The creator of the universe has no place in our constitution
Former US ambassador to Malta, Douglas Kmiec, was invited to speak at the president of Malta’s forum on constitutional reform a couple of days ago. He accepted the invitation and delivered one of the idiosyncratic talks we have come to expect.
Among other things, he suggested that the Maltese constitution should be amended to begin with these words:
Respectful of the Creator of the Universe and His abundant blessings, we do ordain by this Constitution a Republic by, for and of the people of Malta founded upon respect for human rights, the human family and the fundamental importance of human labour in service of the peace and comfort of all.
The Malta Humanist Association objected yesterday, as expected. So did very many people who commented online and argued with those who backed Mr Kmiec.
But do you have to be a humanist to object? Of course not. You can be a church-goer, have some common sense, and object, in the same way that so many church-goers voted for divorce legislation because they understand that they have no right to impose their beliefs on others.
That sort of thing has no place in the constitution. I can’t say I really mind the affirmation of Roman Catholicism as the official ‘state’ religion in the constitution. After all, one of the world’s most liberal democracies has an official religion (though no written constitution) and its head is also the head of state. We can work with that.
But stuff about creators of the universe? No thank you. Let’s keep things simple.
This is one of the problems of being small and vulnerable: other people feel they can give you outrageous helpful suggestions. I can’t picture a former Maltese ambassador to Washington being asked to speak at a forum on US constitutional reform, and his suggestions being reported in the press.
But there you go.
53 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Well argued!
Why would a FORMER ambassador be invited to speak at the President’s forum, anyway? And were all the other ambassadors invited as speakers as well?
Was this another clever idea of our president?
It would have been better if the Opposition was invited. After all this was the Maltese Constitution reform, wasn’t it?
He was here mainly to launch his recently published book. Being invited to speak is no big deal and as a democratic country everyone has the right to express his opinion, and everyone has the right to heed or ignore someone else’s opinion.
That is what ‘discussion’, and ‘exchange of ideas’ are all about. The government, on a daily basis, receives hundreds of ‘advice’ from different sources, qualified or not, making sense or purely off the wall, but does it have to listen?
Heavens no, otherwise we would be eternally spinning wheels.
“Being invited to speak is no big deal and as a democratic country everyone has the right to express his opinion, and everyone has the right to heed or ignore someone else’s opinion”.
Then why wasn’t I invited?
Could that devious Catholic President of ours have cunningly taken advantage of the insignificant detail that that Douglas Kmiec happens to be Professor of Constitutional Law at Pepperdine University School of Law to find a pretext to invite him?
Malta has no FORMER anything. They’re all EMERITI.
It amounts to much the same thing. A title without an office.
By comparison, this is the preamble of the US Constitution:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
He’s increasingly beginning to sound like one of those preachers on God TV.
With due respect Mr. Kmiec I ask you to please refrain from advising us what to include in our constitution because that is solely our business.
We already have James Tyrrell of Gozo and Co Antrim always advising us what to do with the mess (according to him) our present government is making and giving unsolicited advice to us natives.
Is he helping out with the president’s missionary work?
People of Peru, wait for us.
“We come in the name of the Creator of the Universe…”
As regards to your last paragraph, why shouldn’t a ‘Maltese’ ambassador speak if he happens to be a learned man and a man of substance?
What has one’s nationality got to do with this, if this “Maltese” can contribute to this think-tank?
The more the merrier and fruitful!
JC.
I recently had to sit through a speech by the Dr George Abela that would not have been amiss in a church. I find it highly inappropriate that a head of state or a mere politician for that matter engages so blatantly in religious discourse.
Spot on.
But even though the British also have an official religion, they don’t have a tendency to go about quoting that fact as leverage to impose certain ideas on the people, as we do.
So keep religion out of the constitution, I say. Totally.
‘Respectful of the Creator of the Universe’ sounds masonic.
I don’t think the church wishes to be embroiled in this and wouldn’t be surprised if even the bishop of Gozo were to object.
The Church might suggest that the Constitution should begin with “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth …”
Genesis, Chapter 1.
The truth is that:
Disrespectful of is-Salvatur, Creator of a Socialist generation, and His abundant curses and malefactions, this Constitution of the Republic was ordained.
The Austrian President has landed. Come to perform missionary work in the parish of St George, Qormi, no doubt.
The British Queen arrives on a similar mission next week. She will be lodging with Tyrrell in Gozo, so the British taxpayer will have no cause for complaint about excessive expenses. Perhaps she’ll knock some sense into the Bishop out there.
“IN GOD WE TRUST” where did I see that?
The sentence continues ‘ others pay cash ‘
On a dollar bill, perhaps?
My objection to this would “stylistic”.
A “Constitution” – please correct me if I’m wrong – lays down the basic legal framework upon which “everything else” is based.
If my understanding is correct, it makes perfect sense to have one’s “moral colours” stuck to the mast at the outset, as this would set the tone “for what comes next”
It doesn’t mean that everybody is obliged to follow the “official” religion, nor does it give the “official” religion a right to interfere in politics. (Saying that a particular course of action is “immoral” is not poltical interference. You may find the current HHS debate going in in America quite edifying)
A quick remark about the divorce issue. Reread the question put to us in the referendum and tell me which Catholic in his/her right mind can ever answer in the affirmative.
I agree with your views in this article except for this sentence, “I can’t say I really mind the affirmation of Roman Catholicism as the official ‘state’ religion in the constitution.” which essential amounts to the same thing.
The fact is that the constitution should simply stay out of it rather then being ‘personified’ with its ‘beliefs’. It is also not a matter of democracy as although it may be agreed on by a majority, its contents in themselves should be always stay universal.
