"L'Existence Précède L'Essence": How the Shift from Sacred to Secular Shapes Violence

In 21^st-century Europe, the relationship between religion and violence defies easy explanation. This complexity is not new; in the immediate post-war period, Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) offered a framework that can still guide us today. In his 1946 lecture "Existentialism is a Humanism", Sartre argued that "existence precedes essence", by which he meant that personal identity and meaning are shaped by action and context rather than being predetermined. This existentialist perspective clarifies how religion and violence are intertwined, revealing a mosaic of historical influences, extremist ideas, government strategies and social tensions. Instead of viewing violence solely through the lens of religious fervour, this approach provides deeper insights into the hidden forces driving contemporary conflict in Europe.

Deconstructing the Myth of Religious Violence

The term 'religious violence' often suggests an intrinsic link between religion and conflict. In The Myth of Religious Violence (2009), William T. Cavanaugh suggests that this idea is a constructed framework that legitimises secular power while downplaying the violence inherent in secular ideologies. He points out that influential thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), John Locke (1632-1704) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) reinforced this myth by attributing social instability to religious conflict. This Enlightenment narrative allowed later secular states to justify their own violence with less moral scrutiny. For example, the conflict in Northern Ireland (1968-1998) is often portrayed as primarily religious, although it was fuelled by deep-seated political and nationalist issues. This shows that modern states were born out of religious violence rather than resolving it, and that 'religious wars' before the 20^th century were more about power struggles than faith. If we recognise this, it becomes clear that religion is rarely the sole cause of conflict. Radicalisation is influenced by a mix of social, political, economic and psychological factors. Economic hardship, political disenfranchisement and social marginalisation – all exacerbated by globalisation and the internet – play an important role. The concept of 'the other' is crucial in this context. Defining certain groups as 'the other' encourages division and conflict. For example, the rise of far-right extremism in Europe often targets marginalised communities. The 2022 attack on a synagogue in Halle, Germany, illustrates how extremist ideologies rooted in xenophobia and antisemitism exploit political and social grievances. Similarly, rising Islamophobia in Europe has led to violence against Muslim communities, such as the stabbing of a Muslim teenager in Vienna in 2022. Extremist groups exploit these conditions to offer a false sense of identity to those who feel marginalised. Ultimately, to break the cycle of violence, we must challenge the myth that religion is the central cause and instead address the broader socio-political and economic drivers at play.

From Religious to State Loyalty: Justifications and Double Standards

With the rise of the modern state, allegiance shifted from religious institutions to national governments. This transition did not end violence but redirected it towards national interests. States began to demand loyalty and justify their use of force under the guise of national security, presenting their own actions as legitimate and indispensable, while labelling religious violence as irrational and dangerous. William T. Cavanaugh suggests that the modern state is not a cure for religious violence but a product of it. Early modern 'religious wars' were often about state-building and power consolidation, not just theological disputes. For example, the French government's response to 'Islamist separatism' following the murder of Samuel Paty in 2020 framed its strategies as critical to national security and social cohesion. Critics on the left argue that these policies have disproportionately and indiscriminately targeted Muslim communities. This double standard – rationalising state violence while condemning religious extremism as irrational – extends to other contexts. A similar dynamic can be seen in the emergence of white Christian nationalist groups, such as those involved in the 6 January Capitol riot in the U.S. These groups portrayed their aggressive actions as a defence of Christian values against perceived threats, despite the destructive nature of their behaviour. This illustrates how state and extremist aggression are often selectively justified, with the former seen as rational and necessary and the latter as irrational. Western interventions in Muslim-majority regions also follow this pattern. They are often defended as central to combating 'Islamic extremism', thereby legitimising state violence and obscuring its oppressive effects. This selective rationalisation of violence underlines the broader issue of how state action is framed as legitimate while extremist action is universally condemned.

The Radicalising Influence of Prisons and Extremist Recruiters

Radicalisation is largely driven by extremist recruiters and the prison environment, where vulnerable inmates can be exposed to radical ideologies. The 2015 Paris attacks, for instance, involved many individuals who had been radicalised in French prisons, and extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS use these settings for recruitment. Similarly, the 2019 London Bridge attack by Usman Khan, who was influenced by extremist ideology while in custody, illustrates how such institutions can be manipulated by radical groups. This pattern of radicalisation extends beyond prisons. A stark example of the impact of radicalisation is Anders Behring Breivik's attacks on 22 July 2011. Breivik was motivated by anti-Islamic sentiment and a belief that multiculturalism threatened Norwegian identity. His manifesto "2083: A European Declaration of Independence" framed his actions as a necessary response to what he saw as "cultural Marxism" eroding traditional values. His personal motivations, including feelings of isolation and a desire for recognition, aimed to provoke a wider revolt. Understanding radicalisation requires a focus on both the radicalising environment that fosters it and the wider socio-economic factors at play. Economic hardship, political disenfranchisement, and social exclusion increase susceptibility to extremist ideologies. Furthermore, the internet exacerbates these problems by spreading extremist content and connecting individuals with similar grievances. For example, the 2022 attack in Hamburg, Germany, involved an individual who had been radicalised by extremist material online. This incident at a Muslim community centre shows how digital radicalisation can escalate into real-life violence. To tackle radicalisation effectively, we need to address both the systemic failures within prison systems and the broader societal drivers of extremism.

Countering Radicalisation and Extremism in Europe

Effectively countering radical ideologies and violent extremism in Europe requires a comprehensive, multi-stakeholder approach. The rise of right-wing extremism in Germany and Islamist radicalisation in France underline the need for coordinated responses, as exemplified by Germany's "EXIT" programme, which supports individuals leave extremist groups, and France's "Prevent to Protect" initiative, which focuses on early identification and prevention of radicalisation in schools. In addition, religious leaders play a key role in shaping community values, as seen when imams and Christian leaders united to condemn violence after the Nice church attack. Complementing these efforts, campaigns such as the "United Against Hate" in the UK promote interfaith dialogue and strengthen community resilience. Addressing socio-economic factors is crucial; the 2016 Brussels bombings showed how economic hardship in marginalised areas increases vulnerability to extremist propaganda, making investment in vocational training and job creation essential. Promoting social cohesion and fighting discrimination, as evidenced by campaigns such as "Together Against Racism" in the Netherlands and "I am a European too" in Belgium, helps to counter the alienation that extremists exploit. The role of the media is also important, as extremist groups increasingly use social media to spread their messages, requiring cooperation between governments and technology companies to monitor and restrict extremist content, as shown by France's "Safer Internet" initiative and Spain's "Plan Against Radicalisation". A robust legal framework is needed to protect communities and maintain social order, while showcasing positive stories about diverse communities can mitigate negative narratives. However, the UK's "Prevent" strategy, which aims to balance security with community engagement, has been criticised for undermining trust and potentially going too far, illustrating the difficulty balancing security and civil liberties. Addressing these issues necessitates strong legislation against hate speech and incitement to violence, coupled with support for victims of extremism, to ensure that policies build resilience and promote unity without creating new problems.