24 юли 2019

The religious dimension of intercultural dialogue







Committee Opinion


The religious dimension of intercultural dialogue




Opinion | Doc. 12576 | 11 April 2011


The religious dimension of intercultural dialogue

Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy

Rapporteur : Mr Latchezar TOSHEV, Bulgaria, EPP/CD




Origin - Reference to committee: Decision by the Bureau, Reference 3720 of 8 October 2010. Reporting committee: Committee on Culture, Science and Education. See Doc. 12553. Opinion approved by the committee on 11 April 2011. 2011 - Second part-session


A. Conclusions of the committee

The Political Affairs Committeetakes note of the report by Ms Anne Brasseur on “The religious dimension of intercultural dialogue”, in which the Committee on Culture, Science and Education deals, once again, with an issue on which the Parliamentary Assembly has already taken position. The Political Affairs Committee is in general in agreement with the thrust of the draft recommendation. However, it feels that the text could be made more consistent with past positions of the Assembly.

B. Proposed amendments to the draft recommendation


Amendment A (to the draft recommendation)

In the draft recommendation, paragraph 8, replace the words: “recognise each other” by “recognise each other’s right for freedom to religion and belief”.

Amendment B (to the draft recommendation)

In the draft recommendation, paragraph 8, delete the word “new”.

Amendment C (to the draft recommendation)

In the draft recommendation, paragraph 10, replace the words “accepting the common fundamental values” by the words “abiding by the law”.

Amendment D (to the draft recommendation)

In the draft recommendation, paragraph 10, replace the words “persons with humanist convictions who adhere to these fundamental values” with the words “persons with no religious beliefs”.

Amendment E (to the draft recommendation)

In the draft recommendation, paragraph 12, replace the words “including humanist associations” by the words “including relevant non-religious associations”.

Amendment F (to the draft recommendation)

In the draft recommendation, paragraph 17.1, replace the words “the religious faiths and the main humanist organisations” by the words “the religious institutions and the relevant non-religious organisations”.



C. Explanatory memorandum by Mr Toshev, rapporteur for opinion

(open)

1. Dialogue is always positive for society and should be encouraged, in particular dialogue between different cultural experiences. As Ms Brasseur rightly notes, the Council of Europe dealt with the issue in its “White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue” of 2008.

2. As Europe is multicultural, intercultural dialogue is indispensable for social cohesion. In spite of different historical and cultural backgrounds, the peoples of Europe are united by common universal values: democracy, rule of law and respect for human rights, including respect for cultural diversity.

3. Religion is a dimension of culture, which is valued by many, influencing their approach to the realities of the world. Religion has played an important role in Europe’s history, in particular in the establishment of a system of shared values. The secularism of today’s Europe is not leading towards elimination of the public role of the religions as promoters of values.

4. We must acknowledge the steps taken by various religious leaders to promote peace, tolerance and mutual understanding and to eliminate hate among religious and culturally different peoples. Examples include the Vlatadon Initiative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of the Orthodox Church, which brought together High representatives of different religions from the Balkan region in 2001 in order to achieve tolerance between different religions; the World Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi (an initiative taken by the Catholic Church during the pontificate of the late Pope John Paul II) with representatives of different religions; the Open Letter of 2007 signed by 138 eminent representatives of Islam to the Christians; the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox and Catholic Church and the adoption of the joint Document of Ravenna.

5. In its Recommendation 1804 (2007) on state, religion, secularity and human rights, the Assembly recommended that the Committee of Ministers identify and disseminate examples of good practice in respect of dialogue with leaders of religious communities. In the rapporteur’s opinion, one such example is the active participation of high representatives of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church in the rescue of the entire Bulgarian Jewish community in 1943, during the period of the Holocaust.

6. In the same recommendation, the Assembly reaffirms that “one of Europe’s shared values, transcending national differences, is the separation of church and state”. This is a generally accepted principle that prevails in politics and institutions in democratic countries. In its Recommendation 1720 (2005) on education and religion, for instance, the Assembly had noted that “each person’s religion, including the option of having no religion, is a strictly personal matter”.

7. There is no single European arrangement for relations between states and religious communities. In the member states of the Council of Europe such arrangements include a clear separation between state and religions, a “state church” model, a “concordat” model between church and state, and a “predominant church” model, all of which are compatible with Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. There are also cases of member states with no special arrangement for such relations.

8. The Assembly recognised the importance of intercultural dialogue and its religious dimension and declared itself “willing to help devise a comprehensive Council of Europe strategy in this area.” It considered, however, “in the light of the principle of the separation of church and state, that inter-religious and interdenominational dialogue was not a matter for states or for the Council of Europe”.

9. As any other actors, religions are entitled to express their views on society. Dozens of religious and non-religious organisations are already represented at the Council of Europe by virtue of the participatory status of non-governmental organisations.

10. Freedom of expression is one of the most important human rights, as the Assembly has repeatedly affirmed. The draft recommendation presented by the Committee on Culture, Science and Education indicates in its paragraph 4 that “freedom of religion and freedom to have a philosophical or secular world view are inseparable from unreserved acceptance by all of the fundamental values enshrined in the Convention”. In paragraph 10, it refers to “the need to protect the rights of persons with humanist convictions who adhere to these fundamental values”. As the protection of anyone’s rights cannot be subject to an acceptation or an adherence to values, and in order to avoid misunderstandings and to improve clarity, I propose a slightly revised wording.

11. In the same paragraph 10, there is a reference to “persons with humanist convictions”. As this could seem restrictive I propose to replace that expression by “non-believers”. For the same reason, it would be advisable to replace, in sub-paragraph 17.1, “chief humanist organisations” by “representatives of relevant non-religious associations”.

12. Still in paragraph 10, there is a reference to the obligation of states to “ensure that … any preferential support granted to certain religions does not become disproportionate and discriminatory in practice”. To avoid any misunderstanding and for the sake of clarity, it would be better to delete the reference to “discriminatory”.


Recommendation 1962 (2011) Final version

The religious dimension of intercultural dialogue

Author(s): Parliamentary Assembly

Origin - Assembly debate on 12 April 2011 (12th and 13th Sittings) (see Doc. 12553, report of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, rapporteur: Ms Brasseur; and Doc. 12576, opinion of the Political Affairs Committee, rapporteur: Mr Toshev). Text adopted by the Assembly on 12 April 2011 (13th Sitting).

1. The Parliamentary Assembly notes the growing interest in questions relating to intercultural dialogue in a European and global context where efforts to establish closer ties and collaboration between communities within our societies and between peoples, to build together for the common good, are constantly imperilled by lack of understanding, high tension and even barbarous acts of hatred and violence.

2. The Assembly welcomes the positive momentum that is developing within the Council of Europe, and which is conducive to an approach mainstreaming the questions relating to intercultural dialogue and its religious dimension. The White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue – Living together as equals in dignity and the annual exchanges organised by the Committee of Ministers on “The religious dimension of intercultural dialogue” represent, in a way, the highest achievement of this approach.

3. Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”, ETS No. 5) secures the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This freedom represents one of the foundations of a “democratic society” within the meaning of the Convention; it is, in its religious dimension, one of the most vital elements of believers’ identity and their conception of life, but is also a precious asset for atheists, agnostics, sceptics or the unconcerned.

4. Assertion of this inalienable right presupposes that all people are free to have (or not to have) a religion and to manifest their religion, either alone and in private or collectively in public and within the circle of those whose faith they share. In Europe, churches and religious communities have the right to exist and to organise themselves independently. Nevertheless, freedom of religion and freedom to have a philosophical or secular world view are inseparable from unreserved acceptance, by everyone, of the fundamental values enshrined in the Convention.

5. These values should bring us together, but it is also important to acknowledge the cultural differences that exist between people of different convictions. Differences, as long as they are compatible with respect for human rights and the principles that underpin democracy, not only have every right to exist but also help determine the essence of our plural societies.

6. The European model is by definition a multicultural one and it should take into account differences arising from various historical backgrounds. However, common values such as mutual respect, the protection of fundamental rights, democracy, tolerance, the acceptance that differences are normal and the vision of a common future need to be strengthened further.

7. The problem often lies in our attitude to diversity. The Assembly insists on the need for everyone to learn to share their differences positively and accept others, with their differences, in order to build cohesive societies that are receptive to diversity and respect the dignity of each individual. To achieve this, the Assembly is convinced of the importance of the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue, and of collaboration between religious communities to foster the values that make up the common core of our European societies and of any democratic society.

