Austin Bencini
The Cross , Christianity and human rights
Fr Mark Montebello suggests Christians should not insist on the Cross being displayed in public places because "the Cross itself does not allow disrespect or separations and, as such, must not be used in any public place where its presence can suggest as much".
Fr Montebello's praiseworthy Christian attitude of "turning the other cheek" however misses the danger to the constitutional protection of everyone's fundamental rights, irrespective of one's religion, caused by the controversial judgement of the European Court of Fundamental Human Rights of the Council of Europe in disallowing the Cross from public school classrooms.
We all have to appreciate that the question of the Cross in the classroom is one that strictly involves the state and not the Church.
The judgement challenges the authority of the state's Constitution to identify those values, and the symbols that represent them, which unite the Maltese in one state, sharing common goals and ideals. In other words, it questions the very constitutional order of the state.
Malta is definitely not a confessional state. The very first article of the Constitution declares that "Malta is a Republic founded on work and on the respect of the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual".
Chief among the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual is the freedom from being discriminated against on the basis of one's creed or religious belief. So the state is prohibited by our supreme law from allowing any discrimination on the basis of religion. It has the positive duty of preventing religious intolerance in all its forms and manifestations.
A confessional state would not be burdened by such a fundamental duty. On the contrary, a confessional state would be obliged to impose the state religion on all of its citizens to the exclusion of all the other forms of creeds.
The unanimous condemnation expressed by the political parties, and the vast majority of Maltese public opinion, to the Lautsi case proves that Malta is not a confessional state. Otherwise, they would have welcomed it.
This brings us to Fr Montebello's thinking. The Court justified the complaint of a parent that the Cross caused "emotional distress" to students not professing the Catholic faith. This is the most disturbing part of the judgement where the freedom of religion is concerned.
The intolerance of the parents of a pupil reached the alarming level whereby the very sight of a symbol of a religion by her child becomes the cause of grave "emotional distress" and this even though her child was not forced to attend lessons teaching the Catholic doctrine nor was the child forced to attend any religious ceremonies.
The Court is wrong.
The classic test to see if tolerance, say, on the basis of colour exists, consists in not even acknowledging the difference in colour of the skin of another individual. It lies precisely in having black and white persons all sitting together in an office without there even existing remotely any reference to the difference in colour. So if one person were to state that the presence of a black person in the room caused him "emotional distress", then for there to be racial tolerance would the room have to be composed of only white persons?
As Foreign Minister Tonio Borg has correctly pointed out ,the judgement, if confirmed, would itself become the very cause of religious intolerance particularly in those countries where the state has successfully managed to integrate the creeds of persons as to accept and cohabit with the religious symbols of other religions.
The principle of tolerance dictates that the solution lies elsewhere. Who can possibly object to have the symbol of another religion displayed in some part of the classroom in order to ensure that the child feels part of the community she is now in ? Would not Fr Montebello agree to this solution?
The state would be living up to its constitutional duty of observing article one of the Constitution in the child's regard without showing any intolerance to the symbol that to most has become a national symbol in the same manner in which many adopt the Church wedding even though they may never intend to enter a Catholic church afterwards.
The Lautsi case has vindicated that a child now looks for any sign of the Catholic faith around her to have it removed from her sight instead of educating that same child to learn to fight for the right of her classmates to have the symbol they believe in present in class together with that of her own belief.
This applies more so if the parents of the child be atheists because, in all those states in which the state adopted intolerant atheist ideologies, the Cross and all other religious symbols were not just removed from the classroom but also from the churches and private homes.
The Mahatma Ghandi preached religious tolerance when India was rife with religious intolerance and exhorted the reading of the Holy books of all religions. The European Court would have us reading none in the name of the freedom of religion!
17 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Michael Grech
Nov 23rd 2009, 16:04
@E Muscat If “:a confessional state …(is) a state which does not allow other
religions to exist …” then Iran, Libya and Franco’s Catholic Spain would not
be confessional states, since they allowed other religions to exist. They only
promoted and favoured one creed and its mores.
