Alberchico From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 2508 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2351 times:
Come on its Italy. Christianity isn't just a religion its part of their history and culture. Is the EU going too far in their battle for political correctness ?
Thoughts ???
short summary of every jewish holiday: they tried to kill us ,we won , lets eat !
MadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 9218 posts, RR: 50 Reply 1, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2339 times:
This is becoming more and more common. A lot of elementary schools in France are now banning Christmas trees not to discriminate against children coming from a non-Christian background.
There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25729 posts, RR: 86 Reply 2, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2300 times:
Quoting Alberchico (Thread starter): Come on its Italy. Christianity isn't just a religion its part of their history and culture. Is the EU going too far in their battle for political correctness ?
There is nothing about political correctness, it is about governmental secularism. There is no place for specifically religious symbols in a public school in a constitutional, representative democracy like Italy.
The place I can actually see this being an issue is in Germany, where the Constitution was written in a way that is very different to the first modern constitution, the US Constitution. Instead of negative liberties, it specifically grants civil rights and mandates that the government facilitate those. That means public Catholic schools in Bavaria, public Yeshivas in large Jewish areas, etc. If a challenge was made to the German system, there would be a major constitutional dilemma. Then again, as long as a secular public alternative exists, I think the German system will pass muster with Strasbourg.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
LTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 53 Reply 3, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2291 times:
Quoting N1120A (Reply 2): The place I can actually see this being an issue is in Germany
The issue in Germany, particularly about the crucifixes in Bavaria, has been discussed ad nauseam in the media and among people. The big problem with Bavaria is that, at least when I was still there in 1997, that crufixies continued to hang on doors in plain public schools. If the school was a catholic, jewish or muslim school for example, fine, but if the school is supposed to be secular, then why hang a crucifix? Besides, there are also non-catholics and non-christians who attend those schools, and they may feel disturbed if not offended by this.
To me, this isn't about political correctness, it's about doing the right thing in a secular world. In my time in elemtary school, all those who were not christians were excused from participating in religion class. They went to a big room inside our classroom, where they could be supervised and where tehy could mind their own business, while the rest participates in religion lessons
Asturias From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 1769 posts, RR: 19 Reply 4, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2268 times:
Quoting Alberchico (Thread starter): Is the EU going too far in their battle for political correctness ?
This has nothing to do with the EU, but rather the European Court of Human Rights - which is completely independent of the EU.
It's jurisdiction spans Russia and many other non-EU countries, members of the Council of Europe (not to be confused with Consilium, the European Council) and those countries that have ratified the European Convention on Human Rights.
The court was set up in 1950, thus older than the European Union (and all it's previous incarnations)
But, yes. They are very politically correct, which can be quite a problem, but mostly they just try to adhere to what is established as a general rule within the jurisdiction they serve.
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25729 posts, RR: 86 Reply 5, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2240 times:
Quoting LTU932 (Reply 3):
The issue in Germany, particularly about the crucifixes in Bavaria, has been discussed ad nauseam in the media and among people. The big problem with Bavaria is that, at least when I was still there in 1997, that crufixies continued to hang on doors in plain public schools.
Different issue than the one I was talking about actually.
Quoting LTU932 (Reply 3):
To me, this isn't about political correctness, it's about doing the right thing in a secular world.
Absolutely
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
ScrubbsYWG From Canada, joined Mar 2007, 1468 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2232 times:
Quoting Alberchico (Thread starter): Come on its Italy. Christianity isn't just a religion its part of their history and culture. Is the EU going too far in their battle for political correctness ?
something out of my lonely planet book i got when i was traveling in italy recently said 87% identify themselves as catholic, yet only 36% consider themselves practicing, and only 30% attend church regularly.
Maverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 3807 posts, RR: 4 Reply 7, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2229 times:
To all the EU supporters who said national identity wouldn't be eroded:
Told ya so.
Quoting N1120A (Reply 2): There is no place for specifically religious symbols in a public school in a constitutional, representative democracy like Italy.
As an outsider, I agree. However, it is up to the Italians to make that determination for themselves, whether a cross by itself violates some fundamental human right.
AlexEU From Serbia, joined Oct 2007, 1778 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2162 times:
Shame for Italy. I don´t see how a Cross itself can harm anybody, even those from other religions. Maybe someone will say that Italian flag is harming them, so they may need to pull the flag out?
Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 1): This is becoming more and more common. A lot of elementary schools in France are now banning Christmas trees not to discriminate against children coming from a non-Christian background.
If they don´t like it, they should go back to were they came from. I am a Christian living in a Muslim country, and I have nothing against their traditions, signs, holidays... If I would, I would pack myself and leave the country,
RussianJet From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 4946 posts, RR: 25 Reply 11, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2150 times:
For me, the stupidest part of the whole thing is this:
Quote:
Mrs Lautsi complained to the European court that her children had to attend a public school in northern Italy that had crucifixes in every room.
She was awarded 5,000 euros ($7,400; £4,500) in damages.
Lewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3092 posts, RR: 6 Reply 12, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2102 times:
Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 1): This is becoming more and more common. A lot of elementary schools in France are now banning Christmas trees not to discriminate against children coming from a non-Christian background.
So a Christmas tree is sort of discrimination against non-christians or even offensive? What I found offensive was waking up to an Imam's voice every morning when living in Rotterdam and London (as if I am obligated to listen to it), not being able to buy alcohol at all cornershops around the area (and being frowned upon for asking if they carry it) because they were owned by Muslims. What's next? Banning the use of the cross from hospitals because it is offensive for some people?
Israel is also supposed to be a secular state (right?), but I doubt you can get much done on a Saturday.
