Страници

27 юли 2019

Успение на Св. Климент Охридски - Апостолът на българите

 

 Св. Клиимент Охридски, Худ.Антон Митов, 1905г.  Зала 1 на Ректората на Софийския Университет "Св.Климент Охридски"

Тропар


Със словата си ти поучи езичниците на Божията вяра,
а с делата си се възвиси до божествения безпечален живот;
с чудесата си просия пред ония, които пристъпват с вяра към тебе,
а със знаменията преславно озари западните земи.
Затова, Клименте, славим твоята божествена памет.



В "Охридската легенда" или Краткото житие на св. Климент от Охридския архиепископ Димитър Хоматиан, който сам се нарича "архипастир на българите", пише изрично:
"Този велик наш отец и български светилник по род бе от европейските мизи, които мнозина наричат българи" (Й. Иванов. "Български старини из Македония", С., 1931, стр. 316 на гръцки и старобългарски).
Климент придружавал своите учители в Рим, където бил
 ръкоположен в свещенически сан от римския папа Адриан ІІ.

  Ново свидетелство за св. Климент Охридски Чудотворец, починал на 25 юли 916 г. като епископ Велички и на целия Илирик

Откъс от статията на  Ст.н.с. Трендафил Кръстанов 

Църковен вестник, 25 юли 1998 година

 

За живота на св. Климент има редица извори на различни езици и много изследвания, обхванати в отделни библиографии.

Според "Охридската легенда" той е "родом от европейските мизи, които народът знае като българи", следователно е от българските славяни. Той е сред първите ученици на Св.св. Кирил и Методий (от Олимп в Мала Азия до Рим) и след смъртта им продължава тяхното дело повече от 30 години в своята Родина ­ България.

От столицата Плиска Св. Климент е изпратен от българския владетел Св. Княз Борис Михаил в областта Кутмичевица като учител на българския славянски език сред местното население, за да го просвети в християнската вяра.

Резултатът е известен: около 3500 ученици са подготвени за поддякони, дякони и свещеници, за да проповядват Христовата вяра сред новопокръстените българи.

От 893 г. до смъртта си той е епископ на български език.
В науката от 150 години се спори къде е била епископската му катедра Величка, защото в титулатурата му се споменават две епархии: Тивериуполска и Величка.

В последните изследвания се предполага, че втората епископия била или в Родопите, или по реката Вардар, но няма точни данни за това.

Нов извор от Ватиканската библиотека (Ватикански кодекс № 2492 - за епископия Велеграда или Велика, Велица, Белица, днешен Берат в Албания,)  посочва два безспорни факта: седалището на св. Климент след 906 г. и датата на неговата смърт.

В документа се казва следното:

"Епископия Велаграда или Велеграда (Берат) и Канина, Северен Епир. Град в Албания, сега Берат. Епископия първо към Драчката митрополия, наричана Пулхериуполска, после Велеградска митрополия към Охридската архиепископия, а от 1767 г. към Цариградската патриаршия с митрополитски титул "Пречестен и Екзарх на цяла Албания...

Епископи: 1. Филарет, неизвестно кога, 2. Серафим, също неизвестно, 3. Сергий 16 април 878, 4. Даниил, 5. Климент ­ 906 -  ­ 25 юли 916 г."
Този неизвестен досега извор показва няколко нови факта:
1. Епископ Сергий, славянин и ръкоположен от български епископ Георги, е светителствал тук, а не в Белград на Дунава, който тогава също е бил в българската държава.
2. Епископ Климент е приел Величката епископия едва през 906 г. и останал там до своята кончина.
3. За първи път научаваме точната дата на неговата смърт ­ 25 юли, докато преди това се знаеше датата на неговото погребение ­ 27 юли 916г.
Новият извор има важно значение за науката. Той не само разрешава някои спорни проблеми, но ще послужи за преоценка на дискусионни въпроси от българската и общобалканската история и култура.
Сега по-ясно се разбира кога и защо св. Климент на два пъти е приемал епископски седалища, както знаехме от изворите.

Още през 893 г. той е избран от българския владетел Симеон за епископ и вероятно е светителствал в Струмица (Тивериупол) до 906 г.

Наръшкият надпис от 904 г. на каменна плоча на около 20 км от Солун очертава "Граница между ромеи и българи при Симеон".






В "Дюканжовия" Списък на българските архиепископи пише изрично:
"Климент, като станал епископ на Тивериупол (сега Струмица - бел.м. Л.Т.)  и Велика, сетне бил натоварен от Бориса, цар на българите да надзирава и третия дял на българското царство, т.е. от Солун до Йерихо и Канина и (или) Тасипият." (Й. Иванов. Български старини из Македония 1931, с. 565), а в "Охридската легенда" (Краткото житие на св. Климент), вероятно писано на български език и преведено и преработено от архиепископ Димитър Хоматиан Охридски и на цяла България, се добавя и следващото въздигане на общобългарския светител: "Климент е възведен на епископския престол, като бил поставен за епископ на целия Илирик и на владеещия тази земя български народ" (Й. Иванов 1931:318).
Тук няма да се спираме на множество други въпроси, които биха могли да бъдат поставени. Бихме могли само да насочим вниманието си към известното сведение от "Българската легенда" или Пространното житие на св. Климент, също преведено от български извори и може би допълнено от архиепископ Теофилакт Български ХI-ХII век.



Той нарича св. Климент "протос епископос тис вулгарикис глоссис".
Това би могло да се преведе по няколко начина: "пръв епископ на български език", но и като "пръв (т.е. главен) епископ на българския народ".

Вторият превод отговаря повече на смисъла и на изворите. Думата "глосса" може да се преведе и като "език", но и като език на народа, който го говори, т.е. и като "народ", както е посочено в "Охридската легенда".

Накрая, но не на последно място, защо св. Климент е известен като "Охридски", след като в най-старите извори е наречен "Велички"?

Отговорът е много ясен и недвусмислен. Българските владетели изпратили Св. Климент като учител в българската крепост Девол, дали му там три големи къщи, както и места за отдих в Главиница и Охрид.


Надписът от с. Балши - Албания, свидетелстващ за покръстването на българите. Със сигурност такива надписи е поставял Св. Климент Охридски.



На този ден честваме и всички Свети Седмочисленици - Кирил и Методий и техните ученици -  светите Климент Охридски чудотворец, Наум Охридски чудотворец, Сава - Лаврентий, Горазд и Ангеларий, просветители на българите.




Тропар, глас 1

С хвалебни венци да увенчаем славните Седмочисленици,
Кирил и Методий, Климент и Наум, Сава, Горазд и Ангеларий,
изгрели като светила и благовестили ни Триединия Бог.


Вие, непоклатими стълбове и Боговдъхновени поборници за нашата реч,
прогонили езическото бесовско учение,
молете се на Христа Бога да утвърди нашата Църква
и да дарува на душите ни велика милост.

Кондак, глас 4, 

Явили се непобедими в постничеството,
козните на невидимите врагове с Божествена сила сте победили.
И, като научихте множеството непросветени българи на православната вяра, получихте венци.
Молете се за нас на Христа, Седмочисленици, да даде опрощение на прегрешенията ни.


