söndag 19 december 2010
fredag 17 december 2010
Warten auf Spenderorgane: Jährlich 150 Tote
Auszug aus dem rubrizierten Artikel
Die Zahl der Spender und der Organtransplantationen nimmt deutlich zu. Im Widerspruchsregister sind nur 20.000 Personen verzeichnet. Rund 1000 Menschen warten derzeit in Österreich auf ein Spenderorgan.
……………………………
6 Stimmt es, dass in Österreich jeder als Organspender gilt?
Im Prinzip ja. Die in Österreich seit den Achtzigerjahren geltende Regelung sieht vor, dass jeder Organspender werden kann, der sich nicht ausdrücklich schriftlich dagegen ausspricht. Dazu muss man sich ins Widerspruchsregister des Öbig eintragen. Bevor eine Organ-entnahme stattfindet, müssen die Ärzte in dem Register nachsehen, ob es einen Widerspruch gibt. Wenn nicht, können jedem hirntoten Menschen Organe entnommen werden. In der Praxis, so sagen die Mediziner, würden aber die Verwandten eines potenziellen Organspenders kontaktiert und auf deren Einsprüche (etwa religiöser Art) Rücksicht genommen.
Die Zahl der Spender und der Organtransplantationen nimmt deutlich zu. Im Widerspruchsregister sind nur 20.000 Personen verzeichnet. Rund 1000 Menschen warten derzeit in Österreich auf ein Spenderorgan.
……………………………
6 Stimmt es, dass in Österreich jeder als Organspender gilt?
Im Prinzip ja. Die in Österreich seit den Achtzigerjahren geltende Regelung sieht vor, dass jeder Organspender werden kann, der sich nicht ausdrücklich schriftlich dagegen ausspricht. Dazu muss man sich ins Widerspruchsregister des Öbig eintragen. Bevor eine Organ-entnahme stattfindet, müssen die Ärzte in dem Register nachsehen, ob es einen Widerspruch gibt. Wenn nicht, können jedem hirntoten Menschen Organe entnommen werden. In der Praxis, so sagen die Mediziner, würden aber die Verwandten eines potenziellen Organspenders kontaktiert und auf deren Einsprüche (etwa religiöser Art) Rücksicht genommen.
torsdag 16 december 2010
THE DISPLAY OF CRUCIFIXES IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS
“How public spaces are conceived and structured has a decisive impact on the formation of religious/cultural identities, on the creation of interreligious/intercultural relations and on the contribution these identities can offer to democratic and plural citizenship. Social inclusion and social cohesion largely depend on how much public spaces provide fair possibilities to different social, cultural and religious groups to express their conceptions and styles of life and demonstrate their sense of belonging. The existence of a public space where different religious and cultural identities feel at home is essential to the construction of citizenship in a plural society”. http://www.religareproject.eu/content/public-space
With regard to the display of religious symbols in public places, I wish to respond to the question that appears under session III: What are the different models adopted in the OSCE area?
The model adopted in Italy but also in other OSCE member states, e.g. Poland and Malta, is to have crucifixes displayed in all public buildings, including state schools and, wherever possible, in open public places like cemeteries or mountain tops.
EHF Italian member UAAR – The Union of Rationalist Atheists and Agnostics – to which I belong has given its full support to Mrs Soile Lautsi, a parent who claimed before the Italian courts that Italy’s administrative norms requiring the display of the crucifix in every state school classroom – norms which date back to the time of Mussolini when the Catholic religion was the established national religion - violated the right of parents "to ensure their children’s education in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions" (Article 2 of Protocol 1 to the Convention).Moreover, Mrs Soile Lautsi argued that the presence of crucifixes in the classrooms used as polling stations for voting in political elections had already been found to violate the principle of a secular state, that their display was a "breach of the principle of secularism" and a "violation of the principle of impartiality of the public administration". After a long battle in Italian courts, Mrs.Lautsi submitted her case to the European Court of Human Rights.
Last November the decision of the Strasbourg Court (Lautsi v.Italy) upheld the principle of the neutrality of the state in relation to religious and philosophical convictions - that is the principle of secularism - which is progressively being recognised in national and international institutions and indeed in the judgements of the Court itself as the best - perhaps even the only - way of guaranteeing freedom of religion or belief for everyone. Secularism in this sense of neutrality or impartiality is not hostile to religion and is totally compatible with the full exercise of the rights guaranteed by Article 9 of the European Convention. However, the Italian government lodged an appeal arguing that "the cross had become one of the secular values of the Italian Constitution and represented the values of civilian life". Armenia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Lithuania, Malta, the Principality of Monaco, Romania, Russia and San Marino supported the appeal. The final decision of the Grand Chamber is expected soon.
