The heart of the matter

Contrasting views in the Labour ranks in Tuesday's discussion within the European and Foreign Affairs Committee reflected the correct fact that freedom of thought should not be constrained by any common front on matters of conscience, as well as the breadth there can be to personal interpretation of history.

There were no contrasting views, indeed there was much silence, among the MPs appointed to the Committee by the government side. The foreign minister, Dr Joe Borg, said that Malta wholeheartedly supported the insertion of a reference to God and the Christian heritage of Europe. It (Malta) maintained that as far as Europe's Christian heritage was concerned this was not an issue open to interpretation or belief, but a matter of historical fact.

I do not believe that by "Malta" the minister could have meant the people as a whole. That would not be correct at all. He must have used the term to signify the stand the government would be taking where it speaks for Malta. Various opinions expressed in the media, and the discussion within the Committee itself shows there are divergent views, as in other EU member or acceding countries.

Evarist Bartolo observed that the former President of the EU Commission, Jacques Delors asked if it would not be better to refer to the three major religions in Europe - Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Dr Joseph Herera (Labour) said in the committee - as did Robert Arrigo (Nationalist) - that he was among those who had signed a petition for the EU Constitution to refer to God and Christianity. Europe, he said, had developed under the umbrella of Christianity.

Another Labour MP, Dr John Attard Montalto, said it was important for the preamble to include a reference to God, but it would be a mistake to refer to the Christian heritage of Europe. I think so too, but not on the grounds, mooted by both Mr Bartolo and Dr Attard Montalto, that proposed reference to Christianity at the EU level was intended to exclude Turkey (and other states, such as Bosnia) from joining the Union.

For centuries Europe's Christian powers warred with each other. Their rulers sent thousands upon thousands of soldiers to slaughter each other in the name of the One God, blasphemously thanking Him for His help for victory against Christian enemies. Religious intolerance within Christian states was rampant. Combined intolerance of and hate towards followers of Judaism and Islam culminated in armed efforts to destroy them, though such believers also looked towards the One God.

That does not weave into a proud common Christian heritage or, in those respects, in a heritage to be proud of. There is a further perspective to keep in mind. What is termed as modern Europe passed through turmoil to achieve separation between Church and State. To move towards a European Constitution of the 'professing' type is not the best way forward, even if one ignores that the EU of the 25 will be a kaleidoscope of faiths. Although Christianity would be that of the majority of Euro-citizens, there would be nothing worse than to make - despite the lessons of history - faith subject to majority opinion.

Faith is internal, whatever religion one professes. For that reason there should be a reference to God, as individuals know Him in their own way, in their own heart, which they refuse to leave empty. A union of nations with an empty heart cannot tick.