Uproar over European court ruling against Crucifix - Archbishop Cremona reacts

Raymond Sammut

Nov 24th 2009, 18:33

@ David Seychell Allow me to quote this from the Catholic Encyclopedia On-line under the subject title "Christian Names": Quote:""Christian names", says the Elizabethan antiquary, Camden, "were imposed for the distinction of persons, surnames for the difference of families." It would seem from this that, even in the sixteenth century, the etymological and historical significance of the phrase "Christian name" was growing dim, and it is commonly quite forgotten in our own time. But, strictly speaking, the "Christian name" is not merely the forename distinctive of the individual member of a family, but the name given to him at his "christening", i.e., his baptism."":Unquote This quote is saying that you and I were given Christian names as a statement on the significance of our baptism. How does this statement apply to a lump of stones and mortar? In my view, a physical inanimate object, such as a school building, can only be given a Christian name by a public servant for a reason other than religious. Again, however, I need to point out that your question is not related to the issue here, namely, the appropriateness of the presence of the crucifix in public places.

David Seychell

Nov 22nd 2009, 20:04

@Raymond Sammut For example, the Court ruling says: "the presence of the crucifix - which it was impossible not to notice in the classrooms - could easily be interpreted by pupils of all ages as a religious sign and they would feel that they were being educated in a school environment bearing the stamp of a given religion" Hence according to the principle behind this sentence, we should rename half of all the public schools in our country, because Maria Assunta Girls' Secondary School -just to name one- has "the stamp of a given religion", since it's named after a key religious figure.

Mary Borg

Nov 22nd 2009, 12:21

I'm very curious to see whether Italy would stick to its gun in the case they lose the appeal.

David Seychell

Nov 21st 2009, 10:28

@Raymond Sammut
I'm not a religious person and I'm not in favour of having the cross in classrooms just as I'm not in favour of having a picture of the President of Malta in each classroom. Nonetheless I'm totally against the Court's sentence because if you read in between the lines, one should notice that this sentence is not just against the presence of the cross in classrooms, but also against the presence of anything with a religious connotation, not just in schools but also in all the public sphere, including the streets, independent of how much an integral part that thing with a religious connotation might play in our history, traditions, culture and identity. The later we realize this, the harder it will be to fight.

Raymond Sammut

Nov 21st 2009, 03:49

@ David Seychell Your central question: "…what if some pupils do consider/view Christmas holidays as a very important representation of Christianity?" By "pupils" you mean children attending government schools.

If some of these children viewed Christmas holidays as a "very important representation of Christianity", then this would show that the Church in Malta is failing greatly in its mission. There is, as it turns out, only one important representation of Christianity, namely, the crucifix. For this reason, the only appropriate place of the crucifix is the parish church. Furthermore, the Church has a duty to see that Maltese parents on Malta bring their children to the parish church, at least during the Christmas season and during the Easter period. Only then these children can experience the presence of the crucifix, and that this presence is always given the importance it deserves.

Dec25 is just that --a "holiday". Polytheistic Romans celebrated holidays to honour their pagan gods. No-one knows why Dec25 was chosen; perhaps because it is close to the winter solstice. Recall that we know virtually nothing about the Nazarene the child. We start to know about Him at baptism, followed by the crucial encounter in the wilderness.

David Seychell

Nov 20th 2009, 18:15

@Raymond Sammut
"I do not hold the view that a "holiday" (whether Christmas, Easter or some other religious event) can be a representation of Christianity." Ok so you DON'T personally think that Christmas, i.e. the celebration of the birth of Christ, "can be a representation of Christianity". But earlier you told me: "It's not about how you or I view the crucifix, but how the pupils in the classroom view the crucifix." Hence, I ask you again, what if some pupils DO hold that view? I mean what if some pupils do consider/view Christmas holidays as a very important representation of Christianity?
What if some pupils -or better still their parents- feel that religion (Christianity in this case) is interfering with their children's education when in public schools they are being denied education during Christmas and Easter holidays in the name of the birth/resurrection of Christ?

Raymond Sammut

Nov 20th 2009, 16:24

@ David Seychell

I didn't dodge your question. My aim is to address the issue being debated here. The issue is the appropriateness of the presence of the crucifix in public places.

Nevertheless, your question: "What if some pupils view the the Christmas/Easter holidays as a very "important representation" of Christianity?" I do not hold the view that a "holiday" (whether Christmas, Easter or some other religious event) can be a representation of Christianity. Christianity as a religion has nothing to do with holidays. Furthermore, it is not the role of the Church in Malta to officially declare "holidays".

The Church in Malta, however, has all the freedom to organise and preside over religious festivities. In fact, it is the responsibility of the Church to do so. There is also no reason why the festivity is not organised on a Sunday; a day of rest in the Gregorian calendar.

It is entirely the prerogative of any government to declare a public holiday on any working day in the calendar, but not because the Church or any other entity says so. Constraints on public holidays, in general, are purely economic. Only employers object to a "holiday".

David Seychell

Nov 20th 2009, 14:27

@Raymond Sammut
"refers to how pupils could "interpret" (and mistakenly) this most important representation. It's not about how you or I view the crucifix, but how the pupils in the classroom view the crucifix."

Ok, I see you dodged my direct question and don't want to give your personal opinion regarding whether the removal of the Christmas/Easter holidays from public schools is necessary to "achieve separation of State and Church". So let me rephrase the question: What if some pupils view the the Christmas/Easter holidays as a very "important representation" of Christianity? In that case do you think students in public schools should continue being denied education in public schools in the name of the birth of Christ (christmas holidays) and in the name of the death/resurrection of Christ (Easter holidays), or should we say goodbye to these holidays and make school obligatory in public schools on, for example, Christmas day?

Raymond Sammut

Nov 20th 2009, 10:50

@ David Seychell -- "We're talking about religious signs here not just the cross." Not so.

We are talking about the most important religious representation in Cristianity, and not about "religious signs". What the ruling of the ECHR sated, namely "... [the crucifix] could easily be interpreted by pupils of all ages as a religious sign" (your quote) refers to how pupils could "interpret" (and mistakenly) this most important representation. It's not about how you or I view the crucifix, but how the pupils in the classroom view the crucifix.

It is for this reason that the Maltese government has the obligation, in my view, to remove the crucifix from the classroom of public schools on Malta. The removal would also be in accordance with constitutional law in Malta. A nation can only achieve separation of State and Church by putting the crucifix where it truly belongs, namely, in chapels, churches and cathedrals and not in public places.

Raymond Sammut

Nov 20th 2009, 09:48

@ Dr Francis Saliba -- Once again in this thread you have stated "... those who oppose the crucifix in our classrooms, even though they may pretend to be Catholics, in fact they are nothing of the kind because they oppose the authority of the Church authorities."

It is crystal clear that In effect you state, with continuing persistence, that all those who oppose the Maltese government on the issue of the crucifix in the classroom of public schools are not Roman Catholic.

David Seychell

Nov 20th 2009, 09:39

@Raymond Sammut
The Court "held unanimously that the presence of the crucifix - which it was impossible not to notice in the classrooms - could easily be interpreted by pupils of all ages as a religious sign"
We're talking about religious signs here not just the cross. Hence, what about being denied education in public schools in the name of the birth of Christ (christmas holidays) and in the name of the death/resurrection of Christ (Easter holidays), should we say goodbye to these holidays and make school obligatory in public schools on, for example, Christmas day?

Dr Francis Saliba

Nov 19th 2009, 18:13

@RaymondSammut
Can’t you understand that you have no right to question my own version of what my own opinion is? You have absolutely no competence and no right to rephrase my categorical version and to assert that “in effect” I had voiced an opinion that I deny? Prove it or shut up! For the last time those who oppose the crucifix in our classrooms, even though they may pretend to be Catholics, in fact they are nothing of the kind because they oppose the authority of the Church authorities.

Raymond Sammut

Nov 19th 2009, 17:20

@ Dr Francis Saliba

You claim that my opinion is unsolicited, only to go on and take to liberty to state your own opinion: "My opinion is that ..." (Saliba)

Dr Saliba, you have in effect stated in this thread more than once that anyone who opposes the Maltese government putting the crucifix in public places is not Roman Catholic.

Dr Francis Saliba

Nov 19th 2009, 16:37

@RaymondSammut.

Forget your unsolicited opinion about what I “assume” and what I “decide” and see if you can understand this simple sentence. My opinion is that those who are opposing the presence of the crucifix in the classrooms of Christian nations may be atheists, anti-Christians or anti-Catholics. They may also be among those who pretend to be “Catholics” (but only in name) because they do not recognize the authority of the Catholic Church.

Theresa Calleja

Nov 19th 2009, 10:09

"It is of fundamental importance to maintain your own traditions, and Italy has a Christian and Catholic background. Therefore, to keep the tradition of the crucifix in the schools is extremely important," the Dalai Lama told a media conference at Italy's chamber of deputies yesterday, 19th Nov '09... tolerance of diversity does not imply the mandatory loss of one's identity I should hope.

Raymond Sammut

Nov 18th 2009, 20:31

@ Dr Francis Saliba

You claim it's not an assumption on your part. Instead of assuming, you simply take to liberty to decide that all those who oppose the Maltese government putting the crucifix in the classroom of public schools are not Roman Catholic.

Arthur Soler

Nov 18th 2009, 15:56

@ All

As the saying goes, let me "add my two cents worth". I was born and brought up in Malta in a very Catholic family and enviornment. And, while I believe that Christianity today has emerged from its dark ages and evolved into a "civilized" religion, I myself am not religious. I am an agnostic as I believe that the existence of God is highly improbable. Nonetheless, I consider myself a "Cultural Christian" as I value the history, traditions, art ,architecture etc. of Christianity.

So, how do I react to the cricifix issue in schools and public places? I believe that the crucifix should be retained. However, in my case this is obviously not because of religious reasons, but because the crucifix represents a very important part of our culture and tradition...indeed our very identity . I also believe that the minority should not dictate to the majority who surely favour the crucifix be retained in schools. On the other hand, the majority also has a responsibilty to be sensitive about the GENUINE needs and concerns of the minority. However, the crucifix is surely not a GENUINE issue with the minority.

Dr Francis Saliba

Nov 17th 2009, 16:46

@RaymondSammut

I did not make any wrong “assumption” - you made it. I do not assume that “ … all those who want the crucifix to be removed from the classrooms of public schools (and from public places in general) are not Roman Catholics”. My true contention is that that many of them in the local scene are avowedly atheist, that Lautsi, the Finnish cause of this rumpus, is definitely an atheist and that those "Catholics" who agitate for the removal of the crucifix from clasrooms would not be genuine Roman Catholics at all because they do not follow the official teaching of the Church,

What I have added in my latest comment are two undisputable FACTS in support of my true contention as stated above. They do not become “allegations” because you say so.

Raymond Sammut

Nov 17th 2009, 12:14

@ Dr Francis Saliba

All you have done is added two allegations to your assumption, while at the same time you have not explained why you make this assumption.

Christian Sciberras

Nov 17th 2009, 10:07

Looks like someone's resorting to conspiracy theories...

Dr Francis Saliba

Nov 16th 2009, 23:32

@RaymondSammut

“ALL” those who want the crucifix to be removed from the classrooms cannot be all Roman Catholics because:
a) atheists openly present themselves at the forefront of those who are clamouring for the removal of the crucifix and who take their case to the ECHR
b) those who are protesting AGAINST the removal of the cross are predominantly Christians and Catholics.

P.S. Are you sure that you understand your own question?

Raymond Sammut

Nov 16th 2009, 17:55

@ Dr Francis Saliba What makes you assume that all those who want the crucifix to be removed from the classrooms of public schools (and from public places in general) are not Roman Catholics?

Dr Francis Saliba

Nov 16th 2009, 16:38

@ no one in particular but @ all. Latest Update (from The Week). “Italy could learn from Germany’s experience. In strongly Catholic Bavaria there was a similar legal battle which resulted in a law stipulating that crucifixes should be taken down – but only if one or more parents objected. GERMAN ATHEISTS STILL AREN’T HAPPY”. Of course atheists are not happy. Their hidden agenda is not that they want to protect a few parents from being offended. Their real purpose is to prevent the much more numerous Christians, in their Christian countries, from living out their religion in peace. For these atheists, only one “religion” is publicly permissible – their own atheism. Not only that, they insist that their religion be imposed on all believers, no matter that many millions will be seriously offended! They insist that only their atheist emblem – nothingness – be allowed in classrooms!

Raymond Sammut

Nov 16th 2009, 12:58

@ Dr Francis Saliba -- "I said that it will remain the only poll at our disposal while we wait for you to trace a better one ..." Use the "poll" if that's what you want to do. It is there at your disposal. It is considered good manners to speak for oneself.

Dr Francis Saliba

Nov 15th 2009, 19:46

@RaymondSammut
I never claimed that The Times poll was a scientifically exact statistical survey. I said that it will remain the only poll at our disposal while we wait for you to trace a better one collected by just about anybody else – not just yourself! Until then you have no grounds for reasonably doubting that this poll would be acceptable ad interim as “fairly representative of the whole country”. Please, do not blame me when I am only following your advice to use it!

Raymond Sammut

Nov 15th 2009, 18:09

@ Dr Francis Saliba -- "...there is no reason to suspect that it is not fairly representative of the whole country."

There are at least two reasons. One is, The Times' sample is not random. This means that the sample will, in all probability, be biased. The other -- the sample is too small. Say it came to around 3,000. That's only about 0.75% of the country's population. The rest is just textbook material for anyone who wants to check on The Times' poll validity.

"...I will continue to use it until you provide another..." (Saliba)

I cannot provide a poll, Dr Saliba. I am not a pollster. And surely you can use it. Please use it to your heart's content. That's what it's there for.

