Content uploaded by Ryszard Bobrowicz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ryszard Bobrowicz on Oct 31, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
religions
Article
Multi-Faith Spaces Uncover Secular Premises Behind
the Multi-Faith Paradigm
Ryszard Bobrowicz ID
Faculty of Theology, University of Copenhagen, Karen Blixens Vej 16, 2300 København, Denmark;
ryszard.bobrowicz@gmail.com; Tel.: +46-736-170-835
Received: 29 December 2017; Accepted: 22 January 2018; Published: 25 January 2018
Abstract:
Multi-Faith Spaces (MFSs) are a relatively recent invention that has quickly gained in
significance. On the one hand, they offer a convenient solution for satisfying the needs of people
with diverse beliefs in the institutional context of hospitals, schools, airports, etc. On the other hand,
MFSs are politically significant because they represent the cornerstone of the public religion in Europe
today, that is, multi-faith paradigm. Due to their ideological entanglement, MFSs are often used
as the means to promote either a more privatised version of religion, or a certain denominational
preference. Two distinct designs are used to achieve these means: negative in the case of the former,
and positive in the latter. Neither is without problems, and neither adequately fulfils its primary
purpose of serving diverse groups of believers. Both, however, seem to follow the biases and main
problems of secularism. In this paper, I analyse recent developments of MFSs to detail their main
problems and answer the following question: can MFSs, and the underlying Multi-Faith Paradigm,
be classified as a continuation of secularism?
Keywords: multi-faith spaces; secularisation; multi-faith paradigm; unaffiliated; multi-belief
1. Introduction
The notion of progressive “secularisation” has been an intellectual commonplace in Western
Europe since at least the nineteenth century (Norris and Inglehart 2005, p. 3). Secularisation assumes
that the processes of modernity will result in the final “disenchantment of the world”
(Weber 1958, p. 133)
, and the gradual disappearance of religion will follow. As Jeffrey K. Hadden
put it, “in due course the sacred shall disappear altogether except, possibly, in the private realm”
(Hadden 1987, p. 598). However, systematic challenges put a strain on that theory (for Europe,
see e.g.,
(Casanova 2006))
. Already, Hadden claimed that secularisation was only an “orienting
concept grounded in an ideological preference” (Hadden 1987, p. 587). Some, like Pippa Norris and
Roman Inglehart, built upon this claim, asserting that its traditional version needs corrections, and
should be considered a tendency rather than “iron law” (Norris and Inglehart 2005, p. 5). Others,
like Peter Berger, took the critique even further, and argued that secularisation should be rejected as
“essentially mistaken” (Berger 1999, p. 2).
A different perspective was offered by Ferrari (2012), who argued that secularisation was not
only a descriptive, but also a normative concept. It served as a purposeful policy of making the
public sphere truly neutral and impartial, which could only be achieved by making it secular, that
is, by making all public decisions on the basis of rational rather than religious principles (p. 356).
However, Ferrari claimed that secularism was not as neutral as it advertised itself. Quite the contrary,
it favoured some religious traditions, while imposing constraints on the other (p. 359). Ferrari drew
the line between “two different ways of conceiving and experiencing religion, [the favoured] one more
focused on the forum internum and the other on the forum externum” (p. 367). These distinct ways led to
two alternatives in thinking about religion, both equally unsustainable. Either the emphasis was put
Religions 2018,9, 37; doi:10.3390/rel9020037 www.mdpi.com/journal/religions
Religions 2018,9, 37 2 of 8
on the freedom of choice and the public sphere was accessible rather to those religions that based their
membership solely on individual conscience, or the emphasis was put on the “identitarian and cultural
value of religion”, which reserved public sphere predominantly for traditional religion (p. 370).
Both alternatives are, however, unsustainable due to a rapid change in the religious landscape
of Europe throughout the twentieth and the early twenty-first century. Factors such as an influx of
migrants, the birth of New Age movements or the loosening of denominational association among
many Christians resulted in the rising multi-religiosity and the development of non-institutional forms
of religion (Davidsen 2012, pp. 554–55). Western Europe has the highest percentage of the unaffiliated,
who account for more than half of its population (WIN-Gallup International 2012, p. 17). However,
the majority of those still hold some religious beliefs (Hackett and Grim 2012, p. 24), with 77% of
Europeans believing in some spiritual reality (European Commission 2010, p. 381). This complexity
will progress till 2050, when the Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist populations are forecasted to double
(Hackett et al. 2015, p. 147).
