Religious Otherness and National Identity in Scandinavia, c. 1790–1960

The Construction of Jews, Mormons, and Jesuits as Anti-Citizens and Enemies of Society

Frode Ulvund

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9783110654424
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: European History
• Index: History

The author discusses how religious groups, especially Jews, Mormons and Jesuits, were labeled as foreign and constructed as political, moral and national threats in Scandinavia in different periods between c. 1790 and 1960. Key questions are who articulated such opinions, how was the threat depicted, and to what extent did it influence state policies towards these groups. A special focus is given to Norway, because the Constitution of 1814 included a ban against Jews (repelled in 1851) and Jesuits (repelled in 1956), and because Mormons were denied the status of a legal religion until freedom of religion was codified in the Constitution in 1964. The author emphasizes how the construction of religious minorities as perils of society influenced the definition of national identities in all Scandinavia, from the late 18th Century until well after WWII. The argument is that Jews, Mormons and Jesuits all were constructed as "anti-citizens", as opposites of what it meant to be "good" citizens of the nation. The discourse that framed the need for national protection against foreign religious groups was transboundary. Consequently, transnational stereotypes contributed significantly in defining national identities.

1 Religiously foreign and nationally undesirable

“Truly! Neither Jews nor Jesuits, with all their Cunning combined, could accomplish as much Evil as the Mormons if they gained a real Foothold in the Country.”¹ The quotation is taken from an impassioned reader’s contribution to the Norwegian newspaper Morgenbladet in 1852, and illustrates this book’s theme – namely how religious minorities and groups originating beyond Scandinavia were portrayed as enemies of society throughout the region from the 1790s until after the mid-1900s. This will be explored by examining precisely how, at different times, Jews, Mormons and Jesuits were viewed as a moral, political and national threat to Scandinavian society and state. In different periods, each group was regarded as foreign, dangerous and undesirable. Key questions are who gave voice to the notion that these minorities were socially harmful, what constituted the danger, and the extent to which ideas about social perils had an impact on state religious policy. An overarching question is what all this has to say about the definition of national self-identity in Scandinavia.

A common feature for all Scandinavian countries was the dominant position of the Evangelical Lutheran Church until long into the 20th century. It was the state church in each country and had been endowed with a legal religious monopoly up until the Dissenter Act in Norway in 1845, the Constitution of 1849 in Denmark, and the Dissenter Act of 1860 in Sweden. Even though the hegemonic position of the established churches came to be contested – especially by Christian dissenters who worked to promote the legality of religious pluralism – religious practice throughout Scandinavia was more or less uniform under the stewardship of each country’s state-appointed clergy during the period covered by this book.

In the Swedish Constitution of 1772, religious unity was explicitly regarded as the “strongest foundation for a legal, harmonious and lasting government.”² It therefore resolved that the king of the country, officials and subjects would be faithful to the religion of the state church, just as every Swedish Constitution since 1634 had done. While the Constitution of 1809 did indeed declare religious freedom, at the same time it made it illegal to withdraw from the state church.³ As a consequence, only immigrants with a background in a religion other than that of the Evangelical Lutheran state were permitted to practise a divergent faith. In addition came the Jewish minority, who had been allowed to settle in certain Swedish cities in the 1780s. In practice, then, Swedish subjects continued to be subject to a strict religious regime without appreciable liberty until the Religious Freedom Act of 1951.

Particularly from the 1850s onwards, demands for genuine freedom of religion were formulated in the Swedish public sphere both as an expression of general political liberalism, and by emergent revival movements that found the legal framework detrimental to their activities.⁴ A prominent and controversial lawsuit pending in the Swedish judicial system in the same decade stirred international attention and growing debate on Swedish religious policy.⁵ Six Swedish women were sentenced to banishment for having converted to Catholicism, and in the end were set on a vessel out of the country in the summer of 1858. On his own initiative, King Oscar I (1799–1859) raised the issue of religious freedom at the highest level when he made mention of the case during his royal address of 1856. The king, French-born and himself originally Catholic, was also married to the Catholic Queen Josephine.

In Sweden, a first redoubt fell when the Conventicle Ordinance (the prohibition on congregating – konventikkelplakaten) was repealed in 1858. Two years later, a Dissenter Act granted Swedish citizens – subsequent to repeated imposition of admonitions and reprimands, and upon application to the king – permission to leave the state church and join foreign Christian faiths.⁶ This law must also be viewed in relation to an amendment to the Responsibility Act (Ansvarsförordningen) adopted the same year. It still had penal provisions for proselytising activity and the spread of “heretical teachings,” but decriminalised apostasy from the “true faith.”⁷ The act referred to defectors as “apostates” (avfälling), which in Swedish provided associations to divisive individuals and subversive undertakings. The Dissenter Act of 1873 did away with the pejorative characterisation of those who withdrew from the state church and opened up for the secession of anyone wishing to join another Christian denomination without having to go through a process of admonition led by the priest.

