Accommodating Religious Pluralism in Denmark

Abstract

This article discusses the room for accommodating religious diversity offered by the particular configuration of secularity existing in Denmark. Theoretically, the article adopts Jose Casanova and Mark Chaves' proposals to separate analytically between the core elements of secularisation, and to leave open for empirical analyses the development and potential connections between these in different geographical and geo-political contexts. From this perspective, the article discusses the conditions for accommodating religious diversity offered by the peculiar combination prevailing in Denmark of a low level of structural differentiation combined with a high level of rationalisation, generalisation, and privatisation of religion. The article argues that the legal inequality existing in Denmark between religious communities stemming from the existence of a state supported church (i.e. a low level of differentiation) matters less for the accommodation of religious diversity than do widely held and strongly embedded popular sentiments and imaginations of the public sphere as strictly secular (i.e. a high level of rationalisation, generalisation and privatisation of religion).

Material Muslim Authority: Danish Debates about Religious Markets

“…Arguably, the scope for accommodating religious diversity in Denmark is premised on a particular configuration of secularity dominated by the state-supported Evangelical-Lutheran Church. However, the widely held and deeply entrenched popular perception that the public sphere is strictly secular is of particular pertinence (Nielsen, 2014). Denmark stands out as being highly secular and highly non-secular at the same time, that is, the state and church are tightly intertwined.…”

Ayahuasca Calling: Sacredness and the Emergence of Shamanic Vocations in Denmark and Peru

“…Although almost 80% of the population are officially members of the Church, the belief in God as well as weekly church attendance are among the lowest in the world (36% and 3%, respectively; see Zuckerman 2020, 4), making Denmark (and Scandinavia more broadly) an exemplary case of secularism. The prominence of the Church in everyday life is not so much religious as cultural, as the Church is endowed by the Danish state with responsibilities concerning the life cycle (such as registering births, celebrating weddings, and carrying out burials) and recognized by most Danes as playing an important part in preserving Danish culture and communities (Nielsen 2014, 265). Generally, Danes believe that religion is and should remain a private matter and, even there, that it cannot provide guidelines for morality, family life, or social problems (Nielsen 2014, 269).…”

“…The prominence of the Church in everyday life is not so much religious as cultural, as the Church is endowed by the Danish state with responsibilities concerning the life cycle (such as registering births, celebrating weddings, and carrying out burials) and recognized by most Danes as playing an important part in preserving Danish culture and communities (Nielsen 2014, 265). Generally, Danes believe that religion is and should remain a private matter and, even there, that it cannot provide guidelines for morality, family life, or social problems (Nielsen 2014, 269).…”

Keeping kosher or not keeping kosher in contemporary Denmark

“…Arguably the room for accommodating religious diversity in Denmark is premised on a particular configuration of secularity dominated by the statesupported Evangelical-Lutheran church. Most important, however, is the widely held and strongly embedded popular perception that the public sphere is strictly secular, while Denmark stands out as being highly secular and highly non-secular at the same time, that is, state and church are tightly intertwined (Nielsen 2014). Ethnic Danes are less likely to favour an active accommodation of religious diversity because they consider themselves to be highly secular -they consider religion to be a private matter that should not be explicitly or publicly accommodated beyond the legal right to practise one's religion (Nielsen 2014).…”