Quoting AlexEU (Reply 10): If they don´t like it, they should go back to were they came from. I am a Christian living in a Muslim country, and I have nothing against their traditions, signs, holidays... If I would, I would pack myself and leave the country,
Yep, she was awarded damages as well. I am not a religious person, I consider myself atheist but I do enjoy Christmas holidays etc, not from a religious point of view, but for the atmosphere and the local traditions that this celebration carries with it. Same goes for Easter and all other religious holidays. People need to chill.
Quoting AlexEU (Reply 10): Maybe someone will say that Italian flag is harming them, so they may need to pull the flag out?
Sadly, I can see this coming. If non-Christians or atheists are offended by the presence of the cross, they must also be offended that the cross is a key part of their country's flag (Switzerland, Greece, Scandinavian Countries, UK and the list goes on...)
Personally, I'm glad that the Holy Father's intervention in the affair was unsuccessful.
Ms. Lautsi, coming from Finland, is almost certainly a Lutheran by upbringing, and up here even Christians can do without the graphic 3D-image of a dying person on an instrument of torture being displayed in front of schoolchildren.
MadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 9218 posts, RR: 50 Reply 14, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2087 times:
This is not about crosses. This is about hundreds of years of tradition.
Schools were started by monasteries in the old ages.
There was nothing such as "public" or "government" schools until I think the 19th Century.
I am in the middle of moving so I have no time to check on the historical side of this.
One new law will wipe away hundreds of years of tradition.
There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
HAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 30161 posts, RR: 61 Reply 15, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2061 times:
Amazingly out here Catholic school classrooms have a Crucifix in every room & most hotelskeep a Bible/Gita/koran in every room too.
Some places have pics of gods of "All"religons in their shops/restraunts/malls.
I guess better to have all gods everywhere than no god anyplace
Braybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 4957 posts, RR: 39 Reply 16, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2017 times:
Quoting AverageUser (Reply 16): up here even Christians can do without the graphic 3D-image of a dying person on an instrument of torture being displayed in front of schoolchildren.
LTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 53 Reply 17, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1974 times:
Quoting Francoflier (Reply 9): What have crucifixes or religion got to do with national identity?
Exactly! They have nothing to do with a country's national identity (though the Vatican and the German state of Bayern may claim otherwise). I personally believe that a crucifix has nothing to do in a secular school, because it's seen as imposing a religion on somebody.
I'm an Atheist and I would like to give my children the choice of whether they want to become Christians or not. That choice should not be imposed on them. Bad enough that Bayern is complaining about this ruling, now we have once again the Anti-EU crowd making conspiracy theories that are the basis for this ruling. The EU has its flaws, but many of them are offset by the good things this supranational entity has done in its over 50 years of existence.
Shamrock604 From Ireland, joined Sep 2007, 3756 posts, RR: 14 Reply 18, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1971 times:
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 7): To all the EU supporters who said national identity wouldn't be eroded:
Told ya so.
Eh, how is this about national identity?? My identity hasnt been eroded one bit, and I am an EU national, and a catholic in a country where cathlolicism is allegedly part of the culture....
Most of these laws, for example in france, have come from national parliaments, and not from the EU, so can we stop trying to blame the EU for everything? Its getting a little old and is excusing people from actually informing themselves on particular issues.
Why should I as a catholic, have the right to ensure the symbols of my religion take priority in places where there are non catholics?
Your faith should be for you to practice in your private time, not to be shoved down your throat in a public school. Schools should seek to morally educate, but not to one Church's particular tune.
Flown EI,FR,RE,EIR,VE,SI,TLA,BA,BE,BD,VX,MON,AF,YS,WX,KL,SK,LH,OK,OS,LX,IB,LTU,HLX,4U,SU,CO,DL,UA,AC,PR,MH,SQ,QF, EY, EK
AverageUser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1972 times:
Quoting LTU932 (Reply 22): The EU has its flaws, but many of them are offset by the good things this supranational entity has done in its over 50 years of existence.
Again, this is not an EU ruling. The court is not an EU body.
Quoting LTU932 (Reply 22): Bad enough that Bayern is complaining about this ruling, now we have once again the Anti-EU crowd making conspiracy theories that are the basis for this ruling
The state of Bayern can not be complaining about the decision, since they're not a signatory. Neither can the German Federation, since they're not in the case.
I can't understand the media writes about the decision "not being final". The procedure is quite clear, see below. However, since the Court is not above national laws and the signatories remain sovereign countries, the Court can't rewrite any laws, and it's up to the signatories to implement any required changes in the laws.
Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17-member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer
I know, I'm just trying to make a point with the anti-EU crowd, telling them that while the EU is not perfect, it does have a good side.
Quoting AverageUser (Reply 24): The state of Bayern can not be complaining about the decision, since they're not a signatory.
They don't really care. Hell, they didn't even want to ratify the constitution after the war because they feared it would infringe on their rights as a state in a federal union. I recall the Bayernpartei, a local party in Bayern, even stated that Bayern would do even better if it was independent from Germany. That was during the 05 elections, and there's even a parody of that.
Trvyyz From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1266 posts, RR: 13 Reply 21, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1941 times:
Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 21):
Quoting AverageUser (Reply 16):
up here even Christians can do without the graphic 3D-image of a dying person on an instrument of torture being displayed in front of schoolchildren.
LOL! Scary really, when you think about it.
That is so ignorant.
The cross means sacrifice, "Someone" dying for the sins of others. It is not meant to be scary.
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25729 posts, RR: 86 Reply 22, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1926 times:
Yellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3065 posts, RR: 8 Reply 23, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1921 times:
Quoting Trvyyz (Reply 26): That is so ignorant.
