Vatican
City, 27 March 2015 (VIS) – On 10 March, Archbishop Silvano M.
Tomasi, Holy See Permanent Observer to the United Nations and other
international organizations in Geneva, spoke at the 28th meeting of
the Council for Human Rights. His speech, the majority of which is
presented here below, emphasized the fundamental importance of
religious freedom as well as the freedom of expression.
“The
International Community is now confronted with a delicate, complex,
and urgent challenge with regard to respect for religious
sensibilities and the need for peaceful coexistence in an ever more
pluralistic world: namely, that of establishing a fair relationship
between freedom of expression and freedom of religion. The
relationship between these fundamental human rights has proven
difficult to manage and to address on either a normative or
institutional level. On the other hand, it should be recognized ‘that
the open, constructive, and respectful debate of ideas, as well as
interfaith and intercultural dialogue at the local, national, and
international levels, can play a positive role in combating religious
hatred, incitement, and violence.’ Failure in this effort is
evident when an excessive and irresponsible use of freedom of
expression results in intimidation, threats, and verbal abuse and
these infringe upon freedom of religion and can sadly lead to
intolerance and violence. Likewise, the Special Rapporteur on Freedom
of Religion has focused on the violence committed ‘in the name of
religion’, and on its root causes.”
“Unfortunately,
violence abounds today. If genocide means any act committed with the
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial,
or religious group, as such, then the International Community as a
whole is certainly witnessing a sort of genocide in some regions of
the world, where the enslavement and sale of women and children, the
killing of young men, the burning, beheading and the forcing into
exile of people continue. In this context, the Delegation of the Holy
See would like to submit to the joint reflection of the Human Rights
Council that these and other unspeakable crimes are being committed
against people belonging to ancient communities simply because their
belief, social system, and culture are different from the
fundamentalist combatants of the so-called ‘Islamic State’ group.
The appeal to religion in order to murder people and destroy the
evidence of human creativity developed in the course of history makes
the on-going atrocities even more revulsive and damnable. An adequate
response from the International Community, which should finally put
aside sectarian interests and save lives, is a moral imperative.”
“Violence,
however, does not stem from religion but from its false
interpretation or its transformation into ideology. In addition, the
same violence can derive from the idolatry of State or of the
economy, and it can be an effect of secularization. All these
phenomena tend to eliminate individual freedom and responsibility
towards others. But, violence is always an individual’s act and a
decision that implies personal responsibility. It is in fact by
adopting an ethics of responsibility that the way toward the future
can become fruitful, preventing violence and breaking the impasse
between extreme positions: one that upholds any form of freedom of
expression and the other that rejects any criticism of a religion. …”
“Freedom
of expression that is misused to wound the dignity of persons by
offending their deepest convictions sows the seeds of violence. Of
course, freedom of expression is a fundamental human right that is
always to be upheld and protected; in fact, it also implies the
obligation to say in a responsible way what a person thinks in view
of the common good. … It does not, however, justify relegating
religion to a subculture of insignificant weight or to an acceptable
easy target of ridicule and discrimination. Antireligious arguments
even in the form of irony can surely be accepted, as it is acceptable
to use irony about secularism or atheism. Criticism of religious
thinking can even help dismantle various extremisms. But what can
justify gratuitous insults and spiteful derision of the religious
feelings and convictions of others who are, after all, equal in
dignity? Can we make fun of the cultural identity of a person, of the
colour of his skin, of the belief of his heart? A ‘right to offend’
does not exist. …”
“Several
mutually interdependent issues like freedom of religion, freedom of
expression, religious intolerance, and violence in the name of
religion come together in the concrete situations the world faces
today. The way forward seems to be the adoption of a comprehensive
approach that would consider these issues together in domestic
legislation and deal with them in such a way that they may facilitate
a peaceful coexistence based on the respect of the inherent human
dignity and rights of every person. While opting to be on the side of
freedom, the consequences of its exercise cannot be ignored and they
should respect this dignity and, thus, build a more humane and more
brotherly global society.”
Posts
