Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly considers the presence of religion in the life of Europeans

At its session on October 3-8 in Strasbourg, the last in 2005, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) considered religious education for children and discrimination of women. Legislators from 46 member countries of the Council of Europe discussed these issues so important for millions of believers in the presence of representatives of religious organizations whose direct participation in the work of this largest European forum is not provided for.

The Parliamentary Assembly stated the need to develop the teaching of history of religion in secondary school and higher educational institutions, which will promote ‘a sense of tolerance’ and ‘the exercise of democratic citizenship’. This judgment is based on the fact that ‘more and more young people lack the necessary bearings fully to apprehend the societies in which they move and others with which they are confronted’.

Having reaffirmed that ‘education is essential for combating ignorance, stereotypes and misunderstanding of religions’, the assembly pointed out that ‘all over there is a shortage of teachers qualified to give comparative instruction in the different religions’. To solve this problem the assembly proposed to set up a European teacher training institute, which could offer advanced knowledge on religions to school humanities teachers.

In its address to the Assembly, the Russian Orthodox Church Representation in Strasbourg pointed out that the teaching of the basics of religion in school should not turn into fostering an atheistic or non-religious worldview and should take into account the traditions and culture of each European nation, while the curricula should be worked out in close cooperation with major traditional religions in each country. However, in those countries where a positive experience of the participation of clergy in teaching religious disciplines has been accumulated, this practice should not be destroyed.

The Assembly also heard the report of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men presented by its chair, Mrs Zapfl-Helbling of the European People’s Party Group, Switzerland. The report was in preparation for a year and a half. Prepared with the participation of experts from secular and religious organizations, its final version was of an apparently anti-religious nature. The traditional influence of faiths on society and the state, according to the reporter, ‘is seldom benign’ and often leads to the violation of women’s rights ‘in the name of religion’.

The Resolution on Women and Religions in Europe, adopted on the basis of the report, contains a call to a ‘fight against religiously motivated stereotypes of female and male roles’, which must be waged ‘from an early age, including in schools’.

The representative of the Moscow Patriarchate in Strasbourg, Hegumen Philaret (Bulekov), in his talks with PACE deputies noted that the draft resolution contradicted the fundamental right to the freedom of conscience and presented this right and the ways of its implementation from the negative perspective alone. The draft set the freedom of conscience and its implementation against other rights of which it is an integral part. Human rights are indivisible and cannot be ensured selectively, one at the expense of another. It is impossible to protect the right to live without protecting the right to religious freedom.

It is impossible to accept the justification for restricting the freedom of conscience by rights and theories that have not been recognized by the international legal system and common European traditions and values (such as a right to abortion and a right for minor girls to use contraceptives).

The Representation also pointed out that it was wrong to use negative examples taken from the limited practice of particular religious groups in order to accuse religions in general and all faiths without distinction. Thus, the report in many of its parts relies on the 2002 UN report on the discrimination on religious grounds. This report referred mostly to the states which are not members of the Council of Europe, such as, Thailand, and Malaysia.

The resolution fails even to mention the need for states to give social support to mothers and children, to foster family, to oppose the human trade and prostitution.

The Moscow Patriarchate Representation urged ‘to reject the presented text as extremely tendentious, to set up a special conciliatory commission and to involve in its work both representatives of religions and adherents of secular worldview’.

Unfortunately, most of the deputies did not head to numerous voices of objection and the final resolution was adopted in the versions proposed for consideration.

The Russian Orthodox Church Representation in Strasbourg deemed it necessary to state that the adopted document would certainly provoke indignation among many believers in and would not contribute to the stated goal of protecting European women against discrimination.