Debates over the terms for withdrawal from the Swedish state church took place regularly over subsequent decades. However, religious freedom and the unconditional right to leave the state church were only granted to all Swedish citizens, irrespective of religious faith, in 1951.⁸ This was the result of a political process that began with the appointment in 1943 of a Committee on the Dissenter Act that was commissioned to recalibrate religion legislation in closer accordance with the prevailing principles of religious freedom.⁹ Sweden’s ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights, adopted by the Council of Europe in 1950, contributed to bringing the process to a close.¹⁰ It now became formally lawful for members of the Swedish state church to disengage from it without having to register with another Christian congregation. Although the supervision of such membership never occurred after 1860, this meant that it was only now formally permissible for former members of the state church to adhere to an atheistic life stance or a non-Christian religion.

In Denmark, the situation in the years leading up to 1849 was much the same as its Scandinavian neighbours. Prior to the 1840s its legislation had much in common with Norway, which until 1814 was subject to Danish sovereignty. From the 18th century there were a number of precepts regulating the exercise of religion in Denmark and Norway. Christian V’s Danish (1683) and Norwegian (1687) Codes held that the only permissible doctrine in the two countries was that of the Evangelical Lutherans, and featured, for example, the death penalty for “Monks, Jesuits and similar Individuals of the Papist Clergy” encountered within the king’s realms.¹¹ The Conventicle Ordinance (Konventikkelforordningen) of 1741 regulated the right to congregate – essentially for Christians within the state church – in a not dissimilar fashion to that of Sweden. The ordinance did not prohibit religious gatherings – on the contrary, it regarded them as both edifying and useful – but they could only occur under the supervision of the local priest. Private devotionals were lawful as long as no outsiders were invited in. Section 8 of the ordinance also granted a limited right of assembly to individuals who were “sincerely seeking God” under certain conditions, first and foremost that the gathering was small and that it lasted only briefly.

The purpose of the ordinance was, of course, to exercise religious control and to maintain the religious unity of the dual monarchy. As arbiter of the state’s norms, the church stood at the nucleus, having at its disposition a rostrum and an apparatus through which the power and authority of the state was sanctioned. A monopoly on confession secured its grip on this flow of information.

By 1745, the authorities saw it necessary to clarify the understanding of religious freedom since “in sundry places in Denmark and Norway, quite a number of the King’s native subjects have been led not merely astray, but also towards the corruptions of Separatism, by Adherents and Emissaries of Sects entering the Country here from abroad.”¹² The rescript regulated the activities of foreign religious sects. It provided for the right of residence, but under stringent restrictions and with banishment as possible punishment in case of transgression. Foreign sects without royal permission for the “free Practice of Religion in certain Places in the Country” were to be “wholly and utterly forbidden” and placed on the first ship out of the country.¹³ Neither was it lawful to remain in the kingdom for those individuals who “will not abide in all Matters […] according to the Law of the King […]”¹⁴

In addition, the rescript allowed for a certain degree of religious freedom, and those who, for reasons of conscience, divorced themselves from the official doctrine would be granted the opportunity to resolve their understanding of religion “pending further notice.” If they arrived at the conclusion that they required further freedom, they would be obliged to seek the approval of the king.¹⁵ In any case, it was established that those who were to be “tolerated for the present time” should “bear the Burden with their fellow Citizens” in all matters and otherwise abide by the King’s precepts regarding marriage, burial and “all other discernible Custom.”¹⁶ In addition, the church ritual and stipulations thereof came with further clarifications concerning the religious monopoly.

In Denmark – as in Sweden – a Jewish minority represented a contrast to the hegemonic Evangelical Lutheran church. It had done so since the 1600s, but its presence was carefully regulated, as it had been almost everywhere in Europe where Jews were tolerated.

A breach in the religious ramparts occurred only when Denmark acquired a new Constitution in 1849, the year after the absolute monarchy was in practice abolished. Although the state church was granted privileges and declared a “National Church,” the Constitution proclaimed religious freedom for all without restriction except in cases where the practice of religion led to public unrest or challenged established custom.¹⁷ This brought Denmark out in front in Scandinavia when it came to endorsing a notion of fundamental religious freedom. Yet even though the Constitution unequivocally codified religious freedom, we will see later that in the initial period there were some hazy interpretations as to quite how broadly the reality of religious freedom ought to be understood.