The so-called “multi-faith spaces” were developed in response to this rising multi-religiosity.
At first, these spaces were an answer to the diverse religious needs in the institutional context of public
facilities, such as schools, hospitals and airports. Recently, however, Multi-Faith Spaces (MFSs) began
to move away from such institutions and emerged as standalone projects. In Berlin, a priest, a rabbi
and an imam decided to erect a joint church of three monotheistic religions under the name “House of
One” (House of One 2017). More recently, Copenhagen City Hall allocated funds for the construction
of the first multi-faith church (Nilsson 2016), and the first religion-neutral cemetery was created in
Borlänge, Sweden (Ago 2016).
In this paper, I plan to review the developments of MFSs to date to detail their main problems, and,
further, analyse the extra-institutional developments to answer the following questions: (1) does MFS
theoretical orientation, a multi-faith paradigm, share common features with secularism; (2) do MFSs
confirm that this paradigm is biased as Ferrari proposed; (3) do all of these spaces fall into the general
trend? Due to the limited examples in Western Europe, I will focus on the three already introduced
initiatives which seem to capture the two above-mentioned attitudes towards the multi-faith trend.
2. Definition and Problems of Intra-Institutional MFSs
Although some spaces were shared by different religions in the past, the phenomenon of the
MFSs is quite recent. As Terry Biddington noted, the first explicitly all-inclusive “Andachtsraum”
appeared at Vienna Airport only in 1988 (Biddington 2013, pp. 316–17). Because of their novelty,
MFSs are still not well-defined. “The Multi-Faith Spaces” exhibition evidenced that even the
naming convention was not congruent, ranging from “inter-faith chapels” to “retreat lounges”
(Brand et al. 2012)
, which resulted from the efforts to attract wide audiences (Crompton and Hewson
2016, p. 83). MFSs are designated for various spiritual activities and should address both the religious
and the non-religious needs, without a bias towards any worldviews. And while their emergence
was a consequence of both grassroots initiatives and voluntary decisions of facilities’ management,
MFSs began to be promoted and recommended, among others, by government agencies in Europe
(e.g., in the UK, see (Collins et al. 2007, pp. 168–70) or in Spain, see (Velasco 2011)).
There are no architectural guidelines for the construction and design of MFSs. Nonetheless,
most of the existing spaces follow similar style patterns. Andrew Crompton (2013) noted that there
were two basic types of MFSs: negative, shared by a majority of such places in Europe and the USA,
and positive (p. 479). A “windowless white room with a few religious texts on a shelf and the
paraphernalia of religion, when not actually in use, kept out of sight in boxes” (p. 474), all made from
unobtrusive materials is the most common type of negative design. As Crompton argued, this is the
architectural equivalent of an “ambient-noise” (p. 491). The positive style is often described as ‘unity
by inclusion’, where the artefacts of different faiths are on display and the spaces are visibly occupied
by different groups (p. 479). Regardless of their style, some MFSs are established in reappropriated
Christian chapels, but most are built from scratch (The Economist 2013).
Religions 2018,9, 37 3 of 8
The evaluation of MFSs varies significantly. On one hand, they are praised as the “new level of
religious harmony” for their positive role in the facilitation of religious practice, the promotion of
tolerance, and the balancing of religious and secular provisions (Crompton and Hewson 2016, p. 77).
On the other, they often evoke equally strong negative reactions, especially regarding Islam. Some
secularists accused MFS of serving as “hidden mosques” that “creep into the public spaces, cloaked
behind political correctness” (The Economist 2013). Others see MFSs as a threat to their national
values and traditional religion. This is why Marie Krarup, the Danish People’s Party member of
parliament, wanted to close a multi-faith retreat room at the Søndre Kampus of the University of
Copenhagen (Ravn and Schmidt-Mikkelsen 2016). Meanwhile, many Muslims reject the multi-faith
facilities, requesting for a dedicated space and, on some occasions, even protesting in the streets
(Taneja 2010).
