Summary
A new comparative study examines how three European countries—Austria, Croatia and Serbia—are responding to the religious diversity brought by migration. Authors Deniz Cosan Eke, Aleksandra Djuric Milovanovic and Sinisa Zrinscak set out to map grassroots interreligious dialogue (IRD) initiatives that take account of the diverse cultural and religious backgrounds of refugees and migrants. Their central finding is stark: Austria has a long, institutionalised history of interreligious dialogue, while Croatia and Serbia have only scattered, informal initiatives rooted in humanitarian work.
The three countries share important characteristics. All have experienced migration as a divisive social issue. All have seen rising religious diversity linked to refugee arrivals since 2015. All have witnessed a shift in public discourse from humanitarian welcome toward securitisation and threat narratives. Yet their responses differ dramatically. Austria, a predominantly Catholic country with significant religious minorities, has religious councils, university-led dialogue projects and state integration plans that explicitly mention interreligious dialogue. Croatia and Serbia, both more religiously homogeneous, have no structured IRD at the state level. Instead, faith-based organisations such as the Jesuit Refugee Service, Caritas, ADRA and the Center for Cultural Dialogue carry out integration work that includes interreligious understanding implicitly rather than explicitly.
The authors argue that these grassroots initiatives, though fragmented and underfunded, hold potential to be scaled nationally. However, without structural support and public visibility, interreligious dialogue remains a side-effect of humanitarian aid rather than a deliberate strategy for social cohesion. The study calls for further comparative research on how dominant religions view IRD and whether dialogue can genuinely reshape hostile migration narratives.
Three Countries, One Shared Challenge
Migration has reshaped Europe’s religious landscape. Since 2015, when the so-called refugee crisis dominated headlines, countries across the continent have grappled with how to integrate newcomers from diverse faith backgrounds. A new study by Deniz Cosan Eke, Aleksandra Djuric Milovanovic and Sinisa Zrinscak examines this challenge through the lens of interreligious dialogue in three countries: Austria, Croatia and Serbia.
The authors define interreligious dialogue broadly, encompassing activities by religious organisations and faith-based civil society groups that seek contact with migrants. Their aim is not to provide exhaustive analysis but to map local projects and initiatives that recognise the cultural and religious diversity of refugee and migrant populations. According to the researchers, this kind of comparative work remains rare, particularly for Croatia and Serbia.
The three countries offer a meaningful comparison. Austria is a destination country for migrants, while Croatia and Serbia have traditionally been transit and emigrant countries, though both are now seeing rising immigration. Austria and Croatia are predominantly Roman Catholic; Serbia is predominantly Orthodox. All three share a history of living within common states, whether the Austro-Hungarian Empire or socialist Yugoslavia. These similarities and differences shape how each country approaches religious diversity.
Religious Landscapes and Migration Patterns
Census data from 2021 and 2022 reveal significant differences in religious composition. Austria is the most diverse, with Protestants at 3.8 percent, Orthodox Christians at 4.9 percent and Muslims at 8.3 percent. More than 22 percent of Austrians claim no religious affiliation. Croatia and Serbia are far more homogeneous, with roughly 80 percent of their populations belonging to the dominant faith. Only 6.39 percent of Croats and 1.2 percent of Serbians report no religion.
Religiosity also varies. According to Pew Research Centre data, religion is very important in the lives of 42 percent of Croats, 34 percent of Serbians and just 12 percent of Austrians. Christianity plays a stronger role in ethnic identity for Serbians (78 percent) and Croats (58 percent) than for Austrians (39 percent).
Migration patterns differ too. Austria has long been an immigrant society, receiving more immigrants relative to its population than Germany or France. Until the 2000s, most came from Christian-majority countries. After 2011, conflicts in the Middle East shifted patterns, bringing significant numbers from Syria and Afghanistan. Croatia, traditionally an emigrant country, saw immigration outnumber emigration for the first time in 2022. New arrivals come from Bosnia, but also increasingly from India, Nepal and the Philippines. Serbia has also seen rising immigration, primarily from China, Romania and Russia, alongside refugees from Syria, Afghanistan and Ukraine.
| Country | Dominant Religion | Muslims (%) | No Religion (%) | Migration Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Austria | Catholic | 8.3 | 22.4 | Destination country |
| Croatia | Catholic | ~1.5 | 6.39 | Emigrant, now immigrant |
| Serbia | Orthodox | ~3 | 1.2 | Emigrant, transit, now immigrant |
When Migration Becomes a Threat Narrative
Across all three countries, migration has increasingly been framed as a social threat. The authors cite research showing that media and political discourse commonly portray migrants through three lenses: as an economic burden, as a security threat and as a danger to national identity and culture.
In Austria, immigration became an internal security issue in the 1990s. The Ministry of the Interior took over immigration regulation, and narratives shifted from a welcoming culture to anti-immigrant sentiment. By 2018, the coalition of the conservative ÖVP and far-right FPÖ refused to join the UN Global Compact on Migration, arguing that migration should not become a human right. Austria was the fourth-largest receiver of asylum seekers in the EU in 2015, bringing the religion of immigrants to the forefront of public debate.
