The Value of Secularism DOSSIER

AN ISLAM WE CAN TALK TO by Khaled Fouad AllamSECULARITY: WHAT IT MEANS TODAY by Adriano Botteri

THE ROLE OF SECULARISM IN A MULTICULTURAL SOCIETY by Anna BlondèDEUS VULT: TALES OF ORDINARY INTOLERANCE by Alessandra CipollaAURAS, WHEN THE SACRED CROSSES BOUNDARIES by Monika Bulaj

Con

tras

to/R

EA

98

The Islam You CanConverse Withby Khaled Fouad Allam

To the Muslim world secularity is an imported product: not theend result of a widespread secularist movement. However the newforms of religiosity, including Islamic ones, accept secularity butthey also require a public acknowledgment of their particularidentity. And they ask to re-formulate the role of the State in theface of new questions.

DOSSIER“Giving to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God” is a well-known prin-ciple, in the West at any rate, but is it really practised? Is “secularism” still a value? How can re-ligious and cultural confrontation be kept open in an era in which Islamic radicalism tends toclash with Christian neo-radicalism? Scholars from different backgrounds, both secular and reli-

DOSSIER

In the course of history, religions havealmost always been considered as a pre-text for wars which had rather worldlytargets. Nowadays to those who observe,under a secular point of view, what isgoing on in the relationships betweenIslam and the Western World, is evidentthe exploitation of the Islamic religionfor merely political purposes. What todo, then? To answer by means of a formof Christian neo-radicalism, through asimilar tough opposite exploitation? Is itpossible to go centuries back in theattempt of defend one’s own history andidentity? It would be a contradiction interms. In order to avoid the trap of fun-damentalisms, it is necessary to redisco-ver and re-launch the principle of secu-larization. It’s the secular approachwhich allows believers and non believersto freely show their own thinking and tocompare it with others’. Thus the senseof this Dossier, which gathers the opi-nions of scholars of different origin. Insome cases, these opinions have beencollected directly by east, in others themagazine is grateful to the FoundationCorriere della Sera and to its director,Roberto Stringa, for making available thetexts of the first two evenings of“Dialogues on Secularity”, held the pastOctober in Milan. east’s commitment onthis front won’t stop here. And this willbe proved already from the next issue,which will feature at least two articles ofvery high profile.

The problem of the relationship between Islam andsecularity permeates the history of the Islamic world of thelast century when, from the ruins of the Ottoman empire,after its final collapse in 1924, the nation-States of theMuslim world were created. During the Caliphate the relationbetween religion, politics and society was guaranteed by thefigure and authority of the Caliph, in the nation-State thatrelation is broken and political power stretches in its attemptto control the religious power of the ulema. In the first half ofthe past century, with the disappearance of the centralauthority that for centuries had represented the cohesivefactor between Islam and society, the modern States invented

gious, discuss these questions in this Dossier. The very fact that they discuss these issues de-monstrates that diversity is not necessarily synonymous with antagonism, for themes such as se-cularism, the rule of law, democracy and human rights are crucial for the world as a whole, notjust the West. Believers and non-believers alike are in search of a role in multicultural societies

_The increasingly heterogeneous cultures of

our society, the public debate on Islam in Eu-

rope and complex situations require us to

rethink secularism in terms of new categories

or even re-formulate the very concept

Cor

bis

100

a Ministry for Religious Affairs: habus in the countries of theMaghreb, waqf in the Middle East, dianet in Turkey. Thissubordination of the religious dimension to political powerwhilst resulting in a rationalization of the powers, has notgiven rise to a concomitant change in the structure of Muslimsocieties.

We can therefore talk of a secularity acquired from outside,which has not been accompanied by a widespread internalmovement of secularisation. The reasons for this fracture arerooted in Islam’s history. It is therefore necessary to evince

DOSSIER

Cor

bis

101

the elements that have been present since Islam’s inceptionand those which are a legacy of recent change. There areparticular points that need to be emphasized.

In Europe the relation between secularity and religion canbe visualized through a fracture between religion and politics,where the State assumes the role of guarantor which promisesto maintain that distinction. Today the growing heterogeneityof the cultures present in our societies and the public debateon Islam in Europe, as well as the uncertainty and complexity

_An approach closer to that of Tocqueville (fa-

cing photo) prevails today as regards the se-

cularism inspired by the French Revolution. A

vision where religious entities are subjected

to a dilution process in the social complexity

Cor

bis

102

of the situation, require that we think about secularity withnew terms, but above all that we re-formulate secularity itself.It is what has been pertinently defined by the Germanphilosopher Jürgen Habermas and by Pope Benedict XVI aspost-secular society.

Post-secularism isn’t an empty core, but requires that wereconstruct the ties indispensable to the promotion andemancipation of human communities in a complex universe. Inthis context Islam is an interesting case because in its excessesand at times its paradoxes it questions us and incites us toformulate a new secularity, one charged with today’scomplexity, but also guarantor of the multiplicity of meaningswhich are the expression of humankind’s diversity, and of theduty of mutual understanding.

Today the believers in new forms of religiosity, amongstwhich we find Islam, accept secularity but they also require apublic acknowledgment of their affiliation, of their identity.They emphasise the relation between the religious and publicspace and they further require that the State re-formulate itsposition in respect of these new requirements. An asymmetricrelation between politics and religion is growing; furthermore,as some observers note, it isn’t a request for a reconstructionof the relationship between religion and politics but a demandthat the relationship between religion and society be re-formulated. For example, Islamic neo-fundamentalism – notradicalism – is much more interested in the position ofMuslims in society than in their relationship with politicalpower.

Secularity as contemplated by the culture of the Frenchrevolution is disappearing: one is moving nearer to thesecularist position contemplated by Tocqueville, that is aposition nearer to the Anglo-Saxon model, which is moreconcerned with the relationship between religion and society,in which religious identities are subject to a process of dilutioninto wider social complexity.

There’s a new dialectic evolving between stasis and change.Should secularity’s regimented forms be renewed, society willbe enriched by a plurality of horizons, each of which is anexpression of our human condition. Secularity can’t presentitself as absolute knowledge without risking becoming a wallbetween human beings. The demolition of that wall wouldpermit us to better understand the adventure of our diversity.

DOSSIER

_Khaled Fouad Allam is a lecturer on the Sociology of the

Muslim World and the History and Institutions of Islamic

countries at the University of Trieste and the University of

Urbino. He is a long-time observer of contemporary Islam Gra

zia

Ner

i

ADV

104

Secularity: What it Means Todayedited by Adriano Botteri

What is secularity, and how should we approach it today? Is theprinciple of giving to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to Godwhat belongs to God still valid? Does freedom of expression meanfreedom to offend? Respect for the individual remains fundamentalin order to have an unprejudiced exchange of opinion

A religious person, a philosopher and a scientist discusssecular thought: the secular thought of believers, a precious andprolific acquisition of history over the last twenty centuries andthe freedom to express religion both individually and in a socialcontext. Freedom of expression that implies freedom to offendprovided we maintain respect for the other. Taking intoconsideration that being secular implies a capacity to distinguishand to discuss without prejudice.

Enzo Bianchi What to render Caesar and what to render God? We know thewords of Jesus as written in the gospels, words which havecrossed centuries, which have always shown their worth, and to

DOSSIER

The Corriere della Sera Foundationorganized a series of meetings todiscuss topics concerning religiousfreedom, secularity, the relationshipbetween State and Church. On the10th of October 2006 at a meetingentitled “Conversations onSecularity: Science, Faith andSecular Thought”, the speakerswere Enzo Bianchi: Prior of the BoseMonastic Community and author ofthe book The Christian Difference;Giulio Giorello, philosopher and edi-torialist; Adriano Pessina, director ofthe Centre of Bio-Ethics at theCattolica University in Milan. Themoderator was Armando Torno,responsible for the cultural pages of“Corriere della Sera”.

_The relationship between secular and reli-

gious power has been a complicated one sin-

ce the earliest days of Christianity. Facing

photo: a 16th century painting in which the

Sibylla Tiburtina announces the coming of Je-

sus to Caesar

Oly

com

105

which we refer convinced of their intrinsic truth, theirimperative quality. But the interpretation of these words hasalways been subject to renewal; indeed the meaning must berenewed in every historical context and in every politicalframework. This certainly occurred in those Christian centuriesthat followed the age of persecution, a period that witnessedcollaboration between Empire and Church. Often Caesar hasbeen given that which belonged to God and only rarely haveprophetic voices been listened to, asking Empire not to extend itsinterference into the sphere where only God, for the believer,was Master. In the East – the Christian East, that which weimprecisely term Orthodox – Imperial-Papism has meant notonly alliance between throne and altar, but the submission ofChurch to the State. As, unfortunately, still happens today, inspite of the end of the communist “captivity”, because theposition of the Orthodox churches – beginning with the RussianFederation – is of submissiveness to the State. But if Imperial-Papism dominated in the East, in the West the power of thepapacy resulted in a situation in which one gives to God thatwhich belonged to Caesar.

With this centuries-old scene behind us we now face a newdebate on secularity. A debate that has become somewhat livelyin all of Europe, especially at the moment of the formulation ofthe European constitution, a debate which in Italian society hasprecise implications.

One must first underline that secularity, intended as aprinciple of distinction between State and religion, is astandpoint not only accepted by Christians but which hasbecome an authentic contribution that Christians make tomodern society. I would like to point out that in the 19th centurythe declaration that a separation between State and Church wasnecessary was judged as heretical and worthy of ex-communication by Pope Pius IX.

Two years or so ago, when asked by the EuropeanCommission, the bishops said: “What today’s Christians can giveto Europe is secular thought”. Therefore, in the passing of acentury and a half things have completely changed, at least inthe Reformed Church and the Roman Catholic Church. Theconcept of secularity undoubtedly remains pliable. One proposesa neo-secularity that has new requirements, which sometimesdon’t recognise the peculiarity of religions within society. Onehas gradually passed from a secularity which refuses restrictions– what we might define as secularism – to a secularity of respector positive neutrality. This change is perceived by the Christianreligions as a precious and fecund acquisition. John Paul II andBenedict XVI speak about “just secularism”, a formula whichmeans a State in which all citizens can feel themselves to berepresented, independently of the faith, the ethic or the cultureto which they belong.

A distinction between the community of believers and theState does not imply ignorance. Secularity ought not to implysecularism. It means respect for all faiths by a State that assuresthe free exercise of cultural, spiritual and charitable activities.The fact of religion should be accepted in the public arena, insociety, and not relegated to the private sphere, because religions

_According to Enzo Bianchi, if we want a fu-

ture of peaceful cohabitation, we must under-

take confrontation and dialogue without de-

monising our opponents

Gra

zia

Ner

i

106

have a social dimension which cannot be denied. In a pluralisticsociety secularity is a means of communication between religionsand, in my opinion, a guarantee of free expression for thedifferent members of a society, not a place that wants to containor repress. If article 9 of the European Convention on the rightsof man asserts that religious freedom implies an impossibility tomanifest this religion individually and collectively, then it isnecessary to be very prudent when enacting laws – as happenedin France – concerning religious symbols in public. Shouldreligious symbols not upset public order and not offend thedignity of individuals their prohibition implies the repression ofan aspect of religious freedom.