"Do you enjoy any similarly widespread support for your view? Of course not!" (Saliba)

You are obviously enjoying something here, Dr Saliba. My interest is not in whether there is "widespread support". May I remind you that the crucifixion of the Nazarene also had widespread support. My interest is in the ruling of the ECHR and the pending appeal of Ms Gelmini.

Dr Francis Saliba

Nov 15th 2009, 13:04

@RaymondSammut

The Times’ poll is the only one known to me and I will continue to use it until you provide another and more reliable one! Until then there is no reason to suspect that it is not fairly representative of the whole country.

The separation of state from religion obviously does not preclude the democratic right of our Catholic religious leaders from declaring their disagreement with the ECHR decision and their intention to resist if anyone attempts to remove the crucifix from schoolrooms. They have the support of 80% of those who participated in The Times poll and of the leaders of all the political parties democratically elected to parliament. Do you enjoy any similarly widespread support for your view? Of course not!

I dismiss as utterly ridiculous your conjecture that Gonzi/Muscat would crucify Christ, given half a chance. Neither Gonzi nor Muscat are in any position to commit judicial murder because neither of them is a judge.

When I told Mr Christian Sciberras that “the matter is closed” because he had conclusively settled the issue I was being sarcastic – everyone else must have understood that!

Christian Sciberras

Nov 15th 2009, 12:06

Dr Saliba, I'm fed up seeing my words contorted to your needs. You know my views, yet you do not keep up with a valid argument (instead resorting to personal attacks).
You know what? You win.
You could keep up the *tradition* of having your ways. You said it is your country, you affirm that the Maltese have been doing what is right all this time, you can see the outcome yourself, I need not point it out.

Say what you want, I won't have another argument (or reply) to your talk. I've learned something from you though: some people never see their mistakes no matter what, which is while it's useless arguing. No human is eternal, I hope at some point we get a more reasonable nation then we have now.
By the way, don't even bother with a reply, because I most certainly will not.

Regards,
Christian Sciberras.

Raymond Sammut

Nov 15th 2009, 01:28

@ Dr Francis Saliba

May one revise your list, Dr Saliba.

80% of the people? I am more inclined to think that it is 80% of readers of The Times, who can hardly be regarded as representative of the Maltese population.

The leaders of both po[l]itical parties represented in parliament? In my view, they are no better than Pontius Pilate. Under the circumstances, both Gonzi and Muscat would have done the same to the Nazzarine for their own political ends. Both will serve their respective parties before you, I and everyone else, including a Jewish rabbi.

The religious leaders of the official religion of the Republic? May I please remind you that the authority of religious leaders is separate from the State, and they have no jurisdiction whatsoever under constitutional law on whether the crucifix is present or not in public space.

[P]arliamentarians? These, in my view, are no better or worse than their respective leaders.

I do not think the matter is closed. Many are now waiting for Ms Gelmini to live up to what she said in the heat of the moment and put forward her appeal at the ECHR High Chamber.

Dr Francis Saliba

Nov 14th 2009, 19:32

@ChristianSciberras

If you say so, then it must be so. Never mind what 80% of the people say, never mind what the leaders of both poitical parties represented in parliament say, never mind what the religious leaders of the official religion of the Republic say, never mind what parliamentarians say. You have spoken! Matter closed!

Christian Sciberras

Nov 14th 2009, 18:19

1. Agreeing with a religion doesn't make it yours to command.

2. You mean, the priests you, alone, consider "good".

3. Ah, right. Because, you, as usual, direct your comments, to everyone, that is, putting atheists and anyone else that doesn't agree with you in the same boat.

4. So is it a department policy to put a cross in each class and office? As far as I know, it is not. Having classrooms with a cross simply is the collective personal opinion of the majority you keep talking about.

5. Intolerance for outsiders is caused by this issue (apart from many others).

6. Wait, remind me where Christ (and hence the Church) said we need a cross in each classroom of the schools we attend (irrespective of the kind of school including the majority's religion).

It's about time we fix our problems rather then believe they never existed.
I don't like seeing an international court bossing Malta (and other countries) around, however, the court is right.
No one likes changing his ways of lives, but it is a must.

Dr Francis Saliba

Nov 14th 2009, 05:33

@Christian Sciberras

1. The Catholic religion is both MY religion AND the STATE religion. You have absolutely no right to order me about and to demand that I leave its defense to others simply because you have a soft spot for cohabitation.
2. Good priests who are innovative within the message of Christ do not advocate the removal of the crucifix from the schoolrooms of Catholic countries.
3. Evidently my comment is directed at those commentators who had definitely opposed the crucifix in classrooms because of its alleged terrorizing effect.
4. Your personal appraisal of what constitutes insults and mockery of Christ and Christianity does not tally with mine. Headmasters, irrespective of their religious convictions, should be guided by departmental policies not personal tastes.
5. Any personal endorsement for cohabitation rather than marriage does not justify the removal of the crucifix from classrooms in predominantly Catholic Malta.

This blog is about the threat of removing the crucifix in our classrooms. It is foolish to exploit this threat so as to blackmail the Church to conform personal preferences. That won't work!

Dr Francis Saliba

Nov 14th 2009, 04:18

@ArthurSoler
Actually, I said more than your truncated quotation i.e.“I may have been “abrasive” at times but only because that is the only language that these people deserve AND THEY UNDERSTAND. The phrase that you censored out is very important.

Christian Sciberras

Nov 13th 2009, 22:46

"4. If your memory serves you right, you must remember commentators complaining about our children being terrorized by the sight of a classroom crucifix."
That does not justify the same reason for everyone, which I'm not even part of.

"5. Your last two points do not merit a reply."
Of course they do not, they are right and you know it.

"In defending Christ and Christianity from mockery and insults"
You know where's the insults and mockery? It's when people preach about praying and peace of heart/mind then proceed to *impose* a rule to put a cross in each classroom, just because your are the headmaster.

What if the next headmaster were a Jew? Would he not work to replace the crosses with stars?

But I beg to differ. I believe in a religion which teaches tolerance, peace and cohabitation.
You may like it or not, but in the future, this is where Malta (as other countries) is headed.

If you keep going in circles rather then tackle this point, I won't write here again. I'm fed up of talking.

Christian Sciberras

Nov 13th 2009, 22:43

"1. I have every right, and therefore the authority, to defend the official Catholic Religion of Malta. You have no authority to question this right and duty."
The religion of Malta, or your religion? Catholicism is sworn to be under the control of his Holiness, the Pope (acting on behalf of God). Let it defend itself, against an nonexistent enemy.

"2. I am not defending myself"
You're making it your religion, thus it is a personal entity. There are priests, most of which very knowledgeable which, according to you, would agree with the "atheists".
Have you thought, for one second, why a Catholic is arguing against your point? It's because there is a rift through the Church; conservative and innovative. I prefer the later part where both parts of the Bible are adhered to, instead of the old "my religion's the best" mentality.

"3. People have to appear before earthly tribunals even when they are proved to be innocent"
Innocent of committing a crime. I don't see the cross any similar to this.

Arthur Soler

Nov 13th 2009, 21:28

@Francis Saliba

Thank you for clarifying your position. I am generally encouraged by your response except for your comment that. "I (you) may have been “abrasive” at times but only because that is the only language that these people deserve". I think that this is much too harsh a reaction . It is also so totally inconsistent with what Christianity is supposed to be all about....i.e., love thy neighbour/enemy...turn the other cheek.

Nonetheless. I particularily appreciate your candour in your last sentence.."I promise that I will continue to attack arguments, but not their authors " to which i can only say ...GREAT. I look forward therfore to civilized debate on issues which by thier very nature (i.e religious) are exceedingly sensitive.

Cheers

Arthur

Dr Francis Saliba

Nov 13th 2009, 20:33

@Arthur Soler I no longer pay any attention when I am accused of personal attacks against other commentators. It is my habit to criticize ideas and arguments by counter arguments never by ad hominem vilification. Unfortunately, when some interlocutors do not have a logical response their stock refuge is to play the innocent victim of inexistent personal attacks. In defending Christ and Christianity from mockery and insults I may have been “abrasive” at times but only because that is the only language that these people deserve and that they understand. I promise that I will continue to attack arguments but not their authors

Dr Francis Saliba

Nov 13th 2009, 20:12

@ChristianSciberras 1. I have every right, and therefore the authority, to defend the official Catholic Religion of Malta. You have no authority to question this right and duty. 2. I am not defending myself, I defend the official Catholic Religion of Malta – see what your ally Arthur Soler says about this. You yourself unwittingly acknowledge this when you have just objected to my right to defend Malta's Catholic religion. 3. People have to appear before earthly tribunals even when they are proved to be innocent, that is what happened to Christ before Pontius Pilate. 4. If your memory serves you right, you must remember commentators complaining about our children being terrorized by the sight of a classroom crucifix. 5. Your last two points do not merit a reply.

Arthur Soler

Nov 13th 2009, 18:37

@ Francis Saliba Dear Francis: I very much appreciate your honest defence of the Catholic Church and its principles. You have every right to believe and to preach what you feel is the world of God through Christ. What I honestly don't understand is why you are often so abrasive and un-Christian in your personal attacks on anyone who does not share your views. By all mean do attack the other person's argument, but do you really have to attack the individual? I have tried to understand your motives...but I cannot. What I can say is that I too have reacted in and Un-Christian manner in my responses to you...and it really is not my style. But I feel that your attacks on me ( and other people) through various blogs are uncalled for. Foolishly and sadly, I often reacted by being critical of you, instead of your arguments. So, I am recommending a friendly truce. I am happly to extend my proverbial hand to you as I am sure you are a very decent human being. In turn, may I suggest that when we disagree, let's both keep away from direct or indirect insults. Over to you. Arthur

Christian Sciberras

Nov 13th 2009, 18:02

"defending the official Catholic religion of the Republic of Malta." Correction: 1. It is not in your authority to defend it. 2. You're defending yourself. I see no one valid enough to contest what I and other comentators said. "must fear is NOT the crucifux but earthly tribunals" Correction: 1. The Earthly tribunal is a sign of trouble, you land in a court because of a certain trouble. Whereas the cross is a sign of religion, a collective thought, a heavenly sign, no law and no courts. In fact when I see a cross, I tend to remind myself of what a person had to pass through instead of how I might pass through. 2. I see no one here expressing fear when confronted with a cross, even less me, a Catholic. "Catholics in their overwhelming majority" 1. The same majority which you agreed to be "obviously not always right in their decissions". 2. The same majority which in recent surveys resulted they...might not be that Catholic by your fundamentalistic standards.

Dr Francis Saliba

Nov 13th 2009, 05:02

@ArthurSoler

I am proud that you understand that I am " !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! but sooooooooooooooo predictable" in defending the official Catholic religion of the Republic of Malta.

It is my pleasant duty, not to be neglected, to teach our young children and their responsible parents that what thay must fear is NOT the crucifux but earthly tribunals like those of Pontius Pilate and the ECHR.

The citizens of this Malta, practicing Catholics in their overwhelming majority, are invited to access www.ppsmeditazionipreghiere.org

Arthur Soler

Nov 12th 2009, 22:08

@ Francis Saliba

Quote..."This blog has been sidetracked from the ECHR preliminary interpretation of human rights with respect to crucifixes in schools into the usual commercial advertising atheism. I will not participate any more in this irrelevance."

It seems that you did not keep your word despite the sidetracking of this blog, to which you had to add your usual last word. Pity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! but sooooooooooooooo predictable.

Dr Francis Saliba

Nov 12th 2009, 15:35

@ChristianSciberras
I do not object to your answering o.b.o. “Arthur”. I only wanted to ascertain if you have formed some sort of Limited Liability Company that has delegated you to publish the views of that company in their original version or in some other “shortened up” version peculiar to yourself.

Christian Sciberras

Nov 12th 2009, 09:24

"These murders can never be blamed on God or on Christianity because they would be categorically forbidden by the teaching of Christ and his Church."
I don't remember blaiming anyone for that, in fact:
"(and come) in God's name to do something which THEY believe is right"
My point remains, the collective action of citizens, even in majority, doesn't make it any right.

"You have maliciously distorted my comment where I denied"
Distorted? I just shortened it up.

"Why are you answering for "Arthur"?"
If you believe you shouldn't be writing publicly, use emails instead. Anything you write is open to anyone else, whether you like it or not.
I simply make it a point of why you're wrong, whether it's an argument against me or anyone else.

@S Azzopardi - The point is not removing th cross from everywhere, but rather where it's place is of no use. A cross on a flag is a different matter; tradition, culture, identity (which is why I agree the George cross should stay on ours, but that's differently). I don't suppose classrooms with crosses are a part of our culture?

Raymond Sammut

Nov 12th 2009, 08:41

@ S Azzopardi -- "... [the ECHR] should follow its lame reasoning ..."

We may soon find out whether "lame" is the right word here. First we have to see whether Ms Mariastella Gelmini, the Italian Minister for Education, will live up to her own rhetoric and proceed with her appeal to the ECHR High Chamber.

The ECHR has only pointed out that the exhibit of the crucifix in the classroom violated religious and educational freedoms guaranteed under the European Rights Convention. In her appeal, Ms Gelmini will be required to demonstrate how this violation has not occurred.

Raymond Sammut

Nov 11th 2009, 23:52

@ Alex Ellul -- "Now how about the cribs in our roundabouts?"

It is hard to see how cribs on roundabouts is a way to separate State and Church. Separation of State and Church is a constitutional obligation of the Maltese government and a right of the Maltese citizen. This right is being continually and flagrantly abused by the Maltese government.

One has to start and question why the Maltese government continues to openly abuse this fundamental right of the citizen. It's up to Maltese citizens to start and question: "Why the crucifix is in the classroom?" and "Why the crib is on the roundabout?". Why religious symbols are so conspicuously and ubiquitously present in public places funded by the tax-payer?

I hold the view that the European Court of Human Rights is the only avenue open to Maltese people on Malta to pursue their right of separation of State and Church as accorded to them by the constitution. The Maltese government refuses to meet its constitutional obligation, and appears to be adamant in continuing to do so unless challenged in the European court.

