"Since 2005 in my quality as representative to the OSCE of the European Humanist Federation (EHF) I have attended almost all meetings related to Freedom of Religion and Belief. Every year EHF has convened a side-event on subjects related to this subject and to secularism, that is to the separation of church and state. Our major concern has been the assertiveness with which the Holy See and other authoritative representatives of the Catholic church belittle and condemn the basic principles of our democratic institutions. Lately, the rule of law as such has also become the target of demeaning and confounding remarks by Catholic church representatives. This is why the EHF has decided to intervene at this session which is devoted specifically to the rule of law.
The meaning churches give to a number of legal concepts concerning democracy and the rule of law refers to what churches call natural law, i.e the axiomatic values dictated by their holy texts and by the word of god. In Cardinal Bertone’s words, these values are “non-negotiable” since they come from a transcendental source and "do not depend on the Church" but are based on human nature itself. This pronouncement, like all others which aim at introducing god’s will in our democratic institutions, is asserted without any evidence or argumentation. This is perfectly legitimate in a Christian context but it carries no force in secular, democratic dialogue. As president Obama said, “words must be meaningful”.
Moreover, cardinal Bertone’s view is expressed in a language that is alien to politics and to our pluralist democracies and is extraneous to positive law as well as to the normative systems which refer to principles such as equality, justice, the people, the state. The law - a set of rules and norms that govern the life of a society – belongs to this world and ignores transcendence. Evidently, the Catholic Church thinks otherwise. According to Archbishop Tomasi, the Vatican representative at the U.N. Human Rights Council who spoke in Geneva on 15 September 2007, “The presence and influence of the world’s great religions was often a way to go beyond the subjective limits of the positivist judicial order with objective moral norms that serve the common good of all humanity”. No arguments are given to support this statement, nor are we told what the subjective limits of the positivist judicial order are or in what way the moral norms that serve the common good of all humanity are objective.
On Oct. 15, 2009 Archbishop Celestino Migliore, permanent observer of the Holy See at the United Nations, delivered a statement on the rule of law before the 64th session of the U.N. General Assembly. He said: “… what is needed is to take into account that underlying any law is a fundamental value or truth which must be upheld in order for it to have any real meaning and purpose… Thus, to speak only of the rule of law without including the need for justice would be inadequate and risk replacing the rule of law with a rule by law”. What is the fundamental value or truth that underlies any law and why include the need for justice when the principle of justice is intrinsic in the rule of law?
The Archbishop here ignores the established meaning of ‘rule of law’ (as for example in Tom Bingley’s admirable short book on the subject) to suggest it risks being reduced to mere obedience to any laws that any regime cares to impose. He transparently seeks to imply that it needs theological underpinning! Besides, the Holy See is a member of OSCE. Does it not agree with the definition of the rule of law given in the OSCE Human Dimension Commitments, Thematic Compilation, volume 1, article 2.4 which reads:
“ The participating states are determined to support and advance those principles of justice which form the basis of the rule of law. They consider that the rule of law does not mean merely a formal legality which ensures regularity and consistency in the achievements and enforcement of democratic order, but justice based on the recognition and full acceptance of the supreme value of the human personality and guaranteed by institutions providing a framework for its fullest expression”.
Is it not because the Vatican’s idea of justice has a transcendental connotation and therefore differs from the conventional democratic definition? Besides, such abstract terms as value, truth, justice are placed alongside straightforward legal concepts and create a deliberate confusion between the legal sphere and the transcendental one. And, further on, Archbishop Migliore repeatedly mentions a just rule of law and declares : “The Holy See[‘s]… educational institutions in many countries around the world provide individuals quality education in the fundamental nature of law and its proper application, which can only lead to the eradication of corruption”. What is the fundamental nature of law? In the absence of a definition by archbishop Migliore, I suggest we refer to John Paul II’s Encyclical Evangelium vitae for a reply : "Authority is a postulate of the moral order and derives from God. Consequently, laws and decrees enacted in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience...; indeed, the passing of such laws undermines the very nature of authority and results in shameful abuse”.
This being the concept of law, what then is the concept of democracy that emerges from official Vatican documents? Again a reply to this question is given in Evangelium vitae:
“It is therefore urgently necessary, for the future of society and the development of a sound democracy, to rediscover those essential and innate human and moral values which flow from the very truth of the human being and express and safeguard the dignity of the person: values which no individual, no majority and no State can ever create, modify or destroy, but must only acknowledge, respect and promote”.
These quotations are a source of deep concern for humanists and for democratic citizens in general because, far from being mere spiritual pronouncements, they provide the background for forceful interventions of the Catholic church in the public and institutional spheres. According to pope Ratzinger, the TFEU, as amended by the Lisbon treaty, gives churches “institutional rights”. Now, institutions may have rights as institutions – for example, to own property, be free from government interference – but they have no rights to dictate how a democratic society should govern itself. And there is no democracy without pluralism and freedom of conscience. These come into play imperatively when discussing laws respectful of human rights in matters such as sexual and reproductive life, euthanasia, scientific research, etc. which are at odds with the divine moral order as interpreted by the Vatican leaders. In fact, pope Benedict equates pluralism to what he calls ethical relativism. “Ethical relativism - which holds nothing as definitive - cannot be considered a condition for democracy, as if by itself it could guarantee tolerance and mutual respect among persons and allegiance to majority decisions. A healthy democracy promotes the dignity of every human person and respect for his or her inviolable and inalienable rights…Without an objective moral anchorage, not even democracy can ensure a stable peace (Evangelium vitae, 70). Again moral norms, moral order and a failing memory of the sad times for human rights which Europe suffered when the Catholic Church was in command.