The indignant reaction of Italian political leaders to the Court’s judgement has been almost unanimous.
The Italian minister of defense, Ignazio La Russa, ranting non-stop on television for four minutes outrageously insulting all those who oppose the display of crucifixes in public schools including the judges of the European Court.
The minister for youth Giorgia Meloni stated: “I am sick of seeing European bureaucrats decide whether we can hang crucifixes in schoolrooms. The majority of Italians want them and this applies also to a secular state. If somebody feels offended, I advise them to consider settling somewhere else in the world”. (dichiarazioni del ministro della Gioventù Giorgia Meloni, 23 january 2010).
The minister for foreign affairs, Franco Frattini declared: “We cannot accept that the Strasbourg court removes our crucifixes from our schools. This is a non-negotiable principle. If we start making concessions we shall find it difficult even to build a church for fear of offending somebody”. (dichiarazioni del ministro degli esteri Franco Frattini, 10 september 2010). Such an acrimonious defense of religious symbols belongs to a culture which is oblivious of human rights and easily leads to hate speech. So it is no surprise that minister Frattini should write on Osservatore Romano, the Vatican daily, that: “atheism, materialism and relativism” are “perverse phenomena” characterised by “fanaticism and intolerance”, that “threaten society” and ought to be defeated by an “alliance between Christians, Muslims and Jews”.
In Italy and in other OSCE member countries where, to a lesser or greater extent, the Catholic church enjoys a dominant position, the display of crucifixes is but one of the many symptoms of the pervasive presence of the Catholic church in everyday life. The Pope and other members of the Vatican hierarchy appear on the public television as often as the prime minister, crying madonnas and miracles of Father Pio are announced as hard facts and given the same importance as a metalworkers’ strike. The TV reports that Pope Benedict instructs pharmacists to abstain from delivering the morning after pill in spite of the fact that by doing so they would break the law which obliges them to deliver all the drugs doctors prescribe – but for the pope as well as for the Italian public TV breaking the law is no problem.
The above examples show that it is wrong to look at the display of religious symbols in public buildings per se, irrespective of the general context in which this practice occurs. Once again, the problem arises when the non separation of church and state has primacy over the rule of law and over past commitments such as those contained in the Vienna Concluding Document by which states undertook to:
(16.1) -… ensure the effective equality between believers and non-believers;
(16.2) - foster a climate of mutual tolerance and respect between believers of different communities as well as between believers and non-believers.
The display of crucifixes in schools and the effect it may have on small children deserves a special comment. When children go to school, starting from kindergarten, they experience a public institution for the first time in their life although they are not aware of it. The way this public institution makes them feel welcome, the way all the children will feel at ease and free to express their personality in the way they dress or they eat, the way they are encouraged to share their different cultures, will have a decisive influence on their feeling of inclusion or exclusion with respect to their peer group (and, later on in life, to society as a whole) and this experience will start shaping their idea of equality, of the rights of citizenship and of a pluralist society.
In Italy, the repeated display of the crucifix in the school entrance, in the classroom, in the corridors, in the dining-room (such is the case in my grandson’s kindergarten in Rome) conveys the message that this school is Catholic and, since it is a state school, it means that the state promotes the Catholic religion. If this is the religion to which the child belongs, it will make him feel more at
home and “more equal “ than the other children and even entitled to exclude them if he so wishes. Other children who follow different religions or no religion will feel less at home, less welcome. They will accept having less rights since their school wants it this way. They will accept being discriminated against because discrimination established by the state will be viewed as legitimate.
The display of crucifixes in public places is a multi-faceted matter that has many ramifications. If the ruling of the Strasbourg Grand Chamber were to favour in any way the position of the Italian government this would represent a devastating blow to the steady progress of the past few years towards outlawing discrimination founded on religion or belief. It would seriously undermine the right not to be imposed upon by religion of that large but often invisible minority: those, so frequently overlooked, who live without religion and whose voice is weak because by definition disbelief is moderate and there are no strident voices for science and reason.
