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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
