, thatDanish society with its inherited structure also in religious matters is thegiven, common society, which history has passed on to this generation. Ithas to be reformed softly, slowly, and through public deliberation in orderto maintain the values worth protecting and to change what needs to bechanged. The historical roots are acknowledged by the interviewees and itis recognised that this is how change in Denmark has always come about,even from before the 1849 constitution.A metaphor illustrates how to the basic conflicts are as intertwined andhistorically rooted. In Denmark, the three core governing institutions –Parliament, Government and the High Court – are all housed in the samecastle, Christiansborg, in the centre of Copenhagen, which is also whereQueen Margrethe II has her representative rooms. This is the only examplein the world of one centre housing all three institutions – and a monarch toboot! Moreover, closely associated with the castle is the castle church,Christiansborg Slotskirke, where a service is held on the morning of theannual inauguration of the legislative and parliamentary year. Expandingthe picture even further, it is worth noting that the current castle, built from1906 to 1928, is the fifth castle on the grounds. The first castle dates backto 1167 C.E. and the ruins of this are still visible beneath the current walls.The area takes on a metaphorical air, for the people are assumed to be ashomogenous as the governing order. Benedict Anderson (1983) hasconceptualised such a situation as an‘Imagined Community’;Warburg,Gundelach and Iversen (2008) have in their research on the sociologicalrepresentation of the same used the conceptcommon mind-set;andWarburg (2009) has added several reflections on how the originalAmerican concept ofcivil religioncould be used to understand the Danishreligion-model. In this report we have more often used the conceptintertwinement(Christoffersen 2006)� since it has been our aim to show thecurrent order of Danish soft secularism. The three branches of government,plus the monarch and the church co-exist in one castle which stands on theremnants of old. Thus understanding Danish conflicts must entail an

Conclusions143appreciation of the associated and intertwined nature of Danish soft seculargovernance, the virtue being not separation, but a knowledge of thedifferentiation of powers of state and of religious matters.Despite the historic explanatory power of the metaphor and the assumedstability of the intertwined soft secularism, there is in the interviews analmost urgent awareness that things are changing. As the walls begin tocrumble a little, the historical model may become porous. Some people –not among our interviewees but in society as such – have even comparedthe Danish law on religion with the Berlin Wall in early 1989. Cracks in allthree relationships between the state, theFolkekirke,and religion in generalbegin to appear. The current conflicts reveal in a paradoxical way the basictensions that were assumed to have been solved, yet at the same time theydemonstrate that the nature of the order was inherently unstable.The list of unsolved questions is long. What role will the state play in thefuture with regard to religious communities? Will the state becomereligiously neutral? Will religions experience equal treatment? Will therebe a growing conflict between individual and collective freedom ofreligion? Will the public sphere be a field of deliberation of religion, or willit become increasingly secular with growing European influence? Or willwe witness a growing tendency towards renewed responsibility instead ofrenewed conflicts also within the triangle of public authorities, theFolkekirke,and other religious communities?The labour market has become increasingly concerned with demandingcorporate loyalty from employees. If religious employers are able todemand further exemptions from the consideration of individual humanrights under the guise of protection of religious freedom, this may lead toan increase in employer prerogatives and in the management rights of theseemployers. This is especially relevant in a European labour market, wherewelfare provisions are already offered by faith-based employers. Suchdevelopments may end up limiting individual freedom of belief.We seem to be witness to the paradox of a paradigm in shift. Political,legal and religious arguments that were strong at the time of the 1849constitution do not seem reasonable in the face of contemporarychallenges. This goes not only for the Danish solutions to the Danishconstitution, but also for attempts at importing European standardsolutions. The potential paradigm shift follows from the challengedposition of the existing governing order. The norms that used to be clearidentifiers of majorities and clear separators of minorities have themselvesbecome intertwined and the result is confusion. Muslims now clearlyidentify themselves according to the social norms of theFolkekirke.Thenorms of separation have ceased to operate and are being supplanted by anew interpretation becoming like theFolkekirke.This in turn means thatthe standard of belonging to theFolkekirkehas been emptied of its

144 Conclusionsexplanatory power. Such a challenge to the historically dominant legal,political and cultural model of relations between the state and the dominantProtestant Church may lead to a new model, the content of which is at thismoment not clear.Many of the interviewees still think that the absolute freedom of religionthat religious communities now enjoy is mostly relevant for smallminorities who are members of other communities than theFolkekirke.In amore pluralist society, requirements regarding rights and possibilities fornot least women and children and other vulnerable groupscouldbe, butwill not necessarily be, framed by law and on an equal footing. In such ascenario, the future opens up for a more equal treatment of religiouscommunities in Denmark, but also for more state influence on theindividual religious community with regard to openness, transparency, andaccountability.It is also possible that a future Danish model will grantinternalindependenceto religious communities instead of applying a concept offull autonomy. The Kingdom of Denmark includes both Greenland and theFaroe Islands, and the Danish constitution not only guarantees seats forFaroese and Greenlandic members in parliament, but has also establishedself-determination for these countries which has been continuallyexpanding and developing. In this respect, the idea of coexisting andoverlapping – i.e. intertwined – legal systems is already being practised. Itmight be possible to apply a parallel idea of coexisting norms in thereligious sphere. This is still considered alien to Danish society and mostarguments for full autonomy for religious communities, applying parallellegal orders, still seem far off in Denmark. This becomes especially clear inrelation to family law. In spite of this, most interviewees are open topragmatic solutions and possibilities, and there might be a future forreligious dispute resolution mechanisms, legitimised through concreteneeds among users rather than theoretical approaches from the religiouscommunities.One possible development for the future is that Denmark may become aneven more secular state. Equally likely, however, is the possibility that thecommon public space might also become more religious, and be based on ageneral acceptance of individual freedom of religion as well as a growingreligious pluralism in society with a presence for a more differentiatedpicture of collective freedom of religion. There is no doubt that religiouscommunities and especially religious leaders will play a more public rolethan has been the practice before in Denmark, voicing religious argumentsand religious norms. It is also our understanding that the Danish model ofteaching religion in the public school as a common school subject will bebroadened. The consequence would be that most pupils would know moreabout all religions from the perspective of an academic approach, whereas

Conclusions145in-depth knowledge about one religion will be taken out of the publicschool system. Thus instead of an increasing secularisation a ratherdifferent yet possible route in the future might be the opposite: a new formofinterconnected responsibility10between public authorities and religiouscommunities, including theFolkekirke,and thus responsibility not only forthe collective positions, but also for the individual needs.It has surprised us to realise that there is a higher acceptance of religiousidentity on the labour market than the High Court cases ten years agoshowed. If this is a common trend in society, it also means that religiousorganisations are being allowed to voice religious claims regarding loyaltyto a higher degree than we would have expected. This is something to beconsidered more generally by actors in the labour market and beyond.Some of the legal cases, however, are being decided on the basis of a morelegalist and formalist understanding of what is acceptable. This discrepancybetween an emerging wider acceptance of requirements of religious loyaltyand stricter legal limits to demands for loyalty (reflecting a more secular‘spirit’ of labour law) seems to present a remaining area of conflict.Finally, as already pointed out, it is our understanding on the basis ofthese interviews that the existing state-Folkekirke model is under severestrain. There seems to be a general expectation by most of our intervieweesthat theFolkekirkewill acquire a more distinct organisational structure,possibly resulting in a more religious, more confessional identity. TheDanish model of soft secularism with a discernible intertwinement of stateand religion is under pressure, because it is basically already in conflictwith its own constitutional basis. Many voices both from majority religionsand from secularist strands argue for a change. Interestingly, voices fromminority religions are either silent or support the existing model. They maywant more equal treatment, but they do not want to fight a change at theexpense of the majority church.The secularist opposition to the existing relation between the nationalchurch, the monarchy, the state and the public elites has become stronger.It is being minted from specifically secularist organisations, but whatcarries more weight is that the generation under forty is less than everinterested in theFolkekirke.Its unwillingness to become engaged even atthe most basic level is having a major impact on theFolkekirke,and this iswhy the soil under the old institutions seems to be eroding.There is no doubt that the upkeep of the existing huge state involvementin theFolkekirkehad to do with the Lutheran heritage. The interviewsshow that what happens currently in old Lutheran state and church systemselsewhere in Europe may also happen in Denmark. There is a tendencytowards change, but not necessarily to the European Catholic and Calvinist10

146 Conclusionsmodels of state neutrality combined with church autonomy andecclesiastical laws and courts. Many in the old Lutheran contexts wouldstill argue that law is basically secular, but that precisely this secular law isobliged to establish room for freedom of religion, and they therefore striveto find other solutions than hierarchical autonomous churches withindependent and parallel legal jurisdictions of their own.It is our impression from the introductory remarks to our interviews thatthe interviewed elites to a certain degree accept that the European Unionsystem has an interest in religion in relation to other policy areas. To a lessremarkable extent they also accept that churches and religions ought toengage in these areas and they of course know that European Union politicsand European Union law indirectly influence churches and religiouscommunities.However, several of the interviewees are not interested in the EuropeanUnion outlining policies in the field of religion, church, and state. Thesequestions are seen as national policy matters, based not only on formalarguments such as lack of competence, but also on a material stance tothese topics as being part of the identification of the national state. There isa long-standing and well-known scepticism towards the European Union inDenmark. This spills over onto religious issues and conflicts which in aDanish context are understood as local or national issues of relevance forindividuals. Thus the European institutions, and especially the courts,should consider these traditions and how they influence the understandingof the legitimacy of European initiatives and decisions in local contexts.7.4 Possible recommendations:1) In the interviews we have spoken to a Muslim imam, the Jewish ChiefRabbi, the diocesan bishop and the Mayor for Integration, all fromCopenhagen. Independently of one another they mention regular dialoguemeetings, which the Mayor has set in an institutional frame. Although thereare not that many significant conflicts among the groups, it seems thatvoicing and addressing them has helped to resolve inter-religious conflictand to harmonise mutual expectations between the municipality and thereligious communities. The key to their success, it seems, is addressing theactual matters at hand rather than discussing problems of doctrine or theIsrael-Palestine conflict. It is unclear, however, whether and how this cityforum could work at a national level, and there is little evidence that anyserious attempts have been made.2) Generally strengthening interreligious dialogue is recommended but itshould not be especially privileged in comparison with dialogue amongother civil society partners. The widespread fear of dialogue among thereligions should be assuaged, as the experience mentioned in 1) justifies it.

Conclusions1473) In employment there must be an accommodation which takes accountof the reasonable demands of the various religions. There is enoughevidence from around Europe to indicate that this can be achieved and thatit can improve labour relations.4) It is necessary to clarify the formal status of theFolkekirkeand theother religious communities.5) In such a context it is necessary to ensure that a balance is maintainedbetween the rights of the religious community and the rights of theindividual members.6) In an environment where the tendency is towards expandingemployers’ expectations of their employees’ loyalties, it is important thatthe rights of the individual are not impugned, also when the employer is areligious organisation.7) Arising out of the interviews comes a demand for greater transparencyin the governance of religious organisations and communities and faith-based organisations. Many already make public their financial, governing,and structural decisions, but it would be in the Danish tradition to makepublic as much of this information as possible. The legal instruments arealready available and the implementation would be straightforward. Inaddition, it would empower the individual member, it would open upreligions to the public, and it would counteract rumours and suspicionsabout foreign influences.8) Finally, the EU principle that the governance of religion is aresponsibility under the member states and not the Union needs to bereiterated.

Appendix A: BibliographyAndersen (2010), S.: “Law in Nordic Lutheranism,” in: Christoffersen,Modéer & Andersen, (2010):Law & Religion in the 21stCentury –Nordic Perspectives,DJØF Publishing, CopenhagenAndersen, S. & U.B. Nissen, eds. (2009):Kærlighedens lov. Retsteorier idansk teologisk etik,Anis, CopenhagenAnderson (1983), B.:Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Originand Spread of Nationalism,Verso: LondonBusch Nielsen (2005), K.: ”Ingen Unødvendige Forenklinger, TAK!” in:Dansk Kirketidende,vol. 3, issue 157: Kirkeligt Samfund,Bjarup (2010), J.: “Scandinavian Realism,” in:IVR Encyclopaedia ofJurisprudence, Legal Theory and Philosophy of Law,ivr-enc.info,(accessed 01.10.2011)Bjarup (2005), J.: “The Philosophy of Scandinavian Legal Realism,” in:Ratio Juris18 (1):1-15.Christensen (2011), P. et al, eds.:En kirkeforfatning anno 2011,Selskabfor Kirkeret,www.kirkeret.dk,(accessed 01.10.2011)Christoffersen, (2006) L.: Intertwinement. A new Concept forunderstanding Religion-Law Relations. Nordic Journal of Religion andSociety, 19(2).Christoffersen, (2010A) L.: “State, Church and Religion in Denmark”, in:Christoffersen, Modéer & Andersen, (2010):Law & Religion in the 21stCentury – Nordic Perspectives,DJØF Publishing, CopenhagenChristoffersen (2010B) L.: “Church Autonomy in Nordic Law”, in:Christoffersen, Modéer & Andersen, (2010):Law & Religion in the 21stCentury – Nordic Perspectives,DJØF Publishing, CopenhagenChristoffersen (2012A), L.: “Religiously oriented Non GovernmentalSchools” in Javier Martinez-Torron (forthcoming, RELIGARE)Christoffersen (2012B), L.: “Burka in Denmark” in A. Ferrari(forthcoming, RELIGARE)Christoffersen (2012C), L.: “Denmark” in Mark Hill (ed):Religion andNon-Discrimination(forthcoming)Christoffersen (2012D), L.: “A Case of a strong – by and large irrelevant –public/private Divide. On Public Funding of Religions in Denmark” inFrancis Messner & Anne Fornerod:Public Funding of Religions(Forthcoming, RELIGARE)Christoffersen (2012E), L.: “Religion and State: Recognition of Islam andRelated Legislation,” in: Nielsen, J.S. ed.:Islam in Denmark. TheChallenge of Diversity,Lexington, Lanham, MDChristoffersen, Iversen, Petersen & Warburg (2010):Religion in the 21stCentury – Challenges and Transformations,Ashgate, Farnham

Appendix A149Christoffersen, Modéer & Andersen, (2010):Law & Religion in the 21stCentury – Nordic Perspectives,DJØF Publishing, CopenhagenChristoffersen (2006), L (Ed.):Gudebilleder. Ytringsfrihed og Religion ien globaliseret verden,Tiderne Skifter, CopenhagenFerrari, S. & Bradney, A. (2001):Islam and European Legal Systems,Ashgate Publishing, FarnhamGammeltoft-Hansen, H. (2004): ”Kirkeforfatning og non-diskrimination,”in: Kock, H. (2004):Politik og Jura – Festskrift til Ole Espersen,Forlaget Thomson, KøbenhavnGundelach, Iversen & Warburg (2008): I hjertet af Danmark, Hans ReitzelsForlagHansen, N.G., Petersen, J.H., & Petersen, K. (2010):I himlen således ogsåpå orden? Danske kirkefolk om velfærdsstaten og det moderne samfund,Syddansk Universitetsforlag, OdenseHuulgaard, A (1976): “Forholdet mellem stat og kirke i utide,” in:AarhusStiftsblad,vol. 42, Landemodet og Aarhus Stiftsfond, AarhusInternational Religious Freedom Report (2010),U.S. Department of State,www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2010/(accessed 01.10.2011)Iversen, Hans Raun (2007): ”Religion skamrides i politik og medier,” in:Information,25.07.2007, KøbenhavnJacobsen (2012), B.A.: “Muslims in Denmark – a Critical Evaluation ofEstimation,” in: Nielsen, J.S. ed.:Islam in Denmark. The Challenge ofDiversity,Lexington, Lanham, MDJacobsen (2010), B.A.: “Denmark,” in: Nielsen el al, ed.: Yearbook ofMuslims in Europe, vol 2, Brill, LeidenJacobsen (2007), B.A.: ”Muslimer i Danmark - en kritisk vurdering afantalsopgørelser”, in: Warburg & Jacobsen, Tørre tal om troen.Religionsdemografi i det 21. århundrede, Forlaget Univers, HøjbjergJeldtoft (2009), N.: ”On Defining Muslims,” in: Nielsen el al, ed.:Yearbook of Muslims in Europe, vol 1, Brill, LeidenKlausen (2005), J.:The Islamic Challenge: Politics and Religion inWestern Europe.Oxford, Engl. and New York, USA: Oxford UniversityPress, 2005Lodberg (2009), P.: “Folkekirken i tal,” in: Religion i Danmark 2009,University of Aarhus, AarhusMinnerath, R. (2001): “Church Autonomy in Europe” in Robbers, ed.:Church Autonomy.Peter Lang, Frankfurt am MainModéer (2010), K.A.: “Internal Convergence – External Divergence,” in:Christoffersen, Modéer & Andersen, (2010):Law & Religion in the 21stCentury – Nordic Perspectives,DJØF Publishing, CopenhagenNielsen, J.S & Mehdi (2010), R.: ”Islam and Law in the Nordic Countriesin the 21st Century,” in: Christoffersen, Modéer & Andersen, (2010):

150Appendix ALaw & Religion in the 21stCentury – Nordic Perspectives,DJØFPublishing, CopenhagenNielsen (2012), J.S. (ed):Islam in Denmark.Plymouth: Lexington BooksNissen (2010), U.B.: ”Lutheran Natural Law Thought in the NordicCountries in the 21st Century,” in: Christoffersen, Modéer & Andersen,(2010):Law & Religion in the 21stCentury – Nordic Perspectives,DJØFPublishing, CopenhagenOftestad (2010), B.: “Presence and mission. The Socio-Ethical Engagementof the Catholic Church Within the Nordic Context 1970 – 2006,” in:Christoffersen, Modéer & Andersen, (2010):Law & Religion in the 21stCentury – Nordic Perspectives,DJØF Publishing, CopenhagenPetersen (2010), H.: “Beyond National Majority / Minority Dichotomies,”in: Christoffersen, Modéer & Andersen, (2010):Law & Religion in the21stCentury – Nordic Perspectives,DJØF Publishing, CopenhagenPew Forum on Religion & Public Life (2009), Pew Research Center,pewforum.org/Religion i Danmark 2011,University of Aarhus, AarhusReligion i Danmark 2009,University of Aarhus, AarhusRiis, O. (2007): “Religious pluralism in local and global perspectives:Images of the prophet Mohammed seen in a Danish and a globalcontext,” in Beyer & Beaman, eds.:Religion, Globalization, andCulture.Brill, LeidenRobbers, (2001) G. (ed.):Church Autonomy.Peter Lang, Frankfurt amMainRoesen, A. (1976):Dansk Kirkeret,3rd edition, Den DanskePræsteforening & Rud Pallesen, HillerødRoss (1946), A.:Towards a Realistic Jurisprudence: A Criticism of theDualism in Law,E. Munksgaard Publishers, CopenhagenRoss (1957), A: “Tû-Tû”, Harvard Law Review vol. 70, Issue 5, March1957, pp. 812-825Spielhaus (2010), R.: “Media making Muslims: the construction of aMuslim community in Germany through media debate,” in:Contemporary Islam,vol. 4, no. 1, 11–27, Springer Netherlands,Dordrecht 2010Stenbæk (2004), J.: “»Hvad forstaas ved den evangelisk-lutherske Kirke?«Om Henning Matzens statskirkelige folkekirkeforståelse,” in:Festskrifttil Hans Gammeltoft Hansen,DJØFWarburg, M., Gundelach, P., Iversen, H. R. (2008):I hjertet af Danmark.Institutioner og mentaliteter.Hans Reitzels Forlag, København 2008.Warburg (2007), M & Jacobsen, eds.:Tørre Tal om Troen –Religionsdemografi i det 21. århundrede,Forlaget Univers, Højbjerg2007Warburg (2009), M.: “Transnational Civil Religion: The Fourth of July in

Elites from a political, administrative and judicial context:AMA, female, 27, elected Mayor of Integration in Copenhagen citycouncil, representing the Social Liberal Party. BA Political Science & BALaw. Studying MA Law at University of Copenhagen. Single. Father is amember of theFolkekirke,but not being baptised as a child, she chosebaptism and confirmation simultaneously at the age of 14. Recentlydecided to cancel membership of theFolkekirke.PVB: Female, 36, Member of Parliament for the Socialist People’s Party;Spokeswoman for among others church affairs; Once mentioned aspossible future Minister of Church Affairs, but instead led herparliamentary group after the 2011 elections. Theologian by profession.Married and mother of two small girls; Born into working-class family.Attends theFolkekirkeon a regular basis.MB: Female, 54, new Member of Parliament in the 2011 election for thenewly-founded Liberal Alliance Party. Vice-chair of the ParliamentaryCommittee for Church Affairs. MA in Political Science and MA inPhilosophy. Former editor of major newspaper in south-west Denmark,former pro-rector at Aarhus University; former director of programmeswith Danish Broadcasting Association. Married with 3 grown-up children.Lives in the same parish where she grew up (and mentions that assomething which was common earlier, but now is rare). Attends theFolkekirkeon a regular (monthly) basis.TB: Female, 56, High Court judge and chair of the administrative equalitybody and thus by profession a lawyer. Speaks on behalf of the judiciciary.Civil marriage, 2 children, not baptised. Born into working-class family,first academic in family. Baptised as child and member of theFolkekirke,wants to uphold that relation, attends church at Christmas and on familyoccasions. Sees theFolkekirkeas central to Christian values in society.CS: Male, 60, civil servant in the EU Commission. Raised in Switzerland,educated as economist/political scientist there and in Denmark, after whichhe joined the Danish Foreign Service. Married to wife with Greekbackground. Grandfather a pastor. Baptised as a child and upholds hismembership of theFolkekirketo relate to his Danishness as a sort of tribal

Appendix B153culture. Has served as a member of church councils with Danish ChurchAbroad. Sees himself as rooted in a combined secular/humanist andChristian value tradition.Labour Unions and other national independent organisationsBP: Female, 50, chair of the labour union for social workers in themunicipalities, working among others with practical integration of migrantsand questions of religion in this context. Engaged in social politics and thewelfare state and is herself a social worker herself. Background in lowermiddle-class with traditionally gendered division of labour. Baptised andconfirmed, not married (neither legally nor religiously). One of her childrenconfirmed, the other not (personal choices). Has cancelled membership oftheFolkekirkedue to the use of money on buildings rather than a socially-aware and open institution.JC: Male, around 40, director of the Danish Institute for Human Rights.Professor of Law. Professionally focused on human rights in general ratherthan freedom of religion. Protects his religious identity as being private.Baptised and confirmed aged 15 after being inspired by an adult. Left theFolkekirkesome years ago and joined a different religious community, buthas not changed his view of society. Thinks that the general legalenvironment understands itself as hard-core secular with clear distinctionbetween religious and political norms, but has realised that state, law andreligion are much more intertwined than would be acceptable in othercountries.Elites from churches and religious communitiesPSJ: Male, 52, elected Bishop of Copenhagen (primus inter pares). MATheology (Copenhagen) and MA in Theological Understanding, IndustrialSociety, University of Hull. Pastor inFolkekirkefor (Danish) seamen inHull, England, and chaplain to the Danish Royal Navy in Copenhagen(thus also taking part in military operations). Then pastor in Copenhagenparish. Theologically leanings are Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, andinterested in Roman Catholic theology and practice. Married with twogrown up daughters.NB: Male, 36, first hospital imam at the National Hospital in Copenhagen(Rigshospitalet). Coordinator for the Ethnic Resource Team there and forthree other Copenhagen-based hospitals. Born to Pakistani immigrantparents in Denmark. Father taxi-driver, mother interpreter, parents laterdivorced, mother deeply involved in Pakistani religious milieu, siblings allacademically-trained after Danish school education. Six years of IslamicTheological training from Islamic International University in Islamabad.

154Appendix BSupplementary studies for Muslim Chaplaincy in Leicester, England,studied Muslim Counselling. Has been imam to prisoners, teacher inMuslim free schools, and motivator of Islamic-Christian Study Centre,Understands Islam as a dynamic way of leading life based on experiencesand on practice and identity more than as a religion.AWP: Male, 57, functions as imam in Nørrebro, a popular Muslim area ofCopenhagen. Book seller, relief worker, free intellectual. Married, fatherof four children. Born into a non-religious Danish-Finnish working classsocialist family in the countryside in north-eastern Jutland. Baptised andconfirmed in theFolkekirke,but left the church at the age of 16. StudiedBuddhism, later followed Hinduism, and was part of the post 68-generation. Has always been religious, chose to become a Muslim at theage of 28 in 1982 before Islam became a force in Danish public life.ET: Male, 79. Central voice among Roman Catholics, including an internetbased news radio. Retired from teaching in Catholic school and then spent2 years studying biblical theology in Paris. Former well-known politicianfor the Liberal Party, former chairman of the National Ethical Council.Active in the National Council of Churches in Denmark. Married, childrenand grandchildren. Born into a family with a Catholic mother andgrandparents. Does not see himself as a minority – “Catholics make up halfthe world’s Christians.”BL: Male, 65. Rabbi in the Jewish community in Copenhagen since 1976,Chief Rabbi since 1996. Born to Danish immigrants Ukraine and Lithuania.Parents were refugees in Sweden in 1943. Parents-in-law captured andinterned in Theresienstadt concentration camp, freed in April 1945.Himself educated in Denmark, followed by a year in Israel, served in theDanish army and then took rabbi-exam in Israel 1971-76. Married, 3children raised and educated in Denmark, all now married and living inIsrael. 6 grandchildren.LMH: Female, 50, part-time minister in a Baptist church on Bornholm andpart-time general secretary of the Baptist churches in Denmark, based inCopenhagen. Journalist by profession. Aged 39, took Theology degree atBaptist Seminary. Also studied in Israel. Ecumenically oriented. Married, 2grown-up children, 1 grandchild. Grew up in Eastern Jutland.Central voices from the public discourseDN: Male, 36. Independent intellectual. Contributes to media and functionsas external university teacher, MA in Anthropology (Aarhus). Published onscientifically-based, humanist Darwinist anthropology. Member of and

SA: Female, 39. Independent intellectual. MA Law (Copenhagen) MAJournalism, BA Arabic, currently doing a BA Turkish languages along withIslamic art and architecture at Oxford University. Teaches Danish, Historyand Social Sciences at a Muslim private school. Active in various Muslimorganisations, especially supporting building of a mosque in Copenhagen.Family background of Christian, Shia-muslim, and Sunni-muslim(following different law schools). Grown up mostly in Denmark.Seesherself as much more religious than the parents’ generation. FollowsSunni-Islam, earlier the Maliki, now the Hanafi law school. Wearsreligious veil, causing problems as she functions as lay judge.Distinguishes between the use of Shari’a as a norm to follow in private life(which she does) and as a legal code to be followed in Muslim countries.HOB: Male, 38, Free Church minister, related to, but not part of theFolkekirke,Chair of Home Mission (150-year-old pietist missionaryorganisation) MA Theology (Aarhus) with link to Menighedsfakultetet (aconservative private Lutheran School of Theology). Has taught at bothDanish Schools of Theology (conservative, private), former missionary forDanish Israel Mission and pastor in Danish Lutheran church in Jerusalem.A voice from the evangelical wing. Single but in relationship, grew up inlower middle class religious home in Jutland.KWH: Female, 41. Independent intellectual theologian, editor of Free PressMagazine ‘Sappho.dk.’ Vice-president of Free Press Society, writer,columnist, and housewife financed by family breadwinner (a rare choice inthe Danish context). Very active in the media, member of commissions,organisations etc., active in the Kierkegaard-inspired old-school-LutheranorganisationTidehvervgiving voice to theological dimensions of anationalist approach related to the Danish People's Party. Married,schoolgoing children. Background in a Lutheran pastor’s home, father latervery active in national politics and a central figure in Danish People's Partyas Member of Parliament, a seat her sister acquired after him at the latestparliamentary election.HC: Female, 54. Recently appointed full-time national leader of KirkensKorshær, a popular, widely-respected diaconal organisation with focus onsupporting vulnerable and exposed people: prisoners, psychiatric patients,suicidal people, junkies, the poor and the homeless. The organisation has400 employees and 7,000 voluntary workers. It runs soup kitchens, hostelsetc, primarily financed through private means and especially through thrift

Appendix C: The Danish quotesThe quotes cited in the report in their Danish original.Quote 3.01JC: ”De må jo fortolke, hvad deres religion tilsiger dem. Der hvor jeg såmener, at man i et demokratisk samfund må prøve at regulere det på, det erved at sige, at udgangspunktet i vores samfund er, at der gør vi sådan her. Iønsker noget andet, og så må de have argumentationsbyrden for, at det ernoget andet, som modstridende for, at det er værdifuldt for os, og som vihar besluttet demokratisk, at sådan skal det være. Så på en måde er deunderlagt det danske demokratiske samfunds beslutninger.”(JC, p 17)Quote 3.02:JC: ”[It has to be] … inden for en ordre publique, og hvad betyder så det?Der er det let nok for jurister at skrive, at vi anerkender ægteskabet, medmindre det strider mod ordre publique-hensyn, men hvad er så det? Der trorjeg, at man ville komme ned til at sige, at det bliver meget konkretepolitiske vurdering af, hvad kan vi acceptere i det danske samfund af“besynderlige ordninger”, som “mærkelige mennesker” fra “fremmedereligioner” kommer og vil have os til at tolerere i humanismens navn. Deter der, hvor dilemmaet opstår. Hvor langt skal vi gå? Udgangspunktet måvære, at der ikke kan være noget i vejen for, at man gør det på en andenmåde, så længe at det andet ikke er for provokerende ift. vores værdisæt.Hvor den grænse så går, det er ekstremt individuelt. Det bliver nødt til atblive besluttet på samfundsplan”(JC, p. 17)Quote 3.03PVB: Det er den lette løsning, som altid bliver kastet på bordet, og som jegselv har været med til at kaste på bordet, når det drejer sig om homovielser,når det drejer sig om noget, vi ikke - - . Når det bliver svært i forhold tilvielsesmyndigheden i disse godkendte trossamfund, så er det meget lettereat sige: lad os hive det væk, så er der ingen, der må. Man kunne ogsåforestille sig at man indgår en dialog med de her imamer om, hvad det erdet her danske samfund består af, for jeg tror bare, det andet kan give nogetskyggeboksning eller kan bevirke, at så får man aldrig nogensindekendskab til, hvad der foregår. Så får man undermineret imamernesautoritet. Nogle ville synes, at det var ganske glimrende. Jeg ville synes, atdet ville være ærgerligt for alle dem, der godt kunne finde ud af atoverholde reglerne.Quote 3.04:

158Appendix CPSJ: Det er klart, man trækker jo nogle religiøse traditioner ind, altså mantrækker kulturer og traditioner ind, det er klart. Men i adgangen forreligiøse ledere – incl præster i folkekirken – ligger nu ikke at de religiøseledere så også trækker en religiøs retsorden med ind i ægteskabet. Detligger slet ikke i det danske vielsesbegreb, som jeg ser det. Det gælder iøvrigt tilsvarende, hvis man forestillede sig, at mennesker bliver civilt vietpå rådhuset og dernæst religiøst viet i folkekirken, hos imamen etc. Hellerikke der åbnes der for en religiøs retsorden. Den religiøse vielse er alene envelsignelse, som i Danmark kan trække dansk civilret med ind – ikke andet.Quote 3.05:Selve indgåelse og opløsning af ægteskab, det mener jeg er et juridiskanliggende, og i virkeligheden er det en borgerlig institution, og det skal viholde fast ved. Hvordan man så bliver rådgivet, det vælger mennesker, somså vælger at blive viet i et eller andet trossamfund. Hvordan den rådgivningskal finde sted, det må de trossamfund selv om.Quote 3.06:SA: “Jeg er fx blevet inviteret til en forlovelse her på lørdag. Det er sjovt,de kalder det forlovelse, for det, de gør, er faktisk, at der er en imam, dervier de to mennesker. Så i mine øjne er de to mennesker islamisk set halalover for hinanden, de kan gøre, hvad de vil med hinanden, så de er giftinden for islamiske regler i hvert fald. Så jeg ser et ægteskab indgået foranen imam med vielsesmyndighed, det er et ægteskab, selvom nogle kalderdet forlovelse.” (SA, 8)Quote 3.07:SA: “Jeg formoder da, at imamerne fortæller folk, at de bliver registreretefterfølgende som ægtefolk inde hos kommunen. Jeg har faktisk aldrigtænkt over det, fordi jeg har altid tænkt det sådan. [...] Altså, når man ergift for en imam, er man gift! Jeg har aldrig tænkt på den måde der. Det harheller ikke interesseret mig, om dansk ret ser mig som gift eller ikke gift;fordi islamisk set er jeg gift. Hvad jeg så er if. dansk ret, det har jeg aldrigrigtig sådan interesseret mig for. Det må jeg indrømme.” (SA, 8)Quote 3.08:AWP: “Nej. Jeg vier folk uden bemyndigelse. Laver ene og alene enreligiøs vielse.” (AWP, 6)Quote 3.09:AWP: “Så er vi nogle få, og jeg er en af dem, som har valgt ikke at søge enkommunal vielsesbemyndigelse, for jeg er slet ikke interesseret i at lave encivil vielse. Den er mig evigt ligegyldig set i en religiøs kontekst.

