Gáspár Békés, European Secularist Network: Secular Policy in Hungary

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Vocal.Media

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/12/09

Gáspár Békés is Secretary and a Founding Member of the Hungarian Atheist Association and a persecuted secular journalist. Here we talk in-depth about secularism, Humanism, youth rights, and religion in Hungary. 

In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Békés discusses the launch of the European Secularist Network at the European Parliament and why secular humanism should be the foundation of European policy. Békés argues Hungary weaponizes religion—outsourcing state functions to churches, censoring secular voices—and that far-right “Christian re-theocratization” is a false solution to migration and security challenges. He proposes equal human rights standards across all faiths and institutions, challenges biased census design, and targets Hungary’s restrictive vasectomy rules as test cases for Strasbourg. The network aims to pool resources, coordinate litigation, and lobby lawmakers to defend egalitarian, secular governance.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: All right—so, rotten tomatoes again. We now have the launch of the European Secularist Network. The organizations include Centre d’Action Laïque (Centre CAL) from French-speaking Belgium, IGALE from France, Europa Laica from Spain, Kongres Świeckości from Poland, the National Secular Society from the UK, UAAR from Italy, the Hungarian Atheist Association, and others. I was present at an invitation to the event at the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

It is actually a large coalition of organizations and individuals, secular voices from across Europe. The network was launched in the European Parliament in Strasbourg on July 8, 2025. I was present. You spoke, others spoke, and parliamentarians also addressed the gathering about the importance of combating the rise of the extreme far right and the role of secular voices in that struggle. Is that a fair characterization? What else should be noted?

Gáspár Békés: Yes, that’s perfect. It is an excellent characterization. The reason I found this opportunity so exciting is that it was held in the European Parliament. That meant we were not just talking in an ivory tower of our own making—it was happening right where politics happens. Too often, secular or atheist-secular perspectives do not enter the mainstream; they stay at the margins. So having this network launched in such a prominent forum is a good sign for the future. It also had real backing.

We had a parliamentarian present who genuinely understood what was at stake and the connections involved. I sincerely believe that secular humanism offers answers to many of the most pressing challenges facing Europe today. In my speech, I highlighted some of the Hungarian proceedings—how the Orbán regime is weaponizing religion to push an illiberal agenda. This includes indoctrinating children, as I have mentioned earlier, but also outsourcing public services, institutions, and funds to churches, which then operate with little to no oversight. Many laws do not even apply to churches, and those that technically do are unenforced or selectively applied.

This is not unique to Hungary. We see the same modus operandi in Iran, Turkey, and Russia—different religions, same weaponization of faith. Europe feels the effects too—for example, the Russian Orthodox Church. Hungary colluded with Putin to lobby for Patriarch Kirill to be removed from the EU sanctions list. They argued it would violate religious freedom to sanction him—even though he is an ex-KGB agent and the Church itself is being used for surveillance. There are credible reports that the Orthodox Church places buildings near nuclear facilities, military bases, and airports to hide listening devices. Intelligence gathering disguised as religion. Moreover, when anyone points it out, they cry “religious persecution.”

This is also a security issue. My background in international security from Sciences Po gives me a lens to see how deeply these dynamics affect global stability. Moreover, they absolutely do.

Meanwhile, the far-right in Europe is gaining traction by pushing the idea that an “Islamic invasion” can only be stopped through a Christian re-theocratization. They argue that Europe must defend itself by returning to Christian foundations and heritage. However, what this actually means is trading one theocracy for another. It is neither democracy nor freedom. Most people do not want either an Islamic theocracy or a Christian theocracy. Both are equally disastrous.

That said, the far-right’s rhetoric gains traction because migration is a real issue. No one denies that solutions are needed. Moreover, this problem will only intensify with the climate crisis. Environmental displacement will drive even more refugees into Europe, on a scale far larger than what we have seen so far.

So we do need to come up with a strategy for how to address this. Of course, there is already a problem with migrants living in Europe, although the scale and tone presented by the far-right do not give a realistic picture. Nonetheless, the problem exists. Current politics does not really address it, because if you look across the political spectrum, there is no consistent strategy.

