Danish State policy on the teaching of religion from 1900 to 2007

Abstract

The author presents an analysis of the political decision making process regarding the teaching of religion in Denmark from 1900 until 2007. The author uses Norbert Elias’s concept of the survival unit as the analytical framework of the study. Instead of a classic secularization narrative in which the secular and religious spheres of society are differentiated into separate realms as the process of modernization unfolds, a different narrative emerges in which the State has used the teaching of religion as an instrument to further its vital interests, especially with regard to its international relations.

Before the 1990s the classic theories of secularization were considered a reigning dogma (Tschannen, 1991; Dobbelaere, 2002; Swatos and Christiano, 1999). Since then secularization theories have come under increasing criticism (Casanova, 1994; Stark and Iannacone, 1994; Casanova, 2007). Some scholars have further argued that Western societies have become de-secularized or post-secular (Habermas, 2008; Casanova, 2012; Moberg and Granholm, 2012), while others have rapidly abandoned the subject (Gorski, 2008). When one recalls that the secularization thesis was widely accepted in the 1960s and 1970s, the dissolution of the consensus is striking.

The problems or perhaps even the failure of the classic theories of secularization should, however, be neither abandoned nor left unexamined (Turner, 2011). In my view they provide a unique possibility for questioning basic sociological theory and the notion of society that is the conceptual source from which the theories of secularization were derived. I thus concur with the call for more historical study of the secularization process (Gorski and Altinordu, 2008). The present contribution should be seen as such an attempt.

The paper is concerned with an analysis of religion on the macro-level (Dobbelaere, 2002) as it presents an analysis of the documents from the political process regarding the teaching of religion in elementary schools in Denmark from 1900 until today. To be more precise, it is the teaching in grades 1 to 9 of Danish Folkeskole (‘public schools’) that is presented here. The reason for this is that the teaching of religion in a Danish Gymnasium (upper-secondary school) is and always has been based on a different foundation. The latter teachers are trained in Danish university departments of History of Religions, whereas teachers in the Folkeskole are taught in teacher training colleges (Jensen, 2005; Jensen, 2007; Jensen, 2008), which have entirely different teaching methods and policy making processes.

The primary source material of this article consists of (1) documents of the political decision making process concerning the aims of all Danish public schools and specifically the purpose of the teaching of religion and (2) the decrees and circulars of the government. The Danish parliament’s policy concerning the teaching of religion is expressed in these documents and they have therefore been analyzed for the whole period in question. ¹ The article presents a qualitative analysis of the material that attempts to show the arguments behind the important decisions regarding the teaching of religion in Denmark. The analysis points to influences on the political decisions concerning the teaching of religion that are rarely captured by sociological analysis because they do not necessarily spring from attitudes of individuals that can be measured in surveys. As the article shows, State policy on the teaching of religion is influenced by, among other things, the international relations of the Danish State, which should perhaps be considered in future discussions concerning secularization, de-secularization and historical religious change.

The principal argument of the paper is that the study of secularization, de-secularization and historical religious change could benefit from far more attention to the agency of the State. The present paper is thus in line with the various attempts to bring the State back into the centre of sociology (Elias, 1980; Giddens, 1985; Skocpol, 1985; Tilly, 1990; Kaspersen, 2004). Even though some recent studies have paid some attention to the State (Barbalet et al., 2011; Halikiopoulou, 2011), I shall argue that these approaches – along with other recent approaches to secularization – have not paid sufficient attention to the notion of State agency (Berger, 1999; Berger et al., 2008; Casanova, 2007). Here I shall follow the approach of Norbert Elias, who considered the State as a survival unit that participates in a survival game with other States in which all means appear to be employed (Elias, 1978, 2008; Kaspersen and Gabriel, 2008). A priori, it is not possible to delimit the means that can be employed by a State. They should be considered as a broad category that encompasses not only military force but also the means for the mobilization of resources including an efficient internal organization (State form). In this perspective, the State form (democracy) is regarded as part of the defensive structure of the State, together with, for instance, economic development, the education of the citizen, and culture and religion (Reeh, 2009). In short, the defence of the State should be seen in very broad terms, namely as all the resources that a State can muster in order to maintain or increase its position in the survival ‘game’ (Højrup, 2003; Kaspersen, 2004). As we shall see, the Danish State has at times used the teaching of religion as a response to relations with other States, while at other times it has relied on other responses. On the basis of an analysis of the primary sources on the political decision making process, the present contribution will bring forth the relations between the vital interests of the Danish State and its educational policies, especially with regard to the teaching of religion.

