Wed, Jun 02, 2004 - Page 9 News List

First, a few words about God

Europe has the opportunity to offer an alternative to American and French constitutional separationism, showing that democracy is no longer afraid of religion

By Joseph Weiler

YUSHA

In progressive liberal circles, the demand that the preamble to the constitution of the EU include a reference to God and/or the "Christian Roots" of Europe has been met with derision, even contempt. Such a reference, it is said, would run afoul of the common European constitutional tradition of state neutrality in matters of religion. It would also offend against Europe's political commitment to a tolerant, multicultural society. But the opposite is true: a reference to God is both constitutionally permissible and politically imperative.

Constitutionally, European nations display characteristic richness. As a matter of positive constitutional law, all members of the EU, under the tutelage of the European Convention on Human Rights, are committed to the principle of the "Agnostic or Impartial State," which guarantees both freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Across Europe, there is a remarkable degree of homogeneity -- even if on some borderline issues such as religious headgear in schools or crucifixes, different EU member states balance differently the delicate line between freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

But when it comes to constitutional symbolism and iconography, Europe is remarkably heterogeneous. At one extreme you find countries like France, whose constitution defines the state as secular. At the other extreme are countries like Denmark and the UK, where there is an established state religion.

In the UK, the sovereign is not only head of state but also head of the church. In between are states like Germany, whose constitutional preamble makes an explicit reference to God, or Ireland, where the preamble refers to the Holy Trinity.

All in all, about half the population of the EU lives in states whose constitutions make an explicit reference to God and/or Christianity. What is remarkable about Europe -- a value to be cherished -- is that even in such states, the principle of freedom of religion and freedom from religion are fully respected. No one could credibly argue that, say, Denmark is less committed to liberal democracy or is less tolerant than, say, France or Italy, despite the fact that Denmark recognizes an official state church and France and Italy are avowedly secular.

In its substantive provisions, the European Constitution reflects the homogeneity of the European constitutional tradition. It is fully committed to the notions of freedom of religion and freedom from religion, as it should be.

But when it comes to the preamble, the EU constitution should reflect European heterogeneity. It should reflect the European commitment to the noble heritage of the French Revolution, as reflected in, say, the French Constitution, but it should reflect in equal measure the symbolism of those constitutions that include an Invocatio Dei.

The refusal to make a reference to God is based on the false argument that confuses secularism with neutrality or impartiality. The preamble has a binary choice: yes to God, no to God. Why is excluding a reference to God any more neutral than including God? It is favoring one worldview, secularism, over another worldview, religiosity, masquerading as neutrality. How, then, can one respect both traditions?

The new Polish Constitution gives an elegant answer: It acknowledge both traditions: "We, the Polish Nation -- all citizens of the Republic, both those who believe in God as the source of truth, justice, good and beauty, as well as those not sharing such faith but respecting those universal values as arising from other sources, equal in rights and obligations towards the common good ... "

This story has been viewed 3527 times.

Comments will be moderated. Keep comments relevant to the article. Remarks containing abusive and obscene language, personal attacks of any kind or promotion will be removed and the user banned. Final decision will be at the discretion of the Taipei Times.

TOP top