8. The Assembly considers it not only desirable, but necessary, that the various churches and religious communities – in particular Christians, Jews and Muslims – recognise each other’s right to freedom of religion and belief. It is also indispensable that people of all beliefs and world views, religious or otherwise, accept to intensify dialogue based on the common assertion of equal dignity for all and a wholehearted commitment to democratic principles and human rights. These are two crucial conditions for developing a new culture of living together. The Assembly therefore calls upon all churches and religious communities to persevere in their endeavours for dialogue, including with humanist movements, in order to work in unison to attain the goal of effectively safeguarding these values everywhere, throughout Europe and worldwide.

9. States have to establish the necessary conditions for religious and convictional pluralism and to ensure effective respect for freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as guaranteed by Article 9 of the Convention.

10. The Assembly recalls in this connection states’ obligation to ensure that all religious communities accepting common fundamental values can enjoy an appropriate legal status guaranteeing the exercise of freedom of religion, and that any preferential support granted to certain religions does not become disproportionate and discriminatory in practice. States must also reconcile the rights of religious communities with the need to protect the rights of persons with no religious beliefs who adhere to these fundamental values.

11. The Assembly considers it necessary to build up a dynamic, productive partnership between the public institutions, the religious communities and the groups that espouse a non-religious perception. The common starting point for this is the acknowledgement by the various religious denominations and by non-religious belief systems that human dignity is an essential and universal asset.

12. The Assembly therefore recommends that the public authorities at local and national levels facilitate encounters organised in the framework of inter-religious dialogue and encourage and support projects jointly conducted by several communities, including humanist and non-religious associations, that seek to consolidate social bonds by such means as the promotion of inter-community solidarity, care for the most vulnerable and the fight against discrimination.

13. The Assembly reiterates the importance and the function of the education system for knowledge and understanding of the various cultures, including the beliefs and convictions which identify them, and for the learning of democratic values and respect for human rights. It recommends that states and religious communities review together, on the basis of the guidelines provided by the Council of Europe, the questions regarding teaching on religions, denominational education, and training of teachers and of religious ministers or those with religious responsibilities, according to a holistic approach.


14. The Assembly emphasises that the principle of state neutrality applies to religious education at school and that, according to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, it rests with the national authorities to pay strict attention that parents’ religious and non-religious convictions are not offended.
15. In the Assembly’s view, the challenge today is to reach the agreement and the balance necessary in order that teaching on religions provides an opportunity for encounters and for mutual receptiveness. It recommends that state authorities and religious communities make concerted efforts in that direction and invites states to commit the resources required so that statements lead to achievements on the ground. It would be highly advisable that every teacher, irrespective of type and branch of education, take a module during training that familiarises him or her with the major currents of thought.
16. The Assembly recalls that the internal autonomy of religious institutions as regards training of those with religious responsibilities is a principle inherent in freedom of religion. Nevertheless, this autonomy is limited by fundamental rights, democratic principles and the rule of law, which we hold in common. Therefore, the Assembly invites the religious institutions and leaders to study, if possible together and in the framework of inter-religious dialogue, the appropriate way to better train the holders of religious responsibilities in:
16.1. knowledge and understanding of other religions and convictions, as well as in openness, dialogue and collaboration between religious communities;
16.2. respect for fundamental rights, democratic principles and the rule of law, as a common basis for such dialogue and collaboration.
17. The Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers:
17.1. promote a genuine partnership for democracy and human rights between the Council of Europe, the religious institutions and humanist and non-religious organisations, seeking to encourage the active involvement of all stakeholders in actions to promote the fundamental values of the Organisation;
17.2. establish to this end a place for dialogue, a workspace for the Council of Europe and high-level representatives of religions and of non-denominational organisations, in order to place existing relations on a stable and formally recognised platform;
17.3. develop this initiative in concertation with the interested parties, closely associate the Parliamentary Assembly and, as far as possible, the European Union, and invite the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations and, if appropriate, other partners to contribute;
17.4. continue, in this context, organising dedicated meetings on the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue.
18. The Assembly further recommends that the Committee of Ministers:
18.1. promote the accession of the Mediterranean Basin states to the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), the Partial Agreement on Youth Mobility through the Youth Card and the European Centre for Global Interdependence and Solidarity (North-South Centre);
18.2. invite all member states to support any targeted project that the North-South Centre may conduct in order to amplify the positive forces at work in the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue beyond the boundaries of the European continent, at the inter-regional and/or global levels;
18.3. increase the resources allocated to the project on intercultural cities, in which the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue should be explicitly incorporated;
18.4. offer more support for the work of the European Wergeland Centre in Oslo, particularly for building its capacity to collaborate with the Council of Europe member states on projects concerning the intercultural and inter-religious dimension of training for teachers and educators.
19. The Assembly invites the European Union, in particular the European Parliament and the European Commission, together with its Agency for Fundamental Rights, to engage in joint programmes with the Council of Europe on education for democratic citizenship and human rights education, with reference to the Charter which the Committee of Ministers adopted on 11 May 2010 (Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)7), and on intercultural and inter-religious dialogue.
20. The Assembly invites the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations to deploy joint programmes with the Council of Europe aimed at increasing the synergies in their respective action in Europe.

2011 ORDINARY SESSION
_________________
(Second part)
REPORT
Twelfth sitting
Tuesday 12 April 2011 at 10 a.m.
(…)
3. The religious dimension of intercultural dialogue
THE PRESIDENT – We now come to the debate on a report from the Committee on Culture, Science and Education on the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue (Doc. 12553), presented by Ms Brasseur with an opinion presented by Mr Toshev on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee (Doc. 12576), and statements by His Beatitude Patriarch Daniel of Romania; His Eminence Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue at the Vatican; Professor Mehmet Görmez, Chairperson of the Presidency of Religious Affairs of the Republic of Turkey; Chief Rabbi Berel Lazar, Chief Rabbi of Russia; and Prelate Bernhard Felmberg, Plenipotentiary Representative of the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany to the Federal Republic of Germany and the European Union.









We must interrupt the list of speakers at about 1 p.m. The debate will then resume at around 4 p.m., followed by a vote on the draft recommendation. I remind the Assembly that at yesterday’s sitting it was agreed that speaking times in all debates today be limited to three minutes.
I call Ms Brasseur, rapporteur, to present the report. You have 13 minutes in total.





Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) said that Boutros Boutros-Ghali had said “Let us find what unites us, appreciate what differentiates us and avoid what separates us.” This was the main thrust of the committee’s report. Today’s debate was an initiative of the President of the Assembly. The committee’s work had been enriched by its extraordinary meeting on the 18 February 2011 with senior representatives from several religions, and by the contribution of Professor Francis Messner. The report drew on various publications, listed in the appendix, but it was not exhaustive as there had not been enough time for this. Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights formed the basis of the report, but unfortunately, this article was sometimes set aside or forgotten. If it were applied and respected by all, the debate would not have been needed.
Cicero had been perhaps the first author to try to define religion, and many other definitions had followed. Essentially, religion was belief in a system in which sacred matters were united in a Church of all those who shared those beliefs. However, some argued that religion should not be defined, since belief was an individual matter. Religion had been used by power seekers, which in some cases had led to atrocities. Today, society was rejected by some, as a result of which social cohesion suffered. Diversity should be accepted and respected, and people should not feign ignorance or be threatened by others’ beliefs. It was the Assembly’s responsibility, as well as that of religious authorities, to rise to the challenge and stress what united people not what separated them: this was the thrust of the report.
No movement could change fundamental values. All religions should protect the European Convention on Human Rights and, as outlined in paragraph 18 of the report, stress the importance of human rights. Religions in Europe had a special role to play in the development of understanding and mutual respect. Discrimination and hatred should be denounced and contempt for others should not be tolerated. Article XII of the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights of 1981 set out that no individual should disdain the religious beliefs of others or call for hostility. There should be freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. The question was whether the Council of Europe should become involved in this intercultural dialogue. Although public authorities should not be involved in theological debate, the Council of Europe should establish a common interfaith platform, on which public and religious authorities were each represented. It was important that a place for dialogue be created internationally and institutionally, both nationally and regionally. Opportunities for dialogue should be created in regions and communities.
Education was essential. All student teachers should study religion, including monotheistic faiths. This would enable them to understand and respect pupils better. Addressing the five religious leaders present, she underlined the fact that it was the responsibility of religious representatives to train their teachers: those with religious authority were responsible for opening dialogue with other faiths. It was also important to respect international law and human rights.
Recent events had reminded us of how impotent humans were in the face of nature. As human beings, we had to be more humble, not only in our beliefs, but also in our relations with others. We had to be more humble in building a society where the individual had the right both to have a faith and to live that faith. Finally, we had to be more humble in creating a society where people did not just live together, but lived together well.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Brasseur. I call Mr Toshev, Rapporteur of the Political Affairs Committee, to present the committee’s opinion. You have three minutes. 


Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – Your Beatitude, your Eminence, Reverend Fathers, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, members of the Parliamentary Assembly, intercultural dialogue is at the core of the concept of a united Europe. Europe is a multicultural community of interdependent nations and a union of its citizens, who are committed to sharing a common future despite their ethnic and religious differences.
Europe has many different historical backgrounds, but it is united by common values such as mutual respect, protection of human rights, democracy, tolerance and the acceptance that differences are normal. Those values form our joint identity. Dialogue among the people of Europe informs the European community. The religious dimension of this dialogue has a very important role to play.
Religions in Europe have played an important role during its history, not only in establishing a system of values, but in strengthening their legitimacy and the interaction between different cultures. That created the environment for multiculturalism.
During the hearing that was held some months ago, we accepted that for some people, religion is just a tradition, but for others it is the essence of life, integrity, faith, justice, love, mercy and peace. The positive examples of that should be made widely known.
The rescue of the entire Bulgarian Jewish community, with the active participation of the High Representatives of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church in 1943 during the Holocaust, was not without risk and is an exemplary event. To explain that remarkable event, when values spoke louder than ethnic and religious differences, I would like to remind the Assembly of the slogan of the church struggles in Bulgaria in the 19th century: “Freedom in order – unity in diversity.” It sounds quite contemporary.
Secularism in today’s Europe has not led to eliminating the public role of religions as promoters of values. That is why the religious aspect of intercultural dialogue is important for European society.
Religions should be encouraged to participate actively in the debates on the common wealth, the protection of religious freedom, respect for human rights and democratic citizenship, and the fight against racism, xenophobia and intolerance. In a pluralist society, it is expected that religious people should recognise others’ freedom of beliefs as well as those that they enjoy.
Against that background, the Political Affairs Committee has taken note of the report prepared by Ms Anne Brasseur, in which the Committee on Culture, Science and Education again participated. The Assembly has already taken a position on the matter. The Political Affairs Committee is in general agreement with the thrust of the draft recommendation. However, it feels that some of the text could be made more consistent with past positions adopted by the Assembly.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. 

Dear colleagues, religions are founded on tolerance, compassion and respect for human dignity. They make an invaluable contribution to promoting respect and mutual understanding between peoples, and strengthening solidarity between individuals and communities, as well as reinforcing social cohesion. Most importantly, they play a vital role in promoting the fundamental values on which our societies are based – values that create the environment in which intercultural dialogue can flourish.
We are therefore deeply honoured by the presence among us today of five religious personalities, whose great contribution to promoting intercultural dialogue is well known. Your Beatitude Patriarch Daniel, your background is truly multicultural, as you studied theology in Romania, in France – in Strasbourg itself 30 years ago – and in Germany. That multicultural experience will make your contribution to our discussion most interesting. 




Your Eminence Cardinal Tauran, you represent the Holy See in many different countries throughout the world as well as in international organisations. We greatly value your knowledge of diversity and your diplomatic experience of consensus building.
Chief Rabbi Lazar, you took up the position of Rabbi in Russia in 1990, when the country was undergoing enormous transformation from religious nihilism and communist authoritarian rule to a modern and diverse society based on non-discrimination and mutual respect. I am sure that your thoughts and ideas, based on your personal experience, will greatly enrich our debate.
Professor Görmez, you represent the religious authorities of Turkey, the European country with the most Muslim communities. In that country, Muslim traditions co-exist with many other religious identities, so your experience of managing diversity will be most interesting to Assembly members.
Dr Felmberg, you are not only a religious personality, but a great diplomat, representing the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany at the European Union. I am sure that your contribution will help us learn from the best practices of interaction between religious communities in the Europe of 27 so that we can replicate them in a wider Europe of 47 member states. 





I now give the floor to our honoured guests so that they can share their thoughts and ideas with us about the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue as well as the report that we are currently debating. I now welcome His Beatitude Patriarch Daniel of Romania and invite him to make a statement.






HIS BEATITUDE PATRIARCH DANIEL OF ROMANIA recalled that after the election of the President, religious dialogue had been put at the heart of the Assembly’s work. This morning’s debate, with five religious leaders present, had been organised to express views on and better understand European religious traditions. Welcoming the work of the Council of Europe on intercultural dialogue, he stressed that the religious dimension was the deepest part of this. The efforts of the Council of Europe to promote common reflexion on the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue in Europe were worthy of attention and praise. The Council of Europe recognised that religious diversity had become a source of tension and division, which threatened to undermine social cohesion. It was imperative to develop dialogue and co-operation between various communities, both religious and non-religious.
The Committee on Culture, Science and Education had noted in its report the role of democracy and human rights. The draft recommendation emphasised that the teaching of religion should be an opportunity for understanding and fostering intercultural dialogue. Europe was becoming more aware of its origins and of what had not hitherto been taken properly into account: the religious dimension of culture. Politicians had often focused on cultural, social and even military problems. But recently, there had been religious tensions between communities of a worrying intensity and extent. 

Dramatic events, such as violence against Christians in Iraq and Iran and the burning of the Koran, meant that political leaders had to think about these issues and act to prevent further incidences. These events made it more urgent to find a solution to the problems created by the massive immigration to Europe of people with different cultures and religions, which had weakened social cohesion in many countries. How could foreigners assimilate into a society, whilst preserving their identity? How could one avoid undermining a national identity?

 It was essential to develop a culture of co-existence. Education was important in both schools and religious communities. School education was no longer sufficient. The experiences of a million Romanians in Italy and the same number in Spain were encouraging, with religious education in many parishes fostering an ecumenical spirit of openness to the majority Catholic culture. 






Countries where religions co-existed had a rich experience and had learnt how to avoid conflict. The Orthodox Patriarchs of the Middle East, Constantinople, Russia and other countries had taken the initiative to promote interreligious dialogue and to give examples of co-existence. The contribution of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople was particularly noteworthy. However, dialogue should be complemented by education in schools and liturgical communities. This dialogue should not be guided by external directors but based on a common set of ideals. On 14 April, a meeting would take place in Bucharest of the 18 religious denominations present in Romania. The point of the meeting was not just to avoid conflict, but to encourage co-operation and dialogue. Romanian Orthodox seminaries had long taught the value of an ecumenical approach: it was possible to teach the history of other religions without losing one’s own identity.
It was necessary to learn to cope with new social problems, such as the crisis of the family. Religious freedom should be at the heart of social responsibility. It was not enough to assert the dignity of the human being. The human being must be defended in the fields of human rights, democracy, law and freedom of expression. It was important to have strong convictions and to cultivate strong personalities, similar to the founding fathers of Europe. Values in today’s secular society centred on this life and on the material. Religious values focused on the relationship between man and God.


 Culture should promote the link between man and his creator. Religious culture was often the source of national culture and shaped it. Without the land, water, air and light created by God, people could not exist. Every ecological, economic and social crisis called us to rethink our relationship with God, the world and nature. Churches, states and international organisations increasingly had a common responsibility for human life and the protection of nature. Our true spiritual freedom was shown by the intensity of our charity towards others.
He proposed five ideas for the promotion of intercultural and interreligious dialogue.
First, the religious dimension of cultural dialogue was fundamental for Europe, because religion was at the heart of European identity. Each major crisis in Europe had been a crisis of spiritual, rather than cultural, identity. Communism had claimed to be the most progressive system of government, based on science. However, it was not until its fall that the people subject to communism had been freed.
Second, the values of the Council of Europe, including human rights, democracy and the rule of law, were derived from Judaeo-Christian values but had subsequently become separated from their religious roots, to be seen as universal. In order for these values to be cultivated in society, they should be reconnected with their spiritual context.
Third, education played an important role in fostering an openness towards other religions while, at the same time, retaining cultural identity. Families, schools, religious communities and the media could make important contributions, particularly if the state facilitated intercultural and interreligious dialogue.
Fourth, such interreligious and intercultural dialogue could not be imposed but should be viewed as wisdom offered to people, a state of mind based on mutual respect.
Fifth and finally, states and religious leaders should work together to ensure the common good. Strong links between people, based on spirituality, could promote a new culture of co-existence. 

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Your Beatitude, for your most interesting address. I now welcome His Eminence Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue at the Vatican, to make a statement.