The cross means sacrifice, "Someone" dying for the sins of others. It is not meant to be scary.
The cross is and was an implement of torture. Regardless of its status as a symbol of the Christian faith, I seriously doubt that you would be able to stomach watching an actual crucifixion.
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25729 posts, RR: 86 Reply 26, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1890 times:
Quoting TRVYYZ (Reply 30): The Cross has a meaning for Christians and it is not what you think.
Anyone who hasn't lived under a rock since birth knows what you are talking about, but that has nothing to do with the post.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
LTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 53 Reply 27, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1884 times:
Quoting TRVYYZ (Reply 30): The Cross has a meaning for Christians and it is not what you think.
Yes. For religious purposes, the cross, as well as e.g. the Bible, is an important symbol of Christianity, just as the Star of David and the Menorah is an important symbol for Jews and the Crescent and the Quran is for Muslims (to name a few examples). Factually however, the cross remains the place where Jesus Christ is said to have been executed, and the method of execution itself has been used often by the Romans back in the day.
AlexEU From Serbia, joined Oct 2007, 1778 posts, RR: 2 Reply 28, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1853 times:
Quoting LTU932 (Reply 32): Factually however, the cross remains the place where Jesus Christ is said to have been executed, and the method of execution itself has been used often by the Romans back in the day.
Cross has a symbol of eternal life and eternal love. The Jesus did suffer on cross to clean our sins and to give us eternal life. If there was no ressurection then the cross would have the symbol of torture and method of execution. However thanks to the ressurection the cross has totally different meaning. It is also a symbol of the defeat of devil and the defeat of death. If there is no eternal life, that would mean that love is weaker then death, thus cross has a good meaning for school children.
Yellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3065 posts, RR: 8 Reply 29, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1819 times:
Quoting AlexEU (Reply 33): Cross has a symbol of eternal life and eternal love.
Yes, to Christians. It's also a symbol of Roman imperialism and torture, and that applies to historically-minded people of all religions.
Suppose Jesus had come to Earth today, rather than 2,000 years ago. Would you support hanging models of rifles, or gas chambers, or lethal injection tables in Italian public schools?
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
AM744 From Mexico, joined Jun 2001, 1590 posts, RR: 0 Reply 30, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1748 times:
Quoting N1120A (Reply 2): There is nothing about political correctness, it is about governmental secularism. There is no place for specifically religious symbols in a public school in a constitutional, representative democracy like Italy.
Agreed. They could have a national flag if they must have some sort of symbol. It's meant precisely for that meta religious, national unity purposes.
AlexEU From Serbia, joined Oct 2007, 1778 posts, RR: 2 Reply 31, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1687 times:
Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 34): Yes, to Christians. It's also a symbol of Roman imperialism and torture, and that applies to historically-minded people of all religions.
Suppose Jesus had come to Earth today, rather than 2,000 years ago. Would you support hanging models of rifles, or gas chambers, or lethal injection tables in Italian public schools?
Again, thanks to the cross we have eternal life. I´ve never heard anyone, even non-Christians saying that Cross is a symbol of torture. With Cross we have defeated torture and death. If you don´t believe, it´s not a problem, just don´t pay attention
AlexEU From Serbia, joined Oct 2007, 1778 posts, RR: 2 Reply 33, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1670 times:
Quoting LTU932 (Reply 37): What about those who killed in the name of Jesus Christ, the very person who died on that cross? What about the crusades? What about the Inquisition?
That would be the same as if I offered you a 1 000 000 dollars in 100 dollars note, but you reject it because you don´t like Benjamin Franklin which is on a 100 dollars note.
Many crazy people killed in the name of British flag, yet that doesn´t mean that UK should choose a new flag.
Yellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3065 posts, RR: 8 Reply 34, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1662 times:
Quoting AlexEU (Reply 36): Again, thanks to the cross we have eternal life.
I don't understand why the instrument of Jesus's death is being held up as a symbol of eternal life. If eternal life is the topic at hand, why not focus on the actual resurrection, on Easter Sunday rather than Good Friday?
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
AverageUser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 35, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1654 times:
Quoting AlexEU (Reply 36):
Again, thanks to the cross we have eternal life.
Ok, let's say for the sake of argument this is a fact. Then how does that fact depend on whether the crucifix is displayed in the class or not? Is that eternal life we're promised somehow revocable by something we do down here?
AlexEU From Serbia, joined Oct 2007, 1778 posts, RR: 2 Reply 36, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1628 times:
Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 39): I don't understand why the instrument of Jesus's death is being held up as a symbol of eternal life. If eternal life is the topic at hand, why not focus on the actual resurrection, on Easter Sunday rather than Good Friday?
Because if there was no death, there would be no ressurection. He destroyed death by death.
Quoting AverageUser (Reply 40): Ok, let's say for the sake of argument this is a fact. Then how does that fact depend on whether the crucifix is displayed in the class or not? Is that eternal life we're promised somehow revocable by something we do down here?
By reminding us. But even if one doesn´t belive which is ok, I don´t see the reason for banning it.
AlexEU From Serbia, joined Oct 2007, 1778 posts, RR: 2 Reply 38, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1600 times:
Quoting AverageUser (Reply 42):
You did not say whether that eternal life is somehow revocable by something we do or do not do down here. Is it?
I don´t know that. If someone gives you a small present you would thank to him. But imagine if someone gives you a present like immortality.
Quoting AverageUser (Reply 42): And if it is, is it specifically due to hanging or not hanging a crucifix on the classroom wall?
Probably not. But still why would we ban it? If I owned a school, I would probably not put crucifix in classroom, but if it is a tradition for 500 years why would I take it off?
