I don’t think Douglas Kmiec’s proposed preamble for our Constitution – that it should begin with an acknowledgement of “the Creator of the Universe and His Abundant Blessings” – ever had any realistic chance of being adopted, even if a wave of reaction hadn’t slammed it as inappropriate and exclusive. But it’s worth seeing why the clause would also put Catholics in a false position.

... the introduction of ‘faith’ into our Constitution would stink of bad faith- Ranier Fsadni

First, a clarification.

I don’t share the view that Prof. Kmiec had no place making his suggestions. I think there’s plenty of room for foreign constitutional experts in our deliberations. It would be useful to have, for example, a view from an expert on the careers of constitutions of Commonwealth states. In Prof. Kmiec’s case, I may not agree with him but he’s helped me understand why.

His proposal does not confuse Church and state. The creator he mentions is not linked to any particular religion (although non-monotheistic religions seem ruled out). But the preamble confuses state and theism, which should be troubling for Catholics (like me) as well.

First, it projects the republic as an alliance of theists, whoever they are, whatever their faith. The most important thing is, it seems that they do have a faith. However, this notion is far removed from Catholic social thought, which always addresses itself to all men and women, irrespective of belief and unbelief, as long as they have goodwill.

This is not a mere matter of political correctness. Faith in itself, for its own sake, is not important. What matters are the specific things you believe and practise. There are many unworthy faiths. Over the ages, Christians have learned much from, and shared common ground with, various kinds of atheists and agnostics – against other faiths they (rightly or wrongly) considered idolatrous, superstitious, cruel or repressive.

Charters like the International Declaration of Human Rights and organisations like Amnesty International owe a lot to the Christian tradition out of which they arose. However, as the political theorist Charles Taylor, speaking as a Catholic, has noted, there have been several occasions where breakthroughs in Christian thought were indebted to resolutely secularist political developments. Secularism is sometimes providential.

Therefore, any preamble that appears to drive a wedge between Catholics and anyone else is not just bad for the latter. It also distorts the catholicity of Catholics.

The second thing that’s wrong with the proposal is that it would set the Constitution, from day one, on a clash course with itself because it describes a theistic landscape that’s changing rapidly.

In so far as it’s an acknowledgement of a state of affairs – the Maltese people’s theism – the preamble is already at best imprecise. But you don’t need to be prophetic to see that, however small a minority there is of non-theists, under present social and cultural conditions it’s destined to grow significantly in the foreseeable future.

In this context, what a preamble referring to a creator would do is give the impression that the country’s current religious majority is battening down the hatches: hiding behind a non-confessional generic belief in God in order to constitutionalise theism.

In other words, the introduction of “faith” into our Constitution would stink of bad faith. Particularly if the state takes up Prof. Kmiec’s hint that schoolchildren should be taught, as part of their civic education, to know, love and recite the key passages of the document.

What would happen is that a growing and increasingly vocal minority would resent the Constitution as an imposition. They would be right. Should Catholics not be disturbed by religious imposition, suspicions of bad faith and social polarisation? It’s bad for them – for their projects of social solidarity, for their message of confidence in reason, for their own religious freedom.

I believe that what has led Prof. Kmiec astray is not just a misjudgement of Maltese society and culture, although there’s that too. He may speak about Maltese identity but in fact he’s making very American assumptions that are difficult to transplant. What he has effectively proposed is that the Constitution switches religions: a change from the Roman Catholic Church (as found in article 2) to a civil religion like that found in the United States.

The Declaration of Independence states that “all men are created equal”. Presidents routinely end addresses to the nation with “God Bless America”. Money may carry a motto of “In God We Trust”. The pledge of allegiance, recited in school as well as by new citizens, speaks of one nation “under God”. “Thanksgiving” is a national holiday that everyone has made their own.

However, those are now well-worn phrases in American culture. They are part of the mythology and rites of the nation. Few religious sceptics seem to mind them any more than they mind that the days of the week are called after Roman and Nordic gods.

In the US, it would be difficult to introduce them today. In Malta, some would sound positively alien. In a country where, traditionally, a blessing was given only by priests and parents (and grandparents), a President who ended his speeches with “God Bless Malta” would come across as patronising – and that’s just to the religious believers.

If the creator clause is not linked to an artificial and alienating civil religion, it will be left to dangle on its own, meaningless. I don’t think that’s respectful, either of God or ourselves.

ranierfsadni@europe.com