Видео : 

Молитвено Литийно шествие с иконата на СВ. СЕДМОЧИСЛЕНИЦИ, 

26 юли 2019г.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gxQdjyMokk

                 Празник на Храм СВ. СЕДМОЧИСЛЕНИЦИ в София
 
(Първи ктитор на храма - за превръщането му от джамия в църква, е Георги Тишев от Свищов - със съпругата си Домна. Той е бил Министър на вътрешните работи в правителството на Драган Цанков, секретар на Екзархията в Цариград и деятел на българското Възраждане.)




Празник и на Софийския Университет

 По стар стил, денят на Св.Климент Охридски се чества на 8 декември.

Поради това, този ден  е празник и на Софийския Университет, чийто патрон е светецът. Това е ипразникът на неговите студенти.

От тогава не само студентите от Софийския Университет "Св.Климент Охридски" , но и всички други български студенти, честват този ден и като свой празник.

Днес малко от тях знаят защо точно на 8 декември е студентският празник.

Той е обявен за такъв по предложение на един от създателите на Университета - проф. Иван Шишманов - Първостроителят на българската култура.

Един от неговите студенти, а по-късно известен български писател - Стилян Чилингиров, съчинява и химн на Св.Климент Охридски, който да се изпълнява заедно с традиционния студентски химн "Gaudeamus".

Академичният хор на маестро Ангел Манолов, винаги го включваше в репертуара си за 8 декември.


Стилян Чилингиров




Химн на Св. Климент Охридски
текст : Стилян Чилингиров
музика : Добри Христов

На неразделний роден край
звездата и възхода!
Чрез твоя дух народът
през цели векове мечтай.
*
Простор и висоти,
О, Клименте Свети!
Простор и висоти,
О, Клименте Свети!
*
И облак не еднаж смрачи
небето му красиво
И чашата горчива,
изпи с насълзени очи.
*
Но страж му беше ти,
О, Клименте Свети!
Но страж му беше ти,
О, Клименте Свети!
*
Самин сред хиляди тегла,
Остана неприведен
Ту първи, ту последен,
Бленува твоите дела
*
И тебе нощ и ден
О, Клименте свещен
И тебе нощ и ден,
О, Клименте свещен
*
И твоя подвиг векове
запази в родно слово.
Сега той бъдно ново
в борба за родний край кове.
*
Тъй, както нявга ти,
О, Клименте Свети!
Тъй, както нявга ти,
О, Клименте Свети!
*
На края роден верний син
Любов и блян в народа -
Изгрея веч свобода
Над Шар, над Емус и Пирин
Що ти я възвести,
О, Клименте Свети
Що ти я възвести,
О, Клименте Свети
*
Закрилник български бъди,
Пред светлий трон на Бога,
Та нивга изнемога
Да не усетим ний в гърди
*
Моли се пресвети
за нази сявга ти!
Моли се пресвети,
за нази сявга ти!

20 юли 1916г.
Църковен вестник, бр.29, 29 юли 1916г.

26 юли 2019

25 юли - Успение на Св. Анна, майката на Св. Богородица



Иконата и  мощехранителницата на Света Анна от скита на Св. Гора - Атон

В Х в. в Атон бил построен скита Св. Анна - най-древният от всички атонски скитове. Той е под ведомството на Манастира "Великата Лавра".
Опустошаван в продължение на много години от морски разбойници, той бил възстановен през 17 век от Вселенският патриарх Дионисий.

През 1680г. там бил издигнат събореният храм в чест на Успението на Св. Анна. Там се съхранява и част от нейните свети мощи. Около храма има около 60 отшелнически постройки - килии( келия - представлява малка къща с църква) и кавии (кавия е малка къща без църква). В 45 от тях се намират църкви.

Недалече от скита "Св. Анна" на Атон се намира и така нареченият скит "Малката Света Анна" (Агия Анна Микра). Там има около 20 отшелниески килии и кавии, но само в 5 от тях има църкви. Той се намира почти в края на полуострова.



Католиконът - Съборната църква на скита Св.Анна



На 25 юли православната църква почита успението на Света Анна, майката на Света Дева Мария.

Това е вторият ден през годината, посветен на Света Анна.

 На 9 декември се празнува зачатие на Св. Анна, а девет месеца по-късно – на 8 септември честваме Рождество Богородично.
 

Божият промисъл подготвил постепенно появяването на св. Дева Мария.
Праведните Иоаким и Анна, които светата Църква нарича „богоотци”, живеели в Назарет.

Иоаким произхождал от Давидовия род, а света Анна – от рода на Аарон. Били много щедри и милосърдни, но всекидневна скръб помрачавала живота на тези добри хора – нямали деца.

 На един от големите празници Иоаким отишъл в Иерусалим; искал да принесе жертва на Бога.
В храма обаче първосвещеникът му рекъл, че не е достоен да принесе жертвата си и че заради греховете му Бог не го е дарил с деца.

Иоаким се нажалил така дълбоко, че вместо да се прибере при жена си, отишъл в пустинята и прекарал 40 дни в пост и молитва.

 Вестта за тревогата на Иоаким стигнала в Назарет до Анна.

Тя затъгувала дори повече от мъжа си, защото считала себе си причина за бездетството им.

 И започнала Анна да се моли с цялата си душа и още по-горещо Богу:

„Господи, Господи!

Ти си дарил на Сарра в старините й син. Чуй и мене. И аз ще Ти принеса роденото от мене в дар, за да бъде благословено в него Твоето милосърдие!”… 

Ангел Господен застaнал пред нея и й казал:

„Ано, твоята молитва е чута. Твоите вопли преминаха облаците. Твоите сълзи капнаха пред Господа. Ти ще родиш благословена дъщеря, заради която ще бъдат благословени всички земни родове. Чрез нея ще бъде дадено спасение на целия свят. Ще я наречете Мария.” 

Анна веднага дала обещание, че ако роди дете, ще го даде в служба на Бога.
Преди да сподели своята радост с мъжа си, тя отишла в Иерусалимския храм, за да благодари на Бога и там да повтори своето обещание…

 Иоаким починал на 80-годишна възраст.
След неговата смърт, Света Анна се преселила от Назарет в Йерусалим, за да бъде близо до дъщеря си.

Там тя се молела постоянно в храма до своята смърт.


Из Жития на светиите, Синодално издателство 1991



Фреска на Св. Анна от 7 век, Катедралата във Фарас, Нубия (днес в северен Судан). Катедралата е залята от водите на язовира "Насър" между Египет и Судан. Фреската е спасена от полски археолози и днес  се намира в Националния Музей във Варшава.














25 юли 2019

Address by His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I to the Council of Europe




 
 
2007 ORDINARY SESSION
________________________
(First part)
REPORT
First sitting
Monday 22 January 2007 at 11 30.m.




 (...)

