Lecture “State and Religious Communities”

Ljubljana, 7.12.2010  |  speech

A lecture by the President of the Republic of Slovenia Dr. Danilo Türk at the Faculty of Theology of the University of Ljubljana entitled “State and Religious Communities”
Ljubljana, 7 December 2010


Dear Dean,
Dear members of the Faculty,
Distinguished Chancellor of the University of Ljubljana,
Dear students,



Let me express my respect and recognition to the oldest faculty and the university base of Slovene language, the Catholic School of Theology in Ljubljana. I would also like to express my gratitude for all good that the Faculty has done for the people and the nation for whom and among whom it was set up more than a century ago.

The Faculty of Theology in Ljubljana, Facultas theologica Labacensis, has deep roots, it should be said here today. The roots reach to the post-Council of Trent 1589 with the first theological teaching in Gornji grad, and stretch from the Jesuit gymnasium since 1619 with casuistic, to the academy, in fact a university, established by French authorities in 1811 with a school of theology as an independent part. The development then went from the Ljubljana lyceum with philosophicum to 1919 when the first Slovenian university was established, with the Faculty of Theology among its founding members.

Although the predecessors of the Faculty could not have been deemed Slovene in the full sense of the word because of lack of statehood attributes, much genuinely Slovene had been present in them the whole time and they had represented an essential spiritual base to all genuinely Slovene after 1919.

We have recently celebrated the 90th anniversary of the University of Ljubljana and it is right to recollect the historical significance of the Faculty of Theology and the Christian thought and ethics, which are important elements in overall human development as well as in the development of the Slovenian nation. It is also right to understand the connection between spirituality and the scientific method, the basic link that connects the Faculty of Theology with the world of university into a whole thus giving it an important role in the society.


A single important concept lies at the centre of it all – human dignity. Human dignity is the foundation of human freedom. This understanding is the essential element of the universal meaning of human values and the Christian tradition and has been embedded in all contemporary documents on human rights. The importance of human dignity can be presented and discussed in a number of ways. I have opted for an unusual one – the example of the famous work of English and world literature Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe, a novel known here more as a story for children, which can quickly lead to overlooking the wealth of its ethical contents and reflections. We pay insufficient attention to the relation between Robinson and Friday in whom Robinson sees a man with dignity, full human dignity. His respect for that dignity is expressed with Christian-inspired and Biblically-documented reflections on human value and equality between men before God, as understood by Christians. Thus, at the artistic level in the story on coexistence shows how Christianity defined at the spiritual base for a common global coexistence of people on this complicated yet so interesting planet. I believe that the example has preserved its value through the centuries and can tell us a lot today on how to direct the world in the times to come.

There is too little time here to list all credits of Christianity in the most important segments of human personal, social as well as national existence, ranging from health care, science and arts, sensible farming, successful beekeeping and economic life in its entirety, to charity, social reforms and humanity of the law. But this event cannot bypass the role of Christianity in education, establishing schools, from the first catechist schools that were established and lead by Justin the Martyr in the 2nd century A.D., to the acts done for the nation by a group of reformists with Primož Trubar who gave us the first book in Slovene, the first schools and the first request that girls be educated the same as boys. A historic overview of the nation’s development cannot overlook the Catholic bishop Anton Martin Slomšek and others who followed him giving Slovenes important schools, as well as the first Slovene gymnasium in Ljubljana, at the initiative and by efforts of the bishop Jeglič. If that development had not happened, there could not have been the first Slovene university in the full meaning of the word and it is understandable that the first Slovene university cannot be imagined without the Faculty of Theology.

Other important institutions should also be noted, such as the Mohor’s Society in Celovec/Klagenfurt and after 1924 also in Gorica/Gorizia, which not only taught Slovenes how to read – as was stated by the writer Prežihov Voranc who used that reasoning to persuade the communist authorities not to close them down – but also provided for nurturing of the young, in particular in Carinthia, for their bilingual school and students' dormitories – to this day.