Appendix C159Selvfølgelig råder jeg folk til, når de får lavet en ene og alene religiøsvielse hos mig, så råder jeg dem til også at få lavet den civile vielse. […]hvis man skal have sit forhold halal, jamen så er der nogle bestemte ting,der skal opfyldes, for at det kan blive det, og det vil jeg selvfølgelig altidråde folk til. Men om man så også vil have et civilt registreret ægteskab,det er så noget andet. Men der fortæller jeg jo også folk, at når jeg laverdenne her vielse, så giver den dem ikke automatisk de rettigheder, som manhar helt automatisk i fbm. en civil vielse. Det skal de være klar over.(AWP, p 24-25)Quote 3.10:ET: “Ægteskabet er et sakramente, og det er brudefolkene, som meddeler dettil hinanden.”Q.: Det er ikke præsten, der meddeler det?ET: “Præsten er vidne, og han er dét vidne, som er bemyndiget til atkonstatere, at nu har de giftet sig med hinanden. Vi bruger ordet 'vie' pådansk, men i virkeligheden så vier han dem ikke, men de vier sig tilhinanden. Det basale i katolsk ægteskabsret er, at man ikke kan få lov at viesig til et andet menneske, hvis det ikke er helt frivilligt; hvis man ikke ermyndig; hvis man ikke er tilregnelig og ikke er i stand til at tage vare påsine egne anliggender.” (ET, p 19)Quote 3.11:BL: “Som udgangspunkt var ægteskabet en sikring af kvinden. Altså, det erjo en sjov ting, at vi stadigvæk har den tradition, at vi iægteskabskontrakten fortsat har en økonomisk transaktion, som godt nokkun er symbolsk, da økonomiske relationer mellem jøder i vore lande heltog fuldt retter sig efter landets.” (BL, p 13)Quote 3.12:SA: “… der er en del muslimer, som tror, at hvis man bliver islamisk gift,så skal man også blive islamisk skilt. Det er der ikke noget, der hedder, forhvis hun også er dansk gift, og hun får en dansk skilsmisse, og det bliveroffentliggjort, så i fht. islamiske regler, så er offentliggørelsen af, at de erskilt fra hinanden, den er gyldig, islamisk set, også. Så jeg ser faktisk en heldel mennesker – ikke så mange som før, men det har været – at de er gift,og de er registreret dansk gift, så lader de sig skille men lever alligevelsammen. Måske vil de have sociale ydelser, jeg ved ikke hvad, men det erfaktisk en synd i islam, at de gør det, fordi det er blevet offentliggjort, at deer blevet skilt, men alligevel bliver de ved med at bo sammen. Og så sigermanden: jamen vi er jo ikke islamisk skilt! De har ikke forstand på det. Detforstår ikke det juridiske i islam, at når det er offentliggjort, så er det enskilsmisse; han har offentliggjort, at han har skilt sig fra hende på dansk.

160Appendix COm det så er dansk ret eller ikke dansk ret, det har ingen betydning; dengælder islamisk set. Det er der faktisk mange, der ikke er klar over.” (SA, p10 - 11)Quote 3.13:NB: “En mand kan jo i princippet godt sige, at ’jeg skiller mig af med dig’,og så blive skilt. Det er lidt sværere for kvinden, for hun kan ikke bare sige:‘Nu går jeg ud’, selvom der er forskellige meninger om det – det skal jegnok komme tilbage til – i traditionel forstand så vil kvinden skulle gå tilkadien, til muftien, og igen mæglingsråd, og så hvis hendes grunde vargode nok, så ville hun kunne søge om skilsmisse. Det ville også have nogetat gøre med hvilken kontrakt, man havde, da man indgik ægteskab, om dervar nogle særlige betingelser for skilsmissen, og hvis de indgår der, så vildet også være muligt for hende at søge skilsmisse.” (NB, 48:55)Quote 3.14:BL: “Vi tillader jo skilsmisser som en religiøs del af tingene. Vi har ikkenogen ret til at lave skilsmisse i Danmark, fordi præsterne ikke har nogenret til at lave skilsmisse. Men da er det jo så sådan, at når folk har fået derescivile skilsmisse, så søger de rabbineren om at få den religiøse skilsmisse.Og den er naturligvis retsgyldig i jødisk forstand. Og det er der jo sådan setingen problemer i. Men det hænger jo først og fremmest sammen med det,at vi har jo i udgangspunktet har vi ikke noget, der hedder illegale børn.Hos os er et barn, der fødes, et legalt barn, fuldstændig ligegyldig om det ermed partneren eller ikke med partneren eller hvem det er. Det enestetilfælde, hvor der kan være et problem for barnet, det er, hvis moderenlever sammen med en jødisk mand og får et barn med en anden jødiskmand. Så har vi problematikken, for så er der nogle regler for dette herbarn. Og det vil vi så til enhver tid undgå, og derfor siger vi, at vi skal haveparterne til at få lavet den her religiøse skilsmisse (BL, p 12)Quote 3.15:Q.: De kan godt bo hver for sig, men retsvirkningerne består?ET: “Ja. Det der så kan være et problem, er, om man overhovedet blev gift iførste runde. Hvis det i realiteten skete tvangsmæssigt; hvis man var såumoden, at man i realiteten ikke kunne tage ansvaret for handlingen; hvisman fx var psykisk syg, ja, så må man konstatere, at det ægteskab egentligaldrig er blevet indgået. Ofte bruges udtrykket, at man så ”kan få sit ægteskabophævet”, men det er upræcist; spørgsmålet er, om man kan konstatere, at detægteskab er ”nul”, dvs. annulleret ikke som en handling, men annulleret som enkonstatering. Forudsætningerne var der ikke. ”(ET, 19-20)Quote 3.16:

Appendix C161ET: “Jeg synes, at det er et forkert system, fordi samtidig med, at jegfuldstændigt anerkender ægteskabets uopløselighed, så synes jeg også, atman på urealistisk vis tiltror en sådan domstol at fastslå, hvad der egentlig skete isin tid. Det man skulle gøre, det er, at man skal give dem et rigtig langtkursus i, hvordan det hænger sammen med ægteskaber. Så må man sige, atnu ved du, hvordan dette hænger sammen, og så må du i din samvittighedtale med Vorherre om det. Hvis du i din samvittighed og efter at være blevetundervist siger, at sådan forholdt det sig, og det skriver du under på for Gudog mennesker, så lægger vi det til grund. I virkeligheden synes jeg, at det erlatterligt i mange af disse tilfælde at prøve at træffe en objektiv afgørelse. ”(ET, p 22-23)Quote 3.17:PSJ: ”Forældet! Jeg er ikke den rigtige til at spørge om dét, men jegopfatter det som forældet, fordi jeg anser dem for at være skilt, når de erskilt. Det er så svært at få sit ægteskab annulleret.”Q: ”Den type instanser findes jo både hos katolikkerne, i mosaisktrossamfundogimuslimskesammenhænge?”PSJ: ”Ja, det kan jeg ikke gøre meget ved, og det tror jeg heller ikke, at detsekulare samfund kan. Men indefra i de respektive religiøse samfund måpraksis dog på et eller andet tidspunkt komme i en eller anden form foreftertanke.”Q: ”Vil du opfatte den type instanser som mæglingsinstitutioner?”PSJ: ”Den katolik, der går hen og bliver skilt, og ikke kan få annulleret sitægteskab, gør stadigvæk bare det, som vedkommende finder rigtigt et parår efter men kan jo så ikke blive gift. Der er nogle svære implikationer forvedkommende; vedkommende er udelukket fra nadveren osv. Men det erikke nogen implikationer, som kan ordnes her, af os andre, af det sekulæresamfund.” (PSJ, 14-15)Quote 3.18:Q: ”Når du nu siger det der med ensartede regler, er du så nede i dendetalje, eller er det et mere generelt billede, du har?”HC: ”Det er nok mest det generelle billede, altså igen ud fra de forskelligediskussioner, jeg har lyttet med på eller læst lidt med på, om skal man havesærlige, private domstole, om jeg så må sige, til at udrede familiefejdereller konflikter eller utroskabsdrøftelser, havde jeg nær sagt, ellerkonflikter omkring det og sådan noget.”Q: ”Hvad er det for et hensyn, du gerne vil beskytte?”HC: ”Det er hensynet til den svage.”Q: ”Hvem er den svage?”HC: ”Det vil jo selvfølgelig altid være en konkret vurdering, men sådansom jeg mener at – eller i hvert fald selv som borger i samfundet forsøger

162Appendix Cpå at være med til at understøtte, så er det det, at en svag part har mulighedfor at bringe sin anke frem for en uvildig part.”(HC, p 11)Q.3.19:Q: ”Indgås der ægteskabskontrakter i det danske, muslimske miljø i dag?”NB: “Ja […] Der hvor de enkelte konflikter ligger, det er, når der ikke erenighed om, at man skal skilles, ikke, og især fra mandens side: han vilikke give slip, fx, og kvinden siger: ”Ja, jeg vil gerne skilles med dig”,ikke.”Q: ”Binder kontrakterne de muslimske mænd mere end traditionelfamilieret? Skal mændene også have grunde i kontrakterne for at bliveskilt?”NB: “De er der jo allerede på forhånd, og det er der også for kvindernedelvist; fx hvis manden slår eller ikke opfylder sociale, følelsesmæssige,seksuelle behov, ikke giver økonomisk bidrag... At de her grunde er nok til,at en kvinde kan sige: ved du hvad, du giver mig ikke mit månedligebidrag, det fungerer ikke økonomisk, og vi har ikke nok til at leve med, såjeg vil gerne skilles fra dig.” (NB, p 29)Quote 3.20:NB: “Nej, de skal have nogle grunde. De skal ikke bare skilles. Der ernogle moralske, etiske regler for, at de kan ikke bare sige: ’Nu kan jeg ikkelide dig mere’. Det ville ikke være en grund for at give en skilsmisse. Så enmand kan ikke bare komme en dag og sige: ’Nu vil jeg gerne skilles fradig, fordi du har haft den der blå kjole på. Den kunne jeg ikke lide.’ Detville ikke være grund nok, og det er derfor, når de her sager normalt går indtil de her mæglingsinstanser, så vil man også høre, om der er grund nok.Man vil inddrage den lokale imam eller mufti til de her ting […] Der, hvorforskellene ligger, sådan som jeg har forstået, det er, at en kvinde kan godtfå skilsmisse, men når hun søger om det, så skal hun til et mæglingsråd, også skal hun have nogle specifikke punkter, som er i overensstemmelse medden islamiske lovret ligesom manden, men der er bare – måske kan mansige det – stærkere krav, som kvinden skal have. Kravene er lidt strengere.”(NB, p 29)Quote 3.21:PSJ: ”Det har jeg aldrig spekuleret på, altså der vil optræde nogle forhold,som jeg ikke har tænkt igennem. Det er formentlig sådan nogle forhold,hvor den anglikanske ærkebiskop Rowan Williams for nogle år siden varude at sige: jamen det kan man nemt komme ud for. Men jeg tror nok, jegville sige, at hvis det kunne hjælpe på vej hen imod en eller anden løsning,der taler vi en eller anden mæglingsinstans, det kunne hjælpe på vej... Denskal jeg vende mange gange inde i hovedet, den der, det erinteressant...”(15)

Appendix C163Quote 3.22:SA: “Hvis man indgår et islamisk ægteskab med alle de regler og pligter ogrettigheder, der hører til, så kan der jo opstå det, fx lad os sige, at mandenså ikke vil betale sin medgift. Hvad så, hvad gør man så? Så kan jeg – deter faktisk meget nemt, for jeg får de her spørgsmål en gang imellem – såkan man sige: hvis ikke medgiften er betalt, så kan du offentliggøre: jeg erikke gift, medgiften er ikke betalt. Og så er det lige meget, hvad han siger,så skal han bevise, at medgiften er betalt, og kan han ikke det, så er du ikkegift i offentligheden. Den er nem nok. Men så er der det problem, fx: ’Hanforsørger mig ikke. Hvad gør jeg så?’ Hun kan ikke gå til kommunen, fx,og sige: min mand forsørger mig ikke, fordi det er jo kun hendes kæreste if.danske regler, hvis ikke hun er blevet registreret som gift. Så er det, atbliver nødt til at gå til en imam eller en respektabel person eller til hansfamiliemedlemmer og sige: ’Prøv lige at se! Min mand han opfylder ikkesin forsørgerpligt’.Quote 3.23:BL: ”… Hvis det er sådan, at det udelukkende er chikaneri, så vil jeg tageden beslutning efter en periode, som godt kan være en rum tid, atgennemføre skilsmissen.Q: Altså, hvis det at modsætte sig skilsmissen er udtryk for chikane?BL: “Ja, kun for chikane. Der er ikke noget økonomisk, det er kun etspørgsmål om, jeg gider ikke, at han skal ikke have lov til at... eller hunskal ikke have lov til at få et ordentligt liv […] Jeg har faktisk i øjeblikketét tilfælde, hvor at pigens tidligere mand absolut ikke vil noget som helst,og det er udelukkende chikaneri. Og der er det jeg har prøvet adskilligegange. (BL, p 13)Quote 3.24:BL: “Jeg kan godt sige dig, at i den ene af sagerne har jeg faktisk overvejetat offentliggøre det; at offentliggøre, at fyren her er simpelthen ... fordi haner aktiv I menigheden, han har en stor, stor omgangskreds. Det ville mangøre i jødiske menigheder rundt omkring i verden, der ville man simpelthensige: ham der eller hende der ... Jeg har dog ikke gjort det. Jeg synes, atvores menighed er for lille til, at den kan bære det der...” (BL, p 14)Quote 3.25:Q: ”Er der nogle sanktionsmidler, nogen form for pres, som ligger inde iislamisk retstænkning, som man sætter i værk?”SA: ”Hvis vi har en islamisk domstol, hvor kvinder kunne gå til, ja, såkunne der være nogle sanktioner, som fx hvis han ikke opfylder sine regler,så kan han få nogle formaninger, og så kan han... Nu spørger du mig omnogle juridiske, islamiske spørgsmål. Jeg kan lige slå det op helt præcist i

164Appendix Cde forskellige retsskoler, hvordan de holder det, men der er noglesanktioner, og i sidste ende kan det ende med, at det ikke er et ægteskab,hvis ikke han opfylder de regler, han skal. Hun har også rettighed til nogleting. Men når vi snakker om Danmark, så kan man ikke gennemføre de herregler, der ville være. Så bruger man socialt pres i stedet for.” (SA, p 9 -10)Quote 3.26:ET: “Det siger kirkeloven, men det bliver ikke overholdt mange steder.Fraskilte gengifte går til alters, og de bliver ikke afvist. Det kan godt være,at en sognepræst en dag vil sige på tomandshånd, at det her ikke er i orden.Men de færreste sognepræster vil sige det. Hvis nogen kommer op, og derikke er tale om en arrangeret provokation, bliver vist væk. Ingen, derkommer op og rækker hånden frem for at gå til alters, vil blive afvist påstedet. Det gør man ikke.” (ET, p 21)Quote 3.27:Q: ”Når du siger, at de tilhører deres far, ud fra hvilken juridisk tankeformsiger du det?”SA: “Det er jo selvfølgelig islamisk set, fordi parret prøver at leve ioverensstemmelse med islam, og han er deres far, og de bor hos ham. Detbetyder ikke, at de ikke kan bo hos hende, når de har lyst. Der kommer de,når de har brug for penge, nogle gange, og når de er sure på deres far, såkommer de til hende. Men altså, de har delt det op på den måde, at dabørnene nåede den alder, islamisk set, som de skulle, så var det ham, deboede hos. Sådan er de islamiske regler, ikke? […] Hvis hun så siger:”Okay, jeg får barnet if. lovgivningen, dansk lovgivning giver mig barnet,jeg har automatisk forældremyndigheden,” jamen så kan hun jo bestemme,i og med at hun bruger sin forældremyndighed, at hun vil dele barnets bo-og opholdssted med sin eksmand, med faren. Så der kan jeg ikke se, altsådet er jo ikke et brud på dansk lov, fordi dansk lov giver rigtig stortalbuerum til frie aftaler. Kun hvis der er en tvist, lige pludselig, og manbliver uenige, der er det så, at den kan smække, fordi der kan mandenmåske sige: ”Jeg har min islamiske ret osv.”, og så vil kvinden, ”Jo, sommuslim sige: den vil jeg ikke tage fra dig, for selvfølgelig skal du have lovtil at have barnet, når det er, du gerne vil passe på barnet og have ansvar forbarnet. Det er jo noget, hun kan bestemme, i og med at hun harforældremyndigheden.” (SA, p 5-6)Quote 3.28:Q: ”Kunne man forestille sig, at trossamfundene selv etablerede alternativekonfliktløsnings-institutionervedf.eks.imamer,rabbinere,ægteskabsdomstol?”

Appendix C165PVB: ”Det kunne jeg sagtens forestille mig, og nu skal man passe på, manikke kommer i samme problemer som den engelske ærkebiskop, der netophavde de her forslag og ideer til, hvordan man kan løse nogle problemer,og det tror jeg bestemt ville være en mulighed. Det eneste, jeg engangimellem bliver bekymret for, det er, at i dansk ret og dansk lovgivning harkvinder og børn altid været underordnet og dårligere stillet i etretssikkerhedsmæssigt perspektiv, og det ved man jo også traditionelt set,at i langt de fleste trossamfund er det kvinderne og børnene, som bliverunderordnet juridisk og traditionelt. Sagen er, at kampen for at modarbejde,det skal et eller andet sted også komme indefra. Hvis man så givermulighed for, at det ikke kun er de religiøse normer, der er på banen isådanne mæglingsinstitutioner...”Quote 3.29:HC: ”Det kunne da godt være, at mediation er et redskab, der evt. villekunne bruges, men igen: med de der mellemveje der er jeg også altid sådanlidt mistænksom over for, om det bliver overgreb; igen altså også det medat bringe offer og gerningsmand sammen og - jeg synes, det forekommermig, at det ligger meget snublende nær, at det bliver den svage part, somigen bliver taber i det.”Q: ”- Altså den retsudvikling, der er i strafferetten om konfliktmægling istrafferetten, den er du faktisk også temmelig tøvende overfor?”HC: ”Ja, altså jeg er bange for, at det - . Noget af det er, det er sådan enbehagelig måde at løse ting på, og så bliver vi gode venner og -. Det er joselvfølgelig karikeret fremstillet, men det er sådan lidt den tankegang, somjeg er bange for ligger bagved, i stedet for det ubehagelige, og også noget,som kan give konflikter, at sige: Vi må tage stilling til fordel for detmenneske eller de mennesker, der her er blevet begået uret overfor.”(HC p12)Quote 3.30:BL: “Vi har situationer, hvor overrabbineren blive benyttet i konfliktermellem jødiske parter. Det er ikke særligt ofte, men det er sket, det er sket[…] Det kræver jo, at begge parter er indstillede på, at jeg har en juridiskafgørelse, som man jo i princippet er nødt til at acceptere på forhånd. Jegkan jo ikke hverken sende politi eller noget som helst ud omkring det. Mendet sker. Ikke særlig ofte. Og det er jo det, som helt misforstås, når vi talerom det med sharia-lovgivning og alt muligt, fordi det har ikke noget medsharia-lovgivning at gøre, for øvrigt er det altid problematisk at tale om,men altså det er helt klart, at her har du et tilfælde, hvor at to jøder har etmellemværende, som de siger: det kunne vi godt tænke os, at rabbinerenafgør for os. […] Og det har jo så udgangspunkt i, at parterne skal væreenige om, at det er det, man beslutter sig til. (BL, p. 12)

166Appendix C…BL: “Nogle steder har du jo det, at du har menighedsrabbinere, og så hardu jo nogle rabbinere, som er ansat i det, der hedder Beth Din, som er denjødiske ret. Men det har vi jo ikke her. […]Så jeg vælger to religiøsemennesker til at være en del af det. I sidste instans sidder jeg aldrig alene.Det kræver ikke nogen, hvad skal jeg sige, særlig uddannelse eller noget;det arbejde, der er som en voldgift; […] Det er med udgangspunkt i, at deter to mennesker, som har en rimelig religiøs habitus.” (BL, p 15)Quote 3.31:AWP: “Man arbejder i Danmark hele tiden med arbitrære domstole ellermed voldgift. Fx når man laver en overenskomstforhandling; det er jo ikkeen domstol, det er en voldgift, man laver, men den er bindende for departer, som har sat sig ved det bord, der er den bindende. Der kan man josagtens lave nogle voldgiftsdomstole i Danmark, der tager nogle særligeandre typer sager op. Og det synes jeg i høj grad, der er brug for; som deter lige nu, fx, så kommer skilsmissesager tit til mig. Men hvem er jeg?Altså jeg er en eller anden gammel hippie fra Djursland; hvorfor skal jegsidde og være med i skilsmissesager. Hvad kvalificerer mig til det? Det gøret lille ord på fire bogstaver, men det synes jeg ikke er godt nok. Hvis vi istedet kunne få oprettet en eller anden form for voldgiftsdomstol, hvor manhavde, lad os sige, ti kvalificerede jurister, sagsbehandlere,socialpædagoger, og jeg ved ikke hvad for noget, nogle lægdommere af eneller anden art, hvor man så kunne kalde tre ind ad gangen, og så sidder deså tre dommere der på en fem-timers session hver anden torsdag eller eteller andet, og så kan folk komme; og alle dem, der træder ind ad den dør,de lægger et eller andet symbolsk beløb for at gå ind ad den dør, og såtiltræder de samtidig: det binder for os. Så kunne man få løst mangekonflikter på den måde i stedet for, at det det skal ned til sådan en lillesidegade, som der var en, der kaldte mig engang, en selvbestaltetandenrangsimam. Jeg blev så godt nok forfremmet senere hen, for jeg blevtredjerangs senere hen, så det må jo være op ad rangstigen (haha). Hvorforskal det lande på mit bord? Det er da ikke godt nok.” (AWP, 21-22)Quote 3.32:NB: “Der er nogle imamer, som siger: Vi har brug for en instans, som harstøtte også fra det offentlige, en offentlig anerkendelse, legitimation, ogman kan gå ind og lave familieretlige [...] kendelser, som ville hjælpekvinder, som fx er fastlåste i deres ægteskaber, som er indgået på muslimskvis. Der kræves det i nogle tilfælde mægling, især hvis kvinden selv ønskerat få en skilsmisse; i islam der må både mænd og kvinder søge skilsmisse,men præmisserne for dem er lidt forskellige, og derfor så er der brug for etmæglingsråd, og det er noget, som nogle imamer vil sige er vigtigt. … Jegmener ikke, man kan bruge udtrykket domstol. Jeg mener, at det her skal

Appendix C167gøres i samarbejde. Hvis der skal være en mæglingsinstans – lad os bareholde os til ordet ’mæglingsinstans’, en muslimsk mæglingsinstans – såskulle det være et tværfagligt samarbejde mellem de juridiske, de socialeog de økonomiske aspekter. […] Jeg kan se, vi mangler et sted, hvor vi kansende de her kvinder til. Hvilken autoritet har jeg til at skrive et brev, somvil blive godkendt? Jeg kan godt gøre det, hvis de ønsker det, men jegsynes, at de her kvinder skal have et mere formaliseret, struktureret sted,hvor de kan gå. Nogle af de her kvinder, der ringer rundt til imamerforskellige steder, bruger så meget tid på at finde ud af det; de bliverforvirrede, de bliver kede af det nogle gange, når de ikke kan få deløsninger, som de selv ønsker. Jeg synes, vi skal have en instans, som tagerhånd om de her ting og prøve at finde en model sammen.” (NB, p 10-11).Quote 3.33:AWP: “Der må jo kun være én straf for én forbrydelse, altså det skal ikkevære sådan, at man skal straffes af flere forskellige for den sammeforbrydelse. Men hvis man kunne finde nogle værktøjer i andre traditioner,som kan være med til at resocialisere eller sætte plaster på såret, eller hvadman nu kan, jamen så synes jeg, det vil være udmærket.”Q: Jeg tænkte i virkeligheden ikke, at man skulle straffe dobbelt, men mankunne straffes halvt i to forskellige paradigmer, således at der er...AWP: “Nej, nej. Det tror jeg ikke, for så er man netop inde på, hvor manskal have flere parallelle retssystemer til at køre i fht hinanden; nej, det jegtror ikke vil være en god ide … altså fra Danmark har man jo brugt det, nårman har skudt på folk i Afghanistan eller Irak, så har man jo faktisk fradansk side været ude og betale blodpenge. Men det er jo så fordi det er entradition i dén del af verden.”Q: Det er ikke noget, der hører til her?AWP: “Nej, ikke andet end hvis det på en eller anden måde kan forhindreen eskalering af en eller anden form for konflikt, som er der, men hvorkonflikten ikke nødvendigvis har udartet sig endnu til noget regulærtkriminelt, men hvor den kunne gøre det, med mindre der blev betalt enbod.”Quote 3.34:TB: “Nu er jeg jo mægler by heart, og jeg synes, at alt hvad deroverhovedet kan mægles, det er det bedste for alle mennesker. Hvis de kansætte sig ned og selv finde ud af det, så ville det være det bedste. Hvis deter mig som retsmægler i retssystemet eller, om det er en skolelærer, imamosv., som sidder som faciliterende person, det er for mig lige meget. Hvisdet nu ikke lykkes, så har de altid domstolene, de kan komme til. … I minverden er en mægling kun afsluttet, hvis alle parter har accepteret aftalen.Så er det deres aftale og ikke mæglerens bestemmelse. Det er min