Furthermore, such pronouncements which disqualify our democratic institutions are accompanied by continuous attempts by the Vatican to impose the Catholic moral doctrine by law and go as far as threatening punishments in this world or in the next to Catholic politicians who do not toe the Vatican line. Besides, in the name of subsidiarity - much praised by pope Benedict - religious organisations insist on supplying basic public services while claiming huge opt outs from equality and human rights law. When a religious organisation becomes a state contractor, it actually becomes an arm of the state, thus blurring and erasing the distinction between private and public and especially between church and state. Is it this that the Catholic leaders seek?
My last quotation is drawn from the address of Archbishop Dominique Mamberti, secretary for Relations with States, to the OSCE high-level meeting on christianophobia held on 12 September in Rome. It concerns religious freedom, truth, relativism, a slanderous judgment on non believers and the usual warped idea of pluralism, expressed in the customary peremptory language of Vatican representatives :… A freedom which is hostile or indifferent to God becomes self-negating and does not guarantee full respect for others…. The illusion that moral relativism provides the key for peaceful coexistence is actually the origin of divisions and the denial of the dignity of human beings. Precisely this vision which identifies freedom with relativism or militant agnosticism, and which casts doubt on the possibility of ever knowing the truth, could be an underlying factor in the increased occurrence of those hate incidents and crimes which will be the object of our debate today”.
In other words, no concept of religious freedom is valid unless it conforms to and promotes Roman Catholic doctrine. Anyone taking a more generous view of freedom of religion or belief is an unprincipled nihilist liable to promote hate and commit crime. It is only by wrapping up what it means in the obscurest jargon that the Catholic Church can get away with such naked subversion of democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
Although other churches, such as the Orthodox church, may share the same views as the Catholic church on the subject of democracy and of the rule of law, I have concentrated my attention on statements of authoritative Vatican representatives for two reasons. Being an Italian citizen and living in Rome I have a personal and (alas) daily experience of the invasiveness of the Catholic church in public life. Which does not mean I do not recognize the social and public dimension of freedom of religion. Religion and churches are most welcome in the public square – at a par with other religions and civil society associations - provided they are respectful of all citizens, but most unwelcome in the institutional sphere where private, non-elected bodies such as churches do not belong. The second reason for which I have referred exclusively to the Vatican regards the policy it pursues in European bodies, the EU in particular, despite it being the only European state that has not signed the European Convention on Human Rights; a policy which, as the above quotations confirm, contradicts the principles laid down in the basic EU and international instruments of which OSCE member states are signatories.
The Vatican representatives do not seem to distinguish between legality and transcendence or between private and public and look down on the hard-won principles of democracy and of the rule of law we all adhere to, believers and non-believers alike. Besides, they are oblivious of the fact that 35 to 50% of Europeans do not care about religion and that even the majority who consider themselves Catholics do not follow church precepts especially in matters such as sexual and reproductive life. This notwithstanding, the Vatican leaders who ludicrously consider the Catholic church an “expert in humanity”, declare that the religious dimension embraces the whole range of human concerns and lends competence to the church in almost all matters, seeking so to justify why Catholic church representatives intervene in practically all aspects of public and institutional life. Pope Benedict even attacked the ¬UK government's equality legislation, claiming it threatened religious freedom and ran contrary to "natural law". I personally recall the order given to Catholics by cardinal Ruini, then head of the Italian Bishop’s conference, to boycott the vote on assisted procreation so as to make the referendum fail for lack of a quorum; besides the frequent incitements to break the law on, for ex. the supply of contraceptives.
The intent of this paper is to raise awareness among governments and NGOs on the policy pursued by religious representatives who believe that their moral doctrine is the only source of morality and should therefore be enforced by law on a population that, increasingly, is using its freedom of religion or belief to abandon religion altogether.
Of course, we realize that whenever elements of the Catholic moral doctrine find their way into laws voted by parliament, thus eroding the tenets of democracy and of the rule of law, it is our elected politicians who are to be held to account. The deliberately confounding language used by the Vatican hierarchy is a good excuse for them to hide their heads in the sand."
torsdag 29 september 2011
David Pollock's statement
“Since we last met, the European Court of Human Rights has performed its 180 degree turn in the Lautsi case and in one of the worst argued and most unconvincing judgements for years has vindicated Italy’s law forcing every classroom in the land to display a Christian crucifix.