The role of Christianity in education and nurturing is expressed, as I have said, also and to a significant extent in the Faculty of Theology. Your institution is of course not only home to a catholic scientific institution but also a generally Slovene house of spiritual sciences and study of tradition, which includes all three languages of the Old World important to the history of our civilisation and language forming, namely Hebrew, Greek and Latin, as well as Old Church Slavonic. The core messages of Christianity are deeply rooted in the history of the Western civilisation and our nation, so deeply that they could not have been uprooted even by the gravest times in the history of the Slovenian nation filled with injustice and violence, including those in the middle of the 20th century. When I enter as a guest your premises, I am aware that I am entering an essential permanence and one of the most elevated positions of human existence at personal and communal level. I express my gratitude and respect to that great memory and significance, which continues and shall endure. I would like to thank you for your time and the attention you have given to a visit by someone who currently presides over the country by will of the people for whose benefit you exist and act.

Of course, my gratitude and greeting would not express everything that needs saying at this opportunity if I did not recall with regret the injustice to your institution that happened during the rule of an ideology that had to make way from the stage of history, to the benefit and satisfaction of everyone in Slovenia, for a government rule based on the rule of law, democratic election of rulers and the basic principles underpinning society's survival and prosperity today: human rights, social welfare and the rule of law principles. When we assess our current problems, meaning the tasks we have to undertake, which is the essence of the term "problem" in ancient Greek, we must always understand the significance of the basic principles of contemporary government – the rule of law, social welfare and human rights – and all contributions possible on that foundations.

The underlying principles of our society today, it should be noted, were not easily acquired, they were fought for in a long and risky endeavour and during violent times. Many blunders and mistakes were made during that endeavour, many injustices done and many crimes were committed. It is not my role or the role of this lecture to attach and judge individual and collective guilt for acts carried out during the Second World War and its aftermath. It is up to objective and freely working historians on the one hand and independent judiciary on the other to perform that task.

I should note, though, that I am encouraged by the fact that I am speaking today also to believers and teachers of faith which teaches that everyone will one day answer for their own sins and not for sins of their opponents or foes. I am, therefore, able to speak to people who put at the centre of their reflection and action the search and judgment of guilt in themselves and in their own institution and in forgiveness to others, regardless of whether the others are aware of their guilt and capable or remorse or not. In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus says on the cross before he dies: “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.” He did not say for example: Forgive them if they first acknowledge their guilt, repent and undo the injustice …

However, I am here today also as the President of the Republic and I say: each one should look at oneself. And it is a matter of this country which is, whether we like it or not, the heir of actions of those from whom it was inherited, to search for guilt on its part, to condemn it and to undo the injustices if they have not yet been undone but still can be. It is a responsibility of this country and that responsibility has not diminished. Of course, it is also up to the Catholic Church and other religious and other communities to search for everything on their side, including their own guilt, condemn and undo the injustices if they have not yet been undone but still can be. Only such pattern of behaviour can provide a sound foundation for our common care and joint work at so dearly acquired common good of the independent country of Slovenia, based on the rule of law, human rights and welfare.

I believe that what I have said about the basic ethical issues of our country is widely accepted today, regardless of the occasional political conflicts and discussions, which are repeated in such issues with some persistence as well as a degree of ideological intolerance and emotions. It has to be understood. We do have many painful memories and everyone has the right to keep theirs. It would be a good thing, however, if those memories were given more respect and less connection with the political topics of the day and political discussions.


As regards the latter, political discussions on our being and our future, we could use a more comprehensive, advanced reflection and most of all dialogue. We could also use a deeper philosophical, theological and legal reflection on the best, and most of all the most just form and meaning of the principle of separation of church and state, i.e. separation of state and religious and belief communities. One thing should be made clear: separation does not mean exclusion. My presence here today is a witness to that fact. It is axiomatic that the separation which I have mentioned is not separation in hostility or even hate and oppression as it had been during the so-called communist regime. It is a separation which in its reasonable and responsible implementation creates the base for impartial and fair action, which includes mutual consideration, respect and foremost dialogue.

