According to the Christian Science Monitor:
Rome – Italians reacted with outrage on Tuesday after a European court ruled that displaying crucifixes in the country’s schools violated the principle of secular education.
Italy’s education minister condemned the judgment by the European Court of Human Rights, saying that the Christian cross was a symbol of the country’s Roman Catholic religion and cultural identity.
This is exactly the kind of problem Pope Benedict has previously criticized: the desire many in Europe have to ignore and reject their cultural roots. What kind of right is it that is being enforced here? Religious liberty, not its elimination, is the human right which must be enforced. Obviously this does not mean one should be forced to adhere to a religious belief or practice. But by denying Italy its rights to display the cross in its schoolrooms, is not a different religious praxis, one which rejects the public display of religion, being enforced?
“The Faith is Europe, and Europe is the Faith.”–Hillaire Belloc.
Catholics in America worked long and hard to remove the King James Bible from public school classrooms. Americans today would find it difficult to defend a confessional symbol (and Catholics should be offended to have it described as a cultural or nationalist symbol) in a state school classroom.
However, Europe has a different history than we do. The school system in most European nations was once a Church insitution that was at some point in time nationalized. Justice might dictate not that crosses be removed by that the state give back to the Church her school system and then go and create from scratch a new, secular one.
But that has practical problems. So, if we are going to be practical rather than ideological, let’s just leave things as they are with crosses in Italian government schools.
Can’t we just have Justice Scalia explain to this court, on behalf of Italy, that the cross isn’t really a religious symbol?
I don’t think it’s that big of a deal.
Michael,
My issues are manifold (though I will express a few of them here).
I think it is troubling to see cultural icons, which are wanted and accepted by the majority of the people and have no real negative harm for their continued use, cast aside. It reminds me of the Taliban with the Buddhas in Afghanistan (which is ironic because it follows the same kind of iconoclasm which we see in Europe now, though Europe condemned the Taliban).
It is also the fact that any act, either approval or disapproval of a religious symbol, is fundamentally a religious act; it is the promotion of a new civil religion which we are seeing in Europe, and in doing so, it has all the problems of civil religion which ignores the fact it is a religion. In this way, it is the hypocritical nature which underlies this act which should cause some pause. When civic religion is both followed and yet the fact it is a civic religion is hidden from view, that is really the start of something dangerous (imo).
I may be in the minority, but finding the crucifix to be a cultural symbol is insulting to me. Take them down.
The state isn’t the church. Isn’t that all this says? Should we really have a problem with that?
Thom expresses my feeling about it perfectly.
Henry,
From the way I read you you are not really arguing that crucifixes have an important role in public schools and should not be moved. That is, you do not appear to be arguing that they are a good thing in themselves or that they should be put up where they are not.
Would I be correct in saying that you appear more bothered by the civic religious impulse in taking them down.
Also, I am unclear on what you mean by religious liberty. I would take it that the idea of religious liberty promoted in the secular world is (in part) the liberty of the individual not to be preached at or taught religion by the state or its agents. I take it that is not your idea of religious liberty. You seem to be suggesting the liberty of society to express religion. I’m not sure that this is the same.
Michael,
The Declaration on Religious Liberty from Vatican II serves as the foundation for what religious liberty means. It is the freedom of a group of people to follow their own religious tradition without being forced out of it. For example, it says, “Government therefore ought indeed to take account of the religious life of the citizenry and show it favor, since the function of government is to make provision for the common welfare. However, it would clearly transgress the limits set to its power, were it to presume to command or inhibit acts that are religious.”
The problem is the modern secular state which claims “separation of church and state” is, fundamentally, a lie – the state promotes a religious vision by even stating that. And that is what is going on here; calling it a “human right” not to have a cross in a classroom is odd, and the only way you can argue that is, imo, because you hold some religious belief against the cross (in the same way the Taliban removed the Buddhas, because they had a religious praxis which rejects religious images).
I’m on Henry’s team on this one.
