Talk:Religion in the European Union

Article is West-European biased
Most of the article is stricly from West European point of view. It completely ignores situation of religion in politics and society in countries like Poland.--Molobo 17:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is about the EU as a whole, not about individual countries. —Angr 18:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * EU is made out of individual countries and this article presents a view that shows it as a single unified region in regards to religion and its role in society and politics.--Molobo 18:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is based on a short section from the European Union page which has been expanded with figures to hand. Feel free to expand upon it by giving a counter weight to examples from Western European by giving examples from Eastern Europe - though do note this is meant to have a union-wide perspective rather than just list each countries situation. I look forward to any contributions you bring, but please remember to cite considering the subject at hand. - J Logan t: 15:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Synagogue
Interesting article at EU Observer here on Barroso inaugurating a "European synagogue", not sure how we would fit it in here though. Anyone seen anything similar we can put it with?- J Logan t: 11:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"Paganism"
May I remind Esimal that this is a serious educational tool, not a blog or reenactor community. Please provide a single source in regards to "Paganism" being regarded as a religion within the European Union. Otherwise you'd perhaps be best stuck to blogging. - Gennarous (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Figures for Muslim population of EU
Since these figures keep getting altered /here and at European Union without citing sources, here are the figures for the individual countries (as available 2009). The total for 2009 is about 13 million. These figures are taken from

--Boson (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

pie chart mods
I modified the pie chart and checked back to the source for names. I used different shades of blue to purple for the various forms of Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Other Christian) and different shades of red to differentiate atheists from agnostics/non-believers (the survey differentiated). I did lump together other religion and not specified since the total after lumping was small, 3%. --Erp (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Unreliablity of article
I think it's not written right. Most of information is based on surveys from some part of country. When you ask 1000 people it does not mean there is this percentual cut of this religion and that religion. In big cities it's completly different than countryside. It should be based on official census. Article says there is 12% of protestants, only German Evangelical Church and Church of England have nearly 50M members. I am sorry but I have to say: Eurobarometer is lying source! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LesanCZ (talk • contribs) 21:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Religion in the European Union
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Religion in the European Union's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Global Christianity": From Protestantism:  From List of religious populations:  From Christianity:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Wrong Muslim Population
According to the chart there are 1.8%. This seems very out of date. Better references are shown in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe There the muslim population in the european union is shown with 3.8 percent as of 2010 (not mix up with europe, which is 6%). This correlated with a lot of other studies, ranging from 3-5%. Today 2018 after the refugee crisis the population will be higher of course. But good valid data is difficult to find. I would suggest to update in first step the chart to the same as in the other wikipedia article and then find a better source. It is important to show the correct data, so the public also see when minorities and religious groups need to be represented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.147.163.231 (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The UK's inclusion on this page
By all means remove the UK when talking about the EU as it currently is (since the UK is no longer part of the EU). However, I believe the UK's data from the two religion surveys on this page, conducted in 2010 and 2015, should stay. '''The UK was in the EU at the time that the surveys were conducted. The surveys don't claim to portray EU religion as it is in 2020. They claim to portray EU religion as it was in 2010 and 2015.''' And the UK's data in those tables will be useful to people who want to know what religion in the EU was like in 2010 and 2015, when those surveys were taken. Removing the UK from those tables is like the USSR airbrushing people out of photos. If a person dies, you don't digitally remove them from all your photos and pretend they never existed, do you? – CyclingFan1234 (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Issues facing Christians in the EU
User:Trasz, this type of information about issues facing Christians in the EU is absolutely appropriate for this page and it has reliable reference sources. Just removing the text citing NPOV, comes across as nothing more than sanitizing the article. You can not just delete sourced statements on real issues facing a religious community, it's nothing more than a case of I just don't like it. --E-960 (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Tammbeck, I will report what is happening here, this type of text is fully appropriate for this article this is nothing more than Status quo stonewalling. --E-960 (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @ You will need to build a consensus to add your content, which is not currently written with a dispassionate, neutral tone. Tammbeck talk  12:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Tammbeck, no this is Status quo stonewalling, the tone is fully appropriate, you are just sanitize the article. I will raise this issue because this is blatant bias. The reason it's clear that you are stone walling is because you are not providing any recommendations, no constructive feedback — just delete, cause its "not neutral". --E-960 (talk) 12:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The text on secularization and issues facing Christians uses almost the identical tone as the last paragraph in the Church and State section, so to just say the tone is not neutral is a stretch. --E-960 (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to include the following text in the Secularization section, so far the text was reverted, but other than short blurps: "NPOV", "Needs to be rewritten with neutral tone" and "much better sources needed" no meaningful explanations or constructive feedback was provided:

"Due to increased secularization, Christians in EU member countries face increased disenfranchisement and intolerance. According to Christian based non-profit organizations, Christians increasingly experience governmental interference with their religious liberty, freedom of expression and conscience. In the media, Christians are often portrayed using negative stereotypes and Christian student groups are excluded from institutions of higher learning. Also, desecration and vandalism of Christian sites has grown steadily in recent decades numbering in the thousands each year, particularly in France and Germany. "

--E-960 (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * There are two problems with this. First, it makes it appear as if the "intolerance" is real, and not just a feeling of some of the Christians.  Second, it fails to mention that those "interferences with religious liberty" are in fact cases of reducing religious privileges in response to some religious folks misusing them. Trasz (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Tammbeck and User:Trasz status quo stonewalling
Users Tammbeck and Trasz reverted text related to issues facing Christians, backed up by reliable reference sources, without providing any sort of constructive feedback other then its "NPOV" or "not neutral". Issues facing Christians today in the EU is absolutely appropriate for this article, and removing this text citing some undefined neutrality arguments is nothing more than sanitizing this article, which in fact amounts to a POV push. Pls look through related articles, such as Religion in the United States or Religion in the United Kingdom to see that they contain the same type of statements related to issues or problems facing various religious communities. --E-960 (talk) 12:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed your text, simply because what it says is blatantly false. It would be fine if it said that some christians might _feel_ that reducing some of their privileges, for example no longer turning a blind eye at religiously motivated hate, are an "interference with religious liberty"; instead the text mentioned such interferences as if they were a fact.Trasz (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Trasz, "religiously motivated hate"? I don't think that's an objective or neutral statement, more like your personal opinion. You do understand that other Abrahamic faiths hold much of the same doctrines in respect of social constructs. Though, just like with anything there are numerous variations of that (conservative/liberal). But, you only single out Christians as "hateful". --E-960 (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Religiously motivated hate is a fact, not a "statement", neutral or not. And indeed, it's not specific to Christianity, nor does it apply to all Christian denominations; while spewing hate is the modus operandi for e.g. Catholic Church in Poland, there are quite a few Christian denominations that are not evil at all.  I'm "singling Christians out" simply because the article is about Christianity. Trasz (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Trasz, I don't think that what you are saying is in any way objective. --E-960 (talk) 10:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet you are unable to point out any particular element that wouldn't be objective. Trasz (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't find any equivalent text in eitherReligion in the United States or Religion in the United Kingdom, perhaps you can point to what you are talking about? -Snowded TALK 04:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Snowded, as a quick example, pls see the sub-section on Islam in the Religion in the United States article, the third paragraph there likewise presents a narrative about issues facing the Islamic community. --E-960 (talk) 10:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't see any equivalent of your proposed edits here, which are sourced from sites which are highly partisan in nature. Neither can I see anything on either article about persecution of Christians.  You have to come up with third party sources before you can make any statement.  I also suggest you respond on the ANI thread in such a way as to indicate that you will respect this and stop the personal attacks and edit warring - otherwise you are going to get a lengthy topic ban.  I'll say now (and I am a Catholic with a background in science) that I am concerned about what Midgely calls 'scientism' namely the creation of a new and intolerant religion a la Dawkins et al.  But that is long way from the position you are adopting. -Snowded TALK 11:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Marginalization of Christians (RfC)
Does the following text proposed for the Secularization section contain "neutral language" and does it present the issue from a "neutral point of view", and is it appropriate for inclusion in this article?