I want to focus this morning on one aspect of the arguments over the case - the dangerous contention that a blank wall cannot be neutral. For if this is accepted it potentially undermines the whole concept of secularism, whether in the sense of rigid separation of state and religion or in the sense of equidistance. Beyond that, all law about equality and non-discrimination must also be in danger, and the idea of a type of teaching that is not indoctrination is called into question.
We cannot have this!
But of course, the idea that a blank wall is not neutral is surely farcical. It is advanced to justify a grotesquely unequal status quo. Let us examine one of the submissions in the case – one coordinated by the Becket Fund and signed by a string of law professors. They argue:
“Neutrality is not achieved by removing religion from public debate, because the very act of removal sends a message of hostility towards religious belief”.
The same argument was put bluntly in a recent lecture in London by Professor Joseph Weiler, one of the counsel in the case for Italy. He said:
“It is a binary position - no neutrality is possible -there either is or is not a crucifix on the wall”.
The argument is obviously without foundation. It is sad that intelligent and eminent professors should for the sake of religion so demean themselves by endorsing such special pleading.
The argument illegitimately compares a continuing state of affairs with a transitional act. It tries to defend a grossly unfair state of affairs by seeing a move to a fair state as an act of aggression against the currently privileged position.
If it were valid, the argument would rule out any correction of any unbalanced situation because the “very act” of correcting it would “send a message of hostility” to the unfairly favoured position.
So, supposing the Italian state was broadcasting Christian sermons on all TV and radio channels in a way that was clearly not neutral and represented a serious curtailment of the freedom of expression of non-Christians, we are asked to believe that any move to break this monopoly, to reduce this preponderance of one side would be unacceptable because it would be seen as hostile to Christianity!
Suppose that schools were indoctrinating all children with one confessional religion – whether it was Christianity, Islam, Scientology, or whatever - no correction would be possible, because it would be hostile to the favoured religion.
We are dealing here with religion or belief – a matter on which there can be no human certainty except in the psychological conviction of individual persons. The state, the courts have no way of judging between rival contentions.
Even if they could call Jesus, Mohamed the Buddha and Joseph Smith to give evidence, they could not find a valid way to rule for one or another.
In this context, neutrality is a vital and desirable condition for state institutions. What is the alternative? Necessarily, to take sides for one group of citizens against another - to deny the freedom of religion or belief of all but those who hold the favoured beliefs.
Neutrality is the minimum condition for secularism. The argument made in defence of Italy - though not adopted in its badly argued judgement by the European Court of Human Rights - is based on a dangerous and fallacious idea. It needs to be discredited and ruled out of any serious argument about the place of religion or belief in law.”
I want to focus this morning on one aspect of the arguments over the case - the dangerous contention that a blank wall cannot be neutral. For if this is accepted it potentially undermines the whole concept of secularism, whether in the sense of rigid separation of state and religion or in the sense of equidistance. Beyond that, all law about equality and non-discrimination must also be in danger, and the idea of a type of teaching that is not indoctrination is called into question.
We cannot have this!
But of course, the idea that a blank wall is not neutral is surely farcical. It is advanced to justify a grotesquely unequal status quo. Let us examine one of the submissions in the case – one coordinated by the Becket Fund and signed by a string of law professors. They argue:
“Neutrality is not achieved by removing religion from public debate, because the very act of removal sends a message of hostility towards religious belief”.
The same argument was put bluntly in a recent lecture in London by Professor Joseph Weiler, one of the counsel in the case for Italy. He said:
“It is a binary position - no neutrality is possible -there either is or is not a crucifix on the wall”.
The argument is obviously without foundation. It is sad that intelligent and eminent professors should for the sake of religion so demean themselves by endorsing such special pleading.
The argument illegitimately compares a continuing state of affairs with a transitional act. It tries to defend a grossly unfair state of affairs by seeing a move to a fair state as an act of aggression against the currently privileged position.
If it were valid, the argument would rule out any correction of any unbalanced situation because the “very act” of correcting it would “send a message of hostility” to the unfairly favoured position.
So, supposing the Italian state was broadcasting Christian sermons on all TV and radio channels in a way that was clearly not neutral and represented a serious curtailment of the freedom of expression of non-Christians, we are asked to believe that any move to break this monopoly, to reduce this preponderance of one side would be unacceptable because it would be seen as hostile to Christianity!
Suppose that schools were indoctrinating all children with one confessional religion – whether it was Christianity, Islam, Scientology, or whatever - no correction would be possible, because it would be hostile to the favoured religion.
We are dealing here with religion or belief – a matter on which there can be no human certainty except in the psychological conviction of individual persons. The state, the courts have no way of judging between rival contentions.
Even if they could call Jesus, Mohamed the Buddha and Joseph Smith to give evidence, they could not find a valid way to rule for one or another.
In this context, neutrality is a vital and desirable condition for state institutions. What is the alternative? Necessarily, to take sides for one group of citizens against another - to deny the freedom of religion or belief of all but those who hold the favoured beliefs.
Neutrality is the minimum condition for secularism. The argument made in defence of Italy - though not adopted in its badly argued judgement by the European Court of Human Rights - is based on a dangerous and fallacious idea. It needs to be discredited and ruled out of any serious argument about the place of religion or belief in law.”
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)