Jesus in the Danish Passport

[nastler]

If you have a Danish Passport (I don't) the inside of the front page has a rather fetching old image of Jesus on it, like this..



This image comes from the 10th century Harald Bluetooth runestone at Jelling (a village in Denmark). Harald, who also gives his name to the wireles communication system, raised a runestone to commemorate the memory of his parents, his conquest of Denmark and Norway, and his conversion to Christianity. King Harald is a big deal in Danish history and a cornerstone of the concept of a Danish Nation/people. You can see a copy of the stone at the Danish Church in London, 4 St Katherines Precinct, Regents Park.

(To me this image looks like it could depict any bound sacrificial (sun)king and in this way be palateble to the remaining non-christian war chiefs, but that's an aside)

Currently there is a complaint lodged at the Danish Justice Ministry asking why a religious symbol apears on an offical document and suggesting this violates the right to freedom of religion (there is no alternative passport you can ask for after all...)

The complaint has been lodged by a Karsten Riise Kristensen, a businessman who lives in the same town as me. He says,

"Jeg har en tro, men er ikke tilhænger af nogen religion, fordi jeg ikke tror på religiøse systemer. Faktisk meldte jeg mig ud af folkekirken, da jeg var omkring 20 år. Hvorfor skal jeg så være tvunget til at bære det her religiøse symbol på et system, som jeg har meldt mig ud af? Det støder mig, at jeg får påtrykt et religiøst symbol, som jeg gerne vil være fri for. Men det kan jeg ikke bare blive. For alle skal jo have et pas, hvis de vil rejse uden for landets grænser."

trans. "I have a faith, but I don't support any religion because I don't believe in religious systems. Actually I left the state church when I was 20. Why should I be forced to carry the religious symbol of a system I have left? It offends me that I am assigned a religious symbol that I would prefer to be free of. But I am unable to do this. Because everyone must have a passport if they want to travel over the borders of the country."

He will take the case to the Court of Human Rights if neccessary.

I suspect it will be, initial reactions from various legal eagles are mixed. No response as yet from our new Justice Minister Lars Barfoed.

Links to this news in Danish
http://www.berlingske.dk/danmark/jesus- ... er-anklage
http://www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/artike ... -pas?all=1
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2010/03/02/075214.htm

Edited once for a "wishful thinking" typo

[Elessarina]

He looks like Jesus the Trannie in an A-line skirt though so ..

[virphen]

That one I wouldn't have any problem with, any more than I'd have a problem with a picture on Zeus on a Greek passport (if there was one).

That particular image is as much a historical & cultural symbol as a religious one.

[Dr. Kwaltz]

That one I wouldn't have any problem with, any more than I'd have a problem with a picture on Zeus on a Greek passport (if there was one).

That particular image is as much a historical & cultural symbol as a religious one.

My exact reaction too!

I don't see this as religious as much as a cultural and historical heritage. It is not put on the passport for religious reasons but for national heritage reasons.

[nastler]

He looks like Jesus the Trannie in an A-line skirt though so ..

And in bondage too the sauce!

[Feck]

Of all the things to be upset about in this world full of religion that little picture is not one of them .

[NineOneFour]

If you have a Danish Passport (I don't) the inside of the front page has a rather fetching old image of Jesus on it, like this..



This image comes from the 10th century Harald Bluetooth runestone at Jelling (a village in Denmark). Harald, who also gives his name to the wireles communication system, raised a runestone to commemorate the memory of his parents, his conquest of Denmark and Norway, and his conversion to Christianity. King Harald is a big deal in Danish history and a cornerstone of the concept of a Danish Nation/people. You can see a copy of the stone at the Danish Church in London, 4 St Katherines Precinct, Regents Park.

(To me this image looks like it could depict any bound sacrificial (sun)king and in this way be palateble to the remaining non-christian war chiefs, but that's an aside)

Currently there is a complaint lodged at the Danish Justice Ministry asking why a religious symbol apears on an offical document and suggesting this violates the right to freedom from religion (there is no alternative passport you can ask for after all...)

The complaint has been lodged by a Karsten Riise Kristensen, a businessman who lives in the same town as me. He says,

"Jeg har en tro, men er ikke tilhænger af nogen religion, fordi jeg ikke tror på religiøse systemer. Faktisk meldte jeg mig ud af folkekirken, da jeg var omkring 20 år. Hvorfor skal jeg så være tvunget til at bære det her religiøse symbol på et system, som jeg har meldt mig ud af? Det støder mig, at jeg får påtrykt et religiøst symbol, som jeg gerne vil være fri for. Men det kan jeg ikke bare blive. For alle skal jo have et pas, hvis de vil rejse uden for landets grænser."

trans. "I have a faith, but I don't support any religion because I don't believe in religious systems. Actually I left the state church when I was 20. Why should I be forced to carry the religious symbol of a system I have left? It offends me that I am assigned a religious symbol that I would prefer to be free of. But I am unable to do this. Because everyone must have a passport if they want to travel over the borders of the country."

He will take the case to the Court of Human Rights if neccessary.

I suspect it will be, initial reactions from various legal eagles are mixed. No response as yet from our new Justice Minister Lars Barfoed.

Links to this news in Danish
http://www.berlingske.dk/danmark/jesus- ... er-anklage
http://www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/artike ... -pas?all=1
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2010/03/02/075214.htm

Where is the right to freedom from religion in Danish law?

Just interested.

[nastler]

oops. You're quite right, that's a typo.
Should have read "freedom OF religion".
Must have been wishful thinking on my part...