AverageUser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 39, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1597 times:
Quoting AlexEU (Reply 43): Probably not. But still why would we ban it? If I owned a school, I would probably not put crucifix in classroom, but if it is a tradition for 500 years why would I take it off?
Well, I'm glad you agreed there's no religious need for the symbol to be displayed, and that your eternal life is not being put to risk by its absence. As to the tradition being "500 years old", the display of the crucifix in public buildings was mandated by a Mussolini statute in 1924. The portrait of the King of Italy should be displayed along with it, but that requirement was dropped for some reason. Now it was the time of the crucifix to be removed as well. If the believers have a need to gaze at the crucifix regularly they can do that in the privacy of their homes, or in a place of worship of their choosing.
LTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 11685 posts, RR: 8 Reply 40, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1584 times:
I think one thing we are seeing today are people standing up to their beliefs and no long brush off being offended by symbols of beliefs of others being thrust on them. I suspect a number of public schools in Italy now have Muslim students for example and the display of the Christian Cross is saying the Christian Faith is superior to theirs. For Muslims, it is also the symbol of a faith, most particularly the Roman Catholics, who fought against past generations of persons of their faith, especially in the Crusades.
I think it is long past time to recognize, even in Italy, that the Roman Catholic Faith is no longer their government, it is a faith orgainization that just happens to be headquartered in Rome and has no authority over them.
AlexEU From Serbia, joined Oct 2007, 1778 posts, RR: 2 Reply 41, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1583 times:
Quoting AverageUser (Reply 44): Now it was the time of the crucifix to be removed as well.
But then again, why remove something that is a symbol of life? lol maybe I am going too far
Is the removal of crucifix going to bring something better to the school?
AverageUser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 42, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1564 times:
Quoting AlexEU (Reply 41): Is the removal of crucifix going to bring something better to the school?
Yes, it symbolises the separation of the Church and the State, and underlines the equality of the religionless and people of other faiths regards the Catholics in all sectors of public life.
PPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8200 posts, RR: 48 Reply 43, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1554 times:
Quoting LTU932 (Reply 17): I'm an Atheist and I would like to give my children the choice of whether they want to become Christians or not. That choice should not be imposed on them.
I'm an atheist too, but I don't see how a crucifix imposes anything. We have lots and lots of public displays of religion and I don't see it as imposing anything. It's merely a display. In fact, despite being an atheist, I would hate to see churches demolished--they are masterpieces of architecture and engineering (some of them, anyway).
This all comes down to no simple right or wrong answer at all. The court says that lady has a right to bring her children up in a secular environment. Well, yes, just as another lady has the right to bring her children up in a religious environment.
And this is a jewel:
"It said the practice violated the right of parents to educate their children as they saw fit"
Well, how about homeschooling? Illegal in many nations in the EU. Sounds like the court needs to slap some more politicians.
LTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 53 Reply 45, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1531 times:
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 43): I'm an atheist too, but I don't see how a crucifix imposes anything. We have lots and lots of public displays of religion and I don't see it as imposing anything. It's merely a display.
I beg to differ. It may be a display, but it could also be a display of a state imposed religion. Italy has freedom of religion, just like all other countries in the EU, so this means that displaying a crucifix in a secular public school is simply inappropiate. They should keep it for the church or for catholic schools, but not secular ones. That being said:
MadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 9218 posts, RR: 50 Reply 46, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1527 times:
Italy has a very much right wing government with Silviio Berlusconi as the PM and the Lega Nord in the government, all rather favourable to the Roman Catholics. What have they said about this banning the crucifix(es) in publiic schools? Any idea?
There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
Francoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 2766 posts, RR: 11 Reply 47, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1525 times:
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 43): The court says that lady has a right to bring her children up in a secular environment. Well, yes, just as another lady has the right to bring her children up in a religious environment.
The ruling came from the fact that the first lady in your example couldn't 'exercise her right' to bring up her child in a secular environment because of the religious signs displayed in every school. The second lady, on the other hand, is free to send her kid to a catholic school or send him to extra-curricular religious activities/learning.
I believe the goal of a religion-free school system is a very important one to concretize, as children are very impressionable. Even if it means nitpicking on the details like small religious adornments.
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
Bwest From Belgium, joined Jul 2006, 1265 posts, RR: 5 Reply 48, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1526 times:
@Madameconcorde: Il Cavaliere said not a single implanted hair on his botox head is thinking about removing the crosses, stressing the importance of the Catholic tradition in Italy. Not quite sure if this was just before or just after Silvio retired to a hotel room with a young girl who wasn't his wife.
Anyway, I shall put my trusty flamesuit on and say: good riddance! Now get that German cross-dresser out of the Vatican and turn the whole thing in a museum... repeat this for every church, mosque, synagogue and other temple and maybe we can finally leave this organised mass-madness called religion behind us.
Of course, the above scenario won't work as long as people are daft enough to believe all that crap plus think they ought to be respected for believing in fairy tales, so I'll settle with taking the crosses out of the classrooms, seeing it as a small step towards a bigger goal.
I take issue with a display meaning imposition, regardless of issue. However, there is a level of "endorsement" that I agree shouldn't happen.
Quoting Francoflier (Reply 47): The second lady, on the other hand, is free to send her kid to a catholic school or send him to extra-curricular religious activities/learning.
The issue then becomes one of favoring secular schools over religious ones, since the state will offer free secular schooling to all but not religious schooling.
Quoting Francoflier (Reply 47): I believe the goal of a religion-free school system is a very important one to concretize, as children are very impressionable. Even if it means nitpicking on the details like small religious adornments.