President of PACE Rene van der Linden and the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartolomew I, signing the Golden book



12. Address by His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I.

THE PRESIDENT. – We now have the honour of hearing an address by His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, whom I welcome to this house of peace, tolerance and respect, where many bridges between cultures and religions have been built in the past and will be built in the future.
It is a great honour and privilege for me to introduce the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, who was elected in October 1991 as the 270th Ecumenical Patriarch of the 2000-year-old Church founded by St Andrew.
According to tradition, the Apostle Andrew preached the Gospel around Asia Minor, the Black Sea, Thrace and Achaia, where he founded the Church on the shores of the Bosphorus in the city known then as Byzantium, later Constantinople and today Istanbul.



The personal experience and theological formation of Patriarch Bartholomew provide him with a unique perspective on ecumenical relations.
His All Holiness has worked tirelessly for reconciliation among Christian Churches and also acquired an international reputation for raising environmental awareness throughout the world; some call him the “Green Patriarch”.
In addition, he has initiated numerous international meetings and conversations with Muslim and Jewish leaders to promote mutual respect and religious tolerance on a global level.
Our Assembly can but only encourage his Holiness in his tireless efforts to promote peace and tolerance and would invite him to contribute to international efforts to find a sustainable solution to the Cyprus issue.
His All Holiness has worked to advance reconciliation with the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion, as well as other confessions, through theological dialogues and personal encounters with respective leaders in order to address issues of common concern.
The visit to Turkey by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI and his meeting with All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I on that occasion was a historical event. It marked a clear signal for reconciliation and dialogue between the different religions, cultures and civilisations.
As a genuinely pan-European body, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is a natural forum for intercultural and inter-religious dialogue. It provides us with the opportunity to reflect and build on a continuous dialogue to learn and appreciate the diverse cultures and religions around us. Our parliamentarians come from a wide range of societies and cultures and represent believers of all the major world religions.

The Assembly initiated, and has made it a priority to promote, intercultural and inter-religious dialogue.
Your All Holiness, your intervention today is a contribution to our ongoing effort to build on dialogue and understanding. Patriarch Bartholomew, you have the floor.



HIS ALL HOLINESS ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH BARTHOLOMEW I

  – Your Excellency, Mr van den Linden, President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe,
honourable and distinguished members of this Assembly, we convey to you greetings of love and honour from the Church of Constantinople, based for centuries in what is today Istanbul.

We extend to all of you with sincere joy blessings and warmest wishes for personal and collective happiness and longevity. I also wish you a very happy new year.
Furthermore we would like to express our great gratitude for the honour of our invitation to demonstrate our concerns and thoughts on this timely and extremely interesting topic; namely the necessity and goals of inter-religious dialogue.
We are well aware of, and we commend, your zeal for human rights and the mutual acceptance of cultures, and for the peaceful co-operation of peoples. We are fully aware that you know more than what we are about to tell you.
I wish to state as loudly and clearly as I can that, as the first Bishop of the Orthodox Church, I congratulate your work and principles.

 We work with our limited powers to promote respect for human rights on a universal level, especially where religious traditions oppose one another on this issue.
It is a great honour to address the continent’s oldest political organisation here in the historical city of Strasbourg. The aims of the Council, according to its regulations, include achieving a greater unity between its members, defending human rights and the rule of law and promoting an awareness of a European identity based on shared values while cutting across different culture.
We are addressing this plenary session in that light, because our missions have many common goals. We stand in front of you as representatives of an ancient European institution, which has existed for almost seventeen centuries – it may be the second oldest institution in Europe.




Those of us who serve this institution would be very unhappy if our role were only equivalent to that of a museum guard. We strongly believe that the value of your welcome today has its roots not only in the recognition and appreciation of the history of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and New Rome, but your interest in the living tradition of the ecumenicity of its message. In other words, the value of your welcome has its roots in your interest in the active proposition of life, which this institution expresses in our times.

 The range of that proposition is ecumenical – it is international and universal, and it has always been valid throughout the centuries.
Dear friends, the eastern Roman empire – the so-called Byzantine empire – in which the institution of the Ecumenical Patriarchate developed was a totally different political system from the modern national or civic state. It was multinational and multiracial, and it aspired to ensure the peaceful coexistence of peoples and traditions – the so-called Pax Romana, which later developed into Pax Christiana following the predominance of Christianity.
The deeply experienced Christian faith, the Roman system, which was subject to constant development due to the Christian influence, and the widespread practise of Greek education were the basic elements of Byzantine civilisation. Those unifying elements did not nullify the particularities and individuality of cultural traditions.
 For example, there was no attempt to assimilate or Hellenise the Christianised peoples.

On the contrary, they were given the opportunity to develop their national and cultural identities, which is demonstrated by the example of the Cyrillic alphabet in the Slavic world. There are many other such examples.




The Patriarchate of Constantinople and New Rome was given the title “Ecumenical” in the fifth century by a decision of the fourth Ecumenical Council in 451 in Chalcedon.

It was given in the sixth century the right to have under its authority all territory outside the boundaries of the Byzantine empire that was not under the jurisdiction of any other Patriarchate.

That increased the communication of the Patriarchate with a multitude of peoples and traditions, both within and outside the legal boundaries of the empire, in such a way that dialogue between peoples of different religions – Muslim, Christian and heterodox – became an integral part of its existence. For the Ecumenical Patriarchate, dialogue is neither unprecedented nor modern, because it has been practised for millennia as a way of life.
After the schism between the eastern and western Churches in 1054, the Patriarchate became the mouthpiece for all Orthodox Christians. It is with that in mind that the Patriarchate holds discussions with the Churches that came about after the schism and the Reformation, with a sense of responsibility for the service of the truth and the restoration of unity to all Christians.
Since 1453, following the succession of the Byzantine empire by the Ottoman empire, the Ecumenical Patriarchate became the representative to the Sultan of all Orthodox Christians who lived within the boundaries of the new empire. The Ecumenical Patriarchate was in a constant dialogue with the Muslim world, although it was not always conducted on an equal basis. For nearly six centuries, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has lived with Muslims and discussed various matters in order to achieve various goals. As we say in Turkey, we have not only an academic dialogue with our Muslim brothers, but a dialogue based on living together side by side.
Furthermore, in the past few decades, a particular effort has been made to develop inter-religious dialogues, especially among the three great monotheistic religions. Many academic consultations have taken place between leading representatives of the three monotheistic religions either on our initiative or with our participation.

Many important and interesting decisions have been made, and many important declarations have been signed. Moreover, with the purpose of promoting the opportunity to know each other better and to cultivate friendship, and, having been officially invited, we have visited many countries with Muslim populations.

 The necessity and usefulness of inter-religious dialogues has become a property of humanity. It is well known that the inhabitants of our planet confess many religions and that on many occasions a variety of tendencies and denominations have developed within each religion, often even with contradictory beliefs. It is also known from history that many times in the past – on certain occasions, even in our time – religious reasons were put forth to urge individuals, or even entire peoples, to warfare or to vivify the militancy of those involved.