Croatia experienced less public debate during the 2015–2016 refugee crisis because most migrants passed through quickly. However, recent analysis shows that media coverage now overwhelmingly frames migrants through security and political lenses. A 2024 study found rising shares of citizens who see immigrants as threats to personal security, cultural identity and political loyalty. Integration policy remains absent at the official level.
Serbia initially responded to refugees with a humanitarian narrative. After Hungary closed its borders in September 2015, Serbia faced mounting pressure on camps, public services and infrastructure. The narrative shifted toward strain and economic cost. Media coverage of physical attacks by refugees fuelled xenophobic attitudes and tensions with local communities.
Interreligious Dialogue in Austria: Institutionalised and Visible
Austria stands apart for its long history of institutionalised interreligious dialogue. Religious councils at the state level officially represent all recognised churches and religious communities. Brochures produced for schools, hospitals and care facilities explain religious festivals, traditions and practical needs. Guidelines address how to handle different religious cultures in patient care.
Universities, religious communities and NGOs play crucial roles in fostering dialogue. The University of Vienna has compiled detailed lists of IRD initiatives. Christian welfare organisations Caritas and Diakonie carry out most aid and integration work. In 2015, they implemented about 20 percent of all integration projects funded by the Ministry for Integration. Refugee support organisations such as Flucht nach Vorn, KAMA, PROSA and Queer Base emerged in Vienna.
Austria also developed a National Integration Action Plan in 2010, which includes intercultural and interreligious dialogue. Religious actors from Christian, Jewish and Islamic communities participate in this framework. However, the authors note that Austria’s interreligious dialogue platforms have not yet become permanent elements of integration or religious policy. They remain important but somewhat ad hoc.
| IRD Actor Type | Examples | Focus |
|---|---|---|
| State religious councils | Upper Austrian Religious Advisory Council | Information, guidelines |
| Universities | University of Vienna | Mapping initiatives |
| Faith-based NGOs | Caritas, Diakonie | Aid, integration projects |
| Refugee support groups | Flucht nach Vorn, Queer Base | Leisure, education, LGBTQI support |
Croatia: Grassroots Initiatives Without Structure
Croatia lacks structured interreligious dialogue at the state level. In its absence, non-governmental organisations have developed important initiatives, mainly following a humanitarian approach. Some are slowly redefining their roles to emphasise integration and the need for IRD.
The Center for Cultural Dialogue, established in 2015, explicitly promotes intercultural and interreligious dialogue. Many active members have a Muslim identity, and the centre emphasises understanding of Muslims. Its “New Neighbours” project supports full integration of persons with international protection. The Jesuit Refugee Service established the Centre for Integration of Refugees, SOL, in 2018, the first of its kind in Croatia.
Other faith-based organisations active in integration include Croatian Baptist Aid, the Islamic Community Zagreb, a Muslim religious-humanitarian organisation and a Catholic nun-volunteer. The Ecumenical Initiative of Women from Rijeka focuses on women’s rights and interfaith dialogue. In 2020, the University of Rijeka founded an Intersectoral Council for Interreligious Dialogue and Diplomacy.
Despite this work, the authors find that these organisations are rare, dispersed locally and not visible to the public. Some face accusations of illegal activity. IRD has not developed as a distinct field but remains a side-effect of broader integration and multicultural policy.
Serbia: Faith-Based Aid With Implicit Dialogue
In Serbia, faith-based organisations play a prominent role in supporting refugees and migrants. Research from 2018 shows that their perceived success lies in linking local communities and migrants through joint activities and conflict resolution. After the migration corridor closed in 2016, Serbia began defining itself as a country of forced destination rather than transit. Faith-based organisations took on more prominent roles in formal and informal education.
A notable example is the Bayram sofra, organised by the Islamic Community of Serbia and the cultural society Gajret since 2009. In 2015, this Ramadan-ending celebration was dedicated to refugees from the Middle East, held at the Belgrade bus station where they gathered. A local religious leader explained that they wanted to bring refugees “as close as we can to the warmth of home.” The gesture was widely covered in Serbian media. However, it took place only once with this specific focus.
The Jesuit Refugee Service Serbia reopened after 2016 and focuses on psychosocial assistance, particularly for unaccompanied minors. It established a safe house called “Pedro Arupe” with capacity for 20 minors. The Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA) established the Asylum Info Centre with UNHCR and an Integration House in Borča. These organisations work with people of diverse ethnic and religious backgrounds, but few projects have brought public visibility to their efforts.
What the Comparison Reveals
The study identifies a clear pattern. Austria’s longer democratic history, greater religious diversity and secularisation have allowed IRD to become institutionalised. Croatia and Serbia, with their more homogeneous populations and recent experience of rising immigration, have not developed structural IRD. Instead, grassroots initiatives emerge from humanitarian work and include interreligious understanding implicitly.
The authors argue that these initiatives, though fragmented, hold potential to spread nationally. They lack structural support and public recognition. Without these, interreligious dialogue cannot effectively counter the threat narratives that dominate media and political discourse. The study calls for future research on how dominant religions view IRD, whether dialogue can genuinely reshape migration narratives and how rapidly changing social circumstances affect its development and effectiveness.
