Democracy in Europe

 <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Following the Rally held in Paris on 6 December, 2003, and our letter to the European Heads of Government, many of our supporters forwarded copies of the letter to their MEPs. Of the replies we received, some were supportive, and some, like those from European President Romano Prodi and Dutch Prime Minister J.P. Balkenende, were non-committal. One reply, however, stands out for its sheer awfulness. We reprint this letter below together with the very strong response that it merited, and received. It is from a British MEP and former advisor on ethnic issues to the former Conservative Party leader Ian Duncan-Smith. Some MEPs, it would appear, don’t actually understand who they represent, and apparently can’t wait for Europe to return to the authoritarian control of the papacy.

 

The issue of the European Constitution has now been revived. Every European Humanist and Secularist must continue to lobby and press for the elimination of special privileges for religion.

 

From EU President, Romano Prodi:

Brussels

27 – 01 – 2004

 

Dear Mr. Brown, Dear Mr. Gogineni,

 

I received your e-mail of 9 December 2003 containing your observations regarding the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, and I have studied your contribution carefully.

 

The failure to reach agreement at the European Council on 12–13 December on the adoption of the European Constitution need not act as a brake. As I emphasised on 15 December “the spirit of the Convention is still alive”. The draft Treaty produced by the Convention will provide the basis for further discussions.

 

Article 1–51 of the draft Constitution, on the status of Churches and non-confessional organisations, is not intended to prejudice civil society organisations. The provisions of Title VI aim to establish and maintain an open and permanent dialogue between citizens and the European Union’s institutions. The consultations to be initiated by the European Commission and the promotion of the role of the social partners at the Union level are measures that will allow all organisations to play a major part in the building of Europe.

 

Thank your for your interest in the development of the European Constitution.

 

From Mr Nirj Deva, MEP:

25th February 2004

 

Dear Mr Morcom

Thank you for your email of 9th December. Please forgive the delay in responding.

 

I regret to say that I do not agree with you that allowing the Church “to stifle socially progressive legislation [will be a] giant step back towards medieval theocracy”. It is increasingly apparent to me that the 6 million or so abortions since the 1967 Abortion Act was passed are 6 million legalised instances of infanticide: UK law does not recognise the murder of a child under one year old.

 

If the Church had the control of the State, which you seem to fear is being granted now, back in 1967, we doubtless would not all be under the burden of this terrifying collective guilt.

 

Really I cannot support your complaint, and I most certainly do not agree with you that “socially progressive legislation” is to be desired. It is to be observed, in fact, that people who advocate such things in practice have no real concern for the poor and underprivileged, but just want to look clever in front of their Guardian-reading friends.

 

I do not see those living in complete poverty of hope on the council estates across my constituency constantly raising their hands in gratitude to the late Roy Jenkins for allowing the easier dissolution of marriages back in1965. In fact, it has left millions of children in broken homes that are, of necessity, completely dependent upon the provisions of the State.

 

Atheistic platitudes should be confined to the wine bars of Hampstead. When they enter the statute book as legislation, the irresponsibility towards the vulnerable and voiceless is a negligence that really is criminal.

 

I do not think that having the Church, whose values through time are eternal, and whose message is unchanging, involved in legislation is a thing to be feared. If it does not talk up at high level for those whose lives really are affected by the decisions of government, who will? It is always the response of the Left in politics, after it has made a mess of things through its meddling, to always try the same balm. If people are poor and deprived of hope, raise taxes and spend money on them. The questions of why people are in such a position are never asked.

 

And the result of all this “social progression” is to tie everybody, deeper and deeper into ever more dependence on the State. I do not call that progress, and am sorry to not be able to champion your cause on this occasion.

 

With best wishes,

Nirj Deva

 

From Rick Morcom to Deva:

 

Dear Mr Deva

 

I am writing in reply to your letter of 25th February in which you replied to my concerns regarding Article 51 of the proposed European Constitution. I found your response superficial and quite extraordinarily offensive. You can know nothing of my work among the poor and underprivileged yet presume to lecture me on the subject.

 

I believe you have been a special adviser for ethnic affairs within your party. In that capacity I am sure you would have become aware of the un-wisdom of stereotyping, yet this is exactly what you are doing in your condescending comments about people who “just want to look clever in front of their Guardian-reading friends”. You also appear to be unable to distinguish between support for a secular society, which is common to holders of many beliefs, and what you refer to as “atheistic platitudes” that “should be confined to the wine bars of Hampstead”.

 

I had understood that you were elected to the European Parliament to represent the people of South East England, not simply that minority of the Catholic community that accept the deeply conservative Vatican line on social issues. Unlike the late John F. Kennedy, you clearly see adherence to Vatican dogma as a higher duty than representing the people who elected you.

 

You seem to be unaware – or perhaps uncaring – that Vatican policy has actually been responsible for maintaining high levels of abortion world-wide by restricting the availability of modern contraceptives, and is still responsible for endangering the lives of countless millions by spreading misinformation about the efficacy of condoms in the fight against AIDS.

 

On the question of divorce, you seem to be ignorant of the evidence from Ireland and South America that where divorce is illegal it does not avoid broken homes; it simply increases the number of couples living in unmarried and less stable relationships. Marriages have always broken down and the breakdown has caused much misery. Trying to force people to remain in deeply unhappy and sometimes violent relationships is not a humane solution.

 

You suggest that if the Church had had control of the State back in 1967, 6 million abortions would have been avoided. Not so. As evidence from Ireland has also shown, the abortion rate is determined more by the availability of adequate contraception than by legislation. Criminalizing abortion does not save babies, it kills mothers. Had the Church had control of the State since 1500 we would still be burning heretics and forcing scientists like Galileo to recant. Since the Church has always shown itself inimical to democracy, we should no doubt still be living in a rigidly hierarchical and unequal society, with no concept of rights for women.

You also quaintly suggest that the values of the Church through time are eternal. Yet even in the case of abortion, as of much else, the Church has changed its views. Other examples are slavery, once accepted and now condemned, and usury, once condemned and now accepted. The present Pope has even admitted that the Church made mistakes over Galileo. The history of the Church shows a continuing process of reassessment and reinterpretation. Unfortunately, it still appears to find it supremely difficult to admit that it could ever have been completely wrong about anything.

 

I have no doubt that you are sincere in your beliefs. You are no doubt able to justify to your own conscience the intolerable suffering for which Vatican policy on AIDS, abortion, divorce and contraception have been, and continue to be, responsible. I am sure you believe that such suffering is justified if it leads to the greater hegemony of the Catholic Church. You will understand that as a Humanist I am unable to support your position. For me, actions must be justified by their outcomes, not by an appeal to some “higher”, papal authority now seen by many as morally bankrupt.

 

It is the strongly held view of many Humanists and Secularists that democracy would be severely compromised by giving churches and other religious institutions privileged access to pre-legislative deliberations in Europe. We are committed to a secular society that embodies the separation of church and state. This is not an anti-religious stance. Secularism can guarantee freedom and security for all religions with special treatment for none. The proposed European Constitution was a miserable and convoluted document. We should rather take a lesson from the elegant and effective constitution formulated more than two centuries ago by the Founding Fathers of the United States.

 

I append an extract from a speech made by the late John F Kennedy that I urge you to read.

 

Yours sincerely,

Rick Morcom

 

JFK September 12, 1960 – Address to Southern Baptist leaders

“... I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute – where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be a Catholic) how to act and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote – where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference – and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

 

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish – where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source – where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials – and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all...” “I do not speak for my church on public matters – and the church does not speak for  me.

 

Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected – on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling, or any other subject – I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictate. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.”