Vera Pegna
European Humanist Federation (EHF)
www.humanistfederation.eu
With regard to the display of religious symbols in public places, I wish to respond to the question that appears under session III: What are the different models adopted in the OSCE area?
The model adopted in Italy but also in other OSCE member states, e.g. Poland and Malta, is to have crucifixes displayed in all public buildings, including state schools and, wherever possible, in open public places like cemeteries or mountain tops.
EHF Italian member UAAR – The Union of Rationalist Atheists and Agnostics – to which I belong has given its full support to Mrs Soile Lautsi, a parent who claimed before the Italian courts that Italy’s administrative norms requiring the display of the crucifix in every state school classroom – norms which date back to the time of Mussolini when the Catholic religion was the established national religion - violated the right of parents "to ensure their children’s education in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions" (Article 2 of Protocol 1 to the Convention).Moreover, Mrs Soile Lautsi argued that the presence of crucifixes in the classrooms used as polling stations for voting in political elections had already been found to violate the principle of a secular state, that their display was a "breach of the principle of secularism" and a "violation of the principle of impartiality of the public administration". After a long battle in Italian courts, Mrs.Lautsi submitted her case to the European Court of Human Rights.
Last November the decision of the Strasbourg Court (Lautsi v.Italy) upheld the principle of the neutrality of the state in relation to religious and philosophical convictions - that is the principle of secularism - which is progressively being recognised in national and international institutions and indeed in the judgements of the Court itself as the best - perhaps even the only - way of guaranteeing freedom of religion or belief for everyone. Secularism in this sense of neutrality or impartiality is not hostile to religion and is totally compatible with the full exercise of the rights guaranteed by Article 9 of the European Convention. However, the Italian government lodged an appeal arguing that "the cross had become one of the secular values of the Italian Constitution and represented the values of civilian life". Armenia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Lithuania, Malta, the Principality of Monaco, Romania, Russia and San Marino supported the appeal. The final decision of the Grand Chamber is expected soon.
The indignant reaction of Italian political leaders to the Court’s judgement has been almost unanimous.
The Italian minister of defense, Ignazio La Russa, ranting non-stop on television for four minutes outrageously insulting all those who oppose the display of crucifixes in public schools including the judges of the European Court.
The minister for youth Giorgia Meloni stated: “I am sick of seeing European bureaucrats decide whether we can hang crucifixes in schoolrooms. The majority of Italians want them and this applies also to a secular state. If somebody feels offended, I advise them to consider settling somewhere else in the world”. (dichiarazioni del ministro della Gioventù Giorgia Meloni, 23 january 2010).
The minister for foreign affairs, Franco Frattini declared: “We cannot accept that the Strasbourg court removes our crucifixes from our schools. This is a non-negotiable principle. If we start making concessions we shall find it difficult even to build a church for fear of offending somebody”. (dichiarazioni del ministro degli esteri Franco Frattini, 10 september 2010). Such an acrimonious defense of religious symbols belongs to a culture which is oblivious of human rights and easily leads to hate speech. So it is no surprise that minister Frattini should write on Osservatore Romano, the Vatican daily, that: “atheism, materialism and relativism” are “perverse phenomena” characterised by “fanaticism and intolerance”, that “threaten society” and ought to be defeated by an “alliance between Christians, Muslims and Jews”.
In Italy and in other OSCE member countries where, to a lesser or greater extent, the Catholic church enjoys a dominant position, the display of crucifixes is but one of the many symptoms of the pervasive presence of the Catholic church in everyday life. The Pope and other members of the Vatican hierarchy appear on the public television as often as the prime minister, crying madonnas and miracles of Father Pio are announced as hard facts and given the same importance as a metalworkers’ strike. The TV reports that Pope Benedict instructs pharmacists to abstain from delivering the morning after pill in spite of the fact that by doing so they would break the law which obliges them to deliver all the drugs doctors prescribe – but for the pope as well as for the Italian public TV breaking the law is no problem.
The above examples show that it is wrong to look at the display of religious symbols in public buildings per se, irrespective of the general context in which this practice occurs. Once again, the problem arises when the non separation of church and state has primacy over the rule of law and over past commitments such as those contained in the Vienna Concluding Document by which states undertook to:
(16.1) -… ensure the effective equality between believers and non-believers;
(16.2) - foster a climate of mutual tolerance and respect between believers of different communities as well as between believers and non-believers.
