What if Europe had not secularized after WWII/the 1960s (not really sure of the timing)?
How might this happen, and what might be some effects?
How might this happen, and what might be some effects?
No Secularization of Europe
- Thread starter MerryPrankster
- Start date
Basically Europe becomes more like America. Happened gradually between 1900-Present Day with huge sways towards secularism after the wars. I feel if you avoid the World Wars, you would have a far more religous Europe, but also more Conservative in outlook.
So Europe secularized as a reaction to WWII?
I know the process began around that time, but I'm not totally sure how. I vaguely recall that in Germany at least, the people reacted to how most churches collaborated with the Nazis.
I think that the war played a major part in its secularization, yes.
Usually by forced means. Nazism was in itself a religion and this spread to the Churches. Christianity was no longer Christianity in Germany - but simply a Nazi puppet with elements of Christianity.
I understand what you’re saying, but it’s important to differentiate between working with the Nazis, and being forced to change by them. Certaintly, most Christian groups would have rather worked against the Nazis given their more pagan/atheist ethos.
While this is true, the association of the various churches with Nazism has not helped them in Europe.
I feel that is too simplistic.
Organized religion was on the decline after the great war, and the horrors of the trenches, not to mention the rise in socialism, communism, facsism and various other ideologies in which religion really had no place.
As an example religion died for a period in the Soviet Union, post world war one, and attendences dropped throughout the continent.
The decline would have carried on anyway, but by far, world war two accelarated it. After a war whereby a people were nearly wiped out due to their religion, where both the Catholic and Protestant Churches had done nothing to oppose it, in a period where two conflicts destroyed generations of Europeans, people started to question the orders of society and that included religion.
Stop the Second World War and you get a gradual decline in the Western Democracies and Facsist Spain, and a steep decline in Nazi Germany.
Stop the Great War and you keep the old order, and that includes religion.
Stopping the Great War is next to impossible though. All it needed was a trigger, which could have been anything.
A CP victory might've helped though.
A CP victory might've helped though.
Tut tut!
Nothing is impossible
A limited war, with Britain not getting involved and thus a German victory against at least France would certaintly mean that secularisation would be less likely to occur.
Still would have had the horrors of the war with a CP victory. A short swift conflict may well have helped though. I only think this could be achieved by somehow keeping the Russians and the Brits out. Using religious language, god knows how.
Maybe the Pope protests the Holocaust and the German Catholics pitch a fit early in WWII? Catholicism would be much, much stronger in Post WWII if the West believed that it had been "their side". Catholicism, should it hold over its bias from OTL, isn't gonna be too friendly to Communism, so it'd be pretty "patriotic" in Western Christian countries.
Tut tut!
Nothing is impossible
A limited war, with Britain not getting involved and thus a German victory against at least France would certaintly mean that secularisation would be less likely to occur.
Agreed, short and decisive. It would also help if the trenches weren't around. Earlier, better tanks and aircraft...
It would also prevent the rise of Naziism.
The biggest religious organization in Europe, both in the 1930s/40s and today, was the Catholic church. Shore them up, and you'll have a more religious southern Europe, at least (northern Europe is more likely to be secular regardless).
What about Pius XI not dying (or being assasinated, as some say) in 1939 and, perhaps, a Catholic Church that takes a harder stand against Fascism/Nazism, the Holocaust, etc., maybe even leading to Italy not joining on the Axis side (Mussolini bowing to Vatican pressure) or even a Nazi Germany that starts to persecute Catholics (not to the extent Jews were, but still..).
Its quite improbable, but what about a very alternate WWII with a Nazi/Soviet alliance? Lets have a combination of (some improbable) what-ifs...
1. Pius XI surviving leading to...
2. Mussolini staying neutral and the Nazis being warier of Catholics
3. An incident or two that result in the US being dragged into the war early (say the Bismarck sinking an American cruiser or something), leaving Germany disinterested in fighting the Soviets..
4. Another incident or two, the USSR and the British clash and the Soviets strike south, leaving the Soviets too busy to consider attacking Germany.
Best results: somehow have Italy on the allied side, but lose to the point where Rome is sacked. Have the pope stay and become a martyr. Next pope comes in and declares a Crusade against the Nazis and Commies - leading to many catholic countries that OTL were neutral or declared for the allies late in the war coming in earlier and with a substantial number of volunteers.
Whatever you do, make it seem like the Catholic Church is at least nominally in favor of the Allies.
OTOH, this may lead to a rise in Falangism which might, after the Francos/etc. die, start leading to a belated secularization anyway...
What about Pius XI not dying (or being assasinated, as some say) in 1939 and, perhaps, a Catholic Church that takes a harder stand against Fascism/Nazism, the Holocaust, etc., maybe even leading to Italy not joining on the Axis side (Mussolini bowing to Vatican pressure) or even a Nazi Germany that starts to persecute Catholics (not to the extent Jews were, but still..).