His reply seems to insinuated that I said “…that religious symbols are banned in
France and the USA …”. This is obviously not the case, as is evident to anyone
who can read plain English. What my comment implies is that religious symbols are
not displayed in PUBLIC that is STATE OWNED buildings in France and the US (e.g.
public schools, law courts and government departments etc). Obviously, citizens are
free to display such symbols at home or in places of worship like mosques, synagoges
and churches.
Michael Grech
Nov 23rd 2009, 07:52
@E Muscat, so that would make Saudi Arabia the only confessional state. States like Iran, Libya or Franco's Spain for that matter, do 'allow other religions to exist'; they only favour and promote one of them. This would not make them confessional states given your and Bencini's wide (and incorrect) understanding of the term.
Victor Zammit
Nov 22nd 2009, 11:41
Well, quasi-confessional, to square the circle and maybe keep us happy at some level. ‘Quasi’ not strictly in terms of law but depending on the government of the day and on what laws are enccted, like the official religion constitutional clause and recognition of foreign divorces. Only if we were wholly secularists or confessionalists the Lautsi case would not have arisen, not the other way round.
Beside that, I notice that Dr Bencini mentions only the ‘Cross’. We know what cross it is from context. No other cross by whatever name. He adds further that ‘the question … strictly involves the state and not the Church.’ By the same token then, the State (ie Malta, not its government of the day) takes on a religious capacity. It must do so, however, on strictly non-confessional grounds: it takes on that capacity on something other than religion. What? Tradition and/or history? Likely. But on a ‘quasi-confessional’ basis, there could be religious implications. Debating the official religion clause in the constitution, like red-herring removal of the ‘George Cross’, is easier said than done, pace Mr Frans Sammut.
David Borg
Nov 21st 2009, 23:20
Re Lou Bondi
Malta is not a confessional state in the strict meaning of the expression as it is not intolerant towards other religions.
What Prof Refalo may have meant was that the Constitution recognizes the Catholic Church as the religion of Malta. This State religion or State recognition means that Malta is not a secular state and so can be called a confessional state in the wide meaning of the term.
Frans Sammut
Nov 21st 2009, 20:09
I am sure Mr Bondi would like his comment to be taken as an honest, straightforward invitation to debate on whether Malta should be a confessional state or not.
Whatever Mr Bondi's intentions are or may be, there is not really much room for debate here. The Constitution of Malta declares that the religion of Malta is the Catholic Religion. Strictly speaking all those who are railing against the relative Constitutional clause are putting themselves outside the law and ought to be prosecuted. The reason why they are not is possibly because they subscribe to the PN. Some of them enjoy police protection to boot.
Mr Bondi ought to ask what percentage of parliamentary votes are needed to change that clause.
I'm not airing an opinion here. I am just stating facts.
Is Mr Bondi's suggestion to have a debate on the subject meant to divert the public's attention from other pressing matters that need to be tackled and CAN be tackled given that there is no Constitutional "obstruction" in the way?
Franco Farrugia
Nov 21st 2009, 19:40
I happen to agree with what Fr Montebello wrote in yesterday's article and I cannot understand those who claim that Montebello wants to remove Crucifixes from the classrooms.
@ Frans Sammut: We cannot understand what you wanted to mean - when you only want the addressed person to understand, please don't use the public medium! There is such a thing as e-mail.
E.Muscat
Nov 21st 2009, 17:39
@M.Grech:a confessional state was well explained by Dr.Bencini to be a state which does not allow other religions to exist of which we have a lot of examples in the muslim world.The culture of a country is also highly influenced by the religion of that country.So we need to protect our symbols.Saying that religious symbols are banned in France and the USA is pure fantasy!