168Appendix Copfattelse. [… Men,] hvis det er sådan, at de har skrevet under på en klaraftale, så kan de stadigvæk godt gå til domstolene og sige, at der var tvanginvolveret og argumentere mod, at aftalen blev truffet på forkert grundlag.Men ellers er det en bindende aftale.” (TB, 500 – 539)Quote 3.35:JC: “Hvis det er inden for rimelighedens grænser, og hvor de så er, det kanman diskutere. Men det er klart, hvis der er en eller anden familietvist påNørrebro, og så kommer der en imam og siger, at nu skal der altså værestokkeslag på ham her. Det går ikke. Men vi straffer jo heller ikke ved brugaf slag længere. Mit grundsynspunkt er, at man skal ikke være bange for, atandre landes retssystemer og retsregler bliver anerkendt i Danmark. Eller atder foregår twisteløsning ved mægling eller hjemme over middagsbordet,som vi med stor retfærdighed kan blande os uden om. Det er klart, at hvisman så siger, at jeg dræbte din søn, men jeg mæglede med imamen. Såville jeg stadigvæk sige, at det kan vi ikke, da vi ikke har rådighed overdenne sag, men det har staten. … Så kommer man tilbage og spørger, omdet er inden for rimelighedens grænser. Er det normativt acceptabelt? Detat folk bliver tvunget til at indgå i en aftale, som alle ville synes varfuldstændig rimelig, det ville man nok leve med, men hvis du blivertvunget ind med en uformel tvang i noget, hvor samfundet ville sige, at deter fuldstændig urimeligt. Det er det, samfundet prøver at modvirke, når vigår imod imam-mægling. Vi går ikke imod den fx fornuftige ogafbalancerede “mosaisk trossamfunds”-mægling mellem åbne oguddannede frie parter, der bare har brug for en løsning. Det vi går imod, nårvi overhovedet har den debat, så er det der, hvor magtudøvelsen er for stor.(JC, p 19)Quote 3.36:Q: Er sharia og kanonisk ret sådan nogle klare retssystemer, som er klartadskilt fra andre retssystemer, så du kan sige: ”Nu anvender jeg sharia, nuanvender jeg dansk ret”?SA: Jeg synes, der er nogle ting, der bliver blandet sammen der i dinespørgsmål; sharia er et meget stort lovkodeks, der kan bruges forskelligt,alt efter hvilke situationer, retsskoler osv, men sharia som lovkodeks erberegnet til at blive brugt i et muslimsk samfund. Og så kan man sige, atjeg som privatperson – det er også en del af sharia, at jeg beder, at vaskermig på den bestemt måde, at jeg har en vis holdning til forskellige ting;men jeg ser det ikke som en [...] Jeg adskiller det ikke fra mit virkelige liv;jeg tænker ikke over, når jeg går over gaden for rødt, om jeg bryder sharia,men jeg tænker på sikkerhedshensyn og lovgivning, og hvis jeg får enbøde, så får jeg en bøde, som jeg jo selvfølgelig betaler, men jeg tænkerikke på, at det her, det er sharia og det her det er dansk lov. […] det tror

Appendix C169jeg, fordi jeg ser dansk lov som nogle spilleregler, der gælder der, hvor jegbor. Det kan godt være, at der er en religiøs regel, jeg så ikke kan kommeigennem med, men det er de spilleregler, hvor jeg bor. Jeg har en mulighedfor at påvirke dem, og jeg gør, hvad jeg kan i mit arbejde som muslim iDanmark, at påvirke de regler; og det er derfor, jeg skrev det høringssvar tilretsudvalget. Men spilleregler er noget, der bliver fastsat i fællesskab også,så jeg må vælge: vil jeg følge den spilleregel, eller vil jeg ikke følge denspilleregel? Jeg har så valgt i nogle tilfælde at følge den spilleregel, fordidet er det mest hensigtsmæssige for mit liv, og andre gange kan jeg måskesige: jeg følger ikke den spilleregel; jeg følger i stedet for min religiøsespilleregel. (SA, p 5)Quote 3.37:KWH: “Jeg vil gerne væk fra det der med at tale om religion i det heletaget, fordi det afhænger unægteligt af, hvad det er for en religion. Jegsynes, det er rystende, at vi skal opleve polygame forhold i Europa igen idag. Altså jeg synes virkelig, det er et civilisatorisk tilbageskridt, at vi skaltilbage til vikingetiden-agtigt. Hvis religionsfrihed bruges som argumentfor, at den slags ting skal ske, så må vi nødt til at kikke kritisk påreligionsfrihedsbegrebet igen. Det er det, der er... Og så vi man så sige,jamen kan vi så ikke lave et klart princip om, hvad det er, vi kritiserer? Nej,vi bliver nødt til at se konkret på det, ikke, og vi bliver nødt til at sigeligeud, at vi vil ikke have vielse af mindreårige, og vi vil ikke havepolygame forhold. Hvorfor er polygami ikke i orden? […] Jeg bruger detsom en slags twist-argument for folk: hvis folk siger, at det skal staten ikkeblande sig i; folk må gifte sig, som de har lyst til, så dumper de hos mig.Jeg synes selv, det er svært at argumentere for, fordi det er nemlig: hvorforsynes vi ikke, polygami er i orden? Hvorfor synes vi ikke det? Det er megetsvært; det er jo, fordi vi har en kulturel, moralsk, religiøs bagage med os,hvad enten vi er klar over det eller ej.” (KWH, 14-15)Quote 3.38:CS: “… jeg mener egentlig ikke, at eksplicit religion hører hjemme dér [inthe legal system]. Det, man laver i et retssystem, det er værdibaseret, oghvor kommer de værdier fra? Altså de kommer jo alligevel fra nogetkristeligt eller noget normativt et eller andet sted fra. Der hvor jeg ligesomvil have et problem, det er, hvis man tager noget muslimsk et eller andet,og så giver det en eller anden særlig status, og så samtidig tager man nogethinduistisk og så tager man noget fjerde, og så laver man sådan etsammensurium af forskellige konfliktløsningsmodeller, som gør, at derbliver mangel på gennemsigtighed og mangel på forståelse, og til sidst såsiger folk: hvad er egentlig retstilstanden her? Fordi I kan åbenbart vælgeimellem hvad der lige passer jer bedst. Så vi går lidt på shopping. Det er

170Appendix Csådan en slags supermarked. Og det lyder selvfølgelig meget smart, men eri virkeligheden overfladisk” (CS, 11-12)Quote 3.39:JC: “…vi har en verden, hvor vi normalt anerkender, at hvis folks ægteskaber undergivet colombiansk lovgivning, så kan det godt blive brugt her iDanmark. De boede nu engang i Colombia, og så flyttede de herop, og ethalvt år efter var de blevet skilt. Så er det den måde, det er reguleret på. Påden ene side er det konsekvensen af, at sådan gør vi altid. Folk har frihed tilat indgå aftale og konfliktløse, som de nu engang vil. Konfliktløsning meden imam er for mig ikke værre end alle mulige andre former forkonfliktløsning. Så længe det foregår inden for rimelighedens grænser.”Q: ”Religion er ikke et argument i virkeligheden?”JC: ”Nu prøver jeg at retfærdiggøre det ud fra en sekulær betragtning, hvorjeg siger, at nej det er ikke derfor, men samtidig vil jeg sige, at ja det erderfor, at der skal være en plads til det. Religion kan spille en særlig rollefor, hvordan folk regulerer deres internt personlige forhold, og det skal dervære plads til. Hvis man ikke anerkendte det åbne synspunkt, så ville mankomme til at undertrykke en masse gode måder at regulere forhold og løsekonflikter på. Det skal man være varsom med.”Quote 3.40:Q: ”Vil du så internt folkekirkeligt sige: det skal vi, fordi vi har teologi tildet?Erdetsådanenargumentation?”PSJ: ”Ja ja. Jaja. Jeg mener, vi bør. Jeg mener, nu taler vi om nogetprincipielt. Vi bør gøre det af pastoralteologiske årsager, af teologiskeårsager. Når jeg vægrer mig ved at sige, at den modsatte position er godteologi, så er det jo fordi, det er selve det grundteologiske udgangspunkt,som er forkert. Det er ikke ordentlige teologiske udgangspunkter, man kanikke have det bibelsyn, som er det grundlæggende teologiske udi denposition, ifølge min allerbedste overbevisning”Quote 3.41:PSJ: ”Nej. Det kan jeg ikke få mig til.”Q: ”Ville du gerne?”Nej. ”Det vil jeg ikke! Det er et spørgsmål, som er op til de enkeltetrossamfund.”Q: ”Så trossamfund skal kunne opretholde sin vielsesbemyndigelse, selvomde ikke vil vie homoseksuelle?”PSJ: ”Ja. Folkekirken tager sit eget standpunkt i denne sag. Det er os selv,der bestemmer det her i Folkekirken og tilsvarende har de andretrossamfund ret til selv at bestemme, hvad de vil.”

Appendix C171Quote 3.42:ET: ”Nu snakker man jo om at kunne indgå kønsneutrale ægteskaber. Herville jeg sige, at det sekulære samfund kan lave en sådan ordning. Det kanman have en politisk mening om, og jeg har – uafhængigt af min katolskeopfattelse af spørgsmålet om homoseksualitet – den opfattelse, at indførelseaf sådan en ordning i realiteten vil afsvække samfundets beskyttelse af detalmindelige ægteskab og dermed af familie og børn. Jeg mener af rentsociale og antropologiske årsager, at det vil være forkert at gøre. Så vil detblive sådan, at man lige pludseligt ikke kan have hensynstagendelovgivning ift. familier, fordi det så også skal gælde de andre. Det svarer til,at en nogen ikke må gå med Dagmarkors mere, fordi man ikke vil have, atandre går med tørklæde. Derfor er jeg imod. Det ville være udtryk forsekularistisme, hvis man sagde, at frikirkerne også er forpligtet til at havekønsneutrale vielser. Grundproblemet er her, at religionsfriheden ikke kun erindividuel, men den er også kollektiv. Man siger, at folkekirkens præster vilvære frit stillede, men folkekirken vil ikke være frit stillet. Det er så næppenoget praktisk problem, fordi der er folkekirkepræster nok, der hjertensgerne vil gå med til det.”Quote 3.43:Q: ”Hvis Folketinget ændrer ægteskabsloven, så I også kunne viehomoseksuelle, hvordan ville I så reagere på det?”LMH: ”Det, vi har snakket om, er, at vi ønsker ikke at blive stillet i detdilemma. Så derfor ville vi nok overveje at aflevere voresvielsesbemyndigelse. […] Der er dem, der vil sige, at de anerkender ethomoseksuelt par, eller homoseksualitet også som kærlighed fra Gud, somer et udtryk for, at det er legitimt, og det skal også kunne registreres ellervelsignes. Og så er der dem, der siger, at det har intet med kærlighed atgøre; det er en vrangforestilling, måske næsten en sygdom, og det er noget,man enten skal bede om helbredelse for, eller man skal leve afholdenderesten af sit liv, hvis man har de tendenser. Så vi har hele spektret. […] eteller andet sted har vi det nok sådan, nogle af os i hvert fald, hvor vi siger,at der er også vigtigere ting at snakke om end det. Altså vi synes egentlig,at det er jo så lille en del af det, det er at være kirke, og så bliver det det,der bliver et stempel, på en eller anden måde. Det er vi nogle, der ikkebryder os om.” (LMH: p 13-14)Quote 3.44:DN: “En fuldstændig kønsneutral ægteskabslov, hvor man siger, at demennesker, som elsker hinanden, og som ønsker at indgå et partnerskabmed hinanden, og de forskellige juridiske forpligtelser der følger med vedat leve i det sekulære samfund ved at indgå et ægteskab. Disse indgåruagtet af, hvad forskellige religiøse grupperinger nu engang måtte mene, at

172Appendix Cægteskabsbegrebet rummer hos dem. Nu er det altså et juridisk begreb, somvi også anvender i Danmark, og det er først og fremmest borgernes forholdtil hinanden og stat, hvor det her er interessant. Hvad de enkeltetrosretninger derude så ønsker at gribe og gøre i efterfølgende, det blanderjeg mig ikke i, men det vi fra statens side har valgt at kalde et ægteskabdet… har I andre kriterier, så gør I det. Det I laver derude, det har ikkenoget juridisk gyldighed for os, da det er jeres egen ceremoniellesymbolske konstruktion.” (DN, p 20-21)Quote 3.45:HC: “Nu har jeg jo i mange år haft det synspunkt, at jeg synes ikke, at derskulle være en juridisk ægteskabsstiftelse, heller ikke i folkekirken. […]Jeg synes jo, at det, at man har en ægteskabsindstiftelse, som er ens for alle,igen – det er jo sådan meget gennemgående i det, jeg siger – på rådhuseteller hvor, det nu er, at samfundet træffer beslutninger om det, og så kanden eller de, som vil det, gå til deres respektive trossamfund og modtage envelsignelse, eller hvad man nu definerer det som.” (HC, p 12)Quote 4.01AWP: ”Jeg tror egentlig, det ville være en fordel for hele arbejdsmarkedet,hvis man havde lov til at flytte rundt på sine fridage i langt større omfang,end man har i dag. Jeg ved eksempelvis fra transportsektoren, bybuskørselog togkørsel og alt muligt, der er man jo rigtig glad for muslimerne, for devil gerne arbejde til jul, mens der er mange klassisk danske ikke-muslimer,som helst ikke vil arbejde til jul.”Quote 4.02:SA: ”Jeg synes, man skulle lade folk selv om at aftale det med deresarbejdsplads. Jeg har været så heldig, at når jeg har arbejdet på enmuslimsk arbejdsplads, så har jeg fri i slutningen i ramadanen. Hvis minarbejdsplads ikke ville være en muslimsk arbejdsplads, så ville jegforhandle mig frem til det; og hvis min arbejdsgiver ville være så sur ogdum, at ’nej, du kan under ingen omstændigheder få fri i slutningen aframadanen til den muslimske jul!’, jamen så ville jeg sige: ’Tak for en godarbejdsoplevelse, jeg siger op.’”Quote 4.03BL: ”På den ene side er det blevet nemmere, fordi folk har mere fri, dvs. atdu kan generelt placere dine fridage... Men vi har haft faktisk enskolelærer, der blev nægtet at afspadsere sin fridag på jødiske helligdage.Og vi har også fået en ændret holdning i gymnasierne, nemlig det, at Igamle dage afleverede man en seddel fra overrabbineren til rektor, hvor derstod, at vedkommende bedes fri mandag og tirsdag til Rosh Hashana, og så

Appendix C173var den sag klaret. Det gør man ikke længere. I dag bliver en forsømmelsetil Rosh Hashanah regnet som en forsømmelse.”Quote 4.04:BL: ”[Jeg] skriver til undervisningsministeriet hvert femte år, og hvor vibeder om, at de officielle eksamener ikke skal ligge der og der, fordi det erjødiske helligdage, og det er generelt noget, der bliver accepteret. Og jegvil sige, at det sker indimellem. Faktisk havde jeg sidste år to elever på ...de havde fået besked på, at de skulle møde op på en prøveeksamen på en afde jødiske helligdage, der lå der omkring pinse. … Og der havde lærerengivet besked om, at der var ingen mulighed for sygeeksamen, og der varingen mulighed for, at de kunne gå op på et andet tidspunkt. Så henvendtede sig til mig, og jeg skrev til rektor eller hvad han hedder, og jeg skrevsådan og sådan og det var et problem for dem og hvordan, han ville tackledet der, og så, jeg fik, der gik 10 minutter, så skrev vedkommende tilbage:jeg har meddelt, at de skal ikke til eksamen. … Så generelt vil jeg sige, attingene kan løses.” (BL, p 5)Quote 4.05:“Hvorfor skal folketinget engagere sig i, hvordan folk går klædt, oghvorvidt der er lokaler til daglig bøn?” (Quote 4.05)Quote 4.06:DN: Mit personlige råd til virksomhederne når jeg er blevet spurgt om det,det er, at jeg synes, at I skal tænke jer rigtig godt om, når I laver den slagsting for ellers, kommer I til at gøre folk mere etniske, end de rent faktisk er.I skal koncentrere jer om, at medarbejdere er medarbejdere, og så må i se,om I ikke kan adskille det private og det religiøse fra deres arbejdsliv. Jegoplever det faktisk heller ikke som noget stort problem. Det kan være etproblem i de virksomheder, der har lavt uddannet arbejdskraft fx irengøringsfirmaer og fabriksarbejde, der har du ofte folk, som er lidt merereligiøse, da religion spiller en større rolle den gruppe mennesker. De vilgerne have disse ting til rådighed, ligesom nogle danskere gerne vil havemotionsrum til rådighed. Så synes jeg, at man må gå ind i en forhandlingom at imødekomme det. Sikrer vi, at arbejderne bliver på stedet ved at lavedisse foranstaltninger? I en eller anden guddoms hellige navn synes jeg, atdet er farligt fra start at lave bederum, da det understreger nogle forskellefrem for at… (DN, p 16-17)Quote 4.07:PSJ: ”Jeg synes ikke, at man skal pålægge arbejdsgiver muligheden for etbederum. Men jeg synes at det ville være en stor fejl at pålægge dem ikkeat gå med kors eller tørklæde. Det er livstydningstegn, det er jo slet ikke

174Appendix Cneutrale tegn. Det er så stor en del af deres personlighed, så jeg vil synesdet var forkert at tvinge dem til at lægge det fra. Det kan være i forbindelsemed udøvelse af bestemte arbejder, hvor der er et uniformsregulativ.”Quote 4.08:BP: ”Ja, jeg har det generelt sådan, at hvis man arbejder i en offentliginstitution, så må man have respekt for den institution, man er i og demennesker, der kommer der. Jeg synes hverken, at man skal gå dybtnedringet eller have guldsmykker over det hele eller gå i lårkort eller skiltemeget med, at man har en bestemt tro over for de mennesker, der kommerher. De har brug for at få en oplevelse af, at her bliver der behandlet ud fraen objektiv person, der kender reglerne og ikke så meget andet. Hvis detvar meget demonstrativt, så ville jeg have et problem med det.”BP: ”… man skal kunne se hænderne og føre en fornuftig og nærværendesamtale, som ikke hele tiden rummer, at man sidder og tænker, hvad dermon foregår inde under alt det der. Så kan man ikke have sådan et job. Deter også et valg, man gør sig, hvis man vil skilte så meget med sin tro, for såvælger man altså også nogle ting fra ift. at kunne have forskellige job.”Quote 4.09:AWP: ”Jeg har selv som skoleleder haft en burkaklædt kvinde ansat i enbørnehaveklasse. Og jeg vidste så godt, når hun kom ind ibørnehaveklassen, så tog hun ansigtsdækket af og tumlede rundt medbørnene ligesom alle mulige andre. Hun var en knalddygtig pædagog.”Q: ”Kan hun også godt være dagplejemor?”AWP: ”Det kan hun vel, hvis de forældre, der synes, at deres børn skal ipleje der synes, det er i orden. Hende, jeg havde der, var en knalddygtigpædagog, uddannet i Danmark, og da vi havde skærpet tilsyn fraundervisningsministeriet på den samme skole, kunne jeg godt se, at de varlige ved at falde bagover, da de kom ind på lærerværelset og så, hun sadder, og de sad og skævede til hende ud af øjenkrogen engang imellem. Ogda hun så pludselig åbner munden og begyndte med alle fagudtrykkene ogbare fyrede løs, så kunne de jo godt se, at der sad jo et menneske og vidste,hvad hun snakkede om.” (AWP, 6)Quote 4.10:PVB: ”Jeg har det nok lidt sådan, at dagplejeren fra Odense var et godteksempel på, at man ikke kunne varetage sit job på en ordentlig måde, hvisbarnet ikke kan se et ansigtsudtryk, og hvis de forældre, der kommer oghenter og afleverer barnet, ikke kan se hendes ansigtsudtryk, og så synesjeg, det er i orden, at Odense kommune går ind og opstiller nogleretningslinjer.”

Appendix C175Quote 4.11:PSJ: ”For mig at se må jeg sige, at hvis vedkommende bærer et kors, detville jeg jo ikke have noget imod overhovedet, hvis vedkommende kommed en halvmåne, ville jeg ikke blive anfægtet, eller et tørklæde. Alt iorden. Jeg vil dog sige, at vi lever i en kultur, hvor vi ser hinanden ansigt tilansigt og i øjenhøjde med hinanden, så derfor vil det, der aldeles tildækkeransigtet ikke være acceptabelt i sådan en sammenhæng. Men jeg kunne iøvrigt heller ikke drømme om at forbyde det i samfundet. På gade og vej.Altså hvis man har lyst til at gå aldeles tildækket, er det ok, men jeg vilhave lov til at sige: men jeg vil ikke ansætte sådan en.”Quote 4.12:PSJ: ”Den skal tages et andet sted, fordi ellers så tror jeg, vi kommer til attrykke nogle mennesker for hårdt og i det her tilfælde synes jeg, at man måvære så sensibel over for, hvad der foregår i deres liv. Meget ofte har dekvinder, som går med tørklæde, meget ofte har de haft en ganske gevaldigkamp, formentlig både med deres far og deres mor for at få en uddannelseog få den uddannelse, som de allerhelst vil have. Måske også for at gifte sigpå en anden måde, og så for ligesom at afbøde lidt for alle de kulturellekampe, så tager de det tørklæde på. Det har jeg i hvert fald hørt nogleeksempler på. Så synes jeg ikke, jeg skal komme og bestemme noget. Deter en måde at mistænkeliggøre dem på. Der er foregået en kamp, som viandre ikke kan gøre os begreb om og ikke skal blande os i.”(s 9-10)Q: ”Er der ikke både inden for de kristne grupper i Danmark og inden forislam og måske også inden for jødedom i Danmark en stigendefundamentalisering, altså religiøse grupper bliver stærkere og skaberstærkere normer for deres egne, som gør, at det bliver sværere at lave detflyt?”PSJ: ”Det er et godt spørgsmål. Der er ingen tvivl om, at pressen henvenderhele tiden sin opmærksomhed mod den præst, som hænger en nisse, ellermod den imam, som ikke er klar i spyttet på stening eller mod den rabbiner,som måtte komme for skade at sige noget om bosættelser på Vestbredden,men i et vist omfang er det et presseskabt fænomen.”Quote 4.13:LMH: ”Jeg kunne godt tænke mig at være sygehuspræst, fx, ellerfængselspræst, og det må jeg ikke blive, fordi der skal man være lutherskpræst. Det, synes jeg også er diskriminerende. Jeg kender jo godtbegrundelsen, for tænk, hvis nu der kommer nogen, der vil havde deresbarn døbt, og jeg så ikke vil døbe vedkommende, ikke, eller der kan væremange andre spørgsmål. Men jeg synes, at det ville berige vores samfund,hvis der var mere lighed, og hvis der var flere forskellige slagssygehuspræster eller fængselspræster.”(LMH, p 3)

Quote 4.14:BP: ”Det tror jeg faktisk er ulovligt ligesom, at man heller ikke kun måsøge en mand eller en kvinde. Det synes jeg ikke er i orden. Det kan godtvære, at man ville vælge den… men det er jeg faktisk ikke engang sikkerpå, man må.”Q: ”Hvad, ville du mene, var i orden, før sådan en institution kunne drives iden fagligt religiøse blandede ånd, der nu var?”BP: ”Det er oplagt, at man må fremlægge, hvilket værdigrundlag manarbejder på. Der er ingen tvivl om, at hvis der bliver sagt, at der bliverarbejdet ud fra et kristent værdigrundlag, så ved de fleste danskere, hvaddet er.”Q: ”Og det må man også spørge til hos ansøgeren?”BP: ”Ja det må man klart. Hvis man nu heller ikke måtte spørge ude påToms om, hvorvidt et samlebånd var et sted, man kunne tænke sig at stå.Jeg synes, at det er i orden. Men jeg synes ikke, at det er i orden, at man måspørge, om du er medlem af folkekirken og så vælge fra på den baggrund.”Q: ”Du siger altså, at man ikke må spørge til folks indre overbevisning,men man må gerne spørge, hvordan de forholder sig til den arbejdsplads,de skal være på? Og Hvordan de kan praktisere på den arbejdsplads?”BP: ”Ja og om de kan se for sig, at de kan arbejde under de værdier ognormer, man får præsenteret. Det er da klart, og det ville man da gøre hvorsom helst. Her hos os har vi en særlig rummelig familiepolitik, så hvis derer nogle, der har syge børn, så synes vi godt, at de må blive hjemme et pardage. Det er da det samme.” (p 4-5)Quote 4.15:Q: ”På de arbejdspladser, som har sekulære opgaver, eller sekulærtreligiøse opgaver, sygehuse eller skolevirksomhed, og som har et religiøstethos. Hvor meget skal man kunne lægge vægt på personlig overbevisning,og hvor meget skal man kunne lægge vægt på arbejdspladsens regler?”PSJ: ”Trosovervejelsen, den synes jeg er vigtigt. Seksualitet, der er jeg ikkesikker på, at jeg synes, man skal kunne lægge vægt på, der er jeg nok såmeget barn af sådan en kristelig oplysning, det er mere faglighed, detkommer an på.”Q:”Indgår i en teologi i et andet trossamfund eller i en frimenighed, atteologien skal vise sig i praksis, og det vil sige, at vi vil ikke have nogenansat, der er fraskilt, vi vil ikke have nogen bøsser ansat, vi vil ikke havenogen kvinder ansat, der får en abort; dels vil vi ikke ansætte dem, og delsvil vi fyre dem, hvis de gør det alligevel – hvordan ville du stille dig tildet?”PSJ: ”Det ville jeg ikke synes, var rimeligt.”

Appendix C177Q: ”Og det er det, jeg spørger om, altså vil du mene, at samfundetlovgivningsmæssigt skulle acceptere det?”PSJ: ”Nej. Nu kommer vi ind i gråzonerne. Nej, det ville jeg ikke.”Q: ”Vil du mene at samfundet lovgivningsmæssigt skal acceptere, at folkbærer religiøse symboler (ja), men samfundet skal ikke lovgivningsmæssigtacceptere former der kan føre til ansættelse eller afskedigelse af folk,bortset fra selve troen?”PSJ: ”Ja. Der kan være nogle trosmæssige begrundelser. Altså når der er etbestemt trossamfund, så må man sige, at der er nogle bestemteoverbevisninger, som jeg godt kan forstå, hvis arbejdsgiver lægger vægt på.Men derudover mener jeg ikke, man skal kunne fyre folk på deres etiskeforhold.”Q: ”Der var et eksempel med et ydre missionsselskab, som ville have entroende økonomimedarbejder. Ville du sige, at hvis de efterspurgte enøkonomimedarbejder, som i sin holdning kunne understøtte og være loyalover for og aktivt bidrage til missionsselskabets formål, det ville duacceptere?”PSJ: ”Ja!”Q: ”Jeg har personligt en grænse, et argument, der hedder, at man kan ikketillade sig på en arbejdsplads at spørge efter folks interne overbevisning,forum internum, personlig faith, men jeg vil gerne spørge efter ydrepraksis. Er det en relevant sondring for dig?”PSJ: ”Ja, det kunne det meget godt være. Det har jeg aldrig tænkt over, sådu byder mig noget her, som virker relevant. Det er meget folkekirkeligt atsige, at vi skal ikke granske folks hjerter og nyrer, deres indreoverbevisning. Jeg vil ikke acceptere, at en homoseksuel ikke kunne blivelærer på den begrundelse. Det ville jeg finde meget upassende. Det måhandle om overbevisningen, ikke om seksualiteten.”Q: ”Og du ville understøtte at staten skulle sige, at det var retligt forkert.Den fyring var i strid med …?”PSJ: ”Ja det tror jeg, jeg ville mene, at det bryder jeg mig ikke om. Der erman skredet ud over grænserne. Man går ind i personligheden der. Det villejeg ikke kunne acceptere.”Q: ”Vil du forvente i den situation, at folkekirken så har en internledelsesret til at tage stilling til decorum-spørgsmålene? Eller vil duforvente, at der var en eller anden fælles arbejdsret i samfundet som sådansom du trak på, eller er det en kombination? Kan du følge mit eksempel?”PSJ: ”Det kan jeg. Men jeg bliver også nødt til at tilstå, at jeg ikke erafklaret på det. Det er det, der bliver så frygtelig besværligt ved denkirkeordning, som skal ændres (Q: den skal ændres?) ja, men som har såmange implikationer, som nu kommer. Det bliver jo nok en blanding.”Q: En blanding, som er, at du vil forbeholde dig intern ledelsesret, men denskal være, rammes af fælles arbejdsretlige regler?

178Appendix CPSJ:”Ja, for det, jeg er liv-ræd for, det er, hvis vi siger, at vi skal have enintern ret i kirken. Jeg er så bange for den kirke, som kan gå hen og udvikleparallelsystemer. Det er vi ret gode til i forvejen.”Q: ”Det hele skrider langsomt fra hinanden?”PSJ: ”Ja. Det bliver en løjerlig institution i samfundet. Derfor så tror jegnok, at jeg meget tror, at opgaven altså hele tiden består i at kalibrere voresegen opfattelse uden at blive vindbøjtler; men på det lovgivningsmæssigeområde, der skal vi være så integreret som muligt. I hvert fald somfolkekirke. Jeg vil ikke forlange det af de andre, men jeg ville ønske, at detænkte det samme.” (p 4-6)Quote 4.16:HC: ”I udgangspunktet står der i vores grundregler, at Kirkens Korshærsøger sine medarbejdere blandt den danske folkekirkes medlemmer, og det,vi så siger: Det at søge er jo ikke det samme som at finde, så dér, hvor vifinder medarbejdere, som passer ind i det, vi gerne vil have, så er dermulighed for, at landsstyrelsen kan give dispensation. Men det normale,om jeg så må sige – og det skal siges i selve det brugerrelaterede arbejde –det er, at vi har et varemærke, som er, at vi arbejder på den danskefolkekirkes grund, og derfor er det dét, man vil møde. Det er meget aktueltfor os, for vi har lige været indklaget for ligebehandlingsnævnet og fået enafgørelse her for 14 dage siden, som siger, at det var forkert. Konkret vardet med baggrund i en stillingsannonce, som vi havde i somorganisationskonsulent, og hvor der stod: ”medlemskab af folkekirken”.Det var der så en dame, som har indbragt for ligebehandlingsnævnet.”Q: ”Og medarbejderne hhv. i den offentlige del af virksomheden og denprivate del af virksomheden?”HC: ”Vi skelner jo ikke sådan imellem det, altså de er medarbejdere iKirkens Korshær alle sammen. Det der med, at der er nogle herberger, derer driftsoverenskomst, det er mest sådan en teknisk ting. Menmedarbejderne er jo af alle slags; altså som jeg lige sagde: på BlågårdsPlads har vi en muslim – vi har i øvrigt også flere muslimer ansat her isamme område, fordi vi driver noget fodboldklub og lektiehjælp fordrengene der i området, og der er nogle unge mænd, som mig bekendt ermuslimer, som står for det.”Q: ”Men det er undtagelsen, sagde du lige, det kræver en dispensation.Hvad er den almindelige medarbejder?”HC: ”Den almindelige medarbejder er medlem af folkekirken og ellers,som sagt, så kan der gives dispensation, hvis den leder, som leder detarbejde, hvor man gerne vil have ansat én, lægger vægt på, at det skal værenetop dén person.”Q: ”Har den almindelige medarbejder en faglig uddannelse (ja), eller er detfru Jensen, hvor børnene er flyttet hjemmefra?”