The display of crucifixes in schools and the effect it may have on small children deserves a special comment. When children go to school, starting from kindergarten, they experience a public institution for the first time in their life although they are not aware of it. The way this public institution makes them feel welcome, the way all the children will feel at ease and free to express their personality in the way they dress or they eat, the way they are encouraged to share their different cultures, will have a decisive influence on their feeling of inclusion or exclusion with respect to their peer group (and, later on in life, to society as a whole) and this experience will start shaping their idea of equality, of the rights of citizenship and of a pluralist society.
In Italy, the repeated display of the crucifix in the school entrance, in the classroom, in the corridors, in the dining-room (such is the case in my grandson’s kindergarten in Rome) conveys the message that this school is Catholic and, since it is a state school, it means that the state promotes the Catholic religion. If this is the religion to which the child belongs, it will make him feel more at
home and “more equal “ than the other children and even entitled to exclude them if he so wishes. Other children who follow different religions or no religion will feel less at home, less welcome. They will accept having less rights since their school wants it this way. They will accept being discriminated against because discrimination established by the state will be viewed as legitimate.
The display of crucifixes in public places is a multi-faceted matter that has many ramifications. If the ruling of the Strasbourg Grand Chamber were to favour in any way the position of the Italian government this would represent a devastating blow to the steady progress of the past few years towards outlawing discrimination founded on religion or belief. It would seriously undermine the right not to be imposed upon by religion of that large but often invisible minority: those, so frequently overlooked, who live without religion and whose voice is weak because by definition disbelief is moderate and there are no strident voices for science and reason.
Vera Pegna
European Humanist Federation (EHF)
www.humanistfederation.eu
EDUCATION ABOUT RELIGIONS BUT NOT RELIGIOUS INDOCTRINATION
Humanists believe strongly in democracy, human rights and the rule of law and this belief is conducive to the following considerations by EHF with regard to Session II: Education and Religion or Belief . EHF comprises more than forty humanist organisations in about twenty European countries.
EHF fully agrees with the OSCE statement according to which “Teaching is one of the most sensitive areas in the sphere of freedom of religion or belief for those concerned about the transmission of values to the next generations”. We take the word “values” as meaning – in this specific approach – values referred to Freedom of Religion and Belief considered not per se but in the context of an open society governed by the rule of law.
In such a society, whose principles are accepted by all OSCE member states, school children should learn both about religious and non-religious beliefs such as humanism and be taught by teachers who are not preachers but able to provide a balanced, objective and non-confessional education on such matters. EHF has welcomed the Toledo Guiding Principles on Teaching about Religions and Beliefs in Public Schools as they offer the right guidance on the preparation of curricula for teaching about religions and beliefs, as well as preferred procedures for assuring fairness in the development of curricula, and standards for how they could be implemented.
In public schools in many member states such education is provided already. However, in other states this is not the case, sometimes because these states are restricted by accords concluded in the form of concordats or agreements with a church or with the Holy See, an OSCE member state which is “the Holy Father and the Curia”, i.e. not quite a state but most certainly a church. We believe that these agreements should be abrogated in favour of a non-confessional school education about different religions, humanism and other life stances.
The teaching of a single religion in state schools stems from a totally unacceptable interference from the side of an organized religion in the area of education, because the teaching of religious faith to small children as well as to teen-agers is not education. It is indoctrination and not an example of what freedom of religion for all citizens alike should be. Actually, it is the opposite: it is the freedom for a religion – Islam, Christianity, in fact usuallly the Catholic church - and its political allies to enforce a religious doctrine and this runs counter the principle of separation of church and state, a tenet of our democracies.
We disagree that religions are the only source of morals and that that ethical values, as interpreted by church leaders, are of divine origin. We believe that it is inherent in human nature to have moral values. The vast majority of all men and women wish to help each other and be good to each other. They do not need religious carrots and sticks in form of prospective heavenly rewards and punishments in order to behave ethically.
This is what children should be taught in schools together with the constant exercise of reason and the awareness of the primary role of science in enriching our universal knowledge and understanding of the origins and workings of the universe for the betterment of human society. We form our life-stance on the basis of such knowledge and this helps us understand the value of justice, of legality and of equal rights of all human beings in the family, in politics, and in public life.