 There are even some analysts of the future of humanity who consider a bloody clash of religions and of religious populations to be inevitable. There are even some who believe that God is in need of their power to enforce His will on the world.
However, we, the people of the so-called western civilisation, have been convinced that pure religious faith in itself does not find any pleasure in engaging its followers in warfare and conflicts with the faithful of other religions, for the truth does not walk along with militant power, or numerical power, or any other superiority for that matter.

The conviction that the divine truth and gratification is witnessed by the event of victory in war has been abandoned today as inaccurate. The truth is known through the word – logos – and the personal experience of it in a pure and selfless heart. According to the Prophet Elijah, the Lord reveals himself in a light murmuring sound, and not in earthquakes and fire.




Therefore, if we desire to move forward the knowledge of truth, which liberates the person from the chains of prejudices and of every kind of deception, we ought to use the God-given present of the word – logos – with a pure and selfless intention.

The word, as an expression and as a justification of our convictions, when exchanged with those with whom we speak, becomes a dialogue – and it is absolutely necessary, for it marks the very existence of a human being as a personal being.

There are many creatures in nature that have been endowed with the ability to receive messages from their environment, and to react with those messages, but it is only the human being, of all the earthly creatures, that can converse with words with his or her fellow beings.
Dialogue is not necessary first and foremost because of all the benefits and advantages that can possibly derive from it, but because of the fact that it is inherent in the nature of the human person. The truth of this is such that the person who denies participating in a dialogue denies indirectly this very human quality.

 Indeed, not only does one deny this human quality to those whom he or she does not accept in dialogue, but one also abolishes self-evidently one’s very own human quality, for by not showing any respect to the person and the dignity of the other, one acts as if he or she lacks the most principal human trait, which is the respect of a human person, both in one’s self, as well as in any other being. In Christian teaching, as it has been expressed by a contemporary experienced person, God engraved the human being with His mark, namely the deep, embossed and unchangeable creative seal, and He does not revoke it. The seal of God is the freedom of the human being.



The fact that those culturally more advanced than the ancient peoples established the dialogue of the judges, and of those who were judged, or those who were in litigation, as a necessary precondition of the validity and legitimacy of the judicial verdict, is very relevant. These fundamental principles of a fair trial continue to apply even for our contemporary world.

 The person who will judge a trial must listen to both sides who are involved in the litigation, as well as to the plea of the defendant, all of which are based on the principle of dialogue. They constitute, together with the resultant supreme rule of dialogue, the sublime expression of respect for the human person. In his message for 1 January of this year – on the occasion of the day of peace – Pope Benedict XVI referred to this very point. It is this respect of the human person that constitutes the fundamental criterion of the level of spiritual growth of everyone and comprises simultaneously the fundamental rule and unshakable pedestal of human rights.

According to our predecessor – St John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople – the Sublime of all human beings, God, is in constant dialogue with us human beings – a token of the utmost honour with which humanity is engulfed. God does not refuse dialogue, even to those who honestly deny His existence. But He cannot enter into dialogue with those who are furtive, surreptitious, perverse, and not pure in their hearts, for dialogue presupposes honesty and becomes objectively impossible when there is deceitfulness, secrecy or any other kind of reckoning.

It is well known that nowadays the dynamics of our world are a mixture of contests of power and every kind of dialogue. Many try to enforce their opinions and convictions on to others through various types of power, whether cultural, moral, economic, terrorist or even martial. At the same time, many other people discuss innumerable issues, trying to convince their counterparts of the validity and accuracy of their positions.

 Out of these two kinds of dialogue, the one that is in harmony with respect of the human person, and with human rights, is the right one, for it rejects inhumane and violent enforcement.




Inter-religious dialogue in the context of religion is one of the most difficult dialogues, for the so-called religions of revelation accept the fact that they express the divine truth through the revelation of God Himself. Nevertheless, the existing dispersion of the religious groups and the opposing convictions that they confess prove that some of them are wrong by default, for one rules out the other, and of course it is neither possible nor thinkable that God can be controversial to Himself.
Therefore, it must be unquestionably accepted that one of the self-excluded teachings derives not from God, but from people and from their misinterpretation of the divine revelation. So, there is a broad area for questioning among people on what the truth can be whenever something that is offered as the truth excludes itself.
Calm and dispassionate discussion and sincere dialogue can detect the differences and trace down the human interventions that alter the divine truth and lead to the support of teachings that, while claiming to express the divine truth, refute one another – which is impossible.

Of course, we do not consider the relinquishment of the religious convictions of each person the goal of inter-religious dialogue, nor do we consider it an easy task, especially in times such as ours, when our planet is facing many war fronts. That is because, nowadays, on many occasions, people use their religious differences or their religious convictions as an element of their particularity and individuality. That particularity they consider the cornerstone of their national hypostasis or of what constitutes them as different.

So, to the extent to which the national consciousness and hypostasis are inevitable elements of the particularity and individuality of peoples and of nations, people will legitimately defend their indefeasible right to define themselves by their religion, although in our minds subjecting religion to the service of national purposes is not a correct thing to do.
In any case, we will have for many centuries to come many religions and even more religious convictions that will deviate among those on our planet. That fact, in view of economic and information globalisation, brings the faithful of the various religions into frequent communication and renders their unofficial dialogue an everyday phenomenon. Even the official dialogue among religious leaderships is being promoted in a sense, as religious leaders cannot ignore reality, nor can they confine themselves in selfish isolation.
The religions that consider themselves possessors and carriers of the divine truth feel that it is their obligation to spread their faith, and by definition they cannot isolate themselves.

The existing predicaments in relation to the realisation of inter-religious dialogue on a theological level do not hinder. On the contrary, they promote the opportunity for the mutual acquaintance of persons and ideas, the cultivation of religious tolerance and co-existence, and the elimination of fanaticism and other fixed prejudices. These goals are of great importance, for they serve peace, which is the cornerstone of every cultural progress.

In particular, it has been observed that there exists a shortage of religious education, especially as far as the religions that are not predominant in a given country are concerned. That shortage has been observed even among those who hold a higher education. That results in the easy circulation of a variety of deceptive perceptions and prejudices, which obstruct the peaceful co-operation of the people.

 Through systematic dialogues, it is possible gradually to improve the mutual understanding and awareness of the religious parameters of all peoples and civilisations in such a way that long-lasting prejudices will be put aside.
We must not overlook the fact that, for many people and civilisations, religious faith and the religious element at large play an important role in private, social and national life – a role much more important than the one that they play in the societies of contemporary western civilisation.
Of course, we do not expect only a single-sided improvement of the perceptions of the Christian world for the non-Christian. We also expect a proportionate improvement of the perceptions of the non-Christian world for Christianity. Unfortunately, numerous unChristian actions and behaviours of Christian peoples have created the widespread impression that those actions and behaviours are sanctioned by Christianity. Respectively, the actions of followers of other religions are credited many times to their religions, which remain unconcerned. It is therefore necessary to clarify the context of each religion, cleared from selfish targets of the faithful – the individuals – and to charge with the responsibilities the faithful in question, not their religion itself.

