Seminar “Religion and Politics in the EU—New Challenges, New Responsibilities”

Brussels, 3 March 2008

President, Members of the EP, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen,

1 Introduction

Many thanks for your kind invitation.

I would like to congratulate the Centre for European Studies and the Konrad–Adenauer–Stiftung for their initiative to provide this opportunity of debate on the relationship between religion and politics.

It is very symbolic, that the newly established CES opens its series of public policy and study meetings with the topic so important in our time. I wish the Centre under presidency of a true European statesman W. Martens successful future in the research activities and in the invaluable contribution to policy debate.

2 The place of religion in the public square: a global issue

The place of religion in the public square is one of the most urgent topics of debate today. And it’s one of the most fascinating, because its ramifications reach the most delicate political, social and cultural structures of our polis.

And we know that this is not only a European debate. Issues linked to religion are in the limelight of the media and of public opinion in many parts of the world: from the United States to the Indian sub–continent, in the Middle East and throughout the Islamic world.

In fact, it is perhaps better to think of the place of religion in the public arena as a truly global issue. Migrations in the recent and distant past are forcing us to review our mental geography.

For instance, today we can no longer think of Islam as a majority religion of a large region of the world that stretches from Morocco to Mindanao. Migration has turned Islam into a European religion as well, just like the travels and explorations of the 16th century had turned the Christian religions of Europe into American religions.

I think we can regard this shift in our mental maps as an important starting point; one that can help us understand the proper role of religion in Europe’s future. Because it is true that the predominant paradigm in Europe’s past has been Christian and that Christianity remains the main religion across the continent. However, it is equally true that we should embrace all the different religions of today’s Europe if our debates are to be productive.

3 EU traditional openness to all religions

This is not new for European policymaking. Traditionally, the EU has been respectful of all religions, churches and religious communities, while recognising and cherishing its Christian roots.

Many religious organisations are active in the social and cultural areas and are a positive force for the affirmation of civic and moral values. In particular, since the 1980s, successive Presidents of the European Commission have maintained a dialogue with churches and communities of conviction.

The Lisbon Treaty sanctions this practice. A new article confirms that the EU recognizes special contribution of churches and religious communities, respects their status under national law and offers to maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue” with churches, religious associations, and philosophical and non–confessional organisations. Actually, we have already started such dialogue on the top institutional level in 2005 (Commission President Barroso met leaders of main religions in European Union, in 2007 this was organized together with the Council and EP Presidents A. Merkel and H.G. Poettering).

It could not be otherwise. In the vast landscape of Europe’s diversity—which embraces our many traditions, languages and lifestyles—religious diversity is an important element. According to a Eurostat survey of 2005, over half of our fellow Europeans believed there was a God and about a third that there was some sort of spiritual life or spiritual force. This proves that in Europe religion and spirituality are still important: if we do the sums, the data show that four in five people in the EU have religious or spiritual beliefs and only 18% say they are non believers.

But the aggregate numbers don’t tell us the whole story, which is consistent with my favourite image of Europe as the world superpower of diversity. The proportion of non believers swings widely from one country to another, from 33% in France to 3% in Greece, and even less than that in Cyprus and Malta. The proportion of people who declared they believed in a God shows a similar spread: from only 16% in Estonia to 95% in Malta—and shares over 80% in larger countries such as Poland and Portugal.

4 Diversity: our asset

What do these figures mean? In my opinion, they are another sign of what makes Europe special. Because people of different faiths, believers and non–believers, can all trust the Union to respect and protect them.

In the Europe we are building together, there is room for everyone. In the past half century we have proved that we can live together—and thrive—not in spite of our diversity, but because of it. Our narrative is unity in diversity not unity in uniformity.

How did we manage this truly historical feat? In many ways, but the main factor has been our unwavering commitment to dialogue. Serious and constructive dialogue between citizens and their organisations, citizens of different cultures and religions, is the hallmark of our united Europe.

But we should not rest on the achieved level. The quest for dialogue, tolerance, and mutual knowledge is literally without end. It continues in each and every generation.

There is an important distinction to make here between technological and social progress. At any one point in time, pure and applied science can build upon the achievements of the past. Even at times of paradigm change, scientists can always stand on the shoulders of their predecessors to look farther and extend knowledge and technology.

In contrast, each generation must rekindle and renew its social and moral values through education and patient practice. In the ethical sphere, social advances can never be taken for granted and human progress is constantly threatened by regress. Peace, democracy, freedom, common Europe—these are not granted realities. We have to bear responsibility for this legacy daily.

To us, this means that it will always be an important responsibility of the European institutions to encourage citizens’ initiatives, to provide them with the space to invest in their communities and to combat social breakdown.