Human beings create meaning and purpose for themselves by adopting worthwhile goals and endeavouring to live their lives to the full. But much too often this endeavour is thwarted by a society which accepts the privileges of some and ensuing discrimination against others. All too often this starts at school where shamefully children learn that discrimination against non-believers is acceptable and normal.
Hans Christian Cars,
European Humanist Federation (EHF)
www.humanistfederation.eu
EHF fully agrees with the OSCE statement according to which “Teaching is one of the most sensitive areas in the sphere of freedom of religion or belief for those concerned about the transmission of values to the next generations”. We take the word “values” as meaning – in this specific approach – values referred to Freedom of Religion and Belief considered not per se but in the context of an open society governed by the rule of law.
In such a society, whose principles are accepted by all OSCE member states, school children should learn both about religious and non-religious beliefs such as humanism and be taught by teachers who are not preachers but able to provide a balanced, objective and non-confessional education on such matters. EHF has welcomed the Toledo Guiding Principles on Teaching about Religions and Beliefs in Public Schools as they offer the right guidance on the preparation of curricula for teaching about religions and beliefs, as well as preferred procedures for assuring fairness in the development of curricula, and standards for how they could be implemented.
In public schools in many member states such education is provided already. However, in other states this is not the case, sometimes because these states are restricted by accords concluded in the form of concordats or agreements with a church or with the Holy See, an OSCE member state which is “the Holy Father and the Curia”, i.e. not quite a state but most certainly a church. We believe that these agreements should be abrogated in favour of a non-confessional school education about different religions, humanism and other life stances.
The teaching of a single religion in state schools stems from a totally unacceptable interference from the side of an organized religion in the area of education, because the teaching of religious faith to small children as well as to teen-agers is not education. It is indoctrination and not an example of what freedom of religion for all citizens alike should be. Actually, it is the opposite: it is the freedom for a religion – Islam, Christianity, in fact usuallly the Catholic church - and its political allies to enforce a religious doctrine and this runs counter the principle of separation of church and state, a tenet of our democracies.
We disagree that religions are the only source of morals and that that ethical values, as interpreted by church leaders, are of divine origin. We believe that it is inherent in human nature to have moral values. The vast majority of all men and women wish to help each other and be good to each other. They do not need religious carrots and sticks in form of prospective heavenly rewards and punishments in order to behave ethically.
This is what children should be taught in schools together with the constant exercise of reason and the awareness of the primary role of science in enriching our universal knowledge and understanding of the origins and workings of the universe for the betterment of human society. We form our life-stance on the basis of such knowledge and this helps us understand the value of justice, of legality and of equal rights of all human beings in the family, in politics, and in public life.
Human beings create meaning and purpose for themselves by adopting worthwhile goals and endeavouring to live their lives to the full. But much too often this endeavour is thwarted by a society which accepts the privileges of some and ensuing discrimination against others. All too often this starts at school where shamefully children learn that discrimination against non-believers is acceptable and normal.
Hans Christian Cars,
European Humanist Federation (EHF)
www.humanistfederation.eu
PLURALISM, RELATIVISM AND THE RULE OF LAW
The European Humanist Federation upholds the principles of humanism and of a secular society which translate into our shared principles of democracy and the rule of law. It opposes discrimination against non-believers and campaigns for equal treatment. Our approach complies with the OSCE/ODIHR human dimension and our very modest contribution to the excellent job of ODIHR is in line with Mr.Lenarcic’s words: “ the subject of our (OSCE’s) work in the human dimension is ultimately to improve respect for the rights and dignity of real people who live in all of our participating States”. This is what makes OSCE/ODIHR so special: the quest of a genuine implementation of our governments’ commitments in the defense of human rights and of the rule of law with the cooperation of NGOs who operate at grassroots level.
Humanist and secular organisations including the EHF represent a few million European humanists, atheists, agnostics and freethinkers but, at the same time, we are aware that the policy we pursue in this as well as in other European institutions is shared by 30 to 50 % of Europeans, people who are simply indifferent to religion although they may not have made a specific philosophical choice. However, theirs is a belief or life-stance just as humanism or religion are one. It deserves to be acknowledged as such and to occupy its rightful place in governments’ concern.