Such efforts of course do not start from scratch, a sort of social and national freezing point as a physical metaphor of times that we have luckily left behind. Historical experiences of successful countries as well as our own experience have provided us with a number of relatively well-devised theoretical and practical instruments which can be used for continuous improvements in the practice of a just and friendly separation of state and church as well as communities of other beliefs if organised in institutions and organisations devised similarly to churches and religious communities.

We have a modern and democratic country, for which we have consent not only of all political entities in the country but also the vast majority of citizens who, after all, are the final beneficiaries of the arrangement of our community. An important part, in fact the foundation of the Constitution is the section on human rights, aligned with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the international document, which represents the universal standard of human dignity, freedom and social role in today's world. We also have all necessary institutions to exercise and if necessary duly claim those rights before national and European courts, which was a dream merely a generation ago.

All that is important from the aspect of relations between state and religious communities. Churches and belief communities are granted strong defensive lines ensuring virtual impossibility of a repeat of the horrors of religious pressure, oppression and even murder, which was in all cruelty present in a more distant past until the Emperor Joseph’s the second reforms and Napoleonic order, which brought to us also the positive aspects of the French Revolution and its thoughts on the person and citizen.

Those defensive lines also protect the state, which can and will no longer be held captive to or be the executor of various fundamentalisms or utopian ideologies as was the case in our history until recently, after the Second World War.

All those new achievements, provided irrevocably by the Republic of Slovenia, form an extremely strong protection. As grave as the economic, identity or political problems in Slovenia may be, a sober reflection reveals that Slovenes and other citizens of our country have never had so much so well protected freedom as we have today. It is the freedom that we share with other European nations – with a longer tradition of the rule of law and democracy – and we are together in the Council of Europe and the European Union to jointly protect that great human and political treasure. That guarantees that no return to left or right totalitarian rule is possible. Whoever would want to undermine the rule of law, democracy and human rights would have to do so at the European level, for which I fortunately see no danger.

It would be good at this point to remember the contribution of the deepest essence of Christian tradition in establishment of the European reality today. If, for example, we find that Primož Trubar can be considered in some important aspects father of Slovenian statehood, then we can say – knowing that Primož Trubar was first and foremost a deep Christian believer – that on that path and in that work, meaning also on the path and in the work of strengthening our statehood, is anyone who would the same as Primož Trubar work on a teaching with the central requirement and norm of love for thy neighbour, unconditional forgiveness, i.e. unconditional reconciliation, and search for and acknowledgement of one’s own responsibility and guilt. Whoever teaches as was taught by our nation's father Primož Trubar also consolidates the foundations of the rule of law, democracy and human rights without having to leave their field and create structures parallel to government and political structures, which is an old temptation which used to be reflected in the clerically distorted religious teaching, as is, on the other hand, introduction of parallel pseudo-religions and various "secular religions" an old temptation of ideologically distorted interpretation of statehood.

I would also like to note the great importance of the return of your distinguished house of science, knowledge and spirituality in the framework that had used it as its foundation, the Slovenian university, because I am convinced that the scientific and teaching contribution of the Faculty of Theology enhances the human sciences substance and moral strength of the entire nation and strengthens and enriches the foundation of our form of government, based on the humanistic essence of human rights, social orientation and the rule of law.


Human rights are our common goal, our wealth and our great opportunity. Slovenes have never before lived in a country based on the respect for freedom of thought, freedom of consciousness, freedom of religion and freedom of expression as we do today. Slovenes were also never before able to freely choose and express their religion as it is understood today in plurality of churches and religious communities. For centuries, the unfortunate Augsburg peace, in fact a truce between Catholic and Protestant rulers, provision Cuius regio, eius est religio applied within the principle of national sovereignty and not only between sovereign states. At the level of international relations, the rule became a foundation of national and territorial sovereignty. Today, individuals are free in internal relations in the country from authoritarian and sometimes totalitarian pressure on thought, expression, belief or life in accordance with faith. Today, the state on the hand and religious and belief organisations as well as churches on the other are free from the annoying task of doing the gravest injustice in the history of mankind, which is forced thought and belief. Slovenia’s independence virtually achieved what France Prešeren could only write as a poem of a visionary, when he said in the introduction to the Baptism at Savica on the people he belonged to: “we will find the way / where her sons elect freely their religion and their law”. Religion and law, both are the subject of free choice.

