 Currently in the west, we are experiencing a deep conflict over moral issues. In Europe we have seen the rise of a new moral benchmark via the European Convention on Human Rights. This political and public document has largely replaced religious norms. Despite article 9, we see increasing conflicts between the rights of the individual or religious group to act in accordance with their conscience, and the new legislation, varying from country to country. In some instances, individuals have been forced to choose between acting according to their conscience, or faith, and being fined or losing their jobs.
 An example which sharply defined the problem was the closure of Catholic adoption agencies in the UK, when many people lost their jobs. This was wholly un-necessary. Catholic agencies would have willingly passed on same sex couples to another agency more suited to working with their particular needs. To be honest, the Catholics simply would not have been competent to advise or oversee a same sex couple, whereas in the more limited field of placing children with hetero-sexual couples they could have continued to do a good job. This is a case where there is no longer a choice for people who do not conform to the new politically determined moral code.
  A remarkable book by Patriarch Kirill of the Moscow Patriarchate – ‘Freedom and Responsibility’ – was published in 2011. From his background of being born and brought up in Soviet Russia, he analyses the rise of today’s divided morality. ‘Two antagonistic systems are ranged against each other…one secular and humanist, the other religious and traditionalist. On the one hand is the liberal view of the individual and of society…derived from western philosophy and political thought, as perceived, learned and developed in Western Europe and North America…and on the other an approach founded in traditional cultures and religion.’
 Despite the enormous value of the underlying ideals, in political practice these ideals may be compromised. ‘The legal and political framework shaped by this standard is proclaimed as the norm, departures from which are severely censured or punished by force.’ He remarks ‘ This is a cause of great discomfort to the huge masses of people who live outside of Western Europe and North America and continue to be guided in their daily lives by other values. In this understated way he pinpoints the relative – as other than absolute – value system of the new morality.
 He notes that ‘many times the representatives of liberalism refuse to admit the possibility of their values being open to review. They ignore the very principle of liberalism – the licitness and admissibility of disagreement – just as soon as any challenge is uttered to their universalist pretensions. On the other hand, many representatives of traditional values reject out of hand any thought of reaching a consensus with their opponents.’
 He defines the real need as dialogue between religious and secular-humanist thought, instead of the entrenched assumptions about the ‘badness’ of the other side which we see thrown about on Twitter and on sites which invite response, such as the BBC’s excellent Have your Say debates. ‘The aim of dialogue should be to build a multi-polar world…neither globalisation, nor indeed, European integration, can be founded on a mono-civilisational basis. The very idea is a dangerous delusion, reminiscent of the ‘sole correct and scientifically based’ teaching of Marx.’
 ‘The idea of a single philosophical concept, imposable on the whole world and embracing the diversity of cultural and religious traditions, is simply a non-starter. From the experience of the Soviet regime he points out that without moral values ‘freedom, democracy, human rights and the dignity of the individual…can turn into the opposite!’ He points out that ‘Europe remains a spiritual and cultural force’ not only because she has learned secular humanism.. but largely because a centuries old Christian tradition is still alive.
 The patriarch exposes as a crafty argument the notion that Christian values cannot be mentioned in the EU constitution ‘because of the other religions present -Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus etc,’ when in fact other religious groups would welcome such reference because it would recognise the shared moral values of traditional religions.
  ‘It is important that the legislators of the new Europe listen to the position of believers….secular liberal values are inadequate for society as a whole. Eliminating, as they do, the concepts of sin and personal responsibility, these values and freedoms are unable to halt the moral degradation of society, because they objectively promote … freedom outside any moral system. This freedom turns into tyranny, into the violence of sublimated passions, and the destruction of moral bearings in personal family and social life.’ There speaks the voice of experience! We ignore it at our peril!