This is something I personally most admire of the American founding fathers when they formulated their own consitution.
He’s also the ex-ambassador for a reason (i.e. not doing his job because he spent to much time contemplating about the creator)
Oh look, Joseph can say narcissistic now.
Wonder where he got it from.
Hey, what happened to the Foreign Interference Act? Just kidding.
My apologies for posting this here but as one who has sometimes criticized timesofmalta.com for allowing insenstive comments on its site, I want to point out their web editor will remove such comments if readers point them out.
Here is what one asshole (excuse my language) called Charles W. Sammut wrote in reaction to a report “Girl torn between families. Woman asks court to grant her care of young migrant”:
Charles W. Sammut
Today, 13:08
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-17821841
“The case received extensive media attention in India and provoked public anger, with the Indian government saying that the children should be allowed to live in their own cultural and linguistic environment.”
Let this case be an eye opener. Adopting children from a different ethnic and cultural background might be appear cool, because Angelina Jolie does it. But the repercussions on these children are traumatic later in life. Children are not puppies, and even puppies grow up into unwieldy dogs sometimes.
“I want to point out their web editor will remove such comments if readers point them out”.
The Times’ comment boards are moderated, meaning that we shouldn’t have to point them out.
Moreover, the web editor will leave there slander and downright lies about people, even when they are pointed out, provided the lies and slander are directed at non-Christians.
Ignoring the fact that our President has no idea how to do much of anything, but market himself with all the assets at his disposal…
I believe that the Creator, God the Creator should be put down as the recognized Creator of all that we have.
Put down as in put the baby down (to sleep) or as in put the dog down (kill it)?
Totally right
Right on cue:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120424/local/debono.416842
Where the capon wanders, the tooth fairy is never too far behind.
I cannot figure out what the fuss is all about. It is not as if KMB’s nefarious foriegn interference act was still in vigore in Malta.
I do not remember the Malta Humanists ever squeaking in protest when some foriegn Hindi or Buddhist guy a year or so ago made a public protest abroad about the mention of the Roman Catholic Church in our country’s constitution.
Dickens, the fact that you can’t even remember the foreign “Hindi or Buddhist” guy’s name (you can’t even remember whether he was a Hindu or a Buddhist), explains the big difference.
Agreed again! The phrase “and his abundant blessings” seems particularly foreign (specifically in that American evangelical way that some American Catholics have embraced) in a Maltese context.
It conjures up images of Puritans eating turkey in front of the Mayflower for me. It has no place in a revised Maltese constitution, nor does any mention of a “creator.”
That said, I agree with Kmiec’s call for brevity as reported by The Times. More words lead to more trouble.
“A recent case brought up by Marie Louise Coleiro Preca who spoke at a seminar in Fgura, is of a woman who lives on a diet of noodles to pay her exorbitant electricity bills.”
http://www.maltastar.com/dart/20120424-pn-noodles-of-shame
Hey. Instead of “The Creator”, let’s insert “The Great Architect of the Universe” and we can all be freemasons without going through the rites.
Some people will interpret that as a reference to Dom Mintoff.
Who the hell does this guy think he is? This failed ambassador. How condescending.
Why does this guy continue to plague us with his religious idiosyncrasies anyway? Wasn’t he fired or something? Anyway, the constitution should have no mention of any god or religion, full stop.
This guy is the most fundamentalist ambassador we have ever had to endure. He lost his posting here for it…and still he persists on his self proclaimed mission to evangelise the Maltese population.
My thoughts exactly, Kenneth. Fat lot of good this former ambassador did here in Malta. Daqs ta’ qablu – she took off to the US, when she wasn’t obliged to, more immigrants than our EU friends.
Obama sent an ambassador and we ended up with a missionary.
Prosit
I am not the least surprised by the former US ambassador’s comments.
After all we know that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator …”.
Unfortunately self-evident basic truths are not evident for everyone.
Other constitutions have similar provisions as “We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution …”,
“Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth … ” and
“Im Namen Gottes des Allmächtigen! Das Schweizervolk und die Kantone …”.
“After all we know that ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator …'”.
Actually, we don’t.
You have got to see this headline to believe it! http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120425/local/Lesbian-girl-s-nose-broken.416986
Just a little, perhaps sarcastic remark though with some truth in it:
There is no denying that when the Bible refers to ” An ordained people, a nation set apart” it must have been referring to the Maltese and due to some pieces of broken parchment was interpreted as Israel instead.
Proof is that the Maltese are of a different breed.
Instead of manna falling from Heaven, its everything for free or no deal’ (Jew b’xejn, jew xejn).
Health care for free – or else.
Students’ stipends or students will boycott university and MCAST.
Brand new roads today – or no vote come next election.
State helps single mothers (fathers unknown) – so many virgin births, two thousand and twelve years after the original one!
We are so unique, yet we want a complete exclusion of ‘God’ or ‘Creator of the Universe’ or whatever, from our new Constitution and, in so doing, copy other nations who we probably thumb our nose at.
We have always been copycats, so why not, one more time?
Just an observation, but I am willing to jump to one side of the fence – or the other. I will do a Joseph (not the Saint).
The Bible was right, because we’re Jews. Oh sure, we all reneged our race five hundred years ago, but it’s all there, beneath a veneer as thin as our EU passport cover.
The Bible, according to Kmiec, reminds me of that movie with George C.Scott and Jack Lemmon…….
According to Labourites, the universe was created by Dom Mintoff after Manwel Dimech prepared the way for him a few decades earlier.