With regard to Christians, I believe that they ought to wishthat secularity be practised in a vigilant and receptive manner,that is, they should ask the State to defend freedom of consciencein the name of secularity. That the State watch over society untilsuch time as peaceful co-existence between its members bepossible and that it oppose all forms of violence exercised inorder to ensure the prevalence of religious ideas and convictions,without however forgetting – I like this formula – that the Stateis secular, while society is not.

However, should this indeed be secularity I have two worries,the first is of a religious nature, the worry of a believer, which isof importance to Christians. To my mind a just secularity isindeed of great advantage to Christian life, because within itChristians can find protection against the use of their religion asa State’s religion. To my mind this is one of the great dramasmost probably brought about in part by a section of the Italianchurch: to have consented to the formation of a State religion. AState religion is always an instrument, an instrumental use ofreligion by those that don’t recognise the distinction betweenGod and Caesar.

DOSSIER

_In a new pluralist society, secularism is a

guarantee of free expression for different

components of society. If the symbols of peo-

ple’s faith do not disturb the public order or

offend people’s dignity, intervening to forbid

their use means repressing an aspect of reli-

gious freedom.

Facing page: a photograph of Pope John Paul

II’s visit to the Italian Parliament

Oly

com

In Italy we have political forces which demand the Churchassume a role of importance, a dominant role in a determinedhistorical context, and that it should consequently relinquish itsprophetic impulse and subversive interpretation of the Gospels.They propose a remissive and accommodating model ofChristianity, one in which the stable elements of religiousculture are integrated into the political system, and the religiousinstitutions are obliged to conduct a process of mediation with asecularised society seemingly incapable of sustaining an ethicalimpulse. One thus obtains a mutual manipulation of religious,political and social powers. On this I believe that we Christiansmust be vigilant, because when political forces want to offer theChurch legal protection and financial assistance they are reallyacting for their own benefit, and instrumentalise faith.

In 1998 the Bavarian minister for Culture, whilst addressingthe Conference of European Catholic Theologians, had thefrankness to say: “That which the State grants to the Church inlegal matter or through financial contributions does notconstitute an act of charity. If we reflect a moment, we realisethat the State favours itself”. Should the Church consent to carryout this function of dispenser of a State religion perhaps it wouldbecome more powerful and so extend its influence, but I believeit thus renounces its Christian charter and the subversive forceof the Gospels.

The second worry is related to whether secularity should betotally established or not. It was only 15 years ago that SamuelHuntington prophesied a clash of cultures. This clash hasn’toccurred and, in my view, won’t happen, notwithstanding thedamage to the delicate equilibrium between Islam andChristianity. There may be a clash between the West and Arabcountries but not between Islam and Christianity. I do howeverfear another possible clash that won’t be between the greatcivilizations – or, as may also be said, between great religiousaspirations – but a clash which will occur within our societies: aclash of ethics. This is my great worry. I fear that we are alignedfor a contest that feeds itself on enmity and that believers andnon-believers don’t want to understand each other. How manytimes do we hear believers say that non-believers are incapableof ethics, that only in the presence of God (they always use thisambiguous Dostoevskjian phrase), are all things permitted, andconsequently they demand that the secular mind adopt Christianethics. This, in my opinion, is an offence to the Christian beliefthat men were made in the likeness of God, that believers andnon-believers are capas boni, able to do good, to discern an ethicand to be able to choose an ethic. It is this diffidence, thisdeprecation of the possibility of a secular ethic that worries me alot. There is also the risk of a clash between those who wantmore fundamentalism in their ethical stance and those that haveno truck for ethics, as though they were nihilistically inspiredand bereft of ethical principles. If a clash were to occur ourtolerant society would be threatened. Thus secularity guaranteesthat the Church continues to have an ethical platform but not inorder to claim that the State must assume Church ethics, becausewhen the State enacts laws it must do so for a plurality, eachpermitted their diverse ethical views. If we want a future of O

lyco

m

108

peaceful co-habitation, we must pay attention to the possibilityof confrontation, we must have dialogue without demonising ouropponents and we must assert the secularity of the State and itsinstitutions.

Giulio Giorello I would like to try to defend a particular conception of secularity,its nucleus is freedom of expression, expressed in a provocativemanner, because I think that freedom of expression also applies tothe freedom to offend, to the freedom of cultural constellations, offorms of life, to alternative ways of living in the world. Wealways say “we respect everyone, indeed we must respecteveryone”. Certainly, respect for persons is an inalienableelement, but this does not mean that such respect demands thatany opinion that is expressed on the free market of ideas mustperforce be respected. If I don’t like an opinion I have all the rightto say so at the cost of being offensive. I say this because it isdifficult to distinguish, in a precise way, a freedom of expressionfrom that which I have here intentionally termed “freedom tooffend”, because, unfortunately, sometimes the offence isn’t in thewords expressed but in the ears of he who hears them.

It’s not in the actions of he who acts but in the eyes of he whowatches. Should we use offence as the criterion of censorship, wewould end up with censoring all freedom of expression andtherefore the freedom of the secular thinker.

For example, an article by Robert Redecker was consideredoffensive to Islam and because of it Redecker has been physicallythreatened. How do our intellectuals react? “Ah! But you had tobe more cautious; you didn’t need to offend them. You ought torespect them”.

Let’s be careful here! Who has Redecker offended? He hasoffended a constellation of ideas; he has not threatened anyparticular Muslim. Furthermore and independently of what wethink of Redecker’s ideas, which I personally don’t appreciate, wemust respect his right to express them, because without his rightto express himself I too would not have the right to speak herewith you. As Sergio Luzzato of “Corriere della Sera” recently andrightly said, the function of articles is to clarify ideas – the themewas also covered by André Glucksmann in another article,inviting intellectuals to express solidarity with anyone accused ofoffending this or that religion, simply because he makes anerroneous citation or confuses a word or the sense of a phrase orexpresses himself in an verbally violent manner.

That is the same verbal violence to which, for example, OrianaFallaci had accustomed us from the columns of “Corriere dellaSera”. The present problem is the same problem as prevailedduring the era of Voltaire: “Gentlemen I detest your opinions butI will fight to the last to ensure that you may be able to expressthem”.

Therefore freedom of expression involves the freedom tooffend any constellation of ideas. I say of ideas, not of persons.This must be clear. Because as we said before the offence is oftenin the ear, in the eye of the other and not of the person involved.

For example I here refer to what Enzo Bianchi has saidconcerning the French law on secularity, before the so-called loix

DOSSIER

_Giorello believes that freedom of speech in-

cludes the freedom to offend any group of

ideas. Oriana Fallaci (facing page), who pas-

sed away recently, was of the same opinion

Oly

com

109

Stasi were promulgated, with all the ambiguities and perplexitiesinvolved. What exactly is this story that one cannot exhibit asymbol of the one’s faith because it’s showy? Need we measurethe dimension of crosses or check whether they’re showy whenseen in profile rather than face-on, as at the time of the HeissCode and Jane Russell’s breasts. Viewed in profile they pass, asthey are not offensive, whilst if photographed face-on they areand don’t. In the end the film The Outlaw did however obtaincensor approval.

In order to avoid ridiculous paradoxes of this kind it’sworthwhile to reflect on a particular point. When I was in Paris,before the loix Stasi, I remember, a number of good citizens,persons with sympathies for the forces of law and order, advised agroup of Hebrew boys not to wear the kippot in a visible mannerbecause it could offend neighbours. Not specifically Muslimneighbours, this included Christians also, and so called Aryans,etc. The episode hit me in a particular way because of how theissues in question were confused: those who were in factoffended, that is the Hebrew boys, had to be respectful of theoppression from those who found the Star of David rather thanthe Kippot offensive.

This is the ante-chamber to a larger corridor that leads to theShoa. It is from here that we must start. Better to have freedomto offend than that type of oppression of symbols which lies atthe heart of all discrimination, religious, racial, intellectual,political etc.

It is curious that braver voices don’t make themselves heard,not only against the curt reactions of Islam or of one part of theMuslim world, as in the case of Robert Redecker and othernotable instances, it’s not taken into account that this right tooffend, this freedom of expression that gives also the courage tooffend, needs to be exercised against States, against politicalparties, against any form of congregation.

I’m happy that the “Corriere della Sera” carried the words ofAndrei Glusman and in an interview by Adriano Sofri against thehorrendous homicide of a woman, against the horrendoushomicide of a journalist who had the courage to denounce agenocide committed by Putin’s Russians against the people ofChechnya. But Chechens are Muslims, they’re close to Al Qaeda,so it’s alright to massacre them, perhaps in honour of ourcommon defence of the West.

An open society, one similar to that which we perceive whencontemplating a truly secularised society, isn’t a disarmed society,it’s not a society of facile pacifism, but it is a society that musthave the courage to defend itself against the aggression ofintolerant fundamentalism.

By intolerant fundamentalism I don’t mean merely religiousfundamentalism.

I would like to underline two elements. I would like to saythat, on one hand, for a secularist the violation of the freedom ofexpression represents a danger to a freedom of expression per se.This is a depressing factor, but it is even more depressing if thispushes someone to think that against all forms of fanaticism onemust reply with another form of fanaticism, perhaps camouflagedas the religion of democracy or some other scientific

Gra

zia

Ner

i

110

fundamentalism. Or to fall back on the deceit of the so-calledcivilian religion. A religion that is above all an istrumentumregni, a means of guaranteeing peace, a guarantee of values thatare strangers to faith. I believe this to be a two-fold act of violenceagainst society, but also against a genuine faith.

The second aspect regards the idea of where and how thebeliefs of the secular can be defended. I believe that they oughtnot to be defended by any church, not even a secularist church.Not by a religion but by freedom, not by a people’s religion butsimply by all persons of good will who respect their equals, whoare disposed to deal with concepts as issues which must be actedupon and perhaps to be “nasty” in doing so.

In the course of our experience with scientific progress we hadto deal with a lot of controversy regarding ideas, none wereconsidered sacred and science has gone ahead.

There is a beautiful song of the Spanish civil war called“Harama” which was sung above all by the volunteers of theEnglish-speaking International Brigades; it said: “We are all here,Protestants, Catholics, Atheists, Jews and Mohammedans, that is,Muslims, we’re all in agreement because our goal is no longer tofight amongst ourselves but to defeat once and for all fascism”.This seems to me a beautiful way to work and to cooperate.Therefore I’d say that we secularists (I use this term, I don’tdistinguish between good secularists and bad secularists. Ifsomeone calls me a secularist, in order to get my own back if he’sa Catholic I call him a Papist, but my invective ends with thisverbal jousting) should be of the idea that we ought not to limitourselves to a defensive position, we must also attack, attackcontinuing to offend those who are offended by our freedom. Somuch the worse for them. We have offended them in the past, weoffend them today, and we will also offend them in future. Wemight even enjoy it. For example let’s consider the attitude ofmany supporters of fundamentalism and of the so-called“intelligent design” of world creation towards Darwinian theories.Darwin’s scientific perspective is a continuous work in progress ofresearch, of field analysis, of laboratory work, of new scientificprograms which are making inroads into fields of analysis thatDarwin hadn’t even contemplated. This is the greatest legacy ofDarwin. Edoardo Boncinelli and a dear Catholic friend of ours,professor George Coime, the ex-director of the Specula Vaticana,in Italy’s principal daily “Corriere della Sera” have intelligentlyasserted that we must claim the right/duty to be activelyinterested in the process of evolution.

