Human rights have always been regarded as fundamentally important aspects that every responsible government and every individual must respect, promote, protect, and advance. However, this colossal theme is often intertwined with various political ideologies and personal interpretations, which can sometimes lead to misunderstandings and conflicts.
This text addresses the challenges facing North Macedonia concerning the Gender Equality Law submitted to Parliament by the Government. The challenges arise from the concerns of a significant moral majority of our fellow citizens, who believe that this act contradicts national morality and the traditions of the citizens, regardless of their ethnic or religious background. Given the above, our goal is entirely noble, embodied in our effort to influence and, through constructive dialogue—which is a hallmark of dignity and a legally guaranteed right—ensure that traditional forms of key societal issues, such as education, marriage understood exclusively as a union between one man and one woman, and the full equality of the two sexes, male and female, continue to exist in their current scope and capacity.
We raise our concerns because of fears that in our country, as in other nations, the same or similar methodology might provide legal legitimacy or forcefully introduce sexual education at the expense of religious education. According to our beliefs and way of life, this would undoubtedly have serious implications for human and societal life, as evidenced by numerous examples. At the same time, we do not seek to impose judgments about what is right or wrong, truth or error, because for us, the Truth is Christ, and we observe humanity and the world through the lens of Christ, bearing witness to Him through personal experience. We also fear that, in the spirit of the darkest days of communist totalitarianism, there will be an effort to discourage religiosity while promoting the so-called concept of “gender fluidity,” hidden under various verbal constructions, and that the increasingly aggressive feminism will continue to undermine the vital societal role of women.
What deeply concerns us is the brazen approach of the advocates of these topics, as well as the insufficient involvement of the opponents, who should have consistently been included to account for the beliefs of those who think differently. Conducting a fair and constructive dialogue is a reflection of every mature democratic society. This reality escalates further when there is a conscious effort to provoke and demean the large moral majority, which patiently works, cares for its family, respects its faith, and loves its homeland. Every excessive reaction leads to aggression, and this aggression is in no way beneficial to the social space we all share.
The question arises: how should one respond to this form of threat to others’ freedom? Should it be ignored, as has often happened in the past, or should we respond with dignity and reason, hoping that, for once, instead of producing greater conflict, a debate might emerge in which both sides can be understood?
There is no worse social system than one that hides the true face of totalitarianism, or rather anarchism and nihilism, under the guise of democracy. Modern concepts and standards of education and gender fluidity, as well as traditional forms of the aforementioned concepts, starkly represent this harsh reality everywhere in the world, not just in our country. But where is all this leading us?
The foundation of human rights lies in respecting the rights and freedoms of others—that is, in the fact that the rights and freedoms of one group of citizens (should) be limited by the rights and freedoms of another group of citizens (one right should not suspend the rights of others). With the current proposed law, as with several other laws in the past, this principle has not been respected. The beliefs and aspirations of citizens with strong religious convictions and a conservative, traditional worldview were not considered. Bearing this in mind, we appeal for an end to this practice of violating human rights and freedoms and call for methods that respect the social, political, economic, and cultural development of our society.
The Church does not legislate; it nurtures good and loyal citizens who respect just laws. We all know that no law is enacted to impose power or coerce but to improve life and relationships. This means that the rights of believing citizens also include the responsibilities that come from their actions. Every one of us, whether atheist or theist, whether a member of this or that religious community, whether belonging to one political party or another, whether a public official or not, has the duty to act as a mature citizen whose well-considered and passion-free stance deserves to be heard and taken into account. The Church is not an institution—it is the people gathered around Christ, which is, in fact, the etymological meaning of the word “ἐκκλησία”—the assembly of the faithful. In that context, the members of the Church, in a secular state, convey their stance as equals to all other citizens, a stance that must be respected, for it is also the stance of the great silent moral majority! No one can silence the Church from speaking with love, from being calmly vocal in society, for it is called to care for the salvation of every person. Indeed, at times, it allows the “inheritance to be divided and the child sent to a distant land,” but it also waits with open arms to welcome the child’s return.
In the spirit of love, we would like to call not only for consideration of the opinion of the vast majority concerning amendments to the law but also for a continuous personal development, self-criticism, and the building of a better society for all through constructive and enhanced dialogue between all parties involved. The Church has overcome and triumphed over far greater evils, and we know it will overcome this challenge as well, together with the people. This is so because its preaching is not against the person who, for various reasons and circumstances, has found themselves in sin but against evil and sin itself. The Church does not condemn differences; it embraces and loves.