That separation of responsibilities, which is one of the goals of inter-religions dialogue, protects people from phobias that reach out from the past and obstruct today’s peaceful and well-meant co-operation.
Another important goal of inter-religious dialogue is the approach on the views on the extremely important issue of human rights. It is a known fact that western civilisation, under the influence of the evangelical principles of the equality of human beings, freedom of consciousness and existence, protection of the weak, justice and love, and many more – but also under the influence of the ideas of humanism – has, especially since the Enlightenment, raised gradually the institution of human rights to a high level.

That is contrary to other civilisations, some of which either occupy themselves very little with human rights or even have legislation that discriminates against certain categories of people, such as minorities, women, children, slaves and so on. Those civilisations have even developed metaphysical teachings through which the existing situation is interpreted as being in agreement with the heavenly mandated order on human issues. As is realised, such perceptions, which legalise the violation of fundamental human rights with a moral investment of religious and metaphysical beliefs, cannot be easily abandoned in some societies.
If, however, we desire to include in our declarations the improvement of living standards for all people, we ought to include and appoint those issues as an object in the agenda of our inter-religious dialogues.
We believe that the moral force of respect for the human person – despite gender, age, race or religion, as well as economic, educational or other status – is so great that it will overcome and overrule the long-lasting spiritual infirmities that allow those in power to ignore, or even worse legally violate, human rights. A serious effort is needed to allow the discussion of these issues on behalf of those who have not respected human rights so far. Nevertheless, it is very promising that in every society there are always progressive minds that realise the importance of human rights and work hard for their wider acceptance and social usefulness, even in civilisations that are not familiar with the concept.


At this point, we must mention that the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the surrounding Greek Orthodox minority in Turkey feel that they still do not enjoy full rights; for example, in the refusal to acknowledge and recognise the legal status of the Patriarchate, in the prohibition of the operation of the theological school of Chalki to train the young generation of our theologians and clergymen, in property issues and so on.

We recognise with great satisfaction, however, that many reforms have been made and some remarkable steps taken in the accession of internal law towards the European standard. We have always supported the European perspective of our country, Turkey, in anticipation of the remaining steps to be taken according to the standards of the European Union.
That which is accomplished fluently through inter-religious dialogues is the cultivation of a spirit of tolerance, reconciliation and peaceful co-existence of the faithful of the various religions, free from fanaticism and phobias. Contrary to political positions that often foster the spirit of conflict and confrontation, catching within it both victims and victimisers, we try to sow the spirit of equal rights and responsibilities for all and for the peaceful co-operation, independently of their religion. For only through the opening of hearts and minds and the acceptance of difference as having value equal to our own is it possible to build peace in this world.
No less important is one further accomplishment and goal of inter-religious dialogues: the enrichment of the mind and perception of each faithful by considering things through the religion of another. That enrichment releases us from partiality; it allows us to have a higher and wider understanding of beliefs; it fortifies the intellect, and very often it leads us to a deeper experience of the truth and to a very advanced level of our growth in the presence of the divine revelation. For example, love as a selfless feeling and experience of sacrifice towards the loved one is an utmost challenge of conscience, but it is not required by all simultaneously, for the obduracy of many is not yet ready to accept such a high and self-sacrificial demand.
However, this love, which in the beginning was achieved only by a few, has reached the point of being the motivation for the actions and programmes of institutions, such as the Council of Europe, in their efforts for the relief of poverty and of those afflicted by natural disasters, in the acknowledgment and protection of human rights at large and in religious freedom and many more actions that would have been considered impossible and utopian a few centuries, or even a few years, ago.
We can find grounds for doing good in many religions if we are willing to do so. A common search of these grounds in dialogue will prove to be very fruitful. The religious sources allow many interpretations and approaches. It is in our hands to choose every time the most appropriate, the most peaceful, those which respect the human being the most, and those which increase peace, solidarity, altruism and love. We are obliged to ascend the degrees of the scale of good, not to do descend them. Let us work, all of us, dear friends, for the ascension to the next degree for the benefit of all.
As the First Bishop of the Orthodox Church, we are obliged to serve the human, caring and peaceful character of the Christian gospel. It is with the courage of that service that we dare to address a heartfelt plea to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, namely to persons such as yourselves who are responsible for exerting the decisive role of European societies for world order and peace.
Exert, dear friends, your influence and your political art and science to restore the freedom of life and expression of the religious traditions in our world today, so that citizens of contemporary states will not be persecuted, will not be put aside and marginalised, and will not forfeit their churches and properties just because of their different religious convictions.
We are certain that the Council of Europe is interested not only in the various advantages of the European countries, but in the preservation and promotion of the accomplishments of the civilisation which constitute the very identity of Europe. Religious freedom and human rights in general are such accomplishments.

Each and every confinement of religious freedom and human rights mutilates human civilisation. It is a sign of regression and interception of human hope. We have the certain hope that things will improve through the contribution of all of you, our beloved and honourable members of the Council of Europe. And “hope will not let us down”, as St Paul states.
We thank you from the bottom of our heart for your love and your patience in listening to the sounds of our heart. We wish you health and every success in this new year for the benefit of Europe and all humanity. We thank you for this great honour.



THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Your All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I.
The acknowledgement of your impressive speech shows how much we have appreciated your contribution to the work of the Council of Europe. You are a source of inspiration for us all. I hope that we can contribute together to eradicating poverty, ensuring that no people are excluded – the fight against exclusion – and promoting human dignity.

Taking into account our different responsibilities, it is important that we continue this dialogue in the future.




13. Date, time and orders of the day of the next sitting

THE PRESIDENT. – I propose that the Assembly hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3 p.m. with the orders of the day which were approved this morning.
Are there any objections? That is not the case.
The orders of the day of the next sitting are therefore agreed.
The sitting is adjourned.
(The sitting was closed at 1.20 p.m.)



Превод :




Обръщение на Негово Всесветейшество Вселенския патриарх Вартоломей І пред Парламентарната асамблея на Съвета на Европа 
Ваше Превъзходителство господин Рене Ван дер Линден,
Президент на Парламентарната асамблея на Съвета на Европа,

Ваши Превъзходителства, достопочитаеми членове на
настоящата Асамблея на Съвета,

Скъпи приятели,
  Константинополската Църква, която от векове има за свой център града, носещ днес името Истанбул, ви изпраща своите радушни приветствия и благопожелания. С голяма радост ние ви предаваме всички благословения и сърдечни пожелания за лично и за общо щастие и дълъг живот.
Освен това бихме искали да изразим нашата благодарност за тази почетна покана да представим на вашето внимание лично пред вас нашето гледище и позиция по отношение на тази така актуална и изключително интересна тема, а именно “Потребността от междурелигиозен диалог и неговите цели”.


Ние оценяваме и приветстваме вашата ревност да защитавате човешките права, сближаването между културите и толерантността помежду им, мира и сътрудничеството между народите, и знаем, че няма да добавим нищо ново към натрупания от вас опит и информация. Нашата решимост да се обърнем към вас се крепи на факта, че искаме ясно и недвусмислено да заявим, че в качеството ни на Пръв епископ на Православната Църква ние подкрепяме вашата работа и вашите принципи. Макар и с по-ограничени възможности, ние се трудим уважението към човешките права да бъде водещ принцип в целия свят, особено що се касае до религиозните традиции, които имат противоречия помежду си по този проблем.