Slovenian citizens can express any opinion and belief which is still in line with the principles of humanity and human rights and any religion that affirms human life and freedom. Freedom within that framework is limited only by respect for the same freedom and the same rights of the other.

Human rights of other, another and different, demand not only respect but protection. Therefore, even the most democratic country in the world cannot tolerate dissemination of thoughts condemning entire groups of people to doom just because of their natural features, as did National Socialism. Also, even the most free-minded country cannot tolerate dangerous pseudo-religious cults and practices preaching open hatred and enticing to murder or suicide. Even the freest country cannot forego those restrictions unless it wants to risk going down the path of the Weimar Republic. Today, Primož Trubar would no longer need to escape to Germany. No one would even consider today to throw out of the Slovenian Academy of Science and Arts a number of its distinguished founders and best thinkers just because they remained loyal to their church. Many threats that existed in the near and notably distant past are gone.

It also means that no candidate for any public service, including an office concerning relations between state and church, cannot be commented and rejected as well as approved and imposed on the basis of that candidate's personal belief, faith or absence thereof. No one is above criticism or even accusation, of course, but any of them can be only based on decisions, action and methods that would be contrary to the aims of the office in which they operate and for which they are responsible and by no means on religious beliefs or religious or church qualities of such office holders.

We expect the state as well as the religious or belief communities to remain neutral in common matters of state and church. Neutrality does not mean lack of engagement. State is “partial” in a way, engaged against totalitarian or discriminatory, for example, racist thought, which it rejects. It also opposes those religious beliefs that require sacrifice of life of others or one’s own. The state must respect and protect fundamental rights of individuals in that respect as well. The moral attitude and obligation of the state is determined in the human rights code, which distinctly forms the state.

Equally, a belief community cannot be neutral to the inhuman system of a totalitarian state and must take an engaged, i.e. "partial" negative stance, even if its teaching prohibits revolt against authority and imposes respect for any authority. However, such a community must be neutral in a country governed by the rule of law to any other similar community, within the boundaries set by human rights and within the legally acceptable system of values and norms.

Neutrality of state and neutrality of religious and belief communities is therefore justified and even required at the level of acceptable phenomena, even if contradicting ones, such as, for example, atheism and religiosity. Neutrality does not mean acceptance but tolerance. An atheist cannot accept teachings of faith, but may tolerate them in good will, as both beliefs exist and belong to the level of general acceptability. Equally, Catholicism and Christianity in general cannot accept atheism but tolerate it in good will and in that sense it is a neutral stance. An atheist and a believer may within the boundaries of legally protected decency and by no insult express freely their critical view of one another without abandoning or violating the principle of neutrality.

Neutrality is thus not an absolute category. Even if we can speak of the basic meaning of neutrality, understood in a positive and dialogue sense, neutrality from the aspect of the state means in a way squaring a circle. As a distinguished Slovenian political thinker and legal expert, Prof. Dr. France Bučar, repeated several times, the state by itself produces no base for its existence and legitimacy. It refers to, on the one hand, the will of the people and on the other to legal principles – but to what should the people and the law refer? We could say – and this will provide us with an interesting and significant position for discussion – that the accumulated historical experience helps, because human rights as a legal category, as a legally defined code are a result of centuries of historical experience, which is very similar and could be compared to crystallisation of substances in nature. However, even that is not fully reliable. We should be aided by political wisdom which is aware of the historical crystallisation and the related meaning of values reflected in human rights. Position of the state today is thus as follows: if it should prevent falling again into the temptation of a “divine state” as it is known today only in the Islamic world or the temptation of an ideological state, such as only few communist countries remain, then a democratic modern state must be neutral in terms of beliefs and religions. It has to be neutral in a positive sense, with respect for the freedom of human spirituality and belief. At the level of general acceptability, the last base to which it can refer cannot be mechanically neutral but has to be engaged and in a way “partial”.