Its quite improbable, but what about a very alternate WWII with a Nazi/Soviet alliance? Lets have a combination of (some improbable) what-ifs...
1. Pius XI surviving leading to...
2. Mussolini staying neutral and the Nazis being warier of Catholics
3. An incident or two that result in the US being dragged into the war early (say the Bismarck sinking an American cruiser or something), leaving Germany disinterested in fighting the Soviets..
4. Another incident or two, the USSR and the British clash and the Soviets strike south, leaving the Soviets too busy to consider attacking Germany.
Best results: somehow have Italy on the allied side, but lose to the point where Rome is sacked. Have the pope stay and become a martyr. Next pope comes in and declares a Crusade against the Nazis and Commies - leading to many catholic countries that OTL were neutral or declared for the allies late in the war coming in earlier and with a substantial number of volunteers.
Whatever you do, make it seem like the Catholic Church is at least nominally in favor of the Allies.
OTOH, this may lead to a rise in Falangism which might, after the Francos/etc. die, start leading to a belated secularization anyway...
The real change brought by the second world war was the milieus were broken up, by the expellees, refugees, and other results of the war: before the war, most people could live in their -religious- environment nearly without close contact to others: From the catholic confessional school over the catholic worker´s club or CV- student fraternities to sports clubs et cetera, the same is true for the socialists, or the protestants.
-Later, the boom of the 50s dramatically reduced the number of people working in the primary sector, also huge changes, combined with prosperity and many new ways of living.
-Later, the boom of the 50s dramatically reduced the number of people working in the primary sector, also huge changes, combined with prosperity and many new ways of living.
If you want to stop Europe from secularising, you need to start much, much earlier. WWII had a big impact, but it was no more than the final straw in a development that has its roots in the high middle ages. NOw, if the idea is just to have Europe slightly less secular - say, as religious as the USA are today - stopping WWII might do the trick, though I suspect that a sustained economic crisis in mid-century would be even better for the purpose. But the root problems are:
- the European experience of religion is still overwhelmingly one of bureaucratic organisations. The established churches come with a huge baggage of history, governmental ties, inertia, and the constant need to be everything to all people. This religiosity of the lowest common denominator only worked as long as the denominational milieux existed and it was simply 'done' to go to church. Once that ended, they went pretty much into freefall (most spectacularly witnessaed in the German Lutheran and the Anglican churches, having gone farthest along that route). At the same time, most Europeans do not *trust* 'private' religious establishments. There seems to be a perverse conviction that "if this minister guy is so good, why isn't he working in a 'real' parish?"
- Secondly, WWII actually gave religiosity in Europe a real boost, not a knock. Church attendance spiked not only in places like Spain and Portugal (where it was practically mandatory), but also in most other countries including the Soviet Bloc, where it was officially discouraged. The safest way of getting people to be religious is to make them scared, rootless, miserable and poor. Not the only way, but it works quite reliably. And the church was hardly seen as tainted with Nazism - to most people in Germany, the church was the one major organisation *not* tainted with that brush, which is one reason why today it is Christian Democrats, not National Democrats that represent the conservative mainstream (both parties were represented in the emerging Federal Republic, but the NatDems lost heavily).
- Third, the best thing you can do for a people's religiosity is to separate church and state (actually, the best *legal* thing you can do - forcible conversion and decades of a reign of terror work better in terms of numbers). In Europe, the churches are tangled with the state at so many levels it's not funny any more. They are thus automatically associated with everything we dislike about government, while getting little of the benefit. It ensures their institutional survival beautifully in many instances, but the faithful hate it. Right-wingers and fundamentalists feel unrepresented because priests are obligated to mouth the state's mandated phrases of equality and minority rights. Left-wing religious activists are repelled by the association with state authority. Seriously spiritual people are put off by the bureaucracy, and those with a budgeted life-plan find they get too little spiritual oompah for their tithe or tax. The Catholic church is better at addressing these issues than most other established churches, but at the end of the day the established church model is more than anything else what killed religion in Europe. Initially it was too slow to secularise, driving out those who sought to combine a spiritual life with an existence as an independently thinking human, and now it can no longer offer the certainties and comforting lies that those seeking reassurance crave.
- the European experience of religion is still overwhelmingly one of bureaucratic organisations. The established churches come with a huge baggage of history, governmental ties, inertia, and the constant need to be everything to all people. This religiosity of the lowest common denominator only worked as long as the denominational milieux existed and it was simply 'done' to go to church. Once that ended, they went pretty much into freefall (most spectacularly witnessaed in the German Lutheran and the Anglican churches, having gone farthest along that route). At the same time, most Europeans do not *trust* 'private' religious establishments. There seems to be a perverse conviction that "if this minister guy is so good, why isn't he working in a 'real' parish?"