--E-960 (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes the language used in the proposed text is inline with the passive tone set in other sections of this article, also the issue of Christian marginalization in various EU member countires has been the subject of a discussion by the U.S. Helsinki Commission here:, so this is a legitimate issue, which is appropriate for this type of article. Also, if the current sources cited are not comprehensive enough, others can be found as additional reference. --E-960 (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The source you've linked to uses fighting hate crime as an example of intolerance against christians. Enough said, I guess?Trasz (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Dismiss you are expressing an opinion without any reliable sources in fact you are using sources that by their nature are biased. -Snowded <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 07:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Snowded, pls see Reliable sources, which states that "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints" also in conjunction, pls see this article form the BBC about Christian persecution in various part of the world, which states "political correctness had played a part in the issue not being confronted." . --E-960 (talk) 07:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Supporting a viewpoint yes, making a statement in Wikipedia's voice no and this largely fails per on grounds of proportionality]. Wikipedia is not a place for someone who wants to make an ideological point and I suggest you step back a bit from this -[[User:Snowded|<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 07:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Dismiss AFAIK, Christians are still the majority of EU inhabitants. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a ridiculous argument, that "Christians are still the majority of EU inhabitants", so they can't be marginalized, they were also the majority in many of the communist countries and were marginalized. With input like that who can argue, this is so out of wack it should be struck down. --E-960 (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Communist states were totalitarian. EU has democracies. In fact, the opposite can be said about Poland and Hungary: they are led by Christian radicals who despise liberal democracy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * With that comment "Christian radicals who despise liberal democracy" you just proved my point that there is a degree of political/ideological bias in how this issue is being handled on Wikipeida. No wonder, other editors can make disparaging remarks my way, but I make a similar comparison in the opposite direction and I got a sanction heading my way. --E-960 (talk) 08:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "At first, we were fighting against Sovietization. Bolsheviks let us speak our own language, but not what we want. Everything changed. Today we only hear the slogan Poland for Polish people. We got rid of Bolsheviks, but we kept our mutual despise for each other. Now we have an anti-Bolshevism with a Bolshevik face, that's why I am sad... What is nutured inside Poland is a kind of anti-humanism. Our government is supported by the Polish Catholic Church. What does our government tell us? That now comes the «gay pest», which is more or less the same as the «red pest». It is an idiocy which even Ceaușescu could not utter. In Poland, this Bolshevik mentality, a mentality of despise, of superiority, it remained... There is a great madness all over all post-Communist countries. We all think that our own people is noble, innocent, never did any harm unto others. According to this idea we judge those around us. If somebody says that that's not completely true, he/she is regarded as a traitor to the country"

- Adam Michnik in Stefan Both


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, you quote Adam Michnik? First off, that's just his opinion, and second, there is plenty of accusations that like Walesa he was steered by the communist secret service. --E-960 (talk) 08:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The point about secret service is not germane to our discussion. Please discuss ideas instead of engaging in ad hominem. You know, that's bad logic. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Dismiss, I think the sources are too poor to support these claims. I have seen no evidence that the sources given have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. JimRenge (talk) 10:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Dismiss Already the first words "due to increased secularization" contain a strong unsourced statement. The rest is overgeneralizing and no differentiation among different EU member states has been made. --Nillurcheier (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup, secularization simply means in this respect that the Church does not dictate the laws of the state. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Dismiss. Sources clearly partisan, but even if accepted, they would not justify the strong Wiki voice. This is POV and WP:OR. --T*U (talk) 13:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

