Their is a major flaw in your assumptions. Teaching of Christianity in government schools, Government mandated Christian Holidays, transform faith in the eternal to mere cultural trappings. Your Churches must first be free from the state, utterly independent and passionate for the divine. This means being willing to forget about your beautiful cathedrals, priories, and monastaries. They have to a substantial degree become mere museums and are largely controlled by a secular fifth column. You must let go of them and trust that God will restore more than you will lose. Europe must once again become Christian. It's only by bold Christian faith that Europe will transform for the good.
As a conservative I must be willing to conserve what is good in my society, and christianity is good and deserves to be conserved in a christina society. Revival must allways have something firm to stand on, and when a nation can stand on 1000 years of christianity it can be beliewed that the next 1000 years will also be on christian grounds. This is our culture, and it is my duty as a conservative to preserve my nations culture, but I also want it to be revived as a living, breathing christianity, like my own church (not the national church) has preserved, but the solution is not to rip apart the link to the past and become a secular society.
But I agree that the churches have to be free from the state, it does not have to be the same thing to have the priests on government payrole (wich I am opposed) and to have the state to rely on its christian grounds. The reason that the government pays the national church´s priests is a contract made between the church and the state in the year 1907 about that the government got all the land in the church´s ownership (aroun one third of the country) instead of paying the church´s priests. I consider this one of the worst thing in our political and religous history, but before that, the church and christianity were supported to be defended and preserved by the state, as is claimed in our constitution, and that is possible in many other ways than direct government payrole.
Now, when liberals are rallying for separation of church and state, I at least, am opposed to give any religon the same standing in Icelandic society, but I am not opposed to what most people really want, to make the church economically independent, but most people think of these two things as the same, wich they are not. To rift this contract is though difficult, as the government has to find a way to pay the church for the land it has allready sold, or return the land, or something like that.
I noticed one thing you said in your homepage, that conservatism is optimistic. I recently read a paper about the difference between european and Us conservatism, and our tend to be much more pessimistic than yours. I am at least pessimistic, the liberals are taking everything over.
I agree with all of your post - but then, I am a conservative American. The poster is a conservative, but not an American. Part of what he want to conserve is a traditional explicit Christian Establishment. And part of the reason for that desire is, apparently, fear of a future Islamic Establishment. I agree with you that a Christian-in-name-only Establishment is a slender reed upon which to hope to rest.He does however self-identify as, "I am an christian-pentacostal conservative," so he may possibly be able to hear what you are saying; his particular Christian denomination is hardly likely to be the Establishment in his home country. With man it is impossible, but God may perhaps send a revival to Europe.
Christians in Europe obviously have the same problem we see here in the ACLU persecuting Christians and the Christian underpinning of the Boy Scouts. And in the tarring of Christians with the brush of the totalitarianism which Islamists promote.
I think that the antiauthoritarian distinctive of the Bible-believing Church is that the New Testament was written when Christianity was under persecution and was nowhere the Establishment, and had no military pretensions whatsoever. The Koran was apparently written by someone who was bent on military conquest. The modern-day Know-nothings of journalism systematically conflate the two radically different perspectives under the rhubric of "fundamentalism."
It seems like the countries that have a state religion are the countries that tend to be atheistic. Those, like the US, that separate church and state, are more religious.