It is in this concrete perspective that secularists and non-secularists meet, men and women with a wide variety of religioustendencies as well as those who don’t believe. A dear friend ofmine once said that God has to be accepted as a whole, you’reeither 100% Christian or you’re not. It’s all or nothing. I don’tbelieve this to be true. Some days I’m more disposed to believe –not many – while on other mornings – and they’re the majority –I wake and I’m certain of being an atheist, but it’s just for thatone particular day because I continue to ask questions, and theimportance of posing questions is that there are no readyanswers. Therefore I believe the eminent Milanese figure CarloMaria Martini when he said that in every religious temperament,

DOSSIER

Oly

com

111

including his own, and I believe he is an expert, we come across adormant atheist who occasionally awakens and asks embarrassingquestions. Vice versa, every atheist contains a believer who everynow and then makes an irksome remark. I, for example, if allbelievers were like Enzo Bianchi, might give a thought to the ideaof conversion. This means that – in our country, as elsewhere –the problem is not between believers and non-believers. Theproblem remains between people who are disposed to respect theother on one side and people who do not respect others, in thename of a formal and bureaucratic deference to this or that creedand for which they are disposed to kill.

Adriano PessinaI believe that secularity is fundamentally an issue of method. Idon’t believe in secularity as content. I’ve often discussed with mycolleague and friend Fornero who, in common with AlbertoScalpelli, wants to identify secularity with a structural approach.Secularity means to reason as though God wasn’t there, but Idon’t believe that secularity ought to be identified with a singleperspective. Whilst studying and teaching philosophy I learnedthat secularity is principally the ability to recognize and toappraise things for what they are. From this perspective secularityis an ability to distinguish. It’s also an ability to discuss withoutprejudice. I would not use Giorello’s provocative tone, but I doagree when he says we ought to be unscrupulous.Unscrupulousness means to be within the limits of the possible,without prejudice. Everyone has his prejudices and thanks to ahealthy debate they are rendered public. But today the issue ofsecularity is often wielded as an ideological weapon. It’s a sort ofnostalgia for a point off reference. A nostalgic wish to belong toone side of a barricade where one is more than happy to be put

_Facing page: a picture of Darwin, who recen-

tly returned to the spotlight because of the

criticism of his theory of evolution. Above:

young people demonstrate for and against as-

sisted insemination

Oly

com

(2)

ADV

113

into an appropriate and reassuring box.On one hand you are re-assured because you are a secularist,

and on the other you are re-assured as to your Catholic-ness, andperhaps we believe that it’s enough to belong to one of these twoareas to be able to resolve the problems introduced into humanexperience by the complexity of history, the complexity of thesituation in which we live, the complexity brought about bytechnology, and the complexity of thought, of the actions of man.

I believe we ought to learn how to think of, let’s use a slogan,a sort of nomadic secularity, in the sense that if secularity is amethod then no-one ought to have an exclusive right to it. Asecular view in essence is an ability to come to terms with thingsand to discuss them. From this point of view I could interpretGiorello by paraphrasing that secularity is the ability not to beindifferent to difference. That is to be aware that differencesmatter, that differences have intrinsic worth and that one cannotmerely think with an esprit de geometrie, one needs an esprit definesse.

Today we operate with too many simplifications in a verycomplex reality. I have learned through the study of philosophy,but above all by life, that questions can’t be reduced to black andwhite issues. Especially in the context of ethics, the issues cannotbe limited to the evidently positive and the evidently negative.Unfortunately issues are more complex and the present contextdemands an ability to ponder. I believe that, in times in whichcommunication is ever faster, in which newspapers play anauthoritative role, we must try to learn not to apply the principleof authority.

Let me tell you a story told by a very important philosopher:Soren Kierkegaard. He relates the tale of a circus which raises itstent on the outskirts of a town. Suddenly, while they’re preparingthe show, a fire breaks out. The director of the circus calls theclown, who is ready to perform, and asks him to go to the villageand bring the inhabitants of the village to extinguish the fire. Theclown runs, begins to call the villagers “Fire, fire!” The peoplecome out, they see a clown! “It’s a trick in order to attract us tothe show”. All applaud, they laugh. “This is a great clown!” Thenthe clown changes argument, he begins to cry, to supplicate; theysympathise, they laugh. The fire reaches the village and destroyseverything.

The first meaning, which does not interest us, is that one callsan alarm: no one heeds it and the catastrophe arrives.

The second aspect does however interest us. We areaccustomed to listen and to interpret things according to who saysthem, rather than what is said.

This is the principle of authority, the fact that one does nottake account of what is said for its intrinsic merit and the contextin which it is made, but is interpreted according to the outfit onewears: that of the professor of philosophy, the theologian, or thejournalist. I believe that secularity revolves around thistheoretical dispute. There is an abuse of the principle of authority:to use one’s outward appearance in order to qualify an opinionthat is not debated and filtered by others. Hanna Arendt said thatour age is marked by the banality of evil, that is, that we have lostthe ability to think and reflect adequately. By putting aside our

_Adriano Pessina believes that secularism is

the capability for unprejudiced discussion. An

ability to reckon with and discuss things is

fundamental

114

comforting mindsets, the mental laziness which is at the origin ofthe indifference that cultivates an illusory self-referentialfreedom, secularity is also a frank and direct exchange of ideasand words. But above all it is the ability to share the humancondition and to recognize in the human condition those elementsthat are important to us. I believe that this is the only way to putsecularity into practice.

Enzo BianchiI would not want to relate a simply extemporaneous thought or amere reaction to the words of the other two speakers with whom,for the most part, I find myself in agreement. I haven’t heardGiorello say anything that upsets me as a believer, and even lessso from Pessina, who has tendered opinions I agree with, but thatseem to me capable of shaking the universe, because his definitionof authority is sound. It would suffice to think of this principle asit applies to the Church: to realise that validation of a message

depends on who is speaking.Certainly, the Church depends onpeople’s perception of it rather thanthe message, and without thatperception there wouldn’t be muchleft.

I’d also like to spend the oddword by continuing the discussionof the concept of ethics: the issuewhich will render future dialoguebetween believers and non-believers more difficult, at least inour country. I think that Catholicsought to pose themselves thequestion made by GustavoZagarbesky, when he asked ifCatholics can live in a trulydemocratic society. Beginning from

ethics as a standpoint and how such an ethical stance can inspirethem in a multi-ethical society. Over the centuries the ChristianCatholic ethic was the only ethic and until the odd decade ago thissame Christian ethic was also the secularists’ ethic. This is myopinion, the opinion of one from Piedmont sufficiently expert insecular ethics, as my Piedmontese education attests. However,today, ethics are pluralist and diverse, not only because we belongto a particular religion, but also because contemporary man isdifferent. This is something that Christians, the Church inparticular, didn’t wish for, they didn’t believe that we would arriveat a point at which we could have different ethical positions.

Permit me an example in order to show you how importantthis fact is. Up until twenty, thirty years ago, the problem of thedivisions within Christianity was a question of faith, of dogma, ofthings that one believed. This problem separated Protestants fromCatholics and eventually from the Orthodox, but over the last 30years the separating factors are morals and ethics. Insofar asbeliefs and dogmas are concerned the only difference is that ofinstitutional organisation. We no longer have theologicaldifferences between Protestants, Catholics and the Orthodox. The

DOSSIER

Con

tras

to_G

amm

a

115

existing differences merely concern the organisation of theChurch.

The chasm that has formed in these last 30 years concernsethics and above all sexual ethics. Today we are divided. If it isdifficult to conceive of Church unity it is because of differenceson ethics, not on faith. This explains the inversion that has takenplace. Therefore we may say that Christianity contains a pluralityof ethics. Furthermore the ethics of others also exist, those of menwho undoubtedly have their own particular standpoint. We hopethat the debate on ethics can be an evaluative debate in which weCatholics participate democratically, inasmuch as debate is theonly possibility we have, given the limits of democracy, because ademocratic state is obliged to operate through majority decisions,and cannot offer more.

Do we accept this or do we want the State to translate into lawour particular Christian ethic? This element is often unclear.Sometimes it is perceived that Christians want the State to act todiscipline the Christian ethic. Ibelieve that this is somewhatdifficult to do, but it’s an issue onwhich we Christians must beextremely clear. There must be adebate with those who have otherethics, a dialogue and mutualrespect. In the final analysis theState must decide according to thecriterion of democracy. We havethe possibility to conscientiouslyobject if we do not want to beinvolved with a particular law. Wemust permit the State to legislatewhile ensuring it does not merelytranslate Christian doctrine intolaw.

Giulio GiorelloI believe that Bianchi is right when he says that the greatchallenge today lies in the issue of ethics; he’s right if he adds thatit’s not only an issue of ethics, but also of politics. Let’s not forgetthe debate on the normalization of sex, on assisted fertilisation,on the various means of reproduction, on Pacs (civil union) etc.These are issues that, irrespective of one’s position, are essentiallypolitical because they regard not only my moral behaviour butalso that of others, of at least two persons, when one forms afamily for instance. And this poses us the big problem ofcompetition between ethical platforms that are essentiallypolitical. This is a great challenge. I agree with what Bianchi said.I don’t think the problem is that posed by Dostoevskji. “If Goddoes not exist then all is possible” is not pertinent because if sothe same can be said for Mickey Mouse: when a washbasin leaks,whether God exists or not, one calls the plumber not theclergyman. Therefore the need for distinction remains.

The real problem is another: can we be ethical and partake ofpolitical co-existence if God exists? That is, if God is proposed orimposed with such force as to imply that those who operate in the

_Iranian women at a rally of volunteer suicide

bombers south of Teheran wearing a bandan-

na with the creed “There is no God but Allah

and Mohammed is his prophet” and a shroud

indicating their willingness to give their lives

for their motherland and Islam

Oly

com

116

name of God, those that have God on their side, because they’reon God’s side, have permission to do anything.

Perhaps the problem is that of being ethical even if God exists.We learn this from everyday life. Does it really seem sane to youthat Mozart can’t be performed because a mention is made of theprophet? What do we want to do, cancel a tercet of Dante’s DivineComedy? Fortunately our rabbi friends are a little more open-minded and we can go to see the Merchant of Venice without toomany worries. The presence of this God, so powerfully assertedby his supporters causes us to think – permit me a quip - thatGod ought to be freed of his fanatical supporters.

Adriano Pessina I don’t believe that ethics is the fundamental issue, neither is it aquestion of sex.