Henry, I agree with your second paragraph, absolutely. I do not think it’s a positive good to do away with religious imagery in public, nor do I think “religionlessness” is a “human right.” I agree with VII’s vision of religious liberty. I just think there is a difference between that and the state being attached to one religion, or for the cultural elements of one religion to become equated with the wider culture in general such that religious symbols are seen as “patriotic” (Thom’s concern). I don’t think taking crucifixes out of public schools is a denial of the right of Christians to practice their faith, nor is it necessarily a denial of the Catholic heritage of Italy.
Though I am sympathetic to the idea that the cross loses it’s value when it becomes a cultural rather than a religious symbol, Henry’s basic concern is also a concern of mine. The idea (implicit or explicit) that there could be some sort of religious neutral is extremely damaging.
Also, separating what is religion from what is culture is a notoriously difficult endeavor.
Further, though it is perhaps not fully expressed in this instance, I am also concerned about the idea that my religion can be censored as offensive simply because it is not someone else’s religion. I’m not a Jew, but you can wish me a Happy Hanukkah and I will be delighted.
I share all of Brett’s concerns as well. I also do not believe in “some sort of religious neutral.” What I do believe in, though, is that in a pluralistic society, as Italy is for example, for the state to privilege one religion over others is also extremely damaging. My own view is that the answer is not to censor religion from the “public” sphere, but simply not to privilege any one over the others.
The relationship between schools and the State varies throughout Europe. In some countries the State runs all the schools, so it does make sense that you wouldn’t want crucifixes. But in other countries the schools are closer to subsidized private institutions. In which case it is wrong to make them take down the crucifixes.
As an aside I’m not sure if I mind the State having “just one religion” depending on what said religion looked like.
But in other countries the schools are closer to subsidized private institutions. In which case it is wrong to make them take down the crucifixes.
What about in Italy?
I’d really like to know what actual Italians, born, bred and living in Italy, have to say about this. You can’t simply apply American values to every continent and countries in the world and expect the answers to make sense.
Applying American values (including Latin American values, to be fair)to the circumstances of the Church in Europe and in Canada is one massive weakness I found in American theological education as a whole.
In Italy the States runs the schools, they are Public schools, so why to hang a cross on the wall?????
I’m a high school teacher, in my school we have removed all the crucifixes longtime ago.
I don’t know enough about Italy’s school system, and I’ve never been there, but the country seems fairly secularized. So they probably don’t have crucifixes in their public schools already.
Adam,
Actually the case came up because the schools did and now have been ordered to have them removed; the minister of education in Italy has been working to keep them in the classrooms. Which is what makes this interesting on so many levels.
Mary
On the other hand, why would there be any case, and why would there be a public outcry against the court’s decision, if what happened in your school was the norm? That it is secular does not mean it needs to remove religious images (again, the problem of secularism is when it becomes an ideology that acts to cover up other practices and traditions, with the claims that one is removing cultural landmarks wanted by the community as a whole for the sake of tolerance!).
Feel free to correct me on this, but I don’t feel I am applying american values to this case. I stated above that I do not agree with the particular American understanding of the separation of church and state. That said, I’m not sure why “the” Italian viewpoint (as if there is only one, real Italian view) would trump other views. Especially if the Italian view conflates Italian culture and Catholicism, that “Constantinian” view needs to be challenged, not by American values, but by our post-Constantinian reality.
Well, so far, it looks like the secularist E.U. court in France view has trumped any Italian view save for that of a Finn with an Italian passport and a chip on her shoulder.
Obviously the Church is bigger than the Church in Italy, so Catholicism does not equal Italian. (I suggest, however, that it is a major Christian pilgrimage site for a reason.) But if Italy (which includes a sizable number of Communists)defines herself by a 1700 year relationship with Roman Catholic Christianity, similar to the way Pakistan defines itself by a 50 year relationship with Islam, that needs to be taken into account.