Голяма чест е за нас действително, че можем да представим обръщението си пред най-старата политическа организация на континента, тук, в историческия град Страсбург.

 Според Устава на Съвета, една от главните цели е задълбочаването на единството между нейните членове, защитата на човешките права и на законовите принципи, формирането на европейска идентичност на основата на общи ценности независимо от съществуващите различия между отделните култури. Именно предвид това ние се обръщаме към днешната пленарна сесия, защото в нашата мисия са заложени много общи цели. Ние сме тук от позицията ни на древна европейска институция, която има седемнадесетвековна история и която на практика е втората най-стара институция в Европа. За нас, служителите на тази институция, ще бъде голяма болка, ако в нашето служение ние биваме зачитани единствено като музейни пазители на една антика.

Искрено се надяваме, че вашата днешна покана към нас, в ролята ни на представител на гореспоменатата Институция, е израз не само на почитта и уважението към историческото достойнство на Патриаршията на Константинопол и Нови Рим, но се явява преди всичко интерес посланието на живата традиция да има общочовешко значение.
С други думи, вашата покана е израз на проявявания от вас интерес към живото свидетелство и принципи на живот, на които тази Институция дава глас и до наши дни. Тези принципи се явяват вселенски по своя характер, т.е. интернационални и универсални.

Както знаете, Източната римска империя, или т.нар. Византийска империя, в която се ражда и развива институцията на Вселенската патриаршия, е била политическа система, съвършено различна от това, което представлява съвременната национална или гражданска държава. Тя е била един мултинационален и мултирасов политически модел, заложил като своя цел постигането на мирно съвместно съществуване между различните народи и традиции, известно като pax romana, а впоследствие – след утвърждаването на християнската религия – като pax Christiana.


Двигателните сили, заложени в основата на византийската цивилизация, са били дълбоките корени на християнската вяра, непрекъснато усъвършенстваният под влияние на християнските принципи римски закон и широкото разпространение на гръцкото образование. Гореизброените обединителни фактори по никакъв начин не са обезличавали спецификата и индивидуалните особености на отделните културни традиции.

 Доказателство за уважението към техните характерни различия се явява фактът, че никога не е правен опит за национална асимилация или елинизация на християнизираните народи. Тъкмо обратното, те са се радвали на възможността да развиват своите отличителни характеристики, и доказателство за това е предоставената на славянския свят възможност да ползват своя собствена писменост, както и ред други подобни доказателства.

През 451 г. Патриаршията на Константинопол и Нови Рим, добила статут на Вселенска патриаршия, а през VІ в. получава правото да упражнява своята власт над всички земи извън границата на Византийската империя, които не са под юрисдикцията на друга патриаршия. Този факт разширява рамките на общуване и умножава връзките на Патриаршията с редица народи и традиции, намиращи се не само в границите на Империята, но и извън тях, вследствие на което нейният диалог и с народите от други религии, и с неортодоксалните християни, се превърнал в неделима част от нейното съществуване.

Ето защо за Вселенската патриаршия диалогът не се явява нито нещо ново, нито някаква съвременна инициатива, а жив опит и хилядолетна практика.


След налагането на схизмата между Източната и Западната Църква през 1054 г., Вселенската патриаршия става главен радетел и изразител на идеята за единството и обединяването на всички православни по света. Именно от позицията на тази своя благонамереност Вселенската патриаршия води разговори с църквите, възникнали след схизмата и реформацията, изпълнявайки своята отговорност да служи на истината и да възстанови първоначалното единство между всички християни.

След 1453 г., когато на мястото на Византийската империя застава Отоманската империя, Вселенската патриаршия поема функцията да представлява пред султана всички православни християни, живеещи в границите на новата империя. Това показва, че Вселенската патриаршия е имала постоянен диалог с мюсюлманския свят, макар и не на равноправни основи. Вече шест века Вселенската патриаршия води своя живот в средата на мюсюлмани и дискутира с тях по различни теми и поставени цели. В Турция ние обичаме да казваме, че с нашите мюсюлмански братя ние водим не само теоретичен диалог, но и диалога на практиката да живеем редом един до друг.


Освен това през последните няколко десетилетия ние вложихме големи усилия за укрепването на междурелигиозния диалог, особено що се касае до трите монотеистични религии. Бяха проведени, по наша инициатива или с наше участие, множество академични срещи между най-изтъкнатите представители на тези три религии; бяха взети многобройни съществени по своя характер и интересни решения, подписани бяха различни важни декларации.

 Нещо повече, разполагайки с официална покана, ние се възползвахме от възможността да посетим лично много държави от мюсюлманския свят с цел да задълбочим взаимното си опознаване и да развием приятелски отношения помежду си.
Потребността и ползата от междурелигиозен диалог вече е неотменим атрибут на човечеството.


Известно е, че жителите на нашата планета имат много вероизповедания и че в много случаи вътре в една и съща религия възникват и се развиват различни тенденции и деноминации, нерядко с противоположни идеи.

Историята ни е показала, че много пъти в миналото, а понякога и в наши дни, религиите са били използвани да насъскват хора и цели народи към вражди и войни, та дори и да разпалват ожесточението у тези, които участват в тях. Срещат се пророци на бъдещето, които твърдят, че кървавият сблъсък между религиите и изповядващите ги народи е неизбежен. Има даже и такива, които вярват, че тяхната власт е потребна на Бога, за да наложи волята Си над света.


Ние обаче, хората, които сме определяни като членове на Западната цивилизация, сме абсолютно убедени, че по самото си естество истинската вяра не черпи сили от изострянето на агресивността у нейните последователи срещу членовете на други религии, защото истината е чужда на насилието, на численото превъзходство и изобщо на всякакъв вид хегемония.

 Убеждението, че божествената Истина и благодат се откриват в триумфа на военната победа, днес се приема за нелепо. Истината се открива чрез словото и живота на чистата и добродетелна душа. Според думите на св. пророк Илия, Господ явява Себе Си не като грохот и огнени пламъци, а като тих вятър.

И затова, ако желаем да стигнем до познание на истината, която освобождава човека от тежестта на заблудите и предубежденията, ние трябва да използваме благодатния дар на словото в чистота и добродетелност.

Със словото ние изразяваме и аргументираме своите убеждения, а когато разменим слово със събеседник, то се превръща в диалог. И това е задължителен елемент от живота на човека, защото е емблемата на неговия личностен образ.

 В природата има много създания, които са дарени със способността да приемат посланията на средата и да реагират на тях, но на цялата планета единствен човекът притежава способността да води словесни разговори със своите ближни.


Но не заради евентуалните облаги и придобивки е потребен диалогът, а защото той е заложен в самото естество на човешката личност. Това ще рече, че когато отрича диалога, човек всъщност отрича същностното си естество.

На практика такъв човек пренебрегва не само личността на този, с когото не желае да води диалог – той несъмнено пренебрегва и собствената си личностна природа, защото с липсата си на респект към личността и достойнството на другия той открива себе си като лишен от най-отличителното човешко качество, а именно – уважението към личността, т.е. и към собствената личност, и към личността на другите.