The problems seem to come from what Dinham (2012) called the muddle of the ‘multi-faith
paradigm’, which concealed two contradictory understandings of religion. On the one hand, religions
were treated as heroes of social cohesion that could bring different social groups together; on the other,
as villains that radicalised individuals (p. 577). Thus, the multi-faith paradigm and the accompanying
activities served a dual purpose: to use different religions to bring tolerance and a sense of togetherness,
and, simultaneously, to fight religion, introducing a preference for a more privatised faith (p. 588).
Most MFSs tilt the scale towards the latter by adhering to the negative design. That is why
Crompton and Hewson (2016) argued that MFSs “follow the modern preference for ‘faith’ rather than
‘religion’ and facilitate personal acts of worship”, acting “as a benign form of social control, treating
religion as a disorder to be tidied away” (pp. 80–81). However, such an approach generated multiple
problems. Aiming at everyone resulted in a home to no-one and a sense of impermanence (p. 82).
It put everyone at a disadvantage, but some more than others. Those, who needed objects, set activities
and control over their surroundings in their religious practice, were discriminated against, while those
who could pray anywhere were clearly favoured (p. 85). As Crompton and Hewson summed it up,
“multi-faith design is a provisional business, an act of casuistry rather than synthesis. Although it aims
at equality of opportunity users can never truly be served equally” (p. 84).
On top of that, a truly negative design is hard to achieve. As Velasco (2014) noted, a “neutral
arrangement” gave the upper hand to the unaffiliated and the non-believers (p. 4). As an all-inclusive
space, it needed an extreme amount of maintenance. Thus, based on several case studies, Diez de
Velasco tried to develop guidelines for MFS administration. The rooms had to be spacious, soundproof
and preferably circular, although a hexagonal design would work too. A scrupulous timetable should
be maintained by an appointed inter-faith minister(s), as there should not be any simultaneous sharing
by the groups. The rooms had to be spotlessly clean and the furniture easily removable for swift
rearrangement of the carpets. However, even those rules did not solve all the problems that occurred
amid increased religious activity, such as coincidental festivities of two religious groups (Velasco 2014,
pp. 5–7).
In fact, the more distinctiveness MFSs accommodate, the better they work. This is well illustrated
by a review of policies adopted by the UK universities. As Smith (2016) pointed out, they presented
two different attitudes (p. 1). The best performing facilities, represented by most universities from
the Russell Group, adopted the attitude of “pragmatism + public religion”. They implemented the
pragmatic recommendations of researchers like Diez de Velasco, introduced separate rooms for Muslim
prayers, and recognised religion as an important and positive addition to their campuses, maintaining
MFSs as a space for the cultural exchange (p. 5). On the other side of the spectrum were those spaces
that promoted a more privatised faith, rejecting religion as an unnecessary and unwanted problem,
with minimal, bland design and a lack of supervision (p. 8). They repeatedly gained negative media
coverage due to the clashes between different faith groups and the perceived inadequacy to the needs
of their users.
Hence, MFSs may achieve the opposite of what they aim for. At the very least, as Dinham pointed
out, “multi-faith practices risk constituting a parallel world running alongside ‘real’ faith communities,
Religions 2018,9, 37 4 of 8
seeming to respond to policy hopes but unable to bring constituencies of faith with them. To this
extent, the multi-faith paradigm remains a construct of policy hopefulness” (Dinham 2012, p. 586).
MFSs may generate conflicts and introduce inequality and discord. In the cases where former Christian
chapels were converted, as Sophie Gilliat-Ray has noted, they may have even become a flashpoint
of intra-institutional tension, especially between Christians, who were afraid of the exodus of their
tradition, and Muslims, who use MFSs more often, due to their daily prayers (Gilliat-Ray 2005, p. 300).
Diaz de Velasco argued that, in fact, MFSs can be classified as part of “the diverse phenomena
involved in redefining religious identities on an individual and collective scale that some have
attempted to group beneath the umbrella term of secularization” (Velasco 2014, p. 3). And indeed,
most of them fit well into Ferrari’s definition of secularisation: they favour those religious beliefs that
focus on the forum internum, and disadvantage those that entail external manifestation. Even though
some MFSs serve as supplementary facilities for a social exchange, rather than a main place of
religious observance, a vast majority of MFSs are organised around two notions: “choice” and “private
religion”. The “choice” lies behind the negative design, which embodies a reconfiguration of an old
policy and hopefulness for secularism. On the contrary, “private religion” entails the positive design,
a post-secular way to harmonise plurality of beliefs. Since the standalone MFS seem to be the next step
of the multi-faith paradigm, they may rely on the experience of previously established spaces. This
reliance will be the focus of the next section.