No, this content is based on terrible sources, and the view presented as factual is clearly WP:FRINGE. Also, the person who opened this RfC is well on their way to being topic-banned from this subject area, after which someone should put this out of its misery. --JBL (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

No - this RFC is just an WP:IDHT WP:FORUMSHOP rehash of WP:RSN. It's still a bad source no matter how often, and in however many venues, the question is asked or rephrased. Cabayi (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is written neutrally as long as the claim is cited as coming from the organizations that are being used as the sources. desmay (talk) 03:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC) No, not with this sources. However, a general discussion on discrimination/marginalisation of (different tribes of) Christians, Muslims, Jews, non-religious persons would be welcome.Nico (talk) 09:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, this is far-right drivel.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No because those are not reliable sources and because the proposed text is heavily editorialised. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Life Force is nothing to do with religion
I edited Life Force out  of the section of which countries "don't  believe in a God, Spirit  or Life  Force" because  Life Force is the energy and the functioning inside living organisms. Sone people may not believe  in spiritual elements, but this mostly relates to scientific things.

Atheism is basically people  who don't  believe  in God, Heaven or Hell or any kind of fantasy or strong supernatural. That's literally it. There's nothing  else involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MountainLaurel88 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Atheism is a hypernym/wide term
Separate atheists to:


 * antitheists: people focusing on not recognizing a God: cosmogonic person
 * physicalists/metaphysical naturalists/logicalists = metaphysical logicists: people who focus on affirmative absolute rationalism: axiomatic prerequisites for physical foundations (quantum foundations for our local universe), chemical abiogenesis of life, neuroscience, studies on personhood and any possible personhood-yielding computer (human brain, future personhooded computer with all the digital Brodmannian regions and their complicated interactions (not exact biomimicry but data-processing modalities mimicking)

The vast majority of atheists care too little about physicalism/logicalism (typical logicism is mathematics focused; metaphysical logicism = logicalism recognizes the difference between axiomatic proof systems (like mathematics and their hyponymic geometries; infinite axiomatic systems are logically possible = allomathematics = different mathematics/ they don't have to be useful/ some are good for task-specific solutions/ nobody stops you to create infinite axiomatic systems/ the axiomatic system of all axiomatic systems = omniaxiomatics = pantoaxiomatics = [omni]universal axiomatics doesn't exist [not all infinite axiomatic systems are compatible]/ the taboos aren't logically fundamental thus rejecting allomathematics for reasons outside rigorous logic is a hollow biased mistake) versus axiomatic ontological systems (all infinite possible physics and their universe-like substantialities)

The term logicalism is deeper than physicalism because many physicalists aren't clear about their different views inside physicalism or they are easily attacked by antiphysicalists who disparagingly misdefine physicalism.

Logicalism = metaphysical logicism is to logically seek the axiomatic prerequisites for physical foundations (quantum foundations in our local universe), abiogenesis, soulless neuroscience, etc. Logicalism: to accept logic = logical axiomatics and procedures as the self-causal foundations of spatiotemporal coexistence of phenomena within compatible frameworks (different physics aren't compatible in the same universe).

Atheism is a comment. A negation of the ideas of others. All words are useful. But logicalism = physicalism = metaphysical naturalism = exclusive positivism = absolute rationalism are affirmative.

Affirmative philosophy is superior to the mere negotiation of the ideas of others.

Metaphysical worldviews are gradient. Many atheists are mild logicalists or logicalist friendly. But most of them don't practically care about logicalism.

Fragment the hypernym atheists to antitheists and logicalists because it is an important worldview difference (in many cases; it's complicated because metaphysical worldviews are gradient).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.92.62.203 (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Outdated data
Data from 2010 is not relevant anymore, it should be replaced with more recent data if available. 2A07:7E81:253D:0:18EA:827F:6BEB:56A6 (talk) 13:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)