Appendix C179HC: ”Nej, altså vi har jo både ansatte og frivillige medarbejdere her, og vikalder dem alle sammen medarbejdere. Vi har ca. mellem 7-8.000 frivilligeog ca. 400 ansatte medarbejdere, og det er jo nok mest de ansatte, vi skalmåske tale om i denne her sammenhæng, det ved jeg ikke. Det er i hvertfald dér, hvor kravet om folkekirkemedlemskab er.”Q: ”Okay, så det krav stiller I ikke til de frivillige medarbejdere?”HC: ”Nej. Men vi stiller det krav, at de skal kunne arbejde ud fra KirkensKorshærs kristne livs- og menneskesyn.”Q: ”Hvad er din kommentar til det her spørgsmål om medarbejdere ifolkekirken?”HC: ”Jeg synes jo, at det er grundlæggende mærkeligt, at organister ikkeskal være medlemmer af folkekirken, eftersom musikken jo er den primærelovsangskilde og etablerer det forkyndelsesrum, som det talte ord så lyderi.”Q: ”Vil du også synes, at kirketjenere og gravere, at alle medarbejdere ifolkekirken faktisk skulle være medlemmer, eller at man skulle i hvert faldstille loyalitetskrav til dem?”HC: ”Ja, loyalitetskrav, vil jeg sige, også ud fra erfaringen med, at jo ikkemindst medarbejderne på kirkegårde jo er en meget søgt samtalepartner forfolk, der færdes der.”Q: ”Hvis vi nu bliver på arbejdsmarkedet, så placerer jeg altså jeresorganisation et sted, hvor I kan stille krav til ledende medarbejdere – sådanvil jeg opfatte retspraksis, og I kan stille loyalitetskrav til de øvrigemedarbejdere. Hvad er det for en sag, du fortæller mig, I har haft?”HC: ”Vi har egentlig haft flere, alle sammen vist nok initierede af Centerfor Racediskrimination og Ligebehandling. De har arbejdet meget ihærdigtmed de her ting og i den sammenhæng udset sig Kirkens Korshær. Vi harikke fået nogen påtaler, om jeg så må sige, tidligere. Den seneste her, somså som sagt var en organisationskonsulent, som jo altså i den diakonalevirksomhed, som Kirkens Korshær er, skal rådgive lederne i diakonaltarbejde og diakonalt folkekirkeligt arbejde, som det jo er, og derfor havdevi det krav, selvom der jo altså ikke var brugerkontakt i den stilling men enrådgivning i at arbejde diakonalt.”Q: ”Mener du, at retlige konflikter omkring præstestillinger i den katolskekirke burde kunne forelægges for de almindelige domstole ogarbejdsretlige institutioner?”HC: ”Ja, det mener jeg.”Q: ”Og hvis du nu som formand for præsteforeningen havde medlemmer,som var ansat i baptistkirkerne i Danmark eller metodistkirkene, altsåfrikirkerne, hvad ville du tænke der? Ville du ønske at haveforhandlingsret? Og ville du ønske, at det var den almindeligearbejdsretlige tænkning, eller ville du sige: det må de klare selv som etinternt anliggende?”

180Appendix CHC: ”Jeg ville mene, at det skulle være lige så vel... på samme mådealmindeligt reguleret med de redskaber, som vi i øvrigt bruger påarbejdsmarkedet.”Q: ”Der var for nylig to sager ved Den europæiskeMenneskerettighedsdomstol; den ene handlede om en organist i en katolskkirken, og den anden handlede om en, om jeg så må sige, udenrigsministerhos mormonerne i Europa. Begge sager drejede sig om, hvad lutheranereville kalde moralske spørgsmål, altså livsstil, udenomsægteskabeligtsamliv, som jo både for katolikker og mormoner er en central del aftrosudtrykket. Og de var altså blevet fyret begge to pga.udenomsægteskabeligt samliv. Både mormonerne i Europa og den katolskekirke påstod sagen afvist fra den europæiske menneskerettighedsdomstol,netop fordi livsstilen var en central del af trosudtrykket og derfor efterderes opfattelse ikke noget, som menneskerettighedsdomstolen skulle værekompetent til at behandle. Til båndet tænker jeg på Obst og Schüth (36:34).Hvad tænker du om sådan en tilgang fra de to trossamfund? Eller hvordanville du se på sådan en retsudvikling i en dansk sammenhæng?”HC: ”Grundlæggende er jeg jo tilhænger af, at der er ligebehandling foralle. Jeg kan jo ikke sådan lige se rundt om alle hjørnerne i de der sager,som du lige kort beskriver. Umiddelbart så må man jo sige, at detforekommer ikke i almindelig overensstemmelse med et arbejdsforhold, atens private virksomhed eller måde at leve sit liv på har indflydelse der, udover hvis man kan trække det der loyalitetskrav eller loyalitetsforventningog sige: du har skadet din virksomheds produkt, hvis man nu skal oversættedet til andre, ved at miskreditere det i din livsførelse. Det ville heller ikkevære utænkeligt for almindelige, ikke-religiøse virksomheder, at nogetsådant...”Q: ”En eller anden form for decorum-begreb?”HC: ”Ja, at ens hele fremtræden, herunder også i fritidslivet, herunder ogsåhvordan man omtaler sin arbejdsplads osv. Det er jo også almindeligtbrugt, også hvis der kommer nogle konsekvenser af det, hvad du skriver påfacebook om, hvor dum chefen er og alt sådan noget, ikke, så vi har jomeget flydende grænser også i denne her sammenhæng.”Q: ”Men forstår jeg dig rigtigt, når jeg samlende konkluderer, at du nokmener, at domstolene skulle have mulighed for at tage sagen men i sinanalyse af sagen skulle lægge vægt på loyalitet og decorum og her underogså de religiøse argumenter, men samtidig skulle lægge vægt påpersonens ret til et privatliv og afbalancere det?”HC: ”Ja, altså der ville jo ikke være nogen fuldstændig knivskarp måde atskære det på, tænker jeg. Du konkluderer udmærket, ja, og så bliver det joop til den normdannelse, der til enhver tid er imellem de ting.” (HC, p 2-4)Quote 4.17:

Appendix C181Q.: ”En person som hele tiden viser, at han i sin praksis og sit ordvalgmodarbejder den virksomhed eller har en anden religiøs opfattelse.”TB: ”Jeg tror, at jeg må svare det samme. Det må være omfattet af deregler for, hvad en arbejdsgiver kan forvente og tåle af sin medarbejder, ogman kan selvfølgelig ikke tåle, at medarbejderen så eksplicit modarbejdervirksomheden. Man kan jo også lave dresscodes, der gælder generelt.”Q.: ”Nu er det pæne og velopdragene medarbejdere, den her arbejdsgiverhar, så de siger ikke noget. Men lige så snart de har fri, så går de hen til enanden religion på den anden side af gaden, og det er helt tydeligt, at det erder, de udøver deres religion. … Det er klart, at de i deres holdning har etandet synspunkt, og de er stadigvæk opvaskere. Måske er det enkirketjener, som ikke alene er med til at vaske gulv, men som også er medtil at byde velkommen til begravelsesgæsterne og sørge for stemningen ihuset.”TB: ”Jeg begynder at blive lidt mere usikker på kirketjeneren. Der, synesjeg, at vi er oppe i et niveau, hvor jeg godt kunne forstille mig, at det havdeen betydning, at man tilhørte den samme klub som den, man var tjener i.Men i bund og grund ændrer det, du siger, ikke rigtig ved min holdning.Det er fritidsspørgsmål. Så længe man agerer ordentligt og loyalt, når maner på arbejde. Ved loyalitet mener jeg ikke, at man ikke må mene nogetandet, når man er på arbejde og heller ikke, at man ikke må tilkendegivedet. Man skal bare ikke være en medarbejder, der modarbejder sinarbejdsplads.”Q.: ”Nu forestiller vi os, at det er en del af Kristelig Fagforeningslokalkontors praksis, at man har morgenandagt hver morgen, hvor mansynger salmer, beder en bøn og læser af Biblen. Så får man en medarbejderansat, der er dygtig til fagforeningsarbejde, men ikke vil være med til demorgenandagter. Er fyring berettiget?”TB: ”Jeg synes da, at der burde være den rummelighed, at man kunne sige,at så måtte de lade være med at være med til morgenandagten, men dekunne stadigvæk udføre de funktioner, som er blevet ansat til.”Q.: ”Nu har vi en lærer på en markant kristen friskole, som er på denreligiøse højrefløj i Danmark, hvor man er meget klart imod abort,skilsmisse og praktiseret homoseksualitet. Den ene lærer får en abort, denanden bliver skilt, og den tredje viser sig at praktisere sin homoseksualitet,og de bliver fyret. Hvad mener du om sagerne? Vi kan også bare sige, at deslet ikke bliver ansat, da der under ansættelsessamtalen bliver spurgt tilderes homoseksualitet, abortforhold og familieforhold. De siger så, at det erulovligt at spørge til det, og de kommer så til dig.”TB: ”Som jeg forstår det, så har vi her med en kristen friskole, hvor detsimpelthen er fundamentet for den her skole, det er sådan. De må jo somlærer fremstå på et niveau, hvor det kan være sagligt og seriøst begrundet,at de ikke agerer i strid med skolegrundlag. Der ville jeg nok sige, at det

182Appendix Cskulle man ikke tåle som arbejdsgiver fordi, det er et fælles grundlag forden skole og fordi, de er på det niveau ift. forældre, hvor det har betydning,at man har samme fælles grundlag. Det er derfor, man har den skole. Det,jeg tænker hele tiden, det er, hvor er det ift. de diskriminationsregler, jegkender. Der tror jeg godt, at man kunne nå frem til det resultat, som jegnævner her.”Q.: ”Det handler jo netop af denne her kombination af den etos, der er ivirksomheden, og hvilke loyalitets krav både ift. holdning og handling kanman stille til de medarbejdere dels, når man vil ansætte dem og dels, nårman vil afskedige dem.”TB: ”Som udgangspunkt kan man jo godt sige, at det er klartdiskriminerende, at man som udgangspunkt begynder at tale med sinkommende medarbejder om, hvorvidt de har tænkt sig at blive gravide, oghvis de gjorde, ville de så få en abort. Men her har vi altså at gøre med envirksomhed, hvor det er værdigrundlag, som man må acceptere sommedarbejder, hvis man vil være der. Ellers må man lade være med at væreder.” (TB, p 20 – 21, l. 591 – 646/p 6-7)Quote 4.18:KWH: ”Jeg synes, man skal have en vis grad af frihed, når det er enfriskolelovgivning, man har. Ellers må man bare sige: Vi vil ikke have enfriskolelovgivning, fordi du kan ikke både blæse og have mel i munden.Hvis man vil have kristne friskoler, så kan man jo ikke forhindre dem i,også at have et gammeldags, kristent syn på nogle af tingene. Så det synesjeg, ville være underligt. Ja.” (p 5)Quote 4.19:HOB: ”Jeg tror, at de situationer der ville ofte afhænge lige meget af,hvordan folk selv tackler det. ... Det kunne også, nu nævnte jeg før med en,der er gengift. Man kunne også gå et skridt længere tilbage og sige en, derså var fraskilt. For mig ville der være forskel der. Det kunne også være, vihavde en medarbejder, som kom ud i en skilsmisse. Kan vedkommende såstadigvæk være ansat? Der vil jeg sige umiddelbart ja, men det vil kommemeget an på, hvad er årsagen til den skilsmisse, og hvordan vilvedkommende selv forholde sig til det, og hvad vil vedkommende selvgøre osv. Så det ville afhænge meget af en samtale. Men det vil være på enrække andre felter, altså det kan også være, som vi har haft med folk, dermeldte sig ud af folkekirken. Der vil vi stadigvæk fastholde vores identitet,at vi er folkekirkeligt arbejde. Men … hvis man var nået til enighed om atkunne arbejde sammen stadigvæk dér, så kunne man også stadigvæk væreansat… der skal være en god vidde, men i en god loyalitet og i en god tillidtil hinanden.” (p5)

Appendix C183Quote 4.20:HOB: ”…man kunne da komme i situationer, hvor vi har slået en stillingop, og hvor der er en, der søger stillingen, og hvor vedkommende vil værekvalificeret, men hvor der vil være... nu ved jeg ikke nødvendigvis underkøn, men altså det kunne jo fx være, hvis det var på grund af seksualitet, atder er en, som vi vil sige, at vedkommende vil vi ikke ansætte, fordi det gårimod vores værdigrundlag.”Q.: ”Eller I vil fyre vedkommende, fordi vedkommende begyndte atpraktisere sin homoseksualitet” (”JA”). ”Vil du mene, at så dan skulle detvære, sådan skulle I have lov til at organisere jer, eller...? Hvordan ser dulegitimiteten bag den lovgivning i fht jeres praksis?”HOB: ”Ordet diskrimination, det kan blive et meget stærkt ord.Diskrimination kan jo betyde, at hvis man siger, at der er ingen, der bliverdiskrimineret, så betyder det, at så er der nærmest en ladeport for denindividuelle til selv at sætte andres dagsorden. Jeg er helt klart med på, athvis det handler om, at folk bliver decideret diskrimineret på grund af deresseksualitet og nærmest på den måde bliver offentligt hængt ud og megetandet, det er jeg klar modstander af. Der mener jeg, at når det gældersamfundet, eller skal jeg udtrykke det evangelisk-luthersk: i det verdsligeregimente, da mener jeg, at der skal der være vidde til, at folk kan...”Q.:”Det, du mener med det verdslige regimente, vil det være TomsChokoladefabrik eller Føtex eller..?”HOB: ”Der vil jeg sige, ja, hvor det er et stykke arbejde, håndværksarbejdeeller hvad nu det er. Men det er klart, at hvis der er, altså man kan sige demere ideologisk betonede, teologisk betonede, som vi er, da er det ikke kunarbejdsregelsæt, der råder, men der er også et idegrundlag som selveidentiteten for det virke. Og der synes jeg, at balancen må være, at denorganisation, som har en profil og siger: det er det her, vi står for, og indenfor de rammer ansætter vi, og kan du leve med i den profil, jamen så skalder virkelig være gode grunde til, at vi ikke... altså der kan jo selvfølgeligvære andre kvalificerede ansøgere, men der skal diskriminationen ikkefinde sted. Og så tænkte jeg faktisk også med de sager fx, der har været;kristne friskoler, hvor det også netop med ordet kristen friskole, jamen så erder også en profil kommet på der. Der er en grund til, man er oprettet somen friskole, ligesom hvis man var en Rudolf Steiner-skole eller en...”Q.: ”Men er det en grund, hvor du også ville forvente, at det også giver sigudslag i krav til folks livsførelse uden for skolen, altså lærernes livsførelseuden for skolen? Er det homoseksualiteten igen; det er jo ikke sikkert, depraktiserer homoseksualitet på skolen, vel, men i sit private hjem bor mansammen med en homoseksuel partner eller har en homoseksuel praksis.”HOB: ”Ja, det vil jeg mene, det gør. Netop fordi, når du står som, hvis vitager skoleeksemplet, hvis du står som voksen, som lærer dér, og ogsåegentlig på den måde bærer med dig skolens identitet og skolens profil, og

184Appendix Cman så har en adfærd, også selvom det er privat, det vil jo højst sandsynligtikke være skjult, så vil det stå i kontrast til hinanden, og det mener jeg foren skolebestyrelse, der må det være uheldigt.” (HOB; p. 7-8)Quote 4.21:Q: ”Må man lægge vægt på i sit valg af den bedste, hvordan vedkommendestiller sig til islam, også inden for forskellige retninger inden for islam?”NB: ”Nej, man kan ikke gå bestemt ind i det religiøse, men man kan gå indi forhold til menneskesyn og spørge ind til spørgsmålet omkring, hvordandu ser på diversiteten, fordi vi har så mange muslimske elever i skolen –Hvordan ser du på den måde, som vi driver vores privat-, friskole på i dag?Vi gør sådan og sådan, hvad synes du om det? Så på den måde får man jonogle svar fra den pågældende. Men jeg synes ikke, at man skal lægge etultimatum for, at en muslimsk friskole skal have en muslim somskoleleder”. (p 8)Quote 4.22:ET: ”Det man ville forvente er en overholdelse af en loyalitetspligt. En tinger, at de katolske børn som kommer i kirke om søndagen, de ser ikke Hr.Jensen til søndagsmessen, men de heller ikke Hr. Jensen stå uden for ogsige, at de spilder deres tid derinde. Det er en loyalitets forpligtelse. Mender kan jo være situationer. Hvis jeg nu som katolsk skoleleder pludseligrendte fra min kone og børn og flyttede sammen med en 20 år yngrelærerinde, som var ansat på skolen. Så tror jeg selv, at jeg ville indse, at detikke gik.”Q: ”Der bliver livet et vidnesbyrd, der taler imod det mundtligevidensbyrd?”ET: ”Ja. Det gør det”. (p 7)Quote 4.23:Q: ”Stiller I religiøse krav til alle medarbejdere?”BL: ”Nej. Og jeg synes heller ikke, det ville være rigtigt. Vi har ikke-jødiske lærere på skolen. vi har muslimske medarbejdere på plejehjemmet,og det eneste, vi stiller krav over, det er loyalitet over for den arbejdsplads,du er i.”Q: ”…og mht. forældrene, børnene på skolen, er der nogle krav dér?”BL: ”Den ene part skal være medlem af Mosaisk Trossamfund. Den enepart, som kan være medlem, skal være medlem.” (p 6)Qoute 4.24:JC: ”Min grundholdning vil være den, at organisationer, der er ateistiskeeller troende, bør kunne holde sammen på sig selv, uden at få trojanskeheste indenfor. Hvis det så gør, at man ift. andre trossamfund skal sige, at

Appendix C185de får lidt videre rammer, det kan jeg udmærket leve med. Man kan ogsåsige, at udgangspunktet er, at trossamfund har nogle særlige vidererammer. Det har folkekirken så ikke, fordi den er folkekirke, og derfor måman leve med nogle lidt snævrere rammer.”JC: (commenting on two concrete cases from ECtHR (Schüth & Obst):”Jeg ville sige, at hvis du er ansat i en kirke, i et mormon samfund eller i etmosaisk trossamfund, så er der altså regler for at være der. Lad nu væremed at komme og bruge retssystemet på det pjat, fordi du vil være organistder. Det er bare ærgerligt, så må du spille klaver et andet sted. Det villevære min grund holdning. Det er simpelthen for pjattet til, at det skal væreen international menneskerettighedskrænkelse, at en religiøs organisationikke må bestemme noget, som er en grund værdi for dem. Man krænker enreligiøs organisations grund værdi ved at knalde ved siden af, eller hvad detnu var, ham den anden havde gjort.”Q: ”Ville det også være din grund holdning, hvis vi var på detarbejdsmarked med en religiøs etos - i Danmark fx Diakonissestiftelsen,Kirkens Korshær eller en menighedsbørnehave, ville du også i enmenighedsbørnehave acceptere, at her havde vi en ledelse, der sagde, atdette skal være en klar kristen menighedsbørnehave, så vi vil ikke havenogen ansat, som får en abort?”JC: ”Ja, det tror jeg, at jeg ville gøre. Der kan altid komme en situation,hvor man kan sige: ej, her må vi trække grænsen. De er tusind mennesker,og det er bare en bogholder, der får en abort, fordi hun bliver voldtaget.Der kan altid være grænsetilfælde, men mit grundsynspunkt ville være, atde her organisationer må i et eller andet omfang have lov til at haveBerufsverbot på, at sådan her vil vi have, at det skal være, og vi vil ikkehave dette indenfor. Så kan man diskutere, hvordan de så kan forvalte det.Igen skal man sige, at hvis du har en alternativ mulighed, altså hvis du kanvære organist et andet sted, så må man leve med det. Hvis det varjernbanearbejdere, og der kun var én arbejdsgiver, så var det noget andet.De mister deres levebrød, hvis de ikke kan arbejde der.”JC: ”Grundlæggende synes jeg, at hvis man vil arbejde i en religiøsorganisation, må man leve med, at man skal være religiøs. Jeg håber, atdem, der arbejder på Institut for Menneskerettigheder, ikke føler, at de skalmene noget bestemt om menneskerettighederne. Herunder mener jeg, at jeghar min egen fortolkningsfrihed, og det håber jeg også mine medarbejderesynes. Jeg tror, det ville være svært, hvis man havde en medarbejder, derhele tiden gik ud og kritiserede alt, hvad der havde medmenneskerettigheder at gøre. Hvad vil du her så? … N.N., der vandtforeningsfrihedssagerne som medlem af de kristne, han søgte et job iBrugsen, da han vidste, at så skulle han være medlem af SID, og så kunnehan fremprovokere en sag, og det i sig selv synes jeg, at sagen skulle værediskvalificeret som noget pjat, fordi det bare var en anledning til at

186Appendix Cfremtvinge en stillingtagen til noget, som Menneskerettighedsdomstolenikke skulle have blandet sig i.” (JC, p 12-13)Quote 5.01HOB: Jeg synes nogle gange, det der kan være lidt ærgerligt ved det danskesamfund, det er næsten, at man gerne vil lovgive til det neutrale. Og hvader så neutralt? Hvad er normaliteten? Vi kan jo ikke glemme det at værekristen, at det har forskellige udtryk. For mig er der flere faser i det, og …første fase er, hvis vi også efter Grundloven vil holde fast i, at Danmark iden forstand er et kristent land, jeg vil måske også hævde primært harhistoriske omstændigheder, men stadigvæk er den en del af vores kristneeller danske kulturarv at være kristne. Så på den måde mener jeg, at detkristne islæt, også de religiøse symboler og de udtryk, der er der, at de måhave en præference. Og det mener jeg også i det offentlige rum, at det måvære legalt. (HOB, p 10)Quote 5.02BL: ”Jeg tror, at jeg oplever, jeg ved ikke, om det er indbildt, men jeg tror,at jeg oplever, at det jødiske samfund i dag er blevet et... bliver set påanderledes i Danmark end det gjorde for 25 år siden. Dengang var detjødiske samfund en del af det danske samfund. I dag er det jødiske samfunden del af de fremmede samfund.”Q: ”Det er en del af de fremmede oven i købet? Altså ikke alene en del afen dansk minoritet, der skal beskyttes, men en del af de fremmede?”BL: ”Ja, fordi folk... Det gælder folk, det gælder faktisk også for politikere:det der med at skelne mellem muslimer og andre, det kan de sgu’ ikkefinde ud af. Det er meget...”Q: ”Det er meget interessant men enormt problematisk”BL: ”Det er der slet ingen tvivl om, at jøder i dag er mere fremmedgjorte iDanmark, end de har været tidligere.” (BL, p 6)Quote 5.03PSJ: ”Mht. spørgsmålet mellem det religiøse og det sekulare, der synes jeg,at vi er i en meget kompleks situation i Danmark. Jeg tror, hvis duhenvender dig til de fleste præster, så vil de sige: aldrig har det været såenkelt at være præst; aldrig har spørgsmålene og samtalerne været så gode,aldrig har det været så enkelt at føre en dåbssamtale, fordi der faktisk –man kommer ind til biddet nu. Hvis du spørger kollegerne, som var i deresvelmagtsdage for 30 år siden, så dengang var det rigtig svært, fordi da blevman næsten anset for at være til en side, hvis man også interesserede sig fordet teologiske - . Det behøves vi ikke mere. Det synes jeg overhovedetikke, vi gør. Jeg synes derimod, vi mødes af en velvillig forståelse. du kanse, stort set intet kan røre sig, uden det har pressens bevågenhed, både det

Appendix C187skandaløse, men også sociale tiltag egentlig, og såmænd også religiøsetiltag. Det er meget interessant, fordi der er ingen tvivl om, at det er ikkebare en stemning, som løber med, altså den er ikke sådan, hvad skal mansige, destineret ind i folkekirken.”Q: ”Så det, du siger, er, at de religiøse værdier er blevet meget mereanerkendte (ja) og accepterede eller efterspurgte?PSJ: ”Efterspurgte og jeg tror også anerkendte, fordi ellers så ville man nokikke have den umiddelbare interesse i det.”Q: ”Men samtidig er det blevet mere problematiseret?”PSJ: ”Meget mere problematiseret, og det er den modsat løbende tendens,der er, at man kan se både i offentlige institutioner men sandelig også store,private foretagender, der tidligere ikke var så bange for at støtte kirken; detder med at noget er religiøst, det er altså også blevet farligt. Det er enproblematik, tror jeg, som nok skal føres tilbage til 2001. Og en stigendereligiøs problematisering rundt omkring i verden, at det er altså gået op forvesteuropæere nu, at religion er noget, der sidder meget dybt i mennesker,det er noget, der generer meget stærke og også meget store tanker. Et ellerandet sted så ved man godt, at vel er der et meget stort fredspotentiale i dether, men der er altså også et voldspotentiale og et modsætningspotentiale.Q: ”Ligger der også i det, du siger, at folkekirken tidligere har været engivet del af det danske samfund, så er folkekirkens givethed blevet merehvad? problematiseret?”PSJ: ”Det bliver man nødt til at sige, at det er klart, at der er andrereligioner i Danmark nu. Vi har altid, stort set det meste af tiden, levet med,at mosaisk trossamfund har mere eller mindre altid været etkøbenhavnerfænomen. Nu er er der også mange muslimer i landet, og deter ikke et københavnerfænomen. Det er blevet et nationalt fænomen nu.”(PSJ, p 2)Quote 5.04AWP: “Kristendommen har rigtig, rigtig mange udtryk og udtryksformer,som er betingede af historie, sociale forhold, prædikanters tolkninger,kulturer og alt muligt andet, og retninger, selvfølgelig, inden forkristendommen. Det samme har islam. Det, som er det store, spændendeeksperiment for øjeblikket, det er jo, hvordan ser islam ud, når islamudleves igennem en dansk selvforståelse? …] vi står overfor, hvor vi sommuslimer skal ind og finde denne her identitet, altså hvor jeg som danskskal bevare ejerskabet over min danskhed, samtidig med at jeg tagerejerskab over islam; mens andre, lad os sige børn af ny-indvandrerfamiliereller lignende, de skal tage ejerskab over deres danskhed, mens de bevarerderes islam. Jeg er jo ikke blevet araber, jeg er ikke blevet tyrker, jeg erikke blevet pakistaner, jeg er ikke engang blevet københavner. Jeg er jyde;og så er jeg godt nok også nørrebro’er. Det med at fastholde sin egen

188Appendix Cidentitet og så påtage sig en religiøs identitet samtidig er jo så med til atforme en religion ind i en ny udtryksform. […] Hvad muslimer eller islamkan bidrage med ind i samfundet her, det er jo fx, at vi er en del af dendynamik, der foregår i et samfund. Danmark er jo ikke en statisk størrelse,og intet samfund er statisk, så som en del af den dynamik, der ligger i etsamfund, der er jo også – og i særdeleshed i globaliseringens tid, som vi eri nu, der er der jo også, at Danmark skal forstå og adaptere alle deforskellige befolkningsgrupper, der er. Der har islam da i høj grad sat dendagsorden i spil. (AWP, 10)Quote 5.05:ET: ” Hvor sekulært er Danmark?” ”Sekularisme er ikke det sammesekularitet. Man kan godt være national uden at være nationalist, man kanvære social uden at være socialist, man kan sågar være kommunal uden atvære kommunist. […] Ordningen er, at vi har et sekulært samfund, og deter godt fordi, at sekulariteten er religionsfrihedens forudsætning. Vi harikke et sekularistisk samfund, og det er der nogen, der prøver at bilde osind, og de vil gerne have, at vi får det. Et sekularistisk samfund erreligionsafvisende, og det er det danske samfund jo ikke. Vores Grundlovstarter med, at der er en kirke, der skal have statens opbakning, og de andretrossamfund er forresten også nævnt. Det der er interessant, hvor ikke kunmajoritets religionen, men også minoritets religionerne er nævnt iGrundloven. Der eksistens berettigelse er fastslået i Grundloven. Dvs., at vier sekulære på den måde, at vi ikke afviser religion. Vi er ikkereligionsfjendtlige. Vi er tværtimod religionsaccepterende.”Quote 5.06:KWH: ”Det sekulære samfund er, at der ikke er en hellig lov, et teokrati,der bestemmer, hvordan vi skal indrette vores samfund; der er frihed. Vikan skændes om stort og småt, om vi skal have monarki, republik, fri aborteller ikke fri abort, og vi slår ikke op i nogle religiøse lovbøger for at findeud af det. Men vi har samtidig en nær kontakt til det religiøse; vi har måskeoven i købet en stat, der støtter det. … Det sekulære samfund er netop etsamfund, der sagtens kan være sammenvævet med det religiøse, men hvordu bare har friheden til at kunne skændes om det sekulære samfundsindretninger. Det sekulære samfund er jo det danske samfund, vil jeg sige.[…] ”Man kunne også sige, jeg er sekulær, fordi jeg er kristen. […] Det erden frihed, jeg i virkeligheden har fra kristendommen, man kan bruge. Deter også det, at det sekulære bliver frigjort af kristendommen. Der er ikkenogen lovbog, der er ikke nogen Shari’a, der er ikke nogen paragraf; vi skalskændes frit, fordi det her det er kejserens rige; her kan vi skændes.”(KWH, p 12-13)Quote 5.07:

Appendix C189DN: ”Det offentlige rum er det rum, vi alle sammen befinder os i heletiden. Der er to offentlige rum: der er statslige offentlige rum, og så er derdet offentlige rum, der betyder, at vi er uden for vores privatliv. De to rumer forskellige, da der i det offentlige rum er plads til forskelligesynspunkter. [I det brede offentlige rum,] der skal vi have lov til at tørnesammen, og der vil jeg fastholde, at mit synspunkt er bedre end deres, mende har lige så meget ret til at have deres synspunkt, som jeg har det. Detandet offentlige rum, og det er der, hvor jeg har været, og hvor detHumanistiske Samfund er meget aktivt, det er det offentlige rum, der harmed statens institutioner at gøre. Dvs. alt fra socialkontoret til bibliotekettil folkeskolen til alle de andre steder, de er religionsneutrale.” (DN, p 6)Quote 5.08:JC: ”Vi har haft en meget lang tradition for at have det her kors i voresflag, og det er ikke længere et religiøst symbol for danskere. Det erflagsymbol. De fleste danskere, tror jeg, har koblet af og ser ikke et kors,og derfor symboliserer det ikke en religiøs manifestation for, at der er korsi flaget. Det kan så blive misforstået, når der kommer folk hertil, ligesomhvis vi tager til Tyrkiet og ser halvmånen, hvor man godt er klar over, atdet er muslimsk symbol, og man er også godt klar over, at det her er etkristent symbol, men den betydning har det mistet i hverdagen. Der varogså en, der rejste spørgsmålet, hvorvidt vi så ikke må have Jellingstenenmere på indersiden af vores pas. […] Jeg oplever, at omfanget af religiøsesymboler i det offentlige rum er beskedent i Danmark ift. alle mulige andrelande. Eller på lige fod og lige så beskedent som i mange andre lande.Vores grund holdning er dog stadigvæk, at vi opfatter religion som enprivat sag. Derfor kan det godt være, at jeg som dansker kommer til atkoble en forbindelse fra, hvilket jeg selv har gjort, men det kan så være derfor andre, og måske skulle man arbejde med at nedtone den. Men jeg måindrømme, at før debatten opstod, der havde jeg slet ikke tænkt over det.”(JC, p 5)Quote 5.09:DN: ”Folkekirken blev jo statskirke, og det har den været rigtig længe, ogdet smitter selvfølgelig af. Symboler har det med at betyde et eller andet ien periode, og så bliver det afkoblet lidt fra det, det rent faktisk startedemed. […] Jeg er ikke til den fetishering af symboler, og jeg tror ikke, at dehar den her magt. Symboler er det, vi gør dem til, og det er det, vi ligger idem, og vi mennesker kan forny noget og lægge det i graven igen. Jeg serikke nogen grund til at gå i gang med at lave en form for… det minder jolidt om Sovjet Union, hvor man ændrede historien, så den passede den nyemåde, man gjorde tingene på. Man tager sin historie med i sineovervejelser. Der var den, og her er vi i dag, men at begynde at ændre på

190Appendix Cden, så den passer til nutiden, det synes jeg ikke er nogen god ide.” (DN:13)Quote 5.10:Q: ”Hvad er så religiøse lederes rolle i et offentligt rum?”PSJ: ”Ja, den er jo så nok blevet ret meget ændret og her kan jeg nokkomme til at sige noget, som man synes er sådan lidt for langt fremme iskoene, men det vigtigt, du kan se i januar måned, da var jeg foranledigetaf Udenrigsministeriet med til at arrangere en fredskonference for deirakiske, altså Dansk Folkeparti syntes jo, det var forkert at vi gjorde det, atvi accepterede, at religiøse ledere spillede den rolle, som de gjorde må jegjo bare sige, at hvis man vil have fred i Irak, så skal vi have fred imellemreligionerne, og vi skal også have fred inden for de forskellige... Der kanman godt sidde heroppe og sige, at religiøse ledere har ikke nogen politiskmagt. På den måde er vi blevet godt og grundigt afmonterede og vi synes,at det er udmærket, at det er sådan, men andre steder i verden er det ikketilfældet.”Q: ”Dels er det andre steder i verden ikke tilfældet, og dels er Danmark endel af andre steder i verden, (ja) og derfor var du vært for den konference,men dels så nævner du jo netop også det københavnske initiativ, hvor denpolitiske ledelse siger: Her er en vold, der er stigende, den er religiøstbetinget; vi må have de religiøse ledere på banen. Og det er nyt iDanmark?”PSJ: ”Det er nyt i Danmark, men jeg tror også, at... det er da helt klart, jeghar da selv oplevet det et par gange som biskop, at man, når man siger eteller andet, hvor man selv synes, at det her det kan forekomme at væresådan lidt almindeligt, folkekirkeligt pipperi på sidelinien, og så siger detbare paf! I det offentlige rum ...”Q: ”Så det, du siger, er, at ikke mindst biskopperne i folkekirken har...deres talerstol er blevet meget større?”PSJ: ”Ja, det tror jeg, den er. Alle... altså også præsternes talerstol er blevetmeget større... Det kan vi jo også se, der er nogle, der synes, der er blevetfor meget af det, at vi blander os alt for meget... præsterne, siger de nu,blander sig for meget i den offentlige debat.” (PSJ s 7)Quote 5.11:Q: Nu er der en aktuel debat i Danmark om, at man vil indrette et kapel, etnyt sygehuskapel, som er det sted, hvor... Nej, vil du ikke beskrive, hvad etsygehuskapel er?PSJ: Jo, men det er jo, hvad skal jeg sige, et rum indrettet til enovergangsrite mellem liv og dødQ: Så de pårørende kan tage afsked med de døde der, og så man de derfrablive kørt til kremering eller til begravelse...

Appendix C191PSJ: Ja, der kan man så blive kørt enten til begravelse eller til kremering.Og de rum har jo indtil nu for en dels vedkommende formentlig væretindviet (som kristne kirker) til kristent brug, og det vil sige, at de så ogsåhar været udstyret med de fornødne religiøse tegn, det er klart.Q: Jeg mener, om man fortsat skal indvie kapeller ved offentlige sygehusesom kristne kapeller?PSJ: Det er jeg ikke helt sikker på, at det er i orden. Når en kristen præstkommer ind, der er det på en måde meget nemt at være dansk teolog, fordiordet og bønnen helliger rummet. Det behøver ikke være indviet påforhånd.Q: Så du vil have, at rummet skulle stå uden religiøse symboler, udensærskilt indvielse, og så skulle den præst eller den imam, der tog rummet ibrug, etablere det som dét religiøse rum?PSJ: Det ville i hvert fald være godt. Som protestanter har vi jo ikke nogetproblem med at gøre det. Der kan være andre kristne trossamfund, som harvanskeligere ved at gøre sådan.Men der synes jeg måske nok, at der skal vivære meget agtpågivende.Q: Kirkegårdene og begravelsespladserne i Danmark er som udgangspunkt,altså de 150 af dem ligger rundt om folkekirkens kirkebygninger, erindviede i kristendommen. Ti af dem drives, eller ti kommuner driver dem,men også de er kristent indviede, og så er der nogle særskilte afdelinger.Skal vi fortsat indvie kirkegårde?PSJ: Ja, det synes jeg, vi skal. Det synes jeg faktisk, vi skal. Jeg er ligeblevet spurgt om, hvad jeg synes, om ateisterne skal have en bestemtafdeling på en kirkegård, og da må jeg så sige, at det fatter jeg ikke engang,at de spørger om, for hvis de ikke tror på noget, er det så ikke ligegyldigt,hvor man bliver begravet...?Og det er ikke engang for at være fræk, jegsiger det, jeg begriber simpelthen ikke, at det skal være et problem. Så kandet da være lige meget, om man kommer i jorden, den er jo ikke indviet fordem.Q: Der hvor du ser problemet, det er for muslimerne eller jøderne eller?PSJ: Det er noget helt andet, altså ligesom ude på Vestre Kirkegård, så måvi have hver sin afdeling. Katolske kirker også og sådan... (p 8)Quote 5.12:TB: “Jeg ved ikke, hvad alternativet skulle være, og vi skal jo et eller andetsted hen. Så det synes jeg da er fint nok. Eller skulle vi have en neutralplæne et eller andet sted, hvor man kunne proppe os alle sammen ned i. Detbedste ville være, hvis hvert trossamfund havde sin egen […] Der må jovære forskellige ritualer og forestillinger om, hvad der sker efter døden.[…] af respekt for dem ville det optimale være, at hver sin trosretninghavde sin egen gravplads.”

192Appendix CQuote 5.13:AMA: “ … det som jeg var med til, var åbningen af den mosaiskeKirkegård … den var vi jo med til at restaurere og et af kravene til, at viville give så mange penge til at være med til dette, det var, at det skulleåbnes op. Det er ikke blive så meget åbnet op, som jeg ønskede, men det erdog blevet åbnet op. Det er der faktisk mange, der har stor interesse i.”Q: “Er det blevet åbnet op med en form for vagtordning, eller er det blevetåbnet helt op som en park, så man bare kan gå der?”AMA: “Det er desværre det, den ikke er. Jeg tror, at de synes, at det er lidtprivat. Og så tror jeg også, at det er det med chikane. De har jo vagter på idet, de er blevet udsat for noget chikane og ødelæggelse af gravpladserne.”(AMA, p. 3, l. 116 – 134)Quote 5.14:BL: For to år siden bliver jeg gjort opmærksom på, at der er nogle penge,der kan søges i Københavns kommune til ganske bestemte formål. Jeglagde hovedet i blød og lavede et forslag om, at vi skal åbne Møllegadebegravelsesplads. Det er jo dog et ret fantastisk område. Det har væretlukket i så og så mange år på grund af sikkerhed og alt sådan noget, og detbliver fantastisk vel modtaget stort set af alle partierne, og i løbet af ingentid bliver der bevilliget 1 mio kroner. Flot og alt det der. Og så får vi såskrivelse fra Københavns kommune, at nu er der kommet 1 mio. kroner,sådan at den kan blive til en åben begravelsesplads. Og så skriver jeg tildem: Kære venner, I skal lige vide, at åbningen af sådan enbegravelsesplads, det er ikke Assistens Kirkegård. Det vil sige, vi skal havesikkerhed. Vi skal først og fremmest vi have sikkerhed. Det er noget, vikræver, at vi ikke kan have åbent hele tiden, men vi har nogle bestemtetidspunkter. Det er der slet ingen forståelse for, det kan de overhovedetikke forstå.Q: Det du svarer, det er, at det kan ikke blive en park, hvor der er offentligadgang?BL: Præcis. Og det kan de ikke forstå derinde. Hvis jeg siger at, når den dermillion - og det er altså embedsmændene, det skal jeg lige sige - den ergivet på basis af, at I holder åbent. Og så skal jeg altså jo så bruge kræfterog tid på at forklare dem, at det her det er altså sådan her, og vi kan godtåbne tre gange om ugen, men det bliver tre gange fire timer, og så må vi se,hvordan og hvorledes det udvikler sig. Og der kan du altså se her, jegnævner det bare som et eksempel på, at der er jo nogle ting der, som manaltid lige skal se på, hvad er det, fordi det er jo ikke nogen umiddelbart...Jeg kan godt forstå embedsmændene omkring det der, for der nogle reglerfor hvordan og hvorledes. De kan ikke sætte sig ind sådan umiddelbart iden problematik, som ligger i, at vi gør noget som dette. (BL, p10 - 11)

Appendix C193Quote 5.15:NB: Muslimerne har brug for en moske [og] statens rolle er at faciliteremoskeopbygningen. Nu sagde jeg ’moske’ i starten; jeg synes ikke, det erden allervigtigste opgave, men vi tager den først. Staten skal faciliteremoskebyggeriet, men ikke kun moskebyggeriet men også facilitere endialog, som siger: Alle er velkomne her; at det ikke er et problem at haveen moske. […] Jeg vil nok sige, at staten skal betale en del af det – den del,som muslimerne ikke selv kan anskaffe, som er problematisk, fordi på denene side, så vil staten også et eller andet sted ikke have, at man får pengeind fra Iran eller Saudi-Arabien […] Det ville være danske muslimer, detville være danske myndigheder – om man så vil kalde staten ellermyndigheder, det er ligegyldigt – det ville være et dansk projekt, og det erdet, jeg ønsker, at det skal være et dansk projekt uden indflydelse... Men påden anden side vil jeg også sige, det gør ikke så meget, hvis der er andremuslimske lande, eller vestlige lande, som giver penge og støtter projektet,så længe at forventningerne er på plads. Forventninger om, at der ikke skalvære indflydelse fra fx Iran omkring anliggender, som har noget at gøremed moskeen og med muslimer i Danmark. (NB, p 8-9)Quote 5.16:Q: Hvem skal finansiere byggeriet af en egentlig moske i København?AWP: Det skal muslimerne.Q: De danske muslimer eller muslimer fra udlandet?AWP: Det må alle. Alle dem, der vil. Ikke-muslimer må også gerne væremed!Q: Tak. Også fremmede stater?AWP: Også fremmede stater – bare det er betingelsesløst. Det vil jo være etabsolut kriterium for overhovedet at skulle modtage midler fra noget sted,vil jeg mene, til trods for, at man som Danmark har været ude og byggekirker og selv skulle bestemme, hvem der skulle stå på prædikestolen, ja såsynes jeg faktisk ikke, at vi skal have nogen udefra til at bestemme, hvemder skal stå på prædikestolen i moskeerne i Danmark.Q: Skal der være offentlighed omkring sådan et byggeris økonomi?AWP: Tja, det har jeg ikke nogen problemer i. Det synes jeg er fint nok.Q: Hvem skal organisatorisk bære sådan et byggeri?AWP: Det skal muslimerne i Danmark.Q: Kan de det?AWP: Ja, det kan de. Muslimernes Fællesråd kan godt. MuslimernesFællesråd har den styrke og den størrelse, der gør, at man kan.Q: Skal staten eller kommunen gøre noget?AWP: Nej, det skal de ikke. De skal give de tilladelser, der er nødvendigefor at kunne lave de her byggerier i overensstemmelse med gældendebyggelovgivning for det enkelte område.

194Appendix CQ: Skal der være minareter?AWP: Ja, gerneQ: Skal man kunne kalde til bøn?AWP: Nej. For det giver ingen mening. Der kommer jo ikke folk til bøn,fordi vi kalder ud over Amagerbrogade eller et eller andet. Det gør derikke. Folk her ved godt, hvornår det er tid til bøn; de går til bøn, når derskal være bøn.Q: Skal man så også holde op med at ringe med kirkeklokkerne, for folkved godt, hvornår der er gudstjeneste?AWP: For min skyld gerne. (AWP, p 11-12)Quote 5.17:NB: ”Hvis du spørger mig: hvad kunne en model være?, så vil jeg sige, atjeg er selv usikker, men jeg synes, jeg er ret sikker på, at vi skal have etsamarbejde mellem de muslimske organisationer; lad os bare tage de to,som er de to paraplyorganisationer, som er de største, og så kan man tageen shia-muslimsk organisation med og så sige: Vi sætter os ned og prøverat finde ud af, hvordan vi laver en model for, hvordan vi skal drive danskemoskeer i Danmark. Det er jo første skridt, og så må de jo finde ud af... Såjeg er ret sikker på, hvilken model, vi skal følge: Vi skal lave en modelsammen, og der skal staten have en vis indflydelse, der skal være delvisautonomi i det her, pengene skal helt ikke komme udefra, det skal værenoget, som minder om et dansk projekt så vidt muligt. (NB, p 10-11)Quote 5.18:BL: Det er jo vores problem med i dag, at eleverne fra Carolineskolen [Denjødiske privatskole i København], der er gymnasier, de ikke vil være på.Her er en så overvejende del af muslimske børn, at der er en vis erfaring i,at der er nogle problemer omkring det. Vi har faktisk været ude for. Det ernoget næsten, der kommer hvert år, at når de søger gymnasier, så er der eteller to af børnene, der bliver placeret på de gymnasier, hvor de ikke vilvære. I nogle år havde jeg en meget god kontakt til en af rektorerne på et afHellerup-gymnasierne, og så sagde han: Ved du hvad, du ringer bare tilmig, så skal vi nok finde ud af det. (BL, 25-26)Quote 5.19:Q: ”Kan du ikke lige, inden du går videre, forklare, hvad du mener medreligiøst betinget vold i København?”PSJ:”Ja, at konvertitter fra islam og kristne bliver chikanerede; atmuslimske kvinder får hevet tørklædet af! At nogle mennesker kan finde påsådan noget, det er fuldstændig ubegribeligt, og at der skal råbes ord efterdem; at en jøde ikke kan gå på Nørrebro med en kippa på hovedet uden atrisikere at blive mødt med tilråb eller overfald. Det ser vi en stigende

Appendix C195tendens til. Ikke katastrofalt, men vi ser en tendens. Derfor er der ingengrund til at lave en skræmmekampgane, men Københavns kommune vilheldigvis gerne gå ind og lave en advarselskampagne og enoplysningskampagne, og vi er så tre religiøse ledere, som har stillet os tilrådighed i den kampagne, fordi vi selvfølgelig ikke vil leve i sådan etsamfund. Naturligvis vil vi ikke det.”Q. ”Og hvem er I tre? altså dig og...?”PSJ: ”Det er Zubair Hussein fra Islamisk Fælles Forum, og så er det FinnSchwarz, som er formand for Mosaisk Trossamfund, og så er det mig.”Q. ”Og det er integrationsborgmesteren i Københavns kommune?”PSJ: ”Ja, det er Anna Mee Allerslev, der har bolden. Og det må jeg sige,jeg har stor agtelse for Københavns kommune, at man ser noget i anmarch,og så skynder man sig at tage hånd om det, inden det udvikler sig til etproblem.”(PSJ, p. 8)Quote 5.20:NB: [The children] De går i privatskole. De går i en katolsk privatskole iTaastrup. Det er der i øvrigt mange, der gør, og man har også kunnet læsesig frem til, at mange muslimer sender deres børn i katolske skoler, pågrund af, at der er disciplin, der er nogle værdier, som man kan tilslutte sig,som man genkender, som man følger. (NB, 7)Quote 5.21:JC: ”Ja det synes jeg egentlig godt, at man kan. I hvert fald det medsangene, ikke? Det her med Fader Vor, det ville jeg have det svære medselv. Hvis min datter kom hjem og sagde, at de skulle bede Fader Vor, såville jeg måske gøre noget for at sikre mig, at de havde en reel mulighedfor at sige, at det har jeg ikke lyst til. [...] På den anden side så når det erstærkt kristne ministre, der går ud for at promovere salmesang som etvæsentligt element i integrationspolitikken, så får det for mig en andenklang. Der ville være forskel på, om det var et integrationsprojekt sat i søenoppefra eller, om det var en lokal skole, der fik besøg af kronprinsparret ogskulle til noget, der var i en kirke. Det afhænger af konteksten. Vi bor oppei Lyngby, og der går de til krybbespil og går ned i kirken og synger, og detsynes jeg er en fuldstændig naturlig del af deres skolegang. Men jeg håberda også, at de lærer noget om jødedom, islam, hinduisme, buddhisme,naturreligioner og ikke-·‐religioner i løbet af deres skolegang. I Lyngby erder ikke så mange indvandre, og dem der er, der vil jeg da også håbe, atderes og deres forældres religion bliver italesat i klasseværelset på enfornuftig måde. […] de skal i øvrigt også vide, at der findes noglemennesker, der har et helt andet, som går ud på det og det, og deresgrundforestillinger er sådan og sådan. Jeg tror, at det er vigtigt, at man haren forståelse for andre religioner. Derfor synes jeg heller ikke personligt, at

196Appendix Cdet skulle hedde kristendomsundervisning. Jeg synes, at det skulle heddereligionsundervisning. Kristendommen er et naturligt led i det og må i etland som Danmark fylde meget. Jeg tror, at vi ville gøre os alle sammen enutrolig bjørnetjeneste, hvis vi ikke uddanner hinanden i, hvadgrundprincipperne er i fx islam, da 250.000 mennesker i Danmark alligevelbekender sig til dette. Hvis man ikke kender til de fem grundsøjler i islam,når man går i syvende klasse, så mener jeg, at vi har fejlet.”(JC, p 8)Quote 5.22:PVB: ”80% af faget skal stadigvæk afspejle, at det er en kulturkristennation, som vi befinder os i. Men fritagelsesparagraffen er et levn ogindholdsbeskrivelsen er på det seneste også blevet et levn fra en tid, hvorder ikke fandtes andre anskuelser. Det er blevet meget, meget bedre end sitrygte … indholdsbeskrivelsen i kristendomsundervisningen. Man går stadigvæk og diskuterer, at det er så galt så galt, og det er det jo ikke. Der erplads til verdensreligioner, og der er plads til mange ting i det fag, menfritagelsesparagraffen stammer tilbage fra dengang forkyndelse var tilladt ifaget.” (PVB p 6)Quote 5.23:AMA: “Jeg mener klart, at vi skal have religionsundervisning fremforkristendomsundervisning. Jeg synes, at kristendomsundervisning skal fyldeen stor del af religionsundervisningen, da det som sagt er en stor del afvores kultur og vores historie. Det har en anden plads, og det kommer detformegentlig til at have i mange år. Det skal en central plads ireligionsundervisningen. Det vigtigste for mig, det er, at vi fårreligionsundervisning fremfor kristendomsundervisning. … Så må manmåske acceptere, hvis der er nogle elever, der ikke vil deltage. JehovasVidner får jo også lov til at blive undtaget for kristendomsundervisningen.Vi har lavet som en del af vores integrationspolitik det her samarbejdemellem kristne, jøder og muslimer. … Der var på et tidspunkt nogleuheldige sager, hvor nogle muslimske drenge i mine øjne misbrugte deresreligion til at sige, at “vi er muslimer, og derfor chikanerer vi jøder ogkristne”. Det blussede meget op i medierne, men heldigvis så vi det ikke såmeget i København, men det var noget, der var oppe i medierne.”” (AMA,p. 3-4)Quote 5.24:TB: Jeg synes, at religionsundervisning kunne give mening, hvis man netopkom rundt i forskellige religioner, og det gør man jo også i gymnasiet. Mensådan som jeg praktisk har oplevet det i folkeskolen gennem mig selv oggennem mine børn, så kan det jo næsten tendere til at være missionerende ikristendomsundervisningen. Der synes jeg, at man kunne bruge tiden

Appendix C197meget bedre på at åbne øjnene for, at der er forskellige måder at tro på ogunderbygge den her tolerance i, at det ene kan være lige så godt som detandet. (TB, p. 8-9)Quote 5.25:NB: ”… det er jo vigtigt i et postsekulært samfund, at vi snakker om de herting. Det er i orden at holde jul; det er i orden at holde julefester ifolkeskolen; det er i orden, at man har konfirmationsundervisning; men deter ikke i orden, at man ikke kan undervise i islam, når halvdelen af eleverneeller 90 % af eleverne er muslimer, og der er gået fire år i folkeskolen, atman ikke har taget det op, har ikke engang diskuteret det på saglig vis. Det,der er vigtigt, det er, at den undervisning, som så kommer, at den også ertilrettelagt pensum sammen med muslimske organisationer, teologer osv.,ligesom man har i andre europæiske lande. Det er et problem; jeg har fxværet på et gymnasium – bare for at give et eksempel – hvor der var enreligionsdag, hvor der var en elev, der spurgte mig: ”Hvorfor kan du somimam acceptere, at muslimske kvinder ikke kan komme i himlen, fordi detstår i Koranen?” Og så sagde jeg: ”Hvor har du det fra?” ”Det har voreslærer undervist os i.” –Hun sad så lige ved siden af... Det er sådan nogleting, som kan gøre mig vred og ked af det, at vi ikke har saglig informationom andre religioner i Danmark. Mange af de forfattere, som skriver omislam i Danmark, de har allerede en intention om, de har allerede enforforståelse af, hvordan jeg skal præsentere islam, og hvordan den skalkomme ud til jer. (NB, p.12)Quote 5.26:BL: ”Jeg har diskuteret med Bertel Haarder [Former minister of Educationand also of Ecclesiastical Affairs] i sin tid, da vi talte om fritagelse forundervisningen, hvor jeg sagde til ham, at jeg mener, at der hvor detvirkelig er problematisk, det er i de små klasser. Der mener jeg, at det ernødvendigt for de muslimske familier og jødiske familier at sige: vi ønskerbarnet fritaget for religionsundervisning, fordi den er i den grad baseret påkristendomsundervisningen og Det ny Testamente og sådan noget lignende,og det bliver frygtelig forvirrende eller sådan noget lignende. Til gengældkan jeg udmærket sige, at grundskolens øverste klasser eller gymnasiet harreligion som et naturligt fag. Der kan selvfølgelig være et problem i, hvisen jødisk elev eller en muslimsk elev kommer op i, hvad ved jeg,bjergprædikenen, et eller andet. Man må kunne sige: det er jo enprofessionel holdning; at eleven skal igennem den, synes jeg egentlig ikkeer noget problem.” (BL, p 24-25)Quote 5.27:Q: ”Over til folkeskolens undervisning”

198Appendix CPSJ: ”Ja, den skal være neutral...Q: ”...og hvad vil det sige, at den skal være neutral?”PSJ: ”Jamen det er lidt det samme, som det er i Danmarks Radio, altså omman skal bede Fadervor og den slags ting. Det vil jeg finde unaturligt, atman gjorde.”Q: Men folkeskolen, altså i Danmarks Radio vil du gerne have transmissionaf gudstjenester, ikke, men i folkeskolen vil du ikke have noget, der lignerreligionsudøvelse?PSJ: Nej, det vil jeg helst ikke. I det omfang, at man går ned i kirken ogholder en julegudstjeneste, så er det klart, at der skal man ikke være pjattetog så lade være med at fortælle børnene om det. Så pjattet må man ikkeblive.Q: Skal man så også kunne gå i synagogen og deltage i gudstjeneste isynagogen?PSJ: Selvfølgelig!Selvfølgelig! Selvfølgelig! Selvfølgelig skal man kunnedet.Q: Og du vil også gerne lade dine børn gå med i moskeen og deltage i engudstjeneste?PSJ: Ja, selvfølgelig. Jamen altså, jeg ville da være glad, om de kom hen også, hvordan det foregik et andet sted.Q: Din forgænger i embedet havde jo, altså Kronprinsebrylluppet var her iKøbenhavns domkirke, og i den forbindelse havde de københavnske kirke-skoletjenester arrangeret, at man lærte bryllupssalmer ude i dekøbenhavnske skoler (jaja, selvfølgelig), og så var der 800 unger og bispErik hernede på Vor Frue Plads og inde i kirken og bryllupssalmer. Er detsådan noget, du mener?PSJ: Det kører vi jo hvert år, det der. Og der er vi påpasselige, altså vi harlige haft det. Det er en stor fornøjelse, en kæmpefornøjelse. Stor spas.Jesper Stange og jeg, vi havde her ovre i Vor Frue Kirke for en måneds tidsiden, og der er vi så påpasselige med, at vi synger salmer, vi fortæller omkirkerummet og fortæller på den måde jo også om kristendommen. Vibeder ikke Fadervor, vi lyser ikke velsignelse.Q: Så I opfatter salmerne som en del af, hvad man også kunne sige enlitterær, musikalsk tradition og viderefører det.PSJ: Det er det i høj grad. Men der er også et religiøst udtryk. Dem blivervi jo nødt til at sige til mennesker, at det er jo klart nok for enhver, somsidder med det her, det er jo klart for enhver, som lytter til Bach: Det her,man kan jo ikke sige til dem, at det er ikke er religiøst. Vi ville jo lyve fordem, hvis vi sagde: Det her, det er aldeles neutralt, for det er det jo ikke.Q: Så I vil opretholde Bach og salmerne i skoleundervisningen og i kirke-skole-samarbejdet, men fadervor og velsignelsen skal børnene hente ikirken alene.