Neutrality of state in its relation to beliefs and religion is not void of values. State is an instrument of social as well as legal justice. The link between legal and social justice, which are – more or less successful – provided by the state, is the way to its being representative and in a way legitimate. The state is more ours and common the better it provides for legal and social justice, strengthening faith in fairness and solidarity. A state neutral in terms of beliefs and religion cannot be “soulless” or “uncaring” to the position of its citizens in terms of legal and social justice. It is exactly why the state and religious communities – separate but in dialogue, neutral but with a positive attitude – can find many common social tasks in implementation of which they can successfully complement each other.

A contemporary state cannot be neutral between right and wrong, it is the foundation of any legal sense and legal order. The deepest drives of a modern, democratic state based on the rule of law thus come from a certain transcendent improvability but moral certainty. Thus, any country with regard to its deepest foundations is in fact also moral and with a bit of daring we could say that it is in a way “religious”, while at the same time defined by neutrality in terms of beliefs and religion, without which there can be no citizens' peace and equality before the law. The state should not impose, force or restrict any concrete religious and belief community, group or church but is expected to adhere by moral attachment to justice and efficient care for practical implementation of that justice.


I have spoken of the basic principle of neutrality, which I see in a dynamic and positive sense. We should know, however, that such terms cannot always be easily recognised and curried out in daily situations. Believers sometimes get a feeling that the state in its positive, i.e. friendly separation and neutrality to religious communities and in particular to the biggest church in Slovenia is not strictly fair and respectful, in particular when it actually entails writings and comments in the mass media. Those are free and not controlled by the government, and their expression can only be opposed at the same, i.e. publication level, or in a court procedure equally available to all. We are witnessing a paradox that religious communities, in particular Catholic Church as the biggest and the strongest in Slovenia, are occasionally exposed to ridicule, accusations and misrepresentation, it would seem at moments that even more so than during communist times. It is a dark side of freedom of the press, which spares no one, and therefore also not the church, the president of the country or anyone else. It is not something characteristic only to Slovenia, the same image would arise if one looked at newspapers in any other European country. Communism prevented such excesses at the price of freedom of expression, which is a price that today, I would hope and think, no one is prepared to pay again, including Catholic Church.

Thus, my intervention some time ago when I rejected a statement made by the representative of the Holy See as a representative of a foreign country that he was in his public appearances commenting progress of certain investigations and thus interfering with the sovereignty of the Republic of Slovenia, was not a sign of disrespect for any religious community and the church or the representative personally but an urgent warning of the boundaries set to any diplomat anywhere in the world of sovereign countries. Sovereign entities of international law – the Holy See and the Republic of Slovenia – should have utmost respect for each other in mutual relations. I would be equally obliged to remind the Slovenian ambassador to the Holy See if he intervened in the order of the Holy See, as would undoubtedly be the Pope himself or his state secretary. It is the principle of sovereign equality, which includes mutual respect.

The issue of mutual respect is of great importance for successful development of relations, not only between entities of international law but also between representatives of the state and religious and belief communities. The apostle Paul said to Christians to respect any authority, saying: “there is no authority except from God" as stated in Letter to the Romans, or, as stated elsewhere: “honour everyone, love your brothers, fear God, honour the emperor (1Pt2, 17)". The teaching was developed in Christianity during the brutal rule of Roman emperors, who were hostile and unappreciative towards Christianity. And if according to the religion taught by the Catholic and other Christian churches even that authority was worth honour by those who consider themselves Christian, does that then not apply to representatives of the Slovenian government or the Republic of Slovenia? The Slovenian government and its representatives, and I speak from experience and from knowing our authorities and the persons leading them, have no discriminatory or citizen-unfriendly intention but want all citizens to become involved in the joint effort to work on the Slovenian national and social home.