Arthur Soler

Nov 11th 2009, 20:11

@AlexEllul

Quote “ All one has to remember is that atheism has made people suffer and die by the millions, not a thousand years ago, not 100 years ago but at this very point in time.” I have no idea where you get your facts and figures , but they are surely incorrect. Where exactly do you see atheists killing millions of people today? There are certainly many repressive dictatorial regimes in the world but they are governed primarily by political ideologies (e.g. communism) or religious fanatics (e.g. Iran,) not atheism. These regimes will suppress anyone and anything that may challenge their authority, including religions, but especially the freedom of the press.

You also note that “Christians in China still suffer and die”. Let me again challenge your assertion. Christianity in China has been growing at least since 1970 when China loosened its restrictions on religions generally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_China

The clash of religions is certainly the biggest threat facing Western society today, not atheism. Saddam Hussein may not have had weapons of mass destruction, but if Iran ever develops a nuclear weapon, I would then wonder whose side God would be on… , Islam, Judaism or Christianity? What do you think?

S Azzopardi

Nov 11th 2009, 19:32

Now that the European Court of Human Rights has found the cross to be offensive when displayed in public places, it should follow its lame reasoning, and order that the crosses found on the flags of Finland and the other Scandinavian countries be removed too !

Dr Francis Saliba

Nov 11th 2009, 17:27

@ArthurSoler & Co

This blog has been sidetracked from the ECHR preliminary interpretation of human rights with respect to crucifixes in schools into the usual commercial advertising atheism. I will not participate any more in this irrelevance.

Arthur Soler

Nov 11th 2009, 16:23

@FrancisSaliba

You simplistically and erroneously conclude that the horrors committed by Stalin were the result of his atheistic beliefs, rather than that of a deranged mind pursuing a flawed political ideology. While there are bad people who happen to be atheists, it does not follow that atheists are somehow more “bad” than religious people. You well know that there are several examples of very religious people/institutions who are guilty of untold atrocities……for example, Spanish and Roman Inquisitions, Crusades, and Muslim extremists, etc.

One cannot simply attribute the problems and injustices in the former Communist countries to the Godlessness of their leaders. (As an aside, I doubt whether they were all atheists anyway) Perhaps they may have been better off with religion…perhaps? .. but not necessarily. Consider that the USA is that most religious country in the Western world with Church attendance far greater than in Western Europe. Nonetheless the USA has a much greater level of crime and lawlessness. On the other hand, Sweden is the most secular of Western societies and has the largest percentage of atheists. It also happens to have one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

Dr Francis Saliba

Nov 11th 2009, 15:35

@ChristianSciberras

You say that murders have been committed in modern times by “some form of Catholics” in God’s name. These murders can never be blamed on God or on Christianity because they would be categorically forbidden by the teaching of Christ and his Church.

You have maliciously distorted my comment where I denied that I had ever said that all atheists are bad people. What I really said, (in answer to Migel Micallef), was that if, as he said, atheists never kill anyone in the name of a god in whom they do not believe they still murder on their own authority - and I was referring to Stalin’s notorious massacres.

P.S. Why are you answering for "Arthur"? Why is this dialogue is being deviated so to distract attention from its true subject of the ECHR interpetation of the crucifix in classrooms? You make me suspect that all this palaver is a concerted attempt to boost atheism and has nothing to do with human rights at all!

Alex Ellul

Nov 11th 2009, 13:45

@Raymond Sammut: First you express your opinion that the crucifix issue is not a grey area, then you go into a dissertation of ifs and buts, practically confirming that it IS as grey area. Now how about the cribs in our roundabouts? And what about a hundred other public expositions of faith? Where does it end according to your philosophy? What should be acceptable and what's not? Clear cut answers would be greatly appreciated.

By the way, we do still have a crucifix in our public schools, but we do not have Columbine-style shooting sprees in our schools.

Alex Ellul

Nov 11th 2009, 10:28

Kevin Cassar: In this society, anyone found guilty of killing for whatever the reason, is put in jail. In atheistic despotic societies, religious people are put in jail or beaten up, or murdered while the beaters and murderers are awarded with promotions etc. Google Father Jerzy Popieluzco and see what you get.

Christian Sciberras

Nov 11th 2009, 08:52

@Dr Francis Saliba - Arthur is simply explaining how people came (and come) in God's name to do something which THEY believe is right. We hear a lot about Muslim terrorists, but there's been murders (even in modern-day times) where they were some form of Catholics (of course, we don't hear much about these).

"I did not say anywhere that “atheists are bad people” ".... "Of course they don’t. They massacre on their own authority. "
Ironic?

You mentioned the USSR as an example of a mass genocide by atheist, however, many argue that the cause was not aetheistic; blindly pursuing a faith, irreasonably and even less inconscient of the outcome is mostly defines "religion" (and speaking of all religions).
What makes Catholicism any different? He specifically told us to respect our neighbours, regardless of faith/ideals.
Do people hear Him? Apparently not.

Alex Ellul

Nov 11th 2009, 08:21

@Miguel Micallef: Your wish of living in a totally atheist state could only have been satisfied more 20 years ago. Should you have lived in Albania during Enver Hoxa's regime, you would have experienced the life in the only true and real faithless state. Mr. Hoxa had a limousine to drive him around, while the people, all farmers, travelled in donkey powered cars. While complaining on the weather would have put you in prison, with a stop at the face-changing, bone-lenghtening 'clinic'.

In he rest of the iron curtained countries, religion could not be removed from social life altogether, therefore the regimes tried to control it, hide, suppress it by banning believers from university and the civil service etc etc.

Life is really beautiful in an atheistic state.

Raymond Sammut

Nov 10th 2009, 23:57

@ Alex Ellul -- "Grey areas exist such as whether a crucifix may be removed from a classroom on one person’s wish without the consent of the other 29 persons."

It's not a "grey" area as you would like to depict it, Mr Ellul. It will always remain up to the Italian government to decide whether they want to remove the crucifix from the classroom. It's a clear case.

The first step would be to wait and see whether they will live up to their word (the Italian government) and go ahead with their appeal at the High Chamber of the ECHR. Then we would have to wait and see whether the appeal would be repealed.

If it gets repealed, the Italian government would still be allowed to retain the cross in the classroom (even though this would be contrary to the constitutional amendments of 1984). If they (the Italian government) still refuse to remove the crucifix from the classroom, they can then expect suits from the Italian citizenry who have a constitutional right of separation of State from Church; a right which is being denied to them and their children.

Dr Francis Saliba

Nov 10th 2009, 20:56

@Miguel Micallef
I do not need to check my facts. Your statement about Catholicism being the number one killer religion past and present and future is utterly ridiculous, palpably untrue as regards the past and present – and a false wothless prediction for the future with you as its sole undependable prophet. I mentioned Stalinist USSR as an example because not even you would dare deny that it was thoroughly atheist, more so than any other modern state, that it carried out large massacres of its own people and that these are authenticated facts within living memory, acknowledged as true even by the present rulers of the former USSR. That should be more than enough to convince any intelligent person that atheists do kill on a massive scale even though they do not do it in the name of a god that for them does not exist!

@ArthurSoler
I did not say anywhere that “atheists are bad people” – those are false words put into my mouth. I only exposed Miguel Micallef outrageous howler that “Atheists never kill anyone because they don’t kill in the name of their god”. Of course they don’t. They massacre on their own authority.

Kevin Cassar

Nov 10th 2009, 20:05

Therein lies the difference between an atheist and a religious person. An atheist can be held responsible for his actions and bad deeds (there is no one to put the blame on) while a religious person can say it's God's will (see the crusades, witch hunts, inquisition etc and the islamic jihad).

Miguel Micallef

Nov 10th 2009, 19:33

The below comment has been heavily censored by times of malta for reasons unknown.

Miguel Micallef

Nov 10th 2009, 17:26

Check your facts, the number one killer religion has always been, and always will be catholic.

Popping up russia is no excuse. I'd still rather have atheists surrounding me than religios fanatics, they are still less likely to kill me for not believing in their god.

Arthur Soler

Nov 10th 2009, 17:16

@Francis Saliba

Stalin murdered millions not because he was an atheist, but because he was politically motivated and also,a horrible man. I am sure that you are aware that Hitler was brought up a Catholic and he murdered millions too. Pol Pot was neither a Christian nor an atheist, (Buddhist I think) but he too killed millions. Bad people come is all "shapes and sizes" so to speak. To imply that atheists are bad people because they do not believe in God is simply ludicrous. Let me suggest to you that all religions have one thing in common...they all think that they are the only true one...which is why this world has seen so many atrocities committed in the name of (their) God.

Atheists on the other hand do not blow up anybody in the name of anybody.

Dr Francis Saliba

Nov 10th 2009, 16:40

@MiguelMicallef
For a very long long time I have not heard anything so ridiculous as your “Atheists never kill anyone because they don’t kill in the name of their god”. You should try to explain that to the millions of Russians who experienced the mass slaughter in the Gulags of a Communist and atheist Stalin. Try to convince them that what Stalin did was not killing because he did not have a god in whose name he would have been able to kill. You must be really devastated at having missed your chance to live in his “society 100% made up of atheist”.

Alex Ellul

Nov 10th 2009, 16:05

@Miguel Micallef: Are you denying that the atheist despotic communist dictatorships based on Marxism-Leninism based on the dictum that religion is the opium of the people killed 50-100 million people this last century? If you deny this fact then I would be very sorry for you not knowing yesterday’s historic facts. As one Roman philosopher wrote: He who does not know his past is a fool.

Many wars and genocides have been waged in the name of gods and religions, mostly abusing these for material gains. Millions have died due to these wars, but those are in the remote past. These went against Christianity's LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR morality.These have now been replaced by the atheist religion, killing millions and nobody can deny it. Let me put one thing straight: The right to practice one’s faith or to deny one’s faith and to be an atheist is a basic human right. Grey areas exist such as whether a crucifix may be removed from a classroom on one person’s wish without the consent of the other 29 persons. But where would this stop? Do we decorate our streets during Xmas? Etc etc.

Myriam Warrington

Nov 10th 2009, 15:35

Maybe it is about time that we Catholics start acting rather than talking! Or we can be called hypocrites for creating double standards,and rightly so. Do we really know what we believe in? Or was our last catechism lesson when we did our confirmation? Do we all know what the Cross really means? It was definitely a scandal at the time, a weakness. But Christ chose to die on the Cross.As Christians we all know that God always chose the weak and ignorant to carry out His mission and this is too far from any human logic. It is time for us to look inside ourselves and assess what we really believe in, not just what we think we know , but the whole truth.I am surprised at what people who say they are Catholics say they believe in sometimes! We need to be re-catechized, yes even as adults. This is a time for prayer. Especially for our Island's protection. Let us remember that the Cross is the sign of humankind's redemption. Faith is a grace, a gift from God. Let us, who believe, be thankful for it, and not judge those who don't

Miguel Micallef

Nov 10th 2009, 15:34

@Alex Ellul

"All one has to remember is that atheism has made people suffer and die by the millions, not a thousand years ago, not 100 years ago but at this very point in time."

Are you serious? Last time I checked the world history the Catholics where on the undisputed number 1 for violence, brutality and kills, even more than muslims.

Atheists never kill anyone because they dont kill in the name of their god ;)

I'd rather live in a society 100%made up of atheist than anything else. Religion kills, my friend.

Dr Francis Saliba

Nov 10th 2009, 15:11

@ChristianSciberras
You problem, as I see it, is that >80% of the local population and our representatives in parliament and our Church authorities are collectively much more likely to be correct than Christian Sciberras.

Alex Ellul

Nov 10th 2009, 14:11

At this time of year, roundabouts and other public places are being adorned with symbols, such as cribs, stars, etc, representing Christmas. I just wonder where the thing would stop, whether just the classroom crucifix or Christmas decorations and symbols, all the saint-bearing street names, steeple crosses, the 10,000 old stone statues in our old streets and alleys etc etc.
We only have to remember that we have just celebrated 20 years since the fall of the Berlin wall, which had represented the most despotic ideology that ever ruled the world and by which 50 million to 100 million people perished. This ideology was based on the removal of the crucifix not only from the classroom, but from out heart and mind. This ideology lasted 70 years in the Soviet Union and its satellite countries, but still extant in China. Christians in China still suffer and die, together with people of other faiths including Buddhists in Tibet and Falun Gong followers.

All one has to remember is that atheism has made people suffer and die by the millions, not a thousand years ago, not 100 years ago but at this very point in time.

Christian Sciberras

Nov 10th 2009, 12:50

@Dr Francis Saliba - So where is the problem? If you have so much "Faith int The People", let them choose "What Is Right" as they always did (and proved wrong, I might add).

However, having a cross, symbol of a particular relgion, up in a public place, in a democratic country, does not make logical sense. Why..? Because, it's either taken down (with an uproar as has happened) or just about anyone having the right to attach what they want to the wall, next, we'll be getting disputes why the cross is on the left instead on the top of the star.

Since I hope I'm talking to intelligent person; having people (majority, government officials, MPs...) decide on killing a particular person (for instance) does not make it right, nor legal.

What the people says doesn't make it right.

Regards,
Christian Sciberras.

Raymond Sammut

Nov 9th 2009, 16:33

Brian Chircop -- "...should we remove also all the crosses and statues from our streets?" I hold the view that Malta, as a free-thinking independent state, should remove all religious symbols from its roads and public places. The reason for my contention is that one should adhere to the basic principle of separation of state and Church. The importance of this separation cannot be over-stressed, and is perfectly in harmony with the Biblical injunction, namely, "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God." As Roman Catholics, we regard the crucifix as the most important symbolic item representing our Faith. The natural question that quickly springs to mind is: where should we put the crucifix? When Maltese parliamentarians decided that by law the crucifix should be put in the classroom, they must have had a motivation. What this motivation was is anyone's guess. According to the Biblical injunction, the crucifix belongs only in God's House because it is His Son that it bears. Our ancestors knew this all along, and set out to erect chapels, churches and cathedrals; thus ensuring that the crucifix may always belong to God and not to Caesar.