3. Shift to Extra-Institutional MFSs
In September 2016, Copenhagen City Hall agreed to allocate five million Danish crowns in their
forthcoming budget for the building of what has been called by the media the first “Faith-Neutral
Church” (Sputnik International 2016). The idea for what might better be named a ceremony room
surfaced in 2008, in response to a recurring struggle of non-religious people for an alternative to the
church and the town hall. A group of people proposed a neutral place for believers and non-believers
alike, where they could celebrate various rituals and rites of passage in their favoured design
(Voller 2008)
. A preliminary project of the facility was commissioned already in 2013, and Svendborg
Architects proposed to convert the unused part of columbarium at the Bispebjerg Cemetery accordingly
(Nilsson 2016).
The new building was designed as a 20-m high circular block, made of glass slats with a big
window in the ceiling, and water seeping down from it for light to easily permeate the whole interior.
The inside had to be neutral, and concurrently accommodating to everyone’s needs. However,
the reference to the church in media coverage was not ungrounded. As the architects admitted
themselves, they were highly inspired by churches in their project, especially with regards to light,
space, openness and acoustics. Like the religious temples, this building was designed to be both
respectable and sublime (Faerch 2013).
While the “Ceremonirummet” is still in progress, its similarity to the intra-institutional MFSs
is conspicuous. The preliminary design fits well into the “best practices” recommended by, among
others, Diez de Velasco and Crompton. The building has a circular shape and is made of simple and
neutral materials, with a good lighting and easily reconfigurable interior. With references to nature
in the form of water, it constitutes a perfect example of MFS negative design. Moreover, with the
religiously unaffiliated as the main group of potential users in mind, it even embodies the idea behind
such spaces—a visible preference for an individual choice and faith rather than religion.
Stora Tuna Cemetery in Borlänge, Sweden, is a religion-neutral burial ground of a similar character.
The local teacher applied for its foundation to the Church of Sweden, which, while no longer a part
of Swedish State, still retains some public responsibilities, like provision and maintenance of burial
grounds (The Local 2016). In spring 2016, all details were agreed upon and part of the cemetery
was dedicated for a new, neutral graveyard. It is maintained by the local parish, which is not
otherwise involved. And, again, negative design is the method of choice for the open character
of the space. Everyone, regardless of own belief, is entitled to having their resting place there,
Religions 2018,9, 37 5 of 8
as long as they refrain from exhibiting any religious, ideological or nationalist symbols on custom
tombstones
(Mankefors 2016)
. Those who want to be buried at a new ground can use a mortuary
chapel, and have access to the fully optional regular service of a priest. Although the space is currently
empty, the cemetery authority has already noted high interest (Ago 2016).
Scandinavian examples come from countries that either still have (Denmark) or, until very
recently, had (Sweden) state churches that for a long time had a decisive voice in the sphere of public
religion. This is where, according Peter Lüchau, the ‘Scandinavian Paradox’ emerged from: although
the population of Scandinavia is deeply secular when it comes to beliefs, the membership rates in
the national churches are very high (Lüchau 2009, p. 177). The new initiatives aim to counteract
this paradox and make place for the rising numbers of “unaffiliated”. It was especially clear in the
“Ceremonirummet” case, whose initiators, for that very reason, wanted to secure at least partial state
funding (Faerch 2013). Concurrently, one of the project’s main supporters, The Danish Atheistic Society,
ran a campaign encouraging renouncement of church membership (Sputnik International 2016).
However, while these initiatives counteract the influence of national churches, they can have
a paradoxical effect. As Flemming Pless, a Christian vicar from Christianshavn in Copenhagen has
noted, soon, at last, there will be an alternative for those who want to mark important transitions
without reference to God and Christian tradition. Thus, he will no longer be obliged to enable it in his
church (Bangslund 2016). This solution not only liberates people from the church domination, but also
sets churches free from the state-imposed obligations.