I believe that the issue is more complex, more important, moreinteresting, and more profound. It’s an anthropological not asexual issue. The issue concerns the possibility of rethinking one’sidentity, of re-designing lifestyles in which the foundations whichre-assure us are not mere social roles, not simply a part to play, inwhich it is possible to find a sense to existence or even a nonsensein an existence founded merely on belonging to a particular socialcaste. I believe that contemporary society and the contemporarysocial context, beg us not to continue to discuss problems thatexisted twenty or thirty years ago and that today are no longerproblem, but which we however continue to discuss. For sometime I also tried to stop speaking about secularity, because, andnow I’m contradiciting myself, I was tired of all our sermonisingon secularity.

Let’s discuss concrete problems, here and now, let’s determinehere and now which is the hierarchy of concern we need toestablish. Because when we need to decide whether to dosomething: to respect This, That or Whoever, the bottom line iswhat we must establish it together; by thinking about anddiscussing which goods must be privileged and which torenounce. Freedom isn’t the simple exaltation of self-determination. Freedom for each and every one of us beginswhen, through our self-determination, we decide that we canrenounce a part of our self-expression because there are moreimportant matters. A humane society, a society made up ofpersons who have different visions of the world, differentcustoms, is a society that in the first place must establish what areto be its common values and in which idiom it is to communicate.This also involves renunciation, as does any act of choice.

It’s useless to want to pretend that one can pretend,everything to the contrary of everything. Therefore one mustbegin to reason in concrete terms by bearing in mind that today’schallenge is the construction of our personal identity. In an age inwhich certainties are different from those that once existed, butwhich do indeed exist and in which it is important that everyonewith their intelligence and abilities, with their certainties or fears,but above all together, attempt to find arguments which enablethem to determine the path that permits a society to express thewill of a plurality of persons.

DOSSIER

ADV

118

Which Role for the Secularistsin Multi-Cultural Society? A discussion between a great Islamist, Paolo Branca, vice director for“Corriere della Sera”, Magdi Allam, and one of the greatest religioushistorians, Alberto Melloni. Their starting points are different andtheir conclusions partially contrasting but there is a sharedunderstanding of the necessity to overcome obstacles and barrierswhich in the long term…

edited by Anna Blondè

Paolo Branca, Magdi Allam and Alberto Melloni hereparticipate in the second evening organized by the Corrieredella Sera Foundation on the value of secularity. Branca isprofessor of Arabic language and Islamic literature at theCattolica University of Milan. He is the author of a number ofbooks on Islam and its relationship with the West and hastranslated the book Midaq Alley by Nobel Prize winnerNaghib Mahfuz. Magdi Allam is vice director and editorialistfor “Corriere della Sera”. He has recently published the bookIo amo l’Italia (I Love Italy) with Rizzoli. Melloni is acontemporary historian: a professor at Modena and ReggioEmilia who has published a number of works, amongst whichwe find Chiesa madre chiesa matrigna (Mother ChurchStepmother Church) and L’inizio di Papa Ratzinger (PopeRatzinger: the initial period).

Con

tras

to_R

eute

rs

119

Paolo BrancaThe period we are living in presents considerable challenges:challenges which render things extremely hard, demanding yetfascinating. Reality is ever more immense, richer, more variedthan the simplifications to which we resort even for mereeconomy, for simple survival.

However, when we are faced by crucial problems we have aduty to try to confront the issues involved in a thorough manner,to use an appropriate language, to make the necessary distinctionsin order to avoid putting all our eggs in one basket. Therefore theissues of secularity, of civil rights, of the democracy of humanrights, are important, crucial, for all the world, not only for theWest, therefore we cannot consider ourselves as a monolithicentity. Western Europe itself, which was the cradle for manyconcepts, has lived and lives and expresses its acceptance of suchconcepts in a variety of ways.

France, for example, on the issue of the veil, has assumed adrastic position that is in tune with its particular history, with itssensibility. I can’t bring myself to condemn France or tosuperficially approve, but their approach is certainly verydifferent from… the one existing, in Western Europe as well,only on the other side of a small tract of sea, the Channel. GreatBritain is also a country of great liberal and democratic traditions,where the Queen is the Head of the Anglican Church. In France itwould be impossible to find a similar amalgam of governmentaland religious institutions.

Therefore, it would be embarrassing to decide which of thetwo ought to get the prize for absolute secularity and if we were

_Sentence 203 of the Constitutional Court,

dating to 1989, specifies: “The principle of

secularity which emerges from articles 2, 3,

7, 8, 19, 20 of the Constitution does not im-

ply the indifference of the State in respect of

religions, but that the State guarantees and

safeguards freedom of faith in a context of re-

ligious and cultural pluralism”

Oly

com

120

to seek other Western contenders a quick glance at a US dollarbanknote on which we read “In Good we trust” permits us onlyto imagine what would be the effect if we were to write the sameon a Euro bank note: how many countries of Northern Europewould exit ipso facto from the European Community in protestagainst this undue interference of religion in civil issues? Let’sremind ourselves of the issue of the supposed Christian orJewish-Christian roots of Europe that caused considerableargument. I’m not saying this in order to render everythingrelative and to say that in the final analysis everyone can do whatthey want. No, the problem exists and is of considerableimportance. But a single solution does not exist and no-one hasthe ideal remedy.

Turning to the other side of the question, I see that Islam isunder scrutiny, for understandable reasons such as their socialethics, their religious tradition, which is absolutely antitheticaland incompatible with secularity, with the principles of civilrights, with the human rights, with democracy.

It hasn’t always been that way and therefore it needn’tnecessarily continue to be so. Islam too shouldn’t be considered asa monolithic block – fortunately for Muslims and for allhumanity – a billion and three hundred million people do nottolerate being quantified with a single tag. Islam contains a lot ofdifferent attitudes. I like to recall that an Islamic country with aMuslim majority like Senegal, had a catholic President: LeopoldSenghor, a great poet, great intellectual, a prophet of negritude.Certainly it’s not the rule, but a remarkable exception thatdemonstrates that even in recent times countries with a Muslimmajority have been capable of experimenting with non theocraticpolitical systems.

But fourteen centuries of Islamic history tell us a lot more.They tell us that during the first centuries Islam was highlyreceptive to rational values. The medieval dialogues that were alsotranslated in Europe contained a story which compared a Jew, aChristian and a philosopher. The philosopher was a Muslim,because the contact with the Greek cultural inheritance had madethe Arab – not all of whom were Muslim – the principal conduitof Hellenistic culture in Europe. Therefore Islam has also beendifferent from how it appears today. It appears to us in this waybecause of a perceptual distortion, in the sense that we give a lotof importance to a dangerous and radically extremist minority,but the majority of Muslims don’t necessarily identify themselveswith this position. For example: we have this school of theintractables in Milan who prefer to adopt their national programin its entirety, their language, their culture, their tradition, butapart from these 100 individuals who obviously don’t want tointegrate, we have another 20,000 Arab students in Milaneseschools. Therefore the overwhelming majority of Muslims hasalready made a choice. Perhaps the problem isn’t to pit onesystem against another and to oppose uncompromising entitiesthat could never meet without renouncing their identity andbetraying their roots. The real problem is to ensure thefunctioning of civil rights, democracy, secularity, in order to makeit interesting to all those directly interested and those who live inthe territories where these principles are enacted. There is much

DOSSIER

_As Paolo Branca points out, Western Europe

expresses its belief in secularism and human

rights in different ways. For example, France’s

drastic position on the issue of Muslim wo-

men wearing veils is not shared by other Eu-

ropean countries

Gra

zia

Ner

i

121

to reflect on, because unfortunately – especially in our country,which has considerable institutional deficiencies – it is easier toremain clandestine than to legalise one’s position. Paradoxicallyone tends thus to reward the attitude of those who want toremain outside the system, of those who don’t want to integrate,of those who want to construct a parallel society, an extraneousbody, whilst those who want to participate find difficulties.

I believe that democracy is intrinsically weak; it is democraticexactly because it is at the service of the weak, otherwise whatneed would we have of democracy? The strong, the rich, thoseequipped with power have always succeeded in obtaining respectduring the course of history in one way or another. Democracymust however guarantee equal rules for all in order to protectthose not in a position to defend themselves. The only effectivetool that democracy has isn’t repression – it also has that becausewhen one exceeds certain limits one must be led back to legality –but its only hope of success lies in rewarding and promotingcorrect behaviour. It must be a system that sustains itself andwins by winning in the daily experience of the individual. Bymaking it clear to all that the institutions are at the service of thecommunity, of the citizen. By integrating because integrationoffers advantages, with a pragmatic line similar to that of theUnited States which in many respects can be criticised, but fromthis point of view offers a positive model.

Arab immigrants to the United States have above averagescholastic achievement and wages even though they live in acountry that in theory is a cultural antagonist. Because Americansociety is a society in which if you try you can succeed, one isinterested in making the system work, because doing so gets youadvantages, remaining outside the system, contesting it,

_Women protesting in France for the right to

wear the veil show their French passports and

identity cards

Con

tras

to_G

amm

a

122

boycotting it, doesn’t. Therefore it is important to reflect together,not on the theoretical aspects that may however be stimulating.We must concentrate on that which in every day life jams thismechanism: on that which in the interest of all should be moreappreciated and cherished, especially by the new generations whohaven’t had to struggle to conquer democracy, and therefore takeit for granted and risk losing it. Like all values that are easilycome by, we are not aware of them and we risk noticing howprecious they are only when they are endangered, when we nolonger control them, when someone compromises them.

Magdi Allam Let’s honestly admit that in Italy a formula for integration putinto effect by the State does not exist. One navigates without theaid of instruments: every now and then one notices a certainnumber, 100,000, 200,000, 700,000 clandestine persons. They arethen legalised, the minister of the moment makes the requisiteprovisions, but a system, a model is lacking. It seems to me thatit’s not taken into account what other countries that havepreceded us on the subject of immigration are doing. ProfessorBranca has illustrated the difference between the assimilationistmodel in France and the multi-cultural model adopted in GreatBritain and Holland. They are both models that have failedbecause they have produced ethnic ghettoes whose membersperceive themselves as different and antagonistic to society.

The day after the 7th of July 2005, when four British suicidebombers struck in the centre of London, 88% of British citizensof Muslim faith said they considered themselves Muslim, notBritish. This is a perfect example of the identity of a confessionalethnic ghetto.

I believe that it would be wiser if Italy just looked over itsborder; countries near to us refer to codes of value andconstitutions similar to ours and therefore could be of help whenerrors are made and when a guide is necessary. There is a doubleproblem that demands attention and needs to be resolved.

The first concerns our values, values which form thecornerstone of a collective identity, that must in the first instancebe identified, made known to all, shared. Only then will we beable to elaborate a strong and shared notion of collective identity.Without this point of reference it becomes difficult to embark ona process of integration. If we don’t have a model of reference wecan’t expect others to do what we ourselves find confusing. Ibelieve this summarises Italy’s difficulty in defining a model forintegration. It is necessary to provide an outline beginning fromthe experience of other countries, to trace red lines in order toavoid Italy too being subject to an outbreak of identityschizophrenia. These red lines ought to be seen as the frame of apicture which represents our laws and our values. Inside theframe we can put a plurality of religions, modes of speaking,cultures that will thus be legitimised, but the red lines must beinsurmountable for all and they must represent certainties forthose who share the same physical, cultural, values, and identityspace.

