Secularism & Lisbon

Eglinton

Interesting topic to discuss perhaps?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0824/breaking36.htm

The “loss of Christian memory” and the undermining of traditional values by the institutions of the EU has made it difficult for Christians to maintain their “instinctive commitment” to Europe and may have been a factor in the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, Cardinal Seán Brady said today.
Cardinal Brady was addressing the Humbert summer school in Ballina, Co Mayo and also spoke in a radio interview.
He said he did not know whether the Irish electorate would reject a second vote on Lisbon but said he was raising the issues to have them debated a "cooler, calmer atmosphere" and he hoped that people would recognise the advantages, but also note the reservations, in the future debate on the matter.

In his address to the summer school, Cardinal Brady noted the views of the late Pope John Paul II on the EU debate.
He said the late pontiff, while noting his respect for the secular nature of the European institutions, had asked that the proposed treaty would include a reference to the religious and Christian heritage of Europe.
Progress in a number of areas, such as the call for the union to respect the juridicial status already enjoyed by Christian churches, was one of the reasons the Catholic Church was “generally positive” towards the European project, Cardinal Brady said.
“But this is a qualified support. As the recent referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland suggests, at least some of those who were previously enthusiastic about the founding aims of the EU, both social and economic are now expressing unease.”
Cardinal Brady said the reasons for this were “complex”.
“But one reason influencing some Christians may be what Pope John Paul II described as the ‘loss of Christian memory’ in European institutions and policy.
“Successive decisions which have undermined the family based on marriage, the right to life from the moment of conception to natural death, the sacredness of the Sabbath, the right of Christian institutions to maintain and promote their ethos, including schools, these and other decisions have made it more difficult for committed Christians to maintain their instinctive commitment to the European project.”
Cardinal Brady said this coincided with “a fairly widespread culture in European affairs which relegates manifestations of one’s own religious convictions to the private and subjective sphere”.
“It has not been unknown, for example, for individuals to have to defend their right to hold political, public or legislative office within EU institutions while professing a public commitment to their Christian faith, sometimes against very public and hostile challenge.
“Ignoring this trend within the EU and its impact on people of faith has inevitable political and social consequences, not least on levels of support for the project itself.”
Speaking on RTÉ radio, Cardinal Brady said policy decisions seem to be "frequently made without reference to
religious values and convictions despite the fact that so many Europeans have religious faith and convictions".

“I am just asking for calm consideration and reflection on those things. What we need is a Europe that doesn’t confine it’s debate to politics or history but also takes into consideration values, social values, social cohesion, the family, the place of the family, respect for the views of parents in educational matters.

“I am just asking that those matters be reflected upon especially in the wake of recent events,’’ he added.
He said many people were “uneasy” about the Lisbon Treaty.
“It’s there in people’s minds and hearts,” he said.
“I think the people who are hostile to Europe need to open their eyes to the contributions of Europe and those who are totally supportive of Europe need to listen to the concerns and the reservations. We need a respectful listening to the views of each side.”
He said he was “quite confident” a good decision will be reached “because I know the part that Irish politicians and civil servants and diplomats have played in framing this”.
The Cardinal said he did not know if people would reject a second vote on Lisbon.
“I’m raising these subjects to have them debated in the cooler, calmer atmosphere. People will recognise the distinct advantages but also the reservations .
“I’m not in the job of gazing into the future and seeing what results might be but appealing to people to take on board all of these considerations.”

Dades

In case anyone can't recall their stance... here's that Lisbon thread to remind them.

sink

I'm not hostile to religion so I am not opposed to including a mention of Christianity in any future treaty. If it includes Christianity it also must include Judaism as it is a mixture of Jewish and Christian values that form the basis for western society. It also must explicitly state it's commitment to secularism and maybe include humanism as a replacement for religious morality.

sink

There is a very good rebuttal in today's Irish times.

Cardinal's EU critique points to a reluctance to play by rules
RONAN McCREA

Comments display an alarming ignorance and suggest the church still does not accept pluralist democracy

CARDINAL BRADY'S criticisms of the European Union's approach to religion are based on very serious misconceptions in relation to EU law. More importantly, they appear to suggest he finds it disturbing and offensive for the church to accept the criticism and duty to justify one's beliefs that is the lot of all other participants in public debate.

