The emergence of secularism is often attributed to the Age of Enlightenment when, in the 18th century, major advances in philosophy, intellect, science and culture led to major changes in one’s reasoning. This resulted in a gradual consistent separation between state rule and Church teachings.

I still remember in my schooldays when the priest could explain every phenomenon from a cloud to a drought. It’s not a long time ago when the priest would go on the pulpit and urge the people to pray for rain. Those were the years when there were no radios, television sets or internet and, consequently, information sources were limited. Since then, secularism has entered our lives and religion has steadily moved out.

But secularism had its beginning long before the 18th century. Jesus himself was faced with this issue when he was confronted with the question: “Should we pay taxes?” To this tricky question Jesus replied: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”

In that short, witty answer, Jesus said it all. State and Church need each other. The state is there to legislate and the Church is there to guide our legislators through the accumulated wisdom of the age.

Democracies are nowadays dominant over theocracies. This is a good omen as the intertwining of religion and state could lead to undesirable effects. Religion and civil authorities can be very dangerous bedfellows. Together they could very well create a monster. The inquisition is a case in point and so are the modern fundamental Islamic countries that opt to rule through the Sharia law, where the mere mention of Mohammed in vain is punished by the death sentence.

Malta’s biggest push towards secularisation was back in the 1950s and 1960s. On April 9, 1961, the Roman Catholic Church issued an interdict on Malta Labour Party activists in retaliation to Dom Mintoff’s vision of a state without Church intrusion. This lasted till 1969 and, if it weren’t for Auxiliary Archbishop Emanuel Gerada, Maltese history could have been written differently.

In retrospect, one can safely state that the interdict has certainly speeded up secularisation in Malta, leading to a very steady decline in church attendance. L-interdett has left indelible scars on our society and irreparable damage to the Church. Since then, politics has infiltrated all levels of our society and, at times, it is suffocating.

Mr Mintoff’s confrontational tactics with the Church led to significant short-term losses. At least it cost him the Premiership till 1971. While Mr Mintoff was the prime promoter of modern secularism in Malta, the Nationalist Party was playing to the tunes of the ecclesiastical accolade, with the resultant huge political gains.

However, when in power, Mr Mintoff cemented Malta as a secular state. In 1972, the homosexuality and adultery laws were introduced, which, until then, were both criminal offences. This was followed by the reform of the Marriage Act in 1975. The latter included the introduction of civil marriage in Malta, its annulment and recognition of divorce obtained in a competent foreign court.

I do not have any reminiscence of this period as I was still a toddler at the time but I never imagined that in 2011 we will be experiencing a very similar scenario to those difficult times. Fifty years on from the interdict, I had imagined that our society had moved on from those dark ages but it seems I was very wrong.

The issue of divorce should have never been politicised and maybe should have never even gone to a referendum. It is difficult for a minority need to ever win support of the majority. Altruism is a rare virtue.

However, if the Labour Party were on the wrong side of history in the European Union accession, it is now the Nationalist Party that is on the wrong side, irrespective of the outcome of the forthcoming referendum.