Because of the fantastic evolution and circulation of ideas and because of the waves of migrants who have settled in our countries, our populations have become diverse and variegated to an extent that would have been inconceivable a few decades ago. Our societies have become pluralistic. People’s needs have changed and so has their awareness of their rights. The more conservative and traditionalist minds find it easier to cling to their inheritance rather than to grapple with this new reality. Now, this is their right under freedom of conscience and so it is legitimate but unless pluralism is recognised and catered for in the institutional and public sphere, discrimination becomes inevitable and social cohesion is at risk. Pluralism assumes that diversity and the free expression and exchange of different political, moral and religious views is beneficial to society and, for this reason, it has become an important component of today’s democratic governance where a great variety of opinions exist, especially on ethical matters, and where no absolute truth, no dogma can be imposed by law.
This plurality of opinions and beliefs is what is condemned as ‘relativism’ by the Roman Catholic Church. But the Church fails to distinguish between the existence of a variety of moral approaches and ethical beliefs in society, of which theirs is just one, and a moral weakness in an individual who adjusts his professed morals to his own convenience. This failure – which we may suspect is deliberate – undermines the Church’s pronouncements. The following examples are drawn from Pope Benedict’s speeches:
“How many winds of doctrine we have known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking… The small boat of thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves – thrown from one extreme to the other: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism, and so forth. Every day new sects are created and what Saint Paul says about human trickery comes true, with cunning which tries to draw those into error (cf Eph 4, 14). Having a clear faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism. Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and “swept along by every wind of teaching”, looks like the only attitude (acceptable) to today’s standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires”.
http://www.vatican.va/gpII/documents/homily-pro-eligendo-pontifice_20050418_en.html
“ Ethical relativism - which holds nothing as definitive - cannot be considered a condition for democracy”. Evangelium vitae, No. 70
The Pope connects relativism with democracy which, in his view, does not work without god and recalls that John Paul XXIII stated that: “ Governmental authority, therefore, is a postulate of the moral order and derives from God. Consequently, laws and decrees passed in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience, since "it is right to obey God rather than men " . Indeed, the passing of such laws undermines the very nature of authority and results in shameful abuse. As St. Thomas teaches, "In regard to the second proposition, we maintain that human law has the rationale of law in so far as it is in accordance with right reason, and as such it obviously derives from eternal law. A law which is at variance with reason is to that extent unjust and has no longer the rationale of law. It is rather an act of violence”.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_11041963_pacem_en.html
By demanding that parliaments make their laws according to these principles, the Vatican asserts that it is pursuing its mission in the service of mankind because the moral values upheld by the Catholic church are universally valid since they are inherent to the very nature of man. This is a legitimate view to hold, but it is deplorable that it is advanced by means of disparaging those who disagree, who are damned as “relativists”. In Vatican jargon this means a “nihilist”, a person lacking moral values, tossed and “swept along by every wind of teaching”, therefore incapable of resisting every stray “desire”. Whereas by contrast the Catholic hierarchy sees itself as the custodian of a faith linked with reason, inspired by objective moral values and committed to the defense of man’s dignity. Moreover, it claims that its certainties are fundamental for the present shaky European identity.
But is it really so? Do those the Pope damns as relativists match the Pope’s description of them? Well, there may be a few people who lack any moral compass, but for the most part do these ‘relativists’ the Pope condemns not in fact comprise a variety of thoroughly moral and serious people – those who adhere to different religions and beliefs from Roman Catholicism? those who recognise the legitimacy of disagreement about social and moral questions? those who are prepared to tolerate such disagreement, to recognise the plurality of society, while holding their own clear and firm ethical beliefs? those who are not prepared to surrender their own moral judgments to the authoritarian dictates of a church? those who recognise that circumstances may alter cases – that fresh knowledge, new possibilities, may call for a review of morals rooted in mediaeval scholasticism?
I have dwelt on the description of the Pope’s “relativists”, i.e. citizens who believe pluralism is part of democracy and of the rule of law, because it is essential to understand who the players in the public square are and what choices lie before us. The choice is not between a relativism which denies all values (the pope’s idea of relativism) and the Catholic ethics inspired by god, but between a nihilism that denies all values, a dogmatism that considers its values as the ultimate truth and wants to enforce them by law, and a pluralism that respects the different moral stances of all the citizens and is prepared to engage with them. Hence, the Pope’s battle against relativism deliberately confuses nihilism and pluralism. It is not the defense of morality in a disorderly society but the arrogant assertion of the Catholic moral doctrine as interpreted by the Vatican hierarchy. Demeaning the others’ cultural and moral choices by repeatedly stating that they are void of values reveals the dogmatic approach of the Catholic church.