In Germany, multi-faith movements have different character and aims than in Scandinavia, due to
historical differences between their religious landscapes. For most of modern history, the latter was
almost uniquely Lutheran, while the former has been religiously plural. Already in 1524, the first
“Simultankirche” was erected in Bautzen for the shared use of Catholic and Protestants, and in 1732 the
King of Prussia set up an Islamic Prayer room in Potsdam (Biddington 2013, p. 316). Later, the trauma
of the Second World War only strengthened the need for tolerance and an inter-religious cooperation.
This laid firm foundations for the so-called “House of One”, which emerged in 2011 as a grassroots
initiative of representatives from the three religious communities: Evangelical Parish of St. Petri-St.
Marien, Jewish Community of Berlin and the Muslim initiative for dialogue Forum Dialogue e.V. While
the funds are still being collected, its architectural basis has already been chosen in an international
competition in 2012. Contrary to the above-mentioned spaces, it employs a positive design to harbour
three distinct temples under one roof: a Christian Church, a Jewish Synagogue, and a Muslim Mosque,
accompanied with a communal room, designated for inter-faith meeting space. Thus, every religion
has its own place and is respected for its distinctiveness, but remains open to “the others” and common
dialogue (House of One 2017). Therefore, it is not fully inclusive, like most MFSs, but rather focuses on
certain religious traditions and adheres to the needs of the local population.
Although this will be the first building to house three temples at once, similar designs were
introduced in the past. Crompton showed two such examples: Brandeis University, where Catholic,
Protestant and Jewish Chapels stood side by side around a pool, and Coventry University Hospital,
where separate mono-faith rooms for Catholic, Anglican, Hindu, Sikh and Muslim visitors are joined
by a hallway, which, as Crompton suggested, became a true multi-faith space. As the distinctiveness
of all these religions is satisfied, believers are more inclined to contact each other. These distinct spaces
“begin to resemble each other” to the extent that they become “difficult to tell apart” (Crompton 2013,
p. 486). The same principle applies to the “House of One”. While the distinction of three religions is
ensured by individual architectural form, the general aesthetics and building materials of the respective
spaces remain the same.
Both the “House of One” and the “Ceremonirummet” are still in the conceptual phase. Despite
their contradictory designs, it is hard to determine if they will suffer from the design-specific problems
of the intra-institutional MFSs. The religion-neutral cemetery, an already functioning space of negative
design, has run without problems so far. Unlike the intra-institutional MFS, these spaces have a
supplementary character. Therefore, while they follow the general directions of MFSs in Europe, these
Religions 2018,9, 37 6 of 8
spaces, contrary to their often-muddled predecessors, clarify two distinct purposes, both founded
upon the notion of “distinction”. On one hand, the negative design is introduced in those places where
the unaffiliated and the believers need to be distinguished from the mix of a “traditional religion”.
On the other, the positive design is used to enforce the cohesion between already distinct religious
traditions. The future research should address the following question: will extra-institutional MFSs
influence the public debate? It seems that their introduction may have a three-fold outcome. They may
either (1) polarise the public debate into the pro and contra-religious, (2) discharge the tension and
transform the state-entangled religions, or (3) fail to enter the public debate.
4. Conclusions
Peter Berger argued that “modernity is not necessarily secularizing; it is necessarily pluralizing”
(Berger 2008, p. 23). However, as I aimed to show in this paper, the general direction of the majority of
MFSs in Europe strives to make these two notions interchangeable. With the increasingly plural Europe,
the original form of secularism became unsustainable. Thus, to a certain extent, it was transformed into
the “multi-faith” secularisation, or, in other words, “Secularism 2.0”. By adherence to privatised faith
rather than to organised religion, negative MFSs became a new form of disenchantment, confirming
and bringing out the biases noted by Ferrari.
However, some spaces present a different attitude towards the multi-faith paradigm. A positive
design is employed to facilitate openness and mutual understanding of religious traditions’
distinctiveness. While the new standalone initiatives draw upon their predecessors, and do not
introduce any revolutionary solutions, their supplementary character alleviates potential tensions.
As they can openly support either individualised faith or religious traditions, they receive a new
character and clarify two distinct attitudes towards MFSs. The difference between these attitudes is
so big that it calls for their separation. Accordingly, two alternative names could substitute the term
of “multi-faith spaces”: the “multi-belief spaces” for the negative design (Velasco 2014, p. 2) and the
“multi-religious spaces” for the positive design.