David Seychell

Nov 9th 2009, 11:44

@Brian Chircop
"GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT... Only 1, (one) of the poems you mentioned is right"
You are probably right. More than a decade have passed since I sat for my exams so I'm not surprised that some changes to the syllabus occured. But anyway which religious poems they really need to study is beside the point. My point was that some of the poems that students need to study have Christianity as their main theme.
Now, that I corrected my mistake, let me correct yours. You asked me: "One should also keep in mind that religion is a central part of our culture/way of living/environment... so if we are to remove the cross from our classes... then (keeping in mind the same argument) should we remove also all the crosses and statues from our streets?" Your question shows that you misjudged me. I was NOT the one arguing in favour of the removal of the crucifix, on the contrary I was the one, -see my previous comments- that said that religion is part of our culture and hence you can't hit "our" religion without hitting our culture.

Dr Francis Saliba

Nov 9th 2009, 06:07

@ChristianSciberras
The point at issue is not if a crusifix on a schoolroom wall "is of any use" to any student. It is if it should be allowed in a country like Malta where the overwhelming majority (over 80% at the last count) insists that it should be retained there, when our culture and religion are officially Catholic and when our leaders in parliament are also outraged by an alien judiciary, whose jurisdiction over us can be retained or rejected according to the will of the people.

Brian Chircop

Nov 8th 2009, 22:45

@ David Seychell

You claim that ... " Secondary school students need to study many poems with Christianity as their main theme for their Maltese O Level exam. These poems include 'AVE MARIA!, ZJARA LIL GESU; HELWA MADONNA; TALBA; REQUIEM' and many more "

GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT... Only 1, (one) of the poems you mentioned is right.

One should also keep in mind that religion is a central part of our culture/way of living/environment... so if we are to remove the cross from our classes... then (keeping in mind the same argument) should we remove also all the crosses and statues from our streets?

Raymond Sammut

Nov 8th 2009, 17:45

@ David Seychell

I can see absolutely no problem here, David. This provided that students are permitted, and even encouraged, to be critical of the poems that they are reading. At age about 15 they should be able to write critiques on what is being presented to them. A good critique, based on a sound argument and supported by the right quotations (two or three, say) should be well rewarded by assessors whether they agree or disagree with the views expressed by students. One has to assume here that assessors are impartial, although this may not necessarily be the case (unfortunately).

I agree. Maltese poetry and religion are intertwined. In fact, the reason that the Maltese language is so rich in poetry is because Malta has been deeply religious throughout its history. Even her Neolithic temples are build around religion. Much of its architecture and art works are inspired by religion. Religion is a good thing. It's with those who proclaim to be "religious" that one needs to exert some degree of caution -- initially at least.

David Seychell

Nov 8th 2009, 13:32

@Raymond Sammut
"It could be time not to make history topics compulsory at primary and secondary levels."
It's not just about history. Secondary school students need to study many poems with Christianity as their main theme for their Maltese O Level exam. These poems include 'AVE MARIA!, ZJARA LIL GESU; HELWA MADONNA; TALBA; REQUIEM' and many more. The reality in Malta is that Christianity and our culture are truly amalgamated.

Christian Sciberras

Nov 8th 2009, 12:38

@Dr Francis Saliba - Exactly my point why a cross in a classroom is no use to the casual student.

@Alex Ellul - I was speaking metaphorically. Point being, education is not all that fine and dandy. Plus, your "reliable informer" is incorrect. For one thing, I've been to a (major) school in Gozo where they lacked whiteboards. And, the computers you mention only were to be found in the computer lab, running on a 10 year old Xeon core. But then again, Maltese talking statistics tend to forget Gozo from the pretty picture.

@adrian grech - "min ma jogbux jitlaq"
That is exactly why your point needn't any arguing.

adrian grech

Nov 8th 2009, 07:55

min ma jogbux jitlaq ax illum is salib u ghada xi haga ohra .mur go pajjizom u ghajidlhom inehu xi haga ta importanza min tahom ara xjamlu.din hija xi haga serja u mhux tamin johoda daqsekk bi cajt.

Raymond Sammut

Nov 8th 2009, 01:07

@ Ludwig Flask -- "Should Malta follow possible court orders, ... , then we will be the Crucifix..."

You seem to be misunderstanding the situation, Mr Flask. The ECHR will not be asking Malta to follow court orders. Instead, should the pending appeal of the Italian government fail in the high chamber of the ECHR, the Maltese government will be faced with potential lawsuits from parents on Malta for subjecting their children to the crucifix in the classroom.

The issue here is that, regardless of how Mr Flask perceives the crucifix -- namely, a symbol of "faith", "truth", "suffering", "kindness" and "love" -- the State has no right whatsover to try and manipulate how a child thinks in the classroom.

Alex Ellul

Nov 7th 2009, 23:29

I am reliably informed that all classrooms in public schools have a white board these days. You should get updated every now and then, say every ten years, about whats happening in our schools. Not only, we have 5 computers, at least, in each classroom including kinder classrooms. Hence your claim whiteboards instead of cricfixes ahs no meaning.

To recap on what I had commented ealier: What the euro court did was just exactly what the despotic Polish regime of General Jaruzelski did to the Polish people. However, the next day that the crucifix was removed from the Polish classrooms, 30 crucifixes appeared, one on each desk, brought into the classroom by the students. The euro court just accepted one person's intolerance to other people."

Now, how come nobody took me to task on this one?

Ludwig Flask

Nov 7th 2009, 15:31

Part 2/2

I am Christian, because I do believe in someone great, in someone whom can protect my children, in someone whom I can at least pray to when I have problems... I sin as well! Thus I don't agree with the possible removal of the Crucifix from our class rooms. A counter solution would be to provide a space for other Religious icons, and offer all pupils and school children a learning experience about all the other Religions.

Should Malta follow possible court orders, I think that if we can live a Christian life and help our children to understand truth, kindness, suffering and love, then we will be the Crucifix, thus the EU court will have another bone to tackle, you cannot have a class room without Crucifixes!

Ludwig Flask

Nov 7th 2009, 15:30

Part 1/2

One day we were all Christians, and we were all thought to do the sign of the cross before doing this, that, and so on. Nothing wrong. The Crucifix is a symbol of faith, truth, suffering, kindness and love, the list goes on, so why it is wrong in having it in very class room?

We live in an open minded culture and the Church can live with other Religions. The problem isn't that we will have to remove the Crucifix from our class rooms, but being imposed to do so.

What about having the Crucifix in Muslim class rooms for example or teaching Christian Religion in Muslim countries? Same applicable to Hindu, Buddhism, and so on.

Maybe its time, whatever the EU court of Human Rights has assessed, that the Pope and the Leaders of the other Religions work towards a modern religious unity / reality, not only acceptance.

Paul Xuereb

Nov 6th 2009, 19:17

You're right Alex Ellul, I did qualify my statement. So, if the US is indeed the model for how religion should be handled in a public school, are you willing to have our teachers approach the Bible with a more critical eye, as they do in the US? Are you willing to give equal time to Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism, as they do in US public schools?

The fact that theology is still taught in our publicly-funded schools in Malta is disgraceful. I agree with Christian Sciberras, whiteboards before crucifixes.

Also, if the recent ridiculousness over the Nadur Carnival nuns has shown us anything, it is time to move away from a state-sponsored religion. The 21st century has no place for a state that gives preferential treatment to any one religious or ethnic group (see Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc.). Equal protection under the law, for all Maltese and for all Europeans.

Dr Francis Saliba

Nov 6th 2009, 15:32

@ChristianSciberras
Being in a room on the walls of which a crucifix is hung is not the same as practicing Christianity! That much should be obvious to anyone who does not need to go the school any more.

Christian Sciberras

Nov 6th 2009, 13:23

@Alex Ellul - Intollerance? It's a classroom! Why do I (anyone else) need a cross in a Math class, when the school doesn't even have enough funds for a whiteboard?

So is that it? Tradition over progress? Let's all move a step forward and 5 back.

Personally, it doesn't bother me to see a cross in each classroom. But this isn't for anyone else.
Plus, as I raised the question above. What is the point of having a school, teaching students or just showing them crosses (which they might as well see crucufuxes better elsewhere, such as a church)?
What's wrong in practicing religion in a church instead of DURING lessons IN A CLASS?

Alex Ellul

Nov 6th 2009, 12:29

Paul Xuereb: Your statement that I am wrong about US public schools is qualified. Yes, they do diplay religious symbols for educational purposes. SO THAT STUDENTS WILL LEARN AND APPRECIATE EACH OTHER'S BELIEFS. What the euro court did was just exactly what the despotic Polish regime of General Jaruzelski did to the Polish people. However, the next day crucifixes were removed from the Polish classrooms, 30 crucifixes appeared, one on each desk, brought into the classroom by the students. The euro court just accepted one person's intolerance to other people.

W Spencer

Nov 6th 2009, 09:40

@ Galea L

Do you ever read anyone elses comments ??

Where you got the idea that I was against crosses being displayed, I cannot imagine !!

Also, why should I leave ? Do you get told to leave if you disagree with another persons comments..........yet you are a migrant just like me.

J Baldacchino

Nov 5th 2009, 20:57

Do you agree with the European Court decision on the removal of Crucifixes from classrooms?

If you don’t agree, please send a copy of this email to all your friends and at last but not least send a copy to the Comitee of Ministers of the Council of Europe at the following email: cm@coe.int

Jesus was not ashamed to be crucified showing his love to you. If you love HIM, don’t be ashamed to send this email as requested. May Jesus be with you and your family.

James De Giorgio

Nov 5th 2009, 17:36

Soile Lautsi is originally Finnish.

Talk about foreigners imposing their customs on us.

If she's not happy, she should return to Finland.

Same goes for all foreign atheists and people who come to our countries expecting to indulge in what we have to offer, while at the same time stripping us of our National, Cultural and Religious heritage.

Adel Smith, the Italian Muslim leader in Italy was another one who wanted to remove crucifixes. Probably his next step would've been to push for some Islamic half-moonery in classes which muslim immigrants' children would have a majority.

Paul Xuereb

Nov 5th 2009, 16:48

Alex Ellul: You are mistaken. Stone v. Graham explicitly forbids the posting of religious symbols in U.S. public schools unless they have a secular, educational purpose.

Anyone on this board arguing that the crucifix is NOT a religious symbol is being disingenuous.

Sandro Pace: Your argument about the separation of Church and State is precisely why the crucifix SHOULD NOT be posted in our state-funded public schools. Why should my tax dollars go to subsidize your religion?

And for everyone here blaming this ruling on the Muslims, I would remind you that this ruling does not replace the crucifix with a star and crescent, but rather prevent the posting of any religious symbol. Blaming your discontent on vulnerable newcomers is an easy out for racists and it is beneath our modern society. We should not compare ourselves to the Arab world, which is very much controlled by theocratic rule, we should be better than that. I welcome this ruling.

A. Farrugia

Nov 5th 2009, 16:24

@ B. Galea

I hope you get to read this. Thanks a lot for your reply. It's nice to see responses like that sometimes, Political bickering over everything under the sun bugs me. Whilst I admit I too get Political at times, I also admit I get frustrated that everything is politicised right from the start before the facts are laid down for all to see. Hope your post helps people understand the situation better before rushing to comment.

Thanks again.

Daniel Goggi

Nov 5th 2009, 15:41

@ Chris Reiff, Darren Galea

You said "A big and important step towards a secular society" - Chris Reiff.
I say "another big and important step at losing our values, creed, morals and much more" it is shameful to say one is catholic and not live a catholic life, it is even more shameful to be passive over such a simple gesture (removing the crucifix) but with such a deep underlying meaning (denying your faith). As always (we are humans) we only revert to God when in need.. The other times we ignore him or even disregard his existence.

The crucifix is not a symbol of ancient execution. Its a symbol reminding us Roman Catholics and also Christians, that the son of GOD himself, sacrificed himself for us (during that period of time crucifixion was a popular method of execution) to manifest his love, more than anything, for us... something which is becoming alarmingly rare now a days (no need for examples ey?).

If I were you, rather than jumping into conclusions and statements, I'd rather see to my own actions and conscience, instead of pointing fingers at others.

Reuben Seychell

Nov 5th 2009, 15:11

This is one of the things I hate about my people: they are racists, and if their mind is a formal logic machine, it must be a pretty poor one. They do not cherish anymore the Christian spirit of kindness, humility, love and tolerance. The Christian language of love has been transformed to Catholic jargon of hatred, intolerance and dominance. Their spiritual insecurity camoflashed in political struggle to impose symbols on the rest. Public policy is one thing and faith is another. The state financed by all should protect anyone irrispective of his religion. If the state permits the Catholic symbol in public schools, it should provide a corresponding religious symbol in the school where there are children with different religious background. This would enhance tolerance, respect between religions and religious education. It's unity in diversity, not dominance of the dominant. Where is all the Christian kindness and love?

M Attard

Nov 5th 2009, 14:09

If there is anyone who does not want to accept our traditions, believes and our religion, please move out from our country. If you want to stay in Malta, accept the country as it is

jenny zammit

Nov 5th 2009, 13:52

i think this is an incorrect ruling. are we going to pull down st peter s in rome now? or the blue mosque in istanbul? people have faiths and they are different that is real tolerance
what is being suggested is obliteration

Chev Chris Galea

Nov 5th 2009, 13:30

The European Court of Human Rights has offended and insulted with the dearest sacred object we have. We will not remain silent.

European filth will soon be removed.