The supporters of pluralism are not the only targets of the Catholic leaders’ strictures. Atheists and agnostics have undergone smear campaigns by the Catholic Church for the better part of two millennia and are still debased in the new Catechism of the Catholic church. We have repeatedly heard that the only total vision of man is the transcendent one, that Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is. (Caritas in Veritate).This campaign still goes on and has been extended to humanism: A humanism which excludes God is an inhuman humanism, according to Pope Benedict. Well, I speak here as an atheist, as a humanist, but also as one whom the Catholic church called a perfidious Jew until the 1960s. The deletion of this abusive term from the liturgy shows that the Catholic church is not totally immune from ethical relativism either, albeit at snail-pace.
At Astana Cardinal Bertone said that: "Religious life, as an important factor for the social and cultural life of countries, is not only threatened by vexatious restrictions, but also by relativism and a false secularism, which excludes religion from public life."
I do not know what Cardinal Bertone means by “false secularism”. Secularism tolerates no adjectives and is based on the recognition of the intimate connection between democracy, pluralism and the rule of law. This recognition is the condition for an open and constructive dialogue among, and for the inclusion of, individuals and of groups of citizens each with their own life-stance, religious or non-religious.
A pluralist society does not place limits to the freedom of expression of religious representatives. Secularism does not exclude religion from the public square. What it does exclude is that in a pluralist democracy decisions should be based on religious beliefs. This is why it has become necessary to highlight the potentially subversive content that the imposition of views based on dogmas may have on the rule of law. The European Humanist Federation maintains that only the separation of church and state, hence of dogma and law guarantees freedom of religion or belief for all and the full implementation of the rule of law.
Vera Pegna
European Humanist Federation (EHF)
www.humanistfederation.eu
Humanist and secular organisations including the EHF represent a few million European humanists, atheists, agnostics and freethinkers but, at the same time, we are aware that the policy we pursue in this as well as in other European institutions is shared by 30 to 50 % of Europeans, people who are simply indifferent to religion although they may not have made a specific philosophical choice. However, theirs is a belief or life-stance just as humanism or religion are one. It deserves to be acknowledged as such and to occupy its rightful place in governments’ concern.
Because of the fantastic evolution and circulation of ideas and because of the waves of migrants who have settled in our countries, our populations have become diverse and variegated to an extent that would have been inconceivable a few decades ago. Our societies have become pluralistic. People’s needs have changed and so has their awareness of their rights. The more conservative and traditionalist minds find it easier to cling to their inheritance rather than to grapple with this new reality. Now, this is their right under freedom of conscience and so it is legitimate but unless pluralism is recognised and catered for in the institutional and public sphere, discrimination becomes inevitable and social cohesion is at risk. Pluralism assumes that diversity and the free expression and exchange of different political, moral and religious views is beneficial to society and, for this reason, it has become an important component of today’s democratic governance where a great variety of opinions exist, especially on ethical matters, and where no absolute truth, no dogma can be imposed by law.
This plurality of opinions and beliefs is what is condemned as ‘relativism’ by the Roman Catholic Church. But the Church fails to distinguish between the existence of a variety of moral approaches and ethical beliefs in society, of which theirs is just one, and a moral weakness in an individual who adjusts his professed morals to his own convenience. This failure – which we may suspect is deliberate – undermines the Church’s pronouncements. The following examples are drawn from Pope Benedict’s speeches:
“How many winds of doctrine we have known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking… The small boat of thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves – thrown from one extreme to the other: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism, and so forth. Every day new sects are created and what Saint Paul says about human trickery comes true, with cunning which tries to draw those into error (cf Eph 4, 14). Having a clear faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism. Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and “swept along by every wind of teaching”, looks like the only attitude (acceptable) to today’s standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires”.
