“Is it so important for the European Constitution to contain a special reference to homosexuality but not to Christianity or even God? And if so, what is this indicative of?”

This indicative of a recognition of a past, present, and probable future entrenched discrimination against homosexuality, one can hardly make the claim the same for Christianity or God.

By turning the perpetrators into the victims as this article attempts to do, most notably through the historical reference in the title to a time when Christians were discriminated against, the author is engaging in classic spin.

When Buttiglione brought his prejudices into the EU decision making process through the constitutional committee he crossed the line. If you must state your religious beliefs outside but to rule for all they must be left at the door.

“The ideological intolerance manifest in the Buttiglione affair, surpassed in Europe’s recent history only by the Nazis and Communists, goes hand in hand with the recent omission from the Constitution of the EU of any reference to Christianity”

Surely the omission is a better indication of a desire to promote tolerance than its inclusion. To then stupidly equate this with the excesses of totalitarian regimes devalues the entire article.

Cameron, articles are written by contributors, but titles by editors, so if you want to blame anyone for the headline, blame me. For what it's worth the author didn't like the title much either.

Graham Young

"This (is) indicative of a recognition of ... discrimination against homosexuality",

Is the Constitution the right place to acknowledge past discriminations? Should all discriminations that were part of European (or any other, as a matter of fact) history be included in the Constitution? I am not a lawyer but I doubt the Constitution — even its preamble — is the right place to include such a very long list.

"When Buttiglione brought his prejudices into the EU decision making process through the constitutional committee he crossed the line."

When it was found out that I attended Sunday masses while a lecturer at Charles University (Prague) in the sixties I had to leave, and earn my living as a manual laborer because those in power thought that my private world view "crossed the line" making me unsuited to lecture. The difference is, of course, that those who threw me out represented brutal political power, while the modern inquisition that decided about this "line", represents the view supported by the majority of (European) media. Psychological methods used to brainwash the masses are less brutal than physical pressure but certainly more effective.

"Surely the omission is a better indication of a desire to promote tolerance than its inclusion. "

I cannot see why omitting Europe's roots in an official document like the Constitution is an indication of tolerance. I could better understand an argument that would want to have Muslim and Greco-Roman roots mentioned as well. If you are ashamed of your parents that is indicative of a mental disorder, not of tolerance, even if you had misunderstandings with them.

"To then stupidly equate this with the excesses of totalitarian regimes devalues the entire article."

I do not see this equation of yours. What I wrote was that "ideological intolerance ... was surpassed ... only by the Nazis and Communists". I do not know what your experience with these two regimes was — I lived through both — but I can assure you that "ideological intolerance" was not nearly the worst thing you could say about them. True, they discriminated against me, as well as against homosexuals and others whose private lifestyle or opinions did not fit, but they did worse things to others that, of course, could not nearly be equated to what happened here to Battalion. If I say that the heat in Cologne last summer was surpassed only by that in Darwin, I do not equate the cities of Cologne and Darwin!

Hello George,

I will admit the Lions vs. Christian reference flavoured my reading of your contribution.

I’m sorry for attributing the title to your good self, it appeared to be a continuation of Buttiglione’s efforts to spin Christians as victims, albeit after him being rejected. By making statements such as "if they want a Catholic witch to burn, then here I am" he exhibits a poor recognition of Christianity’s less savoury periods, and this seemed to be more of the same.

Buttiglione’s promise to "battle for the freedom of Christians” must only have validity if Christians are not free in Europe. Since this is plainly not the case it then begs the question freedom to do what? Indeed why couldn’t he have promised to battle for the freedom of all religions since none of the three monotheistic faiths represented in the EU readily support homosexuals, why just Christians?

When he claims “America has shown itself more religious and more attentive to values than Europe.” he raises the ‘sceptre’ of Christian fundamentalism and ignores the values of secular humanism I have much admired of European politics in the past. Secularism is a concept which Islam continues to struggle with. In Europe however the battle appeared to be over. I for one would not like to see the swords raised again as appears to be Buttiglione’s want.

Finally please excuse my touchiness about the Nazi comparison, the word has been bandied about in Australia to describe a certain political party, not mine incidentally, but still in my opinion inappropriately.

Regards

Cameron

Hello Cameron,

Thank you for your personal words. What you quote are Buttiglione's words after he was censored and -- understandably or not -- angered. In my article I was not concerned with discrimination of Christians (it exists in Europe's media in a subtle way, hard for an outsider to understand, but that is a different topic) but with the fundamentalist danger of not seeing that private opinions are one thing and suitability to hold a public office another. The German Prime Minister enjoys his fourth wife and the Foreign Affairs Minister, I think, his fifth. Many Christians will disapprove of this but I have never heard anybody who would use this is an argument against their suitability to hold their offices.

How else can you convince Muslims that by integrating into a secular (not secularist, as I made the distinction very clear in the introduction) society they do not have to give up their views, only those actions that go against the rules accepted by the society. It is not only views on homosexuality but many other things that they have to keep private if they want to integrate.

As far as discrimination or support of homosexuals is concerned I do not think the right remedy for the first is the second. Discrimination is an injustice that is remedied by stopping it not by turning it into active support. Most people will agree that the Catholic Church was discriminated against -- to say the least -- in Communist countries, but many of the same people feel uneasy about the privileged position that the Church has enjoyed in some Eastern European countries since 1989.

Regards,
George