To IHN readers across the world Europe must look a relatively homogenous area of mainly western liberal democracies. It must be fairly easy, therefore, to organise national Humanist organisations into a Federation? Well, not so! There are important divergences of approach, with differences along at least two main axes.

First, there is a north-south difference. In countries in the south the Roman Catholic (or further east the Orthodox) church still remains intensely influential - less so than before and subject to challenge in (for example) Spain from the government of Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, but powerful nevertheless. In consequence the European Humanist Foundation’s (EHF) member organisations here place their emphasis on atheism and secularism with a touch of anti-clericalism.

In the north, the Protestant revolution not only divided the church into numerous schisms but also put the spotlight on the individual conscience. The result has been a much greater willingness to entertain the possibility of a conscientious atheism or agnosticism, which has given room and encouragement for the development of Humanism as an ethical lifestance, indubitably non-religious but fulfilling for Humanists some of the same functions as a religion does for its adherents: providing a framework for answering so-called ‘ultimate questions’ and for dealing with moral problems. (The big difference is, of course, that religions have sacred authorities and ready answers that you have to buy as a package, whereas Humanism is a label applied post hoc when you have already adopted Humanist beliefs and attitudes.) In the north of Europe, therefore, are found most of our explicitly Humanist member organisations.

The second main division is between those countries where our member organisations are seeking total separation between church and state, religion and politics and those where they are instead seeking neutrality of the state vis à vis religion and belief. At the IHEU Congress in Paris in 2005 this division led to much discussion and an adjournment when a key resolution had to be redrafted to satisfy both groups.

The root of this division lies in the state subsidies received by Humanist organisations in some countries as an extension of the tradition of church taxes - Belgium and Norway are the main examples, while in the Netherlands some state functions are delivered through religious and Humanist bodies - this is where HIVOS gets most of its income. The majority of countries in Europe do in fact give financial support to one or more churches and it is much more likely in most of these countries that Humanist bodies could succeed in arguing for equal treatment than that they could persuade governments to abolish church taxes already established for decades (at least) and entrenched in the culture or even the constitutions of their countries.

EHF has, however, been united over the last ten years in opposing the special consultation rights proposed in the European Union for churches and other religious - and Humanist - organisations. First adopted in 1997 after lobbying by the Vatican, the clause was added to the draft Constitution after an unpublished submission by the full range of Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox churches in 2003 that made extraordinary demands - pre-legislative consultation, regular dialogue in seminars between the churches and the office of the Commission President, working sessions “on more specific issues whenever the churches . . . have a particular concern”, meetings with the Commission President and a liaison office within the Commission's offices in order to develop a “partnership” with the Commission.

Sadly, however, our hard-fought battle has been lost. Most of what the churches asked for (the liaison office is the exception) has not only survived into the Lisbon Treaty but has actually been implemented regardless of the treaty not yet being ratified.

This has presented the EHF with a problem, since (as mentioned) the EU’s commitment to human rights means that organisations representing non-religious views (“non-confessional and philosophical organisations”) are formally offered the same privileges as the churches. Should we take up the offer?

Purists would have us walk away. If we opposed the provisions on principle so strenuously for so long, it would be ignominious and lacking in integrity as soon as we were defeated to change policy and embrace the privileges we had denounced as unconscionable.

But the churches are already exploiting their position to the full and looking to build on it. Last November the president of the conference of European Catholic bishops summarised the privileges they already enjoyed: seminars, talks with governments, meetings with the presidents of the Commission, Council and Parliament "are indeed necessary," he said, "but they alone are in our view not enough to satisfy the offer of an open, transparent and regular dialogue. . ."

If we refused on principle to accept the invitation to consultations, we would leave the churches as the sole voice of fundamentally moral concern in the EU. The EHF therefore decided to participate, while continuing to make clear our objection on principle to such privileges for anyone. We have indeed had two meetings with Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso and have accepted the Commission’s hospitality for a highly successful one-day seminar on human rights last April which Barroso himself addressed.

But the EHF wants to be treated on equal terms with the religious bodies - which include some from non-Christian religions. The European Convention on Human Rights not only guarantees freedom of religion or belief (where - as has been established in several cases before the European Court of Human Rights - ‘belief’ includes atheism, agnosticism and positive non-religious beliefs) but also guarantees non-discrimination between religious and non-religious lifestances.

So when EU holds meetings - as it did in May 2007 and May 2008 - with representatives not just of one church but of a range of churches and of other religions - and not just with Commission president Barroso but with the presidents of the Council and Parliament also - we make it clear that we wish to be included.

Deplorably, this request has been explicitly refused several times.

Some argue that we will get more attention by having our own separate meetings - but little other than prestige can come of such meetings and even that depends on publicity based on the very slight news value of such meetings. Besides, the churches have separate meetings as well as their annual jamboree. If we want to get recognised as representing at least a large proportion of the non-religious population of Europe - which is probably between a third and a half of the total - we need to assert ourselves where we will be noticed: alongside the Christian and Muslim and Jewish and other leaders - and to speak up with Humanist opinions against or in alliance with them depending on the topic.

Our experience over the last three years in the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe has already shown that we can get under the skin of the conservative religious elements - the Vatican included - while collaborating with liberal religious organisations for shared ends. The OSCE has a very active Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and holds annual meetings on human rights at which NGOs contribute on almost equal terms with governments. It has been in the backwash of the campaign by Islamic states for a ban on “defamation” of religion (for defamation read “criticism”). Sadly the Holy See has echoed these demands. At the 2007 plenary meeting the delegate from the Holy See said “mocking and undermining Christianity is against religious freedom - a subversive attempt to undermine freedom and tolerance”, to which we responded that “Human rights belong to individuals, not to institutions or religions, and attempts to extend human rights to religion itself and to religious institutions are a false and dangerous development that is to be resisted.”

This and other interventions brought private congratulations from several delegates, including some governmental delegates, and several OSCE staff, and provoked muted protests from the Vatican in plenary and (we are informed) deep irritation in private.

Doubtless this experience will make the churches doubtful about our inclusion in their collective meetings with the three European Union presidents, but there is no obvious or justifiable reason for excluding us. It is, moreover, a matter that friendly members of the European Parliament are willing to take up on our behalf. The Parliament has an active working group on separation of religion and politics, to whose meetings we regularly contribute. It was indeed the intervention of members of this working group that led to the Commission being forced to start meetings with us when they initiated a short debate in the Parliament in September 2005, protesting not only at the Commission’s failure to initiate a dialogue with the EHF (even though they had met the Scientologists!) but also at the lack of transparency in reports of its meetings with the churches.

We shall therefore be pursuing with Members of European Parliament (MEPs) after the summer recess the question of the inferior treatment we receive from the European Union by contrast with religious bodies. We may not succeed at any early date but the argument itself is worthwhile for drawing attention to our existence, our growing constituency and our policies.

David Pollock is President, European Humanist Federation.