Published on June 20, 2004 By O G San In International
The European Union (EU) usually throws up controversies which are impenetrable to all but the most jargonistically proficient. Debates about subsidiarity, arguments over qualified majority voting, disputes over the minutest detail of agricultural policy; the Union's negotiations are often a matter of zero interest to the average European.

So it's welcome that at least one aspect of the current debate on the European constitution is accesible to all. I'm referring here to the argument over whether the document should contain a reference to God in its preamble. Some states, including Poland, Ireland and Italy, are pushing hard for the Almighty to get a name-check against a larger body of members who would rather that He not be mentioned.

For me, this debate is good news. Everyone, European or not, Christian or not, believer or not, can, and probably will, have an opinion on this topic. You don't need a degree in politics to have a view one way or the other. Anything which gets Europe's disaffected citizens to sit up and take notice is welcome. In this sense, though in no other, the "Godist" states deserve credit.

Those pushing for God to be included in the constitution argue that the EU would not be possible without the continent's shared Christian (or sometimes Judeo-Christian) values. Of course, such an argument is, by its very nature, unprovable. Would Europe be as stable and peaceful as it is today if it was Buddhist rather than Christian? There's no way of telling.

Certainly, there are some aspects of Christianity which, one could argue, have helped to foster co-operation between European countries. Members of the EU try to love their neighbour as Christ instructed. There may also be something of the Christian attribute of forgiveness in the close co-operation between former enemies, particularly France and Germany.

Christianity is far from all bad. But I think we're all familiar with the gulf between the humane teachings of Christ and the often inhumane actions of those who claim to act in his name. In Europe the Christian churches have, to varying degrees, stood against the great tidal wave of rationality which has washed over the continent in the last few centuries.

All the changes which any sensible European should welcome - the advance of scientific knowledge, democratisation, religious tolerance, the emancipation of women - have been bitterly opposed by some or all of the Christian denominations of the continent. Europe is humane today, not because of Christianity, but in spite of it. The EU, as the final expression of this rationality, owes no debt to Christianity whatsoever.

If Europe was a theocracy it would not be as tolerant, as democratic or as rich. Do I really need to cite examples from other parts of the world to prove my point? One of the great narratives of the past few centuries of European life has been the gradual relegation of religion to what is, in my view, it's rightful place - the private sphere. It would therefore, be a regressive step to introduce religion into the European constitution, a very public document.

But even if Christainity had made a more positive contribution in Europe, it would still be inappropriate to mention God in the constitution. Any mention of a divine being in such a context immediately raise the question "whose God?" The God of Catholics? The God of Catholics and Protestants? The God of Catholics, Protestants and Jews? Who is included?

No matter how loosely the term "God" were to be applied (it could, just about, stretch to cover Allah), there will always be gorups left out. What about Buddhists, Sikhs and Hindus? What about those Europeans (whose numbers increase each year) who believe in no God at all?

This is far from being a trivial issue. It goes right to the heart of what Europe is, of who's in and who's out. At least one of the Godist states should understand this from experience. When the Irish Free Sate, as it then was, drew up its first constitution in 1937, it was decided to insert a clause which asserted the special role of the Catholic church in the life of the state. The Protestant churches were recognised in subsequent articles but only as "other" religions to which some citizens subscribed.

It should be said that all Irish citizens were, and are, equal in the eyes of the law regardless of religion. However the inclusion of this article implicitly suggested that some were more Irish than others. Conflating religion and nationality in this way was an historic mistake for the Irish state.

The article was dropped in the early 1970s and since then the Republic has moved steadily towards secularism, downgrading the role of the Catholic church in the life of the state. The process continues to this day. By dropping this article, it was acknowledged that religions and constitutions don't mix. Any constitution worth its salt must start from the premise that all citizens are equal. Any invocation of God in such a document ineviatbly undermines this principle.

With this in mind, it's ironic that the government of the Republic is one of the few which believes that God should be mentioned in the European constitution.

Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jun 20, 2004
May the lord have mercy on your heretical soul.
on Jun 21, 2004
On one hand you claim that it's unprovable whether or not Europe would be as 'stable and peaceful as it is today if it was Buddhist rather than Christian ' But then claim that Europe would not be as peaceful, democratic, or rich if it was a 'theocracy'. Are you being selective?