The ability of many Italians to be Communists and Catholics at the same time has always provoked my admiration. Meanwhile, if the majority Italians insist that the crucifix is an important part of their public heritage (much as the cross of St. Andrew is part of Scotland’s public heritage), that should trump any outsiders’ opinion. In many countries of the world, religion is not the furtive, private thing we in majority-Protestant countries (like Canada, the USA and-oh, Finland) pretend it is.
Meanwhile, secularism IS a religion, and I don’t see why Italy or any other nation should make secularism her official religion. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, not a shot has been fired by atheist imperialists. It would seem strange for the Italians to roll over now.
But if Italy (which includes a sizable number of Communists)defines herself by a 1700 year relationship with Roman Catholic Christianity, similar to the way Pakistan defines itself by a 50 year relationship with Islam, that needs to be taken into account.
Sure, it should be taken into account, but we should not expect that things should stay the same, right?
Meanwhile, if the majority Italians insist that the crucifix is an important part of their public heritage (much as the cross of St. Andrew is part of Scotland’s public heritage), that should trump any outsiders’ opinion.
True, but it’s probably the case that quite a few Italians don’t think crucifixes should be in public school classrooms, or else this wouldn’t have come up in the first place. I’m also not sure the “insider/outsider” binary works anymore.
In many countries of the world, religion is not the furtive, private thing we in majority-Protestant countries (like Canada, the USA and-oh, Finland) pretend it is.
Absolutely, and it’s a good thing. But “public” does not have to equal “civil” in the sense of being connected with the state. I think religion can and should be “public,” but not made into civil religion.
Meanwhile, secularism IS a religion, and I don’t see why Italy or any other nation should make secularism her official religion.
Absolutely. But it should also not make Catholicism its official religion. A community can allow plural traditions to co-exist, without privileging one over the others but also not pushing “secularism.” I think we need to think beyond the categories provided to us by the various versions of the culture wars.
So can the state have any kind of preferential treatment towards one religion? Crucifixes our clearly Catholic symbols – can a country/state/city decree that its schools display the symbols of Catholicism – there is an implicit endorsement. When Pope Benedict came here, he praised some aspects of the traditional relationship between Church and State in the U.S., while saying, basically, that things are different in countries with different histories. But what differences are permissible? Relgious education like in Germany? The predominance of church-run schools like in Ireland (less so in recent times, of course)? The display of Christian symbols in Italy? And how pluralistic does a society need to be to accomodate that pluralism by removing the symbols of one religious group (if pluralism does necessitate that)? Is one religious minority person enough?
Zak – I wouldn’t want to make universal rules, but I don’t think state endorsement of a particular historical religion is desirable in a country that has plural religious groups and that at the same time wants to include those communities as a real part of the national community. I think it is desirable that Catholicism get itself out of the center of things.
And how pluralistic does a society need to be to accomodate that pluralism by removing the symbols of one religious group (if pluralism does necessitate that)? Is one religious minority person enough?
Interesting question but I don’t see what this has to do with the concrete case of Italy. I haven’t checked the stats recently but I’m pretty sure the population includes more than one non-Catholic person.
Certainly, there are more than a few non-Catholics in Italy. Nevertheless, there might not be more than 1 non-Catholic in any given school in Italy.
Also, Non-Catholics aren’t excluded from participation within the community at Catholic schools (in the US) by the presence of crucifixes. Do you think the parents of Muslim or Protestant students at Catholic high schools object to crucifixes there?
Finally, is the “secular religion” that has been discussed above a vital part of the plural society that needs to be included and accomodated?
In Italy under Mussolini’s dictatorship Catholicism was the only established religion so a law obliged to hang crucifixes in classrooms, tribunals, public hospitals and city halls.
With the Republican Constitution the Catholicism isn’t established religion anymore, but in many old public buildings we still have crucifixes.
SS
I don’t think that “the majority Italians insist that the crucifix is an important part of their public heritage” I think is 50-50.
But it is very sad to see Christ turns into just a cultural thing, a public heritage as the Italian politicians are doing.
