Freedom of conscience is an essential dimension of citizenship.
The first meaning that acquired citizenship, when liberalism was introduced by the first generation of rights and duties, is that of freedom. And at the heart of this freedom was the freedom of conscience of the citizen. A freedom proclaimed against the State, against the State, to preserve the bastion of privacy against the tendencies and invasive attempts of the State. If there is one area in which the State must not enter and which it must respect, it is that of conscience, that of the deep convictions of citizens.
For this freedom of conscience, many who wish to limit and separate the powers of the state are fighting.
Citizenship has acquired and accumulated new meanings over the past two centuries – participation, equal rights, social solidarity, environmental sustainability – but it has never failed to add to these new meanings that of freedom. Citizenship without freedom of conscience will always be mutilated citizenship.
There can therefore be no contradiction between the defense of freedom of conscience and the defense of citizenship. There can be no contradiction between the defense of freedom of conscience and the defense of human rights, because freedom of conscience is one of the first and most fundamental human rights. There can be no defense of citizenship that contradicts freedom of conscience.
Education for citizenship cannot but be education for freedom and freedom of conscience, it cannot infringe freedom of conscience, it cannot claim to invade the eminently personal sphere. The State cannot take itself for the promoter of an anthropological conception, strongly ideological, which excludes the determination of gender by biology and nature, which denies the difference and the complementarity between man and woman. The State cannot propose to change the sexual “customs, attitudes and values”, nor to eliminate the “prejudices and stereotypes” of gender, because this is not the domain of its intervention, because they are questions of sphere. personal, of conscience.
When these questions reach Parliament, parties generally recognize that they are matters of conscience and give their MPs the freedom to vote, without imposing party discipline. Why should what is recognized in Parliament be refused at school?
Hence the right of every citizen to resist State offensives to invade the domain of the personal forum of citizens, erected as a promoter of values which threaten his conscience in the fields which are his private life. Hence the right of parents to refuse an education which does not respect the values of their conscience, which does not respect human nature, which does not respect the pluralism of ethical conceptions of life and sexuality. Especially, when a program and a generalized action intend to instill ideology in children and young people, without controversial scientific and academic support – on the contrary, in contradiction to what genetics and biology teach us -, that gender does not is a social construction, subject to deconstruction at will, with all the serious consequences that this mentality entails from the health and psychological point of view.
What attacks human dignity and citizenship itself is a strategy of molding our youth into a single, obligatory thought, without alternative or pluralism, without respect for human nature or the “customs, attitudes and values” linked to sexuality. , in which parents have the primary right and duty to educate their children
The best of Público by e-mail
Subscribe to newsletters for free and receive the best news and the most in-depth work from Público.
Consequently, the charges against the petition in defense of the priority right of parents to the education of their children and of freedom of conscience in civic and moral education, of being against human rights, against democracy or against education for citizenship, because it specifically affirms human rights and a conception of citizenship which is essentially based on freedom, because it affirms the democratic pluralism typical of freedom of education.
Accusing the defense of these human rights, of being right-wing and conservative, reveals the idea that the democratic left (the non-democratic, we already know that it does not respect human rights) is against them, which is contradicted by the history of citizenship.
What attacks human dignity, human rights and citizenship itself is a strategy of molding our youth into a single obligatory thought, without alternative or pluralism, without respect for human nature or for the diversity and complementarity of the sexes, without respect for the “customs, attitudes and values” linked to sexuality, in which parents have the primary right and duty to educate their children.