The EU can never lose sight of this essential part of its mission. We will always need to show our commitment for the emergence of a culture of dialogue and tolerance in Europe and the ethics of responsibility.

5 European Year of Intercultural Dialogue

A tangible sign of this commitment is the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue, which we launched in Ljubljana last January. Dialogue is a constructional element of a unity in family, in local, national, European or global relations. Issues related to religious communities have important place in the European Year because—as I showed earlier—religion and spirituality are deeply rooted in our cultures.

In other words, there can be no serious inter–cultural dialogue without inter–religious dialogue. For instance, our official website for the Year reports an event that took place in Brussels earlier today. The Fundamental Rights Agency launched a study titled “Community cohesion at local level: addressing the needs of Muslim communities”.

This is just one of the countless events that are drawing inspiration from the Year of Intercultural Dialogue. European common house is, for example, suitable space for Christian or Abrahamic ecumenical dialogue. The keen interest that is surrounding our initiative is evidence that this was the perfect time to put the issue on the table.

6 Practice makes perfect

When it comes to integrating religious and spiritual views into the body social, it is easy to find a consensus on the general principles and the ultimate aims. Nobody will disagree on the need to build a more tolerant and peaceful society. However, the debate becomes more interesting when we move from the broad principles to the facts and developments that demand a moral stance.

And there is no shortage of hard questions. For example, scientists are inching ever closer to the very boundaries of life with their advances in biotechnology and genetic research.

In the social sphere, many people are finding arrangements for their lives together that are stretching the traditional notion of the nuclear family.

Finally, in the legal domain, there is the view, made public last month by the head of the Church of England, that Muslims should be given a choice in their legal disputes. Adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law, said Dr Williams, would help maintain social cohesion in the UK. Of course, his comments were highly controversial, but it is the role of spiritual leaders to tackle difficult moral issues.

7 More morality

These are just three examples among the many that challenge us every day. We cannot remain indifferent before these difficult choices—both as citizens and as political leaders. It seems to me that issues like these, and more generally the questions that shake the pillars of our individual and collective identities, are testing the limits of philosophy and science.

And this is why it would not be a bad idea to draw from the reserves of wisdom accumulated by religious thought across the centuries. If you accept my argument, it would be a mistake—and probably an illusion—to ask people to drop their religious and moral beliefs before they can enter the public square.

We need more morality in the public debate, not less, to provide answers to difficult questions. This would be part of a larger renewal of our civilisation which could not succeed without the contribution of religious and spiritual forces.

My long–standing commitment to dialogue should be seen as a square rejection of an idea that is circulating with increasing insistence these days—that of a clash of civilisations. I reject this idea because what counts is not the difference between one culture and another.

What counts is the line that divides views of individual and social reality based on a moral dimension from those that exclude it. What counts are values and their hierarchy. The first one which unites us in the EU should be respect for the dignity of human person.

In fact, the most serious clashes are occurring within cultures—not between them. I am thinking of the clashes that oppose those who practice a principled respect for human life and human rights against those other who follow the dark light of fanaticism—whether it be political, ethnic, or religious. The first victims of the fanatics are the more reasonable, tolerant and open members of their own social group.

8 What does pluralism mean?

But for moral proposals to be beneficial to all, they must be articulated in terms that everyone can access. In other terms, we should all recognise that we live in pluralistic societies and that it is our responsibility to promote pluralistic societies.

And this is the final argument I would like to put to you today. In our modern democracies, the real debate is not the one between believers and non–believers. As I said, every European citizen has the same right and obligations.

Governments should not interfere in the choices of individuals and communities make to follow their beliefs and practice their lifestyles.

The real debate is about the precise sense we want to give to the term “pluralism”. One thing is sure: pluralism is a vision of the world that is not compatible with intolerance—both in its religious and secular varieties. In multicultural societies, we should recognise that a plurality of beliefs, moral views and lifestyles is a fact of life.

The only criterion would be an unconditional respect for human dignity as the primary value. This would serve as the touchstone for the plurality of views that are admissible in our societies.

And I am not talking about a point of principle, here. I am not talking about guidelines for our political and social action with very practical effects. I am talking about dignity for all and everywhere. This leads to equality, human rights, justice for all.

9 Close

Ladies and Gentlemen,

As you can see, we have come full circle. I began with a call for mutual knowledge and dialogue and I am closing with an appeal to civic respect and human dignity. In my view of things, I can see a clear role for communities of faith and conviction: they can help us affirm human dignity as a non–negotiable public value. This should be a uniting point for religious and secular humanists as well.

They can give a vital contribution because the form of civic respect I have in mind is a social value but it is built on traditional individual virtues such as solidarity, tolerance and compassion.

I call on people of faith and religious organisations to join forces towards this common goal, common good.

Thank you.