Danish Prime Minister hits out at God talk of Bush and Blair

The Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen (Venstre -- Denmark's Liberal Party) doesn't support his otherwise close allies the US President George Bush and Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair when they publicly pray for their troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, or when regularly mentioning God in political speeches.
Rasmussen makes his feelings on religion known in his most exhaustive interview to date, since the violent international disturbances after caricature depictions of the prophet Mohammed were published in the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten.

Other heads of state, including the American President and the British Prime Minister, have publicly spoken out on their Christian beliefs and in connection with the War in Iraq have prayed for their overseas troops. Did you also pray when Danish soldiers were posted to Iraq and Afghanistan?

"In my opinion, religious belief is a matter between the individual and the particular god that person believes in - and as such I don't wish to comment on my own personal prayers. It is purely a private matter", says Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

"And it is for precisely that reason, that I really do not care for political leaders incorporating God in their speeches. It can be a dangerous cocktail if political adversaries, not to mention adversaries in war, each cite their own God in support of their cause. Were all opponents to insist on having their own particular God on their side, then it would indeed be a brutal world. We should all, and that includes politicians, show humility and accept that we know nothing about what this or that god may think about our particular actions. In regards to this point, there is an indisputable need for less religion in the public arena", he says.

Furthermore, Anders Fogh Rasmussen doesn't believe that the Mohammed caricatures case was primarily about religion or blasphemy.
"The disturbances we witnessed in the Middle East -- the burning of Danish Embassies, the Danish flag, and threats against Danish citizens - had at the end of the day nothing to do with the 12 caricatures whatsoever. It was a small minority of those demonstrating on the streets who had even heard about the 12 drawings. They were possibly what sparked off the riots, but that's not really what they were about. The unrest was due to pent up political tension in the Muslim world which was vented in these violent protests.

In reality, the situation was abound with international politics. Syria and Iran found themselves under pressure from the international community and Denmark as member of the United Nations Security Council was a suitable target -- a small country that could easily be made an example of.

The then recent election in Palestine with the conflict between Hamas and Fatah brought unresolved tensions to the fore. Demonstrations on the West Bank were also in evidence. And there are also extremist, religious forces in the Muslim world, constantly looking for a chance to further their cause -- at times even in protest against their own governments. These were also instrumental", he says.

He totally disagrees that Danes, as a result of the "Mohammed case" and globalisation should be more restrained in their remarks.

"This could have far-reaching consequences -- most extremely being that globalisation would entail stringent restrictions on our own freedom of speech. Because what we are allowed to say, write and do in Denmark can suddenly be heard in Jakarta. In my opinion, this would be an absurd consequence of globalisation.

I see globalisation as something that should give us greater freedom, not just ourselves but in truth greater freedom to those who are oppressed, don't have freedom of speech or freedom of religion. But what I am hearing is a debate about globalisation where the tone is almost, that we Danes should be more restrained and confine our own freedom out of consideration for global relations. This is new to me and I am totally opposed to this view," he adds.

"One could wish that the Muslim community afforded their members the same freedom of religion that we afford ours. Imagine if one were allowed to take a bible into Saudi Arabia," said Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
In principle Anders Fogh Rasmussen believes that religion is a private matter, though with a certain amount of hesitation he discloses his own relationship to Christianity and his own faith.

"Yes, it is clearly with a certain hesitation that I talk about my faith, because for me religion is a personal matter which to all extents and purposes does not belong in the public sphere. But now that I have opened the debate, I will happily touch on the subject in terms of the social context. If I should sum up the essence of my relationship to Christianity, then the most crucial point in my belief is that there is something higher than man, which means that man cannot make himself a god. Man cannot make himself to Creator. Man cannot make himself the establisher of ethical norms and moral judge. That for me is the key," he says.
Christianity to me is something which empowers man to take responsibility for his or her own life. This is where my thoughts go when I hear the Apostles' Creed in church -- or say it. On these occasions, I think that Christianity is in contradiction to man's belief that he is his own master and creator.

And I am extremely affected by Luther's teachings on the difference between the spiritual and the worldly sphere. In other words rendering unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. This leads directly to the view that I hold: That religion should be playing a less obtrusive role in the public forum. I understand Luther's teachings on this difference to mean exactly that one has to have a temporal authority which keeps order and customs in society.

Giving God that which is God's is up to the individual - it is a relationship between the individual and the god he or she believes in. But this can also sometimes be challenging to the rationally thinking person.

The parable of the workers in the vineyard is a somewhat difficult story for a true Liberal like myself who believes that working should have its just rewards. The last to arrive gets just as much as the first! What on earth is one supposed to make of this story when one otherwise says that it should pay to work, asks the Prime Minister, who belongs to Denmark's largest political party, Venstre Denmark's Liberal Party?

"But the answer lies precisely here in that we are talking about two kingdoms -- and in the kingdom of God there is another yardstick. Your sins are forgiven, you don't have to constantly justify yourself through good deeds. That's very important to me too, to stand against self-righteousness and the idea of salvation through good deeds, he says.
The discussion takes a more personal tone. Fogh accepts that a personal, religious commitment can have a positive effect -- both on the individual and society as a whole. If a voter is a Christian, then this can also affect his or her vote on Election Day, even though in many, many cases there is no difference between how a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim or an atheist sees things politically.