Ще използвам думите на един наш съвременник, който казва, че според християнската представа Бог е положил върху човека Своя печат, и това е печат дълбок, видим и безкрайно плодоносен, но също и печат неотменим. Този Божий печат е свободата на човешката личност.

Много показателен в случая е и фактът, че за разлика от древните народи, тези, които са достигнали по-висша степен на култура, са въвели диалога – диалога на съдиите с подсъдимите, или следствените – като задължително условие за признаването и легитимността на дадена присъда. Тези фундаментални принципи за справедлив съд са валидни и в съвременния свят.

 Човек, който гледа дело, е длъжен да изслушва и двете страни в съдебния процес, както и защитната реч на обвиняемия, а във всичко това са заложени принципите на диалога.

Паралелно с произхождащите върховни правила на диалога, те представляват висш израз на респект към човешката личност. В последното си новогодишно послание папа Бенедикт ХVІ също обърна внимание на този въпрос. Уважението се явява основен критерий за духовния ръст на всеки човек и редом с това – неотменим закон и непоклатим стожер на човешките права.


Според един от нашите предци, св. Йоан Златоуст, Всевишната Личност, Бога, е в постоянен диалог на общуване с нас, белег на върховно достойнство, с което е облагодетелстван човекът. Бог не отхвърля диалога дори и с тези, които открито отричат Неговото съществуване. Но Той не може да осъществи диалог с лукавите, суеверните, извратените и неблагочестивите. Защото за диалог е нужна почтеност, а когато съществува лицемерие, подмолност и всякакъв друг род лукавство, той става практически неосъществим.

За никого не е тайна, че динамиката на съвременния свят включва смесица от борби за надмощие и всевъзможни форми на диалог. Мнозина опитват да налагат своите позиции и убеждения на други чрез различни средства за надмощие, било то културни, духовни, икономически средства или със средствата на тероризма и дори на военната мощ. Редом с това други хора дискутират множество проблеми със стремеж да убедят своите опоненти в абсолютната правота на собствените си позиции. Но във всички случаи единствено средствата на диалога съдържат респект към човешката личност и към човешките права, защото не позволяват античовешки крайности и насилие.

Най-трудният диалог е междурелигиозният диалог в контекста на религията, защото вероизповеданията, известни като религии на Откровението, поддържат идеята, че Сам Бог им е открил божествената истина, която те проповядват.

И все пак голямото намножаване на религиозни групи в наше време и противоположните идеи, които те изповядват, се явява доказателство за неверността на част от тях, щом като на практика взаимно се изключват, а да смятаме, че Бог противоречи на Себе Си е крайно нелепо и абсурдно.

Следователно, вън от съмнение е, че някое от тези учения се явява изключваща себе си категория, което ще рече, че то не е от Бога, а от хората и от техните грешни съждения за Божественото Откровение.

Широко поле за размисъл открива пред хората въпросът каква трябва да е истината, щом това, което се предлага за истина, носи белега на самоизобличението. Чрез средствата на сдържания и обективен диспут и чрез открития диалог могат да бъдат посочени несъответствията и човешките притурки, които изопачават Божествената истина и привличат към учения, претендиращи, че проповядват истината, при все че в действителност се явяват опровержения едно на друго, а това е абсолютно неправдоподобно.

Далеч сме от мисълта, че целта на междурелигиозния диалог е да бъдат отделени хората от личните им религиозни убеждения; нито пък се заблуждаваме, че става дума за лесна задача, още повече в наши дни, когато сме свидетели на многобройни въоръжени конфликти по цялата планета. А това е следствие от факта, че много често хората приемат религиозните си различия и религиозните си убеждения като част от своята личностна индивидуалност, на базата на която се градят представите им за национална идентичност и самобитност.

Това означава, че щом националното самосъзнание и идентичност са неделима част от личностната индивидуалност, хората съвсем естествено ще защитават неотменното си право да формират своите религиозни убеждения по собствен избор, макар че по наше мнение подчиняването на религията в услуга на национални цели е неприемливо.


Няма съмнение, че религиозните течения на нашата планета ще продължават да увеличават своя брой и своите убеждения векове напред. В контекста на икономическата и информационна глобализация този факт подпомага общуването между хората от различни религии и това прави личния диалог между тях естествена част от ежедневието. Наблюдава се нарастваща активност и в официалния диалог, защото религиозните водачи нямат право да пренебрегват реалността и да заемат удобна дистанция.

Дистанцирането е недопустимо за религиите, които се приемат за носители и проповедници на божествената истина, защото разпространяването на вярата се явява техен дълг.

Традиционните притеснения във връзка с идеята за организиране на междурелигиозен диалог на богословско ниво са не препятствие, а стимул да бъде използвана възможността за взаимното опознаване и духовното сближаване, за култивиране на религиозна търпимост в нашето съвместно съществуване, за унищожаването на фанатизма и на други закостенели предразсъдъци. Това са изключително важни цели, защото те укрепват мира, а той е заложен в основата на целия духовен прогрес.


Тук трябва да посочим, че според текущите наблюдения съществува недостиг от религиозна просвета, и то най-вече по отношение религиите от малцинствен характер. Ниска религиозна култура се забелязва и у образованите хора. Това води до безпрепятствено умножаване на предразсъдъци и лъжливи представи, което пък е пречка за мирното съвместно съществуване. Възможно е чрез систематични форми на диалог да се повиши общата информация и конкретните познания на хората за цялостния религиозен облик на човешката култура и по такъв начин да се унищожат дълго насаждани предразсъдъци.

Не бива да пренебрегваме факта, че за много народи и култури вярата и религиозната практика заемат важно място в личния, социалния и националния бит и там на религията се отдава много по-голямо значение, отколкото е при хората от съвременните западни общества.

В случая не става дума само за необходимостта християните да обогатят познанията си за другите религии, но и за това, че членовете на нехристиянския свят също трябва да повишат своята култура по отношение на християнството.

 Срещат се хора с християнски корен, които, за съжаление, демонстрират нехристиянски тип поведение и начин на живот, което много често създава представата, че подобен род поведение е нещо приемливо за християнството. По същия начин действията на хора от други религиозни общности обикновено се приписват като недостатъци на религията, тъй като тя остава безучастна.

 Ето защо е задължително всяка религия да бъде представена в по-ясен и обективен контекст, без да се допуска целенасочена намеса от страна на нейните последователи, за да носи вина не религията, а конкретните извършители, нейни носители.

Това разграничаване на вината е една от целите на междурелигиозния диалог и то ще ограничи фобиите от миналото, защото те се явяват препятствие пред мирното и добронамерено сътрудничество.
Друга важна цел на междурелигиозния диалог е подходът и позициите по отношение на изключително важния въпрос за човешките права.

Известно е, че в западните общества след епохата на Просвещението схемата за защита на човешките права е била трайно поддържана, достигайки висока степен на развитие благодарение на евангелските закони за равенство на всички хора, свобода на личния избор, закрилата на немощните, справедливост, любов и още много други, а също така и благодарение идеите на хуманизма.

