Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1363129
3 LETTERS & EDITORIAL maltatoday | SUNDAY • 18 APRIL 2021 Mikiel Galea Letters & Clarifications On the lay State WE read with interest Michael Falzon's article of 13 April 2021, 'A proud lay state no longer', and in par- ticular his comments on a proposed 'way of the cross' in Triq ir-Ruh, Mgarr. He raises some important issues. We agree that it is wholly inappro- priate, in a culturally and religiously diverse state, for taxpayers' money to be used by the government in support of one religion. While we respect the Catholic tradition in Malta, it seems to us that the government should have no role in financing and promoting religious manifestations. But we have to disagree with Mr Falzon's characterisation of Malta as 'a proud lay state'. We would welcome Malta being a 'lay state'; indeed, in January 2020 Robert Abela reportedly said that "Malta is a secular state, but the constitution also affords a strong, fundamental freedom that everyone is entitled to his religion of choice". But he did not explain how the State can be secular given the Constitution: Article 2 (1) "The religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic Re- ligion. (2) The authorities of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church have the duty & the right to teach which prin- ciples are right & which are wrong. . . (3) . . . as part of compulsory educa- tion" This appears to be in direct con- flict with Article 32, which entitles everyone in Malta to "freedom of conscience". We believe that, to guarantee max- imum freedom for all in a modern democracy, state institutions should be separate from religious ones, and the state should be wholly neutral on matters of religion, belief, or lack thereof. This – as opposed to an avowedly atheist or agnostic state – is what we see as secularism. Malta's constitution is a legal docu- ment governing the operation of the State, not a statement of Maltese iden- tity and tradition. Why, then, should any Catholic – guaranteed freedom of conscience by Article 32 – want or need a reference to their religion in the Constitution, unless is it to ensure the Catholic Church's control of, or influence over, those who do not share their belief? Why exclude a significant minority from the tenets of our Constitution? After all, excluding the Catholic faith from the Constitu- tion would not imply its replacement with any other. The Constitution's stipulation that Malta's religion is Roman Catholic makes Malta a theocracy, and imposes on it a code decided by the Vatican, not by its own diverse citizens. Enshrining Catholicism in the Con- stitution suggests that any non-Catho- lic ideas are unconstitutional, and implies that those who hold them are dissidents. Yet Malta has already diverged from Rome on the questions of marriage, divorce, gay marriage and contraception – and from Article 2(3) of its own Constitution by enabling parents to choose Ethics classes in- stead of religious instruction. As we have said above, these are im- portant issues – which require more rational consideration than they have hitherto received. Dr Christian Colombo Malta Humanist Association Clarification: Mintoff THE photo carried on page 14-15 of MaltaToday, 11 April 2021 ('… Mintoff's Gang of Four') erroneously carried the picture of Tony Cassar, and not of his uncle, George Cassar, who was identified as one of Dom Mintoff's confidants in Alfred Sant's memoir. The error is regretted.