Zak
I think many italian people are tired to see the Vatican ( Bertone) interferes with the Italian political affaires. Many leave the Catholic Church and are angry with all the symbols of the power of the church.
Certainly, there are more than a few non-Catholics in Italy. Nevertheless, there might not be more than 1 non-Catholic in any given school in Italy.
Why don’t you find some actual stats, then, instead of doing the “maybe” thing?
Also, Non-Catholics aren’t excluded from participation within the community at Catholic schools (in the US) by the presence of crucifixes. Do you think the parents of Muslim or Protestant students at Catholic high schools object to crucifixes there?
Zak, I don’t oppose crucifixes in Catholic schools. I don’t think it’s a good idea to have crucifixes in public schools.
Finally, is the “secular religion” that has been discussed above a vital part of the plural society that needs to be included and accomodated?
I don’t think “secularism” is simply one thing, but sure, people who buy into the mistaken idea that they can pursue a traditionless existence should be included and valued in society. So should atheists. Do you have a problem with that?
Well I might be as close to an Italian as you’ll get :) I lived next door and speak Italian. And Austria used to be a Catholic bastion. Austria has a Konkordat with the Vatican that prescribes crucifixes in classrooms with a majority of Catholics. In many schools, there aren’t (m)any crucifixes left. The right-wing Freedom Party (which can be compared to Berlusconi) decried the verdict, for populist and chauvinist reasons. We had a crucifix in public elementary and high school, above the blackboard, plus a pic of the president and the Austrian crest. In elementary school there was school prayer. In high school, about half of the Carholic kids opted out of Catholic religion class, many of those who stayed did so cause an A was almost automatic.
Crucifixes are out of place in public schools, unless you want to put up “everybody”, like that Coexist sticker. While they’re at it, they should take down presidents, flags etc as well.
(dunno about Italy, but a classroom in Austria is assigned to a permanent group of kids, except for physics, gym etc).
Another difference to the US – in Austria and Germany (due to Hitler), somewhat similar in Italy, Catholics (and other recognized religions’ members) pay church tax to the church via the state. Catholics pay 1.1% of their taxable income (Lutherans 1.5%, a small minority. Buddhists don’t tax, Jews used to) netting the Austrian catholic church (Austria has 8 million people) about half a billion dollars a year. To leave a church, one has to go to city hall.
P.S.
These debates end up in us vs. them and unsavory populists take up the cross. The crucifix in public schools serves as a reminder of the worldly power of the Catholic church, ie not something to celebrate. Of course, private schools should be able to put up what they want. This can go
overboard, when eg teachers are told they can’t wear religious jewelry (assuming they’re not lugging a huge cross around). After all, politicians get to wear their US flag lapel pins :-P
(personally, my new garden
features a self-built Zen garden with a large Gautama Buddha, his folded hands hold water, St. Francis is nearby, he holds a bowl of seeds for his bird friends)
Here’s a stat, got from The Guardian, official mouthpiece of the British intelligensia : over 7% of Italy is composed of minority groups. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/03/italy-classroom-crucifixes-human-rights Catholicism ceased to be the state religion only in 1984.
A rather homogenous population (where, interestingly, the intellegensia is not necessarily fluent in English, e.g. one theology professor I know who advertised his lecture in English but gave that lecture blithely in Italian to an international audience), Italy did not see much emigration until very recently: a large proportion of immigrants are actually African refugees. (It has, of course, seen little colonies of Americans and English people, enjoying the sun, the art and a cheaper cost of living.)
I don’t think one can make conclusions about Italy based on any other country, including Austria. (No disrespect meant.)
Perhaps what this calls for is a referendum. If Italians really want to kick Christ Crucified out of their classrooms, let them–not some foreign Human Rights Tribunal–vote on it.
Seraphic – Thanks for the link to the Guardian piece. I hadn’t followed the story and missed the fact that it was a European human rights court who made the ruling. I agree that the decision should be made by Italy. And I think Italy should choose to take the crucifix out of public school classrooms.