Background

At least since the Church Ordinance of 1537 that followed the Danish Lutheran reformation in 1536, the Danish State has displayed an interest in the religion of its inhabitants (Korsgaard, 2004). The content of this teaching has changed through history. A turning point in the history of the Danish teaching of religion was the introduction of mandatory confirmation in 1736 and the consequent introduction of compulsory schooling in 1739 for all including peasants in the twin kingdoms of Denmark and Norway. At this point, the Danish State created an official Sacred Canopy and schools were almost exclusively devoted to the confessional teaching of Christianity (Berger, 1969; Reeh, 2009). From the early 18th century until 1975, the teaching of religion in Denmark was confessional and one may say that the dominant theology was transformed and disseminated through the school system (Jensen, 2005; Jensen, 2007; Buchardt, 2011). The School Acts of 1814 and onwards initiated a process in which the Danish State became progressively less interested in the teaching of religion (Reeh, 2006). Another crucial point in this historical process was in 1975, when the confessional teaching of religion was abandoned. At a superficial level, these historical developments may be seen as corresponding to the classic secularization narrative in which religion has lost its social significance (Tschannen, 1991; Dobbelaere, 2002). However, if we take a closer look at the documents on the political decision making process, we realize that the classical theories of secularization have not paid sufficient attention to the agency of the State in the Danish case. The reason for this is that the Danish State became more interested in the teaching of religion and the religion of its inhabitants at two points between 1814 and today, namely during the Second World War and during the so-called War on Terror. Against this background the paper will argue that the discussion concerning secularization and de-secularization on the macro level should pay attention to State agency and the external relations of the State in question.

1900–1940: The emerging Danish welfare state and a relaxation of the teaching of religion

The idea of a Danish welfare state was conceived by the Social Liberal Party in 1905 and grew thereafter. The Social Liberal Party was formed in 1905 and its political programme was written by P Munch (1870–1948). In the following, the origin of the welfare state will be viewed in the light of the defence problems that Denmark faced in the period, and the teaching of religion during that time will be viewed in this light. Defence had priority because of the increasingly aggressive stance of Germany. In Munch’s understanding, defence policy included the internal dispositions of the State. It is therefore crucial to pay attention to the fact that for him external relations, specifically the threat from Germany, became an explicit consideration in the internal or domestic politics of Denmark. This connection will now be summarized (cf. Lidegaard, 2003: 16; Højrup, 2002: 333ff; Korsgaard, 2004: 382ff).

In its political programme of 1905, the Social Liberal Party had stated that Denmark should declare itself neutral. Existing fortifications should be demolished. In time of war the control of fortifications and hence control of the Baltic seaboard would be critical. If Denmark were demilitarized, Germany would have less reason to invade. The Social Liberal Party argued that it would not be possible to defend Denmark against the increasingly militarized Germany of that day (Lidegaard, 2003: 20). The strategy is set out in the following passage:

… it is in our power to assure our existence as a people, as a Nation. The means to this is to enrich our culture and create a fellow feeling within the Danish people by the development of a condition of society where people at all levels have reason to feel a warm affection for their country. … A free and distinct culture that permeates the people at all levels will ensure that the national life of the people endures, even if the calamity should befall us that the State is brought under the will of foreign men of violence through the brutality of war and conquest. (Lidegaard, 2003: 21; my translation and emphasis)

Here, Munch seems to be alluding to the Polish example. Poland had been divided in 1795 but still maintained a strong sense of nationhood (Højrup, 2002; Lidegaard, 2003; Korsgaard, 2004: 384). The organization of Danish society, including its culture in its entirety, was thus regarded as a part of Danish defence. The great importance of this position is that it was to become the raison d’etre of the Danish welfare state, which was agreed upon by the Social Democrats and the Social Liberal Party. These two parties played a decisive role in Danish politics from 1924 to 2001, so that during those years this raison d’etre was both a defence mode and the general principle guiding the internal organization of the State during those years. Schools were important in the creation of national ‘fellow feeling’:

With regard to the actions of the State for the education of the people and their spiritual life, the purpose is to give everybody equal access to knowledge and participation in our culture. We attempt to preserve and develop a national fellow feeling with our compatriots outside Denmark [the Danes in Southern Jutland, which had been occupied by the Germans since the defeat of 1864]. Intellectual liberty is to be recognized everywhere. (Social Liberal Party, 1905; my translation and emphasis)

For Munch and the Social Liberals there was an intimate connection between defence policy and the internal affairs of the State. In the political process, the Social Liberals adhered to their political programme closely and with success. They thus worked closely with the Social Democrats for the creation of what they perceived to be a better State. This welfare state was to be welcomed – or at least acquiesced in – by all Danish citizens. This could only be done if freedom and intellectual liberty were ‘recognized everywhere’, as stated above. With regard to the State’s religious politics, the Social Liberal Party’s programme read:

The school is exempted from the clerical supervisory system. School teachers are released from their mandatory relation to the Church. Parents are allowed to exempt their children from the teaching of religion. If the teacher wishes, he will be exempted from teaching religion. The amount of time required for the teaching of religion is to be stated. (The Social Liberal Party, 1905; my translation)

Also with regards to the teaching of religion, the Social Liberal Party wanted to increase the personal freedom and lessen the demands of the state towards its people.

With the political programme ‘Denmark for the people’ the Social Democrats changed their overall political strategy. Previously they had been a working class party. But from 1934 they tried to unite the nation and position themselves as a tower of strength in a time of crisis. They thus in many ways fell in with Munch’s position on the welfare state. The goals of external and internal policy were changed with this programme. If the Social Democrats were to become a party for the whole people, it was necessary to accept the fact that the vast majority of Danes were members of the National Church of Denmark. A new contract between the State and its citizens, which the Social Liberal Party had formulated in 1905, was developed into a political reality in these years. This contract was later to be formulated as the welfare society or the welfare state, which aimed at defining a good and benevolent State whose primary obligation was to take care of its citizens and provide for their basic needs (Højrup, 2002: 318, 332). The welfare state could therefore not make excessive demands on citizens because this would tend to alienate them from the State. As we shall find in the School Act of 1975, the welfare state did not make heavy demands. On the contrary, it would offer its citizens a number of opportunities.

This logic of the welfare state can also be observed when summarizing the dominant strategy of the Social Democrats vis-a-vis the teaching of religion – a strategy which prevailed in the 20th century, with the support primarily of the Social Liberal Party. In this area the Social Democrats had to strike a difficult balance. On the one hand, their programmes before 1934 were critical of religion and the position of the Church. On the other hand, they realized that if they were to be a political party for all workers, and from 1934 for the whole people, they could not afford to offend the part of the electorate that would consider Christianity as important in one way or the other. In the School Act of 1937, the Social Democrats therefore changed their attitude towards the teaching of Christianity in a compromise with the Social Liberal Party. This Act contained a decidedly flexible formulation of the Purposes or Objects clause for the teaching of Christianity, which had to be ‘in accordance with the Evangelical-Lutheran doctrine of the Danish National Church’. The Act included a right of exemption for those who did not want religious instruction in accordance with the teachings of the Danish Church. In the debates, the right to exemption was connected with Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s notion of self-activity, which was invoked by the Social Democrats against the more authoritarian views on the school espoused by the Conservative Party (Reeh, 2006: 177). Again, the Social Democrats and the Social Liberal Party can be seen as trying to make the welfare state offer opportunities and avoid demands that could alienate citizens from that ‘fellow feeling’ and ‘warm affection for their country’ envisaged by P Munch in the quotation above (Lidegaard, 2003: 21).

1940–1945: A state of exception: the teaching of religion as a measure against the Nazification of Danish schools

In 1940 Denmark surrendered to and was occupied by Germany. Under the occupation it was possible for the democratically elected Danish government to continue to govern, although it had to steer a difficult path in negotiating cooperation with the Nazi regime (Jespersen, 2011: 170ff). The Nazi occupation was in many ways an anomaly that posed specific difficulties, to say the least, for the Danish government. One of these arose when the occupying power suggested cooperation between schools in Germany and Denmark (Skovgaard-Petersen, 2000: 616ff). The Danish government was deeply concerned, regarding the proposal as an attempt at the Nazification of Danish schools and hence of the Danish people, and set up an education committee, which included among others the chairmen of the teachers’ organizations, to consider the proposition (Skovgaard-Petersen, 2000). Although the government in Copenhagen was under pressure from the occupying power, its response was outright rejection, which led to the bekendgørelse (‘departmental order’ ² ) of 24 May 1941:

Beside giving the pupils knowledge and proficiency, the school must through its activity form the character of its pupils. It shall develop and strengthen children’s sense of ethical and Christian values and give them respect for human life and nature, love of home and kin and country, respect for the opinions of others, and a sense of solidarity between peoples and with the other Nordic peoples. The school must therefore help to give children ideals, help them to choose their aim in life, further their respect for sincerity in speech and behaviour, and strengthen their sense of duty. Through sound discipline are learned good behaviour and a sense of order. (cirkulære [‘circular’] on the purpose of teaching of the school, 24 May 1941 nr. 242 in Bugge, 1979; my translation)

Instead of the vague formulation of the Act of 1937, which stated that ‘the teaching of Christianity in the elementary school shall be in accordance with the Evangelical-Lutheran doctrine of the Danish Church’, the departmental order was primarily concerned with the formation of the moral character of children. In particular, the stress that was laid on respect for human life, respect for the opinions of others, and solidarity between peoples was a proclamation of values and principles inimical to Nazism. The values of respect and solidarity were considered by Danish politicians also to apply to Christianity, although this term is so broad that it could be supposed to include the Glaubensbewegung Deutsche Christen, which supported the Nazi regime. However, in its Danish context Christianity was generally believed to be antithetical to Nazism. The departmental order was reinforced by a circular of 3 May 1943 in which the government stated that it was to be taken seriously. Even though the 1941 circular concerned teaching in general, the dissemination of a set of Christian and anti-Nazi values was to become a cornerstone in the teaching of Christianity. The Danish State thus deployed all teaching, but first and foremost the teaching of Christianity, as a moral and cultural defence. The departmental order of 1941 can be seen as part of an overall political strategy that was directed at the survival of the Danish State under occupation. It may of course be objected that this is an isolated example, and that the situation during the Second World War was exceptional and thus not of comparable value to what is ‘normal’. Against this, I would argue that the exceptional case is of the highest value. In this particular case, the teaching of religion could be instantly adapted to serve the vital interests of the State. As mentioned above, the Social Democrats and the Social Liberals had loosened religious influences on schooling in the School Act of 1937. In reality the consequence of the Act was that teachers were given great freedom in their interpretation of the doctrine of the Danish Evangelical-Lutheran Church. The circular limited the possible interpretations for the individual teacher. During the war both parties (as members of the coalition government) reverted to a more direct attempt to influence Christianity, and thereby society, through teaching – in general as well as the teaching of religion/Christianity. This shows that besides the internal relations of the Danish State, the teaching of religion was also in this period intimately linked to the State and its external as well as internal affairs.

1945–1980: The welfare state continues and the teaching of religion declines

After the Second World War the development of the welfare state continued. Denmark chose to become a member of NATO in 1949, and as a result the external military threat was now posed by the USSR. In this period again the political debate concerning the teaching of religion was related to the defence of the State. What is noteworthy is that in the legislative work of the 1970s there was, among the political parties, widespread agreement that the confessional teaching of Christianity must come to an end (Danish Parliament, 1972/73: 2573ff). Only the Christian People’s Party and the Conservative People’s Party stood against this trend, maintaining that the teaching of Christianity should be in accordance with the principles of the Danish Church (Danish Parliament, 1974/75b: 841, 843). Together these two parties held only 19 of the 179 parliamentary seats in 1975 (Rasmussen and Rüdiger, 1990: 477). There was therefore an overwhelming majority against the confessional teaching of Christianity. The result was taken for granted and the abolition of the confessional teaching of religion was not much debated as a result. Support for such teaching seems to have declined. Unfortunately, documents produced by the Danish parliament are silent on this decline. The teaching of religion did, however, become part of a heated debate, namely what measures the school system and the State were to take in response to Marxist teachers who used their position to indoctrinate their pupils. And this discussion does show how the confessional teaching of religion was viewed. An example of this can be seen in 1972 report by the Commission on the Teaching of Christianity, appointed by the Minister of Education, regarding the teaching of Christianity in Danish public schools. In it the important conclusions, from the perspective of this enquiry, were that

the teaching of Christianity should be treated in the same way as that of other subjects [and] that proselytizing or religious influence cannot be accepted in the teaching of Christianity any more than ideological influence in other subjects … (Danish Parliament, 1971: 15)