I think that would be nice as well but others may have different opinions.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
AverageUser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 50, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1507 times:
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 49): I take issue with a display meaning imposition, regardless of issue. However, there is a level of "endorsement" that I agree shouldn't happen.
If you want me to comment that needs to be translated into English, please.
AverageUser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 52, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1495 times:
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 51): A display does not equal imposition.
I think I got it, it's like displaying "Fine Wines" on a sign of an English public house!
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 51): A display by the Government of religious symbols implies a certain endorsement of religion, which I do not think should happen.
LTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 53 Reply 53, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1491 times:
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 51): A display does not equal imposition.
A display by the Government of religious symbols implies a certain endorsement of religion, which I do not think should happen.
You're contradicting yourself. If a display does not equal imposition in this case, then why would this mean that the government is endorsing a religion?
Yellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3065 posts, RR: 8 Reply 54, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1490 times:
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 49): The issue then becomes one of favoring secular schools over religious ones, since the state will offer free secular schooling to all but not religious schooling.
This is not a problem. Secularism is not the opposite of religion, but rather the absence of religion. It is not the government's job to promote religion, ergo the schools it funds should not promote religion--they should be secular. If parents want their child to receive religious instruction as well, they can provide that teaching independently. However, parents who do not want their child to receive such instruction cannot remove it once it has been given.
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
Quoting LTU932 (Reply 53):
You're contradicting yourself. If a display does not equal imposition in this case, then why would this mean that the government is endorsing a religion?
I didn't really endorse religious symbols at public schools, I merely said it isn't imposing a religion. It is endorsing one, even if only symbolically, but it's not the same as imposing one. It may be seen as promoting but certainly not imposing.
Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 54):
This is not a problem. Secularism is not the opposite of religion, but rather the absence of religion. It is not the government's job to promote religion, ergo the schools it funds should not promote religion--they should be secular. If parents want their child to receive religious instruction as well, they can provide that teaching independently. However, parents who do not want their child to receive such instruction cannot remove it once it has been given.
To the extent that secularism does not conflict with religion, yes, you are correct. But we see plenty of conflict in other areas, particularly evolution and sex. Evolution is a conflict period, while sex is more of a difference in what the adequate setting and manner for this education is.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
JFKMan From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 572 posts, RR: 4 Reply 57, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1468 times:
In a Catholic country like Italy...if you're afraid of the crucifixes...LEAVE!
Hey! I'm Tommy from JFK, New York. (US AIRWAYS RULES)
AverageUser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 59, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1433 times:
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 56): I didn't really endorse religious symbols at public schools, I merely said it isn't imposing a religion. It is endorsing one, even if only symbolically, but it's not the same as imposing one. It may be seen as promoting but certainly not imposing.
So if I conclude the semantic mess: do you agree or disagree with the Court?
Yellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3065 posts, RR: 8 Reply 60, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1432 times:
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 56): To the extent that secularism does not conflict with religion, yes, you are correct. But we see plenty of conflict in other areas, particularly evolution and sex.
I don't see the conflict on the question of sex. A secular school will teach children the facts - what sex is, how it works, various ways to prevent pregnancy and STD transmission, etc. All that information is religiously neutral. Then, the parents can layer on top of that instruction on the morality of sex, perhaps as described by a religion.
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
ManuCH From Switzerland, joined Jun 2005, 2903 posts, RR: 52 Reply 61, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1422 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD MODERATOR
Quoting Bwest (Reply 48): good riddance! Now get that German cross-dresser out of the Vatican and turn the whole thing in a museum... repeat this for every church, mosque, synagogue and other temple and maybe we can finally leave this organised mass-madness called religion behind us.
Of course, the above scenario won't work as long as people are daft enough to believe all that crap plus think they ought to be respected for believing in fairy tales, so I'll settle with taking the crosses out of the classrooms, seeing it as a small step towards a bigger goal.
This can probably be considered the "quote of the month"
In my opinion, a "western" state must be secular, and crucifixes should be banned from public institutions like schools. Not because people from some other religion might consider them offensive (if you don't believe in catholic religion, a crucifix is just a random object without symbolic worth, therefore cannot be offensive by definition), but because the state shouldn't endorse any religion in any shape or form.
AverageUser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 62, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1406 times:
Quoting ManuCH (Reply 61): if you don't believe in catholic religion, a crucifix is just a random object without symbolic worth, therefore cannot be offensive by definition
No. That's not the case here. If the crucifix were void of symbolic value for the non-Catholics, there would have been absolutely no utility in the court decision in the first place. It was precisely the symbol's offensive value that was addressed, and is clearly written so in the decision!
MadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 9218 posts, RR: 50 Reply 63, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1392 times:
The Italian government should organize a referendum nationwide and ask the question "are crucifixes to be taken out of public schools yes or no" and let the voters decide.
It would be an easy thing to do if this is such an important issue, it can be done. Then the EU will have nothing to say if the people vote and decide for themselves. This is a local matter within the borders of Italy so let their people dedide what they want.
I am surprised they have not thought about it with all the noise that's being made around it in the news not only nationwide but worldwide.
There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
AverageUser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 64, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1384 times:
Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 63): Then the EU will have nothing to say if the people vote and decide for themselves.
It was not a decision by the EU but by the European Court of Human Rights, and the way to repeal its decisions is written in the convention itself, thus:
Any High Contracting Party availing itself of this right of derogation shall keep the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe fully informed of the measures which it has taken and the reasons therefor. It shall also inform the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe when such measures have ceased to operate and the provisions of the Convention are again being fully executed. the European Convention on Human Rights (1950-1966)
So a referendum is not required, but a written notice from the Italian Government will do. So if it's a matter of political urgency, Mr Silvio B. must be man enough to start drafting a letter?
