Rónán Mullen (Independent)

I could certainly do with a make-over. I am very much inclined to support Senator Hannigan's amendment. I like the look of it. It proceeds from a generosity of spirit in including groups who have ethical values in our society. The way it is worded, that it would apply to humanism as it applies to religion, does not proceed from any intention to water down religion or the value society places on religion.

It might be worth saying at this point that what Senator Norris is proposing would not pass constitutional muster. We are in a different constitutional set-up south of the Border. It is interesting to note that Article 44 of the Constitution, for example, pledges the State specifically to acknowledge the importance of "the homage ... due to Almighty God." It is not often reflected on, but the State is not neutral on the issue of religion. The Constitution values the religious experience very highly. It refers in explicit terms to the value of acknowledging the role of religious faith in society. However, that need not necessarily have negative implications for people who do not have religious faith. That is why I say I would be inclined to support what Senator Hannigan has proposed.

I would not go with the approach of the US Supreme Court which would try, as I think Senator Norris is suggesting in the Northern Irish context, to lump in humanism as a form of religion. That would be to deprive what I like to call authentic religion of its unique and positive character in society.

In the spirit of the new era, which I hope we are approaching, which is one where we take a generous approach to the different convictions of others and also to the absence of conviction on the part of certain people on the meaning of life or the origin of our existence and, indeed, our ultimate destiny as persons, it is good that there are people in society who, while not professing religious faith, express a desire to be associated with strong ethical values that are communitarian in nature.

I certainly hear that from time to time from people who do not share my faith or any religious faith. I have come across it recently, for example, on the pro-life issue in the context of my Stem-Cell Research (Protection of Human Embryos) Bill where several people told me they did not really share what they thought were my religious convictions but they were with me on the issue covered by the legislation. I do not wish to single out that issue unduly. There may well be other humanists who would not be with me on that but who would none the less walk the road in terms of a vision of society that is inclusive, communitarian, etc.

For that reason, it would be good if we were to find a way to include the aspirations of groups who come together, do not profess religious faith but, like religious faith communities, none the less seek to advance values in our society which, as I have stated, are communitarian and promote altruistic behaviour, if one wants to call it that, in various ways.

It surprises me that one point on which I agree with Senator Norris, and on which he is absolutely right, is "We believe", because in Latin it is "Credo", in the first person singular. That is probably the more correct approach to take in the Profession of Faith.