Symbols should reflect belief, not replace it

Fear that, because of its EU membership, Malta would be forced to take down crucifixes from classrooms have been adequately dispelled (e.g. by Fr Peter Serracino Inglott). One presumes the European Court of Human Rights has better things to do than to create such concern with a decision over a protest by one woman who does not know the meaning of tolerance, let alone rights.

Religious freedom is not about tolerance, which has within it a measure of condescension. 'We do not agree with you, but we tolerate you' - that sort of thing. A right is a whole within itself.

Freedom is a right that does not and should never depend on tolerance.

Even in a country of a large majority denomination, such as Malta and its professed Catholicism, we should not talk of tolerance of practitioners of religion. We believe in human rights. Muslims and others among us have their rights, as much as we have.

What no one should presume to have is a right to impose one's beliefs, traditions and practices upon others. If a non-Catholic student attends a classroom with a crucifix affixed in it, that schoolboy is and should remain free not to believe in the crucifixion dogma and its philosophy (to borrow the words of Imam Muhammad El Sadi, writing thoughtfully in Thursday's The Times).

What students and parents should not presume is the right to make Catholic students remove the crucifix from their classroom. Broadening the argument, immigrants should be free to carry with them their beliefs, traditions and practices, but not to the extent of imposing them on their hosts, or expecting to replace with them the beliefs, traditions and practices of the host country.

These arguments have been used by others all over the world. Yet weird decisions like that of the ECHR make repetition necessary. But not, I would add, to the point of rendering the position of those who make the argument open to questioning as to the depth of recognition of the implications involved.

While all of us should be free to maintain the symbols which remind us of our beliefs, that should not blind us to the fact that symbols and beliefs are two separate things. At the beginning and the end of the day it is the belief that counts, not its symbols.

This understanding was at the heart of the bishops' stand on the way feast days are celebrated in public manifestations. The traditional public celebrations are meant to be symbols of reverence for the patron saint. But the celebrants should never forget that it is not the statue that matters, much less the playing of marches and the raucous singing that accompanies them, or the fireworks let off in decibels apparently meant to revive dead saints and deaden the living.

The bishops' line of reasoning, which to my mind could not be more correct, applies to other symbols, including the crucifix. It is the belief in the mysterious mission of the God-made-man who died on the cross to redeem us that is essentially relevant. The crucifix is a material symbol to remind us of Him, to make us think, to call up our faith.

Away from polemics like those triggered by the European Court of Human Rights, belief and material symbols have become inextricably linked through the years. I understand the concept of doing something to revere God and the saints, like erecting a monument in their name. Yet I can never understand the degree of exaggeration to which that is carried out. The Vatican as a Church-monument expressing belief in our God I can understand. The Vatican Museums, the incredibly opulent papal apartments built through the ages - that I cannot take in.

All that material magnificence is not really an expression of faith. It is a naked form of self-serving papal conspicuous consumption which, in the end, makes me turn away in dismay. This was also brought to mind in the recent reports of the theft from the sanctuary to Our Lady at Żabbar.

It is, of course, revolting that anyone should break into a church with deliberate intent to steal from it.

It was sad to learn that the burglar or burglars stripped the statute of Our Lady of precious gifts which adorned it. I can understand the feeling of shock and resentment at such actions. Yet, the reminder of the bountiful adornments resuscitates an old question in mind of whether such symbols are really expressions of belief.

Do symbols have to be of material value? Were not the wild flowers picked from the wayside by our grandchildren to lay on the graves of our mums this November not as meritorious as the costly bouquets of flowers we bought for the same purpose, or even more?

I'm sure the Holy Mary appreciates prayers of thanks, of recourse to her, of belief, and assistance to less fortunate brethren far more than she does the gold rings and intricate necklaces placed on the fingers and around the necks of various statues of her all over our islands. Her field is belief, not riches.