JFKMan From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 572 posts, RR: 4 Reply 65, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1376 times:
Europe doesn't listen to the people... I thought everyone knew that. Just look at the Lisbon Treaty.
Europe is no democracy at all.
Next they are going to want all churches removed. We don't want to insult people, do we?
Hey! I'm Tommy from JFK, New York. (US AIRWAYS RULES)
Cws818 From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1021 posts, RR: 1 Reply 66, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1370 times:
Quoting JFKMan (Reply 65): Europe doesn't listen to the people... I thought everyone knew that. Just look at the Lisbon Treaty.
Europe is no democracy at all.
Next they are going to want all churches removed. We don't want to insult people, do we? Â Â
Forget insulting people. Clearly, you are not in the least bit interested in being accurate or well-informed.
JFKMan From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 572 posts, RR: 4 Reply 67, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1368 times:
Quoting Cws818 (Reply 66): Clearly, you are not in the least bit interested in being accurate or well-informed.
I consider myself very well-informed. Tell me what I said in my post that was not?
Hey! I'm Tommy from JFK, New York. (US AIRWAYS RULES)
Cws818 From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1021 posts, RR: 1 Reply 68, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1366 times:
Quoting JFKMan (Reply 65): Europe is no democracy at all.
Are you aware that there are democratic elections for MEPs? (Members of the European Parliament)
Quoting JFKMan (Reply 65): Europe doesn't listen to the people...
And yet the EU has elections for MEPs and funds and staffs the Eurobarometer organizaton.
Quoting JFKMan (Reply 65): I thought everyone knew that. Just look at the Lisbon Treaty.
Which the Irish people, as required by Irish law, ratified. Additionally, the elected representatives of the other EU Member States approved, as well. Are you absolutely sure it is undemocratic and unresponsive to the peoples of the European Union?
Quoting JFKMan (Reply 67): I consider myself very well-informed. Tell me what I said in my post that was not?
See above: you seem to be under the impression that the European Union is a nebulous entity that can impose its will upon the populations of the EU Member States by fiat, on a whim.
A brief period of study would, undoubtedly, inform you of the reality of the European Union and its legal institutions.
JFKMan From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 572 posts, RR: 4 Reply 69, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1356 times:
Quoting Cws818 (Reply 68): Are you aware that there are democratic elections for MEPs?
Yes indeed I am aware of MEPs.
Quoting Cws818 (Reply 68): Are you absolutely sure it is undemocratic and unresponsive to the peoples of the European Union?
The Irish people said NO. NO means NO. Did the EU listen? No...they didn't care. They just needed the 'right' result. You call that democracy?
Quoting Cws818 (Reply 68): See above: you seem to be under the impression that the European Union is a nebulous entity that can impose its will upon the populations of the EU Member States by fiat, on a whim.
Europe elects MEPs. Good...no? But when Europe wants to radically change its meaning it did not ask the people. The Irish were asked and said No, but no one listened. No one in the EU cared what the people thought. That...is in no shape or form democratic.
BTW, stop trying to look like the teacher. I know a lot about the European Union, I am an EU (Irish) citizen and I am very well informed on its institutions and politics.
Hey! I'm Tommy from JFK, New York. (US AIRWAYS RULES)
JFKMan From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 572 posts, RR: 4 Reply 71, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1340 times:
Quoting Janmnastami (Reply 70): The Irish changed idea after Ireland's economic crash.
They should never of been asked again.
Hey! I'm Tommy from JFK, New York. (US AIRWAYS RULES)
Janmnastami From Italy, joined Apr 2008, 823 posts, RR: 0 Reply 72, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1337 times:
There is a misunderstanding: it's true that the Court has "ruled against the use of crucifixes in classrooms", but it hasn't obliged to remove crucifixes, so they can stay where they are.
AverageUser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 73, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1323 times:
Quoting Janmnastami (Reply 72): There is a misunderstanding: it's true that the Court has "ruled against the use of crucifixes in classrooms", but it hasn't obliged to remove crucifixes, so they can stay where they are.
Sorry, but you seem to have misunderstood the powers of the Court, (and the title is misleading as well in this respect). It can't give any direct orders, but it's assumed the country will start a process whereby the decision of the Court will be implemented in the national legislation. There will be more cases undoubtedly with a similar decision in less processing time if Italy will not comply.
MadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 9218 posts, RR: 50 Reply 74, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1319 times:
Quoting AverageUser (Reply 73): it's assumed the country will start a process whereby the decision of the Court will be implemented in the national legislation. There will be more cases undoubtedly with a similar decision in less processing time if Italy will not comply.
The said European court does not have dictatorial powers.
It is up to each school to decide to leave or to remove the crucifixes from the classrooms.
Those who do not like them have the possibility to go to other schools where there are no such religious signs although they may have to pay.
There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
PPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8200 posts, RR: 48 Reply 75, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1313 times:
Quoting AverageUser (Reply 59):
So if I conclude the semantic mess: do you agree or disagree with the Court?
Neither. There is no right or wrong answer. I guess I'd disagree to the extent they made a ruling on this issue, but I'd disagree either way their ruling would have gone, unless they remained neutral.
Yellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3065 posts, RR: 8 Reply 76, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1300 times:
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 75): Not according to them. They argue that school isn't the proper setting to teach about sex.
If they feel that sex education is inappropriate for their child, they can remove their child from the class during that lesson. That's what my public middle and high school did. The default, though, is and should be to teach students the facts.
