A candidate such as Gehring would do Germany good!

Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:30:49 +0200

Austrian media reacted almost perplex and more than surprised to the fact, that the candidate for the federal presidency from the Christian Party of Austria (CP�) had achieved the goal of surpassing the magic number of 6000 signatures supporting his candidacy. This means that not only the incumbent president Fischer and the controversial FP� candidate Rosenkranz, but also Dr. Gehring will stand in the elections. The Greens were quick to describe Gehring's views as a 'return to the Dark Ages'.

Evidently many Austrians feel differently: 8000 people have officially supported Gehring's candidacy and have in doing so made the elections - that were forecast to be boring - a whole lot more interesting. Because contrary to the earlier prognoses Gehring could now make the elections more close again. Not only because he has a chance of ending in second place in the first round, but it may even happen that a second round is needed. And not without reason, the FPÖ and its candidate have until now only produced negative press coverage, whereas Gehring has gone largely unnoted until now, but has the reputation of a politician that thinks things through and offers a clear message.

Thus Austria has made it possible that confessing Christians can choose a representative of theirs, that has clear values and political goals for a platform. What the Greens call old fashioned and medieval, can in the eyes of responsible citizens only be a very wise policy: protection of life, reinforcement of marriage as a union between a man and a woman and an economic system that centers on justice. Not that the other candidates pay such topics no attention, but Gehring makes clear that in our society it is about more than the ever returning political controversies over laws and positions of power.

In our current time, pressing questions concerning our living together, the moral values, but also the general responsibility towards each other, get pushed to the background. Politics should also dare to make clear that even things that have become mainstream and which people are use to, can contradict a foundation of our Christian roots and may need to be discussed in a dignified way.

Dr. Gehring has therefore not only for the Austrian presidential elections created a chance for the voters to decide on the future of defining societal and political processes. He has demonstrated with his efforts to gather enough support, that Christian motivated and confessing politics is in no way merely a remnant of ages past. Many people want, like Gehring, to give a new focus to Austrian politics.

This goal would do other countries well too. In Germany where Christian parties are still divided among themselves and thus have a hard time getting through to the public debate, the challenge with regard to the large existing parties is equally big. Of course it is hard to just compare Germany and Austria, since Austria is more rural and Germany is more urban. If a Christian party in Germany is to make headways, the focus should not only be on a struggle with the CDU that is losing its Christian character. Gehring has shown something that also applies elsewhere: Adressing people's everyday needs convinces far more people than attempts to create a certain image with marketing and at the same time telling people exactly what they want to hear.

Published earlier at schreibfreiheit.eu by Dennis Riehle, Konstanz, Germany

The Towers of Christendom

Tue, 08 Dec 2009 19:25:24 +0100

Intensive debates, or rather fierce polemics, have arisen throughout Europe since a clear majority of the Swiss population agreed by referendum to a constitutional ban on the future construction of minarets. Many have reacted in a Pavlovian fashion by referring to religious freedom as the end of all argument. We should not; it is due time to think about these issues more extensively.

Let us first consider the facts. The Swiss population has expressed its approval of a ban on the building of minarets. It has not asked for a ban on the building of mosques or the persecution of people of the Islamic faith. Is this then an issue of religious freedom as some have argued? To answer this question we should first define what religious freedom is. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” As a minaret is not needed or prescribed by Islam in its teaching or for its practice, worship or observance, all of these rights are not endangered by a minaret ban, it is hence incorrect to say that the minaret ban encroaches on religious freedoms per se.

Now that we have demonstrated that a minaret ban does not go against religious freedom, let us move on to the question of whether or not minarets should be tolerated in Europe. But first let us acknowledge that religious freedom exists primarily in the Western world where it originates and that Islamic states do not grant their citizens religious freedoms to the extent that European states do. This is not just a matter of coincidence. Religious freedoms have evolved in the European culture or civilization, a civilisation heavily influenced by Christian faith and social thought. As Jürgen Habermas put it:

“Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilisation. To this day, we have no other options [than Christianity]. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is post-modern chatter.”

And so we come to the core of this brief discourse. Religious freedoms are not something that washed upon the beaches of Europe at some point in history, nor are they something that was established by way of treaty between nation states. Religious freedoms have evolved in Europe’s national cultures that all rest on the same bedrock of a European civilization heavily inspired by Christianity. On this bedrock diverse national cultures have evolved, but in all these cultures there has been a continued presence, influence, dominance of Christianity.

One of the landmarks of this dominance, literally in this case, is the church tower that stands in every village and in every quarter of large cities in Europe. This dominance of church towers in the skylines of our European towns is important, because it is a physical expression of the dominance of Christianity in our culture. Minarets are - not only in comparison to Christian church towers, but also by their very nature – signs of Islamic dominance. From this viewpoint it is very understandable that a majority of the Swiss people have expressed their support for a minaret ban.

Certainly some will argue that the dominance of Christianity in our culture is something of the past. There may be some truth to this, but these same people will argue that religious freedom is not something of the past. When we recall that pre-dominantly Islamic states do not grant their citizens religious freedoms as do European states, we come to understand that the best guarantee for the continued existence of religious freedoms in Europe lies in maintaining the dominance of Christianity in our culture.

Sincerely,

Jonathan van Tongeren, secretary general

PS: ECPYN is establishing an International Political Working Group on Church, State, Civil Society and the Public Domain (CSCSPD) that wil delve deeper into issues such as these. In the coming week(s) ECPYN.org will offer a podium to both advocates and opponents of the minaret ban from our member organisations in Switzerland, JEDU and JEVP.

Reactions can be sent to reactions @ ecpyn . org

European Christian Political Youth Network

A candidate such as Gehring would do Germany good!

The Towers of Christendom