However, secular humanism can provide one. You cannot restrict Muslim migration by saying Islam is an aggressive religion that does not respect women or LGBTQ rights, while at the same time propping up the Catholic Church. That is simply racism. If someone does not oppose all oppressive ideologies, all oppressive religious structures, and does not advocate for the enforcement of fundamental human rights across every institution—including churches—then they are being selective, and that selectivity is racist. If someone singles out Muslims, that is racism, plain and simple.

Few politicians today are addressing the entire problem. Secular humanism, however, offers a solution. This migration crisis highlights why strong secular institutions are needed and why a strong secular rule of law is vital. We should revisit, refresh, and advance secular protections because egalitarianism must underpin how we address this crisis.

It is perfectly fair to say that someone should not be allowed to enter a country as a migrant if they do not respect the equality of women, or if they believe gay people should be stoned. That is unacceptable. That is incompatible with fundamental European values and human rights. But that standard should apply regardless of whether it stems from an interpretation of Islam or from any other religion or ideology.

At the same time, we must examine the privileges of existing religious institutions in Europe, including Christian churches and Jewish institutions. Take the Catholic Church. In every country in the world, it legally discriminates against women. No other institution is allowed to do this. Imagine if Lidl or another supermarket chain refused to hire women because they thought women were less capable of running a cash register. It would be absurd. However, the Catholic Church is permitted to do it—and in many countries, including Hungary, they even receive state funding while doing so.

So the only way to address the problem of Muslim immigration and the intolerance sometimes associated with it is also to take a hard look at the privileges granted to Christian churches. If we are going to challenge intolerance from Islam, or at least fundamentalist interpretations of Islam, then we must also challenge the existing privileges of the Catholic Church. That is the only consistent approach.

Of course, that is not easy. The Church has been operating with privilege for nearly two thousand years. However, change is possible—and history shows the Church only changes when it is forced to. One prominent example is the Reformation. When it finally faced competition, when there was no monopoly on religion, it had to adapt to new market conditions. If we truly live in a capitalist society, then perhaps the Church should face real market competition.

Moreover, of course, the state’s support of churches is skewing the market. It manipulates market conditions because churches are not subject to market forces. If they actually had to, the Catholic Church—being the largest and most influential—would probably become the biggest supporter of gay rights and human rights, because otherwise people would stop paying for it. Right now, they have their own state. For ease of argument, I often highlight the Catholic Church, but of course, we could also talk about ultra-religious Israelite communities or other groups. The point is that churches are not forced to change. They run PR campaigns with Pope Francis saying nice things now and then, but there is no real progress, because they are under no pressure. For example, allowing women to become priests would not collapse the Church. People say the institution cannot change, but I do not find that argument compelling. First of all, if the Church collapses because it cannot meet modern standards, then so be it. Second, history shows collapse is unlikely. When hundreds of thousands of cases of child rape were uncovered in France, the Church did not collapse. Nobody was banned, and hardly anyone was arrested. If that did not cause collapse, ordaining women indeed would not—it has not collapsed Protestant denominations that ordain women. In fact, the Catholic Church would likely benefit from change. Many people still have an intrinsic need for spirituality. Mortality guarantees that. If the Church embraced human rights, more people might return. Right now, many are distancing themselves because Church teachings on contraception and gender roles are wildly out of step with lived reality. Realistically, it would be a challenge even to find a Catholic in the street who actually follows the contraception ban. So this is a win–win situation: the Church could survive and even thrive if it adapted, while society would benefit from more egalitarian institutions. Otherwise, it risks extinction. I do not know how far Europe will push this, however. Public money continues to support churches, even as both priests and congregants decline. In Hungary, the average priest is in his 60s, and last year only 64 priests were in training, 1/4 of what the number was 20 years ago, way below the replacement rate. It is hard to say which will run out first—the priests or the flock. This circles back to the far-right argument: it can never work. Even if you accept the premise that a Christian theocracy is needed to combat an Islamic theocracy, there are not enough Christians—let alone fundamentalist Christians—to sustain such a system. It would fail. The only viable alternative is secular humanism, which involves establishing strict egalitarian standards across all institutions, whether religious or otherwise. Then we can say consistently, “We do not accept fundamentalist Islamists, because we do not accept any fundamentalism.” That is how this crisis can become an opportunity to advance human rights to the next level, where they belong. Otherwise, the alternative is a very dark path.