Appendix C199PSJ: Ja, det synes jeg. Det synes jeg. Bevar mig vel, hvis der er en skole,hvor det er naturligt at bede Fadervor, så skal man gøre det. Men ellersikke. Det er anderledes på de religiøse skoler, altså på de katolske skolereller friskolerne osv, det er jo noget helt andet.Q: Der vil man netop tillade, at man har en religiøs markeringPSJ: Ja, det må man gøre. Der ved man jo så også, inden man går ind i det,at det er en del af pakken. Med Danmarks Radio - hvorfor vil jeg ikke havereligionsudøvelse på skolen, når jeg accepterer det i Danmarks Radio? Derer jo den kæmpeforskel, at Danmarks Radio der kan man bare skrue ned.(PSJ, p. 8-9)Quote 5.28:NB: Principielt synes jeg, at man skal respektere alle religiøse symboler,også burkaer. Men der kan være nogle praktiske begrænsninger, praktiskudfordringer, som gør, at det med fx at have en burka på eller et kors, somer rigtig, rigtig stort – det har jeg også set nogle af – være for upraktisk. Detkan også være en t-shirt, hvor der står et eller andet religiøst, som erprovokerende. Og der må man...Q.: Altså det kan være for synligt og der igennem for provokerende, ellerdet kan være upraktisk: man kan ikke udføre sit arbejde?NB: Ja, det kan være upraktisk i fht. den opgave, som man har, som fxfolkeskolelærer, hvor mimik og ansigtsudtryk og øjenkontakt nogle gangekan være vigtigt i fht. pædagogikken. Der kan det være svært at have enkvinde med en burka til stede i fx en børnehaveklasse. Så måvedkommende – i dialog, selvfølgelig – få at vide: Det er måske svært; såkan du måske få nogle andre opgaver, så kan du bruge din uddannelse tilnoget andet, måske. På den måde være imødekommende. […] Men ligetilbage til det med burka, en meget vigtig pointe: Det kan også være afreligiøse grunde, at jeg personligt ville sige nej, fordi jeg ved, at i islambehøver man ikke at tildække sit ansigt. Der er nogle andre krav. Og det vilså gøre, at der vil jeg sige, at jeg har en religiøs grund til, at du ikke måhave burka på, fordi den her muslimske friskole har denne her holdning tildet. (NB, p. 13-14)Quote 5.29:SA: Jeg har en veninde, som jeg mødte i Frederiksberg Centeret. Deneneste måde, jeg kunne kende på, at det var min veninde, det var, at hunhavde sit barn i hånden. Det var, fordi hun havde burka på. Men da hun såsagde: ’Det er mig!’, så havde jeg ingen problemer med at snakke medhende, uanset at jeg ikke så hendes ansigt. Men jeg ved, at andre har detikke på den måde, jeg har det på. Det kan jeg godt se. (SA, p 13)Quote 5.30:

200Appendix CHOB: ”Jeg mener, hvis man vil putte religion væk, som om at det ikkeeksisterede, så ville netop det offentlige rum, og det er ikke kun detoffentlige, så gør det kun plads til dem, som ikke har noget udtryk, og detmener jeg er forkert. Som sagt, jeg mener, præferencen må være på at vi eri et kristent land, der har en kristen kulturarv, og det har jeg det godt med,at det kommer til udtryk. … Hvis man som jøde kommer med en kippa, såtror jeg ikke, man fik lov til at gå ret langt gennem toget eller sidde déruden at blive diskrimineret eller chikaneret. OG derfor mener jeg faktisk, attolerancen den ikke er særlig stor. Det kan både være den kristne, der ikkeforstår, hvad det handler om, men det kan også være blandt muslimer. Såjeg synes jo, at hvis der skulle være plads til, at man kunne have tørklædepå fx som kassedame i Irma, eller hvor man sidder henne, så er det fint formig, men så skal respekten også gå fra muslimske kvinder til, atkassedamen, der sidder ved nr. to, at hun har et tydeligt kors på, at det erlige så legalt.”(HOB, p. 9)Quote 5.31:AMA: ”Et godt eksempel er burka – mange mennesker synes, at tørklæderer helt legitime. Jeg har også talt med nogle unge, som siger, at der sletikke er noget spørgsmål, og dette er nogle unge, som man ikkenødvendigvis forventer, er så rummelige. Mht. burkaer der er minholdning, at hvis det bremser for fagligheden, så synes jeg ikke, at det er iorden. Hvis man professionelt og fagligt kan bevise, at det at have burka pågør, at man er en dårligere pædagog fordi, børnene bliver utrygge …Personligt og politisk bryder jeg mig ikke om burkaer, men jeg vil ikkeforbyde det eller noget; dog synes jeg, at der i burkaen ligger noget megetkvindeundertrykkende, som er helt anderledes end de andre slagstørklæder. Ligesom at jeg politisk heller ikke bryder mig om, at nogle gårrundt med et hagekors på ryggen. Det synes jeg også, at der ligger noglemeget forkerte signaler i, men vi kan jo ikke forbyde det.”(AMA, p 5-6.294-317)Quote 5.32:HOB: ”Så spørgsmålet er, hvordan kan vi komme nogle af de derutryghedsfaktorer til livs. Men hvis vedkommende vil arbejde og behandlede patienter, som vedkommende har, og lever op til sin faglighed, så harjeg ikke noget problem dér. Det gælder også lovgivning, så er det klart, athvis det er en, der sidder med et tørklæde, og man ikke er sikker på, om detprimært er sharialovgivning, der bliver dømt efter, eller om det er... – veddomstole eller i folketinget - så synes jeg jo, det er problematisk. Jeg vilsige, at det handler meget om, hvordan er det, man får tydeliggjort sinoverbevisning og adfærd i det her. Men i udgangspunktet, at friheden i dengensidige respekt er der, det... Jeg tror det modsatte: at man vil undertrykke

Appendix C201det og undertrykke religiøse udtryk i det offentlige rum, den neutralitet harjeg svært ved at tro på, at den er levedygtig.” (HOB, p 11-12)Quote 5.33:DN: Nu er vi inde i et helt offentligt rum, og det vil sige et offentligtsygehus, hvor der ikke er nogen private institutioner, der tager del i dendaglige drift. Det må det være sådan, at alle er lige sådan, at man ikke skalmødes af religiøs symbolik i andet end måske en knappenål af historiskeårsager. Folk som mig er ikke allergiske over for religiøse symboler, mensymbolik er symbolik, og der hvor man begynder at påvirke folksholdninger med en religiøs retning inden for de offentlige institutioner.Dvs., at hvis der er en præst, og det mener jeg faktisk er et problem, da hanpåvirker døende mennesker i en særlig religiøs retning, og han har lov til atgøre det og missionere på det her sted. Hvis han skal være der, og han mågerne være der, men så skal der også være et alternativ. (DN, p 8-9)Quote 5.34:JC: Du kan tage dommerne, og du kan tage uniformeret personale sommilitær og politi, og så kan du jo også tage sygeplejerskerne og sige, atsiden de også bærer uniform, så skal de også ensrettes. Du kan så også tagebibliotekarene, da du også bør kunne gå ind på et bibliotek og få religiøsneutral rådgivning, og så fjerner du det der. Du kan også tage pædagogernemed, da du ikke skal opdrages i overensstemmelse osv. osv. Det bliverskruen uden ende, og det bliver den enkelte borger, der skal bestemme overalle andres, da jeg vil have det på min egen måde.Menneskerettighedskonventionen: enhver forælder har ret til, at ens barnbliver opdraget i overensstemmelse med forældrenes egne religiøseoverbevisning. Det er meget smukt princip, men det betyder ikke, at manikke må undervise i religion, hvilket vil sige, at man ikke må indoktrinere,og der skal være balance. Men hvis det bliver sådan, at hver enkelt borgerskal bestemme, at jeg ikke vil se på noget som helst, som kan fornærmemine holdninger-·‐så udøver man i virkeligheden en overdrevet magt overfor andre i samfundet. Det ender med at blive en voldelig magt, da det ermig, der bestemmer, hvad de andre må gøre og ikke må gøre. Det er det,som jeg ser som det andet yderpunkt. Vi kan blive så nærtagende, at vi ikkekan tåle, at folk er der, hvis de ikke er præcis ligesom mig, fordi jeg vilbestemme det hele. (JC, p. 9)Quote 5.35:SA: ”Jeg skrev et høringssvar til folketingets retsudvalg i sin tid fraMuslimernes Fællesråd om det, og jeg har anlagt den mening, at jeg harikke sagt, hvilken religion, jeg har. Det tørklæde, jeg har om hovedet, det erligesom mine bukser og min skjorte og sko; det er et stykke af mit tøj. Og

202Appendix Cså er det jo, at de diskuterer i forarbejderne til retten, hvor de siger, at hvisdet er egnet til at fremkalde en ide om, at jeg er muslim. … Så tænker jegpå: skal man tage hensyn til de folk, der bliver dømt, hvis de har en dårligoplevelse med en, der har briller; vil de så også sige: ’Jeg vil ikke blivedømt af den dommer, for han har briller. Han fremkalder noget dårligt hosmig. Jeg er mistænksom over for, at han dømmer med fordomme’? Det erjo lidt latterligt. Jeg synes ikke, man skal blande sig i folks tøj. Heldigvishar jeg en rigtig stor opbakning fra retssystemet, fordi dommerne selv,dommerstanden og advokatrådet og DJØF osv, de tager simpelthen ikkeden lov alvorligt.”(SA, p. 12-13)Quote 5.36:SA: Nogle gange får man nogle blikke fra..., når fx politiet kommer indsom vidner eller... Jeg havde en hooligan forleden; de kigger de jo nok op,men de er så optagede af det, der sker i retten, at nyhedsværdien forsvinderi løbet af to minutter, når de skal koncentrere sig om andre ting. Det har joheller ikke haft nogen som helst indflydelse på den måde, jeg dømmer; jegdømmer jo efter de regler, jeg skal dømme efter, og det er jo så dansklovgivning, sådan som den er på det tidspunkt, hvor jeg skal dømme, ikke.(SA p 3-4)Quote 5.37:TB: “Jeg tror i bund og grund, at det forslag kom til verden og blevvedtaget, fordi man er bange for Sharia-·‐lovgivning, og at det kan have enbetydning; men uanset hvad, så endte det jo ikke med, at heledomsmandssystemet og retssystemet er sådan, at det godt lade sig gøre, atjeg er muslim uden, at jeg har tørklæde på. Det er der ikke nogen, der kanse. Vi skal dømme ud fra de regler, der er de vedtagne i vores samfund. Derer sikkert også etniske danskere, som tænker: hold da op, hun sidder medtørklæde på, og nu får jeg sikkert hugget hånden af, eller hvad man gør idet system der, men det er jo det, der er galt, hvis der er nogen, der tænkersådan. Det er ikke, at hun har en tro.”Q: “Så du ville forvente, at domsmænd og dommere repræsenterer detdanske retssystem. Men er vi fælles om det normative fællesskab, derligger bagved? Er vi fælles om de værdier, der lægger bagved om, som skalspille ind i anvendelsen af det fællesretssystem?”TB: “Jeg vil sige det på den måde, at det er vi jo nødt til at tro på, da joikke udtager fra lister, hvad det er for nogle mennesker, vi udtager. Viudtager dem fordi, de er borgere i et vist område, og de kan være alle slags,og det skal de faktisk helst være, da de skal repræsentere det danskesamfund over en bred kam. Og det er så vores forpligtigelse som dommere,og vi bliver jo ikke dommere, hvis vi ikke dømmer efter det danskeretssystem, og så er det jo vores forpligtelse at holde dem på stien. Der er

Appendix C203da mange skrubtudser, nogen som er meget aktive i Dansk Folkeparti, somspørger, om ikke vedkommende skal udvises fx, og så siger vi nej, det kanman overhovedet ikke i disse sager, og sådan er det.”Q: “Så deværdikonflikter eksisterer uafhængigt af folks religion?”TB: “Fuldstændig. Vi er netop ikke ens, og det kan være på alle muligeandre ting som politik. Det er alt muligt, der gør forskellen.” (TB, p 7 – 8, l215 – 238)Quote 5.38:BP: ”Igen vil jeg sige, at Dansk Folkeparti gør, hvad de kan for at skabe etproblem. Hele den her historie om, hvorvidt dommere må have tørklæderpå, som jeg bliver mindet om, hver gang jeg tænder min computer, da jeghar sådan et billede af en dommer i burka. Det er et pseudoproblem, da detikke eksisterer, og skulle der sidde en dommer i burka, så må man havetillid til, at hun er uddannet til det.”(BP, p. 11)Quote 5.39:SA: ”Ja, men jeg kan ikke dele det op på den der måde, fordi min tro påGud er, at Gud har skabt alt, og alt, hvad der sker rundt omkring i verden,det kommer fra Gud, og om det så også er det sekulære, for den sags skyld.Men jeg kan jo se, at man clasher nogle gange, fx er jeg også lægdommer iretten; jeg kan huske, da der kom den der forfærdelige lov imod religiøshovedbeklædning, der føler man ligesom, at der clasher religionen imod detsekulære system. Der prøver man så som muslim: kan jeg påvirke det her iden retning, så at der er en mulighed for, at jeg både kan være muslim og fxdommer i byretten. Så man prøver ligesom at forene det; man prøver atfinde en genvej til løsningen.” (SA p 3)Quote 5.40:BL: ”Jeg pegede på nogle etiske problemer, der kom i konflikt medreligionen og demokratiet. Og det var fx, når Birthe Rønn Hornbech, somjeg i øvrigt både respekterer og kender privat og alt det der, hun siger:’Hvis der kommer en imam på officielt besøg i Danmark og ikke vil givemig hånden som kirkeminister, så vil jeg ikke modtage ham.’ Der er enretning, det er der også inden for jødedommen: der er nogle mænd, der ikkegiver kvinder hånden. Det skal hun respektere. Og hun skal ikke sættenormer over en religiøs sammenhæng. [...] Der synes jeg, at den danskeoffentlighed, altså bestående af vores kirkeminister, hun er nødsaget til atvære tilstrækkeligt tolerant til, at det er accepteret. Hun skal i navnet afreligionsfrihed i Danmark, der må hun acceptere, at der kommer en med enanden norm. […] Jeg mener, at hun repræsenterer det officielle Danmark,som er et samfund, som giver mennesker religionsfrihed. Og derved synes

204Appendix Cjeg, at hun blander hele problematikken omkring imamer og muslimer ind ien sammenhæng, som jeg ikke synes er værdig.”(BL, p. 7)Quote 6.01:JC: ”Måske kunne man savne lidt det her med den generelle udvikling.Fremkomsten af aggressive kristne debattører, som ikke deltager irefleksionen over deres egne værdier.”Q: ”Gør de ikke det?”JC: ”Det oplever jeg ikke, at de gør. Ikke i tilstrækkelig grad ift. depositioner, de tillader sig at indtage. Det gælder i øvrigt generelt for mangeinteressante samfundsdebattører. Den der tæver sit budskab mest firkantetog hårdest igennem er typisk den, der får sendetiden. Det er mere nogetmed mediebilledet. … Man har set en række meget stærke og så titkvindelige teologer fylde meget i den offentlige debat. …Jeg oplever sådanset, at det kristent religiøse spiller en meget større rolle i dag i denoffentlige debat om samfundsmæssige spørgsmål, end det gjorde for 10 årsiden. Jeg tror, at det er en konsekvens af, at man i led med udlændinge-·‐ ogindvandrerdebatten har haft behov for at finde det kristne modsvar på det,man har opfattet som en trussel fra islam. Derfor får de taletid på en måde,som jeg ikke tror, de ville have haft det, hvis man ikke havde haft så megetudlændingedebat.” (JC, p 3)Quote 6.02:PSJ: ”Trosstoffet på Danmarks Radio bliver der kikket meget voldsomt på.Er det for ensidigt over imod det folkekirkelige, er det for ensidigt overimod det religiøse, det kristne...? Det er der jo nogle, der spørger sig om. ...Det synes jeg jo ikke. … Det er meget vanskeligt at blive for ensidig, nårman tænker på, at Danmarks Radio nu altså bl.a. har en forpligtelse til atforklare godt, hvad dansk går ud på. Jeg har selv lige gjort mig lidt tiltalsmand, for alt det der snak om kulturarv bryder jeg mig ikke så megetom, fordi jeg er ikke nogen kustode, museumsinspektør, kulturarv, der gårder sådan lidt for meget museum i det for mig. Jeg mener, jeg deltager i enlevende kultur, som hele tiden udvikler sig med... vi bruger vores tro til atforstå, begribe og også til at misforstå med sommetider, i øvrigt.”Q: ”Men ville du sige, hvis vi nu tager det omkring Danmarks Radio ogreligion og..., vil du så sige, at man skulle opretholde en stærk formidlingaf kristendom folkekirkeligt set og så supplere med andre religioner, ellerskal man bare opretholde en stærk formidling af det kristne, detfolkekirkelige, eller skal man blive mere neutral?”PSJ: ”Jeg synes, man skal opretholde en stærk formidling. Vi lever i etsamfund, hvor også vi lige så godt på en eller anden måde kan erkende, at iet moderne vestligt samfund af vores karakter er der ikke noget, der duruden argument. Ikke noget med at lægge sig tilbage og sige: 80 %, vi har

Appendix C205altid været her, det er os, der har den længste historie, længere end alle Iandre. Det er ikke det, jeg vil. Overhovedet ikke. vi skal have diskussionenhele tiden, og så have formidlingen. Og der skal selvfølgelig ogsåorienteres om islam, også orienteres om de andre religioner... og der skalogså, som der allerede bliver gjort, der skal selvfølgelig også transmitteresfra synagogen. .. Hele vejen rundt, altså hele spektret om, men det kan joikke hjælpe noget, at vi pludselig begynder at lade som om at vi er ateisteralle sammen, Og så tror jeg i øvrigt også, at mange af dem, der kalder sigateister, er entydigt lutherske, fordi meget af det, de tænker nok i høj grad...og det er sagt i respekt, det her, fordi jeg ønsker ikke at være nedladendeoverhovedet over for ikke-troende. (Trosformidlingen i Danmarks Radio)må afspejle det danske folk; og det danske folk består nu i højere grad... harvi flere religioner.”Quote 6.03:JC: For mig at se må det være en grundforudsætning i samfund, at selvomvi ikke har religionslighed, da folkekirken og den protestantiske-·‐luthersketro har en anden stilling i det danske samfund [må de andre trossamfundhave nogle muligheder]. Jeg tror, at man praktisk skal sørge for, at alle harlige gode vilkår for at udøve sin religion. Derfor ville mit svar være, at detburde jo nok være lavet på samme måde for alle, men so be it.Q: Nogle af de andre store trossamfund siger, at vi har også kirkeskat,kunne skattebilletten ikke også opkræve for os?JC: Det ville jeg synes, var helt rimeligt. Hvis det administrativtnogenlunde var til at finde ud af, at man så der kunne skrive sig ind og sige,at jeg stemmer mine 0,85% til trossamfund nummer 27. Det synes jeg errimeligt, at man som stat udøver den assistance.Q: Grundlæggende har du ikke en forestilling om, at staten burde holdearmslængde til alt, hvad der hedder religion og lade være med hjælpetrossamfund. Tværtimod hører jeg en opfattelse, som hedder, at det er endel af tilværelsen, så hvis man ved at udøve lidt assistance til at få det til atfungere, så er det i orden?JC: Når man først har sagt A, så må man også sige B. Hvis man først siger,at medlemmerne kan opkræve en vis procentsats og selv kan allokere til dettrossamfund, så kan jeg ikke se nogen grund til, hvorfor de ikke skal kunnegøre det. Hvis det er nogenlunde praktisk muligt for de andre.Grundforudsætningen er så også, at vi har en folkekirke. Lever vi okay meddet? Ja det gør vi da i og for sig. Kunne man vælge ved engrundlovsændring at lave det om? Ja det kunne man sikkert også. Det harde gjort i Sverige, og det er der vist ikke nogen, der er døde af. Det ville såblive noget andet. Det ville blive en helt anden tradition. (JC; p 11)Quote 6.04:

206Appendix CQ: Når du sammenligner folkekirken med andre institutioner i det danskesamfund, er det så A.P. Møller, altså en stor erhvervsvirksomhed, dusammenligner med, eller det skolevæsenet, du sammenligner det med, altsået offentligt forvaltningsområde, eller er det sportsverdenen, som er privat-retligt drevet og business- eller foreningsorienteret?PSJ: Jamen jeg paralleliserer jo nok meget sjældent, det hænger sammen,det er sådan teologisk også, at det her skal være for så mange som muligt.Det skal inkludere så mange som muligt. … Men der bør komme enændring på relationen mellem kirke og stat. Jeg er ikke et øjeblik i tvivlom, at hvis løfteparagraffen blev opfyldt, at det er nødvendigt for os atkunne give klart svar i højere grad end hidtil. Og det er også nødvendigt, atgøre noget ved det. Det er der mange grunde til. En af dem er, atfolkekirken nu er blevet politisk på en negativ måde. Det er problematisk.Folkekirken er blevet meget politiseret. Og jeg tror heller ikke, atfolketinget i så høj grad fremover vil ønske at gå ind i den folkekirkeligelovgivning. Jeg kunne godt forestille mig, der er nogle politikere, derønsker en grænse her. Det er der.Jeg forestiller mig en eller anden form forkirkemøde og kirkeråd. Nu har vi fået stiftsrådene, så det er heldigviskommet dér til, at biskopperne har nogen de kan rådføre sig med. Det erikke mindre nødvendigt på landsplan.Som allerede sagt, så håber jeg, atstaten vil leve op til den økonomiske forpligtelseQ. Den økonomiske relation mellem staten og folkekirken, det er lige to-treelementer, de opkræver systemet medlemmernes kirkeskat, som financierer85 % af folkekirkens udgifter. Dels giver finansloven staten et tilskud på 15% af udgifterne, dels som det tredje, så fastsætter kirkeministeren størrelsenpå landskirkeskatten, som medlemmerne betaler, og beslutter budgettet for,hvad det skal anvendes til. Er der nogle af de tre funktioner, du forestillerdig at ændre?PSJ: Ja, den tredje og sidste dér, den vil formentlige blive ændret, Der ermange beslutninger, der skal ned i et kirkeråd eller lignende. Og så er detklart, at hvis det er sådan, at der ændres væsentligt på landets love og denslags ting her i landet, så kan det selvfølgelig komme dertil, at vi også kantale med hinanden om, om det er betimeligt at folkekirken fortsat støttes.Det kan godt være, at vi har en stat der har den debat, det ved jeg ikke. Detkunne man godt forestille sig, at der ville blive.Q. Det du siger med registreringslove, hører jeg dig rigtigt, at det er, at mankunne forestille sig, at folkekirken ikke længere havde en rolle icivilregistreringen af de danske borgerePSJ Ja. Hvis den ikke har det, så er det klart, at så vil staten også overvejeat ændre på det økonomiske tilskud til folkekirken.Q. Hvis vi nu tager og siger: der skal ske nogle ændringer på relationenmellem staten og folkekirken, men grundlæggende bør der fortsat være en

Appendix C207understøttelse. Er den understøttelse i dit billede alene økonomisk, eller erder andre former for understøttelse?PSJ Den er også økonomisk, men i dag hvor staten i højere og højere gradopfatter sig selv som sekulær, så der hvor jeg synes at folkekirken gør brugaf sin magt, der skal kirken også have lov til indimellem at være denssamvittighed. Det bliver vi nok, men ikke på nogen upassende måde.Det eren kirkes opgave. Det er også den katolske, altså det er enhver kirkesopgave. Det er alle trossamfunds opgave. Det er også blevet varetaget,synes jeg.Q. Forestiller du dig, at man kunne trække de andre trossamfund tættere indi den opgave på nogen organisatoriske eller understøttelsesmæssige måder?PSJ: Det gør vi jo så sådan her, nu kan du jo se, nu er vi så tre trossamfund,ikke, som går sammen i fht. Københavns kommune og siger: hov, her stårvi sammen. Vi tror noget forskelligt, og vi vil gerne have lov til at diskuteremed hinanden, men vi kan stå sammen om at bekæmpe vold.Q. Kunne man understøtte det, og bør man understøtte det med nogenorganisatoriske eller økonomiske midler? Der har været forslag om, at ikkealene folkekirkens medlemmer men også de andre trossamfundsmedlemmer kunne få opkrævet kirkeskat vi skattebilletten, fx.PSJ. Det ved jeg godt, der findes et fornemt stykke arbejde faktisk, jeg harlæst det igennem, men der var nogle justeringer... Det synes jeg godt, atstaten kunne.Q. I Norge er modellen modsat: der er det staten, der betaler udgifterne forbåde Norske Kirke og de andre. Og man gør noget i den stil i SverigePSJ. Ja. Det synes jeg godt, staten kunne påtage sig. Jeg synes, de andretrossamfund, de skal i hvert fald bare ikke pålægges aktindsigtslov.. Det ergodt at vi er underlagt aktindsigt, men vi modtager jo så også støtte frastaten., Om de andre trossamfund vil underlægges de regler ved jeg ikke.Den store åbenhed er i hvert fald en fordel for vores kirkesamfund.Quote 6.05:Q: ”Så når vi i Danmark har en ordning, hvor staten både økonomisk ogstrukturelt og normativt understøtter folkekirken og samtidig giver fuldfrihed til andre trossamfund, til at de må klare sig selv, men der er ikkenogen støtterelationer dér, hvad er så din vurdering af det?KWH: Jeg synes, det er glimrende, fordi jeg vil jo sige, det er ikke nogenstatskirke, men en folkekirke, og det kan man så skændes om, men jegmener, det er ret afgørende. Og dermed har man netop også, altså man kansige, landet er ikke neutralt. Det er et kristent land. Det betyder ikke, at alleer kristne, men det betyder, at den officielle indpakning er, vores flag er,vores markeringer. Folketinget begynder med en gudstjeneste osv.”Q: ”Så du siger, det gavner staten, hører jeg det rigtigt? – eller samfundeteller landet?”

208Appendix CKWH: ”Ja, det gavner landet.”Q: ”Gavner det også folkekirken?”KWH: ”Ja, det tror jeg faktisk, det gør. Jeg tror, vi er meget mereprivilegerede end fx den østtyske kirke, som jo på mange måde ligner osrent konfessionelt, men som jo er fuldkommen i opløsning. Vi er megetforkælede som folkekirke, og det vil så sige, vi ved måske ikke, hvorprivilegerede, vi er, og vi er dovne, og vi er ligeglade, og vi går mest op i,hvor store præstegårdene er og sådan nogle ting. Men problemet i dendanske folkekirke er ikke det strukturelle. Problemet er en åndelig slaphed,mener jeg.”Q: ”Hvad med de andre trossamfund i Danmark? I dag er situationen jo, atder ikke er nogen formelle støtterelationer af nogen slags. .. Altså, præsterkan få vielsesbemyndigelse, trossamfund kan være anerkendte til at vie, også er der en fradragsret og opholdstilladelse til udenlandske forkyndere.Hvad er dine kommentarer til den position for de andre trossamfund?”KWH: ”De har fuld frihed. Det er en skøn ting. Det ville du ikke have, hvisdu var kirke i Mellemøsten eller sådan noget, så det er frihed. Og det erklart, frihed kan jo være hårdt, for så skal du klare dig selv, men det erfrihed, og det er skønt.”Q: ”Skulle folkekirken ikke have den samme frihed, som er skøn?”KWH: ”Det har den da også. Det gode ved folkekirken er jo, og det trorjeg, at i vore dages folkekirke er det en styrke, at den er bundet. Den erbundet til grundlovens ord, som siger, § 4, at det er ikke hvad som helst, vistøtter, det er den evangelisk-lutherske kirke. Så folkekirken har fuld frihedtil at være evangelisk-luthersk kirke. Den er dybt privilegeret, selvfølgeliger den det, og det mener jeg også, den skal være. ”Q: ”En del af folkekirkens finansiering er, at folkekirkens medlemmerbetaler 85% af udgifterne, men betaler dem via kirkeskat bliver opkrævetsammen med kommuneskat og statsskat. Der har været stillet forslag om, atman tilsvarende kunne opkræve kirkeskat for den katolske kirke og andretrossamfund i Danmark, som vil have... ”KWH: ”Ja. Det er igen et forsøg på den her lighedsdyrkelse, at vi er nogleonde, onde, onde mennesker, når vi ikke giver alle lige meget, men... vidiskriminerer! Ja, for vi gør forskel, for vi privilegerer én bestemtkonfession, som er den evangelisk-lutherske. Det har vi gjort siden 1849,1536, hvad ved jeg, og det skal vi da blive ved med. Vi skal ikke være såflove over os selv, vi skal være stolte af det, og det synes jeg, katolikkerneskal være glade for, at de nyder en religionsfrihed, som de selv har væretsindssygt langsomme om at give til andre. Undskyld mig, altså. Der erblevet brændt en del kættere i tidens løb, men den katolske biskop kan fritudøve sin katolicisme her; heldigvis for det!”Quote 6.06:

Appendix C209MB: det er mit indtryk, at især inden for de sidste 10-15 år der er statensindblanding i kirkens forhold, og nu tænker jeg ikke de indre anliggender,nu tænker jeg også omkring økonomi, struktur, at det har været tiltagende.Og når staten kommer til at gribe ind meget detaljeret, så sker der nogetmed en kirke; der sker noget med livet omkring menighedsrådene, der skernoget med engagementet blandt de mennesker, som er ansat i kirken. Mintilgang til det er, at vi bliver nødt til at have mere armslængde i det forhold.Hvis du har den traditionelle trekant, hvor du har staten, markedet ogcivilsamfundet, der kan man sige, at sådan som kirkens forhold harudviklet sig, der er der blevet mere stat. Men der er egentlig også blevetmere marked: mange tænker i en markedsterminologi, når vi talerfolkekirke i dag, og begge dele mener jeg sådan set er uheldigt. Så jeg vilhellere have, at vi kigger på: ‘hvad med civilsamfundet, hvad ermenighedernes opgaver’? Altså hvis menigheden virkelig er kirkensbyggesten, hvad er deres rolle så? Har vi i virkeligheden suget liv ud afmenighederne ved at sige, at dét klarer eller ordner staten, eller ‘Vi vil somkirke markedstilpasse os vores kunder’ - altså nogle taler ligefrem omkunderne i folkekirken; man taler om at sælge budskabet, man taler om atmarkedsføre osv. Det er, for mig at se, en terminologi, som i den grad erfremmed i fht. det, som egentlig bør være kirkens kerne og kirkens væsen,altså hvor det væsentlige er forkyndelse af evangeliet, og hvordan sørger viså for at lave rammer om den forkyndelse, som gør, at kirken faktisk bliveren levende kirke. Så jeg vil meget gerne have styrket og givet plads til, atcivilsamfundet - og det er så i dette tilfælde jo menighederne - kan bæremere af egen fri vilje. Og det er så det liberale i det, kan du sige.(MB, p 2)Quote 6.07:HC: ”For folkekirkens vedkommende, så mener jeg jo, folkekirken skullehave en forfatning, og det har den jo skullet have haft længe, og nu får dendet formodentlig sådan lidt hovedkuls tumlende, fordi der ikke rigtig ernogen, der har villet gøre det sure, lange forarbejde som at udredeøkonomi, teologi, jura og alt sådan noget, fordi den ordning, som jo er,hviler på et forståelsesgrundlag, som skal være meget fintmasket hos alleaktører, her under også Folketingets medlemmer. Og det er det ikkelængere, og i næste generation vil det slet ikke være det forfolketingspolitikere.”Q: ”Hvilke hovedproblemer skal løses med en forfatning?”HC: ”Det skal jo indebære kirkens egen administration af økonomi i højeregrad, her under kommer ejendomsforholdet jo meget på banen, tænker jeg,for det er jo der, rigtig mange følelser er bundet, det er jo i murstenene. Nuer jeg som sagt sognepræst i et af de sogne, hvor en kirke skal lukkes ogendnu ikke er blevet det, og der er jo rigtig stærke følelser i mursten. …Men der må man jo finde ud af, hvad der er kulturarv og dermed