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
Janmnastami From Italy, joined Apr 2008, 823 posts, RR: 0 Reply 77, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1301 times:
Quoting AverageUser (Reply 73): Sorry, but you seem to have misunderstood the powers of the Court, (and the title is misleading as well in this respect). It can't give any direct orders, but it's assumed the country will start a process whereby the decision of the Court will be implemented in the national legislation. There will be more cases undoubtedly with a similar decision in less processing time if Italy will not comply.
I didn't misunderstood the powers of the Court: I just underlined that the sentence doesn't oblige to remove crucifixes from public schools, it obliges to pay 5,000 EUR as compensation.
AverageUser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 78, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1291 times:
Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 74): It is up to each school to decide to leave or to remove the crucifixes from the classrooms.
No, it's not. The statute to display the crucifix has been a national level one, and a national level decision will take them down. There's no wiggling room any more -- there's a precedent case right here. The only way the Italian government can avoid taking the crucifixes down will be to opt-out altogether of the Human Rights Instrument.
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 75): I guess I'd disagree to the extent they made a ruling on this issue, but I'd disagree either way their ruling would have gone, unless they remained neutral.
So that will be a "not agree", since there's no separate "extent" and "ruling", they are written out together by the Court.
Quoting Janmnastami (Reply 77): I didn't misunderstood the powers of the Court: I just underlined that the sentence doesn't oblige to remove crucifixes from public schools
No there's the misunderstanding still. Although the Court under it's powers can't order a removal directly, in this case there's no way to comply with tht decision other than by removing them, or perhaps wrapping them in black plastic. The display has to end, says the Court.
Sure, no problem. That's basically how it worked at my middle school (private) with religious classes. We had one Jewish girl in the class and she would go to the library for that period.
Then we only have a problem when some people want to make such a class a requirement.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
LTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 53 Reply 80, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1280 times:
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 79): Sure, no problem. That's basically how it worked at my middle school (private) with religious classes. We had one Jewish girl in the class and she would go to the library for that period.
That similar to what was done with two Muslim classmates I've had in (public) elementary school. During Religion class, they went into a separate room, where they could read, draw or simply play during that time.
Janmnastami From Italy, joined Apr 2008, 823 posts, RR: 0 Reply 81, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1275 times:
Quoting AverageUser (Reply 78): No there's the misunderstanding still. Although the Court under it's powers can't order a removal directly, in this case there's no way to comply with tht decision other than by removing them, or perhaps wrapping them in black plastic. The display has to end, says the Court.
The Italian government is not obliged to comply with the decision removing crocifixes: they can remain, but if someone sues the Government, he will win and will have a monetary compensation.
The government should remove crocifixes just to avoid to pay a monetary compensation every time someone sues it, but if it "accepts" to lose every lawsuit and to pay a compensation, crucifixes can stay in schools (violating freedom not to believe in any religion).
ManuCH From Switzerland, joined Jun 2005, 2903 posts, RR: 52 Reply 82, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1266 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD MODERATOR
Quoting AverageUser (Reply 62): It was precisely the symbol's offensive value that was addressed, and is clearly written so in the decision!
I know that. And that's why I agree with the decision (being an atheist myself, I would want my state to be secular and not involved in religion), but I don't agree with the reasoning behind it (I don't see how someone as a non-Catholic can be offended by a symbol which is supposed to be meaningless to him).
AverageUser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 83, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1232 times:
Quoting Janmnastami (Reply 81):
The Italian government is not obliged to comply with the decision removing crocifixes: they can remain, but if someone sues the Government, he will win and will have a monetary compensation.
No, the decision is a binding one. The compensation is not the issue, but the changes in the national legislation that are now required by the Court to be implemented.
Quoting ManuCH (Reply 82): I don't see how someone as a non-Catholic can be offended by a symbol which is supposed to be meaningless to him
Well closer to your home, think about the Swastika in the German-speaking countries. Do you have to be a member of the Nazi Party in order to grasp the symbolism?
Janmnastami From Italy, joined Apr 2008, 823 posts, RR: 0 Reply 84, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1206 times:
Quoting AverageUser (Reply 83): The compensation is not the issue, but the changes in the national legislation that are now required by the Court to be implemented.
I'll repeat it: the Court has determined the violation of the principle of not believing in any religion and has condemned the Italian government to pay a monetary compensation.
The Government will appeal.
After the appeal, if the government loses the appeal, it will have two possibilities:
- removing crucifixes to avoid any other lawsuit;
- keeping crucifixes (violating that principle) and being condemned every time someone sues it.
The sentence doesn't impose to change the national legislation: it's true that changing national legislation would be the logical consequence if the government accepts to comply with the sentence (to avoid any other lawsuit), but if it voluntarily accepts to be condemned every time someone sues it, crucifixes may stay there (violating the principle of freedom not to believe in any religion): obviously the government would lose every lawsuit.
There's no procedure for anyone to automatically appeal, only in "exceptional cases". The relevant legislation can be found in my post #19.
Quoting Janmnastami (Reply 84):
The sentence doesn't impose to change the national legislation:
Yes it does. That is the very purpose of having the Court.
Where cases are broadly similar to ones brought previously before the Court, and are essentially due to a member state failing to change its domestic law to correct a failing highlighted by that previous judgment, the case can be decided by three judges rather than the seven-judge Chamber.
A member state can be brought before the Court by the Committee of Ministers if that state refuses to enforce a judgment. (Wikipedia, ECHR)
Janmnastami From Italy, joined Apr 2008, 823 posts, RR: 0 Reply 86, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1181 times:
Quoting AverageUser (Reply 85): There's no procedure for anyone to automatically appeal, only in "exceptional cases". The relevant legislation can be found in my post #19.