http://www.vatican.va/gpII/documents/homily-pro-eligendo-pontifice_20050418_en.html
“ Ethical relativism - which holds nothing as definitive - cannot be considered a condition for democracy”. Evangelium vitae, No. 70
The Pope connects relativism with democracy which, in his view, does not work without god and recalls that John Paul XXIII stated that: “ Governmental authority, therefore, is a postulate of the moral order and derives from God. Consequently, laws and decrees passed in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience, since "it is right to obey God rather than men " . Indeed, the passing of such laws undermines the very nature of authority and results in shameful abuse. As St. Thomas teaches, "In regard to the second proposition, we maintain that human law has the rationale of law in so far as it is in accordance with right reason, and as such it obviously derives from eternal law. A law which is at variance with reason is to that extent unjust and has no longer the rationale of law. It is rather an act of violence”.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_11041963_pacem_en.html
By demanding that parliaments make their laws according to these principles, the Vatican asserts that it is pursuing its mission in the service of mankind because the moral values upheld by the Catholic church are universally valid since they are inherent to the very nature of man. This is a legitimate view to hold, but it is deplorable that it is advanced by means of disparaging those who disagree, who are damned as “relativists”. In Vatican jargon this means a “nihilist”, a person lacking moral values, tossed and “swept along by every wind of teaching”, therefore incapable of resisting every stray “desire”. Whereas by contrast the Catholic hierarchy sees itself as the custodian of a faith linked with reason, inspired by objective moral values and committed to the defense of man’s dignity. Moreover, it claims that its certainties are fundamental for the present shaky European identity.
But is it really so? Do those the Pope damns as relativists match the Pope’s description of them? Well, there may be a few people who lack any moral compass, but for the most part do these ‘relativists’ the Pope condemns not in fact comprise a variety of thoroughly moral and serious people – those who adhere to different religions and beliefs from Roman Catholicism? those who recognise the legitimacy of disagreement about social and moral questions? those who are prepared to tolerate such disagreement, to recognise the plurality of society, while holding their own clear and firm ethical beliefs? those who are not prepared to surrender their own moral judgments to the authoritarian dictates of a church? those who recognise that circumstances may alter cases – that fresh knowledge, new possibilities, may call for a review of morals rooted in mediaeval scholasticism?
I have dwelt on the description of the Pope’s “relativists”, i.e. citizens who believe pluralism is part of democracy and of the rule of law, because it is essential to understand who the players in the public square are and what choices lie before us. The choice is not between a relativism which denies all values (the pope’s idea of relativism) and the Catholic ethics inspired by god, but between a nihilism that denies all values, a dogmatism that considers its values as the ultimate truth and wants to enforce them by law, and a pluralism that respects the different moral stances of all the citizens and is prepared to engage with them. Hence, the Pope’s battle against relativism deliberately confuses nihilism and pluralism. It is not the defense of morality in a disorderly society but the arrogant assertion of the Catholic moral doctrine as interpreted by the Vatican hierarchy. Demeaning the others’ cultural and moral choices by repeatedly stating that they are void of values reveals the dogmatic approach of the Catholic church.
The supporters of pluralism are not the only targets of the Catholic leaders’ strictures. Atheists and agnostics have undergone smear campaigns by the Catholic Church for the better part of two millennia and are still debased in the new Catechism of the Catholic church. We have repeatedly heard that the only total vision of man is the transcendent one, that Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is. (Caritas in Veritate).This campaign still goes on and has been extended to humanism: A humanism which excludes God is an inhuman humanism, according to Pope Benedict. Well, I speak here as an atheist, as a humanist, but also as one whom the Catholic church called a perfidious Jew until the 1960s. The deletion of this abusive term from the liturgy shows that the Catholic church is not totally immune from ethical relativism either, albeit at snail-pace.
At Astana Cardinal Bertone said that: "Religious life, as an important factor for the social and cultural life of countries, is not only threatened by vexatious restrictions, but also by relativism and a false secularism, which excludes religion from public life."
I do not know what Cardinal Bertone means by “false secularism”. Secularism tolerates no adjectives and is based on the recognition of the intimate connection between democracy, pluralism and the rule of law. This recognition is the condition for an open and constructive dialogue among, and for the inclusion of, individuals and of groups of citizens each with their own life-stance, religious or non-religious.
A pluralist society does not place limits to the freedom of expression of religious representatives. Secularism does not exclude religion from the public square. What it does exclude is that in a pluralist democracy decisions should be based on religious beliefs. This is why it has become necessary to highlight the potentially subversive content that the imposition of views based on dogmas may have on the rule of law. The European Humanist Federation maintains that only the separation of church and state, hence of dogma and law guarantees freedom of religion or belief for all and the full implementation of the rule of law.
Vera Pegna
European Humanist Federation (EHF)
www.humanistfederation.eu
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)