The difficulty that we have today in Italy is how to definethese limits, this frame, this identity. The examples are many; we

DOSSIER

_Magdi Allam acknowledges that it is not at

all true that granting rights is sufficient to

meet others halfway and do what is good for

them. If rights are not accompanied by du-

ties, the result will be the creation of a clima-

te of insecurity in which the other does not

clearly recognise the limits of his actions

Oly

com

123

have referred to the Arab school in Milan: before, they called itIslamic, now they want to call it Arab. Before, it had religiousconnotations, now, they say that it is non-denominational, but theprotagonists are the same, both inside the school and around it: aschool only in words because instead of being a centre for thetransmission of knowledge it is a centre of ideologicalindoctrination.

Here too Italy has demonstrated its difficulty in dealing withconcrete instances. For fifteen years a structure of ideologicalindoctrination of an extremist version of Islam has operated in anillegal way without authorization and when the decision hasfinally been taken to close it this hasn’t been done through theexercise of Italian laws, but through the adoption of abureaucratic subterfuge concerning difficulty of access topremises. Consequently the school now re-opens because astructure that is fit for use has been found: as though the realproblem merely concerned premises. It is obvious that this isn’tthe problem, not for the children or the families of the children,not for Italian society, but it is an emblematic case of thedifficulties of today’s Italy, that Italians have in defining theirown values, their own identity, in defending their own laws andthe consequent difficulty of delineating for others a route map forintegration. It isn’t just a question of numbers. Branca is rightwhen he says there are 20.000 in public schools and that only aninsignificant minority attend the school in question. But theproblem is not a quantitative one, suicide bombers are also a verysmall minority, the tip of the iceberg. We should be worried aboutthe iceberg, the underlying truth. If we have a school which in

_Leopold Senghor (photo: with his wife) was

the poet of negritude. The refined intellectual

and enlightened African politician was Presi-

dent of Senegal

Oly

com

124

reality is a centre of ideological indoctrination, we shouldn’t bepreoccupied by those 100 who attend it, we must be preoccupiedwith the existence of an ideology of separation, hatred, refusal, ofclash, of violence, of death that this entails. Because if today wepermit the existence of one such school tomorrow there will beothers: because the reasons for which that one is created areconsidered legitimate and we don’t have the courage to face theproblem as such and instead attempt to contain the problem byspeaking about “inadequateness of premises”.

There are other cases, like that of the mosque in Genoa. Whathas been written is very beautiful: the mosque, its minaret thatrises alongside the church, an embrace between two religions.However when we concern ourselves with reality we discoverthat this mosque will end up in the hands of preachers of hate, ofan organization that denies Israel a right to exist and propoundsits destruction, that supports Palestinian terrorists and Iraqiterrorists in Afghanistan, that sponsors a Muslim identityseparate from a collective Italian identity, that celebratespolygamous weddings, arranged weddings, that imposes the veilon women, sentences of apostasy and heresy for those Muslimswho don’t think as they do. We must be worried not because amosque is born, that isn’t the problem. The mosque as a place ofreligion is absolutely legitimate. Muslims have a legitimate rightto pray in a mosque, the problem is that of the management ofthe mosque, of the definition of the real function of a mosque. Wein Italy often make the error of reasoning in a non-structured andde-contextualised manner. We are not able to understand thesequence of images of the event in question and we don’t takeinto account the context in which it occurs.

We cannot ignore the truth of a world in which extremismand Islamic terrorism represent the principal emergency.

Alberto Melloni I believe that it is important to be aware of and to remember thatwhen we face these types of issues, secularity and multi-culturalism, we do what we sometimes do while on a trainjourney, we try to read the station signs while the train isspeeding ahead. We are on a speeding train and trying to findpoints of reference as to where we are, as to where we are going,but it is difficult and we often make mistakes.

We speak about secularity assuming that we are all inagreement on what secularity means but this obviously isn’t true.This is because secularity is a word born in a specific context: inFrance between the end of the 19th century and the beginning ofthe 20th, and it was easy to define. It was easy because itconcerned two points. The first was the transformation of awealth of doctrine, of theories and legal norms concerning areligion of State into a patrimony of doctrines and theories of anon-religion of State. That is to invert into a negative that whichwas a system based on religion. Before that date a certain numberof things were obligatory, it then became obligatory that thosethings no longer be obligatory.

The second point is that it was conceived in a context in whichthere were only three great religious entities. One wasCatholicism, the other was Protestantism and the third was

DOSSIER

_Alberto Melloni believes it is necessary to

revive the importance of the Constitution and

spread awareness of it among immigrants,

for this is the text that guarantees equality

for us all

125

Judaism, to which the previously oppressive Christian regime hadalready granted a lot and one could indeed say that Judaism was abeneficiary of secularity. There’s almost nothing left of that typeof secularity today. Firstly because one does not practicesecularity on concrete issues. It also has to do with Italy’s historicleft. They secularised by seizing ecclesiastical assets, ecclesiasticalproperty, they emptied Jesuit schools and made them intogrammars schools. There was anguish as to whether priestsshould or should not do military service. Today these issues arenon-existent.

Concrete issues are no longer of interest, there are noproblems as to property: why is this? Because these issues – ashas been emphasized by a great jurist called Vokenfoerd – have allbeen resolved by Constitutions.

A solution to a great part of these problems was found inConstitutions, not through the creation of a privilege, a federalistniche, but on the basis of equality: all have the same rights, allmust be able to do the same things, no-one is to interfere withthe religious freedom of another.

The secularist issue has become an issue of symbols andsymbols are by nature ambiguous. When Mrs. Flavia Prodi (thewife of the present Italian prime minister) entered into anaudience with the Pope, she wore a veil because Catholic protocolrequires it. Some follow protocol, some don’t. I’ll wager a pizzathat Ségolène Royal won’t be wearing a veil should she ever meetthe Pope. This too is a question of symbols.

Why doesn’t the sight of a veiled Flavia Prodi have an effecton us? Because we are all convinced that it doesn’t signifyhumiliation or oppression: it is merely a question of free choice,of correctness, good behaviour, education, respect for the rules ofthe owner of the house. We also try to interpret the differencebetween these phenomena in a world that has changedconsiderably, not only starting from the question of immigration,but for two other questions, which are much larger and muchmore profound.

On one side we have the radical repositioning of the worldeconomy’s centre of gravity, of world power, in geo-politicalterms, from the Atlantic to the east. Let’s call it Chindia or let’sjust call it China, let’s call it India, let’s calls it what you want, butwe are in a world in which the centre of gravity has radicallyrepositioned itself. And we have become subject to an importantimmigration flux, in numerical terms, but which isn’t the realfundamental issue in this moment of cultural infiltration.

On the other side we now find that the 19th century Europeanculture of rationality is no more. We are no longer in a system ofconvictions according to which there was a reason equal foreverybody. Through which one discovered all things andconsequently everyone obsequiously obeyed. We have enteredinto a period that started much before mass immigration, inwhich we have progressively become aware that there exists aplurality of underlying motives. A multiplicity of reasons, reasonswith which one justifies one’s own behaviour expressed in thepublic arena with the pretension that it be recognized andreciprocally shared. Reasons that regard hygiene, sexual relations,the food we eat, the right to eat vegetarian on Alitalia flights and

_Marketing has already adapted to multicul-

tural needs. Above: two different models of

the Fulla doll. The Western version of the

doll, which is very similar to Barbie, and the

Muslim version in traditional clothing

Con

tras

to_G

amm

a

126

a whole batch of other problems great and small.If one thinks he’s right on one matter this enters into the

public arena and necessitates respect as of right. Thus we findourselves with linguistic and cultural categories that are not onlyobsolete but are also on the verge of extinction.

Let me give you an example that concerns multi-culturalism.Do we really believe that the problem merely regards things thatwe can reasonably and rationally define simply as cultures? Howis it we don’t have a term for multi-religionism? Is it becausethese issues may contain elements that have cultural traits, legalimplications, literary inferences, an expression of an ideal, butthat in many cases also contain a much more cumbersomeelement, namely the pretence to relate with an absolute God.

Let’s continue and permit me to be meticulous. I have tried tounderstand from whence this definition came. Perhaps I’ve foundsomething that may not have a birth date but is sufficientlyancient to make a favourable impression on our audience. In 1936French Catholics during the course of their “kinship weeks”discussed the following topic: the clash of civilisations. We mayexclaim: What, sixty years before Huntington! Sixty years beforeHuntington. The discussions were related to the conviction thatone had to give a symbolic image to the existence, in a world inwhich colonialism was beginning to wane, of those that weredifferent. There were two competing explanations: one was papist.There is one religion and it’s the Christian religion, actually theCatholic one as they said then and as they strangely still saytoday in the right of teaching. There is only one religion: theCatholic religion, the others are cultures. It’s a wily way of sayingthat the others are false religions, lies, hypocrisies, defamations,but they are cultures.

The other explanation, which concerns multi-culturalism, washyper-secularised and Marxist: religions don’t exist, they’re tallstories and fantasies, those that others call religions are simplycultures. They should stay in “their cot” and ought not to disturbthe Commander. Every time that religions want to get involved italways seems that they have great things to do but in real termsthey don’t get us anywhere.

In this process, in which we don’t even know how to definethings, the symbolisation of secular issues emphasises, in amanner that ought to be viewed critically, the problem of identity:an issue we tend to ponder only in moments of uncertainty of theself. At this juncture Constitutions become useful. Once we havea Constitution, we have the legal and cultural instrument forregulating conflicts and co-habitations, then the issue of identitybecomes less urgent. The difficulty is no more.

In Italy the question of secularity has been defined in a waywhich is still very fecund, even though it’s not a new topic. I hererefer to the notorious sentence n° 203, of 1989, by theConstitutional Court, the one which establishes the supremeprinciple of secularity not as an express principle but as aprinciple which underlies the constitution.

In the course of debate of sentence 203 the Court has clarifiedits thinking by saying that “the principle of secularity whichemerges from articles 2,3,7,8,19,20 of the Constitution, does notimply the indifference of the State in respect of religions, but that

DOSSIER

127

the State guarantees and safeguards freedom of faith in a contextof religious and cultural pluralism”.

This brings us back to the question that needs to beunravelled, because in the end this is a good way to succeed inunderstanding things: it may indeed be useful to us this evening.

Paolo BrancaFear is always a bad counsellor. From one point of view itsexistence is very salutary, but it can’t be the sole criterion thatguides our acts.

I realise that it’s difficult not to be scared in a situation inwhich, on one side, we are aware of the complexities involved.Our ideas are very confused but we must provide answers andsometimes we are tempted to take shortcuts, without realintellectual commitment, without research.