I think it's very plausible that having a Christian heritage makes it more likely that you will be more rich, democratic, and peaceful. The proof is all around you. And in history. While it's true that the *Church*, specifically the Catholic Church, has done a lot to to halt progressive ideas, it was devoutely Chrisitan men and women who championed these ideas, in spite of the Church. Europes greatest achievements, both artistic and scientific, were primarily made by Christians, inspired by their faith.

And would Europe's 'cultural, religious and humanist inheritance' have been possible without Christianity? I doubt it. Human rights are a distinctly Western idea. And that train of thought flows directly from Christan ideals.
on Jun 21, 2004
Veevom,

It is unprovable because Europe is Christian and not Buddhist. It is provable that theocracies are nearly always backward and miserable.

As I acknowledged, some of what Christ said (assuming he ever existed) is very humane and laudable. But the actions of religious groups over the centuries have been less than laudable, to say the least. It's these same anti-Enlightenment churches who now want God, THEIR God, mentioned in the European constitution.

Such an organisation as the EU would never have been possible if Europeans hadn't thrown off the shackles of superstition which religion imposed.
on Jun 22, 2004
I'm focusing on the phrase 'peaceful'. If all theocracies are violent and backwards by nature, then whether it's Buddhist or Chrisitan is irrelevant. They are, after all, both theocracies are they not? And as a matter of fact, I don't seem to recall any human endeavor being particularly peaceful, religious or otherwise.. See Communism, which explicitly rejects God.

Those pushing for God to be included in the constitution argue that the EU would not be possible without the continent's shared Christian (or sometimes Judeo-Christian) values.

The point isn't that the 'EU would not be possible', but that Europe with all her values and culture would be a different place if it had not been Chrisitan.. After all, what is Europe but a product of it's history, which is Christian. What's so hard to understand about that?

"Such an organisation as the EU would never have been possible if Europeans hadn't thrown off the shackles of superstition which religion imposed."

I think that has more to do with the European himself than with religion. After all, what is Europe doing but emulating America, which is much more religious than Europe and America is an unqualified success. While Europe has freed itself of it's religious 'shackles' as you say, it's arguably imposing secular ones.

And so what if the EU is possible. Is that a good thing? If you believe as I do that Europeans are, by their nature, decadent, then whether it's the EU or Christianity or any other European created entity makes no difference. It will fail. Europe has a drastically low birthrate, an aging population, and an unsustainable welfare state. The EU can't save Europe from itself.
on Jun 22, 2004
After all, what is Europe doing but emulating America


Why would Europe want to emulate a country with the highest rates of heart disease and murder in the world? America is an advertisement for stupidity, wastefulness and mis-management.

And so what if the EU is possible. Is that a good thing? If you believe as I do that Europeans are, by their nature, decadent, then whether it's the EU or Christianity or any other European created entity makes no difference.


Decadent? Are you trying to parody American thought? America cannot be matched for its decadency, that is why its children are lazy, unhealthy, un-cultured, ignorant and narcissist. I truly hope that you are not a gauge of the average Americans thought process, America cannot survive on its own. That is why George needed the support of Tony and men like myself to simply start a war. America will eventually fall due to its own hubris, as did the British Empire, which I will remind you that is the largest and most glorious empire that has ever existed.
on Jun 22, 2004

All empires fall. That much is obvious.

Why would Europe want to emulate a country with the highest rates of heart disease and murder in the world? Hmm. Doing a quick Google search reveals that as of 2001, 3 countries had higher murder rates than America. Russia, Latvia, and Estonia. So, your wrong. Your other claims are, um, subjective. Try being rational, not emotional, Sir Pete.

on Jun 22, 2004
This part:

"Would Europe be as stable and peaceful as it is today if it was Buddhist rather than Christian?"

I'm not talking about Europe being this or that type of theocracy. What I'm asking is, how would Europe be different if a majority of its people were of Buddhist background rather than Christian? My point is that we can't know the answer to this.

"The point isn't that the 'EU would not be possible', but that Europe with all her values and culture would be a different place if it had not been Chrisitan.. After all, what is Europe but a product of it's history, which is Christian. What's so hard to understand about that?"

Yes, I agree, but would that different place be better or worse? There's no way to tell.