In the Danish constitution

Paragraf 67 i Danmarks Riges Grundlov

” Borgerne har ret til at forene sig i samfund for at dyrke Gud på den måde, der stemmer med deres overbevisning, dog at intet læres eller foretages, som strider mod sædeligheden eller den offentlige orden.”

trans. "Citizens have a right to organise in society to worship in the way that corresponds to their beliefs, although nothing preached or undertaken that goes against morality or public order"

[Animavore]

I thought this was gonna be one of those "Jesus in a cheese sandwich" type of stories.

[Matt H]

Personally, I can't see why people bother. Surely it is there for its cultural and artistic value more than its religious one?

[Dr. Kwaltz]

oops. You're quite right, that's a typo.
Should have read "freedom OF religion".
Must have been wishful thinking on my part...

In the Danish constitution

Paragraf 67 i Danmarks Riges Grundlov

” Borgerne har ret til at forene sig i samfund for at dyrke Gud på den måde, der stemmer med deres overbevisning, dog at intet læres eller foretages, som strider mod sædeligheden eller den offentlige orden.”

trans. "Citizens have a right to organise in society to worship in the way that corresponds to their beliefs, although nothing preached or undertaken that goes against morality or public order"

The translation is lacking.

"Citizens have a right to organise in society to worship God in the way that corresponds to their beliefs, although nothing preached or undertaken that goes against morality or public order"

You missed an important word.

[nastler]

I agree that this image is not a big deal for me, or any Dane I know. But it's always interesting to see where these court cases can lead. It wasn't so long ago that the European Court of Human Rights told Italy they couldn't insist on a crucifix in every classroom after all... Also from a cultural point of view I'm please to see the more vocal danish commentators who agitate for banning burkas, moskes and minarets suddenly having to justify their own totems.

Anyway, my suggestion would be simply to take the other (equally beautiful) Jelling Stone image instead. It shows a snake encircling a lion. Thus we keep the link to this "touchstone" event for Danmark. Culturally I don't understand the significance of this other image but that is just ignorance, I'd love to learn what it means and why Harald had it carved on his marker stone...



As a sub-point; talking with my danish friends about this I now understand that the conversion of Bluetooth is widely viewed as a pragmatic decision. The lands he had taken were in danger of immediate re-conquest from pious Teutonic Princes to the South. A religious alliance with these powerful warriors seemed to do the trick and the path to modern day Denmark was paved.

So the Jelling stone is a cultural and historical icon. And it represents no statement of conviction or principle but rather a deal designed to prevent destruction by larger neighbours. To represent a small modern state there could be no better metaphor!

[anthonzi]

Currently there is a complaint lodged at the Danish Justice Ministry asking why a religious symbol apears on an offical document and suggesting this violates the right to freedom of religion (there is no alternative passport you can ask for after all...)

The complaint has been lodged by a Karsten Riise Kristensen, a businessman who lives in the same town as me. He says,

"Jeg har en tro, men er ikke tilhænger af nogen religion, fordi jeg ikke tror på religiøse systemer. Faktisk meldte jeg mig ud af folkekirken, da jeg var omkring 20 år. Hvorfor skal jeg så være tvunget til at bære det her religiøse symbol på et system, som jeg har meldt mig ud af? Det støder mig, at jeg får påtrykt et religiøst symbol, som jeg gerne vil være fri for. Men det kan jeg ikke bare blive. For alle skal jo have et pas, hvis de vil rejse uden for landets grænser."

trans. "I have a faith, but I don't support any religion because I don't believe in religious systems. Actually I left the state church when I was 20. Why should I be forced to carry the religious symbol of a system I have left? It offends me that I am assigned a religious symbol that I would prefer to be free of. But I am unable to do this. Because everyone must have a passport if they want to travel over the borders of the country."

He will take the case to the Court of Human Rights if neccessary.

I suspect it will be, initial reactions from various legal eagles are mixed. No response as yet from our new Justice Minister Lars Barfoed.

He has a point. But there's a matter of finding a replacement, which you mention next. But pragmatically, it really isn't that big of a deal to be carrying an image that is religious if it is a historical piece of art. And no one in Denmark is worshipping that version of Jesus anymore I don't think.

I thought this was gonna be one of those "Jesus in a cheese sandwich" type of stories.

Anyway, my suggestion would be simply to take the other (equally beautiful) Jelling Stone image instead. It shows a snake encircling a lion. Thus we keep the link to this "touchstone" event for Danmark. Culturally I don't understand the significance of this other image but that is just ignorance, I'd love to learn what it means and why Harald had it carved on his marker stone...



As a sub-point; talking with my danish friends about this I now understand that the conversion of Bluetooth is widely viewed as a pragmatic decision. The lands he had taken were in danger of immediate re-conquest from pious Teutonic Princes to the South. A religious alliance with these powerful warriors seemed to do the trick and the path to modern day Denmark was paved.

So the Jelling stone is a cultural and historical icon. And it represents no statement of conviction or principle but rather a deal designed to prevent destruction by larger neighbours. To represent a small modern state there could be no better metaphor!

If the history you present here is true, than that would seem like a perfect replacement for the image. It also has the advantage of being more sexy.

Also from a cultural point of view I'm please to see the more vocal danish commentators who agitate for banning burkas, moskes and minarets suddenly having to justify their own totems.

I am glad for this also. The Mineret ban in Switzerland really got me cross . I can understand banning burkas though. I laughed out loud when I saw someone wearing one in my former university library. It's a fuckin' ninja suit for women!