The confessional teaching of Christianity was thus lumped together with other attempts at ideological indoctrination, which was regarded as untenable in a modern democracy by the majority of political parties that were behind the statements in the above-mentioned parliamentary commission report. The result of the political process was that the confessional teaching of religion was abolished by the School Act of 1975. In the final debate that preceded the passing of the act, it is noteworthy that the Social Democrat Minister of Education, Ritt Bjerregaard, declared that the Social Democrats would defend democracy, intellectual liberty and tolerance against anyone who attacked those values (Danish Parliament, 1974/75a: 1990). Neither the left nor the right in the parliament would have the support of the Social Democrats if they attempted to restrict political liberties. The documents relating to the debate on political indoctrination suggest that the confessional teaching of Christianity was regarded as political indoctrination and therefore as inimical to the notion of political liberty, at least by the Social Democrat Minister of Education Ritt Bjerregaard. What emerged from the debate was that the Bill was carried and the confessional teaching of Christianity was abolished. In section 5 of the Act it was stated that the teaching of Christianity required knowledge of – but not faith in – the Christianity of the Danish Evangelical-Lutheran Church. ³ In addition, it was stated in section 6 that foreign religions and other life-views should be taught. Further, the overall aim of the Danish public school system was defined as follows:

2.2. The task of the school is, in cooperation with the parents, to offer possibilities for experience and self-expression which can promote the pupil’s urge to learn, expand his imagination and develop his capacity for independent evaluation and opinions.

2.3. The school shall prepare pupils for active participation in the life and decision-making of a democratic society, and for sharing responsibility for the solving of common problems. The educational activities of the school and its daily life as a whole must therefore be based on intellectual liberty and democracy. (School Act 1975 in Danish Parliament, 1974/75c: 2108–2109; my translation and emphasis)

In the Act itself there are thus close connections between the State form that is democracy, intellectual liberty, and participation in the political process. Schools, in a word, were to train pupils to be homo democraticus, or perhaps better, to be a democratic citizen in a democratic welfare state, with the liberties and responsibilities that this entailed (Korsgaard, 2001). In this context, the teaching of religion became for the Danish State a subject that was considered of only minor importance: and consequently there were earnest discussions in the 1980s as to whether or not the teaching of religion should be abandoned in public elementary schools, because it was deemed irrelevant.

1980–2001: The importance of culture (including Christianity) in a shrinking world

The period from 1980 to 2001 was marked by two changes that were to influence the debate concerning the teaching of religion in Denmark. The first significant change was in 1983, when the immigration laws were liberalized, becoming perhaps the most liberal in Europe. This legislation, again, had a background in a recent development in the international State system, namely the growing prominence of the European Court of Human Rights, and the fact that most European States, including Denmark, had committed themselves to its decisions. The law of 1983 was to cause the number of citizens with a religion other than Christianity, especially Islam, to increase significantly so that the number of Muslims in Denmark in 2005 was estimated to be 200,000 or 3.8% of the population (Jensen, 2005).

The second decisive change took place at the end of the Cold War, which was to change the external charts by which the Danish State had to navigate. As has been mentioned, the military threat from the USSR had played an important role during the Cold War as the external background of the School Act of 1975, in which the fight for democracy, intellectual liberty and tolerance had been a key element, as in the above-quoted speech by Ritt Bjerregaard.

