Source: https://eclj.org/religious-freedom/coe/1-high-level-seminar-on-freedom-of-religion-in-europe-achievements-and-perspectives
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 03:04:07+00:00

Document:
This Friday, 28th of April, Dr Grégor Puppinck , director of the ECLJ, gave a conference at the European Court of Human Rights on the rights of families as regards education and religion. This conference, organized by the Permanent Mission of San Marino saw numerous personalities from the Council of Europe, notably the President of the European Court, Mr Guido Raimondi, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of San Marino, Mr Nicola Renzi and the President of the Council of Ministers, Mrs Theodora Constantinidou.
In his speech, Dr Puppinck reminded that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights expresses a subsidiary conception of society, which affirms the natural rights of parents to raise and educate their children and guarantees this right against the stranglehold of the State.
Member of the OSCE Panel of Experts on Freedom of Religion or Belief.
The Court believes that violating the rights of the parents aims at “protecting foreign pupils from any phenomenon of social exclusion” (§ 64), namely protecting the children from their parents, because they are foreigners.
There is a limit not to pass for a society to remain liberal. As you will have understood, I personally believe that the aforementioned judgments have already dangerously got close to this limit, in favour of a uniform conception of culture.
I believe that social cohesion and peace can be obtained not by force but in respecting the natural laws of human nature, in keeping a model based on subsidiarity; which does not prevent from strengthening requirements as regards social values and virtues.
To this regard, I believe it is essential to respect the natural rights of parents and communities to create denominational schools, to pass moral virtues and the sense of their belonging to a living community on to their children.
 It would be a historical mistake, and an injustice, to pretend that a radical opposition between education and religion exists. In the European tradition, there is a difference between teaching and religious; but not an incompatibility, for the knowledge on the world, on creation, for it pertains to knowledge on the creator, while distinguishing the methods of knowledge. Religious knowledge is not of the same nature as secular knowledge, but they are recognized as being complementary.
 Within a subsidiary society, the balance point in the relations between child, family, communities, society and the state is a point of harmony. The more realised this vital harmony is, the less the power of the State is necessary.
 European Social Charter, 1961. Article 16 § 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948; article 23 §§ 1 and 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, article 10 § 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Preamble to the Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989; article 16 of the European Social Charter (revised) of 1996; article 33 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 1989; article 44 of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families of 1990.
 This can be seen from the works of the Committee on Legal and Administrative Questions of the Assembly.
 Report of the Committee on Legal and Administrative Questions of the Assembly on the communication of the Committee of Ministers, 4 December 1951, P. H. Teitgen, Rapporteur. T. P. pp 163 – 167.
 The main characteristic of individualism is to exclude from the personal identity anything that the subject has not wanted, not chosen himself, to access a higher independence mistaken for freedom. Individualism destroys natural, cultural and religious belonging. In doing so, individualism destroys what people have in common, what constitutes their life in society.
 Konrad v. Germany, n° 35504/03, 11 September 2006.
 Jiménez Alonso and Jiménez Merino v. Spain, n° 51188/99, decision of the 25th May 2000; Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark, no. 5095/71, 5920/72, 5926/72,judgment of the 7th of December 1976, § 54; Dojan and others v. Germany, n° 319/08, decision of the 13th September 2011.
 Sluijs v. Belgium, n° 17568/90, decision of the 9 September 1992; Appel-Irrgang v. Germany, n° 30814/06 decision of the 6th October 2009.
 “the difference between a totalitarian State and a subsidiary State is a difference of nature, while the difference between an interventionist welfare State and a totalitarian State is but of degree or intensity”.
 Preparatory works. Session of the Assembly of December 7th and 8th 1951, p. 184.

References: § 3
 § 1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 54
 v. 
 v. 
 v.