HIS EMINENCE CARDINAL JEAN-LOUIS TAURAN (President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, Vatican) said that Jesus taken on all the dimensions of the human being, including the cultural dimension. The Second Vatican Council had defined culture as all the means by which man animated and developed the many potentials of his mind and body, as the manner by which family and social life were made human, and communicated the spiritual experiences and aspirations which served the progress of mankind.
Religion was a means by which all the great questions of mankind could be addressed. Pope John Paul II had said that, in the past, definitions of mankind had referred to reason, freedom or language. However, recent scholarly progress suggested that an equally valid definition could be constructed by referring to culture, which defined humankind just as much as reason, freedom or language. On a visit to UNESCO in 1980 the Pope had ended his speech by saying “Man’s future depends on culture!”.
It was difficult to transmit values, but the tasks of Christian faith were now clearer than ever: not to tell people what to do, but to remind them that they were the guardians of the world’s material and moral resources and of their duty to safeguard these resources for all the people of the world and for future generations.
People should not be deprived of the things which gave life meaning and the Church had a duty to give comfort on issues such as abortion, euthanasia and over-sexualisation. Christians should be ready to bear witness to what made them different.
Legislators and teachers had to be aware of the need to respect humankind in their search for truth. Freedom and truth were paramount. The young had to have equal access to information both about their own religions and about other religions in order to promote interreligious and intercultural dialogue. The whole of mankind might benefit if the best of the traditions of all religions were freely shared.
The roots of the Council of Europe were Christian: the influence of Jewish, Arab and Enlightenment culture should not be underestimated, but Christianity had created many European institutions, such as the school, the university and the hospital. The humanism which sprang from a Christian faith highlighted the need to prioritise ethics over the ideology of the moment. In Europe, no religion could hope to hold sway through force. Religion was now not only inherited, but also chosen. Interreligious dialogue was strong in Europe because of its culture of co-existence and Strasbourg was both crucible and symbol of this. The Council of Europe should continue to defend freedom of religion and denounce all forms of persecution and discrimination, both in Europe and in the wider world. Mankind could work together within the framework of interreligious dialogue to ensure that the name of God would never again be invoked to justify violence. Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope, had once said that it was not for the Church to be a state or a part of the state, but rather a community based on conviction. The Church should look to the value of freedom to ensure a moral continuity and to underpin the values without which common humanity was not possible. 



THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Your Eminence, for your most interesting address.
I now welcome Professor Mehmet Görmez, Chairperson of the Presidency of Religious Affairs of the Republic of Turkey, to make a statement.
Professor GÖRMEZ (Chairperson of the Presidency of Religious Affairs of the Republic of Turkey) – Dear President, Excellencies, honourable spiritual leaders, distinguished members, ladies and gentlemen, I greet you with my deepest regards. It is a special honour for me to be here with you all and to be given the opportunity to be part of this ongoing sharing of intercultural dialogue, which we all need for a more peaceful future.
I would like to begin by thanking God Almighty, who blessed us as human beings, guided us towards a life to be shared in justice and compassion and gave us the ability to live together in peace. It is he who taught us peace and brotherhood, justice and honesty, patience, courage and forgiveness. Praise be upon all prophets, including Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and our prophet Mohammed, from whom we inherited the ultimate values of compassion, love, justice, law and order. We learned from them all that the path of these teachers of wisdom is common to the depth of all our cultures and religions.
Dear friends, as you all know, in acknowledging the contribution of religions and religious institutions to intercultural dialogue and to the enhancement of multiculturalism, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has produced the White Paper, “Living together as equals in dignity”. Now, we have a report on the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue. Please allow me to share with you my happiness and my hope that, in response to the report, the exchange of opinions by five religious traditions will considerably contribute to the future of not only Europe but the whole world.
I also find it meaningful that the report has been produced at exactly the time when a number of European politicians are competing with each other to declare that multiculturalism has failed. It should be remembered that the problems that the European Union faces, as well as the challenges that jeopardise cultural diversity, cannot necessarily be attributed to religions themselves. The inability of politics to go beyond its own limits cannot be overlooked. If and when politicians are ready to engage in dialogue with religions and religious institutions, they will then be in a position to contribute to society as well as to politics.
The crisis that humanity is facing is not only an economic, social, political and cultural one but a comprehensive metaphysical and spiritual crisis. The lack of knowledge about religions and the misuse and abuse of religious ideals also play a role in blocking recognition of the crisis. Let us remember that religion is a phenomenon that speaks directly to the consciousness of the individual and prepares him or her to be sincere, fair, compassionate and altruistic towards others. It is through that preparation that religion shapes every soul for a culturally diverse life.
Although religions may differ in their approach to cultural diversity, their capacity to contribute to our social life is significant in many ways. Islam places cultural and religious diversity at the centre of its jurisprudential and moral world view. It does not attribute religious authority either to individuals or to institutions, but leaves it to the free choice of community and normative values of knowledge. That was the background of the diversity and openness built by Islam in history, and it can still guide us in our contemporary efforts to achieve intercultural living.
Divine teachings, from those of Adam to those of Mohammed – peace be upon them – are nothing other than a call to the ultimate meaningfulness of life, which is the opposite of nihilism, fatalism and pessimism. They are nothing other than a call for humility against arrogance towards God, for humanity, justice and fairness against exploitation and oppression, for living together in dignity against discrimination and inequities, for sharing and not wasting against consumptionism and extravagance, and for family-centred life against promiscuity. That is the core message of the Ten Commandments of Moses, the Sermon on the Mount by Jesus, and the Farewell Sermon by Mohammed – peace be upon them all. They all preached the same message over and over again.
“Living together as equals in dignity” has been the fundamental message of Islam, and it has been practised by Muslims for centuries. Thanks to that, Islamic civilisation has produced societies that have been so multi-ethnic, multicultural and multireligious for centuries that no other nations have shown any sign of such a capacity for diversity. However, it is questionable whether Muslims today remember that honourable history well enough to introduce the same vision of diversity into their contemporary life in the face of the confusions imposed by modernity.
If we are able to speak of a common European cultural heritage – as mentioned in many documents from the European Union and the Council of Europe – we should also be able to acknowledge the significant contribution of Islam to that heritage. One way of acknowledging its contribution is to free ourselves from the Eurocentric view of history which ignores the place of Islam in Europe, jumping from ancient Greece to the Middle Ages and then to the new Age of Enlightenment.
In hoping to benefit from the rich experience of religions for the purpose of intercultural dialogue, we should remember that a vision of a multicultural society will not be made reality by external interventions to reshape and redefine religious systems. On the contrary, individuals and groups who experience “otherisation” should be freely allowed to improve and express themselves within their own traditional dynamics. There will be no other way of determining our common future and active participation in society.
When we consider the ways in which Islam and religions in general are portrayed, we should ask the following questions. Who, with a sincere heart and a sober mind, can consent to the mocking and caricaturing of his or her religion? Is it possible to save ourselves simply by condemning those who legitimise every means of “fighting for religion”? Are those who allow religion to be used and abused to legitimise exploitation, discrimination and conflict less guilty of provoking belittling, hatred and cultural terror?
It is the intellectual and moral duty of religious leaders, scholars and decision makers not to sacrifice Europe’s civilised and cultural richness for the sake of hegemonic discourse. We must continue our mission to enhance our societies’ ability to achieve a better way of living together. With that hope, I pray to God to bless us with a bright future for living together as equals in dignity, and wish you all the best of success in your efforts to promote our highest common values.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Professor Görmez, for your most interesting address.
I now welcome Chief Rabbi Berel Lazar, Chief Rabbi of Russia, to make a statement.
CHIEF RABBI BEREL LAZAR (Chief Rabbi of Russia) – Thank you, Mr President, for inviting us and giving us an opportunity to share our ideas about the situation in Europe, about the problems in Europe, and about how religious leaders may be able to contribute to a solution to those problems. I think that you, Mr President, understand better than many that a united Europe requires not just a political arena and an economic relationship, but a cultural and religious understanding. Only when we have that understanding can we have a truly united Europe in which people live in harmony and peace.
It has been said many times that multiculturalism has failed in Europe. I myself have lived in Europe all my life, and I say that if multiculturalism has failed, Europe has failed. The beauty of Europe, and the foundations of Europe, have always been mutual understanding and open dialogue, notwithstanding all the differences between the languages, cultures and traditions of all the countries and all the people. I commend Secretary General Jagland for sending the message to the whole of Europe yesterday that we must find ways of coming together and finding understanding. We are all in the same boat, and if someone digs a small hole in that boat, sadly it will sink.
Everyone is now pointing fingers. Who is to blame for these problems? Some say that religious extremism is the source and the root of violence; others say that the blame lies with the xenophobic forces that are not giving freedom of religion to others. There was a great deal of frustration yesterday following the banning of a Muslim woman from wearing a full-face veil here in France. That produced a lot of tension. The question is, what is the right solution? Some people say “You must give us freedom of religion. How can you force us to live against our beliefs?” Others say “We must live in liberty and equality and respect each other.”
That reminds me of a story. A young couple visited a rabbi. First the husband ranted, saying that his wife had done this and done that. He said, “I cannot go on like this: it is terrible.” The rabbi said, “Do you know what? You are right.” Then the wife took the floor and said, “Do you know what my husband has been doing?” She went on and on and on. The rabbi looked at her and said “Do you know what? You are right.” The rabbi’s wife, who was standing near him, asked, “Dear husband, how can he be right and she be right as well?” The rabbi said, “Do you know what? You are also right.”
I have bad and good news for all of us. This news comes from the Talmud. Two thousand years ago, the Talmud made an interesting statement the truth of which many of us may not realise: there are not two people in the world who look alike, whose voices are similar, and who think alike. No two people anywhere in the world can we say are exactly the same. At the same time, all animals and all creatures were created in multiple numbers. The only creature that was created as one was Adam, the first man, and eventually his wife, the first woman. The world at that time was very big, as it is today, and there were two people in the whole world. Why did God not create many people? The answer is very simple, the Rabbis tell us. It is to teach each one of us that no one can stand up and say, “My grandfather and my grandmother were better than yours.” That is an important lesson for all of us. As much as we see our differences and as much as we see the things on which we do not get along sometimes, we are all part of the same family. We all come from the same people. There must be things on which we can find an understanding and a common language.
We speak about the Council of Europe and about the importance of bringing peace to the world, but if we were all the same and agreed about everything, we would not need to bring peace to the world and we would not need the Council of Europe. Everybody would live in harmony, and it would be a very monotonous life. Our whole being, the raison d’être of all of us, is to bring peace notwithstanding those differences and opposite opinions. We are different, and sometimes we are divided, but we live in one continent, one Europe, and we have to find ways to understand each other.
As much as I meet people, I always hear two schools of thought. Some people say, “You know what? I believe that the way I live is the truth and if people want to come to my country, if immigrants come in, they must accept my truth and my rules. They cannot come and live in my country and do whatever they want.” The truth is that this ideology brought this continent the Holocaust. Tens of millions of people were killed because people did not respect each other and did not understand that you could have people living in the same house with different opinions. Then there is a second school of though that says, “You know what? Live and let live. I am going to live my life and he is going to live his life. Why do I care what he does? Maybe he is my neighbour but I do not need to know what he does and what he believes. Let him do whatever he wants and I will do whatever I want.” Both views are dangerous, and we all understand why. There must be a golden thread, a solution for all of us, where we understand each other, help each other and convince each other to live a better life.
If you look in the Torah or the Bible, there are two interesting points. Our teachers tell us that proselytising and convincing others to join your religion is not always the best thing. Everybody has his own prayers to God and there are many rivers all coming to the sea. Everybody contributes what he has to give. If God wanted everybody to believe in one way, he would have created us all the same. God wanted the differences, but at the same time, interestingly enough, Maimonides says that when God gave the Torah to the Jewish people, he told us that we have a responsibility to spread the message of the seven Noachide Laws – the laws that were given to Adam, to his children, to Abraham and to our fathers, to all people in the world. We cannot sit and say, “I am going to take care only of my congregation, only of my people.” If I really care for this world that God created, I have a responsibility to tell others about values and morals, and to make sure that everybody stands together and understands that that is the only way that we can co-exist and survive.
How can we come together? It is beautiful that today, all the religious leaders are here in harmony, but I would say that that is not enough. We respect each other, we love each other, and we have to work together and do something together. What can we do? I had the honour to have a special teacher, who was actually born 110 years ago this Friday – Friday will be his birthday. Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Schneerson. I once heard him give an excellent idea, and I cannot figure out why the world is not grabbing this idea and making it into something that will help us understand each other. He suggested starting from early childhood, with little children. Convincing somebody of 20 or 30 years old to change his mind is very hard. We should start from education, but how are we going to educate? Everyone says, “Educate in this way.” But he said, “You know what? Start every single day and every single class in every single school with a moment of silence.”
We stood together earlier in honour of the victims of the terrorist attack, and we were probably all thinking about great ideas. There were no differences. We were all together, thinking of our responsibilities towards our brothers, towards God, and to make the world a better place. If each and every child started his day with a moment of silence he could believe what he or his parents believed, but he would understand that he had a responsibility to his fellow beings and a responsibility not only to learn and to become greater but to make the world a better place. I believe that that is feasible – I have seen it in Russia.
The President mentioned, when we started 20 years ago and when, thank God, things came out of the closet and we were able to celebrate our religion in Russia, that at the beginning there was a lot of mistrust. Today there is a full understanding between religious leaders in Russia. Surprisingly, anti-Semitism in Russia is at its lowest ever. How did that happen? I have three points, and I will end with them. The first is co-operation between religious leaders. We need constantly to discuss ideas and think how we can help each other and how we can send a message together to young people about the mutual values that we all share.
Secondly, very often governments feel that they should not mix into religious affairs. I personally think that that is a mistake. I think they have to interfere to make sure that no religious denomination will bring ideas of violence or extremism to the people. That is their responsibility. I must say that in Russia, those ideas are slowly leading to a better understanding and mutual co-operation between religious leaders and the government.
Thirdly, and I think most importantly, religious communities in Russia are opening up to the people. Our temples, churches, synagogues and mosques are open to everyone – “Come in and find out what we believe.” As long as we preach one idea in the synagogue and another one on television, it is not going to work. We have to show that what we believe is open to everyone and that our speeches, our ideology and our ideas are for everyone to share. Only then can we hope for a better future, a more united Europe and a place where everybody will live in unity, harmony and love.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Chief Rabbi Lazar, for your very interesting address.
I now welcome Prelate Bernhard Felmberg, Plenipotentiary Representative of the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany to the Federal Republic of Germany and the European Union, to make a statement.
PRELATE BERNHARD FELMBERG (Plenipotentiary Representative of the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany to the Federal Republic of Germany and the European Union) – Mr President, distinguished members, my brethren in faith, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the invitation to address you today, to which I respond gladly. Religion was and is a golden thread in the fibre of our societies. It makes its impact felt, mostly for good, occasionally for bad. It is our common duty, as political office holders and men and women of the faith, to work together to strengthen the former and prevent the latter.
As European societies, under the influences of European integration, globalisation and a resulting increase in migration, become more pluralist in their outlook, permanent encounters between different religions have become the rule, yet they still have an aura of the unusual, sometimes even of the exotic.
