A  pluralistic society is defined as “a diverse one, where the people in it believe all kinds of different things and tolerate each other’s beliefs even when they don’t match their own”. 

We are all aware that when it comes to governing such a society, governments encounter problems to enforce laws that impinge on the morality of individuals of different beliefs.

Joe Zammit Lucia, in his article (November 30) entitled ‘The termination of life’ stated: “The government should avoid becoming embroiled in such interminable acrimonious debate and focus on what it is there to do: govern, as best as possible, for the whole population”. 

Zammit Lucia seems to imply that, once our society is pluralistic and comprises people with different views and beliefs, governments shouldn’t take sides and, therefore, should, as much as possible please everyone. For one to reason in such a way implies that there are no objective or universal values and everyone is permitted to act according to one’s opinion or whims.

That is how Health Minister Chris Fearne reasoned when commenting on the use of cannabis. He said it was up to individuals to decide whether or not they want to smoke cannabis, even though, as a doctor, he would advise to the contrary. 

Such reasoning contrasts with the way New Zealand Associate Health Minister Ayesha Verall commented when it was announced that her government planned to ban smoking by progressively lifting the age at which tobacco products can be bought. She said: “We want to make sure people never start smoking as they age, they and future generations will never be able to legally purchase tobacco, because the truth is there is no safe age to start smoking.”

The role of the government is to enact laws aimed at the good of society as a whole and safeguarding the dignity of the human person and not to accommodate the wishes of as many people as possible. By doing so, the government would be falling into the trap of ethical relativism.

Tolerance does not mean uniformity- Ray Azzopardi

The social doctrine of the Church “sees ethical relativism, which maintains that there are no objective or universal criteria for establishing the foundations of a correct hierarchy of values, as one of the greatest threats to modern-day democracies”. 

It continues to state that “if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political action, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reason of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism”.

The uproar which followed European Commissioner Helena Dalli’s document entitled ‘Guidelines for Inclusive Communication’ for European Commission staff, which she later withdrew, was due to the fact that the document tended to downplay individual traits, related to Christian traditions, in order to accommodate other cultures and bring about more uniformity.

Pope Francis referred to the document as a “watered-down secularism”. He retorted: “The European Union must respect each country as it is structured within, the variety of countries, and not to make them uniform.”

If, in the name of tolerance, we expect all diverse groups to act the same, then we are going against the principle of diversity.

Tolerance is the keyword but tolerance does in no way mean uniformity. Tolerating different cultures and faiths to exist side by side does in no way mean that Christianity – the principal religion in our country – should be watered down or removed from our culture and traditions.

Commenting on pluralism and secularism, Bishop Leslie Newbigin, in The Gospel in a Pluralist Society contends that the belief that there were no absolute rights, wrongs and norm would be a disaster to society at large. He also points out that ‘secularisation’ – the aim of privileging no religion in order to safeguard all of them – hides a further expectation: the disappearance of religious belief altogether.

Living in a pluralistic and secular society should in no way mean that one should lose one’s identity. Our Christian religion is an inclusive religion. We do tolerate other creeds and respect people of other cultures and creeds.  By doing so, though, we should not abandon our Christian roots.

George Carey and Andrew Carey, in their book We Don’t Do God, affirm: “We all need roots and security. Roots earth us in the rich soil of our shared history and tradition. Personal roots are important but so are institutional ones – they are vital to the continuing organic growth and development of Church and society and to our sense of moral purpose and direction.”

We are very much aware that there exists religious pluralism in Europe – and in Malta – but we all need to learn how to respect the autonomy of each group without divesting us of our own Christian heritage and tradition.

Ray Azzopardi, former headmaster