The streets of Vienna
The speech was delivered by Dr. Viktor Kostov at the international “Conference on Values” held in Vienna by “U-Turn for Europe” in April of 2026
Ladies and gentlemen,
Europe today stands at a crossroads — not merely political or economic, but civilizational. We are confronting a deeper question: what sustains a civilization, and what happens when it forgets the sources of its own strength?
For centuries, Europe was shaped by two great forces: the moral vision of Christianity and the development of classical human rights. These were not accidental. They formed the backbone of Europe’s understanding of law, authority, dignity, and justice. They were lived realities that shaped laws, cultures, institutions, and the very concept of human dignity.
Yet today, many of these foundations are no longer confidently affirmed. In some cases, they are openly questioned or dismissed.
Bulgaria and the Civilizational Model of Europe
Consider Bulgaria. Founded in 681, it is one of the oldest European states to have preserved its name and identity across centuries. In the 9th century, under Boris I, Christianity was adopted as the state religion. This was not merely spiritual — it was civilizational.
The work of Cyril and Methodius and their disciples gave the Slavic world not only an alphabet, but a cultural and spiritual framework. Language, literacy, theology, and identity were woven into a durable civilizational fabric. Bulgaria aligned itself with a broader European transformation: a worldview in which law, morality, and authority were accountable to something higher than raw power.
This is what Europe once did at its best: it did not merely govern territory; it shaped cultures through meaning, education, and moral vision. Across the continent, rulers came to be seen as morally accountable. The idea that power must answer to justice became embedded in European consciousness.
This moral framework later intersected with Enlightenment thought, producing the modern language of rights, law, and human dignity that still shapes Europe today.
Yet, today’s Bulgaria, always looking to Europe with respect and expectations, for freedom and prosperity, especially after the time of communism, finds itself in the midst of the EU’s moral uncertainty and heavy-handed ideological politics.
The CJEU recently handed Bulgaria a court decision in violation of the EU law, demanding that Bulgaria change its internal sovereign laws to accommodate transgenderism and its ideology. This was done even if Bulgarian Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court’s assembly had clearly established that is only biological.
The Dual Inheritance: Christianity and Human Rights
Europe’s strength has never come from uniformity of power, but from a creative tension between moral restraint and political authority, and between individual dignity and collective responsibility.
Christian teaching introduced revolutionary ideas: that every human being possesses inherent worth; that power must be judged morally; and that justice must extend beyond tribal or ethnic boundaries. These ideas helped lay the groundwork for what we now call human rights.
Yet human rights in Europe did not emerge in a vacuum. They were built upon a deeper moral vision of the human person. When that foundation weakens, the structure becomes unstable.
This deterioration is visible in the politicization of intimate life. Only ten or fifteen years ago, new rights were created — the right to sexual identity, same-sex marriage, and changing one’s sex — all framed under the right to privacy. None of these were imagined by the classical framers of human rights.
The Moral Architecture of Europe
Christianity introduced a radical idea into political life: power is not ultimate. Rulers were not gods. They were morally accountable for justice. The weak were not expendable. The individual had dignity beyond mere utility.
From this moral soil grew the later language of rights: equality before the law, limits on power, and protection of the individual. These principles became central to European identity.
But rights detached from their moral foundation do not remain stable indefinitely. When the deeper vision of the human person fades, the language of rights can become fragmented, politicized, or selectively applied. That’s reminiscent of what Bulgarians experienced under the atheist regime for 45 years.
A Europe in Transition
Today, Europe is undergoing profound change: large-scale migration, demographic shifts, cultural fragmentation, and increasing distance from religious tradition. These realities should be approached neither with panic nor with denial.
A functioning society requires more than economic systems and legal frameworks. It needs trust, shared expectations, and a common understanding of limits. When shared norms become unclear or contested, social cohesion weakens. Parallel realities begin to emerge within the same state.
The central question is not whether Europe should be open or closed — that is too simplistic. The real question is: What binds a society together, and can those bonds endure under current conditions?
Migration: A Question of Will and Policy
Migration is often presented as an unstoppable force beyond government control. This is not accurate. European states possess the institutional, legal, and logistical means to regulate migration flows through borders, asylum systems, visa regimes, and enforcement. Let me put it this way: governments can shut down illegal migration in 24 hours if they willed!
The issue is not capability, but political will and policy choice. A reasonable position lies between open borders and absolute closure: controlled, lawful, and sustainable migration, paired with serious expectations of integration. (We even heard here opinions in support for remigration.)
Integration must mean something concrete: respect for the law, participation in the social order, and acceptance of core civic norms. Without this, cohesion weakens — not because of diversity itself, but because of the absence of a shared structure.
Identity, Culture, and Confidence
A civilization that cannot articulate its identity cannot preserve it. Culture is expressed through language, tradition, law, art, and moral assumptions. These do not survive automatically. They must be transmitted, defended, and lived. Religion, too, has historically served as a marker of identity.
To affirm one’s own cultural foundation is not hostility toward others; it is a condition for meaningful coexistence. A society unsure of itself cannot integrate others effectively.
Freedom Under Pressure
Another critical fault line is freedom — especially freedom of speech and conscience. Across Europe, legal and social pressures increasingly narrow the space for open discussion, particularly on issues of identity, religion, and morality.
A civilization that loses confidence in open debate risks intellectual stagnation. Freedom of expression is not a luxury; it is a structural necessity for truth-seeking societies. This does not eliminate responsibility, but it requires a presumption in favor of open discourse rather than its restriction.