Culture, including religion, did not, however, become irrelevant in the years from 1980 until 2001. In 1989, the Minister of Education Bertel Haarder issued a set of non-binding instructions regarding the teaching of Christianity in which it was stated that this should make pupils familiar with Danish culture (Juul, 2011). Further, in 1993, the purpose of making the pupils familiar with Danish culture was elevated to the status of law, in which it became the part of the overall purpose of the entire school. In section 1 part 3 of the School Act of 1993 it was thus stated that ‘The school must make pupils familiar with Danish culture and contribute to their understanding of other cultures’ (my translation). This was not disputed; on the contrary, it appears to have been applauded by the entire parliament. For example, Dorit Myltoft of the Social Liberal Party said:

I would also like to emphasize the concepts of Danish culture and man’s interaction with nature in the Objects clause. With H.C. Andersen we sing about Denmark as the place where we have our roots and home, and from which our world begins. The core of Danish culture is the laws and rules through which we take care of each other and show our responsibility for each other’s lives. (Danish Parliament, 1992/93a: 9068; my translation)

The awareness of increasing internationalization was widespread in parliament at this point and the explicit mention of Danish culture, and the emphasis thereon, was not unconnected with that awareness. The new consciousness of internationalization did not, however, immediately affect the teaching of Christianity. The only change was that it was emphasized that the teaching of Christianity in the highest grades should also include ‘foreign religions and other philosophies of life’. However, it should be noted that, with regard to values, the Danish national Church and Danish public schools were seen as common ground for the Danes and their identity (Danish Parliament 1992/93b: 9050). The majority behind the 1993 School Act thus saw Christianity as part of Danish culture (Danish Parliament 1992/93a: 8936).

2001–2012: 9/11, the cartoon crisis and the teaching of religion as a defence against (Islamic) terrorism

During the Cold War Denmark had participated in the alliance against the Eastern Bloc in order to defend the West against the military and ideological threat of communism. After the collapse of the USSR, the Danish State was concerned to adapt and reformulate itself as a more competitively orientated entity. However, on 11th September 2001 the US was struck on its own territory. This created a shock wave among the American people and action was demanded. The reaction of the American President, George W Bush, was the declaration of the War on Terror on 20 September 2001. As a consequence of 9/11, Bush changed American defence doctrine such that ‘any state or individual in the world is regarded as either friend or foe of the US’ (Højrup and Kaspersen, 2007). In Carl Schmitt’s terms, a new friend–enemy distinction was drawn in the international State system (Schmitt, 2007). As the US declared war on terror, a ‘coalition of the willing’ was formed to wage war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Denmark joined the military expeditions to both Iraq and Afghanistan, even though these wars had the potential to infuriate Danish Muslims. Generally, it is highly problematic to have citizens with ties to a State with which you are at war.

After the election of 2001 there arose an unusual situation in Danish politics, since one side of the Parliament had an absolute majority. The government coalition of the Liberal Party and the Conservative People’s Party was supported by the Danish People’s Party, and all three parties were able to work closely together and to control legislation completely. The outcome was that a small majority in both parliament and electorate was able to turn immigration policy on its head. In 2001, Denmark thus switched from a highly liberal to a rather restricted immigration policy. The now significant influence of the Danish People’s Party, with its strong emphasis on the preservation of Danish culture, had come into play:

The country builds on the Danish national heritage. Danish culture shall therefore be preserved and strengthened. The culture consists of the sum of the Danish people’s history, experiences, beliefs, language and customs. The protection and development of this culture is a precondition for the country’s survival as a free and enlightened society … We will not accept a multi-ethnic transformation of the country. Denmark is the country of the Danes and its citizens shall be able to live in a safe and just society that develops in accordance with Danish culture. Foreigners shall be accepted in Danish society but only on the condition that this does not put safety and the democracy at risk. (Danish People’s Party, 2002; my translation)

Here the Danish survival unit has been conceptualized as the Danish people, including its history, experiences, beliefs, language and customs.

In the years 2005–2006 Denmark became the centre of attention because of 12 caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad that were published in the right-wing newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Danish produce and products were subsequently subjected to a boycott by Muslims. In addition, the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) tried to put pressure on the Danish State to apologize and to sanction the newspaper. Most significantly for most Danes was perhaps that Danish flags were burnt throughout the Muslim world and that Denmark and Danes were directly threatened amid a thirst for violent revenge. The crisis thus seemed to prove that the Danish People’s Party was correct in arguing that the State could easily become the target of Islamic terrorism at the hands of radical Muslims who were themselves Danish citizens and living in Denmark.

The effect of the crisis could be seen in 2007, when the existing optional subject, Christianity/Enlightenment of Life, was transformed into a compulsory subject called Christianity/Enlightenment of Life/Citizenship.