Frans Sammut
Nov 21st 2009, 16:54
Dr Austin Bencini must be very thankful that Fr Mark Montebello declared his real feelings about THE issue of the moment. Otherwise he (Bencini that is) would not have been able to declare HIS real feelings on the matter for fear of giving offence to PN pundits who have been vehemently denigrating them (HIS real feelings, that is).
I know that may sound somewhat complicated, but Dr Bencini understands perfectly well what I am saying and might want to respond .
victor zammit
Nov 21st 2009, 15:32
Without in any way detracting from the points raised in the article, which I found refreshing and novel, I wonder how a confessional state could have welcomed the Lautsi case? Imposing the state religion and welcoming the removal of its symbol do not, I think, go together. Be that as it may, to date correspondence has lingered on the removal of the religious symbol from a classroom; this article (rhetorically) asks who can possibly object to have the symbol of another religion displayed in some part of the classroom. I do not know which is the obverse or the reverse of this ‘coin’, but I cannot for the life of me imagine a classroom with different religious symbols, that is if I am not missing something in the drift of the article. You can call me names then! That apart, let me at least dare presume that what might sway the 17 Grand Chamber judges in appeal eventually will be the fact that this symbol – the cross - is part of the tradition of a nation, a continent. And as Milan Kundera said, tradition is the memory of a people. What if you take that away?
Lou Bondi
Nov 21st 2009, 14:37
Contrary to Dr Austin Bencini's statement that "Malta is definitely not a confessional state", the eminent constitutional lawyer, and Head of the Law Faculty of the University of Malta, Dr Ian Refalo declared on Bondiplus tha it is. It would be interesting to have a deeper debate to see who is correct.
Emanuel Cilia Debono
Nov 21st 2009, 13:48
In my opinion secularisation of the State implies merely a separation of roles between Church and State; but it does not necessarily imply a conflict of opposition of the two.
. There are fields of activity where claims of Church and State overlap. In such situations one should opt for agreed solutions based on sound reasoning ,respect for human dignity and for national culture. Mr. Michael Grech cites the USA and France as examples of secular States. In my opinion these models do not necessarily apply everywhere, since national cultures differ.
Those advocating extreme views on secularisation separate religious manifestations from other forms of cultural manifestations, and by so doing, they hinder cultural diversity in such an important area as religious worship. The prohibition by the State of the public display of religious symbols tends to generate conflict. In a State ,like Malta, with a long and deep seated religious tradition, prohibition of Christian symbols implies a loss of cultural identity. Do not proponents of the removal of crucifixes in public places realise the cultural loss they seek to inflict; or, are they too willing to sacrifice the beauty of diversity for the mediocrity of cultural globalisation.
Edward Camilleri
Nov 21st 2009, 13:14
@The Court justified the complaint of a parent that the Cross caused "emotional distress" to students not professing the Catholic faith. This is the most disturbing part of the judgement where the freedom of religion is concerned.
I don't find this conclusion surprising. The Cross is the symbol of a religion where you are indoctrinated from young into believing that if you do something wrong then you are burned in hell! Who are the Catholics to decide what is wrong and what is good, and therefore who burns in hell or go to heaven? Didn't it ever occur to them that if there is someone up there, he or she will obviously not patronize one of the last species in the world that are consistently destroying what was built by evolution during the last millions of years?
Michael Grech
Nov 21st 2009, 11:18
“…the symbol …has become a national symbol in the same manner in which many adopt the Church wedding even though they may never intend to enter a Catholic church afterwards”. As a Catholic, this is what I find highly offensive!
“The Lautsi case has vindicated that a child now looks for any sign of the Catholic faith around her to have it removed from her sight instead of educating that same child to learn to fight for the right of her classmates to have the symbol they believe in present in class together with that of her own belief.” What about unbelievers? Will they be allowed to display signs reading ‘there is no God’ etc?