210Appendix Csamfundets opgave, og hvad der er kirker, der skal drives som kirker ogsom samlingssted for menighederne.” (HC, p 17)Q: ”Skal man stadigvæk opkræve kirkeskat sammen med kommune- oglandsskatten?”HC: ”Det forekommer jo ikke videre naturligt, synes jeg, for hvad der jo eren selvstændig forening allerede nu. Det er jo også noget rod, at man siger’kirkeskat’; det har jo ikke noget med skat at gøre, men det er såformodentlig, fordi det bliver opkrævet sammen. Det er et medlemsbidrag,og det kunne man jo så kalde det og praktisere efter det.”Q: ”Hvem skal opkræve og administrere og organisere økonomienfremover i folkekirken?”HC: ”Det skal kirken jo selv. Så er det jo godt, man har fåetcivilregistreringen, så man har nogle redskaber til rådighed rent maskinelt,tænker jeg.” (HC, p 18)Quote 6.08ET: Vedrørende staters støtte til kirker og trossamfund vil jeg skelnemellem tilskud og service. Tilskud det er sådan noget som, at staten betalerbispelønninger og 40% af præstelønninger. Service er sådan noget, som atSkat opkræver de penge, som folk skal betale. Vi ønsker ikke tilskud, og vivil meget nødigt have penge af andre end os selv, men vi vil gerne havehjælp til at få noget gennemført. Der er ikke tvivl om, at hvis folkekirkenikke havde den ordning, den katolske kirke i Danmark har, så var den gåetfallit forlængst. (ET, 4)Quote 6.09ET: ”Når det imidlertid kommer til de krav, der samtidig kan stilles tiltrossamfund, er jeg meget minimalist. Hvilke krav stiller man til en fagligeorganisationer, foreninger og erhvervsvirksomheder? Det er rigtigt, at hvisman overhovedet har noget som helst erhvervsmæssigt, så der er nogen, dertjener nogle penge, så skal der selvfølgelig betales skat, og man skalaflægge regnskab for det. Den offentlige indsigt i trossamfundenes forholdder synes jeg, at man må sige, at bevisbyrden må ligge på dem, der gernevil have det. Hvad skal de bruge det til, og hvorfor skal de have det? Hvader det for noget?”Q: ”Spørgsmålet om ledelse, organisation, budget, regnskab - ville duacceptere en indsigt fra offentligheden, der svarede til den offentlighedenhar i store virksomheder?”ET: ”Hvis det ikke er erhvervsvirksomheder, og hvis de ikke betaler skatnej. Vi kommer tæt på hele spørgsmålet om fondslovgivning. Dem dersiger, at det skulle det være har jo bevis- og argumentationsbyrden. De måfortælle, hvad formålet er for, at det skulle indføres. Hvad er formålet med,

Appendix C211at det offentlige har den viden om trossamfundene. Det er jeg ikke sikkerpå. Jeg er rent pragmatisk, hvad det angår. Jeg ved, hvordan det virker, nårbåde journalister ikke har noget stof til deres avis, og folketingsmedlemmerikke har nogen politik skal stille spørgsmål og have dem besvaret, ogembedsmænd sidder og bruger milliarder på besvarer fuldstændigtåndssvage spørgsmål. Det har vi slet ikke kræfter til. Hvis vi pludselig fikflere kræfter, så skulle de bruges til noget andet end det pjank. Så jegspørger, hvad er det legitime formål med, at stat og det offentlige skal haveet indblik. I det ve har skrevet om kirkeskat, der skriver vi, attrossamfundet får et samlet beløb, som er kommet ind. De skal heller ikkehave at vide, hvad den enkelte har betalt, for så ville de jo få indblik i hvad,der er folks personlige økonomi. Vi må stole på, at skattevæsenets systemerfungerer ordentligt. De siger, at der er kommet 40 millioner kr. ind, I får 40millioner kr., men kirken skal ofte gøre regnskab for, hvordan denne harfordelt pengene internt. Det er lige så meget af hensyn til egnemedlemmer.”(ET, p 7)Quote 6.10AWP: ”Det har staten jo allerede i og med, at for det første at folkekirkenfår en del af sine midler via statsmidler, så der har man jo allerede etstatsstøttet trossamfund; men så kan andre trossamfund jo få en § 8a medgodkendelse og dermed få nogle skattefradragsfordele til deresmedlemmer. Det er for så vidt fint nok, men jeg synes, det burde ændres.Der er mange modeller, man kunne kigge på: der er både den norske og densvenske og den italienske og forskellige andre, som man kunne gå ind ogkigge på, hvordan man kunne sørge for en bedre økonomisk mulighed tiltrossamfund, eller som den italienske, hvor man kan betale både tilkulturinstitutioner og religiøse osv. Der kan godt laves om på det, så detblev lidt mere ligeligt fordelt.”(AWP; 11)Quote 6.11:AMA: “Jeg har været meget offensiv på den dagsorden og har sagt, at jeger rigtig glad som integrationsborgmester i København for, at voresnæststørste religion nu får et sted at udøve deres religion. For mig handlerreligionsfrihed også om, at du får lov til at udøve din religion underordentlige rammer. Der har jeg også sagt, at jeg er glad for, at vi får enmoske, men jeg er mest glad politisk for den, der kommer på Amager. Herhar vi haft en god, konstruktiv dialog hele vejen igennem med MuslimersFællesråd. De har en uafhængig bestyrelse. Jeg er godt klar over, atfinansieringen begge steder ikke kan lade sig gøre uden nogen pengeudefra. Vi ved endnu ikke, hvor pengene kommer fra. Men det kan ikkelade sig gøre for nogen af dem, hvis de kommer fra nogle stater, som vinormalt ikke er så glade for, men igen så længe det ikke er ulovligt.

212Appendix CHandler AP Møller ikke også engang imellem med nogle, som vi ikke ersærlig glade for, og gør vi måske ikke også selv det?”Q.: “På den måde synes du i virkeligheden, at vi skulle have en mere aktivreligionspolitik i Danmark, så stater og kommuner kunne give finansiellebidrag til at etablere religiøse bygninger?”AMA: “Jeg har tænkt lidt over det. Jeg ville ikke synes, at der var nogetgalt i, at stater og kommuner ville kunne gøre det. Man skulle bare findenogle klare rammer, da det ville blive et ret ømt emne. Så skulle man ogsåkunne stille krav, synes jeg.”Q.: “Hvilke typer krav, ville du stille?”AMA: “En af grundene til at jeg er glad for den moske, der kommer påAmager, det er, at den har en uafhængig bestyrelse. De har også sagt, at devil lave deres prædiken eller fredagsbønnen på dansk.”Q.: “Jeg har nogle gange gjort mig til fortaler for transparens, og at manskal stå for regnskab for eller offentliggøre navne på, hvem der er ledere iorganisationen, og at strukturen i organisationen er gennemsigtig. Der skalvære offentlig indsigt i, hvilke midler der går ind og ud.”AMA.: “Det har du helt ret i. Hvis man giver offentlig støtte til noget –hvis man finansierer noget til alle andre organisationer, så har duselvfølgelig nogle krav, og det vil selvfølgelig være de samme krav.”Q.: “Ville du stille sådanne krav til trossamfund selvom, der ikke varoffentlige penge i det?”AMA: “Det ved jeg ikke. Jeg ville måske hellere end at stille krav til detopfordre til det. Det er jo sådan, at vi arbejder politisk generelt, det er, at vistarter med at opfordre og indgå i dialog. Hvis det så ikke virker, så kunneman jo overveje et krav, men jeg har dog ikke tænkt så meget over det.”(AMA, p 4-5, l 183- 212)Quote 6.12:BL: Jeg er jo blevet spurgt flere gange: Vil du gerne have den svenskemodel?, og så vil jeg sige: det vil jeg fortælle jer, når jeg får enmatematiker til at regne ud, hvad der kan betale sig. Sagen er jo den, jeg erikke sikker på, at for det jødiske samfund, som jo i dag bliver mindre ogmindre – det gør det jo; det jødiske samfund bliver færre og færre, ikkemindst fordi folk rejser herfra, de unge rejser til Israel osv. Så er det ikkesikkert, at det er en særlig rentabel vej at gå hen på at sige, at hvert medlemudløser nogle penge. Men på den anden side, så er der da nogle ting, somjeg synes at man bør tildeles. Altså jeg synes fx, at den registrering, det atjeg arbejder på statens vegne, på en eller anden måde burde væretilskudsberettiget ligesom kordegnen. For det er jo en meget, meget stor tidaf min sekretær, som faktisk bruges til alle de der ting, som vi på den eneside jo selvfølgelig synes er en fordel for os, måske endnu større end

Appendix C213mange andre, fordi vi jo meget ofte har behov for at gå tilbage i slægterne,meget mere end nogle af de andre samfund har.Q: Så der er ikke proportionelt ydelsesforhold på den måde?BL: Nej, det er der slet ikke.Q: Ville du gerne have det? Og hvad skulle der til?B: Det er jo igen et spørgsmål om, hvad ligger der i et økonomisk tilskud?Hvis der I et økonomisk tilskud samtidig ligger et krav på, at så har vi altsåogså et tilsyn eller et eller andet, så er det jo mere problematisk, for jegmener jo stadigvæk, at det er en meget vigtig del af den måde, vi harsamfundet på i Danmark, nemlig at religionerne får lov til at passe sig selv,hvis bare de opfører sig ordentligt. Det tror jeg er en meget vigtig ting.Q: Har mosaisk trossamfund offentlige regnskaber? (B: ja), som deautomatisk stiller frem for offentligheden i en eller anden... påhjemmesiden (B: ja, ja) eller sådan noget. Så det, du taler om her, det er ettilsyn, som gik længere end til at kræve offentlige regnskaber, for det har Iallerede (B: Ja). (BL, p 10)Quote 6.13:LMH: ”Vi har faktisk diskuteret det i baptistkirken. Jeg tror, der var nogle,faktisk, der ville være fortalere for, at vi bad om, at man også opkrævedeen kirkeskat for baptister. Men vi kan ikke blive enige om det. Det tror jegikke. Fordi vi har den der holdning... De fleste har den der holdning, at statog kirke skal ikke blandes sammen. I 70erne, hvor der blev megetforeningstænkning, og hvor man lavede ungdomsforeninger mv for at fåoffentlige tilskud. Den bevægelse er nærmest gået den anden vej her i00erne, hvor der er en masse organisation, der er blevet opløst, fordi manhar sagt: Vi skal ikke tænke i tilskud, og faktisk skal vi gøre en dyd ud af atvære uafhængige af økonomisk... og ikke tænke i, hvordan vi malker mestmuligt ud af nogle offentlige kasser. Det er uetisk -– og ubaptistisk.”(LMH, p 7)Quote 6.14:Q: Så du synes, at man retligt set skulle privatisere folkekirkensorganisation, og samtidig skulle man politisk eller moralsk eller kultureltinkludere alle kirker og trossamfund mere i det offentlige rum? Er detsådan, jeg skal forstå det?LMH: Ja det, kan godt være, det er sådan, det kan formuleres. Jeg synes, atlighed ville jo i højere grad være, at vi alle sammen havde mulighed fornogle... Jeg ved ikke, om det hedder statsretlige muligheder eller... Jeg kanfortælle, hvad det handler om. Jeg kunne godt tænke mig at væresygehuspræst, fx, eller fængselspræst, og det må jeg ikke blive, fordi derskal man være luthersk præst. Det, synes jeg, også er diskriminerende. Jegkender jo godt begrundelsen, for tænk, hvis nu der kommer nogen, der vil

214Appendix Chavde deres barn døbt, og jeg så ikke vil døbe vedkommende, ikke, ellerder kan være mange andre spørgsmål. Men jeg synes, at det ville berigevores samfund, hvis der var mere lighed, og hvis der var flere forskelligeslags sygehuspræster eller fængselspræster. Eller at der ikke var den forskelpå, hvem skal betale for at blive begravet på kirkegårdene. At det varoffentlige kirkegårde. At vi alle skulle giftes på rådhuset, og så kan manlave en kirkelig velsignelseshandling bagefter, og så kan man gå i moskeeneller Jehovas Vidner eller hvor vi nu går hen og får en eller anden form forvelsignelse. Det er for mig lighed og en religiøs anerkendelse af hinanden.(LMH, p 13)Quote 6.15:MB: ”De andre trossamfund, der mener jeg, at selvom vi ikke skal værebange for at sige, atDanmark er et kristent land, og vi lever i et kristentsamfund, så er jeg meget opmærksom på, at vi faktisk har - og skal bevare -religionsfriheden. Jeg ser gerne en udvikling, hvor vi får skilt statens ogkirkens økonomi. Det er en anstødssten for mange, at præsternes lønningerer betalt af staten, og hvis du er ateist eller buddhist, hvorfor skal du såvære med til at betale præsterne i den danske folkekirke? Men jeg har enfornemmelse af, og det er det, jeg gerne vil have underbygget, at det kanman faktisk godt gøre: trække den del af økonomien ud. At staten fortsatskal betale for bevarelse af vores kulturarv, de gamle kirker osv., det vilalle have en forståelse for. Det er min fornemmelse, at man sagtens vilkunne sige, at folkekirkens aktiviteter skal betales af kirkeskatten.Punktum. Hvis man får skilt det ad, så får man fjernet nogle anstødssten formange. - Altså sådan noget, som forplumrer debatten, for mig at se, så lados starte med at gøre det, som burde være relativt enkelt. Samtidig med detså er jeg også åben overfor, at staten fx kan tilbyde at opkræve kirkeskat,eller hvad man nu skal kalde det, for katolikker, og jeg ved slet ikke, ommuslimerne må den slags, men altså at man i fht. de større trossamfund, derer, siger, at hvis I gerne vil have det som samfundet yder, den service, somvi yder til folkekirken i dén henseende, så vil vi gerne gøre det for jer også.Det kan ikke være bureaukratisk kompliceret, hvis man ved, hvem der ermedlem af de pågældende trossamfund. Og dermed synes jeg, at vi ogsågår et skridt i den rigtige retning i fht. at sige, at vi har religionsfrihed iDanmark.” (MB, p4)Quote 6.16:PVB: Som det er i dag, vender vi trossamfundene ryggen, vi opfatternæsten alle trossamfund, selv mosaisk trossamfund og de mangeforskellige muslimske trossamfund og katolikkerne, som sekter. Det er ligefør, jeg synes, at de har sektlignende status. Så anerkendelsen er på papiret,men man kan på den anden side heller ikke lovgive om, at folk skal synes,

Appendix C215at de her trossamfund er fuldstændig jævnbyrdige med Folkekirken.Katolikkerne ønsker, at staten skal opkræve medlemsbidrag, og at man icivilregistreringen håndterer tingene anderledes osv. Det er blevet afvistblankt, uden nogen form for argumentation andet end, majoriteten er eteller andet bestemt. Det er ikke anerkendelse.Man kunne forstille sig, at hvis man som stat opkræver medlemsbidrag tiltrossamfundene, som vi på samme måde opkræver medlemsbidrag forFolkekirkens medlemmer over skatten, at så kunne man også krævegennemskuelighed ift. regnskaber, ift. hvilken praksis der er itrossamfundene, når folk gerne vil melde sig ud af trossamfundene, oghvordan det foregår, hvordan folk melder sig ind i trossamfundene som endel af aftalen omkring rettigheder og pligter for de her trossamfund.Q: Hvis nu trossamfundene siger: ”Det er meget fint, rettighederne var fine,men vi er ikke interesseret i offentlighed omkring regnskab og budgetter,og vi er ikke interesseret i viden om og slet ikke tilsyn mht. medlemmersrettigheder og muligheder”?PVB: Det, synes jeg, er problematisk fordi, jeg vil ikke en model, hvor vigør religion til fuldstændig privatsfære uden for fællesskabets rækkevidde,og jeg ønsker heller ikke, at vi skal være et ikke-sekulariseret samfund. Jegvil gerne den her mellemregning, hvor vi gør religionen til en del afsamfundslivet og fællesskabet. Og fordi vi i høj grad er et samfund, derbaserer sig på civilsamfundet og fællesskaber, som ligger mellem stat ogmarked, så synes jeg, det er i trossamfundenes interesse, også selvom deikke selv synes det, at blive en del af samfundet på både rettigheds- ogpligtsiden. Jeg vil gerne være med til at tage dialogen om, hvordan vi bedstkan gøre det uden at krænke trossamfundene og uden at mistænkeliggøredem. Men jeg synes også, at vi skal bevæge os hen et sted, hvor de ikke harsektstatus, og det, synes jeg, mange af dem har i dag. (PVB, p 5)Quote 6.17:BP: Ja, i øjeblikket er der en stærk diskussion omkring etik og faglighed,fordi vi bliver udfordret på begge dele med den aktuelle politiske diskursog retning, der i høj grad laver dårligere vilkår for socialt udsatte medmuslimsk baggrund og ikke-·‐etnisk dansk baggrund.Q: Hvad er det, du mener her? Hvad tænker du her på?BP: Der er kommet en række nye regler, der de facto diskriminerer iDanmark. Fx har vi fået starthjælpen, som er en kontanthjælp, der er halvtså stor som almindelig kontanthjælp og som tildeles mennesker, som ikkehar boet i Danmark sammenlagt syv ud af de seneste otte år, og den erbetinget af en hel masse, og det faktum af over 90 % af modtagerne harikke-·‐vestlig baggrund. Vi har det, der hedder 450-·‐timers reglen, der om lidtbliver til en 250-·‐timers regel, som er en regel, som kræver, ægtepar påkontanthjælp hver især skal optjene 450-·‐timers helt almindeligt arbejde

216Appendix Cinden for to år for at bevare retten til begges kontanthjælp. Hvis ikke dekan det, så mister den der er længest fra arbejdsmarkedet sin kontanthjælp,og så skal man leve for en inklusiv alle børnene. Den regel rammer de factoogså ikke-·‐vestlige indvandrer. Til sammen betyder de to regler fx, at vi hardet som SFI kalder etnisk segregering ift., hvor mange der bliver sat ud afderes lejligheder, da de ikke kan betale deres husleje. Når man har fulgtmed i politikudviklingen igennem mange år, så kan se det her vældig klart.Der er den ene særbestemmelse efter den anden, der bliver argumenteretigennem uden, at der bliver sagt etniske minoriteter. (BP: p 7)Quote 6.18:Q: Er det et politisk formål at støtte religion, på en eller anden måde, afhensyn til religionsfriheden eller?CS: Jeg mener, man bør se på hvad er religion: Er det religiøse skoler, erdet religiøse børnehaver, er det nonneklostre, er det bevarelse af bygninger,er det betaling af bispernes påklædning? Altså der er sikkert sådan en hellang liste af ting og sager, hvor jeg vil sige, at nogle af de services, derydes, ligner nogle andre, der udbydes af andre, og som lige så godt kunnevære lavet af det offentlige. Og så er der måske nogle, der er meget tæt påalteret, hvor de sådan set godt selv kunne ordne det. Og det kunne manmåske kikke på, alt det der. Man kunne så sige at det her, der ligger i denende, det er en offentlig opgave, eller der kunne være co-finansiering ellermedfinansiering, og det andet, det må menigheden selv betale, fordi det erjo deres eget værdivalg, så det finansierer de selv. Hvis så danskerne siger,at vi er alle sammen sammen om det der, så vi vil gerne have en folkekirke,der betaler det der, så kan man måske aftale det. Men jeg kan egentlig ikkese hvorfor man så betaler for den danske folkekirkes strengt religiøseopgaver og så ikke betaler for nogle tilsvarende muslimske. Og dybest setsynes jeg man burde gøre det: det giver også lidt indseende med, hvad dersker inde i disse trossamfund.Q: Så du synes faktisk, at det er en god ide, at staten opkræver kirkeskat formedlemmerne af folkekirken og så gøre det samme for muslimerne etc?CS: Jeg må da indrømme, at en af grundene til, at jeg stadig er medlem affolkekirken – altså jeg siger én af grundene, ikke den eneste – det er, at jegmener, at det der stammeinstinkt er så dybt inde i os selv, at jeg vil gernehave det kanaliseret et eller andet sted hen, hvor det ikke går galt. Og enfolkekirke under demokratisk kontrol er en fin konstruktion. Den kunnegodt udbredes.Q: Og det vil sige, nå jeg siger ord som transparency og accountability, såville det ikke være fremmede ord for dig i relation til trossamfund?CS: Nej nej, slet ikke. Det synes jeg vil være helt fint. Og det gælder denkatolske kirke, og det gælder muslimerne, og det gælder dem alle sammen.Det synes jeg er rimeligt. (CS. 15)

Quote 6.19:Q: Hvordan finansieres Korshærens arbejde, og hvem er medarbejderne?HC: Vi havde i 2010 en omsætning på 211 mio. i Kirkens Korshær, og iforhold til den er ca. 35 % indsamlede gaver, herunder bidrag fragenbrugsbutikkerne, og 65% forskellige offentlige tilskud.Q: ...som går under betegnelsen ’privat indsamlede midler’, fordi det erfrivillige, der arbejder der?HC: Ja, lige præcis, og fordi det er til forskel fra offentlige midler; for vidriver jo så en del i samarbejde med kommuner, eller med staten, fra puljerfra forskellige ministerier eller fra samarbejdsaftaler med kommunerneeller det, der hedder § 18-midlerne, som er nogle penge, som kommunernefår fra staten til at give videre til frivilligt arbejde. Så det er sådan etkludetæppe af forskellige samarbejder med det offentlige. Men sådannogenlunde halvt af hvert. (HC, p 3-4)Quote 6.20:NB: ”Jeg er lige nu indsat som koordinator for ressourceteamet påhospitalet, men jeg fungerer også frivilligt som imam og har været detsiden 2005, så jeg vil sige, jeg er tilknyttet, jeg er ikke ansat, fordi derfindes ikke nogen hospitalsimamstillinger i Danmark i dag, ligesom der gørmed hospitalspræster osv. Så derfor kan man ikke ansætte mig eller nogenandre som hospitalsimam eller en hospital chaplain, som de ville sige iEngland. Så jeg har, som en del af mit, ikke officielle arbejde, men også endel af mit virke på Rigshospitalet også det ansvar at tage hånd om depersoner, som dør, som har brug for begravelse, som har brug for omsorg,støtte, sjælesorgsamtaler, som har brug for mægling, og har religiøsespørgsmål om bioetik, blodtransfusioner, abort, obduktion, eller ligefremværeenslagsmediatorpåethospitalmellemfxrespiratorbehandlingsstopproblematikken – er det lig med mord, er detikke... prøve at se, hvordan kan man gøre, når en patient eller hanspårørende spørger mig: Ville det være islamisk korrekt at slukke forrespiratoren? Hvad med beroligende medicin, hvor meget af det kan han få,altså til han sover ind? Osv... Det er alt sammen nogle spørgsmål, som jegogså skal forholde mig til i fht at jeg også er tilknyttet som imam påhospitalerne. Så det er ligesom for at give dig et overblik over, hvad jeglaver.”Q.: ”Hvem finansierer den organisation? Hvad er selve organisationensformål, som du er koordinator for?NB: ”Det er en besøgstjeneste, det er en kulturel medieringsfunktion, viogså har, og vi underviser og rådgiver også personale på hospitaler.Q.: ”Men i den kulturelle medieringstjeneste ligger, hvis jeg forstår detrigtigt, både kulturel mediering i fht. patienter og i fht. personale?”

218Appendix CNB: ”Ja. Mediering foregår mellem patienter og pårørende og personalet.Nogle gange kan det også være mellem patient og pårørende, hvis deropstår nogle konflikter. Andre gange er det bare praktisk ting, men det er såikke mediering på den måde; fx hvis man skal have et familiemedlem fraudlandet til at besøge en kræftsyg, en terminalpatient, ej jeg kan ikke lideordet, - en palliativ patient, så ville man jo lave noget praktisk arbejde i fhthvor vi kan komme ind og... eller et klagebrev... Vi er 35 frivillige i teamet.Jeg er den eneste, der er ansat som koordinator. Så det er enfrivilligtjeneste. ”Q.: ”Jeg forstod, inden vi begyndte interviewet, at det er fire store,københavnske hospitaler, som er gået sammen om at finansiere det herkulturelle medieringsteam (ja). Hvilken begrundelse har de hospitaler fordet? Hvad er deres legitimering, hvilke behov har de set, som har gjort, atman har afsat en budgetpost, der hedder ’kulturel mediering’?”NB:”Deternogetmedreligiøsfrihed,Grundloven,menneskerettighedserklæringen... ”Q.: ”Altså religionsfrihed simpelthen?”NB:”…Religionsfrihed,JointCommissionStandard,enakkrediteringsorganisation, amerikansk, hvor alle hospitaler skal bliveakkrediteret, og nogle af de standarder, de har, går også på åndelig støtte tilpatienter og pårørende. Så har vi den nye, danske kvalitetsmodel lanceret islutningen af 2009, jf. IKAS, Institut for Kvalitetssikring og Akkrediteringi Sundhedsvæsenet (www.ikas.dk), en semi-statslig organisation, somlancerede den danske kvalitetsmodel for alle private og offentlige sygehusei Danmark med en række standarder, over 100 stykker, som også nu skalindføres i kommuner, apoteker osv.”Q.: ”Indgår åndelig omsorg i de standarder?”NB: ”Der indgår religiøs og kulturel støtte til patienter og pårørende, og ivejledningen står der ting som kost, blufærdighed, gejstlig bistand og ensidste ting, som jeg ikke lige husker, som også indgår i det her. Det er foralle – det er jo ikke rettet mod muslimer, men kulturel og religiøs støtte.Det er første gang, som jeg forstår det, i hospitalsvæsenet, at man har noglestandarder, som rammer det religiøse og det kulturelle. Det er aldrig sketfør. Grunden til det, mener jeg, er, at det er en amerikanskakkrediteringsorganisation, som har puttet det i. Men så har hospitalernelige pludselig haft travlt: Hvad hvis de spørger ind til det? Vi skal da havenogle standarder for kost, blufærdighed... Så har man sendt det i høring, ogder er sket alle mulige ting.”Quote 6.21:NB: ”Ja. Helt klart! Det skulle også være tværfagligt. Det skulle være overhele linien, altså ting, som hvad er muslim councelling, fx, men også tingsom tavshedspligt, samfundsforhold, hvordan er Danmark opbygget...