To put it bluntly, that is the case with some religions more than with others. The more a religion is connected to foreign cultures, the less easy dialogue becomes. Thus, there is not only a religious dimension to intercultural dialogue, but a cultural dimension to interreligious dialogue. That must not be forgotten. In both cases, the matters at stake are complex. There are four main aspects, which I want to address today.
First, as Ms Brasseur pointed out, religion is only one aspect of our personality, but it can be dominant and forceful. Secondly, Europe is shaped not only by religious plurality, but by a diversity of legal systems concerning religion. Thirdly, the life of Churches and religious communities depends on the guarantee of the fundamental right to freedom of religion, not only in its individual, but in its collective and co-operative missions. Fourthly, Churches and religious communities have valuable contributions to make to society at large through their social and societal engagement and through fostering mutual understanding.
Let me deal with religious identity. Religion is only one aspect of our identity. I am not only a Protestant, I am also German, European and a fan of my football club. Personalities are multilayered and multifaceted. In Berlin, where I come from, we used to talk about “the Turks”, referring to our largest ethnic minority. After 9/11, we started to talk about “the Muslims” instead. I urge us all to be more careful in picking out single aspects of identity and asking whether they have any relevance to the issue in question. Discrimination is largely based on our failure to distinguish if and when an attribute is relevant, so my plea is to talk about religion when religion is at stake, but not to reduce all matters of migration and integration to religious questions. Instead, we should look at the person.
I now want to deal with religious plurality. In the Council of Europe and the European Union, we tend to look for common ground – things that unite rather than divide us. That is understandable, but it must not happen at the expense of individuality and plurality. “United in diversity” is the leitmotif of European integration. It is our strength. That thesis applies especially to religion and the legal systems governing relations between religion and the state. In principle, that is not only accepted, but positively recognised by the EU and European law. Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union endorses “Cultural, religious and linguistic diversity” in Europe. Article 17 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union respects national competencies in those matters. Recently, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights revised a decision about the display of religious symbols – in this case a cross – in public schools in Italy. That stresses the broad margin of appreciation that signatory states have in such matters. Speaking as a German Protestant, I emphasise that we fully endorse that judgment. It may appear to protect a majority culture and a denomination that is not ours. However, I would rather live in a society that is open to religion than in a culture of mistrust, in which the religious is banned from the public sphere. In Italy, pupils are allowed to wear the Muslim headscarf and the Jewish kippah. Protestants can build churches and openly and publicly confess their faith. The fact that the majority religion is more visible than other smaller groups is, in itself, not discrimination.
The state must take account of social realities. Religion is a part of that reality and so is plurality. We need to balance the rights of majorities and minorities in the light of those realities. While majorities will be more visible, minorities should have the chance to be seen and heard as well.
I would now like to speak about religious freedom. Freedom of religion is the human right par excellence. Long before people fought for political freedoms, they fought for their right to believe or not to believe. They did that because religion is so close to the very core of human existence – the interpretation of the world, its origin and destiny; making sense of our very being, or living and dying, suffering and hoping; accepting duties and responsibilities that transcend simple self-interest; and concepts such as love and mercy. It is the state’s most noble duty to protect that right. Over centuries, the state perceived its role as choosing one religion and then protecting it. However, to choose one always means to exclude others. That may seem the easiest way, but the easiest is not always the best. The state’s duty is towards religion, not a religion. As I said in relation to the recent Grand Chamber judgment, the state does not need to be blind to religion and social realities. The state cannot ignore a force so strong and fundamental without ignoring a key element of human life. Therefore, the state must have a positive attitude to religion, but remain neutral towards religions. That is also in the state’s self-interest. Engaging with religion promotes what is good, peaceful and beneficial in them.
Let me consider the valuable contributions of religions. They have a contribution to make – a double input. They contribute through their social and societal engagement and through fostering mutual understanding. The level of dialogue and co-operation offered by the state, with some deplorable exceptions, in all European states shows that there are expectations. Can we meet them? Yes we can.
In my Church, we speak about the public mission of the Church. In the Hebrew Bible in Jeremiah 29:7, the people of God are called to “seek the peace and prosperity of the city” even in exile. How much more then should that apply in a free society of which we are an integral part? We are convinced that we cannot engage in social work, care for the poor and needy, the orphan and the widow, the stranger and the exiled without also working on conditions that make or break poverty and exclusion, injustice and discrimination. For a true dialogue the state needs to be an open partner.
Article 17, to which I have already referred, also established an open, regular and transparent dialogue between the EU and the Churches, between religious and non-confessional communities. According to Article 17, the dialogue, like any other dialogue with public authorities, is one of religions, rather than one that is between religions. To organise interreligious dialogue is not the task of religions alone. The common dialogue with public bodies offers a field for exchange and co-operation.
In fact, dialogue forums have become many and diverse. Taking high-level interreligious dialogue alone, we have meetings between religious leaders and EU presidents, the religious leaders’ meeting at the G8 level, and the Parliament of the World’s Religions, and we also engage in the UN Alliance of Civilizations. In order for these dialogues to deliver, we must concentrate our forces rather than broadening the variety of forms and platforms.
Religion has a deservedly central place in society. My own Church is one of Europe’s biggest, with a registered membership of 25 million Protestants and about 500 000 employees, mostly in the welfare sector. The Church spends €800 million from Church taxes alone on its welfare work. If we add gift aid and other donations from our members, the figure is more than €1 billion. We run more than 1 000 schools and provide more than 600 000 places in day-care institutions for children, young people, the elderly and the sick.
Most of our social work addresses those in need, irrespective of their religions. However, some of it, by its very nature, especially addresses people of other religious backgrounds, through integration projects, asylum counselling and advocacy for refugee rights. In some areas of my native city of Berlin, we even go so far as to employ Muslims to work for a Christian Church, in order to help us deal better with those whom we are there to help. As global players, our development agencies run thousands of projects abroad, taking a partner-based approach and strengthening civil society around the world.
If I have been speaking about my own Church, it is because my knowledge of it is best. However, the Catholic contribution is the same in numbers, and the Jewish community also contributes – if not in the same numbers, then in the same spirit. Our invitation is to the other religious groups, especially the Muslim communities, to set up structures that enable them to make their contribution to society and their role in it more visible. How we, the official representatives, encounter each other here – and, even more so, back home – has an impact on how our people deal with pluralism and diversity. Tolerance and respect need to shape our relations on all levels. Every year in Germany, for instance, the Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox Churches organise an intercultural week, supported by the trade unions, city councils, migrants’ organisations and other civil society actors. This is just one example of what is possible when we join forces and work together.
Easy as it sounds, the way of co-operation is a stony one. Different religions endorse different concepts of society and the place of the individual within it. I have already pointed out that there is not only a religious dimension to intercultural dialogue, but a cultural dimension to interreligious co-operation. Dialogue, even in the most basic sense, depends on the possibility of meaningful exchange. If clergy and representatives do not speak the language of the land, or if they speak it only with difficulty, this is a problem. Dialogue is the way, but the preconditions for dialogue have to be established on both sides.
Let me sum up. Religions are an integral part of individual and collective identity. The state needs to protect freedom of religion, so that any religion can be freely exercised. In most cases, this will include a positive contribution towards society at large, through both voluntary engagement and dialogue. I invite you, as representatives of the political sphere, to accept this contribution and help make it work.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Prelate Felmberg, for your interesting address.
I remind delegates that the vote is in progress to elect judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Norway and Switzerland. The poll will be open until 1 p.m., and will then be open from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. Those who have not yet voted may still do so by going to the area behind the President’s chair.
In the debate, I call first Mr Leigh on behalf of the European Democrat Group.
Mr LEIGH (United Kingdom) – I am sure that I speak for everyone when I say what an inspiring session we have had so far. It truly reminds us of the value of religion. I am sure that none of us could disagree with anything that we have heard. Indeed, I am sure that there is nothing in the report that any of us could disagree with, and that leads me to the theme of my remarks. I believe that the problem in Europe today is not diversity of religion, the strongly held views of people of various religions, or arguments between them; it is indifference from a great part of the European population.
There is another problem too, which one can perhaps detect in the non-controversial language of this report. Let me make one thing absolutely clear: any kind of hate speech against any religion must always be completely wrong. However, my strong argument might be somebody else’s insult. We in Europe must guard against the chilling effect of political correctness and the desire never to offend anybody.
In the United Kingdom, the Public Order Act 1986 was initially designed to deal with football hooliganism. It is illegal to use threatening or abusive behaviour, which we all know is wrong; however, it is also illegal to use insulting behaviour. We had one case where somebody made disobliging remarks about Mohammed and Muslim dress during a theological dispute at the breakfast table in a bed and breakfast house, and they were prosecuted. The case was finally thrown out, but they lost their business. Another Christian preacher quoted the Bible on homosexuality – that is not something that I personally would do – and he was also prosecuted. We had another case where somebody who said that Scientology was a dangerous cult was prosecuted because they were said to have used insulting language.
I support what Patriarch Daniel said this morning: freedom is a gift of God. I am a Catholic, and I maintain that Christianity lies at the height and the heart of European culture. However, like Voltaire, we must defend the right of people with whom we do not agree to speak out – the right of comedians to poke fun at religion and the right of humanists to question whether religion is right at all. Is not the central idea of Europe this: first, freedom; secondly, freedom; and thirdly, freedom? If we can conduct ourselves in that way, this debate will have achieved something.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Memecan to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.
Ms MEMECAN (Turkey) – I congratulate the rapporteur on taking such a positive approach and, in particular, on emphasising humility in her introductory speech. Human beings from all walks of life have been trying to learn to live together for ages. As she rightly pointed out, having developed many civilisations, we still urgently need to create a new culture of living together. Obviously, we have not managed to learn to live together. People continue to be the victims of abuse based on differences. We should use every opportunity to prevent people from falling into this trap. Abusers use religious beliefs and sacred values to create chaos and unrest. Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and Christianophobia are recent examples of such provocations.
This report alerts us to the danger of falling into those traps and urges us to consider living in peace through mutual respect. Positive and constructive statements by religious leaders are vital in eliminating the seeds of hatred among people and in urging them to understand and respect each other. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the religious dignitaries who participated in our session for their inspiring speeches.
Religious faith, other faith or non-faith-based establishments unite people. Belonging is a comforting feeling for many people. People find peace in their faith and in the religion they adhere to. The variety of religions also points to a variety of differences among different groups of people. Differences are the basis for defining the other. People have a tendency to fear the other, but our differences make our environment vibrant, dynamic and productive. We should not try to eliminate our differences or to impose our understanding on others. Universal human rights should be the guidelines. We have to learn to enjoy and respect our differences and the other. Therefore, the most important value we need to instil is a respect for difference, pluralism and diversity, especially in our children. Unity in diversity should always be kept alive and embraced by everyone. We should share experiences of good models of pluralist teaching and promote programmes of exchange, especially among young people, as the rapporteur very rightly recommends. With the new demographic scene in Europe and as the whole world in fact becomes closer we need mutual respect more than ever to live good lives.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Memecan. I call Mr Petrenco, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.
Mr PETRENCO (Moldova) said that the issue of interreligious dialogue was important and it was necessary to discover new ways for diverse cultures to co-exist. Europe was, by definition, multicultural, multifaith and multilingual and, therefore, to question the principle of multiculturalism was to strike at the heart of European culture. However, some powerful leaders within Europe were claiming that the multicultural model of society had failed. This was a step backwards. Multiculturalism was a given in contemporary Europe, although it was true that current social models had failed to provide the necessary conditions for social integration, mutual respect and understanding. European states were secular by nature and yet Churches had tried to intervene in various ways, for example, by supporting particular political parties or by demanding compulsory religious education in schools. This had resulted in conflict and was counterproductive. People should work together within a framework of mutual respect and, whilst there must be freedom of religion, religious leaders should also work together.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Petrenco. I call Mr Santini, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.
Mr SANTINI (Italy) said that “unity and diversity” was a popular slogan in Europe. It meant that the people of Europe could live in peace and harmony, despite their differences and Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights underpinned this. If the notion of respect were added to this formula, a miracle happened: respect in diversity. However, this was only possible if mutual respect were highlighted within a framework of multiculturalism. The latter was often referred to as heightening rather than resolving differences, but interreligious dialogue was a means of promoting peaceful co-existence between people. The different religions should learn to co-exist with and show tolerance towards each other.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Santini. I call Mr Connarty, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.