I too have been asked: “But what am I to do with the Muslimchild we have at school who does not want to eat meat because hedoes not know how it has been slaughtered?” The problem ofpork isn’t the only one: for the strictly observant the meat mustbe, as for Jews, slaughtered in a particular manner, by slitting theanimal’s throat and draining blood from the animal. In order tosurvive one replies: “Treat him as if he were a vegetarian; in otherwords don’t give the problem particular importance”. Thisapproach helps you to survive.

However the issue is more serious, because we cannot ignorethe fact that these now over-lapping cultures are redolent withquestions, presenting problems to each other. I understand theuneasiness of a parent, not only the Muslim one, who comes froman eastern country with particular values, certain hierarchies andprinciples, who sends his daughter to school and then sees howher school companions are dressed, the language they use, howthey speak to the teacher and to their parents, with the oddcolourful expression, perhaps smoking, perhaps smokingmarijuana.

It might be a great opportunity for our civilization to be calledinto question by someone who says: “But to me your educationalmodel does not seem particularly valid in certain aspects”.They’re probably right.

The opposite problem also exists and from a certain point ofview I would like to take this opportunity to de-Islamify it. Theproblem with the school in Via Ventura in Milan isn’t so muchthat it is to all intents and purposes an Islamic school,surreptitiously camouflaged, but that the school is pedagogicallywrong. Children who in 95% of cases will live all their life inItaly are expected to study the entire Egyptian educationalprogram. One cannot load a double educational program on achild at the elementary stage, the Italian and the Egyptian.

Let’s look in detail at this Egyptian program. Apparently theItalians who work in this school don’t know a word of Arabic. I’ve

_Benedict XVI’s references to Islam in a speech at a Ger-

man university sparked anger in the Muslim world, which

showed its fury by burning the British and Israeli flags at

the Friday prayers in Teheran Con

tras

to_G

amm

a

128

seen the Egyptian secondary school textbooks and in certainrespects they’re striking: the first volume deals with ancientEgypt and the second deals with the advent of Islam. There are600 years of history, when the country was Christian, aboutwhich there isn’t even one page. There are millions of Copts inEgypt who are 100% Egyptian, they are Arabs, but they cannotteach the Arabic language in Egyptian schools: not in publicschools, not in private institutions, not in foreign schools, orSalesian schools, because the Arabic language can only be taughtby a Muslim teacher, because it is the language of the Koran, it isthe language of Islam.

This is worrying. The problems need to be managed bycompetent persons who may prefer to point out that, yes, theinter-cultural experience is a beautiful thing, but it must be aquality experience, perhaps by reflecting on the fact that there are10,000 Copts living in Milan: they have a bishop, they have avariety of churches, they have had, for fifteen years, a convent ofmonks at Lacchiarella, they have re-structured a homestead andmade it into a church, but one tends not to mention them.

They too are Egyptians, they also speak Arabic, but like allminorities they avoid the limelight. In the great Milan and itsdiocese – one of the most important in the world – little has beendone, in these 15 years, to make this Arabic but Christian realityemerge.

Therefore the problem is also the inability to evaluate thepositive elements in this complicated melting pot. It’s true that it’sa melting pot and melting pots can be scary. Democracy is adelicate process. I define it with an expression used by SaintExupery. Antoine de Saint Exupery not only wrote The LittlePrince, but also Wind, Sand, and Stars (1939) which is a beautifuldiary of his adventures as an aviator. When he finds himself inthe desert because his airplane has crashed, in order to quench his

DOSSIER

129

thirst he gathers the dew on the petrol tank of his airplane. Thenhe drinks the liquid that has been mixed with the petrol and withmineral oil: his stomach can’t hold down the liquid he has drunk.He then says to the water: “You are a petulant goddess. You won’tbe sullied”. Democracy too is a petulant goddess; if its notdistilled well it becomes poisoned. Therefore one must be capableof facing a situation which is indeed fascinating because thepresence of other cultures can be viewed as an opportunity to getto know ourselves, not to oppose our culture, our tradition, toothers, but to make it interact positively with them. Our studentsunfortunately have a very limited knowledge of the Bible. Theyare not aware of the great stories in the Old Testament which ingreat part are also those of the Koran. The presence of Muslims inour schools and in our society could be an occasion to considerconcepts we are gradually forgetting. But it must be managedcarefully, we must invest in this opportunity and not passivelypermit the initiative to pass to others who may ask us: “I want todo this? Can I do this?” In the end we might say: “ Yes, no, I donot know”. But we will then be in a losing position because wewill have lost the initiative to the second best, to those whomerely want to ride the tiger. Those who merely react rarely win:at most they draw. We must take a stand, not by making acrusade or by constructing barriers or by considering ourselvesbetter. We must therefore avoid the dichotomy “the good againstthe bad”, because there are a lot of positive things to do and torevalue that unfortunately remain in a shadow and unfortunatelyit is in this shadow that democracy withers away.

Magdi Allam My criticism of the arguments underlying the Prodi decree oncitizenship concerns, in the first instance, the parameters forquantitative determination of the number of new citizens to be

_The presence of Muslims in our schools and

society could be an opportunity to revive a

now very restricted Biblical culture.

Above, a manifestation against the re-opening

of a Muslim school in Milan

Oly

com

(2)

130

permitted. How many years of residence is necessary, five, sevenor ten?

This is the wrong approach, because if a person doesn’t wantto be integrated he may indeed live in Italy for even thirty yearsbut will never be really integrated. I know a number of peoplewho, though resident in Italy for decades, are in no wayintegrated.

Furthermore I also consider it somewhat naive to want tosubject an individual to an examination of Italian language andgeneral culture the day before granting citizenship. Language andculture ought to be pre-requisite to his initiating the path tointegration, not the point of arrival.

This brings us to my second observation, my second point ofcriticism. The questions ought to be made not at the moment inwhich one applies for citizenship, but at a previous phase, fromthe moment they set foot in Italy.

This is the reason that has brought those European countrieswhich have preceded us on this aspect of immigration to demandthat acquaintance with language and culture be a pre-requisite toentrance into national territory.

As of the 15th of March Holland is the first country to applythis criterion. The Dutch grant entry visas for work or familyreasons only to those who have passed an examination at theConsulate or at the Dutch Embassy in the country of origin. Thevisa lasts a year, at the end of which and whilst in Holland onemust pass another test in order to be able to obtain a second visafor a longer term.

This criterion is also present in the new French law ofimmigration and in that of Great Britain, with exceptions forhighly qualified immigrants who are conceded entry qualificationprivileges.

In Italy this logic is totally absent in political thought. There isa tendency to grant visas, but great reticence in requiringobligations. This creates a context of considerable uncertainty.

It is not true at all that to help someone it is sufficient to granthim some rights. If rights are not accompanied by duties, theresult is uncertainty: a situation in which the immigrant does nothave a very clear notion of the limits to his actions, and canimagine that the national territory is a desert plain whereeveryone can enter and impose rules, values, laws, as though thegovernment of a country were the mere sum of a hybrid entirety.This approach has been tried elsewhere. Holland is probably theemblematic case. The country that more than any other imaginedit was merely sufficient to lavish freedom so that it would becomea common patrimony and instead discovered, after the murder ofTheo Van Gogh on 2 November 2004, that the country had beentransformed into a patchwork of apartheid, of religions and ofethnic ghettos. A country in which 70% of the Moroccan andTurkish youth in order to marry return to the country of origin,indeed to the village of origin, and there choose a partner, theirpartner for life, then re-enter Holland and continue to live thereas if in a ghetto. They reside in Holland, but in fact they live aparallel life. Often they don’t speak Dutch and they certainlydon’t share the values of Dutch society. This is the reason forwhich Holland more than others has intentionally adopted such

DOSSIER

131

measures, but this line is also present in Great Britain.The day after the 7th of July massacre Tony Blair said:

“Whoever wants to live in Great Britain must integrate”.Integration conceived as a duty: not as an option, but as a duty.Well, I believe that we in Italy ought to acquire this notion ofintegration as a duty, because this tie creates certainty for all ofus: for the native Italian and for the immigrant. One may say:“But how is it possible for someone to know Italian and theItalian culture prior to arriving in Italy?”

I say that there is always a price to pay and when a boyarrives in Italy and is placed in a school without knowing theItalian language, Italian culture, with a family that may refuseItalian values, one pays a price. Within a specifically scholasticcontext the least that can happen is the slowing down ofeducational activity. I think that it would be more correct if thiscost were paid ad personam, by those who decide to come to Italy.In many of the countries from which immigrants come Italianschools already exist. I attended a Salesian school in Cairo. Italiancultural institutes exist and these structures could be transformedinto formation centres that could be of value to integration. TheItalian Institutes of Culture often do absolutely nothing with theexception of one single cinema festival per year. Why not invest

_Starting 15 March 2006, Holland only deli-

vers work or family reunification visas to peo-

ple who have passed an exam in the Dutch

consulate or embassy in their country of origin

Con

tras

to

in these realities so as to guarantee those who want to come toItaly arrive after attending these integration centres where theState, but also private institutions, could invest in such a way asto ensure the right instruments to approach the process ofintegration?

Alberto Melloni Is the constitution enough or not? Are democratic constitutions,the pride of Carlo Alberto and of many other liberalconstitutional regimes, an adequate instrument, or will historyone day find them wanting and seek to return to a charter thatwould be paradoxically similar to an instrument of government ofthe Ottoman Empire?

I was orthodox and respected orthodox laws, I was sentencedby orthodox judges; I was Muslim and… there were inequalities,differences that were not only paternalistic between genders:that’s the point.

As to the issue if Constitutions are enough or not, I’m of theopinion that they are, but I believe we mustn’t forget an aspectwith which today’s democracies find it difficult to cope. WhenEurope divided itself according to religious creeds and whenChristians, Catholics and Protestants began to kill each other withzeal in order to render honour to God, a conviction was reached.This was that it was better that everyday matters be regulatedaccording to a famous truism: “As though God wasn’t amongstus.” This is not – who cares whether God exists –, all of us aresure as to the existence of God but let’s agree to leave him out ofthis particular arena which we ought to consider as the space inwhich we regulate our reciprocal behaviour. It’s a concept that hascrossed European history up until halfway through the 20thcentury, when this type of principle was called secularity by thePapacy.

In 1958 Pious XII said: “A healthy secularity exists and thechurch can’t ignore it”.

In 1968 Paul VI, who wasn’t a dangerous extremist, said: “Wemust distinguish between secularity, the sphere of temporaltruths which is regulated by its own principles and with relativeautonomy – Constitutions – and secularism which asserts anexclusion from human affairs and with moral points of referencethat have an unavoidable relationship with religion.”

There is this tradition that says: “Let’s leave God outside”.This does not mean that God does not exist and that obligationsderiving from the fact that some citizens think a reference to Godis like a reference to a set of rules, according to which, if I’m apriest I don’t get married and, if I’m a Muslim I observe certainrules with regards to my diet, don’t exist either.

But what has this entailed? It has brought us to believe, in thecourse of the last 25 years, that the State is a mere container ofempty rules. Of rules that are mere formalities, that carry nointrinsic obligations. There is a lack of good reasons to oblige meto behave in a particular way.

