http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTaroPa7kJ4&NR=1

You cite Justice Coleridge, but refer to a letter published in The Times in Malta that trots out the old chestnut about women’s independence being a threat to family life. That mindset is not an argument against divorce. It’s one of the reasons why divorce is necessary.

So Malta should remain a theocracy?

We are much in agreement here, but you are addressing the wrong point. I have absolutely no objection to the Constitution stating that the official religion of Malta is Roman Catholic, but I have a huge problem with the Constitution conceding the right to “teach what is right and wrong” to the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church. For starters, the RCAC is technically a separate state, hence the constitution grants this right to a different state.

The second problem is the toothlessness of the Constitution, as described by you. A nation’s constitution is supposed to be the defining document for that nations values, legislation and legislative structure and contained in it is a clause which seems to have ended up there pretty much to gain some political points at some point.

Don’t worry about the gender mix-up. “Pat” does not really indicate a “gender”, in contrast to “E=mc2” which certainly does.

Until the Constitution is amended it must be respected.

One can read on the history and the discussion in Malta on the ‘religion’ constitution article in Rajt Malta Tinbidel by Herbert Ganado.

It muse be pointed out that there are many countries, including European states who recognize a particluar church or religion (UK, Greece , Norway) and where religion is taught in State schools (Italy, Germany).

The Constitution states a fact and Catholic principles, accepted by the majority of the Maltese people, are those which should guided the legislator, even though this article, being a principle, is not enforcable in a court of law.

The first law enacted by a Maltese Parliament in 1921 was that the Catholic religion is the religion of Malta.

The 1964 independence constitution had the ‘religion’ article and this remained in the 1974 republic constitution.
The 1987 emendments and the ‘Mintoff’ reference are to my mind out of point.

As for divorce I refer to Mr Justice Coleridge’s comments – read http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090810/letters/the-spreading-epidemic-of-broken-marriages and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1193545/Only-marriage-mend-broken-Britain-says-judge.html

As the Maltese expression states, the most deaf person is he who does not want to listen!

The article on religion has a history in that something similar was included in early constitutions when the Maltese wanted to ensure that the British would leave the Catholic Church unmolested and, in reality, without any real competition from protestant proselytisers. The British obliged and turned the Church into an ally most of the time. In my view, this article should be removed from the Constitution in this day and age. Essentially, our Constitution is a secular one and it is the Government which, at times, seems unsure about the separation of State and Church and the reason for this is, as very well indicated in Daphne’s article, the personal religious convictions of certain political leaders. As I’ve said elsewhere, it is my view that politicians who want to go to heaven should leave politics if they cannot transcend these convictions and Daphne has, more or less, stated the same.

Many Maltese Catholics interfere in the lives of others because they feel it is their duty to do so but, in the final analysis, this is nothing but self-interest because they want to be rewarded with paradise and, to gain this reward, they interfere in my life and yours and lobby for such things as the continued absence of divorce.

Let them go to heaven but not on my back please.

Perhaps it wasn’t very clear (in hindsight it most definitely wasn’t), but I was not coming out in favour of the Maltese Constitution. My point is that the Constitution should constitute (well, not really a pun, more of an accident) the highest standards a nation strives towards and a top-level framework for legislation. A law that goes against the Constitution should not be able to pass. This is what makes the current constitution ridiculous and theocratic.

To include what you refer to as “pious statements” and use that to negate the value of that constitutional clause renders the whole document utterly useless. What it literally says is that if the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church deems something wrong, then it is, whether parliament, “the people”, or the Prime Minister himself thinks differently.

Yes – though I don’t regard divorce (or abortion, or the right to die with dignity, for that matter) as minority rights, but as a normal individual right applicable to all.

Pat continues to quote the Constitution when it has been rightly written many times even on this blog that those articles are mere pious statements and do not bind Parliament to legislate according to Catholic dogma. Pat has no idea about constitutional law and this is clear from her statement that a vote in favour of divorce is unconstitutional – if it were so, the Constitutional Court would be redundant as it would be the Ecclesiastical Courts, presumably, which would decide constitutional cases.

[Daphne – Pat is not a woman, but a Swedish man.]

The article stating that the Church has the duty to teach is actually out of order in a constitution which should not stipulate what the Church should do but what the State’s duties are – in fact, the article sprang out of Mintoff’s bizarre imagination when the 1987 amendments were being negotiated. At the time, it was more important to safeguard democracy than to ponder too much on finer points and Parliament accepted the amendment as proposed by Mintoff.

I hope you got the last one wrong……..I mean Man City…………don’t be so sure about the PN.