The addition of Citizenship shall ensure that all student teachers obtain knowledge of fundamental democratic values and Danish democracy and are able to pass these values on to the school. (Haarder, 2006; my translation)

This change shows that education in citizenship and democracy was thought important by the government, and that the teaching of Christianity was linked to this new agenda of ensuring that the Danish citizen had a democratic approach to living in Denmark. ⁴

In the process that led to the law of 2007 the Minister of Education expressed his concern over democratic values in modern Danish society, calling for

a coherent and open democratic society within which basic values are that citizens demonstrate responsible citizenship and an active respect for the values that are fundamental within a free and democratic welfare society, allowing space for differences and individual freedom. (Danish Parliament, 2003, quoted in Haas, 2008; my translation)

The government further stated:

The foundational point of view is that foreigners who come to live here should learn about our often different points of view, and that they should respect the society of which they are to be a part. But, naturally, we who belong to the majority must exert ourselves to understand other cultures and other outlooks on life. (Danish Parliament, 2003, quoted in Haas, 2008; my translation)

In the years after 2001, the Danish government thus expressed a concern with the internal social order of the State, a concern arising from the coming of migrants from non-Western countries. Although the government did not explicitly say so, this was in reality at least partly a concern with the immigration of Muslims, who were perceived as a potential terrorist threat, as was shown by the many attempts at attacks on Western countries that followed 9/11.

Summary of the historical sociological analysis

In the period from 1924, when the Social Democrats and the Social Liberal Party formed their first government, until the Second World War, the relaxation of the teaching of religion can be seen as part of an overall strategy of the new welfare state. During the war, the teaching of religion was formulated in antithesis to Nazism, and the teaching of Christianity became a possible means of countering German attempts at the Nazification of Danish schools.

With the coming of peace, the development of the Danish welfare state continued and intellectual liberty became a key phrase in Danish education in an attempt to combat totalitarianism (especially Communism). In the debate preceding the School Act of 1975 the key point is that the confessional teaching of religion was seen by the government as just another type of indoctrination and therefore incommensurable with the logic of the welfare state, which was to provide a maximum of personal freedom and liberty to the individual citizen.

In the 1990s an increasing awareness of internationalization, or globalization as it was later called, can be detected. In accordance with theories of globalization, the result of this was that Danish politicians in general began to value education in the Danish national heritage, including Christianity. The teaching of Christianity was from this point in no danger of complete abolition, as it had been in the 1970s (Bugge, 1994). After 9/11 and the cartoon crisis of 2005–2006, the new school subject could be seen as an attempt to counter anti-democratic forces (especially Islamic terrorism).

Concluding remarks

This study shows that a different narrative of the historical process emerges once the State is put at the centre of analysis. Instead of a narrative in which the secular and religious spheres of society are differentiated into separate realms as the process of modernization unfolds, we see one in which the State has used the teaching of religion as an instrument to further its interests. Against this background I contend that in the case of the teaching of religion, the important developments cannot be separated from the vital interests of the Danish State. Norbert Elias’s concept of the survival unit has thus in this case yielded a markedly different result than the secularization paradigm (Tschannen, 1991). In my view, the classical theories of secularization thus seem to have underestimated the power and influence of the State, certainly on the macro-level in the Danish case and quite possibly elsewhere, although Steve Bruce (2002), David Martin (1978) and recently Daphne Halikiopoulou (2011), among others, can be said to have paid some attention to the importance of the State in the secularization process. The study suggests that sociology should re-examine its most basic assumptions about the driving forces in history, because it seems to imply that the State agency is not without importance and that historical change is not simply driven by the broad and general processes of modernization. Norbert Elias’s concept of the survival unit can thus be successfully used to analyze socio-historical developments. Even in the functionally differentiated Danish society, the State has retained the option of using religious instruction to further its perceived needs and interests. Here, Denmark, as well as most other European States, stands in marked contrast to the USA, in particular, which is constitutionally barred from implementing policies that bear on religion. The consequences of this difference should be explored in future studies, as they are of potential significance with regard to the differences between Europe and the USA (Berger et al., 2008).

This study can also be used to question the sociological concept of society, which in most forms does not incorporate a State that interferes in society as does the Eliasian survival unit (Elias and Schröter, 1991; Joas, 2003; Kaspersen, 2008). Constitutions and State form do matter in the process of historical religious change, and the influence of State agency should therefore be brought into the study of secularization, de-secularization and historical religious change.