"After all, what is Europe doing but emulating America"

In what way? The EU is about sovereign countries pooling sovereignty for the common good, something which the US (and many other non-European countries) avoid like the plague. So how is the EU emulating the US?

"America is an unqualified success"

Really? Is "unqualified" the right word here?

"If you believe as I do that Europeans are, by their nature, decadent"

Does this mean that the 70% of Americans who are of European descent are also decadent? What does decadent mean in this context?
on Jun 22, 2004
Yes, I agree, but would that different place be better or worse? There's no way to tell.
My point is that some countries simply want to codify the history of Christianity in the constitution of the EU. I don't particularly care about speculating whether or not Europe would have been 'better' or 'worse'. That isn't the point. How can you put in the constitiution 'a respect for Europe's humanistic tradition'(or something to that effect), but not mention Christianity? I find that baffling. It's merely a product of Europes secular culture, which is to deny it's Chrisitan past. To be ashamed of it.


In what way? The EU is about sovereign countries pooling sovereignty for the common good, something which the US (and many other non-European countries) avoid like the plague. So how is the EU emulating the US?


The common good? What good is that exactly?

The U.S. is a loosely governed federation of states. The EU is looking like a Brussels controlled federation of states. In the broadest sense that what I mean by emulation. Europe has traditionally been a continent of countries. Now, it's federalizing. That's all I meant..

Does this mean that the 70% of Americans who are of European descent are also decadent? What does decadent mean in this context?

I had originally written ""If you believe as I do that Europeans are, by their nature(history), decadent". I don't mean genetically decadent. That would be absurd. By decadent I mean self-indulgent, in decline or decay. Having no children, working 35 hours a week, and retiring at 53. Europe is choosing to become extinct., while indulging itself in the short term pleasures of life. Could her lack of religion have anything to do with this?

Read this. A speech given by the Oxford historian Niall Ferguson at the American Enterprise Institute titled 'The End of Europe'.

A quote from the speech:

"Ladies and gentlemen, I only wish that were true. The reality is--and it is perhaps the most striking cultural phenomenon of our times--that Western and Eastern Europe are no longer in any meaningful sense Christian societies. They are quite clearly post-Christian--indeed, in many respects, post-religious--societies. In the Netherlands, Britain, Germany, Sweden, and Denmark, less than 1 in 10 of the population attends church even once a month. A clear majority do not attend church at all. There are now more Muslims in England than Anglican communicants. More Muslims attend mosque on a weekly basis than Anglicans attend church. In the recent Gallup Millennium Survey of Religious Attitudes conducted just a couple of years ago, more than half of all Scandinavians said that God did not matter to them at all. This, it seems to me, makes the claim to a fundamental Christian inheritance not only implausible but also downright bogus in Europe. The reality is that Europeans inhabit a post-Christian society that is economically, demographically, but, in my view, above all culturally a decadent society."
on Jun 23, 2004
Thanks for the link, I skimmed it coz it was quite long.

Some unfair German-bashing I thought, droning on about the FRG's supposed poor economic performance. Taking on East Germany was no easy thing, nor is subsidising the rest of the EU. Let's see how America would cope if it merged with Mexico.

He talks about religion in Europe as if it's been a force for good, as if it's decline is a bad thing. Sorry, I fundamentally disagree, religion has been very bad for Europe in general, and for my country in particular. Not entirely bad, but mostly bad.

As for decadence, I think that Europeans AND Americans are self-indulgent by global standards. I live in Korea so I know what an "un-decadent" society looks like - many admirable things but also some not so admirable.
on Jun 23, 2004
His point is, I believe, isn't whether religion is bad or good, but necessary for cultural continuity. If the European past is Christian, and you reject Christianity, your no longer European.
Secularism on a large scale, whole nations being secular, is a new phenomenon. It hasn't happened before.

I believe that people in some sense people need religion. It's a natural part of life. If God plays no part in your life, if you don't believe in a higher power, what's the point? As I said, most of Europe's greatest achievments where inspired by religion. If you don't have a purpose, you die.