Mr CONNARTY (United Kingdom) – Mr President, respected representatives of religions here today, members of the Parliamentary Assembly, first I am pleased to be able to praise Ms Anne Brasseur for her perceptive and balanced report. I also commend the chairmanship of Mr Flego, who created a forum for debate to produce that report.

 I compliment Mr Toshev on his sincere contribution to the debate.
We have heard today how those of faith define their calling in a modern society and about their strategies for approaching intercultural dialogue. 

I, as a non-religious humanist, recognise my morals and my ethics in those contributions: mutual respect, mutual support, defence of rights, the ability to disagree but, always, respect and co-operation. So if we are all agreed, why do we need this report? I urge people please to read it and to use it. 

It does not just analyse, it recommends action. For example, paragraph 12 of the full report admits that the dark clouds of bigotry and religious prejudice sweep across our lands from time to time.
Many parts of our world have been blanketed by those dark clouds for centuries, as indeed all European lands were in centuries past. Paragraph 13 gives examples of confession-based violence – which, sadly, I see even today in my own homeland of Scotland – and killings that mix politics and religion.

 I want to add to that list the killing on Sunday by Hamas of the actor and producer Juliano Mer-Khamis, whom I had the pleasure of knowing. He said that he was 100% Israeli through his mother and 100% Palestinian through his father. He was killed for running the Freedom Theatre in Jenin in Palestine.
The report recognises that our common values are the beacons of light that have led Europe out of the darkness of bigotry and prejudice. The recommendations call for states and religious and non-religious organisations to become more active in this intercultural dialogue. Recommendation 8 speaks of “developing a new culture of living together”, but when a pastor stoops to burning the holy book of another religion, and others kill in retaliation, we still have much to do. Let us redouble our efforts and, using this report, raise the volume of the voices of reason.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Connarty. I call Mr Mignon.
Mr MIGNON (France) said that he commended the initiative of the President in organising the debate. In a century in which materialism appeared paramount, the resurgence of the importance of religion was based on a search for identity, since democracy appeared not to embody all that people were searching for. The rapporteur had not developed the concept of secularism. Neutrality and secularism, in the sense of the separation of Church and state, were important. Diversity in religious expression should be encouraged through the promotion of mutual respect. The Council of Europe was well placed to promote interreligious dialogue because it was based on democratic values. Teaching of religion in schools should address religious diversity in order to enhance mutual respect and provide the means by which people with different beliefs could live in harmony and tolerate each other. Religious diversity was not a threat but a source of richness.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Mignon. I call Ms Girardin.
Ms GIRARDIN (France) said that religion was useful in democratic society, and that religious education was necessary to enhance mutual respect and understanding. The cult of the individual was widespread in contemporary society and communities had been weakened as a result. A liberal approach, under which public identity was characterised by citizen participation in the social space whilst maintaining a respect for others, could be a remedy for this problem. A liberal democracy could assure the rights of minorities without endangering social cohesion. This liberal approach was being promoted by the Council of Europe. However, it had to be noted that Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights did not give an absolute right to expression of religion as this had to be tempered by respect for believers and non-believers alike. Sectarianism should be resisted wherever it was found.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Girardin. I call Mr Lipiński.
Mr LIPIŃSKI (Poland) said that Europe was extraordinarily diverse, even though it had been based for the last 2 000 years on the Judaeo-Christian model. The maxim “Do unto others as you would have done to you” was widespread and well known, even to those who did not hail from this religious tradition. It was not surprising that interreligious dialogue had become more widespread: Pope John Paul II had been in favour of it and so was his successor.
The report emphasised the importance of freedom of expression and belief, which could be summarised as the right to exhibit religion either privately or publicly with others. While the Council of Europe should protect the rights of the weakest against intolerance, this should not become oppressive for the majority. On 21 January, the committee had affirmed that no democratic society could exist without freedom of thought and religion. He himself was convinced that others shared that view and that this could contribute to the ideal Europe.
THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Lipiński. I now call Mr Badré.
Mr BADRÉ (France) said that he believed that religion was one of the basic elements of cultural diversity that should be protected. Some argued that the separation of Church and state was democracy. Religious practice could not be in conflict with democratic society: these values gave society a human dimension. The rapporteur had rightly stressed the principle of universality. Intellectual curiosity had to be awakened at an early stage and so education should not ignore religion, but teaching of religion had to be neutral. Genuine intercultural dialogue was needed to contribute to a better understanding between believers of different faiths and to assist in decisions and overcome divisions.
(Mr Vera Jardim, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Çavuşoğlu.)
(…)
2011 ORDINARY SESSION
_________________
(Second part)
REPORT
Thirteenth sitting
Tuesday 12 April 2011 at 3 p.m.
(…)
3. The religious dimension of intercultural dialogue – resumed debate
THE PRESIDENT – We now continue the debate on the report on “The religious dimension of intercultural dialogue” (Doc. 12553 and Doc. 12576). I remind members that yesterday the Assembly agreed that speaking time in this debate be limited to three minutes. To allow sufficient time for replies to the debate, and voting, we will have to interrupt the list of speakers at about 5.30 p.m.
(…)
Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) said that the debate had been both interesting and exceptional for many reasons. The Assembly had been addressed by representatives from five different religions, who had been brought together in the Chamber for the first time. The atmosphere in the Chamber had been attentive and delegates had listened very carefully to the presentations given by the religious representatives. Those representatives had delivered their presentations in a tone of mutual respect, which demonstrated that they understood the importance of embarking on a new method of collaboration. She had detected a strong consensus in the Chamber that the Assembly should continue to work in the direction indicated by the report and the Assembly should now move towards positive action on the basis of the consensus shown today. She hoped that religious representatives and the Assembly could be brought together again in the future to work on this issue. All communities could work together for the common good and that was her message today. She thanked those who had contributed to the report which, she thought, was balanced and demonstrated a new way for religious communities to live together.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does the Chairperson of the committee, Mr Flego, wish to speak? You have two minutes.

Mr FLEGO (Croatia) – First of all, this report and the discussion demonstrate that intercultural dialogue is needed and possible. It clearly stresses that diversity is not an obstacle but richness that we are all supposed to enjoy. This report may be considered as a founding document of the coalition of institutions and organisations entrusted with promoting this richness of intercultural and inter-religious dialogue. It may be the beginning of the new culture of dialogue and of the establishment of a regular intercultural and inter-religious forum consisting of the Council of Europe and the highest level of representatives of religious communities. This report makes the Council of Europe a leader in intercultural and inter-religious dialogue.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The debate is closed. The Committee on Culture, Science and Education has presented a draft recommendation to which nine amendments have been tabled. They will be taken in the order in which they appear in the “Organisation of Debates”.
I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.
(…)



We come to Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Latchezar Toshev, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 8, to replace the words “recognise each other” with the following words: “recognise each other’s right to freedom of religion and belief”.


