1. Dialogue is always positive for society and should
be encouraged, in particular dialogue between different cultural
experiences. As Ms Brasseur rightly notes, the Council of Europe
dealt with the issue in its “White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue”
of 2008.
2. As Europe is multicultural, intercultural dialogue is indispensable
for social cohesion. In spite of different historical and cultural
backgrounds, the peoples of Europe are united by common universal
values: democracy, rule of law and respect for human rights, including
respect for cultural diversity.
3. Religion is a dimension of culture, which is valued by many,
influencing their approach to the realities of the world. Religion
has played an important role in Europe’s history, in particular
in the establishment of a system of shared values. The secularism
of today’s Europe is not leading towards elimination of the public
role of the religions as promoters of values.
4. We must acknowledge the steps taken by various religious leaders
to promote peace, tolerance and mutual understanding and to eliminate
hate among religious and culturally different peoples. Examples
include the Vlatadon Initiative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of
the Orthodox Church, which brought together High representatives
of different religions from the Balkan region in 2001 in order to
achieve tolerance between different religions; the World Day of
Prayer for Peace in Assisi (an initiative taken by the Catholic
Church during the pontificate of the late Pope John Paul II) with
representatives of different religions; the Open Letter of 2007 signed
by 138 eminent representatives of Islam to the Christians; the Theological
Dialogue between the Orthodox and Catholic Church and the adoption
of the joint Document of Ravenna.
5. In its
Recommendation
1804 (2007) on state, religion, secularity and human
rights, the Assembly recommended that the Committee of Ministers
identify and disseminate examples of good practice in respect of
dialogue with leaders of religious communities. In the rapporteur’s
opinion, one such example is the active participation of high representatives
of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church in the rescue of the entire Bulgarian Jewish
community in 1943, during the period of the Holocaust.
6. In the same recommendation, the Assembly reaffirms that “one
of Europe’s shared values, transcending national differences, is
the separation of church and state”. This is a generally accepted
principle that prevails in politics and institutions in democratic
countries. In its
Recommendation
1720 (2005) on education and religion, for instance,
the Assembly had noted that “each person’s religion, including the
option of having no religion, is a strictly personal matter”.
7. There is no single European arrangement for relations between
states and religious communities. In the member states of the Council
of Europe such arrangements include a clear separation between state
and religions, a “state church” model, a
“concordat” model between church and state, and a “predominant church” model,
all of which are compatible with Article 9 of the European Convention
on Human Rights. There are also cases of member states with no special
arrangement for such relations.
8. The Assembly recognised the importance of intercultural dialogue
and its religious dimension and declared itself “willing to help
devise a comprehensive Council of Europe strategy in this area.”
It considered, however, “in the light of the principle of the separation
of church and state, that inter-religious and interdenominational
dialogue was not a matter for states or for the Council of Europe”.
9. As any other actors, religions are entitled to express their
views on society. Dozens of religious and non-religious organisations
are already represented at the Council of Europe by virtue of the
participatory status of non-governmental organisations.
10. Freedom of expression is one of the most important human rights,
as the Assembly has repeatedly affirmed. The draft recommendation
presented by the Committee on Culture, Science and Education indicates in
its paragraph 4 that “freedom of religion and freedom to have a
philosophical or secular world view are inseparable from unreserved
acceptance by all of the fundamental values enshrined in the Convention”.
In paragraph 10, it refers to “the need to protect the rights of
persons with humanist convictions who adhere to these fundamental
values”. As the protection of anyone’s rights cannot be subject
to an acceptation or an adherence to values, and in order to avoid
misunderstandings and to improve clarity, I propose a slightly revised
wording.
11. In the same paragraph 10, there is a reference to “persons
with humanist convictions”. As this could seem restrictive I propose
to replace that expression by “non-believers”. For the same reason,
it would be advisable to replace, in sub-paragraph 17.1, “chief
humanist organisations” by “representatives of relevant non-religious
associations”.
12. Still in paragraph 10, there is a reference to the obligation
of states to “ensure that … any preferential support granted to
certain religions does not become disproportionate and discriminatory
in practice”. To avoid any misunderstanding and for the sake of
clarity, it would be better to delete the reference to “discriminatory”.