Europe's problems haven't stemmed from religion, but from Nationalism. Religion merely played a role. Christianity has relatively benign role in America and her past. You want to know what Europeans are really like, in their core? Watch a football match. All the old passions come out, only they don't involve war. It's hilarious.

on Jun 23, 2004
"If the European past is Christian, and you reject Christianity, your no longer European"

Oh, charming. So what about Europe's Jews? The Muslims of the Balkans? Not European?

Europe is a physical fact, not a religion.

Yes, nationalism has been abused to cause great suffering. But it was religions, not nationalisms, which rejected the Enlightenment, which clung to the flat earth mentality, which basically held us back.
on Jun 24, 2004
I personally agree with your argument here, but there's one sort of foundational flaw, although it's really only a side point:

You say, "Anything which gets Europe's disaffected citizens to sit up and take notice is welcome."

It's true Europeans are widely ambivalent about what goes on in the EU. There was an article about this very malady in the Economist a couple weeks ago, in prelude to the EU elections which have since been held. The article begins with a candidate introducing himself to potential voters at a shopping mall and saying, "I'm running to be your rep. in the EU," and an eldery lady replies coarsely, "Who Cares!"

Nevertheless turn out for the EU elections -- which Europeans generally regard with unadulterated apathy -- was higher than turnout for the last several American Presidential elections(!), and they don't even care about the EU.

In national and local elections turnout in Europe dwarfs American turnout. It's true there are huge numbers of people in America who are passionately interested in politics -- and this is exaberated by a greater extreme between the only two electable parties -- but it's also true far more ordinary people no longer care in the slightest.

But it's also basically true that as a whole America is far more disaffected and uninvolved in our government than most or all European nations.
on Jun 24, 2004
Hmm, I've seen many points made in this thread about how inextricably linked Christianity is with Europe's past and how beneficial Christianity has been to the continent's development. I don't think I agree with the latter point, but even if I did, I still wouldn't see why these mean that God should be referred to in the EU constitution. One could argue there are lots of other bits of culture and history that have profoundly shaped the history of Europe as well. Should the Magna Carta be mentioned in the EU constitution? How about the Gutenberg printing press?? The Roman Empire?

It just seems irrelevant to the purpose of a constitution. Also, I don't consider excluding a reference to God as a "denial" of Europe's Christian past. Is the absence of a mention of God in the US Constitution a denial of its Christian past?? I don't think many would argue that.

Just my two cents--though I'm no historian and no lawyer

Oh and P.S., cause I can see it coming already: I just can't buy the "in the Year of our Lord" argument, should anyone make it. Besides, we all know that Italy, Poland, and Ireland wouldn't be satisfied by just putting A.D. by the date...
on Jun 24, 2004
Oh, charming. So what about Europe's Jews? The Muslims of the Balkans? Not European?

Europe is a physical fact, not a religion.

Yes, nationalism has been abused to cause great suffering. But it was religions, not nationalisms, which rejected the Enlightenment, which clung to the flat earth mentality, which basically held us back.


What about the Muslims of the Balkans? If your claiming that Muslims are now European, why all the consternation about admitting Turkey into the EU? Because Muslims are not European. Europe may now have Muslims, but historically it has not( or in very small numbers ). Europe is indeed a physical fact, but it is also a culture. And that culture is undeniably linked to Christianity. If Europe disowns it's Christian past, it will cease to be Europe( Eurabia?

It just seems irrelevant to the purpose of a constitution. Also, I don't consider excluding a reference to God as a "denial" of Europe's Christian past. Is the absence of a mention of God in the US Constitution a denial of its Christian past?? I don't think many would argue that


That's a good point. But the American and European experience are completely different, methinks. Europe has thousands of years of history to account for. America did not. America was a fresh start. Europe is mentioning it's past in the constitution, but by saying "cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe" which is really just a long winded way of saying Christianity.
on Jun 24, 2004
Well Veevom, you've inspired me to actually go and read the preamble before I say any more about it

It seems to me that "cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe" is their attempt at a catch-all phrase to refer to everything that has made Europe what it is. At the worst, mentioning Christianity in particular is going to alienate millions of Europeans as well as short change all the other important things that contributed to Europe's development and didn't get an explicit mention...

The best that could come from it is....um. What? I just can't see any reason to put it in, and drafting a constitution that needs to be embraced by people of so many different faiths and creeds in order to be successful necessitates leaving it out...
2 Pages1 2