Freedom of religion

One of the most important principles in the proposed EU constitution is the freedom of religion. This is enshrined not in the preamble, which is little more than an introduction to the complete document, but in its declaration of rights. The freedom of religion means that everyone is free to believe what one wishes - one can worship any deity or deities, or none at all.

It is for this reason that the mention of God in the constitution, as proposed by Margaret Bianchi (October 10) among others, cannot be accepted. How can the freedom of beliefs be guaranteed if the constitution "acknowledg[es] God to be greater than any one of us"? If the constitution not only assumes the existence of a deity, but that it is a single, male god, then freedom of religion only applies to patriarchal monotheistic faiths. While these certainly account for the great majority of Europeans, being a minority is not a good reason to deny anyone these same freedoms.

Contrary to Ms Bianchi's views, the lack of any mention of God in this constitution is not the same as denying the existence of all gods, or stating that we do not need them. It certainly does not mean that we are declaring ourselves to be gods. It simply means that the constitution makes no assumptions or requirements about the beliefs of the citizens. It leaves that to each individual.

Unfortunately, it seems that many did not read further than the preamble to the constitution before they voiced their objections. The petition which was circulated some time ago, requesting a mention of both Christianity and God in the constitution, states that such a mention would guarantee the freedom of people to invoke God. What they failed to mention is that that freedom is already there. It was interesting to note that the wording of this petition in the various languages in which it was circulated is very different, ranging from a single sentence in Flemish to several paragraphs in Maltese. In English it does not even request a reference to God, but only to Christianity. Could it be that the petition was designed according to the awareness about the constitution's provisions in each target country? If that is the case, how can the organisers tally the numbers together as if they had all agreed on the same thing?

The current preamble to the constitution refers to the "religious heritage" of Europe. This is a well-chosen phrase which gives credit where it is due while neither excluding nor favouring anyone. It includes Christianity as well as Islam, Judaism and several pagan faiths all of which had their influence - some greater, some smaller.

One cannot, however, make specific mention of one religion without it leading to the question of where to draw the line. How much influence must a religion have to deserve mention in the preamble? Shouldn't Islam qualify too? After all, it had a very strong influence on all countries bordering the Mediterranean - including Malta - as well as being the predominant religion in Turkey and other countries which may join the EU in due course.

Finally, one must keep in mind that the Christian heritage has not always been positive, as any study of Jewish history will show.

The objective of the constitution is to form a common ground on which to build a more united Europe. Favouring one religion or belief system over another does not offer any benefits which are not already there, and will cause division.