Unlike Dinham, I would argue that the notion of “multi-faith paradigm” is not a muddle,
but rather an umbrella term for the transformations within the religious landscape of Europe.
Crompton argued that “multifaith is politically significant because it is replacing Christianity as the face
of public religion in Europe” (Ferrari 2012, p. 493). Indeed, both attitudes towards religion, described
by Ferrari, seem to change accordingly. The emphasis on choice and individual conscience became a
part of this paradigm, and the privilege and domination of the traditional religions seem to fade away.
Is it possible that the latter will be replaced by an inter-religious cooperation? Are the positive and the
negative design bound to ultimately clash? These questions would require further investigation.
Acknowledgments:
I would like to thank Diana Edelman from the University of Oslo for her helpful comments
on the main idea behind that paper, as well as Katarzyna Bobrowicz from the Lund University, who helped
me with an extensive edition of the text, and Rhiannon Garth Jones from the University of Copenhagen, for
linguistic comments. I would also like to acknowledge all people taking part in our ongoing project “In the
Search for a Truly Multi-Faith Space”, especially Moa Karlsson from the Lund University and Rúna Højgaard
from the University of Copenhagen for all of the discussions on the described problems. I want to extend my
gratitude to Mette Birkedal Bruun, the director of the Centre for Privacy Studies (PRIVACY) at the University of
Copenhagen, and Michala Brechling, senior consultant at the KU PLUS, UCPH Innovation Hub, for affiliating the
above-mentioned project. Finally, I would like to thank Terry Biddington from the University of Winchester for an
encouraging correspondence.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.
References
Ago, Niko. 2016. Här Finns Landets Första Neutrala Begravningsplats. SVT Nyheter. Available online: http:
//www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/dalarna/har-finns-landets-forsta-neutrala-begravningsplats (accessed on
28 December 2017).
Religions 2018,9, 37 7 of 8
Bangslund, Af Louise. 2016. Radikale Vil Have Trosneutralt Ceremoni-Rum I København. TV 2 Lorry. Available
online: http://www.tv2lorry.dk/artikel/radikale-vil- have-trosneutralt-ceremoni-rum-i- koebenhavn
(accessed on 29 December 2017).
Berger, Peter L. 1999. The Desecularisation of the World. Resurgent Religion and World Politics. Grand Rapids: William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Berger, Peter L. 2008. Secularisation Falsified. First Things 180: 23–27.
Biddington, Terry. 2013. Towards a Theological Reading of Multifaith Spaces. International Journal of Public
Theology 7: 315–28. [CrossRef]
Brand, Ralf Gregor, Andrew Crompton, and Chris Hewson. 2012. Multifaith Spaces—Symptoms and Agents of
Religious and Social Change. The University of Manchester and The University of Liverpool. Available
online: http://cargocollective.com/wwwmulti-faith-spacesorg (accessed on 27 December 2017).
Casanova, José. 2006. Religion, European Secular Identities, and European Integration. In Religion in an Expanding
Europe. Edited by Timothy A. Byrnes and Peter J. Katzenstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 65–92.
Collins, Peter, Simon Coleman, Janne Macnaughton, and Tessa Pollard. 2007. NHS Hospital ‘Chaplaincies’ in a
Multi-Faith Society. The Spatial Dimension of Religion and Spirituality in Hospital. Durham: Durham University
and NHS.
Crompton, Andrew. 2013. The Architecture of Multifaith Spaces: God Leaves the Building. The Journal of
Architecture 18: 474–96. [CrossRef]
Crompton, Andrew, and Chris Hewson. 2016. Designing Equality: Multi-Faith Space as Social Intervention.
In Religion, Equalities, and Inequalities. Edited by Sonya Sharma, Dawn Llewellyn, Pink Dandelion and
Kristin Aune. London and New York: Routledge.
Davidsen, Markus Altena. 2012. Future Directions in the Sociology of Non-Institutional Religion. Implicit Religion
15: 553–70. [CrossRef]
Dinham, Adam. 2012. The Multi-Faith Paradigm in Policy and Practice: Problems, Challenges, Directions.
Social Policy and Society 11: 577–87. [CrossRef]
European Commission. 2010. Biotechnology. Eurobarometer, 73.