Hey, Austria used to own a big chunk of Italy ;-) There are quite a few commonalities, as well as differences of course. The two countries are definitely related.
The European Union (and its court for human rights…not a ‘tribunal’) is not a foreign entity but rather comprised of its member states and has a federal government (not quite like the US, of course). This is why my Austrian passport makes me something like a green card holder in all member states. Driving from Barcelona to Amsterdam, not a border (well, except for the pesky Swiss).
Michael, the European high courts are similar to the US Supreme Court, albeit with less power. There are negative elements but certainly many positive ones – When Poland’s uber-Catholic terrible twins wanted to “talk about” bringing back the death penalty,the “nuh-uh” immediately came from Bruxelles. (one cannot be a member of the EU and have the death penalty – this is one such rule that the individual member state cannot decide for itself (and remain a member)).
I should like to know what some of you would have thought of a European tribunal’s decision that said that the crucifixes could remain IF–and only if–anyone of a different religious tradition who was of that particular school community had the right to hang his or her traditional religious symbols–Stars of David, crescent moon, etc.–equally as prominently. That would have been my position in this controversy.
Michael
About the Guardian article:
“One government minister, Roberto Calderoli, of the Northern League, said yesterday: “The European court has trodden on our rights, our culture, our history, our traditions and our values.”
Mr Calderoli married his first wife with a religious sort of Wicca wedding, and then a civil wedding. Then divorced and now he lives with a woman without marriage, more uxorio.
Every year he organizes a ceremony to consacrate Italy to Po river God. ( the river is a God for him).
A very strong defender of the Catholic faith, indeed!
And Berlusconi….
Digby
I would have no problems with other religious symbols being put up either, which follows my position of religious liberty.
Mary,
That goes into the heart of the matter — it is not a Catholic/non-Catholic issue, but a cultural one which is being discussed, the same way the Buddhas in Afghanistan was a matter of cultural heritage.
It’d get pretty crowded on the wall :) Zeus & friends are part of the heritage as well. There are churches, temples, synagogues etc for that.
Gerald,
They do teach the pagan myths, right?
Um… I’m somewhat new here, but I didn’t think Christianity was a lifestyle choice but a relationship with Jesus Christ, who is the Truth.
If we hold Christ to be the Truth, and the dogmas and doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church to be truths helping us to become one with Truth Himself, why would we advocate like mad on behalf of religions (who do not recognize Christ as Truth) to have equal space on Italian classroom walls?
Obviously we don’t want atheists, animists (sorry: can’t remember the preferred word) and Muslims to be stoned in Italian streets or taxed extra or shunned, but I don’t see why we should get all excited about removing Christ Crucified on behalf of the intolerant few who claim to speak for them.
Religious freedom is one thing, but there is rather more to fidelity to Christ than cheerleading for non-Christian religions. Vatican II stressed that our new tolerance for other religions did not lessen the importance of missionary efforts. It’s rather lousy missionary work to remove Christ Crucified as if he were NOT the Truth but just our own offensive-to-others truth.
Seraphic
There are many issues. Of course we should promote, in proper ways, our faith in the public discourse. But Vatican II made it clear that we should also respect the religious faith and traditions of others, and to let them have what we would like in the public venue (as long as what they want to do is not something fundamentally wrong such as human sacrifice!). Indeed, missionary work has always been able to bring out the positive of the other religious traditions as a means of engaging them and showing us how we see Christ fulfills their expectations/desires, raising them up through grace in the process. Just look at Paul in Mars Hills and how he promoted Christianity — he didn’t see the need to destroy the pagan traditions, but saw a way to show how they pointed to Christ. The early apologists like St Justin and Athenagoras did the same kind of thing.
Obviously we don’t want atheists, animists (sorry: can’t remember the preferred word) and Muslims to be stoned in Italian streets or taxed extra or shunned, but I don’t see why we should get all excited about removing Christ Crucified on behalf of the intolerant few who claim to speak for them.