In this book, Norway is given special attention. Until 1814, the kingdom was subordinated as a territory within the absolutist and multinational state of the Danish king. A national revolt erupted when Norway was ceded to the Swedish king in January 1814, and a constitutional assembly drafted and adopted the 17th of May Constitution at Eidsvoll, north of Oslo, that same spring. After a brief period of independence under a Norwegian king, a short war with Sweden ended in union later that year. With minor adaptations, Norway held on to its Constitution, restoring Norway as an independent state in a union with Sweden under a joint king. Unless in violation of the Constitution, legislation from the absolutist period under the Danish king was kept as well, including religious regulations.

Norwegian religious policy during the union with Denmark was strict and indoctrinating. Obtaining independence and a constitution did not change that; quite the contrary. The Constitution of 1814 included a ban on Jews (repealed in 1851), monastic orders (repealed in 1898) and Jesuits (repealed in 1956). Mormons were also declared non-Christian in 1853 by the Supreme Court and denied the status of a lawful faith until freedom of religion was codified in the Constitution in 1964. The constitutional ban on certain religious groups not only restricted the parliament’s ability to change religious laws – as constitutional amendments required two-thirds majorities within parliament – but was also a vigorous token of exclusion from the nation. These bans and the enforcement of them – especially when it came to Jews – gave Norway an international reputation in the first half of the 19th century as brutal with regard to religious laws.¹⁸

There was no full, codified freedom of religion in Norway until 1964, and until the beginning of the 20th century, it was by no means a reality. At the Eidsvoll Constitutional Assembly in the spring of 1814, there was agreement on complete religious freedom for all Christians, but for reasons unknown it fell away as the Constitution was being ratified. It was only with the repeal of the Conventicle Ordinance in 1842 and the adoption of the Dissenter Act in 1845 (permission to form Christian religious communities) that an allowance was made for the exercise of religion beyond the confines of the official religion of the state, which eventually came to be known as the state church – but this was only for Christians. Although in the wake of the new Penal Code of 1902 there were no longer penal provisions that provided the legal authority to intervene against unlawful religious practice, in a formal sense it was not until the constitutional amendment of 1964 that everyone – Christians and non-Christians alike – was afforded the equal right to the free exercise of religion.¹⁹ It was only then that the religious regimentation enshrined in Christian V’s Norwegian Code of 1687 ceased to have any formal validity. Freedom of religion was later actively regulated by the Faith Communities Act of 1969.

However, the Constitution did not codify a boundless religious freedom. Both in 1974 and in 1980, the Supreme Court ruled that “the Constitution’s provision on the right to the free exercise of religion has not been intended to warrant an unrestricted religious freedom that would grant citizens the right to refuse to fulfil a social obligation.”²⁰ These cases concerned individuals belonging to the Jehovah’s Witnesses who refused to perform compulsory civilian national service as a substitute for military service, and demonstrated that the right to the exercise of religion was still dependent on compliance with the laws of the land.

The Norwegian state’s religious policy in the period following 1814 can be divided into phases with their own distinctive features.²¹ A first phase, up until 1845, was characterised by strict religious regimentation. Religious communities beyond the Evangelical Lutheran state church were tolerated only to a very minor degree. After 1845, Christian religious communities were not placed on an equal footing with the state church, but tolerated and therefore permitted with restrictions. From the second half of the 19th century, religious communities that were not subject to the Dissenter Act were also increasingly tolerated – in the sense that the authorities more often than not refrained from intervening in illegal religious practices.

After the Penal Code entered into force in 1905, intervention against unauthorised religious practices could no longer be grounded in any legal authority, thus ushering in a de facto religious freedom. This led to great dissatisfaction among many in political and ecclesiastical circles, and soon provoked attempts to enact special legislation on religion to protect the state church and its doctrine. Although this never led anywhere, there were examples of the application of other laws and instruments to prevent undesirable religious influence. The denial of visas for Mormons in the post-World War I era is one such example; another is the attempt to refuse foreign religious communities a license to purchase property.

Religious communities outside the state church never constituted large groups in any of the Scandinavian societies during the period addressed in this book. Though all the countries were greatly influenced by lay Christian movements, most of these remained within the established church. At the beginning of the 1970s, 95 per cent of the Swedish population were still members of the state church.²² The same was true of Denmark, where over 90 per cent of the...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Illustrations
• 1 Religiously foreign and nationally undesirable
• 2 Tolerating religious pluralism?
• 3 The fear of states within the state
• 4 Unfit as citizens? – the Jewish danger c. 1790 – 1851
• 5 Islam’s sensuous sibling? – the Mormon danger c. 1850 – 1955
• 6 A moral threat to society? – the Jesuit danger 1814 – 1961
• 7 The nation’s anti-citizens: A conclusion
• Index of names