I call Mr Toshev to support Amendment 2.
Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) In this amendment, we address the recommendation that the main monotheistic religions recognise each other. The Political Affairs Committee’s proposal is to amend this wording to say, “recognise each other’s right to freedom of religion and belief”. This makes the text more concrete. We are calling on the main monotheistic religions to recognise the freedom, not just to recognise each other in a general and unclear sense.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Brasseur.
Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) was against the amendment because the text of the report went further than the amendment itself. The report urged that religious communities should explicitly recognise each other and its recommendations were not restricted merely to the idea of freedom of belief.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr FLEGO (Croatia) In this case, the committee does not agree with the rapporteur. The committee is in favour of the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.





We come to Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Toshev, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 8, third sentence, to delete the word “new”.
I call Mr Toshev to support Amendment 3.
Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) In this amendment, we propose to delete the word “new” before “culture of living together”. We have heard that the Group of Eminent Persons is working on drafting a new concept of “culture of living together” but that the work has not yet been completed. Since the time of the founding fathers, there has been a concept of living together that has been the core of the European idea. That is why it is better to delete the word “new” and wait to see what the committee will produce.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Brasseur.
Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) said that the Assembly had heard countless times in the debate about a new concept of living together. She disagreed with the amendment because deleting the word “new” from the recommendation gave the impression that different religious communities had not historically co-existed peacefully and that was not the case. It was necessary to give that culture a new dimension.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr FLEGO (Croatia) – The committee is against.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.
Amendment 3 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Toshev, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 10, to replace the words “accepting the common fundamental values” with the following words: “abiding by the law”.
I call Mr Toshev to support Amendment 4.
Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – The Political Affairs Committee debated this text, and we took the position that freedom of religion is unconditional. It is a fundamental, unconditional right and it should not be linked with other requirements, such as “accepting the common fundamental values”. We suggest the new wording “abiding by the law”. From a legal point of view, this wording is better. Otherwise, there could be a misunderstanding that this fundamental freedom was not unconditional.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
I call Ms Brasseur.
Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) said that it was unnecessary to say that one should abide by the law. This was clearly what the report said, and common fundamental values had to be defended.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr FLEGO (Croatia) – The committee is against the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.
Amendment 4 is rejected.
We come to Amendment 5, tabled by Mr Toshev, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 10, to replace the words “persons with humanist convictions who adhere to these fundamental values” with the following words: “persons with no religious beliefs”.
I call Mr Toshev to support Amendment 5.
Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – Three amendments presented by the Political Affairs Committee were adopted unanimously, which is rare in that committee. They are similar in intention, which is to delete direct reference to the humanist movement and to use the wider description “persons with no religious beliefs”. I would like to defend the amendments because of the unanimous position adopted by the committee.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I have been informed that Ms Brasseur wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, as follows:
In Amendment 5, after the words “religious beliefs” insert the words “who adhere to these same fundamental values”.
In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules.
However, do ten or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?
That is not the case. I therefore call Ms Brasseur to support her oral sub-amendment. You have 30 seconds.
Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) said that she thought there had been confusion in the Political Affairs Committee. The Committee on Culture, Science and Education had deleted the notion of having humanist convictions by replacing this with persons of no religious belief. The Committee on Culture, Science and Education had agreed with this and she thought that the point had been lost in transmission between the committees.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – The committee is in favour of the oral sub-amendment.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The committee is in favour.
I will now put the oral sub-amendment to the vote.
The vote is open.
The oral sub-amendment is adopted.
We will now consider Amendment 5, as amended.
Does anyone wish to speak again Amendment 5, as amended? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education on the amendment, as amended?
Mr FLEGO (Croatia) – In favour.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I shall now put Amendment 5, as amended, to the vote.
The vote is open.
Amendment 5, as amended, is adopted.
We come to Amendment 6, tabled by Mr Toshev, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 12, to replace the words “including humanist associations” with the following words: “including relevant non-religious associations”.

I call Mr Toshev to support Amendment 6 on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee. You have 30 seconds.
Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – As I said, the Political Affairs Committee unanimously adopted the principle that no special names of organisations, convictions or associations should be mentioned. That is why the committee unanimously proposed to replace the words “including humanist associations” with “including relevant non-religious associations”. This gives the provision a much wider sense.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I have been informed that Ms Brasseur wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, as follows:
In Amendment 6, to replace the word “relevant” with the words “humanist and”.
In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules.
However, do ten or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?
That is not the case. I therefore call Ms Brasseur to support her oral sub-amendment. You have 30 seconds.
Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) (Translation) – The amendment speaks for itself and I do not need to add any comment.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment? I call Mr Toshev.
Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – I am against the oral sub-amendment because it again tries to introduce concrete names, convictions and associations, which goes against the decision of the Political Affairs Committee.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr FLEGO (Croatia) – In favour.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I will now put the oral sub-amendment to the vote.
The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.
We will now consider Amendment 6, as amended.




Does anyone wish to speak against the Amendment 6, as amended? That is not the case. The committee is in favour, so I shall now put Amendment 6, as amended, to the vote.
The vote is open.
Amendment 6, as amended, is adopted.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – We come to Amendment 7, tabled by Mr Toshev, on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 17.1, to replace the words “the religious faiths and the main humanist organisations” with the following words: “the religious institutions and the relevant non-religious organisations”.
I call Mr Toshev to support Amendment 7.
Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – We want to clarify the fact that the dialogue should involve institutions rather than just ideas, without specifying the names of those to be included.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I have been informed that Ms Brasseur wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, as follows:
In Amendment 7, replace the word “relevant” with the words “humanist and”.
In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules.
However, do ten or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?
That is not the case. I therefore call Ms Brasseur to support her oral sub-amendment.
Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) said that the oral sub-amendment was the logical consequence of Amendment 6, which had already been adopted.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment?
I call Mr Hancock.
Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – I thought that the first oral sub-amendment proposed by Ms Brasseur was wrong. She was at the meeting of the Political Affairs Committee, which conducted a very good debate on the whole issue. I am rather surprised that, because she did not like the committee’s decision, the rapporteur is trying to usurp it.
The debate was fair and open. It was proposed to remove the word “humanist” because many people in the room did not really understand what their beliefs were. Even humanists who spoke made that point. For goodness’ sake, let us leave the wording as it is. We should have left it as it was on the last occasion. I do not think that it does the Assembly any good when the rapporteur wants to fight a corner that she has already lost in the Political Affairs Committee.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr FLEGO (Croatia) – There have been some factual inaccuracies. The proposal came not from Ms Brasseur but from the committee. Ms Brasseur is being wrongly accused.
The committee is in favour of the oral sub-amendment.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.
The oral sub-amendment is adopted.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – We will now consider Amendment 7, as amended.
Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 7, as amended? That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education on Amendment 7, as amended?
Mr FLEGO (Croatia) – The committee is in favour.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The vote is open.
We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 12553, as amended. A two-thirds majority is required.
The vote is open.
The draft recommendation in Doc. 12553, as amended, is adopted, with 95 votes for, 4 against and 3 abstentions.
We congratulate the rapporteur and the committee.




Written question 
 
Freedom of thought, conscience and 
religion


Written question No. 597 to the Committee of Ministers | Doc. 12594 | 18 April 2011

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

Question from Mr Latchezar TOSHEV, Bulgaria, EPP/CD



Noting that:
  • Paragraph 4 of Recommendation 1962 (2011) states that "freedom of religion and freedom to have a philosophical or secular world view are inseparable from unreserved acceptance by all of the fundamental values enshrined in the Convention";
  • Paragraph 10 recalls "states' obligation to ensure that all religious communities accepting the common fundamental values can enjoy appropriate legal status guaranteeing the exercise of freedom of religion" and that "States must also reconcile the rights of religious communities with the need to protect the rights of persons with no religious beliefs who adhere to these fundamental values";


Mr Toshev,

To ask the Committee of Ministers:

When considering the reply to Recommendation 1962 (2011), to confirm that freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, is unconditional and does not depend on acceptance or adhesion to any values.



Reply to Written question

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion




Reply to Written question | Doc. 12706 | 15 September 2011
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion


Author(s): Committee of Ministers


Origin - adopted at the 1119th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (7 September 2011) 2011 - Fourth part-session
Reply to Written question: Written question no. 597 (Doc. 12594)
1. The Committee of Ministers considers freedom of thought, conscience and religion to be an inalienable right enshrined in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights and guaranteed by Article 18 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, of which the Council of Europe is the custodian. It strongly reaffirmed this principle in its Declaration on religious freedom, adopted on 20 January 2011. It will consider Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1962 (2011) on “The religious dimension of intercultural dialogue”, to which the Honorable Parliamentarian refers, basing itself on the same principle.