It’s not “intolerant” for people of other faiths to have an issue with the placement of crucifixes in public schools. It is incredible to me that you would spin it that way.
Henry, on average, there are no big culture war battles in Europe. You’ll find crucifixes in courts and classrooms. Nobody really notices them.
I’d say that having crucifixes in public institutions is a small part of the (now mostly vanished) use of Jesus as a political mascot, to give credence/justification to policies, ever since Constantine. Sure, there’s nothing sinister about hanging in schools (unless it’s math class) but being carried into battle “in hoc signo”, adorning uniforms, “Dieu et mon droit”, “Jesus is my favorite philosopher” etc. drove nail after nail into the cross. It’s like Christendom read Jesus’ words and decided to do the exact opposite. “Blessed are the peacemakers” – “Ok, Lord, a cross on every soldier it is!” It is a greater insult than any non-Christian could come up with. If you want to perform missionary work, do it by your actions, marrying your God to the state is counterproductive, as evidenced by fairly empty churches.
These “battles” are like Capture the Flag mode in video games. Or cats marking their territory.
I think this automatic defensive reaction by many Christians completely misses the mark. If I were you I’d want him off the walls in order to reclaim him. I think it does injustice to him (as does most of Christian history), I’m not paranoid about religious symbols hurting my wee little eyes.
I like Jesus. The Sermon on the Mount only bothered me when I was a bad Christian :) He shone a “light onto his own path”, he did not accept things just “cause I say so,” he frequently ignored self-appointed authority, societal barriers and taboos – he’d be persona non grata to many of those who claim him today. Christendom is like a movie’s “alternate ending”, the version in which Jesus called down legions to fight for him and became a Pharisee King, writing endless canons of rules while building palaces in his own honor.
I think it’s a misuse of his memory to plant his image on/in state institutions. I wouldn’t want the Buddha up there, if anything the Mara of mythology would be perfect.
It is kind of funny. In the rural part of WI I grew up in, Christmas music couldn’t be too Christmas-y at Winter concerts. When I moved to the more urban, eastern part of the state, there was very Christmas’y Christmas music at the Christmas concerts. Granted, there was other music of other traditions, but there was no feeling of the need to neuter the culture.
I’m surprised crucifixes have survived in Italian classrooms as long as they have. I figured Mussolini would have taken care of that, but perhaps Italy’s anti-clerical culture didn’t extend that far. (Mussolini was beyond anti-clerical.) I’m very sympathetic with both Michael and Henry’s arguments. Since I have been pigeon holed as a Puritan elsewhere, I have to ask WWPD?
M.Z. -
Its those Germans in Milwaukee. Even at the Turners Hall and Freethinkers Lodge, they couldn’t given up their Weihnachtsliedern not to mention their Christkindlmarkts, Stollen and Adventkalendars.
Kurt
Henry
We have a lot of beautiful churches in Italy and this of course is our cultural and rich heritage, don’t woory nobody want destroy them.
But I ‘m a faithful Catholic so I’m very angry to see so many people that reduce the crucifix to a “cultural” symbol.
Mary
Recognizing it has a role in the culture does not mean that is all it means.
Henry you don’t know Italy, for the huge majority of Italian people recognizing it has a role in the culture means that is ALL it means.
If I were you I’d want him off the walls in order to reclaim him.
Wiser words have rarely been spoken here, Gerald.
I think this automatic defensive reaction by many Christians completely misses the mark. If I were you I’d want him off the walls in order to reclaim him.
Amen!
M.Z.
“I figured Mussolini would have taken care of that, but perhaps Italy’s anti-clerical culture didn’t extend that far. (Mussolini was beyond anti-clerical.)”
Mussolini made an aggreement, Patti Lateranensi, with the Catholic Church, he was a dictator but he wasn’t stupid.
Mr. Karlson,
I posted the following on my blog when this story broke. I would be interested in your comments.
Thank you.