This raises serious questions about the degree to which the church has reconciled itself to pluralist democracy.

The cardinal complains that: "It has not been unknown . . . for individuals to have to defend their right to hold political, public or legislative office within EU institutions while professing a public commitment to their Christian faith, sometimes against very public and hostile challenge."

This is presumably a reference to Rocco Buttiglione, whose sexist and homophobic views, which Buttiglione ascribed to his Catholicism, made him unfit in the eyes of the European Parliament to be justice commissioner (a portfolio that includes anti-discrimination).

Assessing the opinions of appointees to powerful political offices is, however, really a rather unremarkable thing for a parliament to do. Those who held racist, sexist or other discriminatory views on bases other than religion would have been equally opposed by parliamentarians.

The cardinal has not made clear why religion should get a free pass in this regard and how political choice and accountability could be maintained if such a pass were given.

Cardinal Brady further suggested that to question the views and opinions of nominees for public office ended up with Christians "being denied the right to intervene in public debates or at least having their contribution dismissed as an attempt to protect unjustified privileges".

There is a very big difference between being asked to justify one's views and being opposed by those who hold opposite beliefs on the one hand, and being denied the right to participate on the other. It is particularly strange for this accusation to be made in the context of the EU, which has set up a programme of structured dialogue specifically for religious organisations, in which the Catholic Church has taken a leading part. Other kinds of organisations have not had such special facilitation and have had to take their place amongst civil society in general.

Indeed the Lisbon Treaty has been criticised as granting too much privilege to religious bodies in this regard.

The cardinal also referred implicitly to a series of EU decisions that he felt contradicted the institutional, social and political aims of the church saying: "Successive decisions which have undermined the family based on marriage, the right to life from the moment of conception to natural death, the sacredness of the Sabbath, the right of Christian institutions to maintain and promote their ethos, including schools . . . have made it more difficult for committed Christians to maintain their instinctive commitment to the European project."

Here, the cardinal is simply wrong. The European Court of Justice has repeatedly upheld restrictions on Sunday trading as a cultural choice that member states are entitled to make. The EU has refused to require the introduction of abortion and the Citizenship Directive of 2004 did not require any member state to introduce gay marriage or civil unions.

Most strikingly, in directive 2000/78 the union actually granted exemptions to religious organisations in respect of anti-discrimination legislation, which it did not grant to any other organisations. The exemptions allow religious employers to require employees to adhere to their ethos even when it is discriminatory to do so.

More disturbing than his lack of information in relation to the union's approach to these matters is Cardinal Brady's instinctive opposition to the notion that religious bodies should have to account and argue for their beliefs and legal privileges in the same way as everybody else.

The EU has, in fact, granted religion a privileged position in public debate and EU law has in the area of employment given religious bodies exemptions and privileges that it has withheld from other organisations.

However, as a political organisation committed to democracy, the EU cannot exempt candidates for public office from being criticised or rejected on the basis of beliefs and opinions that may be religious in nature, but that may also affect the decisions they would make in office.

A democracy has a duty to make laws in the interests of all. As an entity whose population is religiously diverse, the EU cannot legislate purely on the basis of the theological convictions of a single faith without violating this duty. Furthermore, in democratic public life, individuals must account for their beliefs and will inevitably be criticised for them.

The Cardinal has effectively characterised the imposition on religious bodies of the duties to accept criticism and provide justifications for their political demands as tantamount to excluding religion from public life. Such a resistance to playing by the rules that govern the behaviour of all other organisations in political life would seem to indicate that the Catholic Church still has some way to go in reconciling itself with pluralist democracy.

• Ronan McCrea is a barrister currently completing a PhD on religion and EU law at the London School of Economics

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0826/1219679947261.html

ChocolateSauce

I think there may be some truth to this article. One of the EU's selling points for me is its secularism. It follows that the opposite would be true for someone with an antithetical world view to my own.