Faerch, Michelle. 2013. En Ny Bygning Til Fødsel, Frieri Og Farvel—Men Uden Gud. Information. Available online:
https://www.information.dk/kultur/2013/10/ny-bygning- foedsel-frieri- farvel-uden-gud (accessed on
20 December 2017).
Ferrari, Silvio. 2012. Law and Religion in a Secular World: A European Perspective. Ecclesiastical Law Journal 14:
335–70. [CrossRef]
Gilliat-Ray, Sophie. 2005. From ‘Chapel’ to ‘Prayer Room’: The Production, Use, and Politics of Sacred Space in
Public Institutions. Culture and Religion 6: 287–308. [CrossRef]
Hackett, Conrad, and Brian J. Grim. 2012. The Global Religious Landscape. Washington: Pew Research Center.
Hackett, Conrad, Phillip Connor, Marcin Stonawski, and Vegard Skirbekk. 2015. The Future of World Religions:
Population Growth Projections, 2010–2050, Demographic Study. Washington: Pew Research Center.
Hadden, Jeffrey K. 1987. Toward Desacralizing Secularization Theory. Social Forces 65: 587–611. [CrossRef]
House of One. 2017. Available online: https://house- of-one.org/en (accessed on 20 December 2017).
Lüchau, Peter. 2009. Atheism and Secularity: The Scandinavian Paradox. In Atheism and Secularity. Edited by
Phil Zuckerman. Santa Barbara, Denver and Oxford: ABC-CLIO, pp. 177–96.
Mankefors, Linda. 2016. Här Får De Neutrala Den Sista Vilan. DT. Available online: http://www.dt.se/dalarna/
borlange/har-far-de- neutrala-den- sista-vilan (accessed on 20 December 2017).
Nilsson, Kirsten. 2016. København Kan Få En Kirke Uden God. Politiken. Available online: http://politiken.dk/
indland/article5635381.ece (accessed on 20 December 2017).
Norris, Pippa, and Ronlad Inglehart. 2005. Sacred and Secular. Religion and Politics Worldwide. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ravn, Tue, and Mia Schmidt-Mikkelsen. 2016. Taking Christianity Hostage. Universitetsavisen. Available online:
http://universitypost.dk/article/taking-christianity-hostage (accessed on 22 December 2017).
Smith, Jonathan D. 2016. Multi-Faith Muddle: Trends in Managing Prayer Spaces at UK Universities. Available
online: https://www.academia.edu/27658595/Multi-Faith_Muddle_Trends_in_Managing_Prayer_Spaces_
at_UK_Universities (accessed on 21 December 2017).
Religions 2018,9, 37 8 of 8
Sputnik International. 2016. Copenhagen Gives Go-Ahead to God-Free Faith-Neutral Church. Sputnik International.
Available online: https://sputniknews.com/art_living/201609131045252355-danmark-religion-neutrality/
(accessed on 20 December 2017).
Taneja, Poonam. 2010. Muslim Students in London University Prayer Room Row. BBC News. Available online:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8598455.stm (accessed on 20 December 2017).
The Economist. 2013. God’s New Digs. The Economist. Available online: http://www.economist.com/news/
international/21573967-best-multifaith-prayer-rooms-are-those-where-architects-bow-out-gods-new-
digs (accessed on 20 December 2017).
The Local. 2016. Sweden Gets Its First Cemetery Free of Religious Symbols. The Local. Available online:
http://www.thelocal.se/20161019/sweden-gets- its-first- cemetery-free-of-religious-symbols (accessed on
21 December 2017).
Weber, Max. 1958. Science as a Vocation. Daedalus 87: 111–34.
Velasco, Francisco Diez de. 2011. Guía Técnica Para La Implementación Y Gestión De Espacios Multiconfesionales.
Madrid: Observatorio del Pluralismo Religioso en España.
Velasco, Francisco Diez de. 2014. Multi-Belief/Multi-Faith Spaces: Theoretical Proposals for a Neutral and
Operational Design. RECODE, 26.
WIN-Gallup International. 2012. Global Index of Religiosity and Atheism. WIN-Gallup International. Available
online: http://www.wingia.com/web/files/news/14/file/14.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2017).
Voller, Louise. 2008. Ceremonier Uden Religion Til Folk, Der Lever Uden Gud. Information. Available online:
https://www.information.dk/kultur/2008/08/ceremonier-uden-religion-folk-lever-uden-gud (accessed
on 22 December 2017).
©
2018 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