The sentence is not definitive (as the head of the press office of the Court declared) and the government has already said it will appeal: a council of 5 judges will decide if the appeal is admissible, in this case the Grand Chambre will have to pronounce about the application of the convention (as you correctly reported in #19).
The main point stressed by the lawyers of the Italian government is that Italy is not a secular state, it's a concordatary state and as consequence only the Grand Chambre can decide.
Quoting AverageUser (Reply 85): A member state can be brought before the Court by the Committee of Ministers if that state refuses to enforce a judgment.
But the Court can't enforce the judgement, it can just condemn the state!
ATCtower From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 379 posts, RR: 3 Reply 87, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1176 times:
I am sure I will ruffle a few feathers with this, and I have two points, but I feel it needs to be said instead of everyone being so damn PC.
1. Generally speaking, both Italy and the United States (where I reside) predominately practice one form of a Christian religion. Whether it be Catholicism, or another form, the vast majority of residents/citizens proclaim themselves Christian. Why in the world are we allowing the minority to dictate how we live our lives? What if it offended me NOT seeing a Crucifix when I went to class? Would anyone really give a damn?
2. I am spiritual, and believe in God, but do not fall into the BS preachings of every religion out there. I do not happen to get pissed off and start whining and complaining when I see a Crucifix, Menorah, Koran, statue of Buddha, Star of David, any symbols of the Pagan/Satanic religions, the Ten Commandments (of which you should follow most as a human anyway), or any other symbolic item. I realize that people instill values and ideals into their children but what is wrong with instilling the value of compassion, understanding, and reason? Instead of teaching those responsible for our future (children) to hate other religions and their sacred artifacts, should we not teach them there are different beliefs and to acknowledge them not as their own, but that of others?
I don't even understand why we are making schools the first line of defense... I mean really, in the US, they're still teaching our children that Christopher Columbus discovered America.
My $.02
By reading the above post you waive all rights to be offended. If you do not like what you read, forget it.
Yellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3065 posts, RR: 8 Reply 88, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1172 times:
Quoting ATCtower (Reply 87): Why in the world are we allowing the minority to dictate how we live our lives? What if it offended me NOT seeing a Crucifix when I went to class? Would anyone really give a damn?
Removing the crucifixes does not constitute the minority dictating how you live your life. Suppose you want your child to see the crucifix. If the school displays it, your wish is met. If the school does not display it, your child can still see the crucifix at home and at church, so it's still quite easy to get what you want. Now suppose that you do not want your child to see the crucifix. If the school displays it, your wish is violated, and it cannot be unviolated, because what is seen cannot be unseen. Ergo, in a public school that cannot discriminate based on religion and thus must cater to both points of view I described above, the proper choice is to not display the crucifix.
Another way to look at it - not displaying the cross is not the opposite of displaying the cross. The opposite of having crucifixes in the class would be having pentagrams or the like in the class. Not having any religious symbols is the neutral option, the 0 to Christianity's 1 and Satanism's -1.
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
AverageUser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 89, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1153 times:
Quoting Janmnastami (Reply 86): But the Court can't enforce the judgement, it can just condemn the state!
Why do I have to play the part of a broken record? Wrong. See below.
* Binding force: Article 46(1) ECHR: ‘The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgement of the Court in any case to which they are parties.’
* Execution of judgements: Article 46(2) ECHR: ‘The final judgment of the Court shall be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers, which shall supervise its execution.’ Additionally, according to Articles 3 and 8 of the Statute of the Council of Europe, the Committee of Ministers has the power of expulsion of recalcitrant states.
Janmnastami From Italy, joined Apr 2008, 823 posts, RR: 0 Reply 90, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1150 times:
Quoting AverageUser (Reply 89): * Binding force: Article 46(1) ECHR: ‘The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgement of the Court in any case to which they are parties.’
There hasn't been the final judgement yet, we have to see if the appeal is admissible and what the Grand Chambre will decide.
AverageUser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 91, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1138 times:
Quoting Janmnastami (Reply 90): There hasn't been the final judgement yet, we have to see if the appeal is admissible and what the Grand Chambre will decide.
To me it seens very likely there's nothing new the Italian government can present in the case that has not been addressed by the Court already, or what do you think?
Janmnastami From Italy, joined Apr 2008, 823 posts, RR: 0 Reply 92, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1133 times:
Quoting AverageUser (Reply 91): To me it seens very likely there's nothing new the Italian government can present in the case that has not been addressed by the Court already, or what do you think?
In my opinion, the Italian government will try to argue that black is white - for example saying that crucifix isn't not a religious symbol but it's expression of the values of Italian people (as the lawyers of the state have already tried to do during the lawsuit); it could also involve the Lateran Treaty between Italy and Vatican saying that Italy is a concordatary state and that the Grand Chambre is responsible for a pronunciation.
I hope that the Grand Chambre doesn't change the decision of the Court, I'm not much interested into the debate about crucifixes in public schools (and honestly I don't remember if crucifixes were exposed in the schools I attended) but I think that if you believe in a particular religion it means you have faith and don't need to see a symbol.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 2508 posts, 
From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 9218 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, 
From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 1769 posts, 
From Canada, joined Mar 2007, 1468 posts, 
From France, joined Oct 2001, 2766 posts, 
From Serbia, joined Oct 2007, 1778 posts, 
From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 4946 posts, 
From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3092 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From India, joined Jan 2001, 30161 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 4957 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Jun 2001, 1590 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8200 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Jul 2006, 1265 posts, 
From Italy, joined Apr 2008, 823 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jun 2005, 2903 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