We need to be aware of the fact that this problem is commonto us all. It is the issue of taxes. Why should I have to pay taxes?Why should I? Why does society exist? The best sort of society isthat which reduces my taxes. The worst type of society is that

which increases them. In today’s world these are principles towhich we can all relate and we cast our vote according to thepromises made in respect of these issues.

At the same time though, what has this type of process led to,a process that has secularised the State and reduced it to an emptybox, with a meccano set of rules a society can use and consume?It has brought about a situation in which the principal values, thesubstantial values, are positioned outside the public context. Onceideologies assumed the task of explaining the world to us, butonce ideologies ended, after the watershed year of 1989, religionshave again assumed a monopoly.

Therefore if there is a human embryo in the fridge I don’tknow what to say and I don’t have the courage to think about it. Ihope that a bishop will tell me and I hope he gets it right. I haverenounced the idea that there could be a rational way of resolvingthe question.

Perhaps there exists a constitutional principle on which to baseone’s thinking whilst bearing in mind that democracy meanscompromise and is therefore based on the fact that everythingmust and can be negotiated because it is the principle of acommon society, it allows us to reason together.

By comparison to the above, the problems of citizenship we allface today are very complicated, because one of the things wedon’t communicate, certainly not to the immigrant or even toourselves or to other generations, is the ideal that a Constitutionis a good thing which guarantees that all of us are equal; that allof us are equal thanks to our historical experiences.

The Italian Constitution has resisted all the trials of historybecause we were convinced that a Constitution guaranteedpolitical rights to all, even to those who held opinions contrary toa liberal and democratic parliament. It was good for us all thatthis principle was safeguarded. It is a Constitution that withstoodthe period of terrorism, not of the Islamic variety, but by thosewho picked up a gun and effected proletarian justice simply bykilling others. Around such convictions there was a cauldron ofconsent that was just as dangerous as today’s consent concerningradical Islamism. Fortunately we haven’t resolved the problem bysending all the 18 year-olds into a football stadium as in LatinAmerica, but we have resolved it with confidence in the fact thatthe Constitution represents a good anchor point.

In the end we find ourselves with a Constitution we ought toappreciate more: we need to understand the possibilities and theinherent values that it provides for the possible solution of thistype of problem so as to ensure that we don’t end up like thatunfortunate individual who had a winning lottery ticket in hispocket but threw it away.

Cor

bis

ADV

135

Deus Vult: Tales of Ordinary Intoleranceby Alessandra Cipolla

Episodes of religious intolerance erupting into violence and cau-sing deaths throughout the world are becoming more common.The problem affects both confessional and secular countries, dicta-torships as well as new democracies – so much so that the UnitedNations has deemed it necessary to intervene with a specificrecommendation to governments. Here is a summary of some ofthe most disturbing episodes in recent years.

In April of 2005, during the sixty-first session for human rightsat the United Nations, a resolution entitled Elimination of allforms of religious intolerance was approved. The resolution is notlimited to the condemnation of intolerance, but also recommendsthat countries adopt legislation that ensures effectiveness andguarantees freedom of thought and of religious beliefs, withoutdistinctions or exceptions. Moreover, it also provides for specificremedies in the event that the right to freely practice a religiousbelief – including an individual right to change one’s ownreligious affiliation – is violated. The resolution urges nations toundertake any necessary action to contrast acts of violence,intimidation and coercion motivated by religious intolerance, inorder to guarantee the rights of association, assembly andreligion.

A great deal of attention is therefore paid to this problem, alsobecause of the fact that a hypothetical map based on religiousfreedom and persecutions in the name of any given faith revealsthat critical situations exist almost everywhere, from Africa toAsia, passing through Europe, without leaving even the Americasimmune. The right to profess a religious belief without beingdiscriminated against or persecuted is violated by theocraticregimes and Islamic ones such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, as wellas by atheistic and communist ones such as China and NorthKorea, but also by regimes that are at least formally consideredsecular and democratic, such as Russia and Turkey.

And the victims of persecution are indiscriminatelyChristians, Buddhists, Muslims, the clergy, secular citizens orintellectuals. At times, their names become famous throughoutthe world, like those of Father Andrea Santoro, Orhan Pamuk,Elif Shafak, Theo van Gogh, Abdul Rahman, and Ebru Umar.More often than not, their stories remain confined to theponderous reports of human rights organisations.

The Old Continent struggles with new problems Europe is making an effort to manage with equilibrium thecomplex situation of an influx of Muslim immigrants as well astheir co-existence with local populations, but it certainly cannotbe said that an effective model of integration has yet beendefined. There are many episodes, some tragic, of intolerance.

One sore spot is the hostile situation among various religious

communities, Christian and Islamic, often identified by ethnicorigin, and which permeates the region of ex-Yugoslavia. InBosnia-Herzegovina, besides the problem of repatriates, there isthe fragility of the overall state of security as well as the practiceof religion in particular. Religious freedom is also at risk inKosovo and in Serbia and Montenegro, where the governmenthas difficulty in containing inter-religious violence and protectingthe rights and property of minority groups. Meanwhile, interritories that were at the service of socialist-communisttotalitarianism for decades, the concept of religious autonomystill has difficulty making headway, despite some important steps

DOSSIER

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN THE WORLD:2006 REPORT

KEYIslamic area: greenCountries with a majority Muslim population wherethere is discrimination based on Islamic law, rangingfrom forbidding Muslims to convert to anotherreligion to subjecting citizens of other religions to thedictates of the Islamic legal system.Islamic area: dotted green lineCountries with a majority Muslim population wherethere are difficulties deriving from social pressures orradical Islamic groups.Socialist-Communist area: redCountries in which a Socialist-Communist party inpower forbids (sometimes violently) citizens topractice their faith freely, with violent persecution ofmembers of religious associations that are notcontrolled by the government.Hindu-Buddhist area: yellowPredominantly Hindu and/or Buddhist countries, withsocial, political and legal discrimination againstpeople belonging to other faiths.Areas with restrictive legislation or socialpressures: greyCountries with legislation prejudicial to religiousfreedom for minorities and harassment, mainly at theadministrative level, of associations not recognisedor not to the liking of the majority religions.Area in whiteCountries not included in the other areas in which, inthe course of 2005, no significant events concerningreligious freedom were reported.Dotted black lineCountries in which, aside from the religion of thearea, violent incidents not directly related to religiousreasons are reported.

Source: 2006 report on religious freedom in theworld by Aid to the Church in Need

137

forward having occurred in Georgia and in Russia, a country thatmust manage dangerous resurgences of anti-Semitism (cf eastn.10 pag. 170).

The main critical point remains, however, the convergence ofdifferent cultures and traditions, which often degenerates intodramatic episodes.

It is enough to remember the twelve satiric vignettes aboutIslam that the Danish magazine “Jyllands-Posten” published inSeptember 2005 and which a Norwegian evangelical newspaperpresented again on 10 January 2006. According to the Danisheditors, the goal of the publication was evaluating to what extent

138

Islamic fundamentalism, which prohibits the figurativerepresentation of the Prophet, would condition the degree of freeexpression in Denmark. “It wasn’t our intention to insult Islam”,the managing editor declared in an editorial. But in themeantime, the polemic surpassed borders, degenerating into apolitical attack on Denmark, which within just a few days wasforced to close its embassies in Libya and Saudi Arabia, and inaddition was threatened with a number of proposals for boycottsin several Arab and other nations. Demonstrations were also heldin Palestine, where the Parliament of Gaza was taken over byabout thirty police officers protesting against the vignettes. On 30January, a bomb placed at the side of the road struck a Danishpatrol in Basra.

Algerians Kamel Boussaad and Berkane Bouderbala, who arethe managing editors of “Errissala” and “Essafir”, two weekly

Arabic publications, were arrested on the8th and the 11th of February 2006respectively and released after onemonth for having shown theincriminating vignettes in theirpublications. The same fate awaitedYemen’s Mohammed Al Asaadi,managing editor of the “YemenObserver”, who was imprisoned on the10th of February of this year and had thepublication of his newspaper suspendedfor three months.

Something similar had alreadyoccurred in 1989 with Salman Rushdie’sSatanic Verses, a fictional story, but onewhich posed leading questions regardingMohammed and was consideredblasphemous. The book’s publicationprovoked a fatwa by Ayatollah Khomeniwho called for the punishment of itsauthor, whom he deemed guilty ofblasphemy. A private citizen offered abounty for the writer’s death, which wascondoned by the Khomeni regime.Rushdie was able to save himself byescaping to Great Britain where he livedin hiding. One of his translators waskilled by emissaries of the Iraniangovernment and another was woundedin Italy.

The “sentence” was later suspendedfollowing the news of a retraction by theauthor, which was subsequently denied.

And in November 2004, instead, ahomicide with disturbing implicationsoccurred in permissive Holland. Theovan Gogh, nephew of the great artist, anda controversial Dutch director andeditorialist who was famous for his filmSubmission, on the subject of violence

DOSSIER

_Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, assassina-

ted in Amsterdam in 2004 for having made

Submission, a film on violence against wo-

men in Islamic society

Oly

com

139

against women in Islamic societies, was first stabbed and thenfatally shot in Amsterdam by a young man of Moroccan originwith dual Moroccan-Dutch citizenship. Van Gogh had receiveddeath threats from Islamic extremists immediately following thebroadcast on Dutch national television of Submission.

Van Gogh made the film along with Dutch citizen AyaanHirsi Ali, a Somalian refugee involved in politics who obtainedDutch citizenship after escaping from an arranged marriagetwelve years earlier. The woman is now under police protectionafter having also received death threats following the broadcast ofthe film.

Van Gogh wrote about Islam, Holland and terrorism in“Metro”, a free newspaper. He pushed forward, week after week,up until his murder. The fact that Van Gogh’s column implied adeath wish was obvious even to the thirty-six year old Ebru

_Ebru Umar, a young Dutch woman of Turkish

origin, is very secular and anti-Islamist. Di-

scovered by Theo Van Gogh, she now writes in

the murdered filmmaker’s column in “Metro”

Mar

tijn

de V

ries

140

Umar, one of van Gogh’s protégés who is today at significant riskand for this reason will also be put under protective escort. She isthe daughter of second-generation middle-class immigrants ofTurkish origin. Jan Dijkgraaf, managing editor of “Metro”, whichis part of a Swedish newspaper chain, said that Ebru was the rightchoice to become Theo’s successor, his post having remainedvacant for a year because there were no candidates who werewilling to accept the risks of such a tragic inheritance.

Ebru is very secular, she does not wear a veil, and above allshe is proudly anti-Islamic. In this she resembles the apostateAyaan Hirsi Ali, who is a friend and collaborator. Ebru writes forten or so Dutch magazines and newspapers, from “Volkskrant” to“Libelle”. Her most celebrated book is entitled Burka & Blahniks.Its cover depicts some women, covered from head to toe inIslamic dress, who resemble the one who was raped in Theo’sfilm. Her idyllic period at “Metro” (with a circulation of 500,000)did not last for long; after five months she was subjected to herfirst physical assault. “Having been born into a Turkish familymakes me a Muslim by birth. But I am anything but Muslim. Idon’t believe in God, Allah or any other higher power. Mymother is Muslim, she believes in Allah. But there were no veils,prayers or other symbols dictating our life. My father always toldme: my faith is my business”.

