Ladies and Gentlemen,

Dear friends,

When I was asked to participate in an academic conference on the long-term consequences of the Reformation, I accepted without hesitation.

There is no doubt that the Reformation was a historic watershed.

Europe today would look very much different if 500 years ago the monk Martin Luther had not had the courage to speak out against—what he saw as—the aberrations and deformations of his religious beliefs.

And yet, for an intergovernmental organisation with 47 member states, with several different religions traditionally present on its territory, and with numerous different systems of interaction between religion and the state — it is not immediately evident that we should actively contribute to a debate on religious topics.

If religion is essentially a private matter, and if we are living in a secularised world, then why should governments or international organisations bother about religion?

However, this attitude has never been entirely justified.

Religion has never been only a private matter, nor has it disappeared from modern life.

It is for this reason that I want to speak today about the role that the Council of Europe plays safeguarding religious freedom and supporting religious diversity and pluralism.

I will then go on to make some remarks about the imprint of the Reformation and its lessons on contemporary Europe and the way that our Organisation reflects these.

Let me begin with a fundamental: the issue of freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

For many years, the Council of Europe has looked at religion almost exclusively from the point of view of a guardian of human rights.

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion are protected by Article 9 and other parts of the European Convention on Human Rights such as freedom of expression (Article 10) and freedom of association (Article 11).

The case law of the European Court of Human Rights on religious issues is enormous, and it touches upon a wide range of policy areas and sometimes very practical problems, including for instance:

• Education: for example, can educational authorities refuse granting children complete exemption from compulsory classes on Christianity?
• Freedom of expression: can a Muslim woman wear a full-face veil in public? Should religious communities be protected against blasphemy?
• Social Policy: can the costs of a Christmas tree be reimbursed by the authorities as part of unemployment benefits?
• Or property rights:  does a Jewish community have the right to demand that no building be constructed on old Jewish cemeteries?

The Court has often underlined that in its religious dimension, Article 9 is “one of the most vital elements that go to make up the identity of believers and their conception of life, but it is also a precious asset for atheists, agnostics, sceptics and the unconcerned.”

In short, it is a truly fundamental right.

However, if we want to take seriously our role as the guardian of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, the legal protection of such rights is not enough alone.

Especially in recent years, the international community has become more and more aware of the role of religion with regard to the democratic management of cultural diversity, the need to organise our society such that all of its members are living together “as equals in dignity”.

This is the title of the “White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue”, launched by the Committee of Ministers in 2008. With a view to religion, the “White Paper” made two important points.

The first point is that religious practice is part of contemporary human life.

It therefore cannot, and should not, be outside the sphere of interest of public authorities.

The State must however remain neutral and impartial.

There should also be a better dialogue between religious communities and public authorities.

We are speaking here of a “laïcité of dialogue”.

Its main components are the freedom of thought, conscience and religion; the equal rights and responsibilities of every believer and non-believer; and the mutual autonomy of the state and religious communities vis-à-vis each other.

The second point is that there is also a need for dialogue between religious communities themselves – that is to say, interreligious dialogue.

Public authorities have no role in this.

They can, and should, however encourage religious communities and non-religious believers to come together and reflect upon their common task to contribute to a peaceful democratic society, protecting the human rights of everyone and safeguarding the rule of law.

It is crucial that we find ways for people of different faiths and beliefs to co-exist peacefully.

We all know that this is not easy.

Across Europe today, we are seeing an upswing in discrimination and intolerance.

Minorities are marginalised and stigmatised, today often more unashamedly than even a few years ago.

Stereotypes and distorted images of minorities have often found their way into mainstream media and populist rhetoric and hate speech are beginning to penetrate political discourse and public opinion.

Hatred and intolerance such as this threaten democratic stability and the “deep security” of our continent.

The White Paper was published to coincide with the first of our regular, structured dialogues between our member states, religious communities and non-religious beliefs, which the Committee of Ministers organises regularly.

At these annual events, we look at the practicalities of intercultural interaction, governance, and competences.

The prime objective is to promote and strengthen the fundamental Council of Europe values, in order to foster respect and awareness, tolerance and mutual understanding within European society.

The topics chosen for these “Exchanges” reflect this wider interest of our Organisation.

Over the years, we have dealt with issues like the teaching of religious and convictional facts; the relations between media, beliefs and religions; the role of young people in the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue; the current challenges and guarantees of the freedom of religion; the interaction between culture and religion; the role and place of religion in public space; and the role of education in the prevention of radicalisation leading to terrorism and violent extremism.

Next week, in the 2017 “Exchange”, we will look at the topic of “Migrants and refugees: challenges and opportunities - What role for religious and non-religious groups?”.

But there is more than dialogue.

Let me mention two examples.

Since 2002, the Council of Europe’s education programme has included education about religions in public schools across Europe.

The purpose of this programme is to promote dialogue, mutual understanding and living together.

One product of this programme is the publication “Signposts”, a manual for teaching about religions and non-religious convictions within intercultural education.

“Signposts” has been translated into thirteen languages and published online in 10 languages (Arabic, Dutch, English, French, German, Greek, Romanian, Russian, Spanish and Ukrainian).

The Norwegian, Swedish, Italian and Albanian translations will be on line by the end of 2017.

This new material, also including the co-operative projects with the European Wergeland Centre in Oslo, will be supported by a thematic website related to the Organisation’s work on education about religion, to be online later this year.

The other example is a guide for policy-makers, public authorities and NGOs on freedom of expression and its links to other human rights.

This good practice guide is being prepared by our intergovernmental Steering Committee for Human Rights.

It is expected to be published in 2018 and will concentrate—among other things —on issues directly related to religion.