Doris Soler

Nov 5th 2009, 10:30

@ Justin Meli

Oh requires courage does it to ask for the Cross to be eliminated from public places ? Now I would have rather thought it requires a certain bold courage to privately sneer at Christ BEFORE demanding such a course of action ! And why ask for others to proceed - have the courage of your convictions and do it yourself ! And then explain to us why you feel 'freer' .....

Dr Francis Saliba

Nov 5th 2009, 00:13

Let there be no confusion about the point at issue here. It is not our imaginary intolerance of other beliefs in a country whose constitution indubitably lays down that “The religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion” and whose laws democratically tolerate the rights of minorities. It is about the pretended but non-existent right of a small but vociferous antireligious minority of atheists to impose its own will against the will of the Catholic majority as expressed by the Republican Constitution, by the leaders of all the political parties represented in parliament and by the highest authorities of the official religion of the state. An insignificantly small antichristian and/or atheistic minority has the brazen cheek to pretend that it has the right to climb on top of the heads of the majority and to impose its will undemocratically on everybody else.

Tiziana Pace

Nov 4th 2009, 20:38

I do not agree with the decision of removing the crucifix - it will be a precedent to other symbols of religion. We should respect every religion and atheism, but we are now taking political correctness to the extreme! An example which almost brinks on the hilarious side is that now in the UK there are already many companies that call Christmas "Winter Holiday" so as not to offend anyone.

I would like to point out that the woman who raised the case with the European Court was Finnish - and so from Europe, as opposed to the comments I am seeing that claim that this is some Muslim conspiracy. And the court that decided this ruling is part of the Council of Europe, not the EU.

Anton Galea

Nov 4th 2009, 20:36

Sorry, I meant the European Court.

Schembri Ray

Nov 4th 2009, 20:35

With all the respect to other religions, this is what we are getting from accepting muslims in our countries. First they come as refugees, later they try to take power on us. One day they will dictate what we shall learn at school and we do a syllabus to cover their faith. Sorry but people in power should be careful and examine carefully what is behind this issue before it's too late.

Sandro Pace

Nov 4th 2009, 20:34

David Seychell and Raymond Sammut

Muslims invaded, Maltese and knights defended. Fortunately successfully. It's a fact. If a Muslim boy in a Maltese class is offended, well, tough luck.

History should be taught without distortions. Middle eastern countries do not ban the crusades from their history teaching, irrispective of who is listening. Rightly so.

A country that does not know its' history is an ignorant country and a disrespectful one for that matter. So is advocating its banning from primary and secondary school.

Ban religion, ban history, ban crucifixes ban, ban, ban......We are all getting fed up. And it does not seem what the majority want.

Peter Paul Portelli

Nov 4th 2009, 19:51

There are so many symbols etc in public places that bugs me but I need nobody including human rights courts to tell me how to handle it....and this definately does not include removing such. To all that are bothered with any symbolys a little bit of advise: use the concept 'act as if' and also keep in mind that ' ............. is in the eyes of the beholder'. so live and let live and leave us in peace with our tradition and believes. Also please let us not start comparing our country with some other country. Definately this is not a monkey see monkey do issue. let us pass to our children what our fathers left us. This is what makes us Maltese.

Evarist Saliba

Nov 4th 2009, 19:20

@ G. Darmanin
Thank you for the information.
The person may not be Italian by birth, but nor does she seem to be an illegal immigrant. She seems to be a product of today's western lay mentality which seeks to impose its own ideas on society while denying those who disagree to express their own.

Robert Bezzina

Nov 4th 2009, 19:06

@ Raymond Sammut; Pity that you're not understanding the symbolism. When I stated that that its a symbol of love, that was keeping in context that the person exposed on the cross is the son of God that gave his life for us. Whether one believes it or not, just try to picture it, our creator setting this example himself. Even a non-believer with an open mind can capture this I guess and see the beauty of it. Well If you're not able to, just be careful about those niches round the corner, ready to pose a threat to yourself. They are for sure something to worry about....

Raymond Sammut

Nov 4th 2009, 19:05

@ Peter Bonnici

Whether it will hold will soon be known when the Italian government appeals at the European Court of Human Rights’ Grand Chamber of 17 judges. I think it will hold in a very convincing way. This decision has been long overdue. We are talking here about the brainwashing of a child in the classroom, and not about a call to prayer coming out from a loudspeaker mounted on a minaret.

B Galea

Nov 4th 2009, 18:52

@ A Farrugia

That's right - the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has nothing to do with the EU. Malta is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights which established the ECHR (as is practically every other European country), and is therefore bound by the court's rulings. Justice Giovanni Bonello is a judge there, and has been since 1998. His term expires next year.

Had Malta not joined the EU, we would still be bound by this ruling because it has nothing to do with the EU. The EU's court is the European Court of Justice, which does not accept petitions from individual citizens but is rather focused on state vs state cases. There is an unwritten agreement that the 2 courts refer to each other's rulings when deciding upon cases, in order to prevent contradictions between the 2.

The Lisbon treaty will bring the 2 closer together, as part of the treaty stipulated that the EU as an institution will sign the European Convention of Human Rights and therefore become bound by the ECHR. Hope that helps!

Peter Bonnici

Nov 4th 2009, 18:23

This ruling cannot hold. One cannot simply remove any image that some individuals may find offensive. Will the same court also rule that mosques in Europe can not broadcast call to prayer via loudspeakers? And how will the court handle this issue when Turkey comes along?

On the bright side: my neighbour will have to pull down his Man U. Flag..... its bugging me!

Raymond Sammut

Nov 4th 2009, 18:19

@ Anton Galea

This was not an EU decision.

Anton Galea

Nov 4th 2009, 18:08

It seems that the EU is taking up some bad systems the Catholic church has long since outgrown, and developing its own version of the inquisition. So crucifixes are to be removed, unwanted babies to be eliminated, those in bad shape helped to die, should the Archbishop dare to speak on some social issue asked to shut up and so on. So who's turn will it be, to be silenced, eliminated, "helped to die" and removed?

Raymond Sammut

Nov 4th 2009, 17:57

@ David Seychell

It's a good and valid point. Education subjects are always evolving. It could be time not to make history topics compulsory at primary and secondary levels. History as a subject can be taken later as an elective. One should also point out that History as a school subject is not about winners and losers, as we were accustomed to in primary teaching back in the sixties. A History subject is about a chronological order of historical events which shaped the world we know today for better understand among nations, cooperation and advancement.

David Seychell

Nov 4th 2009, 17:03

Should we continue teach children in our schools about the Great Siege of Malta? What if there is a muslim student who is offended by the "story" of how thousands of muslims were killed and defeated by christians?

C.Busuttil

Nov 4th 2009, 16:53

@Adrian Camilleri
Christianity changed the course of history in Europe, if the western society is what it is today, its just because of the christian faith, otherwise islam would have swept all over Europe probably we would still be in the dark ages had this happened.

Besides Pagan Rome was so void that paganism melted down within 20years in the 4th century. Christianity preserved civilization by mellowing the barbarian that brought
down Rome.
Learn your history pls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A. Pulis

Nov 4th 2009, 16:53

Jiena u naqra ghadda hsieb minn mohhi. Aghdruni! Jekk min ma jemminx qed idejqu kurcifiss, qed juri lil kulhadd li jemmen li l-kurcifiss huwa xi haga ghax kieku jinjorah! U biex inzid... Dan kollu tort taghna l-Insara. Bil-mod kif nghixu chadna, warrabna u kazbarna lil Kristu. Kif nistghu nuruh lid-dinja u nwassluh lill-ohrajn meta ahna stess mahniex nghixu dak li riedna nghixu. F'dan il-waqt nirrikorru lejh u nitolbuh ghal konverzjoni shiha fl-Ewropa; mhux sempliciment konverzjoni manifestattiva (qisna qed nappoggjaw xi kulur). Jekk l-Ewropa warrbet lil Alla kienu l-membri taghha li ghamlu dan - l-Ewropej li ahna parti minnhom. Min jaqbel mal-abbort, ewtanazja, tbahrid, divorzju.... tqarbin bl-addocc.... ilu li nehha l-kurcifiss minn hajtu. Minix niggudika ghax dak huwa kompitu tal-Hallieq!

A.Borg

Nov 4th 2009, 16:34

Imagine if anyone in his right mind emigrates to Saudi Arabia, and wears a cross...most likely he ends up in prison!! This is a fact , talk to anyone who has been there.
Or say that a burka is making you feel uncomfortable...will the women remove it?? Then has Europe a right to hold its values and culture?

Adrian Camilleri

Nov 4th 2009, 16:18

@Noel Formosa

The roots of Europe were, indeed, without Christ. The cradle of western philosophy believed in Zeus and his parthenon.. as did Rome at its height. As for most parts of Europe, they were anything but Christian for hundreds of years after 0AD.

What are the roots of Europe, anyway? To my mind, the most logical candidates for such an honour would be the first people to set foot on the continent.. about 36,000 years ago.. that's 34,000 years before the birth of Christ.

Kinda lights it from a different perspective, dunnit?

john Galea

Nov 4th 2009, 15:41

I don't understand why people see a crucifix as offensive? You should watch TV if you find a crucifix offensive. THe amount of sex and violence on television has escalated over the years and is becoming more graphic! But these people say nothing about this! Also some of these Gay rights poster that have been plaster all over the bus shelters are offensive too! I don't see why I should have to look at 2 gay men holding hands on some poster! And why should all secularists have their opinions agreed to and enforced upon every body else, when their views are in the minority?

Stefan Kottmann

Nov 4th 2009, 15:22

To Andrew Gatt - there are Maltese people who are not catholic. To these people, the cross in the classroom is not love, but a blood drenched, half naked man nailed to a wooden cross with an expression of pain on his face. Now I was raised catholic too, but I see the other point of view and agree that this imagery is unnecessary in a classroom. Tradition? More of a status quo.

Raymond Sammut

Nov 4th 2009, 15:07

@ G Darmanin

Billboards are a major distraction to drivers and have been banned in many cities around the world for safety reasons, just like smoking.

My previous comment referred to religious icons "obstructing" the drivers' view. But I think they should be removed anyway because they look ridiculous on the roads to non-Catholics. They belong on religious premises such as, for example, "zuntier" (parvis). I do not think there would be any harm if they were removed from the roads.

If Malta remained in the EU and road standards had to be applied, they will have to be removed, causing even more uproar. But clearly the whole thing is just hilarious, especially from many of the comments that keep streaming in. Even Archbishop Cremona should know better. No-one needs to feel threatened here. It's all about bits of wooden crosses and gypsum! Everyone should just go and have a break.

pamela zahra

Nov 4th 2009, 14:56

OH MY!
how you people panic. relax, simmer down:
a. this is not an EU ruling (so eat your yes vote - reap what you sow - chickens come to roost - comments are not valid)
b. the crucifix hasn't been BANNED or eradicated or destroyed. no one is trying to stop anyone from wearing a symbol of the crucifix or displaying it in their own private space/home/cubicle. it's not going to be removed from streets/churches/your back yard.
it's not going to be replaced by any other symbol of any other religion.
it has been ruled that displaying it in a public place of learning where there are multiple religious beliefs may be a bit selfish.
wear it round your neck/waist/wrist/ankle. tattoo it on your forehead. keep it in your heart (which is where it should be really). but don't drag burkas into this.
peace out.

Joseph Grixti

Nov 4th 2009, 14:39

"A strange fanaticism fills our time: the fanatical hatred of morality, especially of Christian morality." G.K. Chesterton

Justin Meli

Nov 4th 2009, 14:29

@andrew gatt and all others speaking of illegal immigrants:

no its not the case.. the woman who made the report is 100% pure bred european from finland that emigrated to italy.. she is not islamic she is an atheist.

anyone with some courage to do the same with malta? so we may start enjoying a bit of freedom , freedom from the strong power the church has on us?

G Darmanin

Nov 4th 2009, 14:29

@ Andrew Gatt

Soile Lautsi is from Finland who emigrated to Italy. I do not assume that she did so illegally. The point is that when you emigrate (both legally and illegally) to another country you have to respect the culture and customs of the people who accepted you. I believe that I would be really selfish and disrespectful if one day I had to move to a country of 60 million people (Italy) and I expect that they renounce to their traditions because of me! If I had to do that I would be abusing my own human rights!

Hence, this is not an issue of illegal immigration or of non-Christian religions! As a matter of fact I truly believe that because of the selfishness of one disrespectful individual, a lot of non-Christians (mostly Muslims) will now be unjustly victimised in a number of European countries.

Etienne Cardona

Nov 4th 2009, 14:26

@Galea L.
"If you want to send your children to a religious school you should not complain about religious symbols. Paying tax does not entitle you to dictate to the vast majority."
If my taxes are being used to subsidise these schools then I have a right to object to offensive symbols ni church classrooms. Otherwise these schools should not have any share of my taxes.

@G Darmanin

"What about hiding the facade of churches, because also these can be seen from public places and they also have religious symbols on them! What about prohibiting the Good Friday processions because afterall these take place in public places"

I agree with G.Darmanin, these religious symbols and street processions should be prohibited. I don't agree though , that we should hide the facades of the churches, just strip them of all religious imagery. Also our hospital name "Mater Dei" should be changed, the hospital if for all sick people not just christians.

A. Farrugia

Nov 4th 2009, 13:50

@Edward Demicoli

Correct me if I'm wrong - so this ruling is a precedent for all members of the Council of Europe , not EU member states right? So for instance, had malta NOT joined the EU in 2004, would this ruling still be enforceable in Malta so to speak? Would an average Joe be able to claim this ruling as a precedent? A clarification would really help as I don't want to have misconceptions about this court and it's remit in my mind.

Thanks.

Andrew Gatt

Nov 4th 2009, 13:49

God, religion, the church are not the point here.......the point is (or should be!) that if you emigrate to, or enter another country illegally, YOU have the duty to integrate yourself, not the other way round. "Human rights" are being taken to a farcical extreme.