How were you raised in regards to Christianity? Did your parents for example say evening prayers with you?

"Yes, my mother said evening prayers with us at home, though I didn't grow up in a home where religion played a major role at all. I would describe our home as having a rather normal approach to the church as practised in most Danish homes. Those are the traditions that I grew up with, and they quite naturally influence my fundamental view that I wish to have a pragmatic, moderate approach to religion in Danish society."

Have you raised your own children in the same way saying prayers?

"No, I wouldn't say that. But our relationship to the church has been much the same -- going to church at religious festivals and family events and that's pretty much that."

In a recent interview you spoke of your mother's death. What are your thoughts about death?

"I must confess that it isn't really something that I have thought much about. Not because I am not aware that death will come at a point. It can come suddenly, but it isn't something that I spend time thinking about. On the other hand, it isn't something that I am afraid of. When it happens, it happens. And that's that. I'm rather down-to-earth in this matter."

Do you have any thoughts about what happens after death?

"No, I must admit, none whatsoever. If I am wholly honest, I don't really think that an awful lot happens", he says and laughs out loud.

When the Queen of Denmark ends her New Year's speech with "God bless Denmark", what do you think?

"Clearly as Head of State, the Queen is a symbol of national unity and Denmark is a Christian society. The Constitution states that the Queen has to be a member of the Danish church. So it's rather natural that she concludes her speech with it. She is the symbol of national unity and therefore also one of the cornerstones of our society.

I don't consider it against the principle of keeping religion away from the public sphere. And I don't think that anyone sees it that way. My intrinsic belief is that one should view these things pragmatically.

Please note that when I say “less religion in the public sphere" I don't do so in fanatical terms. I am not saying that we don't wish to see or hear about religious symbols in the public sphere. I don't hold with the secular state as in France where anything called religion is totally forbidden in schools and so on.

I believe much more in a pragmatic approach. I think that it should be possible to have Christmas celebrations in schools and have a rather practical approach to how confirmation classes should take place. I say to our Muslim citizens: We respect that you have your religious beliefs, but shouldn't we also seek to find practical solutions? Let's maintain our positive, Danish open democracy and find pragmatic solutions. And that's why it falls within this framework that the Queen is allowed to end her New Year speech in this way, and I don't believe that it bothers Muslims or Jews or anyone else in Denmark," he says.
It is possibly within this pragmatic approach to religion that the answer lies for those who have had difficulty in understanding what he actually means by saying that religion should not play such a big role in the public sphere.

"It is not meant to be a narrowing of the individual's freedom of speech. Naturally, anyone has the right to talk about religious matters. And what's more, I believe that it is an important part of freedom of speech, that religion can also be debated critically. And should be debated critically," he says.

"When I say I want less religion in the public sphere, I do so in total respect for the individual person having a religious belief that can be practised within the applicable framework of society. For me, less religion in the public sphere means that the individual believer is not able to insist on his own doctrines, dogmas and faith being transferred to others who are then forced to adapt accordingly to the same dogmas, rules and beliefs. One can have one's own beliefs, but not force them on others.
We should also remember to define ourselves as people and not as belonging to a particular religion. We are first and foremost people, and when we live in Denmark we are Danes, and we should not define ourselves as Christians, Jews, Hindus or Muslims. Finally, laws and rules in Danish society should be above religion and should be wholly neutral towards people's religious beliefs. These are the important things for me when ensuring that religion doesn't play too great a role", emphasised the Prime Minister.

But surely it is not Christianity that wishes to influence legislation in specific terms? Presumably it is Islam. So don't you mean “too much Islam in the public sphere"?

"Yes, I am firmly of the belief that Christianity is a religion that emphasises freedom and responsibility of the individual. It is not a religion which emphasises following the Law, creating a set of rules, which one has to follow and where one can routinely refer to a book to find out how one should live his or her life.
You can therefore say that my original point is aimed at all forms of religion which emphasise following the Law. And that also applies to Christianity where some believe that one can look in the Bible and see precisely how to live one's life. In my opinion, you just can't do that."

What exactly is dangerous about having religion in the public sphere?

"We can just as well admit in which direction things are moving. If we are forced to make special allowances for religious beliefs, then the cohesive forces that enable us to bind the nation together will be endangered."

When you speak about cohesive forces isn't there a difference between Christian fundamentalists, who would never blow themselves up, and Islamic fundamentalists?

"What is clear is that by and large Christians have throughout time had to endure many humiliations and violations without them leading to violent repercussions. We saw this at the start of this year with violent reactions and threats against Danes as a result of 12 drawings. But I would hastily add that one can find fundamentalists in all religions -- also among Christians whose actions can result in the most dreadful things. Let me remind you about the civil war in Northern Ireland between Protestants and Catholics, who have for generations caused death and destruction. Fortunately, it would appear that this is drawing to a close", says Anders Fogh Rasmussen.