These concerns are not theoretical. They are visible in real cases. Governments and their media often oppose their own citizens’ concerns by using ideological branding and misusing of code words like “antisemitism,” “islamophobia,” “homophobia,” “racism,” and similar. I was a target of an activist journalism from the largest German TV station – ZDF several years ago. They twisted my words, from an interview I gave them, to paint my defense of family rights and tradition to mean an attack on those who claim “same sex rights.” We won out of court, and they took down the slanderous clip from the Internet. However, they never apologized for the video that aired on TV.
In Finland, former Minister of the Interior Päivi Räsänen was criminally prosecuted for expressing traditional Christian views on marriage and sexuality — views once at the core of European civilization. Whether one agrees with her is beside the point. The fact that such expression became a matter for the courts should concern anyone who values freedom of conscience and speech. This is what people in the Eastern Bloc countries experienced under communism, when the Bible was banned and believers were persecuted.
In the United Kingdom, individuals have been questioned by police over lawful speech, including social media posts labeled as “non-crime hate incidents.” In Germany, enforcement of speech laws has intensified in the digital sphere, with citizens facing consequences for expression falling under broadly interpreted offenses.
Across Europe, laws governing the memory of World War II impose strict limits on denial or reinterpretation. While intended to prevent the return of destructive ideologies, they set a precedent that certain historical or intellectual positions may not be contested in the public square.
Taken individually, many of these measures may look justifiable. Taken together, they reveal a trajectory: the scope of permissible speech is steadily contracting, the distinction between harmful conduct and dissenting opinion is blurring, and the cost of expressing traditional or unfashionable views continues to rise.
This is how freedom often erodes — not suddenly, but gradually, through layers of reasonable-sounding justifications. And we end up with “hate speech” laws – to protect those in power from speech they hate.
The deeper concern is this: when a civilization treats its own foundational moral or religious perspectives as suspect while elevating newer ideological frameworks to protected status, it risks inverting its value structure. The public square then ceases to be a place of genuine deliberation and becomes a managed space where only approved conclusions may be voiced safely. That’s why we often see the inversion of justice: the criminals are protected but the victims are punished.
A society can endure disagreement. It cannot endure enforced conformity without collapsing into some form of tyranny. The question is not whether limits on speech will exist. The question is whether those limits will serve the pursuit of truth or the protection of prevailing ideology. Once that shift occurs, the language of rights remains, but its substance is gone.
The Role of Religion in a Secular Age
Europe today is largely secular, yet it continues to rely on moral assumptions that did not originate in secularism. This creates tension. Can a society sustain human dignity, equality, and moral accountability without reference to a deeper source of meaning?
Religious traditions — especially Christianity — have historically provided Europe’s moral vocabulary. Even those who do not share the faith often operate within ethical frameworks shaped by it.
The question is not whether Europe should become uniformly religious again. That is neither realistic nor necessary. The question is whether it can remain stable while completely severing itself from the traditions that shaped its understanding of the human person.
Avoiding Extremes
In addressing these challenges, we must avoid two extremes: rigid exclusion that rejects all change, and uncritical relativism that dissolves all standards. Neither leads to stability.
A durable society requires clear principles, fair laws, cultural confidence, and openness tempered by responsibility.
A Call for Renewal: A Path Forward
Renewal does not mean a literal return to the past. It means recovering foundational principles: that human dignity is real and not merely declared; that freedom must be balanced with responsibility; that law must serve justice, not replace it; and that societies require shared norms to function.
It requires intellectual honesty: acknowledging problems without exaggeration, resisting simplistic explanations, and rejecting both cynicism and naivety.
The path forward means allowing religious, philosophical, and cultural traditions to speak again in the public square — not as relics, but as living sources of meaning. It means humane yet realistic policies, and citizens willing to take responsibility for the future of their societies.
Conclusion
The future of Europeans will not be secured by bureaucratic management or elitist control. It will be shaped by whether we can remember our foundations, adapt without dissolving who we are, and remain open without losing our coherence.
It will depend on whether we will stand for the freedom given us by our Creator, to feely think and speak our convictions — and act accordingly. We Europeans are already diverse in and of ourselves, without the added layers of far-away cultures and religions being infused into our continent. Yet across all our differences, one prevailing feature has defined us for centuries: our early European identity was profoundly shaped by the religion of the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Here we are not primarily discussing personal faith, but the deep social, cultural, and political influence of the Gospel message in forming European values. Even those among us who do not follow the teachings of Christ can still appreciate the profound benefits of this worldview — a vision that shapes human beings and our shared existence under enduring principles such as “love your neighbor as yourself,” “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” “live at peace with all people as much as it depends on you,” “honor the king and worship God,” “respect rulers and authorities because their role is to keep order, punish evil, and encourage good,” “blessed are the peacemakers,” “it is more blessed to give than to receive,” and “protect the innocent and the children from evil.”
This is not a framework of weakness, but one of moral strength and transcendent power. It offers grace and mercy, yet stands firmly on truth and justice.
The tension between tradition and change is not a novel challenge. What is new is the scale and speed at which it is unfolding today. A civilization that loses confidence in its own foundations becomes fragile.
We should not despair or live in denial. We need clarity. We need the confidence to stand for open debate, and the courage to rediscover the sources of our moral and intellectual inheritance.
As Augustine of Hippo wrote: “Truth is like a lion. You don’t need to defend it. Release it, and it will defend itself.”
Our task, therefore, is to stand for justice and real human rights, to not retreat into silence, but to ensure that truth is spoken, tested, and lived among us. In the end, civilizations are not preserved by force alone, but by the strength of the truths we are willing to uphold.
Thank you.