Appendix C219praktikperiode, så man kunne sætte sig ind i... på lige fod med denhospitalspræsteuddannelse, som der fx bliver tilbudt på Løgumkloster.Noget der ligner den.Q.: Altså en efteruddannelse oven på en teologisk kandidatuddannelse.Hvilken form for akademisk uddannelse mener du, at universiteterne burdeudbyde?NB: Hvis du snakker om det, man normalt vil kalde en imamuddannelse,det er jo ikke rigtigt, det er jo en teologuddannelse i første omgang, fordiman er jo ikke sikret at være imam, bare fordi man har taget en teologiskuddannelse, men der synes jeg sagtens, man kunne lave både enefteruddannelse men også en kandidatuddannelse i samspil med demuslimske foreninger i Danmark, som kunne tilbyde en muslimskteologisk uddannelse. Til at starte med måske bare en bachelor, og såefterfølgende opbygge det videre til en kandidatgrad.Q.: I samspil med de muslimske foreninger i Danmark. Hvilkenlegitimitetslinie er nødvendig, for at de, der er uddannede, kunne få arbejdebagefter?NB: Der er brug for en form for anerkendelse af selve studiet, og det erklart, det bliver det jo i og med hvis det bliver tilbudt af universiteterne.Q.: Hvem skulle anerkende det; er det universiteterne, der skulle anerkendedet, altså videnskabsministeriet, eller er det også...NB: Ja, eller undervisningsministeriet. Det er jo ligegyldigt, bare der er enanerkendelse af, at nu har vi en teologi bachelor, som alle kan tage åbent,som er en ikke-konfessionel uddannelse, som er videnskabelig osv. Det erjo nogle af kritikpunkterne, at vi kan aldrig lave en imamuddannelse, fordiden jo er konfessionel, og den er ikke videnskabelig osv, men vi hareksempler fra mange europæiske og muslimske lande, at man godt kan laveteologiske uddannelser, som ikke er konfessionelle, og som er akademiske.Det konfessionelle, som jeg ser det, er vigtigt på et eller andet niveau, hvisman skal fungere som imam, men det kan man så tage andre steder, også isamspil med universiteterne, ligesom det er med pastoralseminariet, somogså har en kontakt til teologisk fakultet. Så helt klart...!Q.: Så man kunne i det hele taget opbygge det helt parallelt til deteologiske universitetsuddannelser med efterfølgende konfessionel træning.NB: Ja. Og hvis man så, at der ikke var nok tilmeldinger – hvisefterspørgslen simpelthen ikke var der – så kunne man lave en model, hvorman inddrager Norge og Sverige, en skandinavisk model i samråd mednogle af de andre fakulteter, og så måske også tage Århus med, det ved jegikke... På den måde lave en model, som var fasttømret, struktureret. Detkunne være en ide; man kunne måske finde på andre modeller.Spørgsmålet er, om de her mennesker, som har taget en muslimsk teologiskuddannelse, hvordan de kunne bruges efterfølgende. De skulle have jobs;kommuner, universiteter, socialinstitutioner, moskeer, fængsler, hospitaler,

220Appendix Cog man har også institutionspræster, og virksomhedspræster har man ogsåtalt meget om. Der er mange muligheder, men det kræver jo selvfølgelig, atman taler mere åbent om det, at det kommer på dagsordenen. I stedet forbare at sige: imamer de kan ikke noget, de duer ikke til noget, og prøv ligeat se den dumme udtalelse; de kender jo slet ikke til, hvordan tingenefungere. Man må så sige: Okay, vi vil gerne fortælle jer, hvordan detfungerer, men vi gør det i samarbejde, vi gør det i fællesskab, hvor I ogsåfår lov til at bestemme, hvad der skal være i pensum, i samråd med demuslimske paraplyorganisationer. I stedet for at isolere, så inddrage. Det erdét, vi har set indtil videre; det har været en isolation af imamer, teologer,og ikke inddragelse, og det er det, der er problemet inderst inde, som jegser det. Der er nogle mennesker højere oppe i hierarkiet, som siger: Vi harslet ikke brug for dem; de er et problem, og de gør problemet værre.”Quote 6.22:Q: “Jeg kunne forstå på dig lidt tidligere, at rollen som imam er megetbred. Kunne du forestille dig, at det faldt til imamen at være delvist lønnetog så rejse ud til folkeskoler og fortælle eller være en del af etunderviserkorps, eller om der skulle være nogle andre...?”AWP: ”Nej, jeg mener ikke, det skal være imamer, og jeg vil ivirkeligheden også sige, at sådan som min position er i dag, hvor jeg ikkebliver lønnet for at være imam, det er den ideelle position. Det er det, fordiså skal jeg ikke svare for nogen andet end for mig selv og Gud og denmenighed, som jeg står overfor, men jeg er ikke på nogens lønningsliste.Der ser jeg et stort problem for dem, der er på en lønningsliste, at der bliverman nødt til at være lidt loyal over for den hånd, der fodrer en.”Q: ”Men så i kommunalt eller regionalt regi så have et par konsulenteransat, som er folkeskoleuddannede...?”AWP: ”Ja, det kunne måske være en løsning. Jeg tror bare, vi mangler endebat om det. Ligesom vi mangler flere andre debatter i Danmark, så trorjeg, vi mangler en debat om hele religionsundervisningen som sådan, forhvis den bare ligger i nogle gamle, vedtagne former og sådan set ikke ergod nok til det samfund, vi har i dag.”Q: ”Men du ville gerne have en imamuddannelse?”AWP: ”Ja”Q: ”Hvilket arbejdsmarked skulle den bruges til, hvis du samtidig synes,det er ideelt ikke at være lønnet?AWP: ”Det kan godt være, at der er nogle, der skal være lønnede, men såskal de være lønnede på en eller anden måde fra en slags neutral platform.Hvis man fx forestiller sig en moske, der har en bestyrelse, hvorbestyrelsen tager sig af den daglige drift og måske også er dem, deransætter og afskediger en imam, fordi det er der jo nogle, der skal gøre,men hvor imamens løn kommer fra en fond og ikke fra bestyrelsen som

Appendix C221sådan, altså hvor bestyrelsen kun har en formel funktion i fht. ansættelserog afskedigelser men ikke er den lønudbetalende, så man kunne binde detop.”Q: ”Hvad er det, du gerne vil beskytte; er det en forkyndelsesfrihed, dugerne vil beskytte?”AWP: ”Ja, det er det. Men det er vel at mærke en beskyttelse afforkyndelsesfriheden internt. Det er således, at du kan stå og se dinmenighed i øjnene.”Q: ”Kunne du forestille dig, at man simpelthen sagde: Af hensyn tilbeskyttelse af den muslimske forkyndelsesfrihed ansætter vi imamer somstatstjenestemænd?”AWP: ”Nej, fordi så skal man ind under et ministerium, Uhauhauha, detvar da det sidste, jeg kunne tænke mig, den der... Det ville da væreforfærdeligt at have et politisk overhoved. Nej Føj! (hahaha) Så det erdobbelt. Forkyndelsesfriheden indadtil. Men også mod at ikke skulledikteres udefra, altså jeg ville absolut ikke... Det var da det sidste, jegkunne tænke mig, det var, at muslimer skulle ind under et eller andetministerium, og der så skulle sidde en eller anden folkevalgt politiker ogskalte og valte med, hvad man må og ikke må. Nej, tak skal du ha’!”

Appendix D: Basic Tensions of Governance of ReligiousDiversityBy Professor Veit BaderGeneral Tensions/conflicts between Basic Rights - Item-list for thesocio-legal research.The focus on basic tensions or conflicts between basic rights may be easilymisunderstood. Tensions or conflicts between rights are, indeed, normativetensions but not of the kind of ‘normativity’ characteristic for moralphilosophy. Quite to the contrary, these are tensions inherent in empiricalnorms (i.e. norms claiming legal validity) both in International Covenantsof Civic and Political Rights or the ECHR as well as in (Constitutional)Law of Member States, whether we call these constitutions ‘liberaldemocratic’ or ‘constitutional democracy’ or not. In this ‘socio-legal’ partof RELIGARE, we are interested in the empirical way in which Courts andEqual Treatment Commissions deal with them practically, how they arguefor – often widely diverging – balancing and weighing up when judgingcases in specific contexts and circumstances – and whether and, if so how,these processes are influenced by deeper, implicit cultural biases. Inaddition, we are interested in how our respondents (preferably also judgesand chairpersons of Commissions amongst them) perceive these tensionsand deal with them. Last but not least, we are also interested in conflictsthat do not end up before the courts (‘non-cases’) and in divergent non-jurisprudential practices and resolutions of (potential) conflicts. We presentthe items (in all thematic work packages WP3 – 6) in the following order:(i) (empirical) practices (of case law and conflicts or good practices that donot appear in case law); (ii) (normative) what, if anything, should bechanged?1. Tension between individual and collective autonomy.In terms ofreligious freedoms: tensions between individual or internal religiousfreedom (freedom of conscience) and collective or external religiousfreedoms (religious practices and associational freedoms of (organised)religions).2. Tensions between collective religious freedoms and other basichuman rights(ICCP Art. 9,2: “protection of the rights and freedoms ofothers”), such as: freedoms of speech/expression and anti-discrimination(both with regard to ‘religious speech’ and ‘secularist speech’); protectionof essential basic rights of individuals and religious minorities (particularlyminors, dissenters, women, ethnic and gender minorities (vulnerable

Appendix D223minorities)) within religious minorities and within religious majorities andtheir organisations.3. Tensions between religious freedoms and ‘public order’ and‘security’(ICCP Art. 9,2: “public safety, public order, health or morals”),particularly in an age in which security-issues get ever moreprominent.4. Tensions between (formal) equal treatment(of religions and non-religions)before and in the law and more substantive equal treatment(if any)(commonly phrased in terms of ‘negative freedoms of religion’versus ‘positive freedoms’)Family Law (WP 3)1. Basic Tensionsin cases in which rules and practices of (minority ormajority) religious family and divorce laws and customs are at odds withbasic principles of international family and divorce law and general civil orstate marriage and divorce law: equality between the sexes and favordivortii (marriage, divorce, custody (and inheritance, excluded in WP 3) [Ithas already been decided in the RELIGARE project proposal that we donot research cases of conflicts with rules and practices of modern criminallaw such as wife beating, child beating, genital mutilation, honour killing].Because of the increasing importance which the ‘legal regulation ofintimate relations’ has recently gained with issues of same-sex marriageand adoption, we include issues of polygamy and same-sex marriage andthe respective challenges and defences of the ‘norm’ of monogamy andnuclear family.Domains: (i) International Private Law (IPL); (ii) domestic religiouslaw(s) versus state law; (iii) Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)(e.g.Islamic Arbitration Tribunals)Items:(i) International Private Law (IPL):(1) In case of difference between citisenship and residence of the personsinvolved should the legal order of the former or the latter should prevail (orshould there be the option of choice)?(2) If traditional practice and customary marriage- and divorce- andadoption law of religious communities (e.g. in India) is not legallyrecognised by ‘modern’ (e.g. English) IPL law, how do judges deal withsuch cases?(ii) Domestic religious law(s) versus state law:(1) is there/should there be ‘one civic marriage and divorce law and courtsonly’ for all citisens/residents and, if so, why?

224Appendix D(2) Is there/should there be the option of religious marriage and divorce lawand courts parallel to or as a replacement for civil marriage and divorcelaw? If parallel, under what conditions and limitations? If religiousmarriage and divorce laws and courts only, under what conditions andlimitations? (Include: voluntariness vs. marriage under duress; freedom ofexit (favor divortii); rough equality amongst the spouses (in all types ofpossible ‘marriages’: monogamous, polygamous, same-sex, PACS (pactecivil de solidarité); minimal responsibilities for childrearing)(iii) Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR):(1) Is there/should there be separate religious dispute resolution and, if so,why?(2) Is there/ should there be state recognition of religious courts? Ofreligious arbitration tribunals? Of religious arbitrators? Of arbitral awards?Under what conditions and limitations?Labour Law (WP4)Basic Tensions: Religiousinterests of employees versus interests of otherinterested parties (employer, co-workers, customers, general public) andother liberal values such as secularism, non-discrimination (sex and genderequality) (the individual religious freedom cluster). Collective autonomy(practices of majority or minority religious organisations and associationsthat are protected by collective religious freedoms) versus labour lawprinciples of non-discrimination on the basis of religion, gender, sexualorientation (and possibly race) (the collective religious freedom cluster).Domains:(i) ‘non-religious’ or not ‘faith-based’ workplaces (includingprivate, semi-private and public employers) (ii) (organised) religions(including the whole variety of religious core-organisations as employers,not only ‘churches’) (iii) ‘Faith-based’ organisations as employers(including not only ‘religion’-based ‘ethos’ employers but all non-religious‘ethos’ employers)Items with regard to legal/legitimateexemptions from general labourlaw rules and standards:(1) Is there/should there be a special (non-) employment status of churchstaff (ranging from pastors of cult to lay cleaning and gardening staff) andwhat is/should be the role of existing/ developing (member-state andEuropean) law and jurisprudence?(2) What is/should be the role of labour union advocacy in this regard?(3) How are claims for the accommodation of religious exemptions in theworkplace (dress codes, food-prescriptions, prayer-facilities, timeschedules etc.) and for equal access and inclusion in the labour marketperceived and dealt with and what is/should be the role ofexisting/developing law and jurisprudence in this regard?

Public Space (WP5)Basic Tension:Basic principles of liberal democratic constitutionalism(such as‘state neutrality(as ‘strict’ or ‘formal’ versus ‘benevolent’ or‘relational neutrality’; as ‘neutrality by subtraction’ or ‘by addition’)andfairness(as ‘hands-off’ or as ‘even-handedness’)versus traditionalhistorical ethno-religious ‘national (majority) culture’(and quite oftenhighly questionable assumptions regarding ‘necessary social cohesion’ and‘political unity’). The reluctance to or rejection of reasonableaccommodation is based on (i) intrinsic problems of all forms of pragmatic,administrative accommodation (working out practices by way of talkingand negotiating) and (ii) on more or less deeply entrenched culturalmajority-bias opposed to public symbolic recognition. Both reasons workout very differently in countries and ‘national jurisdictions’. The coreconflict is how ‘neutrality and fairness’ are interpreted and how muchweight is given to legitimate claims to protect/develop ‘national culture’.The core normative issue is – given all this (legitimate) variety – to defendand implement accommodation that is minimally required in countriescharacterised by wide and deep religious diversity.Domains:(i) religiously oriented private schools; (ii) dress codes; (iii)building/maintaining places of worshipItems:(i) Non-governmental religious schools:(1) Does/Can the state forbid orlimit the existence of non-governmental schools? Which is/should be thejustification of the limitations or conditions that the State impose on theexistence or management of this type of schools? Does the State treatdifferently governmental and non-governmental schools and if so, why? (2)What is/could be their contribution to plurality in education? (3) to learningand practicing minimal civic virtues and liberal-democratic virtues?(4)Dothey threaten minimal social cohesion and national unity and, if so, why?How can/should the state ensure that they do not threaten minimal socialcohesion and national unity?(ii) Dress codes:(1) Are there/should there be any legal prescriptionsagainst wearing religiously prescribed dress codes in public spaces and, ifso, which dress and in which spaces, and why (again: social cohesion,national identity and, in addition: equality and security?)? What is/shouldbe the role of member-states and EU courts in balancing individual andcollective religious freedoms with other basic rights and with ‘nationalvalues’?(iii) Building and maintenance of places of worship:(1) Should every religious community have the right to build a place ofworship? On what conditions? (2) Should the government consult thecitisens of the area where the place of worship is planned to be built? (3)

226Appendix DShould the government cover the costs for maintenance when a place ofworship is a monument? (4) Should the place of worship then be open tothe public? (5) Do you consider a place of worship in general as a publicplace ? (6) Is the use of a building that is abandoned as a place of worshipopen to the choice of the seller, or should the former religious use berespected in some way?State Support (WP6).Basic Tensions:(i)‘strict neutrality’ = no financing and recognition(obviously only in an imaginable world, not in any existing regime ofreligious governance) versusrelational neutrality and equality asfairness:(ii) if any public money, then‘equality before the law’insteadof privileging the entrenched majority religion(s) and/or‘substantiveequality’minimally requires to take history into account (e.g. in cases ofvery recent ‘disestablishments’ or the many hidden forms of financingchurches via ‘cultural heritage’). (iii) For religious and religion relatedorganisations: (a) autonomy dilemma: trade-off between autonomy andprivileges. Less or no scrutiny and control by the state, on the one hand,and money and other privileges (connected to public/political scrutiny andcontrol) and political influence, on the other; (b) organisation andmobilization dilemma (see Bader (2007), p. 228f).(iv) Basic tensions forliberal-democratic states (p. 229-31).Domains:(i) religious core organisations; (ii) FBOs (such as religiousschools, media)Items1. Should there be a public funding of religions and FBOs? Why?2. Do you feel that all religions and FBOs are entitled to public funding?3. What kind of public funding for religions and FBOs is available in yourcountry? What type of funding can it be compared to? Which would be thebest way for the State to finance religions and FBOs? (Suggested Typologyfor (organised) religions): (i) subventions to the sustained religions (ii)subventions granted according to precise projects (iii) tax deductiongranted to religious institutions (iv) church tax according to the religiousaffiliation (iv) possibility of granting part of the income tax to religiousdenominations4. Is there control over the use of the public support? Is there a demand oftransparency / accountability? If so, how do religious bodies deal with it?These are some of the basic tensions of governance of religious diversitythat are characterizing all modes of governance in states with liberal-democratic constitutions.For this reason, they should form the common core of the items to beincluded in the list.

Appendix E: Danish interview questionsNotat: De danske spørgsmål til RELIGIAREs socio-juridiskeinterviewundersøgelseAnsvarlige: Professor Lisbet Christoffersen, PhD (Law), Niels ValdemarVinding, ph.d.-stipendiatIntroduktionDette papir udgør spørgsmålene til den danske del af RELIGAREs socio-juridiske interviewundersøgelse og bygger på de fælles forarbejder somfremgår afwww.religareproject.euog prof. Veit Baders Basic Tensions,senest fra 5. november 2010.Interviewundersøgelsen fokuserer på de indbyggede konflikter (båderetlige og sociale), der kan genfindes i normer, som ligger til grund for deeuropæiske liberale, konstitutionelle demokratier. Vi vil undersøge hvordanelite-aktører argumenterer for og begrunder en afvejning af disse normer ipraksis. I undersøgelsen vil vi fokusere på, hvordan de interviewedeoplever og håndterer spændinger mellem juridiske, religiøse, sociale ogkulturelle normer. Fokus er på konflikter som ikke når domstolene (non-cases) og på evt. praksisser og løsninger, der afviger fra almindelig ellerkonventionel jura.Spørgsmålenes struktur følger fire temaer – familieforhold, forhold påarbejdsmarkedet, religion i det offentlige rum og statens støtte til kirker ogtrossamfund. Der lægges op til at afdække både empirisk praksis og casesog normative holdninger til hvad der bør gøres.Generelt findes der fire grundlæggende spændinger, som vil blivebehandlet i forbindelse med hvert tema: individuel kontra kollektivautonomi (religiøs frihed)kollektive religiøse friheder kontra menneskerettigheder (ikke-diskrimination, ligestilling, minoritetsbeskyttelse og ytringsfrihed)II.religiøs frihed kontra den offentlige orden (sikkerhed og rets-sikkerhed)III.formel ligebehandling kontra differentierede rettigheder (negativeog positive friheder)I.

Appendix E229Der er mange spørgsmål i det følgende. Vi forestiller os ikke at gå igennemskemaet slavisk, men mere, at skemaet danner grundlag for en samtale,hvor vi kommer rundt om de rejste emner.Generelle spørgsmålHvordan er dit generelle billede af religiøse gruppers stilling i Danmark ogi dansk ret?Hvordan vil du beskrive forholdet mellem staten og religioner,trossamfund, kirker og religiøse grupper i Danmark?Oplever du, at dansk lovgivning i et tilfredsstillende omfang anerkenderreligiøse grupper?Hvordan vurderer du anerkendelsen af religiøse gruppers rettigheder? Erdet som en juridisk person, eller er som en form for forening?Bør man regulere det religiøse liv som var det foreningslivet eller en del afcivilsamfundet? Eller som en del af det offentlige liv?Hvordan burde det ideelt set være med anerkendelsen? Hvis alting kunnelaves om, hvor langt ville anerkendelsen af religiøse grupper strækkes?Er autonomi eller begrænset autonomi en nødvendig del af anerkendelse?Hvordan med (juridiske) rettigheder og (offentlig) identitet i forhold tilmedlemmer? Indebærer autonomi en klar retlig identitet til at regulereinternt?Hvilke konflikter kan der opstå i denne anerkendelse?Opstår der konflikt med menneskerettighedernes anerkendelse af individuelfrihed til og fra religion?Opstår der konflikter mellem den almindelige religiøse frihed til atpraktisere sin religion og det stigende fokus på sikkerhed?Visitationszoner? Beklædning? Personens ukrænkelighed? Ytringsfrihed?Overordnet; hvordan er dit billede af den offentlige diskussion afreligiøsitet og sekularisme i Danmark?Er grunden til overhovedet at beskæftige fra juridisk eller politisk hold medreligiøse grupper og folkekirken ud af rent symbolpolitiske hensyn?Eller er der reelle behov, som man kan løse ved at arbejde med de juridiskeog sociologiske sider af religiøsitet og sekularisme i en dansk kontekst?Hvilke?FamilieforholdDe grundlæggende spændinger inden for familieret vedrører de sager hvorbåde religiøse regler, praksisser og sædvaner angående familien, ægteskabog skilsmisse strider imod grundlæggende principper for internationalfamilieret, skilsmisse lovgivning, og almindelig statslig og civil lovgivning,samt ligebehandling af kønnene. Sådanne konflikter kan man forestille sig iforhold til både majoritets- og minoritets-religioner. Det tilbagevendende i

230Appendix Espørgsmålet om familieret er hvordan ideen om kernefamilien udfordres afandre religiøse og kulturelle normer.Her spørger RELIGARE til tre områder: til international privatret, religiøskontra civil ret og til alternative mæglingsinstitutioner, som man ser dem fxi England.Bør familieret være en del af de beskyttede religiøse rettigheder?Bør der være en sammenhæng mellem familieret og religionsfrihed?Er familieret noget der hører til i den religiøse sfære? Er det helt ellerdelvist adskilt fra religion?Er eller bør almindelig familieret og regulering af familien som institutionvære en del af de beskyttede religiøse rettigheder?Er ægteskabet helligt i Danmark? For Folkekirken? For andre? Børlovgivningen forholde sig til spørgsmålet om ægteskabets hellighed?Bør Dansk lovgivning anerkende et pakistansk ægteskab? Skalinternational privatret gælde for alle de religiøse familieanliggender?Skilsmisse, forældremyndighed, arveret?Bør man anerkende alle religiøse grupper og organisationers ret til atforvalte ægteskabet? Lige som vi anerkender f.eks. mosaisk trossamfund?Kan vielsesbemyndigelsen være et af de steder hvor der i dansk lovgivningkunne være plads til at inkludere elementer af islamisk ret, kanonisk ret ogmosaisk ret? Kan man også forestille sig at det faktisk burde være en del affamilieretten, at man faktisk fik nogle af sine (religiøse) normer med?Kan eller bør man opretholde majoritetsreligionens definitioner afægteskab og familie i lovgivningen? Hvor går eller bør gå grænsen forhvad der bare ikke er tilladt og hvad som er strafbart?Skal familieretlige konflikter inden for den religiøse gruppe ellertrossamfundet afgøres ved de civile domstole? Andre konflikter? Hvor gårgrænsen for hvad sådan en domstol bør behandle af religiøse ogfamilieretlige spørgsmål?Kan du i Danmark forestille dig alternative mæglingsinstitutioner somvaretages af religiøse grupper? Kan du i så fald give eksempler? Hvor gårgrænsen for hvad sådan instans kan behandle og mægle i?Skal afgørelser fra sådanne instanser være endelige? Eller skal de kunnepåklages til det almindelige retssystem?Hvilke sanktioner vil du kunne acceptere fra en religiøsmæglingsinstitution?Hvilke konflikter vil der opstå hvis brugen af sådannemæglingsinstitutioner bliver udbredt praksis blandt religiøse grupper ogtrossamfund i Danmark.Forhold på arbejdsmarkedetDer er både i Danmark og i Europa mange sager med konflikter i forhold tilreligiøse grupper og individers rettigheder på arbejdsmarkedet. europæisk

Appendix E231er der senest to afgørelser ved ECtHR fra Tyskland. I Danmark har viRibers-sagen (Folkekirken) og sagen om en vikar for enøkonomimedarbejder, som et missionsselskab ønsker, skal værebekendende for at kunne bestride jobbet.Man kan identificere fire steder eller ’rum’, hvor der kan opstå forskelligekonflikter, nemlig 1. Internt i Folkekirken. 2. I de øvrige godkendte oganerkendte trossamfund. 3. På det øvrige religiøse arbejdsmarked, hvorreligiøse institutioner og organisationer varetager en række sociale ogsamfundsmæssige opgaver (friskoler, diakonale organisationer). 4. Detalmindelige arbejdsmarked (Jf. sagerne om Føtex og Tomschokoladefabrik).Er der nogen anliggender inden for arbejdsret som folkekirken kan eller børkunne regulere selv? Er der anliggende inden for arbejdsret trossamfund ogøvrige religiøse grupper kan eller bør kunne regulere selv? Er deranliggender, hvor arbejdsmarkedet egenhændigt bør have ret til at forvaltereligiøse spørgsmål, der relaterer sig til arbejdspladsen?Bør de religiøse grupper eller organisationer have rettigheder i forbindelsemed ansættelse eller fyring? Under hvilke vilkår? Og hvor langt?Er der en minimumsgrænse for hvor meget religion eller hvilkenpåklædning, der skal tolereres eller ignoreres?Har du gjort dig nogen personlige erfaringer med religiøsitet ogarbejdsmarkedet? Hvilke konflikter har du stødt på eller været vidne til iden forbindelse? Hvor kan du se potentielle konflikter?Hvilke rettigheder skal beskyttes?Hvilken rolle bør religiøse og kulturelle normer spille på arbejdspladsen?Hvilken rolle bør de spille i forbindelse med løsning af konflikter iarbejdsret?Hvordan sikres ligebehandling på arbejdsmarkedet samtidig med at dertages højde for religiøse forhold? Hvor skal grænsen gå og hvem skaltrække grænsen? Arbejdsmarkedets parter? Religiøse organisationer?Politikere? Domstole?Er domstole i stand til at tage højde for særlige forhold i forbindelse medreligion på arbejdsmarkedet? Bør domstolene tage højde for religiøseforhold?Religion i det offentlige rumDe grundlæggende spændinger i det offentlige rum handler til dels omstatens neutralitet og fairness og ligebehandling overfor særlige hensyn.Hvilke hensyn bør der være i det offentlige rum til majoritetsreligion? Tilminoritetsreligion? Til dem, der vil være fri for religion?Kan man ligestille eksempelvis mosaisk trossamfund, muslimsketrossamfund og den katolske kirkes behov for selvbestemmelse og frihed iDanmark? Eller gør man overgreb?

232Appendix EEfter hvilke kriterier bør man ligestille trossamfund og religiøse grupper?Efter hvilke kriterier bør man gøre forskel på trossamfund og religiøsegrupper?Hvor langt bør man i det offentlige rum give plads?Bederum på arbejde? I offentlige institutioner? Begravelsespladser? Skalbørn have fri på andre helligdage? Hvordan skal moskeer se ud? Kan kaldtil bøn sidestilles med kirkeklokker, og skal de have en lignende plads i detoffentlige rum?Er der forskel på minoritets og majoritetsreligion i det offentlige rum? Børder være?Folkeskolen er ligesom folkekirken en etableret dansk institution, hvorspændingerne mellem religiøsitet og sekularisme spiller en vigtig rolle. Derkan ligeledes siges noget lignende om frikirkerne og andre trossamfundsom der kan om religiøse friskoler.Bør Fadervor, bøn og salmer være en del af pensum i det almindeligeskole-pensum i folkeskolen? I friskoler? Bør der være undtagelseshensyn?Bør eksempelvis muslimske friskoler undervise i Fadervor? Hvad medsalmerne som en del af dansk litteratur? Af musikundervisning? Er dehistoriske efter din mening tungtvejende nok til at være en del af pensum?Kan du i Danmark genkende en protestantisk model for sekularisme ellerreligionslighed? Er der en dybdeliggende diskrimination i dette?Hvilke konflikter kan der opstå i skolen specifikt og i det brede offentligerum generelt? Oplever du at forskellige religiøse og kulturelle normerstøder sammen i det offentlige rum? Kan disse normer reguleres ved loveller ved domstolene? Eller er der andre normregulerende mekanismer,institutioner eller personer i det offentlige rum i Danmark?Hvem er ansvarlig for at konflikter i det offentlige rum løses? Hvem harautoritet til dette? - Er det de tilsynsførende i skoler, de offentlige råd,nævn og udvalg, der skal løse problemerne? Er det de religiøse grupper derskal spille en rolle? Er det domstolene?Hvor meget betyder den enkelte person-profil i dansk offentligt, religiøstliv? Kan man stille imamer og præster mv. særligt ansvarlige somkonfliktløsere i konflikter der har religiøse komponenter? Har det religiøstforkyndende personale en offentlig rolle? Et offentligt ansvar?Kan man tegne et sæt generelle profiler for offentlige religiøse profiler?Spiller folkekirken en særlig rolle i det offentlige rum? Er der situationer,hvor folkekirken taler på alle religiøses eller alle trossamfunds vegne? Erder i Danmark alliancer eller uformelle forbund mellem religiøseinstitutioner og organisationer?Hvor er magtens kerne i det samlede religiøse liv i Danmark? Hvembestemmer i det religiøse liv i Danmark?

Appendix E233Er der et mønster for trossamfund i Danmark hvad bestemmelsesret ogmagtstrukturer angår? Går dette mønster i så fald igen de enkelteorganisationer? Hvem bestemmer her?Er der sammenhænge mellem monarki og religioners rolle i det offentligerum? Hvilke? Bør de bevares eller ændres?Statens støtte til kirker og trossamfundDette ligger i forlængelse af ovenstående, men den grundlæggendespænding her er mellem streng neutralitet (uden økonomisk støtte oganerkendelse) og lempelighed og ligebehandling eller fortsatforskelsbehandling mellem hhv. folkekirken og de øvrige trossamfund.I Danmark er der både en kirkeskat, som folkekirkens medlemmer skalbetale, og så yder staten støtte til præstelønninger fordi de løser nogleopgaver for staten som embedsmænd og som resultat af historiskeforudsætninger. Mener du, at dette er en fair ordning? Skal den fortsætteseller ændres? I givet fald hvordan?Skal også øvrige trossamfund have økonomisk støtte fra staten? Børtrossamfund og alle religiøse organisationer få mulighed for at få opkrævetskat? Forsat fritagelse for skat for medlemmer? Andet?Er det rimeligt at staten samler skat ind for folkekirken og ikke de andretrossamfund?Er det skattefradrag som andre trossamfund kan få proportionelt med detydelsesforhold som er mellem folkekirken og staten?Gavner det folkekirken at den er så tæt knyttet til staten? Gavner det deandre trossamfund og religiøse organisationer?Ville det gavne de andre trossamfund hvis folkekirken blev adskilt frastaten? Eller er der gevinster for de andre trossamfund ved at Danmark haren folkekirke? Hvilke?Vil du mene, at forholdet mellem stat og kirke i Danmark har enindvirkning på andre trossamfund og religiøse organisationer? Forstår dufolkekirken som en indflydelse på statens forhold til andre religioner?Hvilke krav bør der stilles af staten ved registrering og godkendelse?Folkekirken er som en del af offentlig forvaltning omfattet af almene reglerom aktindsigt mv. bør tilsvarende regler gælde for andre trossamfund?Hvilke krav kan man stille til trossamfund om offentlig indsigt i deresøkonomi?Spørgsmålet om autonomi er en del af det grundlæggende dilemma. Mangetrossamfund og religiøse vil gerne have fuldstændig frihed til at råde iinterne anliggender, men hvor skal grænsen gå?Med autonomi kommer både privilegier og ansvar, men hvilket ansvar kandet danske samfund forvente sig af religiøse organisationer?Bør der være mulighed for relevant videregående akademisk uddannelsefor religiøse ledere fra andre trossamfund end folkekirken?