Ebru was attacked by much of the press for her book onwomen. “The Dutch media said that we were ignorant and idiotsbecause we spoke with criticism about the burka”. She doesn’tlike to be called a dissident. “I prefer to call dissidents ‘realists’,they are attacked by society, looked over from top to toe byintellectuals and mocked by political leaders. They are deadthrough being hidden or protected”. The problem in France andHolland is quite different and much more serious: “The fact isthat the government has decided to sleep through this, andbelieves nothing harmful or strange is happening in Europe, andthat the world is a wonderful place”.

Turkey: religious freedom, a passport to EU entryLast November 11th, thousands of Turks sang in defence ofsecularism at the funeral of Bulent Ecevit, the elderly formerTurkish prime minister famous for securing Turkey’s candidacyfor the EU as well as for invading Cyprus.

A crowd of people booed Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan andsang “Turkey is and will remain secular”. A few months earliersecularists had marched in defence of their cause at the funeral ofa judge who was killed by a presumed Islamic. A country whichis predominately Muslim, Turkey is officially secular, but thedefenders of secularism suspect that the AK party has a hiddenIslamic agenda, despite reassurances from Erdogan himself, whohas declared himself in favour of a non-confessional system.

What is certain is that the current Turkish version ofsecularism does not really seem to by synonymous with religiousfreedom, to the point that the European Commission, in itsproposal for Turkey’s admittance as a partner, has specified thatAnkara must recognize full religious freedom, a concept thatincludes the adoption of a law which will remove the obstaclesthat today affect “the non-Muslim religious minorities and their

DOSSIER

Oly

com

141

associations, in line with the elevated European standards”. Thepresent Article 24 of the Turkish Constitution in fact recognizesthe right to profess and practice a faith, but does not guaranteereligious communities the right to organise themselves as theysee fit, nor to possess goods or obtain legal recognition, not tomention the individual rights to change faith or to convene withother worshippers in a community.

On 5 February 2006, in the city of Trabzon, a Muslim boyshot dead a Catholic priest, Father Andrea Santoro, in the churchof Santa Maria. Even today, the priest is still vilified by theTurkish press, from the nationalist right to Islamic groups whoaccuse him of having committed proselytism. Even the Catholiccemetery of Trabzon was razed by bulldozers and headstoneswere vandalised. On the 9th of February in Izmir a SlovenianCatholic priest, Father Martino Kmetec, was attacked amid shoutsof “we will kill all of you; Allah is great”.

Another victim of this climate of culture clash was theProtestant minister of the Church of Adana, savagely beaten byfive men who ordered him to forgo his Christian faith and covertto Islam if he didn’t want to be murdered. Discrimination is evenpalpable in the workplace: Bektas Erdogan, a fashion designerwho converted to Christianity eleven years ago, was beaten fortwo hours by his own boss, who accused him of carrying outmissionary work and “brain washing”. However, even Muslimsdo not enjoy full rights; while in the West questions and debateabound about whether or not to use burkas and traditional headcoverings, in Turkey a law prohibits women from wearing theIslamic veil in public places.

_Religious freedom is at risk in Turkey. People

who profess their faith risk their lives, as in

the case of Don Santoro, an Italian Catholic

priest assassinated in February.

Also the issue regarding the Armenian genoci-

de is taboo. Above, film-maker Atom Egoyan:

the distribution of his film Ararat was conte-

sted in many cinemasO

lyco

m

142

Certain arguments remain taboo. If the Nobel Prize forLiterature brought celebrity and international fame to thewriter Orhan Pamuk, who went on trial for having spokenabout the genocide of the Armenians, others who follow in hisfootsteps share a destiny of censure. The first example is ElifShafak, whose novel The Bastard Girl of Istanbul has becomethe literary case of the year in Turkey. The author was accusedand then acquitted of having mentioned the Armenian genocide.It is obvious that the position of the authorities is still one ofobstructionism, even in the artistic realm, which is alsoevidenced by the case of the film made by Atom Egoyan,entitled Ararat – its distribution throughout movie theatres wasdeterred, none too subtly.

To China the black palmIn 2005 and for the first six months of 2006, attacks,interrogations, imprisonments and physical maltreatment ofmembers of religious or spiritual movements not authorised bygovernment continued to occur in some nations .

But at the top of the list of persecutors, together withMyanmar, Laos, Vietnam and North Korea, China reignssupreme.

And as of March 2005 new regulations presented by theChinese government as a “significant step forward in theprotection of religious freedom for Chinese citizens” have comeinto effect. This is, however, a freedom which still remainssubject to arbitrary restrictions. In fact, repression of religious orspiritual movements not authorised by the government has

continued: Protestants and Catholics, UigurianMuslims and Tibetan Buddhists. Thegovernment has also carried on its repressionof movements it considers to be cults, inparticular the Falung Gong. Hundreds ofreligious places, clandestine mosques, or venuesat least judged to be such, temples, seminaries,and Catholic and Protestant “domestic”churches, have been shut down by the police, insome cases even demolished, and their leaderspunished.

In March of this year, Human Rights Watchreported that one year after the regulations onreligious issues came into force more than fourhundred followers of Falung Gong have beenincarcerated or forced to do hard labour. This isa spiritual discipline based on three principles:zhen, shan and ren: truth, compassion andtolerance. What frightens the government isthat this practice runs through all levels ofsociety. In other words, followers includepeasants, citizens, soldiers and evengovernment representatives. Therefore, itregards the potential for a national movementagainst the regime as real. From July 1999 toApril 2006, the Falung Gong reported 2,862documented killings, often the result of

DOSSIER

_The affair of Abdul Rahaman, an Afghan

who converted to Christianity (below: a pictu-

re of him taken from a video), inflamed Af-

ghanistan and mobilised the West before en-

ding with the Italian government offering to

give him refugee status

Oly

com

physical and mental torture. And in March 2006 there was alsothe news of the existence of the Sujiatun concentration campwhere the bodies of the followers of this faith, after having hadtheir organs harvested, were cremated. On the 31st of March ofthis year, a retired military physician revealed the existence ofthirty-six more similar camps.

The situation is no better in North Korea, where in 2004religious and human rights groups denounced the persecution ofCatholics, Protestants, Buddhists and members of clandestineChristian churches. Christians, specifically those withconnections to evangelical groups operating beyond China’sborders, have been imprisoned, beaten, tortured and killed forreading the Bible and preaching.

Together with China and North Korea, Vietnam also has aplace among leading nations “which create particular concern” inthe 2006 edition of the annual report on religious freedom by theUS State Department. This, despite international pressure whichin 2004 convinced the Vietnamese government to approve a newordinance regarding religion and to free a number of detaineesthe following year. In February of 2005, the Vietnamese PrimeMinister adopted a decree prohibiting forced renunciation of faithand loosening restrictions against Christian organisations fromregistering with the government. However, the repression of theMontagnards, a Christian ethnic minority native to the centralplateaus, remains particularly harsh. The government in Hanoiholds under arrest the octogenarian Buddhist leader QuangHuyen, arrested in 1994 for having published an open lettercriticising limitations on speech and religion.

_In China, despite the new laws that went in-

to effect in March 2005, the repression of re-

ligious and spiritual movements that are not

authorised by the State continues. The situa-

tion is the same in North Korea and Vietnam

Con

tras

to

144

The globalisation of integralismIn Asia an extremely detailed report on religious freedom byHelp the Church bears accusations of severe violations ofreligious autonomy to the detriment of religious minoritieswhich are taking place in some countries with an Islamicmajority, from Saudi Arabia to Iran, but that must not make usforget that regulations which punish abjuration constitute aweighty limitation even for Muslims themselves.

An incident involving Abdul Rahaman, an Afghan citizenwho converted to Christianity, inflamed Afghanistan andmobilised the Western world. Rahman “encountered Christ” byproviding assistance to his fellow countrymen who wererefugees in Pakistan, following which he converted toChristianity. Fifteen years later, upon his return to his nativeland and denounced by his own family, he risked the deathpenalty for having abandoned Islam and converted toChristianity. Under pressure from the internationalcommunity, only an appeal to procedural difficulties and doubtsabout his mental state allowed him to evade the punishmentprovided for by the Sharia, or Islamic law, and accept an offer ofrefuge from Italy, where he arrived this past 30th March. Butthere are hundreds of cases like Abdul Raham’s, not only inMuslim countries, but in Western societies as well.

Religious freedom does not exist in Saudi Arabia: allreligions other than Wahabite Islam are banished from publiclife. The law only allows for private practice of religions otherthan Islam, but recent events negate this statement of principle.Large numbers of Shiites and Sufis (a mystic branch of Islam)are currently in prison, as well as some Saudi Muslim activistswho fight for democracy and observance of human rights.

In Uzbekistan, for speaking about religion one may pay theprice of eight years in prison. And this occurs, despite the factthat prohibition of speech about religion is a violation of Article18 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of HumanRights, which was approved by Uzbekistan as a member State.

In India, Christian missionary activities are the object ofsystematic violence which can even include homicide, such asthe cases of Catholic priest Father Agnos Bara and theProtestant Minister Gilbert Raj. Freedom-destroying laws andprovisions proliferate in an uncontrollable manner throughoutthe various states of India and the adoption of an anti-conversion law is looming in Sri Lanka, which has a majority ofBuddhists.

Even Muslim minorities are persecuted. For example, this isthe case of the Ahmadiyya movement, a minority of about 200million Muslims, spread across 178 countries. They areworshippers of the Punjabi prophet, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad,who they believe to be the reincarnation of Jesus and thepromised messiah, and they are considered to be heretics. Themost radical Sunnite groups have asked Pakistan for aconstitutional amendment declaring them non-Muslims, and inIndonesia they have recently been the target of violent attacks.

Critical situations of religious expression and intolerance arealmost a given in countries like Syria, and in the majority ofArab and African nations, Eritrea for example, where repressive

DOSSIER

regimes deny any freedom of expression.But since the attack on the Twin Towers, something has also

changed for the worse in the United States, a country that isnotoriously tolerant. The Council of American-IslamicRelations reported that, in 2003 alone, aggressions againstMuslims increased by 70% reaching a total of 1,019, includingincidents and manifestations of violence.

Cuba which, along with China, boasts a tragic record for thepersecution of intellectuals, does not expressly prohibit thepractice of religion. Conflicts involve the government andCatholic or Episcopal dissidence regarding their requests foroverall political reform, but do not affect, at least in aninstitutional manner, popular religion. The list could go on andon, touching on nations throughout the world. It reminds us,yet again, that the problem of intolerance knows no borders.

_Buddhists also have their place on the list

of the persecuted. The Hanoi government

continues to keep the 80-year-old Buddhist

leader Quang Huyen, who was arrested in

1994, in prison for having published a let-

ter criticising the restrictions on free speech

and religious practice

Cor

bis

ADV