- Secondly, WWII actually gave religiosity in Europe a real boost, not a knock. Church attendance spiked not only in places like Spain and Portugal (where it was practically mandatory), but also in most other countries including the Soviet Bloc, where it was officially discouraged. The safest way of getting people to be religious is to make them scared, rootless, miserable and poor. Not the only way, but it works quite reliably. And the church was hardly seen as tainted with Nazism - to most people in Germany, the church was the one major organisation *not* tainted with that brush, which is one reason why today it is Christian Democrats, not National Democrats that represent the conservative mainstream (both parties were represented in the emerging Federal Republic, but the NatDems lost heavily).
- Third, the best thing you can do for a people's religiosity is to separate church and state (actually, the best *legal* thing you can do - forcible conversion and decades of a reign of terror work better in terms of numbers). In Europe, the churches are tangled with the state at so many levels it's not funny any more. They are thus automatically associated with everything we dislike about government, while getting little of the benefit. It ensures their institutional survival beautifully in many instances, but the faithful hate it. Right-wingers and fundamentalists feel unrepresented because priests are obligated to mouth the state's mandated phrases of equality and minority rights. Left-wing religious activists are repelled by the association with state authority. Seriously spiritual people are put off by the bureaucracy, and those with a budgeted life-plan find they get too little spiritual oompah for their tithe or tax. The Catholic church is better at addressing these issues than most other established churches, but at the end of the day the established church model is more than anything else what killed religion in Europe. Initially it was too slow to secularise, driving out those who sought to combine a spiritual life with an existence as an independently thinking human, and now it can no longer offer the certainties and comforting lies that those seeking reassurance crave.
ninebucks
Banned
I disagree that the secularisation of Europe was caused purely by World War Two. The process of secularisation had been going on since the 1700s at least. the War simply served to kick it forward a few decades.
I think it was inevitable because European culture had, in some parts, endured a state religion for over two thousand years and so a certain level of ennui over state religion was to be expected, and hardly avoided.
However, the one way it could be avoided is if European Christendom were to feel under threat. If an internal threat were to be posed, European Christendom would enter a stage of extreme defenciveness, and would attempt once more to enforce its orthodoxy through the machinary of the state.
Consider: what if instead of socialism adopting a humanist, antitheist character, it had adopted Satanism (for those who don't know, Satanism is a philosophical standpoint that believes that the human soul is as divine an item as exists in the universe, thus Satanists believe organised religion to be blasphemous, as it places the unprovable divinity of God as being more than equal to the provable divinity of Man). If Satanic Socialism began to take root within the factories and slums of Europe in the late 1800s, and began to blossom in the 1900s and preached openly and sought to convert en masse then the Churches would feel legitimately threatened and would seek to reinforce heresy laws.
The general public, fed by ignorance and propaganda, would react against the menace of Satanic Socialism by embracing Christianity and seeking salvation and security.
In this scenario Socialism would never probably become as successful as it is in OTL, but its constant hidden threat (whether real or imagined) would keep Europe from secularising for a few generations.
I think it was inevitable because European culture had, in some parts, endured a state religion for over two thousand years and so a certain level of ennui over state religion was to be expected, and hardly avoided.
However, the one way it could be avoided is if European Christendom were to feel under threat. If an internal threat were to be posed, European Christendom would enter a stage of extreme defenciveness, and would attempt once more to enforce its orthodoxy through the machinary of the state.
Consider: what if instead of socialism adopting a humanist, antitheist character, it had adopted Satanism (for those who don't know, Satanism is a philosophical standpoint that believes that the human soul is as divine an item as exists in the universe, thus Satanists believe organised religion to be blasphemous, as it places the unprovable divinity of God as being more than equal to the provable divinity of Man). If Satanic Socialism began to take root within the factories and slums of Europe in the late 1800s, and began to blossom in the 1900s and preached openly and sought to convert en masse then the Churches would feel legitimately threatened and would seek to reinforce heresy laws.
The general public, fed by ignorance and propaganda, would react against the menace of Satanic Socialism by embracing Christianity and seeking salvation and security.
In this scenario Socialism would never probably become as successful as it is in OTL, but its constant hidden threat (whether real or imagined) would keep Europe from secularising for a few generations.
Xen
Banned
Interesting so maybe after World War II, the new governments that rise from the ashes of Europe, kind of follow suit with the American establishment of seperating the church and state. Take this and say for what ever reason there is no Marshall Plan, so recovery in Europe is a bit slower. This means some hard winters, bringing people to the church to seek divine intervention.
Maybe also associating Christianity with Socialism, making the two close associates. Take that and have the Catholic church play a huge role in rebuilding of Europe, and in post WWII. A string of Popes reaches out to the youth of Europes major cities, having community centers built, etc. Europe takes a different outlook on Christianity and Catholicism on the whole.