Religion is not a sideshow

Of crosses, kippahs, and political symbolism

Who would have thought that in 2026, religion would once again — or perhaps still — play such a visible role in geopolitical debates? Not merely as a spiritual practice, but as a space of symbolic meaning and political interpretation. Whether in the historical relationship between Judaism and Christianity, the current role of religious communities in conflict zones, or the symbolic communication between states and churches: religion is part of global (security) politics. A number of developments, which at first glance seem unrelated, can currently be observed and understood in this broader context.

The power of images and gestures

One example is Israel’s recent appointment of George Deek as its first-ever special envoy tasked specifically with strengthening relations with Christian communities worldwide. This move comes at a time when relations between Judaism and Christianity are, once again, not without tension. Around Easter and Passover, reports circulated claiming that Israeli security personnel had prevented a Christian clergyman from entering Jerusalem’s Old City for prayer. Even if this account was inaccurate, the episode illustrates how quickly religious events can become politically and medially charged. Simplified or incomplete narratives play a key role in this dynamic. Similarly, a widely shared video showing an Israeli soldier damaging a statue of Jesus caused understandable concern and criticism among parts of the Christian public. Yet the consequences received far less media attention than the incident itself. A military court in Israel has since sentenced two soldiers to 30 days in prison for damaging a Christian symbol in southern Lebanon — the individual who damaged the figure of Jesus Christ, and the one who documented the act. Both have been barred from participating in combat operations. The statue has reportedly been replaced. Six additional soldiers were questioned and may face further measures, having been present at the scene without intervening or reporting the incident.

These examples highlight the immense power of images and gestures in a religious context.

This dimension is also recognized in Germany. A notable example is this week’s unique cooperation between the Jewish weekly Jüdische Allgemeine and the Catholic newspaper Tagespost. Subscribers to Tagespost received a complimentary issue of Jüdische Allgemeine, which also included a guest contribution from its editor-in-chief.

The initiative aimed to send a clear signal against hatred of Jews and in support of Europe’s Jewish-Christian heritage. In a media environment often shaped by polarization, even such a symbolic gesture becomes a deliberate act of solidarity and dialogue.

Religion: A Geopolitical Force

Fragile global orders and the impact of religion

These seemingly isolated developments point to a broader pattern: the growing fragility of global political, societal, and security structures.

Religious issues are deeply intertwined with identity, history, and emotion. As a result, individual events — whether positive or negative — can quickly have an outsized impact. Religion rarely exists in isolation; it is almost always politically interpreted and, at times, instrumentalized.

It is noteworthy in this context that Pope Leo has not commented publicly in detail on the specific case of the destroyed Jesus statue. This restraint may be intentional, aimed at avoiding further escalation. At the same time, his broader criticism of religiously charged violence and political instrumentalization remains evident. The close entanglement of religious authority and political interpretation is particularly visible in the tensions between the Vatican and political actors such as U.S. President Donald Trump.

“Avignon” as a historical reference point

Recent reports about statements from within the Trump administration mentioned a possible reference to “Avignon.” The Vatican has explicitly rejected this interpretation. Still, regardless of the exact wording, the public debate itself shows how sensitive historical references can be in contemporary political discourse. Historically, the term refers to the Avignon Papacy (1309–1377), a period during which the popes resided not in Rome but in the French city of Avignon. “Avignon” has since become shorthand for the problematic entanglement of spiritual and secular power. Even before this period, the so-called Outrage of Anagni (1303) had already marked a major confrontation between papal and secular authority. Pope Boniface VIII was attacked and temporarily detained by forces loyal to King Philip IV of France and allied nobles. Although he was freed shortly afterward, the incident is widely seen as a profound humiliation. It exposed the imbalance of power between the papacy and the French crown: while the papacy claimed spiritual supremacy, secular authority was able to challenge and override that claim in practice.

Religion in the geopolitical context

Whether factual or not, this episode illustrates how historical constellations continue to shape the interpretation of political symbolism today. References like “Avignon” function as shorthand for power asymmetries and potential influence. If such references are invoked in connection with the Pope in the context of the Trump administration — whether deliberately or through media framing — they can be read as a condensation of these underlying power dynamics. The debate alone shows how quickly historical narratives are mobilized to interpret contemporary political conflicts. Against the backdrop of an already fragile global security environment — particularly in the Middle East — it becomes clear that religious communication is part of broader geopolitical dynamics. Decisions, gestures, and even deliberate silence can carry real security implications. They shape perceptions and influence public sentiment. Seen in this light, it is perhaps no longer surprising that religion today exerts a geopolitical force few would have expected in this form.