Jacobsen: This is a footnote to the whole thing. The European Humanist Federation ceased operations in December 2022. It was the largest umbrella group in Europe for humanist and secularist bodies and offered advocacy at the European Union and Council of Europe fora. Its role was absorbed into Humanists International’s European capacity-building efforts. Where does the European Secularist Network sit alongside that? Because it seems like the European Humanist Federation did the same work, though now under a more global body.

Békés: Well, Humanists International is focused primarily on the international sphere. They try to avoid being too regional. In a way, it is a group that harmonizes different ideas. However, it is not just about secularism—it also supports things like humanist ceremonies and other added values of humanism, the softer side, such as capacity-building. It functions as an umbrella organization for standardization, information-sharing, and exchange, but it is not focused on any one issue. That is why having a secular network is important: it has a European focus, addresses European challenges, and is explicitly centred on secularism—the most political aspect of humanism. I often feel that while I cherish and appreciate the work of Humanists International, it sometimes lacks the directness that a secular political organization requires.

Jacobsen: The teeth.

Békés: Yes, the teeth, exactly. A secular political organization addresses issues that require attention at the political level and avoids being sidetracked by matters that, while valuable, are politically redundant—such as humanist ceremonies. They are wonderful, I love them, but they are not relevant when lobbying European policymakers. Stakeholders want to know: what is secularism, what does it add, what does it bring to the table? That is what this secular network can provide. Although I am vice president of the Hungarian Atheist Society, many people assume we do things like debates with creationists. I could not care less about that. I have never tried to convince anyone to be an atheist, and I do not advocate atheism itself. I advocate for equal treatment of atheists and for secularism. Those are the issues that interest me, and they are the focus of my work. Having a network, a secular platform where I can engage at the international level, is very exciting. It is high time we had it, and I expect great things.

I also presented some of the strategies we are pursuing at the Hungarian Atheist Association, including strategic lawsuits. My own case is unfortunately one of them now, but another is also heading to the European Court of Human Rights: the manipulated census. Hungary asked a suggestive question about religion—religious respondents could specify their denomination, but non-religious respondents could not. This was clearly intentional, preventing non-religious people from being recognized as an identifiable group and therefore blocking them from forming advocacy or lobbying efforts based on their numbers. We challenged it in court; the Constitutional Court rejected it, and now it is heading to Strasbourg. This is especially important because Hungary is not unique—most European countries either ask leading questions or fail to give non-believers space to specify their worldview. It is a European problem, and it is also bad science. I would have been kicked out of my bachelor’s program in the first year if I had ever presented data gathered this way.

When you ask a suggestive question and categorize groups that way, you would fail an introductory sociology class. However, states are doing this. A legal victory here would matter not only because it would improve the science and have a long-lasting impact through precedent, but also because it would demonstrate that the secular community has the expertise, capability, and teeth to advance European policy. That would be a real victory. If Western European organizations could help fund these cases in Eastern Europe—where they are likely to fail in national courts but have a chance at the European Court of Human Rights—it could foster meaningful cooperation between European actors.

We are also planning other lawsuits. For example, Hungary banned vasectomies in 2014. Under the law, you must either be 40 years old or have three children to undergo the procedure, which is an absurd violation of human rights. The official justification was demographics. I am not joking—that is written into the law’s reasoning: declining demographics as a reason to restrict one of the most fundamental and intimate rights. Abortion is legal, contraception is legal, so the restriction is disproportionate and inconsistent. I think there is a strong chance the European Court of Human Rights would reject such a ban. That would also have a wider European effect, because several countries still restrict vasectomies and female sterilization. I could only bring a case as a man, but it would pave the way for women to challenge these restrictions as well.

I view the European Secularist Network as a platform to pool resources for strategic legal action and to lobby politicians. It can demonstrate that secularism is not an abstract philosophical notion but a central framework for European politics, one that offers fundamental tools to confront some of today’s biggest challenges.

Jacobsen: Excellent. Gáspár, thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Békés: Thank you.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.