Removing the cross does not entail an ‘atheist ideology’ or persecuting religion, as Austin fallaciously suggests. It is not merely communist Russia and China which have/had no crosses; the display of religious symbols is illegal in France and the United States (the cradles of modern democracy). I don’t think that Austin would maintain that in these nations follow ‘atheist’ ideologies (if anything they are secular) or perseuctre religion?
Michael Grech
Nov 21st 2009, 11:17
“The classic test to see if tolerance, say, on the basis of colour exists, consists in not even acknowledging the difference in colour of the skin of another individual. It lies precisely in having black and white persons all sitting together in an office without there even existing remotely any reference to the difference in colour.” Substitue ‘religion’ for ‘colour’ The problem in our case is that there is a symbol referring to one’s religion. Imagine a mixed black-white classrooms displaying (exclusively) ‘white (or black for that matter) rules’ , ‘white (black) supremacy’, etc. Would such a classroom be tolerant, albeit ‘welcoming’ black and white students?
“..,the judgement, …would itself become the very cause of religious intolerance particularly in those countries where the state has successfully managed to integrate the creeds of persons as to accept and cohabit with the religious symbols of other religions.” This does not apply to Malta. I’ve been teaching for the past eight years, and I never seen the ‘integration’ of any religious symbols except for Catholic ones.
Michael Grech
Nov 21st 2009, 11:12
It’s not turning the other cheek; its’ acknowleding that current society is hetergeneous to the point that the cross and more importantly the values it representes (which a lot of Maltese do not display – see their attitudes to immigrants, prisoners, etc). no longer “…unite the Maltese in one state, sharing common goals and ideals.”
“A confessional state would not be burdened by such a fundamental duty. On the contrary, a confessional state would be obliged to impose the state religion on all of its citizens to the exclusion of all the other forms of creeds.”
Wrong: Iran, the foremost confessional state; does not impose one religion on all its citizens, forcing them to convert. Yet; it promotes the religion of the majority and imposes its maxims on the rest.
“The unanimous condemnation expressed by the political parties, and the vast majority of Maltese public opinion, to the Lautsi case proves that Malta is not a confessional state.” –the support of political parties and of the vast majority of the nation’s citizens does not entail that the state is not confessional. Confessionality does not imply an imposing minority; nor has it anything to do with majority rule or consent .
Emanuel Cilia Debono
Nov 21st 2009, 11:11
I fully endorse Dr. Bencini's views about the display of the Crucifix in public places ( not distinguishing between official and non official places).The principle of religious tolerance also requires that symbols of other religious groups should be respected where appropriate. Atheists and agnostics should learn to tolerate such symbols and not attempt to impose their anti religious philosophy on the majority.
During the TV programme 'Xarabank' Fr. Montebello 'conveniently' excluded 'religion' from his definition of 'culture'. A survey of the history of civilisations unmistakably shows that one of the earliest manifestations of human culture is religious. Fr. Montebello's exclusion is therefore not justified by facts. It can only be interpreted as an attempt to justify his preconceived notion of what is permissible or not permissible to display in Malta.
Secondly Fr. Mark's appearance holding a Cross, whilst vehemently pleading for the removal of the Crucifix from 'public' places conveys an ambiguous message to viewers. I can hardly believe that his purported effect on viewers is unintended, considering that Fr. Mark goes out of his way to account for psychological impacts when empathising with minority groups. Could Fr.Mark's performance on this occasion be meant to be theatrical?
Gerry Cowie
Nov 21st 2009, 11:08
Well said, Austin!
I was a little nonplussed by Father Montebello's approach, it sounding like appeasement!
As a Dominican, his habit includes a rosary hanging around his waist, which has a crucifix attached.
Secularists flooded in to applaud his words, siezing upon them as justification of their own opinions.
Some wondered why he was giving secularists such oxygen for their own arguments.
I hope he will explain himself in a little more detail.
At the end of the day he is right that we should be able to keep the Cross in our hearts, but I feel he may have gone too far in his policy of appeasement.