If you don't like it, tough! Just **** off and go back to wherever you sprouted from. That's your "right" too.

What arrogant cheek.

Noel Formosa

Nov 4th 2009, 13:48

Europe must go back to its roots...Europe without Christ is a Europe without soul....

G Darmanin

Nov 4th 2009, 13:46

@ Raymond Sammut

If you think that the small niches that one often encounters along the narrow streets in villages cores are obstructing drivers' view, what do you think about the huge billboards that one encounters along the main roads? These billboards include contents of both a graphical and textual nature. Some weeks ago I was driving along Triq Aldo Moro during the rush hour and one of the adverts (of a local bank) caught my attention. I was reading the message when all of a sudden I realised that I was a few seconds away from bumping into the car infront of me! I can assure you that this experience is not some invention of mine to make my counter argument! This really was going to happen to me! So, shall I now ask for the removal of these billboards because they distract me? I will not be doing that because this experience taught me an important lesson, that is to focus on the road and on the traffic while driving! I think that unfortunately this is one lesson (to focus on what is really important for one's life) that people like Soile Lautsi are failing to learn.

B Galea

Nov 4th 2009, 13:39

@George Mangion - it is the European Court of Human Rights which issued the ruling, which has nothing to do with the EU. The European Court of Human Rights was established by the Council of Europe in 1950, a good 7 years before the Treaty of Rome (which was the start of what is now known as the EU) was signed.

You may disagree with the ruling (as I do) but don't confuse matters. The EU has nothing to do with this.

Andrew Agius

Nov 4th 2009, 13:28

Does anyone know what God looks like?
If they do we could have big representations of him everywhere instead of Jesus. That wouldn't offend anyone - as Christians, Muslims and Jews worship the SAME God!
Then maybe you could stop bickering like the Bigendians and Littleendians...

George Mangion

Nov 4th 2009, 13:26

I prefer not to be a member of the EU than have the cruxifixes removed. This time it is our classes, next time it could be our churches. It is the time for us all to stand up and be counted. No government should accept such impositions.

Raymond Sammut

Nov 4th 2009, 13:18

@ victor pulis

Chapels are built on land off the road. They would have their rightful title to the land. It's hard to see any problems there. But I think there will be some very serious problems with niches and all the Catholic symbolism items one often encounters along roads, sometimes even obstructing drivers' view. They often pose a Health and Safety issue to say the least. They are more likely to send someone to hospital than anywhere else. But of course, contrary to what Archbishop Cremona is fearing in this report, we would still be allowed to have the crucifix with us once we reach hospital. I always held the view that nothing can ever overcome Roman Catholicism. It's a perfect system.

James Formosa

Nov 4th 2009, 13:13

@Sandro Pace. Good 1 !! Maybe she'll take Finland to court next and they'll have to surrender their cross quite literally - they'll be left with a white flag to wave......
Europe is Finnished !!!

B Galea

Nov 4th 2009, 12:46

I am a rabid secularist and agnostic, but still think the ruling is ridiculous. Respecting diversity and the rights of others doesn't mean preventing them from expressing their faith/beliefs, but rather the exact opposite. Foolish ruling which I am sure will be overturned by appeal.

Sandro Pace

Nov 4th 2009, 12:26

Ironically, Ms. Lautsi failed to see the much visible, and much Christian symbolising Nordic Cross on the Finnish State flag. The truth is that when one fails to see that European heritage and Christianity are so intertwined, one will miss the wood for the trees. And what about the non-secular Maltese and English national anthems? Sang by children.

How can one expect that the removal of centuries old tradition by an overnight decision will not create an 'unChristian' backlash against those bringing it, which will only have themselves to blame. Fortunately for Ms. Lautsi's children, Italy may be large enough to spare her children from social consequences. Malta would have been a different story.

Alex Ellul

Nov 4th 2009, 11:35

U.S. Public schools, if I am not mistaken, can have symbols and representations of all religions; Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Shinto etc.
Atheism, being what it is, has no symbols, hence one can only represent it with nothingness.

G Darmanin

Nov 4th 2009, 11:35

@ Edward Demicoli

Thanks for your useful contribution. However, you must understand that the average Joe Public has not studied the function of all European instituitions. So, it does not mean that just because someone does not know that the ECHR is not the ECJ, that someone is promoting Anti-EU rhetoric. Since you are a Press Officer at the EC Rep Malta, maybe you could inform your superiors that most Maltese citizens (both in favour and against this ruling) will surely appreciate an official statement from a high EU official on this matter. Is Joe Public, instigating any anti-EU rhetoric for making such a request?

C. Agius

Nov 4th 2009, 11:33

I totally disagree with the court's sentence.

These people are coming to European countries to search for a better life, right? Then they must also respect our traditions and Religion, in the same way that they expect us to do with respect to their Religion.

John Said

Nov 4th 2009, 11:33

Will Europe ask Turkey to change the Flag before continuing Turkey's accession negotiations

victor pulis

Nov 4th 2009, 11:22

David ellul it's immaterial on what type of cross Jesus was crucified. the argument is about a religious symbol. I assure you that if Jesus was depicted nailed to a stake the same protest would have erupted. The solution is quite simple. those who feel offended by the crucifix can just ignore it. It's not as if it is calling out to them and disturbing their concentration. They can treat it as another decoration hanging on the wall and before someone writes about the 'violent' sight I say don't be ridiculous.

victor pulis

Nov 4th 2009, 11:16

I would like to know if streets are public places. If so, shouldn't we remove wayside niches, chapels and crosses?

James Formosa

Nov 4th 2009, 11:08

Crucifixes have been hung in classrooms for ages and are so much part of the furniture that very few notice them anymore. They are not taken out probably because of superstition. I fail to understand how a liitle cross on a wall can affect a child's education? And if the court ruled in this woman's favour then ONLY the crucifix in her child's class should be taken out and re-hung once the child moves to another class!!! As for the Church, this new free, equal rights Europe is losing its Christian identity. If only Benito & friends won ;)

G Darmanin

Nov 4th 2009, 11:00

@ Mary Pace

I don't think that the name of your street can be changed because the word Crucifix can refer to any kind of crucifix, and not just to the religious symbol.

However, think about all those street-corner shrines which are found in every Maltese town and village. What if Soile Lautsi had to to move to Malta and ask for all these shrines to be removed because they are disturbing her while she is driving? Afterall, streets are public places, and we would not want that Soile Lautsi is involved in some traffic accident as a result of her being disturbed by religious symbols! Right?!

Like public schools, streets are also public places so what will stop this ruling being applied to all 'public' places in the future?! What about hiding the facade of churches, because also these can be seen from public places and they also have religious symbols on them! What about prohibiting the Good Friday processions because afterall these take place in public places, and we dont want that Soile Lautsi is disturbed from seeing the Crucifix in a public place, right?!

Edward Demicoli - Press Officer EC Rep Malta

Nov 4th 2009, 10:55

This ruling has nothing to do with the EU. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is not, repeat NOT, an EU institution.

The ECHR is a court of the Council of Europe and Malta has been a member of the Council of Europe since 1965.

Anti-EU rhetoric is misguided and misplaced!

Paul Baldacchino

Nov 4th 2009, 10:54

Out of ignorance, you identify a roman catholic by a CRUCIFIX and sometimes a muslim by the way hios wife dresses all covered up. What is good for the goose is good for the gender right?
I am not surprised by the European court's decision, good no more religious symbol, but it should have conitnued in this free world where everyone lives together in harmony no matter what religion one should not be ashamed to show his face to one's neighbour.

Why not open for all a europe wihtout religions, no crucifix, stars, cresents, veils, face masks, and at this point can we say

I remove my crucifix if you show me your face.

Jeremy J Camilleri

Nov 4th 2009, 10:53

European Culture based on Christianity?

Now THATS a real myth!!!!!

mary Pace

Nov 4th 2009, 10:39

I like to ask a question, & I need an honest answer!
what would happen say a muslim come & live in my streer! cos it's called, CRUCUFIX Streert, do we have to change the name of my street ?/ so we don't offend them?? PLS answer me, cos i'm very worried!!

David Ellul

Nov 4th 2009, 10:24

I find the whole thing hilarious considering that Jesus was crucified on a stake, and not a cross, and that the addition of the cross was almost certainly and addition from pagan religions... oh.. and let's see, isn't there some biblical prohibition against idolatry anyway... but hey, I'm just going by what I've read ;)

People are always in a uproar about things they barely comprehend.

lgalea

Nov 4th 2009, 10:17

Jacques René Zammit
As you say the ECHR is not the ECJ, but the Euobserver http://euobserver.com/ also made reference to the EU court in the title although in the text it refers to the ECHR. See their news ticker. Any inference of what is in store if a similar case is brought up in the EU following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty with its Charter of Fundamental Rights?

EU court decision on religious symbols angers italy
Today @ 09:33 CET
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that Italy is violating educational and religious freedoms by displaying crosses in classrooms. "The presence of the crucifix in classrooms is not a sign of belief in Catholicism, rather it is a symbol of our tradition," said Education Minister Gelmini.

Albert Critien

Nov 4th 2009, 10:00

What a shame, it is indeed shocking to read certain comments, don't some people realise that ever since the lack of spirituality the world has been on a sharp decline.
Loss of morals have resulted in shameful behaviour.

Robert Vagner

Nov 4th 2009, 09:59

"You shall not make yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything in heaven or on earth beneath or in the waters under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them. For I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous God and I punish the father's fault in the sons, the grandsons, and the great-grandsons of those who hate me; but I show kindness to thousands of those who love me and KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS."

How many of Christians out there, including Archbishop Cremona, obey to this second commandment ?

And what is all this fuss about Muslims? Nowhere in the article is mentioned due to any Muslim the EU has passed the law, but an ordinary EU citizen from Finland?!

BTW dear Editor, is it a coincidence that my comments are not published, although I am a Maltese citizen who pays taxes always in time, or don't you like my straight forward truthful comments?

Noel Abela

Nov 4th 2009, 09:56

One way to beat this ruling, should it also be applied in Malta, is to have your children sent to school with a crucifx necklace...then rather than having just one christian symbol in a classroom you will have dozens....surrounded and no one can object..freedom of expression!!!

G Darmanin

Nov 4th 2009, 09:53

@ Julian Vassallo and Jacques René Zammit

First of all thanks for explaining the difference between the ECFH and the ECJ but do note that according to http://www.echr.coe.int/50/en/#countries-infos , Malta is a member of the European Court of Human Rights, the same court that ruled against the Crucifix in public schools. So, since Malta IS A MEMBER of European Court of Human Rights, what will happen if a Maltese national asks for this rule to be applied in Malta.

Julian Vassallo and Jacques René Zammit kindly explain.

J Farrugia

Nov 4th 2009, 09:53

@ Joseph Carmel Chetcuti - will you stop being ridiculous with all the pinkinsh attitudes no one will bat an eyelid for what you say. Your stupidity and arrogance is sometimes unbearable. It would be better for all of us if you let sleeping dogs lie.

Galea. L

Nov 4th 2009, 09:50

Etienne Cardona
If you want to send your children to a religious school you should not complain about religious symbols. If a crucifix is offensive to you it is not to the vast majority of Maltese citizens. If you are an atheist then send them to an atheist school. Paying tax does not entitle you to dictate to the vast majority.

Re Muslims, it does not appear that they were involved in this case, but it was an atheist mother. Indeed, Jesus is considered as one of the prophets in Islam.

D.Abdilla

Nov 4th 2009, 09:47

We should let lose also the St Johns Cavalier 8point Cross as well! Yes! Because some Muslims and Atheist dont want to see it or they get offended. in 1565 Malta Stopped the Ottoman Empire from becoming Muslim. 2009, Europe is half muslim and atheist without waging a single war.

Please dont be stupid ask from the law to start with the kill our history and culture. If you dont believe in God its your private matter, BUT dont impose it on me.

Galea. L

Nov 4th 2009, 09:41

W Spencer and all those who are against crucifixes in schools.
That is our tradition and if you don't like it leave. No one sent for you.

To those Maltese persons who are similarly opposing crucifixes in schools and public places that is the way of life of the vast majority of Maltese citizens and if you don't want your children to see crucifixes in schools educate them yourself.

This political correct madess has gone too far and is the result of trying to appease the minorities including the minorities that have been invading Europe from other continents.

It has already been said that religious symbols will also be prohibited from public places and have already led to baby Jesus being replaced by a teddy bear in a UK airport crib, no public display of religious symbols, no Christmas cards with Jesus and the Holy Family etc.

I am not particularly religious, but I if public display of religious symbols is made in Malta I shall DEFY such a prohibition. Let them try to do it.

M. Camilleri

Nov 4th 2009, 09:41

Catholicism is the OFFICIAL religion of Italy and Malta...full stop.

Whoever disagrees with either country following that religion and hence displaying symbols (crucifix) of that religion is free to leave either country.

so what if someone opposes mosques being present in these countries? will the court order to bring them down too?

Julian Vassallo, Head, European Parliament Office

Nov 4th 2009, 09:36

The EU needs the criticism if its citizens to grow and serve its citizens better but the anti-EU rhetoric below is all based on a simple misconception.

The European Court of Human Rights is NOT THE COURT OF THE EU but the court of the Council of Europe which Malta joined soon after Independence.

This judgement does not come from an EU institution.

Raymond Sammut

Nov 4th 2009, 09:33

@ Robert Bezzina -- "The cross is a sign of Christ's love towards us, of love, plain and simple." This is only your own personal perspective. Of course, many will agree with you, but certainly not everyone. The "cross", in fact, historically created far greater divisions among Christians than between Christians and other Faiths.

Why so much fuss about this particular "crucifix" in the classroom and in the school yard when, for example, some 6,000 men were crucified only 70 BCE along the street between Capua and Rome? These men were crucified systematically by Roman administrators over a matter of a few days only because they wanted to be released from bondage. For many, there is no "love" in the crucifix. There is, instead, the perspective of arrogance and political dominance, be it physical or psychological.

