Politicisation of Religion in Scandinavian Parliamentary Debates 1988–2009

Lindberg, Jonas

doi:10.1080/21567689.2014.965693

Cited by 13 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Especially the parties on the right have positioned themselves positively toward Christianity, framing it as a characteristic feature of the nation and source of national cohesionirrespective of the fact that most voters do not define their national belonging in terms of Christianity (Lüchau 2011). It seems that it is religiosity (faith) much more than religion (a socio-cultural institution) that is shunned in Danish politics and Islam to a much higher degree than Christianity (Lindberg 2014;Lüchau 2011).…”

Section: Conditioning Political Participation: the Favored Position Omentioning

confidence: 99%

The participation paradox: demand for and fear of immigrant participation

Klarenbeek

Weide

2019

Critical Policy Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we address the ambivalence in European immigrant integration discourses toward the political participation of immigrants. We show how this ambivalence manifests in what we call a 'participation paradox', which is constituted by two apparently conflicting, but potentially mutually reinforcing characteristics of the discourse. The first emphasizes the need for immigrants to be active in order to attain a well-integrated society and wellfunctioning democratic polity; the second is a call for the protection of liberal democratic institutions from the alleged 'illiberal threats' that migrants pose to society. Immigrant participation is thus both demanded and feared. Using illustrations from Denmark, we show two different ways in which this paradox plays out in practice: i) the fear of participation results in debates around the general desirability of immigrant participation; and ii) the perceived threat of 'undesired participation' reinforces the demand for immigrants to be 'good' citizens by participating in a 'civic' way. In these cases, the content of immigrant participation is discursively restricted. We end the paper by exploring the consequences of the paradox in terms of the democratic position of immigrants.

show abstract

Section: Conditioning Political Participation: the Favored Position Omentioning

confidence: 99%

The participation paradox: demand for and fear of immigrant participation

Klarenbeek

Weide

2019

Critical Policy Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While in particular right-wing populist parties have been claimed to politicise religion as well as gender issues as part of symbolic politics to gain political influence, we can assume that they and other parties have simply found other reasons in these particular debates that are assumed to be just as effective (Akkerman and Hagelund 2007;Hadj-Abdou et al 2012: 138-139;Lindberg 2014). As part of the logic of symbolic politics, the issue at stake is not the real issue but an underlying, presumably racist, one (Edelmann 1964: 6;Scott 2007: 90).…”

Section: Neutralitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In relation to religion, this has been particularly the case with the right-wing populist Danish People's Party and to a somewhat lesser degree with its counterpart in Norway, the Progress Party. These parties have increasingly used religion as a way of political profiling in a highly-competitive political environment (Lindberg 2013(Lindberg , 2014. As a measure of the salience of such politicisation, the parliamentary debates on the wearing of veils by state officials together with other symbol-related issues constituted 23 per cent of the speeches with references to religion in Denmark and 12 per cent in Norway in 2008/09 (Lindberg 2014).…”

Section: The Danish and Norwegian Contextsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The justice minister Knut Storberget disagreed with this decision, but the final outcome, after a media debate and political resistance, confirmed that the wearing of veils by policewomen was banned. The debates in the Norwegian parliament on this issue were initiated by the Progress Party (Lindberg 2014). In 2010, the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Tribunal decided that the decision was a violation of the right to religious freedom.…”

Section: The Two Cases Of Veils Among State Officialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These parties have increasingly used religion as a way of political profiling in a highly-competitive political environment (Lindberg 2013(Lindberg , 2014. As a measure of the salience of such politicisation, the parliamentary debates on the wearing of veils by state officials together with other symbol-related issues constituted 23 per cent of the speeches with references to religion in Denmark and 12 per cent in Norway in 2008/09 (Lindberg 2014). Survey data from Denmark has also shown that the prime reason for resentment towards immigrants is fear of the cultural and religious values that they may bring (Schmidt 2009: 46).…”

Section: The Danish and Norwegian Contextsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Values and Veils in Danish and Norwegian Parliamentary Debates and the Absence of Gender

Lindberg¹

2015

Religion and Gender

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is a case study on the kinds of values that were invoked in the parliamentary debates in 2009 on whether or not Danish judges and Norwegian policewomen should be allowed to wear veils for religious reasons in their line of duty. The case marks a shift and the limits of the until-then fairly liberal religious accommodation by the two states. Despite the high esteem of gender equality in Denmark and Norway, gender values are less referred to in these debates and the most common values are instead secularism, secular progress and neutrality or, more explicitly, the impartiality and credibility of the state. The findings are understood as a sign of the adaptive character of symbolic politics to focus on different values depending on the issue, as the underlying purpose is to distinguish between the majority population and (religious) minorities through the use of a narrative of secular progress. A secularism based on such narrative is used to express a clash between values associated with secularity, freedom and modernity and religion, oppression and tradition, here symbolised by the wearing of veils.

show abstract