Topics will include gratuitously offensive expressions; expression of religious and non-religious beliefs in the workplace; the wearing of religious symbols in public; and the legal and practical issues of blasphemy and its relevant case law.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The Council of Europe therefore has an immediate and growing interest in all matters linked to religion.

The legacy and the consequences of the Reformation is therefore of interest to us.

Let me say, before I come to more serious things, that as somebody from the North of Italy, born and raised in a deeply Catholic environment, I may perhaps not be the best placed to talk about the Reformation.

But the Reformation has undoubtedly been of enormous relevance for the course of European history, and I will therefore take the liberty of making a few comments on this.

My first comment relates to the “discovery” of individual conscience.

Freedom of religious conscience was central to the thinking of Luther and other Reformists.

Indeed, the Reformation turned against the rigid notions of authority, truth, and obedience, which had dominated the Middle Ages.

The “universal priesthood” of the Reformation opened the way for a personalized approach towards the mercy of God.

The individual was suddenly faced with a heavy religious responsibility.

Today freedom of conscience is one of the foundations of our political thinking.

It is enshrined in the catalogue of fundamental freedoms and human rights, which are universally acknowledged and unconditionally protected and it has had wide-ranging ramifications on our general understanding of our freedom.

Its deep consequences were felt equally in many policy areas, including culture and the economy.

I hope it is not farfetched to say that this is, in the eyes of the international community, one of the most important lasting legacies of the Reformation.

Of course, not every religious schism is directly relevant to the Council of Europe.

But the Reformation—like the Great Schism of 1054 five centuries earlier— marked a change with profound and lasting consequences,  some of which are still visible and relevant today.

Here I want to mention one aspect, which in our view has become a central element of the European identity: participation.

It has often been said that the Reformation was not a democratic movement.

Politically speaking, the Reformation was a revolution of the nobility against the Emperor.

In a little side remark, the philosopher Karl Popper wrote—in “The Open Society and its Enemies”—that the Reformation only strengthened medieval feudalism, and did not threaten it.

I would certainly be interested to hear thoughts on this contention from members of this audience.

But today we can be clear that the Reformation did not always propagate the separation between Church and State.

The existing national and regional Lutheran churches, sometimes still firmly linked to the secular authorities, are living proof of that.

The Reformation, in short, should not be seen as a direct precursor of modern democracy.

However, the Reformation was certainly a catalyst for participation.

The interest in the words of the Bible triggered a higher literacy rate among the general population.

I am convinced that our understanding of education as a cornerstone of citizenship and participation has its roots in the religious revolution of the 16th century.

The Reformation also strengthened participation in other contexts, which are still politically relevant today.

One example is the mobilisation of the urban elites demanding more political participation, which was greatly supported by reformist movements, particularly Calvin’s.

This led to numerous conflicts but ultimately strengthened local democracy, which we regard today as part of our fundamental freedoms.

Another consequence that I would like to consider was the Reformation’s impact on confessions and religious coexistence.

We see this in the Peace of Augsburg in 1555, and the Peace of Westphalia one century later, which implicitly recognized the equal value of confessions.

In Germany, the princely authorities could still for some time decide which confession the subjects should obey, although this obligation was not enforced with the same vigour everywhere.

But in the long run, and in other parts of Europe—think of the Edict of Nantes of 1598—this made religious coexistence possible and allowed minorities to practice their beliefs.

So the Reformation stood at the beginning of peaceful religious diversity, which today is a precondition of democratic stability and full respect for human rights.

Its story ultimately becomes one of tolerance and coexistence, which is so central to the political culture of Europe today.

My last comment is that Martin Luther himself would probably be very surprised to see us debating the five hundredth anniversary of the Reformation, and having the opportunity to apply the lessons of the Reformation to our challenges in the here and now.

He, like many of his contemporaries, was convinced that the end was near and that people should prepare for the Last Judgment — according to Luther and his supporters by re-orientating towards a more authentic, presumably better state of being.

This is what the word “Reformation” means.

It was a time of truly fundamental changes: the discovery of the Americas; the success of the printing press; the Copernican Revolution.

New questions and insecurities arose and many people looked towards the old established ways for help.

And what did they get?

Not the reestablishment of the old order, but something innovative.

The “innovative power of tradition”, I think, has become the technical term used by historians for this effect.

It is one of the great ironies of history.

One may wonder what this ambivalence between Old and New tells us for the present-day Europe.

It is probably legitimate to interpret some recent political developments as the wish to go back to traditional ways, to a largely mythical old established order.

Many Europeans feel threatened by our entire political and cultural environment—with its digitization, migration, and globalisation - and they vote accordingly.

In this situation it seems highly appropriate to heed the lessons of the Reformation, even if you are not a Protestant personally.

The re-discovery of critical thinking; the unmitigated responsibility of the individual for his or her actions, who cannot hide behind imagined or real authorities; and the capacity to tolerate the other, even if he or she believes in something fundamentally different — these achievements are rightly linked to the Reformation.

And they are achievements which we badly need in the Europe of today.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Addressing Luther’s legacy, Professor Monika Grutters, Germany’s Minister of State and Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and Media, has written interestingly.

She points out some incontestable facts: that Luther’s translation of the Bible was crucial to the development of the German language and that the Reformation gave rise to profound political change first in Germany and Europe and then in the ‘New World’.

She also notes that Luther is considered to be one of the precursors of the Enlightenment, of responsible citizenship and vital civil society.

These seeds did not all sprout in unison of course: it has taken a long time for these things to flourish and I am interested to hear today your thoughts on the causality, process and timeline.

I thank the European Academy on Religion and Society for its initiative to put together such an interesting programme, and the governments of Latvia and Germany who are supporting the event in one form or another.

Thank you for your attention.