EU Constitution Preamble

Sparks

From another thread, I though I'd extract this for debate.

From today's Irish times,

Do we need 'God' in the constitutional treaty preamble?

No says Proinsias De Rossa, Labour Party MEP for Dublin and Yes says Dana Rosemary Scallon, MEP Connacht/Ulster.

Pronsias De Rossa: Robert Schuman, one of the key architects of the European ideal and a deeply committed Catholic, wrote that "Christianity is not, and should not be, linked to any political regime or associated with any particular form of government, even a democratic one. On this point, as elsewhere, it is essential to distinguish the domains of God and Caesar."
The Convention on the Future of Europe is faced with proposals on a preamble for the constitutional treaty which call for a specific invocation of God and for references to Judaeo-Christian heritage. As a democrat, I do not accept that such proposals are appropriate. Today, the EU is made up of different nations and nationalities, with different histories, cultures, religions and beliefs. Future enlargement may involve states such as Bulgaria, Turkey and Bosnia-Herzegovina, which will significantly increase Muslim populations in the Union. The political and social values of European countries have evolved from many sources, including lay or humanist traditions.

It is, of course, entirely proper to make reference to the fundamental values upon which the European Union is founded. But there can be no backdoor inclusion of values which are repugnant to equality, or freedom of conscience. Over the decades the Union has demonstrated a new way forward through acceptance of the plurality of civilisations and of mutual respect and tolerance. In my opinion, the wording of the preamble of the Charter of Fundamental Rights gets it about right in stating that "conscious of its spiritual and moral heritage, the Union is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity". On the question of freedom of religion, the charter is explicit on "the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion." I argue that this charter, which guarantees the rights of children, trade union rights etc, should be an integral, legally binding part of the European Constitution. Interestingly, those who most vociferously argue for a reference to God oppose the inclusion of this Charter of Rights.

Draft article 37 of the constitution contains a specific reference to the status of churches and non-confessional organisations. I have expressed concerns about the ambiguous wording of this article, which appears to give an extraordinary super-status to these bodies.

It is not clear to me they need a separate treaty article, as they are already covered in the general provisions for dialogue with civil society.

The basic principles of democracy foresee a secular political system and the separation and independence between that system and churches or philosophical communities. These principles, to my mind, are essential to citizens' freedoms. Equally important are the principles of equality and non-discrimination between citizens and, consequently, between the different religions and churches.

In short, as one commentator has put it, if we put God into the constitutional treaty, the devil will be in the detail.

Dana Rosemary Scallon: I believe that reference to God in the preamble of the proposed EU constitutional treaty presents no threat to Europe. It safeguards human dignity and human rights, as values held above political, legal and juridical decisions.

As Europe searches for a common identity, it can build on its common cultural, historical and religious heritage. Europe's history can only be understood by acknowledging the influence of the religious component which has formed the identity of Europe and inspired the formation of the European Union itself.

The reference to God in the preamble of our Irish Constitution has not been a threat to our nation or to our people. In fact it has been a vital building force of our nation.

It states: "We the people of Éire, Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial, Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation, And seeking to promote the common good. . . so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations, Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution."

Article 6.1 of our Constitution further affirms: "All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive, under God, from the people."

At present, two predominant concepts co-exist in Europe. One finds the meaning of life in God; the other does not require God. The European project will fail to be neutral if it only expresses the secular concept and excludes the religious beliefs of the majority of Europeans.

Any exclusion of the religious concept would not be considered neutrality, but a denial of that section of European Society for the sake of ideological reasons.

As Europe seeks to establish an area of justice, equality and peace, I believe we need the values that religion has generated throughout the years. Values that liberal democracy depends on but cannot produce by itself: the inviolable dignity of the human person, freedom of conscience and religion, the right to work, the dignity of the worker, the contribution of the voluntary sector and of the family.

Indeed, it is our duty to enshrine these values for all people, in particular the most vulnerable, the poor and socially excluded, especially in light of a surprising and worrying opinion expressed by the European Commission that "there is no common ethics, only private ethics."

The preamble will encapsulate the character and vision of a united Europe. Let us learn from the past. Europe has already experienced the destructive horror of nations that attempt to deny the dignity and inviolability of the human person. Europe has also seen the dissolution of a totalitarian regime that attempted to enforce a political vision devoid of God, a secular atheistic state which suppressed religious freedom.

A reference to God is not a threat to Europe; however, excluding God is. John Paul II has stated: "The rights of God and man are either affirmed together, or they will fall together".