The real issue here is how governments across a modern Europe are going to deal with this situation which is long overdue. How are they going to bring about a social environment that promotes equity in the way we view ourselves, our histories and cultures, and our surroundings.

Marion Pace

Nov 4th 2009, 09:32

Is Soile Lautsi Muslim if not why are you blaming muslims it was a muslim who said it did not effect her. I think aethists and other religions are complaining. Christ is part of the Muslim religion although he is considered a profit and not the son of God. So why should the cross bother them.

joseph Carmel Chetcuti

Nov 4th 2009, 09:25

Who owns St John's Co-Cathedral? If it is the case that Catholic Church holds it on trust, would it not also be appropriate to remove all religious symbols from the cathedral? Perhaps we could use it for square dancing? May I suggest that we begin with four same-sex couples? I mean what is wrong with praising God with dancing? Perhaps members of the Curia could pipe to us while we dance (Matthew 11:17)?

Joe Fenech

Nov 4th 2009, 09:20

J Pace:

Religion only in private please! None of this nonsense!!!

Peter Bonnici

Nov 4th 2009, 09:18

If the EU had to impose this ruling on Malta, we should also be granted the right to abdicate from our Christian responsibility and start by packing our migrant brothers in containers, including the sick and dying and ship them off to the mainland, or back to Aftrica.

Adrian Cachia

Nov 4th 2009, 09:16

Chainmail, Swords and Spears for everyone!!! The crusades are back again!!!

Etienne Cardona

Nov 4th 2009, 09:11

The crucifixes should also be removed from religious school classrooms as well. As a tax-paying maltese atheist I have a right to send my children to a religious school without having them subjected to offensive symbols like the crucifix, which to us represents oppression, violence and intolerance. After all my taxes are subsidising these schools.

Jacques René Zammit

Nov 4th 2009, 09:07

The ECFH Court, based in Strasbourg, is NOT the court of the European Union (the ECJ) and does not apply the EU acquis. The ECFH Court is the court of the Council of Europe and applies the European Convention on Fundamental Human Rights to which Malta has been a signatory long before joining the European Union.

To be fair to the Times, many of the commentators who leapt at the opportunity to shoot down the EU and its court without getting their facts right only proved their extensive grasp of the workings of the EU.

For the record, the European Court of Justice (EU Court) would not rule over the presence of crucifixes in classrooms as this matter does not fall within its jurisdiction.

For the record

U. D'Amico

Nov 4th 2009, 09:04

@ Erin ciantar

The Maltese constitution says clearly that as a state, we are Roman Catholics and that is our religion. Having a symbol in the classroom reflects that. These are the simple conditions. No on goes to an Arabic country and asks that text in Arabic from the Koran is not shown, or that you change any thing related to Muslim religion!

Paul A. Cordina

Nov 4th 2009, 08:59

I do respect all religions....but they should respect mine.
God forbid we go by this ruling. This is a predominantly Roman Catholic country and our usages and traditions are based on this.
The presence of a Catholic symbol should not offend anybody, in the same way as any other religion's symbol should not offend us.
It all amounts to respect! If you don't respect me, my traditions, my affiliations you have nothing else to do in this country....go some other place. All others respecting us in toto are welcome.

Ethelbert Schembri

Nov 4th 2009, 08:56

First of all I have nothing against any symbol of any religion BUT if in a class there is children of other belief than isn’t that discrimination ?? Should they have their symbols on the wall also? And if their is 2,3 or more religions then what will we do affix each and every symbol on the wall?? ...Just for once don’t be hypocrites and admit the Maltese intolerance !!

U. D'Amico

Nov 4th 2009, 08:54

maybe we should remove muslim children since they could disturb children who ARE Christians.!!!

jeffrey pullicino orlando

Nov 4th 2009, 08:52

A ridiculous ruling which the Italian government should ignore. The European Court seems to ignore the fact that European culture is based on Christianity.

Denise Vella

Nov 4th 2009, 08:46

@Stephen Farrugia (Sliema)

With love like yours, who needs hate?

Julian Vassallo, European Parliament Office

Nov 4th 2009, 08:42

This is a decision of the European Court of Human Rights which IS NOT THE EU COURT. It is the court of the Council of Europe which Malta has been a member of since soon after independence. This is not the work of an EU Institution.

victor pulis

Nov 4th 2009, 08:38

@Lorraine Vella
'if i go to a muslim school and there is someone wearing a burka, or there is a picture of Allah or Muhammed, or whatever it is that is against my traditions/likings, will these be removed? '
On the contrary I'm afraid. a fatwa will most probably be issued against you.

mike pace

Nov 4th 2009, 08:38

As the crusades defended our Catholic values against the Sarasins in the passed its our turn as Catholic nation to defend our rights against atheist and religions from foreign mix races whom are trying to establish their our homes and living and rule this country of ours
Don;t give in we do as the Crusades done in the pass defend up to last drop of blood our Catholic rights and Christ and our Holy Mother will be behind us in our struggles

Frans van Avendonk

Nov 4th 2009, 08:37

Education is obligatory, state and religion are separated, therefore state schools should not contain outward signs of religion but also the state should pay for eduction of children in "religious" schools of whatever domination, provided certain quality criteria are met. A fixed sum per pupil based on what the state spends at it's schools per pupil should be handed to the management of such schools. Any religious symbols could be displayed in such schools.

G Darmanin

Nov 4th 2009, 08:36

@ Evarist Saliba

"One should note that the person who brought the case to court is a native Italian with no known allegiance to any non-Christian religion."

Finland's media says that Soile Lautsi was born in Finland, then moved to Italy and since 8 years has fighted against crucifixes in schools as violation of hers childrens rights...

victor pulis

Nov 4th 2009, 08:32

@Erin Ciantar
This is not a question of what your child is taught in school. it is a question of displaying a symbol. You have every right to ask that your child does not attend religion classes and your request will be met. If your child feels that the crucifix, in some strange way disrupts his concentration, then the teacher can seat him in a way that the offending symbol is out of his sight. As far as I know crucifixes do not emmit any sounds that could disturb anyone.

Anthony Mercieca

Nov 4th 2009, 08:27

Sincerely any parallellism to other faiths, often raised up in the comments section, are out of context.
Criticism should be directed at the European court of justice which vision is worse than myopic and reflects a subjectivism with full negation of the common good and the will of the people.
Next time there be an administration which does not have my sympathy, I will challange the people's choice in the European court of justice with chance that the Prime Minister of the day will have to hide himself from my presence since my political beliefs are different!!!!!

leonardo vince

Nov 4th 2009, 08:24

It seems some believe that crusading for the wooden cross in class rooms will save their soul. Could I hear criticism on the EU concept. It seems like satisfying God and devil in our hypocrital society.

Justin Meli

Nov 4th 2009, 08:21

@alex ellul

yes still throwing the rubbish the fascists managed to do .

these simbols should be removed completely , along with religion studies and along with baptism at child birth.. who are you to decide for your children if he should be baptised or not?, baptism should be done when people are adults (like it was done in your bible)
or like that you wont have control on the population? or you fear that people nowadays have common sense and dont get involved in your mambo jumbos?or you will loose income from the so called "donations?"

victor pulis

Nov 4th 2009, 08:17

The court ruling, which Italy said it would appeal, said crucifixes on school walls, a common sight that is part of every Italian's life, could disturb children who were not Christians.

Easy solution. If the crucifix was proving such a distraction to this sensitive boy all they had to do was place the boy in such a way as to be unable to see this 'offending' sight.
By the same argument the court could order the dismantling of churches as I am sure this boy goes outside and passes by churches sometimes. The pity is that these measures are being aided and abbetted by europeans we are giving europe to them on a silver platter.

Eddy Dimech

Nov 4th 2009, 08:14

You voted and joined the EU so now are no longer independent. You cannot do what you please but do as you are told. You voted without knowing what you were voting for. Now bow down and weep, slaves.

J Farrugia

Nov 4th 2009, 08:13

@ Roderick Bajada; Why put the blame on the Curia? What are you doing as a Catholic to see that God is preached everywhere? So once again I ask you why are you blaming the Maltese Curia? Any agendas on your part?
@ Charles Sammut: where are the catholics inMalta the most vociferous where 'tolerance' towards other cultures, creeds and races is concerned? Why are you namecalling our catholic authorities? Let me tell you something. This will not be allowed to happen in Malta under the present government. And if any other government will try to impose it, it will find a strong resistance no one can imagine and no one will change our constitution with regards to our religion. When Mintoff tried to remove the crucifix from our public places we stood up to his decision and there they remain. Even our beloved President exposes the Crucifix in his meetings with those who visit him. Those who dont want to see Christ had better go someplace else, And we dont want any foreign interference from hinddus or any other imams be they in US or anywhere..

Jeremy J Camilleri

Nov 4th 2009, 08:09

I would like to make it clear that I do not agree with this decision, notwithstanding the fact that I consider myself to be agnostic. In no way does a crucifix, or any other religious symbol bother me in the slightest. To each his own is my philosophy.

What is ironic however is that the EU's view of religion was obvious to us way before 2003. The Church, which has waged crusades on condom wielding university students and civil marriage was strangely silent in the debates leading up to membership.

I have to ask why!?

The stark reality is that Malta has joined a club and change, sometimes painful change, is bound to occur.

You see, for all those Caholics complaing, seeing that these are the same people who vocally complain against the introduction of divorce, EU membership shouldn t be hard to understand.Its like their views of marriage...for better or for worse, and till death do you part....

J Pace

Nov 4th 2009, 08:02

@Joe Fenech

No, the "Middle Ages" you are referring to us will remian..... we are still proud to be Catholics and we will do our utmost to remain so. This despite the continuous atacks on the Church and its teacings, all of which are still relevant today.

Alex Ellul

Nov 4th 2009, 07:52

Quod non fecerunt Barbari Romae, fecit Barberini. What the Italian communists did not manage to do has been now carried out by the new barbarians in power in Europe.

J Farrugia

Nov 4th 2009, 07:46

Let me set the record straight. I have no faith in these European bureaucratic institutions. For me they are a waste of people's money. Then taken into account the recent bocciatura of Rocco Buttiglione because he was a catholic, and the recent verdict regarding the crucifix, (following Spain's removal of crucifix in its own territory, be that as it may) if ever in Malta we are met with such a decision (surely it will never happen under the PN Governments) I will institute a constitutional case for the removal of all islamic, hindu and other religious signs and wear from all the Maltese territory. Moreover the Holy cross will never be removed from anywhere in public places. Irrespective of any court decision which may in future be taken with regards to oour Island. And no one will get a tiny penny given to them by our or foreign courts. No one. They will get only what they truly deserve. Our condemnation.

Raymond Sammut

Nov 4th 2009, 07:41

The first sentence of this report is misleading because it implies that the ECHR is requiring the Italian government to remove crucifxes from classrooms; which is not the case.

In accordance with the Italian Constitution, the Italian government may allow schools to display the crucifix in classrooms. However, there also appears to be a conflict in this same constitution which requires separation of State and Church.

More serious is what this report is omitting, namely, the fact that Ms Soile Lautsi has been awarded €5000 in damages by the ECHR which the Italian government has to pay.

Now imagine a potential scenario in Malta where the Archbishop with "Maltese Christians" take to the streets in defense of the crucifix while Gonzi in Castile has to keep forking out €5000 in damages to parents on Malta suing in the ECHR. It would be interesting to see which stance Gonzi will take. Will it be the crucifix or will it be the €5000.

In the meantime, the pro-crucifix Italian government can still appeal to the European Court of Human Rights’ Grand Chamber where we can be sure the Vatican will give the Italian government their support.

Joss Galea

Nov 4th 2009, 07:40

If someone UNinvited comes to my house I wouldn't change my furniture becuase he doesn't like it. If he wants to stay and live off my wae in my own house, he has to stick to my rules. If he doesn't like it he can go where he belongs! another thing, I never saw muslim countries changing their habits and culture because Christians are living there!!!!

Evarist Saliba

Nov 4th 2009, 07:40

@ Stephen Farrugia

One should note that the person who brought the case to court is a native Italian with no known allegiance to any non-Christian religion. Most probably the same applies to the judges involved and to most commentators, including local ones, supporting their decision.

The rot lies within modern permissive society.

Dr Francis Saliba

Nov 4th 2009, 07:31

By no stretch of the imagination could a crucifix hanging on the wall of a classroom in a Christian country be considered as running “counter to the child’s right to freedom of religion.” It would appear that not only is the “law an ass” but the higher the court of law the more asinine are its brayings!

Anthony Mercieca

Nov 4th 2009, 07:31

The ruling does worry me, but my worries go further than any hurts to my religious belief and sentiment.
I query the wisdom do these European judges.
In all the logic of reason and events, I see the legal equation on the following basis. Someone with different beliefs moves to a country where the people's faith is everywhere openly manifested both private and public since it is ingrained in its history and culture.Than somebody, a foreigner to this country, objects to such, on the basis of a fundament right to give a different education to his children.Such religious manifestation goes against his conviction.
Just to simplify, leaving aside the religious implications to this ruling: It is like that I decide to go close to the torch of an oil well because I have freedom of movement but insists that it is my responsibility to tell you that it is your responsibility that I do not get burned, knowing that the chance to get burnt would be evident!!!! Definitely a falacious judgement on the basis of elementary logic independent of all religious sentiments. I encourage our authorities to start lobbying for the replacement of these judges because they demonstrate evident incompetence.

Lorraine Vella

Nov 4th 2009, 07:31

if i go to a muslim school and there is someone wearing a burka, or there is a picture of Allah or Muhammed, or whatever it is that is against my traditions/likings, will these be removed?

J.Camilleri

Nov 4th 2009, 07:27

Eat your YES vote now ! This is just the beginning... abortion on it's way, divorce on it's way... wait and see.

