Authority – even though the title of this paper may suggest so – is not a phenomenon opposing culture. It is actually a product of culture or, as sometimes said, of the achievements of civilisation. Since authority is a product of culture, it may not be treated as a phenomenon isolated from it, without any ties with cultural patterns, which may – as a result – act as determinants of the institutional and functional qualities of authority. Culture and its products (including knowledge, law, religion, morality, etc.), like other social phenomena, can become factors stimulating the exercise of authority, or act as factors to stabilise or curb this exercise within the framework of the patterns (norms) it has created. Societies make constant choices in terms of adopting, modifying, and rejecting various cultural patterns.

Authority – even though the title of this paper may suggest so – is not a phenomenon opposing culture. It is actually a product of culture or, as sometimes said, of the achievements of civilisation. Since authority is a product of culture, it may not be treated as a phenomenon isolated from it, without any ties with cultural patterns, which may – as a result – act as determinants of the institutional and functional qualities of authority. Culture and its products (including knowledge, law, religion, morality, etc.), like other social phenomena, can become factors stimulating the exercise of authority, or act as factors to stabilise or curb this exercise within the framework of the patterns (norms) it has created. Societies make constant choices in terms of adopting, modifying, and rejecting various cultural patterns.

Jerusalem, especially the Temple Mount (Moriah), has been sanctified by the three biggest monotheistic religions. By Judaism – the binding of Isaac (Old Testament), King David pronouncing Jerusalem the capital of the ancient country of Israelites, and two demolished temples. By Christianity – Christ prayed in the Second Temple, becoming later crucified and buried in Jerusalem. The ruins of the Second Temple became the site where the Muslim Al-Aqsa Mosque was built. The contemporary conflict is marked by: the emergence of the State of Israel (1948) and the capturing of Jerusalem (1967), Russian influences exerted by the Orthodox Church and Oriental churches, the political impact of Jewish messianism combined with a mass support for evangelical fundamentalism as offered by the Republican Party in the US,the conflict between the West and Israel, focusing on Jerusalem as the tinderbox for “contemporary messiahs”.

The article is divided into two parts. The first part discusses a certain concept of secularism, where secularism is considered to be composite of three principles: separation of church and state, freedom of religion, and equality. Subsequently, the European Convention on Human Rights is reflected upon with that concept of secularism in mind. While it does not warrant separation of church and state, freedom of religion and equality are enshrined in it. Therefore, the Convention may be considered secularist to an extent. In the second part, three of the European Court of Human Rights landmark cases are analyzed with regard to secularism. While not much can be said about Kokkinakis v. Greece on its own, the comparison with Leyla Şahin v. Turkey and Lautsi v. Italy allows to point out that appearance of secu­larism (understood as one of its components – the principle of separation) provides the Court with a possibility to defer to the doctrine of the margin of appreciation and draw the focus away from the actual violation of the principles enshrined in the Convention. Finally, it is noted that the only appearance of the concept of secu­larism as a personal conviction in the Court’s judgment is inconclusive.

Jerusalem, especially the Temple Mount (Moriah), has been sanctified by the three biggest monotheistic religions. By Judaism – the binding of Isaac (Old Testament), King David pronouncing Jerusalem the capital of the ancient country of Israelites, and two demolished temples. By Christianity – Christ prayed in the Second Temple, and was later crucified and buried in Jerusalem. The ruins of the Second Temple be-came the site where the Muslim Al-Aqsa Mosque was built.
The contemporary conflict is marked by: the emergence of the State of Israel (1948) and the capturing of Jerusalem (1967), Russian influences exerted by the Orthodox Church and Oriental churches, the political impact of Jewish messianism combined with a mass support for evangelical fundamentalism as offered by the Republican Party in the US, the conflict between the West and Israel, focusing on Jerusalem as the tinderbox for “contemporary messiahs”.

The article offers an analysis into the French Council of State’s ruling of 26 August 2016, which suspended a ban – imposed by a decision of a mayor of a coastal resort town – on wearing the burkini on local beaches. “The burkini issue” has been also dealt with in Belgium, which is why the analysis presented in this article and the accompanying reflections serve as a good opportunity to offer a brief comparison of the French and the Belgian specificities of the constitutional form of the relationships between the state and churches, and a range of relevant references to the ECHR’s judicial decisions concerning the problem of the presence of symbols – being manifestations of one’s beliefs – in the public sphere of a democratic state.

The problem of „honour"-related (or „honour"-based) violence is a phenomenon that crosses the boundaries of countries, cultures and religions. Usually it is tended to be connected with various regions of the Middle East, such as Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraqi Kurdistan. In Europe this issue has appeared in public debates at the beginning of XXI century and it was restricted to the migration context. Such categorization has resulted in the politicization of „honour" - related violence, which is manifested in the strong relation between state's undertaken actions and such factors as political line of a ruling party or public opinions. The aim of this article is to answer the question about legal regulation of this issue in the chosen countries of the Middle East and Europe: Lebanon, Jordan, Iraqi Kurdistan, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Germany. Such comparison will result in the identification of means and methods of combating this kind of violence that are used in practice. Moreover, it will enable the author to indicate whether the migration context has an impact on the differentiation of undertaken actions. The subject of the analysis will be the legal regulation and jurisdiction, as well as activity of various public and non-governmental institutions that are involved in the prevention of this problem. The result of the analysis leads to the reflection on the question if penal law is really the most effective instrument of solving this problem. Discussed matter fits into the wider context of an issue of use of law in order to achieve the aims of public policies.