I support this statement and I also agree with convention president Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, who has called for the European Convention to reflect on Europe's future with "enthusiasm", a word of Greek origin meaning inspired by God.
© The Irish Times

From the Association for Irish Humanists, this commentary.

Éomer of Rohan

John Paul II has stated: "The rights of God and man are either affirmed together, or they will fall together".

Well of course he'd say that - he's the Pope! They can't accept that some of us simply don't believe that God exists and to me, in an EU constitution it is an offence to include an invocatio dei - especially since 'His' name gets invoked for every morally dubious and outrightly criminal cause known to man from the Inquisition to the second Gulf War! The support of a God is no justification for any action given that no one decides what 'God' does and doesn't support without presupposing the dominance of one religion over the others which, given the diversity of Europe, is entirely a bad idea.

Lennoxschips

Europe has also seen the dissolution of a totalitarian regime that attempted to enforce a political vision devoid of God, a secular atheistic state which suppressed religious freedom.

Nobody is suppressing religious freedom! If anything, by not refering to one particular god you are guaranteeing relegious freedom for all! Meanwhile Dana would rather impose her own values upon everyone else... talk about suppressing freedoms.

In my best BBC radio football results voice:
De Rossa five, Dana nil

bonkey

Originally posted by Lennoxschips
If anything, by not refering to one particular god you are guaranteeing relegious freedom for all!

Well, the term would have to be understood in its most generic "deity" sense....but the argument is still specious.

If I believe in a multi-divinity religion, how is a reference to a single god not repressing my religion?

Indeed, if I dont believe in any god, how is a reference to god not repressing my beliefs?

Including god in a constitution is the first step to legally affirming that there is one, and only one, god.

Regardless of your belief, any such reference is as oppressive to others beliefs as it would be to have a constitution which makes references to the effect that there is no god, or that there are a multiplicity of gods.

Saying nothing on the subject, or simply stating that you constitutionally recognise the right of the individual to hold their personal beliefs regardless of what they are, does not oppress or deny any beliefs.

I accept that the majority of the people of the European Union are religious in one form or another, but I do not see a need for something like this, nor any benefit arising from its inclusion.

jc

sanvean

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
'His' name gets invoked for every morally dubious and outrightly criminal cause known to man from the Inquisition to the second Gulf War!

With the notable exception of Stalin and Hitler, of course.

I keep forgetting about that bit in the Irish consitution. I find it deeply offensive the assumption that we, the people of Ireland, are "Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ".

We should first of all change this in our consitution, and then make sure similar wordings aren't put into the European preamble.

seamus

Originally posted by sanvean
I keep forgetting about that bit in the Irish consitution. I find it deeply offensive the assumption that we, the people of Ireland, are "Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ".

We should first of all change this in our consitution,

I agree wholeheartedly, but it would never happen in our lifetime. If a referendum was called, the motion to remove this would be annihilated by OAP who vote in massive proportions every time, and 40 and 50-somethings half-Catholics who's faith will be reawakened just to come out and defeat this motion.

It's not so bad now anyway, the actual link between Church and State was removed from the constitution quite some time ago. Any preferential treatment given to the Church or Catholic population is more about how politicans like to govern than how they should govern.

I can't see any formal definition of any deity being put into an EU constitution. The only mention of God(s) will be in the section dealing with citizens right I reckon.

Trebor

Originally posted by seamus

I can't see any formal definition of any deity being put into an EU constitution. The only mention of God(s) will be in the section dealing with citizens right I reckon.

even if it is only in the the section dealing with rights to mention "God" you are excluding some religion and those of us who have no religion.
I do not belive that we need religion to have morality nor that just because you have a belief in a religion you are a moral person so how can they justify using a religious statement when giving citizens their rights.
will it say "you rights, given to you by the grace of God, are:" ?

sanvean

Originally posted by Trebor
even if it is only in the the section dealing with rights to mention "God" you are excluding some religion and those of us who have no religion.

Not if you include all areas of religious worship (so, therefore, say something along the lines of everybody has the right to worship freely, including all religions etc etc. I'm thinking this won't extend to cults and sects etc etc.

Also, I realise the church and state link has been severed, but really only in name. See: the preferential option/deal given to the Catholic Church re payments to those abused under their care, although perhaps in cases where the proposed payment would ruin an institution, this is something which happens, but my knowledge of law is severly limited.

seamus

Originally posted by sanvean
Not if you include all areas of religious worship (so, therefore, say something along the lines of everybody has the right to worship freely, including all religions etc etc. I'm thinking this won't extend to cults and sects etc etc.

Ya, that's what I meant. As well as specifying that the laws of the State always override the laws of any religion. To avoid any ambiguities.