Fr. Tim Moyle
—————–
The European Union courts have ordered the removal of the crucifix from all Italian schools. Where I freely admit that the governing authority of any school should be able to either choose or not to present this symbol of Christian/Catholic faith, it is entirely another thing to deny the right to express their faith/convictions/belief in the public square. The principle that is expressed as “separation of church and state” also implicitly includes the freedom to express those values that we believe are the path which leads to the betterment of all humanity. Read the story, and ask yourself whether the secular argument that leads to this European suppression of the freedom of speech of believers is any different from the agenda that marks the direction of North American society today. This story is proof positive of the price of failing to argue in defense of the principles which are the accumulated human reasoning that stretches back to the earliest days of recorded history. Whether the moral principles of our modern civilization evolved as the refinement of simply human wisdom, or whether it is a still imperfect vision of God’s will, they have brought Western civilization to the point where we are today. The “rights” that are now so suddenly being tossed aside in the last twenty-five years are the foundations upon which the right itself is rooted. The poisoned fruit of the civilizational tree now endangers the root from which it sprang. Freedom of expression of faith in the public square must be respected; it is the essential corollary of the freedoms of thought and speech. I pray that leaders of our faith, our Bishops, would look to the European (or Québécois for that matter) social experiment and heed the need to “teach”, in every forum possible, the wisdom and teaching of our Church: to educate those raised in the “sex, drugs and rock and roll” generation (the first generation of essentially uncatechized “C & E” Catholics (i.e., “Christmas and Easter”) who now have moved into society’s corridors of power) of the wisdom of these first principles before they use the levers of power to shape the debate. Freedom of life… Freedom of belief… Freedom of speech: these are the Bishops’ menu of first principles to defend in full. Let’s pray that they fashion sumptuous salad of arguments, no matter how appealing the dessert table secularism seems to offer. Society needs strong bones to grow and prosper. We eat of the poisoned fruit at our own peril.
It took nearly 20 years AFTER Vatican II ended, before the Italian government no longer had Catholicism as the official state religion, with automatic priority above any other beliefs.
And the Curia fought tooth and nail over that as well, claiming that Italy was going to go to Hell in a heartbeat!!!
“Reclaim him”? We’re not talking military banners. We’re talking about about classrooms where children are taught. I don’t see how we reclaim Him from whisking Him out of public view.
We are influenced on many levels by what we see and hear around us all the time. Advertising and music hits us on subconscious levels. Who knows what good comes of a constant reminder of Christ and Christ’s message day in and day out, on a subconscious level?
And I wasn’t trying to spin anything. The story is that one woman, a Finn with an Italian passport, took her beef to an Italian court, who dismissed it, and so she took her beef to a European human rights tribunal, who ruled in her favour and told Italy to pay her thousands of euros in damages. It turns out to have no legal right to make Italy itself take down its crucifixes.
As far as I know, there’s no groundswell of outrage from a fully multicultural, multireligious, Toronto-style Italy that multicultural, mulitreligious hyphenated Italian children are having nightmares because they have to look at the Christians’ saviour hanging in their otherwise sanitized-from-monoculture classrooms.
We don’t live in a Christ-free universe. Through Him all things were made. So why pretend we believe otherwise in our very classrooms? Unless–of course–forced to by the state. Boston College, I believe, had to give up its classroom crucifixes when it took state funding.
Fr. Tim
Sorry, I was out of town for a few days, and so less on the net. I just saw your comment. I think we are going along the same path.
In my opinion, secularism is its own religious position, and so if a state (or society) wants to foster it, they have to admit they are proclaiming some sort of religious practice. That’s the problem. They say they want to “make it so anyone can practice their faith” but what they mean is “so we can practice our rejection of faith.”
As I have said before, I have no problems with others expressing their religious faith; I think that is what the Church promotes (within reason, of course; which can be a debate pointed, to be sure). In my opinion that is true religious toleration; what we have here is an intolerance to religious views different from secularism.