Mutual respect has several other dimensions. The rule of law applies to all citizens and is the solid framework that we all need to respect. No religious, church or belief institution in Slovenia is exterritorial but is equally subject to interventions by Slovenian authorities in line with their powers. Thus, no investigation or supervision, financial or criminal, can be construed a priori as a hostile act of the government towards a church or a religious or belief community. The Slovenian authorities have within their powers and jurisdiction access to a Catholic as well as a Protestant rectory or bishop’s premises as well as to a Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist temple or institution and to buildings of any other community. That also means protection that the state provides to its citizens and their religious and other communities, churches and other institutions. All fears and objections aimed for example against the wish of Muslim believers to build their own house of prayer with their own money and in compliance with the law, including in the style of their tradition, saying that such houses could become some sort of centres of terrorist or some other illegal activities are completely unfounded. No mosque in Slovenia cannot be closed to government supervision but open to inspection of the authorities.

Respect and protection of the citizens which the state must provide require clarity of basic orientations. Catholic Church is sometimes subject to harsh and unfounded criticism, notably as regards economic and financial issues. I can reply to those critics that no institution is exempt from government supervision, but any accusation must be substantiated by presentation of facts, otherwise we are dealing with illegal and punishable slander.

Mutual respect is crucial for good relations between people and between the people and their country but also has some structural peculiarities. Because of the principles of democracy and freedom of the press, the government has no own media that it could control and strictly implement respect for believers and churches. Catholic Church, however, has developed print and radio media which it can directly control. Where the government has no other but legal means, the church can control by editorial policy: setting an example of respect in its publications, as contained in the Gospel, which is otherwise considered the cornerstone of the church's beliefs and action.

The so-called disciplinary problem is regulated differently in a hierarchical church than in a democratic and plural country. While the government can warn insulting and unjust voices against the church and believers only by a criminal case or civil lawsuit and won proceedings, church leadership can achieve the same effect by a simple pastoral letter, clear instructions from the bishop’s desk if not by simple adherence to what any Catholic believer, ordained or not, can find in the book which is his or her religious foundation.


The freedom we enjoy in Slovenia today needs different anchors to ensure its stability. Legality and the rule of law are from the state's point of view such anchors reflected in individuals in the sense of legal and other responsibility and social solidarity which the state promotes by legal and financial instruments. From the church’s aspect, if we talk about Catholic Church, it is love for thy neighbour and honour to democratic authority, which comes from God, as your Holy Script teaches. Freedom supported by two such strong anchors as responsibility in moral and legal sense and love and honour in religious sense is a well-guarded freedom indeed. It is the freedom wanted by every farseeing citizen of this great gift we have received with independent Slovenia.

Who would be able to better understand that if not a Catholic believer, namely that all things in this world, including political and personal freedom depend on man and are not absolute? The principle on which such freedom is based and rests is of course absolute. But the freedom itself – its practical implementation – depends on responsibility and love with honour of its participants, including the government and the church. I would like to invite everyone, be it in the service of the law, ethics, human rights, safety and common welfare, which are responsibilities of the state, and everyone voluntarily committed to spreading the word of the Gospel teaching love and honour, to enhance credibility in our respective service thus consolidating the freedom which is our common wealth. Any action against the spirit of human rights and the law and any action against the spirit of love and honour is an action against freedom and against humanity.


Dear all,

I receive great hope from realising that we are far from being without a common language between the house of law called state and the house of faith and love for thy neighbour called church. The common language, the inter-systemic “Esperanto” is a language of respect, which we are learning and should try to excel at on both sides. Our country does not have two classes of citizens. We all share the same care, the same duty, the same wonderful task and mission: to be, to paraphrase apostle Jacob, doers of the word, the word of law in state and the word of the Gospel in church.

In that spirit, I would like to wish to yours and of course also ours respected scientific and teaching institution a wide and beautiful, full road to the future, and to all of us that we would come together and be one in service to the people which we perform in one way or another.

And, in conclusion, I wish to the Faculty of Theology: Vivat, crescat, floreat! And Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all of you who attended this lecture.