 Напълно противоположна е ситуацията в други култури, където човешките права или не са обект на внимание, или дори са обект на потъпкване чрез узаконени форми на дискриминация, особено спрямо отделни категории хора като малцинства, жени, деца, роби и др.

Те дори са развили метафизични учения, които лансират идеята, че съществуващото положение е в съответствие със законите на божествения ред! Това показва, че ще бъде изключително трудно преодоляването на идеи, които легализират потъпкването на основните човешки права, влагайки религиозни и духовни убеждения като тяхна морална подплата.


Но щом имаме желание да повишим стандарта на живот на всички тези народи, за които говорим, ние сме длъжни да включим тези проблеми в темите за разглеждане от дневния ред на междурелигиозния диалог.
Убедени сме, че независимо от пола, възрастта, расата, религията, уважението към човешките права има огромна морална власт и тя ще надмогне и победи трайни духовни слабости, които дават възможност на лидерите във властта не само да пренебрегват, но и нещо по-страшно – да легализират насилието над човешките права.

Изключително тежка ще бъде задачата да поемем дискутирането на тези проблеми от името на тези, които не зачитат човешките права.
Въпреки това трябва да ни окуражава фактът, че всяко общество има своите напредничави умове, които ценят човешките права и се борят за по-широка подкрепа за успеха на тяхната социална кауза, а това важи дори за общества, чужди на подобни ценности и понятия.

Тук трябва да отбележим, че Вселенската патриаршия и свързаното с нея гръцко православно малцинство в Турция все още не се радват на абсолютно пълноправие, като се има предвид нежеланието да бъде приет и признат законовият статут на Вселенската патриаршия, както и закриването на богословското училище в Халки, имотните въпроси и множество други проблеми. Трябва да признаем обаче, че бяха направени редица реформи и изключително важни промени на вътрешния закон в съответствие с европейския стандарт. Ето защо ние твърдо подкрепяме европейската перспектива на Турция и очакваме тя да измине останалия път съобразно с изискванията на Европейския съюз.


Силата на междурелигиозните диалози е в гладкото посяване на дух на толерантност, разбирателство и мирни взаимоотношения между представителите на различни религии, далеч от фобии и фанатизъм. За разлика от политическите дискусии, които често пъти насаждат дух на конфликти и конфронтация сред жертвите и преследвачите, ние активно се стремим да посяваме дух на равноправие и отговорност за всички и за тяхното мирно сътрудничество независимо от религиозната им принадлежност.

 Защото мирът в света ще бъде възможен само ако отворим сърцата и душите си и приемем различията на другия като свои.
Изключително важна е и една друга задача и цел на междурелигиозния диалог. Това е идейното обогатяване на душата през призмата на други религии. Това ще ни освободи от предубежденията и ще ни даде по-дълбока и по-просторна представа за религиозните вярвания; то също така разширява интелекта, укрепва опита ни в истината и води до висши форми на духовно израстване в контекста редом с факта на божественото Откровение.

Любовта, например, като чувство на себеотдаване и готовност за саможертва е едно от великите предизвикателства на съзнанието, но тя не е била изискване за всички едновременно, защото за много хора коравосърдечието било пречка да приемат този закон на висшата саможертва.

Но любовта, непостижима за мнозина в самото начало, днес се е превърнала в движеща сила за инициативи, програми и институции, пример за което е Съветът на Европа, в активен стимул за борба с бедността, за подкрепа на пострадалите от природни бедствия, за утвърждаване и защита на човешките права по света, за свобода на религиите и за ред други дейности, които биха били пълна утопия само допреди няколко века или дори няколко години.

Стига да имаме желание, можем да открием идеите за добродетелността в много религии. Едно съвместно изследване на тази база чрез средствата на диалога ще даде добри плодове. Религиозните текстове дават възможност да бъдат представяни и тълкувани по многобройни начини. На нас ни се дава изборът да се спираме на най-верните, най-добронамерените, най-хуманните, на всички тези, които могат да служат за укрепването на мира, солидарността, алтруизма, любовта. Наш дълг е да се възкачваме все по-нагоре по стъпалата на доброто и никога да не се връщаме надолу. Нека за благото на всички ни да се трудим за следващата крачка нагоре.

Като Пръв епископ на Православната Църква сме длъжни да служим на човешката любов и мира според принципите на Христовото евангелие. Именно това служение ни дава силата да отправим това сърдечно обръщение към Парламентарната асамблея на Съвета на Европа, към хората, на които е дадено да представляват водещата роля на европейските общества за опазването на световния ред и мир:

Скъпи приятели, използвайте вашата власт, вашите политически знания и опитност, за да възродите в съвременния свят свободата на религиозните вероизповедания. За да не се налага жители на модерни държави да бъдат подлагани на преследвания, да бъдат отхвърляни и пренебрегвани и да бягат от своите църкви и домове само защото имат различни религиозни убеждения.

За нас няма съмнение, че Съветът на Европа има за цел не само облагодетелстването на европейските държави, но също така опазването и укрепването на постиженията на цивилизацията, която лежи в същината на европейската идентичност. Част от тези постижения са свободата на религията и всеобщите човешки права. Всеки опит за ограничаване на религиозната свобода и човешките права е унижение за човешката цивилизация. Той е белег за упадък на морала и надеждата. Ние сме абсолютно убедени, че нещата ще вървят към подобрение чрез съдействието на всички вас, възлюбени и почитаеми членове на Съвета на Европа. А “надеждата никога не посрамя”, казва св. ап. Павел.
Благодарим за вниманието и желанието да чуете гласа на нашата душа и ви желаем здраве и благопреуспяване през новата година за благото на Европа и на цялото човечество.

Превод: Владимир Петров


Share

24 юли 2019

The religious dimension of intercultural dialogue







Committee Opinion


The religious dimension of intercultural dialogue




Opinion | Doc. 12576 | 11 April 2011


The religious dimension of intercultural dialogue

Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy

Rapporteur : Mr Latchezar TOSHEV, Bulgaria, EPP/CD




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


A. Conclusions of the committee

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

B. Proposed amendments to the draft recommendation


Amendment A (to the draft recommendation)

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

Amendment B (to the draft recommendation)

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

Amendment C (to the draft recommendation)

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

Amendment D (to the draft recommendation)

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

Amendment E (to the draft recommendation)

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

Amendment F (to the draft recommendation)

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



C. Explanatory memorandum by Mr Toshev, rapporteur for opinion

(open)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Recommendation 1962 (2011) Final version

The religious dimension of intercultural dialogue

Author(s): Parliamentary Assembly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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









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





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


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

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




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





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






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

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

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






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


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

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



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



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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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


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





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

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

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




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




Written question 
 
Freedom of thought, conscience and 
religion


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

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

Question from Mr Latchezar TOSHEV, Bulgaria, EPP/CD



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


Mr Toshev,

To ask the Committee of Ministers:

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



Reply to Written question

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion




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


Author(s): Committee of Ministers


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