Indeed, a Christian choice had been attempted just before the current one, when the proposed flag contained —what else?— the symbol of the Cross, already used by the Pan-European Union of Kalergi.
What is the real importance of Heitz’s personal motivations and inspirations, when the supposed ‘Christian fathers’ of Europe, like Kalergi, rushed to dismiss the Cross after the objections of … Turkey?
This alone would be enough, if one wanted to draw the right conclusions, and is not alone.
Because just when Turkey objected to the use of the Cross, Kalergi (see his Letter to P. Levy, 15 April 1952) proposed without hesitation to be included in the flag along with the Cross the shape of the Crescent!, foreshadowing this way —Kalergi, not an advocate of the multiculturalism of our days— this soup that the European adventurism has instead of an horizon.
If Kalergi was unable to discern the importance of the introduction of the crescent in the flag regardless of any probable will of Turkey’s to accept the European customs and be a less Islamic country, he condemned himself much worse than any of his critics could have ever done. Furthermore, it is one thing to support the lay state, and a completely different thing to throw all the religious symbols together into the flag.
Sometimes we search for subtle details in an academic-scholastic manner trying to understand things, when the answer is obvious in the big picture!
Whoever keeps a healthy common sense won’t doubt that the flag of the European Union does not make any real reference to Christianity, and therefore is not surprised to learn, for example, that after the claims of Heitz, Paul Levy, the person responsible in the Council of Europe for the design of the flag, stated that he had not any idea whatever about any reference of the flag to religious notions.