George Portelli

Nov 4th 2009, 07:24

@M. Brincat and M. Attard

If crucifixes had to be removed from each classroom, I will be the first to go to school wearing a t-shirt with a crucifix on it as I am a teacher who believes in values. That way the crucifix will still be in every classroom I visit.

e frendo

Nov 4th 2009, 07:21

How about the Muslim countries accepting Catholic churches , and crucifixes in their classes now?? The west is trying to accomodate and bend backwards to make these people have it their own way everywhere ....how about these countries doing the same for western cultures? The European Courts of Human Rights SHOULD SEE that Human Rights are observed everywhere!! We should wake up before these cultures are taking over .........probably, they have already!

Alex Dalli

Nov 4th 2009, 07:19

Where are the Jesuits now? Any comments?

Clive Gerada

Nov 4th 2009, 07:02

Off with the Crucifix in Maltese schools as well! :), we have enough churches around to compensate!

Ramon Casha

Nov 4th 2009, 06:36

Although I am not upset by the sight of a crucifix or any other religious depiction, I don't like the idea of a law requiring all schools to have one. The crucifix is a beautiful symbol to many, but to others it depicts a corpse nailed to an ancient torture instrument, dripping blood.

Joseph Sammut

Nov 4th 2009, 06:30

This is one of the negatives of the EU: imposing issues on member states, bringing down all boundaries, which in time, would make all the same - lifeless without a character. What makes a muslim, a cathlic, a british, an italian, a german, a dutch, maltese? Some time ago, the EU wanted the british to make away with the pint - why? what possible good reason is there to do away with a time old thing?

Can't you see the magnitude of this issue: according to this decision, nations (because this does not affect Italy only) would have to change age old traditions just because one person complained. Isn't this out of proportion in every way and angle? Should national issues be judged so lightly? What has the world come to?

t. borg

Nov 4th 2009, 06:25

mhux ta' b'xejn hawn din il-mibgheda kollha! harsu x'qalu rigward dik il-persuna li qed jigi akkuzat bi stupru fuq in-neputija tieghu fin-1993 meta kien minuri! kwazi kollha qalu li ohtu wara dan is-snin kollha ma tahfirx lil huha ta' zbal li ghamel snin ilu. ohrajn riedu li jmur ghomru l-habs u sahansitra kien hemm min qal li ghandu jigi maqtul. dan mhux ghax nehhejna lil Alla minn qalbna?

Joseph ellul - Sydney

Nov 4th 2009, 06:05

Hi, in Australia there are no religious symbols in public schools, no corporal punishment and no discipline. The students love it. They swear at the teachers, fight between themselves and can skip school whenever they want, because the parents cannot touch them. We have the highest rate of illiterate school leavers and also the highest rate of dole bludgers straight from school. Most of the trades people are now imported from overseas, ready to work. Europe is not different and withen a few years your students will start blowing up cash machines for the money and stealing small amounts of money with force from anywhere they can. There is no respect for anyone.
IF YOU CANNOT STAND UP FOR THE CHRISTIAN SYMBOL THEN YOU WILL DESERVE THIS AND MORE.

Michael Grech

Nov 4th 2009, 05:22

Well done to the European Court of Human Rights. As a Christian I would like to see Christ in people's hearts and mind; not hanging on a wall and imposed upon my non-believing sisters and brothers by politicians, who are not normally the epitome of Christian living. With all the unchristian feelings and attitude of local Catholic at frenzy-pitch level (intolerance, self-centredness, racism, acceptance of injustice, hedonism, etc), it took this issue to wake up our dear bishop from his slumbers and make him remember that he has certain duties relating to public statements!

I just hope some local follows the example, and sue our bigoted and hypocritical state.

R Micallef

Nov 4th 2009, 03:51

This is a very complex issue. Maybe the court should have suggested the inclusion of other religious symbols. But Muslims have a problem with images, and atheists cannot be represented with a common symbol. Yet, a blank wall is also a biased ´solution´... it puts belief under the carpet as if it were not there. But it is there, and schools should be a context for healthy dialogue respecting each person´s identity, not silence and feigned indifference.

Let us however not make a big fuss on this. This is a sort of hype issue that tends to cover up the paganism of Italian ´realpolitik´. Furthermore, reducing the crucifix to a "cultural symbol" is almost blasphemous. Jesus is not just an fan-club sticker. That´s a brutally tortured man on that wall. And he is the Son of God. No wonder the Church strictly prohibited the symbolic representation of Christ (except using the symbol of the Paschal Lamb) until 692 (Quinisexte Council "in Trullo" - canons 73 and 82), and practically till Nicea II. And the ´naked´ and blood-drenched image we use today was not allowed till the late middle ages; before, only ´glorious´ and fully-clother crucifixes were allowed.

Joe Fenech

Nov 4th 2009, 01:27

Religion and education/work - not a good mix !

Archbishop - GET REAL!!!

Get those crucifixes off our school , university and office walls! The Middle Ages are over!

NATALIE BORG

Nov 4th 2009, 01:13

Faith is a way of living not an academical subject. The Crucifix reminds us of our faith. Religion is a subject to be learned in the classroom. We need to remain updated with the Church's teachings.

joseph Carmel Chetcuti

Nov 4th 2009, 01:13

I have absolutely nothing against the Cross. Notwithstanding the fact that I am an agnostic, I have quite a few at my home as well as a large collection of religious statues. The problem is that Christians abuse their privileged status in society and continually seek to impose their views. They deliberately confuse the secular with the religious, the personal with the public. They not only flaunt their religion (as do many others) and I do not have a problem with this but they get upset when others "flaunt" their sexuality. Double standards! They continually seek to convert others but "woe to thee" if you are a homosexual and you seek to "convert" others to "your cause". Cremona and his band of unhappy men have no right to insist on the Cross being in any public building. Those days are over. The minority, however small, that does not subscribe to their version of Christians morality and values has simply had enough.

Michael Asquith

Nov 4th 2009, 00:47

Muslims or any other religious bigots should not dictate what we do or don't do. Get rid of these medieval, frankly scary to children, symbols of a make believe bygone age.

Norbert Bugeja

Nov 4th 2009, 00:37

Removing the Crucifix?????

No way....in a country which is populated by majority of Muslims no one tells them to remove things which have to do with the Muslim religion.....so why should a country which is mostly populated by Catholics remove it????

i agree with archbishop cremona the crucifix should retain it's place in public places.

charles zammit

Nov 4th 2009, 00:27

if ever we should come to this situation archbishop cremona should chide those who voted yes in the eu referendum thats all there would be to it.....

henrybezzina

Nov 4th 2009, 00:27

Was Dom Mintoff right when he described europe of Abel and Europe of Cain.

Stephen Florian

Nov 4th 2009, 00:18

This is the beginning of EU Chaos. Europe is intrinsically Christian and predominantly Catholic and that is how it should stay. Our Christian values and symbols should be respected. What is the next EU bravado ? Perhaps Churches demolished, or churches turned into workshops, factories and museums like in the days of Soviet Russia. Look at Russia today, it has once more embraced its Maker. When shall we learn from other people's mistakes...? Is this a taste of French Repubblicanism ? Or the Spanish aconfessionalism? This is pure madness or bad history repeating itself. The work of old nick.? It is time for Catholic Malta to seriously reconsider its role and roadmap in such a Godless EU. Quo vadis EU ? What is the hidden agenda ? Why has the beloved Crucifix become unbearable to some ? What is the standpoint of Maltese MEP's on this ? What does Dr. Joanna Drake think about this ? It is time to stand up and be counted. Which values are we to embrace ?

J Muscat

Nov 4th 2009, 00:15

A crucifix in itself is not a guarantee of Christianity... but it's the figure of Jesus Christ himself which equals AUTHENTIC LOVE...

But it seems that the New Europe doesn't want to recognise this type of love...loving for your enemy and losing your life so that others may live...

It's funny though, that IF IT WEREN'T FOR THIS TYPE OF LOVE, the people who are claiming that a crucifix is an offense to their religion, belief or non-belief, would have not been accepted to come in Europe in the first place!!!

Well done Europe...another good step towards your self-destruction, since that's what you seem to be aiming at!

Steve Agius

Nov 4th 2009, 00:12

The crucifix is not only the symbol of our religion, but above all a symbol of the values that are at the base of our identity. Will they order Turkey to remove the crescent moon from all public buildings or the Muslims to remove their veils, if it “could disturb” Christians?

Frank Said

Nov 4th 2009, 00:09

We are Catholics living in a catholic country and in our schools we always had and we will continue to have the crucifix hanged on the walls. Any Muslim or whoever may be that feel offended with the crucifix should pack or make him pack and go back to his own country and there he/she may adore Mohamed or whoever he/she wants to. This is Malta, this is our country and foreigners have to either abide by our rules, by our customs, or otherwise they should go somewhere else. No European Court is going to impose on us such rulings.

I have to state that I made a big mistake when I voted in favour of membership because now I am beginning to realize that Europe has lost its roots, its Christian values and believes. I didn't vote in favour of such a Europe.

Sandro Agius

Nov 3rd 2009, 23:53

@M.Attard - dak tkellem ghalik...jekk kurcifiss idejqek....sinjal tajjeb....dak qieghed hemm minhabba fik ukoll

@Brincat - infakkru li l-ideali ta' Gesu Kristu bnew l-Ewropa u ghalhekk is-salib mhuwiex biss sinjal ta religjon imma fuq kollox juri li l-fuq min kull intelligenza hemm is-sens komun...li Alla jezisti u jhobb lill-umanita...Alla hekk habb id-dinja li baghat lil Ibnu l-Wahdieni...

Din il-kummiedja turi li l-Ewropa qeghda tichad l-gheruq taghha...u min jichad l-ommu huwa destinat ghar-rovina...u l-moralita bhalissa mhix xi gran che.

Dwar li r-religjon "is a private matter" - m'ghandekx ragun - tant huwa publiku li huwa fil-kultura taghna, fit-tradizzjonijiet u l-folklor, l-Innu Nazzjonali, fil-festi li jgibu ammont sostanzjali ta turisti....issa taf x'jonqos - xi Winter Festival flok il-Milied jew Spring Festival flok il-Gimgha l-Kbira....halluna!!!

Robert Bezzina

Nov 3rd 2009, 23:48

High IQ starts with respect towards people's beliefs. The cross is a sign of Christ's love towards us, of love, plain and simple. If one does not believe in God he should be unaffected by its presence. After all its just a symbol of love for a large religious community. And there is nothing wrong with love, even for an atheist, I must presume. So, what is all this fuss over crosses in schools? After all children are present in schools and they still need formation. So an atheist is strictly instructing his child to be an atheist? No, I believe these comments are from people with a grudge against the church for some reason or another or else their ego or self proclaimed intelligence is just looking down towards the catholic religion. Be it what it is its just one thing, a pity. It is obvious that being led by men, the church is not perfect and never will be. As many other things in life. Avoid looking for perfection and the details, look for the principles. The cross is one of them

Ryan Bugeja

Nov 3rd 2009, 23:42

Such rulings surprise me for one reason: Europe is always first to promote tolerance and living in diversity... and then it removes any symbol related to this diversity. Europe promotes inter-religious dialogue, but then removes any symbol that can lead to the dialogue. I just ask, why can't the ruling be to include the different symbols of the different religions rather than removing all? Is it so difficult?
@M. Attard: Spirituality, and the way one lives is private true... but religion in itself is qutie meant to be 'public'... people pray together in whatever religion... if you go to a mosque, church, or buddhist temple, you find people praying in groups...

Richard galea.

Nov 3rd 2009, 23:36

Thank God.....We are having some sense from Europe at last!

Next Move now......NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO INDOCTRINATE OUR BELOVED CHILDREN ANY KIND OF RELIGION AT LEAST UNTIL PUBERTY.........HALLOWEEN INCULDED.

Charles Grixti

Nov 3rd 2009, 23:36

Ordinarily, I would be all for it. As an Agnostic, I am in favour of a Secular State.

However, it is plainly obvious that was not done at the behest of the Secular State, the Protestants or the Jews, nor the Atheists or Agnostics, otherwise it would have been done decades ago.

This has become an issue now simply because the West is all out to appease the Islamic faith, the members of which are now strong enough in Europe to start making demands, and to erase our Judeo-Christian heritage that is the foundation of our European Civilization.

Therefore, on this basis alone, I am for the crucifixes to stay. And I call on all sane people who value life and liberty to do the same.

J.Spiteri

Nov 3rd 2009, 23:35

Archbishop Cremona said that should this situation arise in Malta one day .......
It's not a matter of ' if ' but rather ' when '. It's really sad that the reward for accepting immigrants, most of which entered Europe illegally, is that citizens of the host country have to change their rooted traditions so as not to ' offend' their uninvited guests. A 'not so bright' future is approaching ! This is only the beginning.

J.Spiteri

Nov 3rd 2009, 23:34

Archbishop Cremona said that should this situation arise in Malta one day .......
It's not a matter of ' if ' but rather ' when '. It's really sad that the reward for accepting immigrants, most of which entered Europe illegally, is that citizens of the host country have to change their rooted traditions so as not to ' offend' their uninvited guests. A 'not so bright' future is approaching ! This is only the beginning.

P.Ciantar

Nov 3rd 2009, 23:34

Unbelievable!!!!!!!! This is the EU mediocracy...

malcolm seychell

Nov 3rd 2009, 23:33

It is the price for diversity. Enjoy

Peter Bonnici

Nov 3rd 2009, 23:33

@ M Attard. You ought to visit some countries in the middle east and preach your teachings there, though I doubt if you'd make it back with your head still attached to your body.

@ M Brincat. Sadly I can understand your reasoning in a way. After all it does take an idiot to give up ones life for the love of others. Especially when its not appreciated.

Michael Caruana

Nov 3rd 2009, 23:28

The crucifix is a symbol of tolerance, meekness and salvation. Can the European Court impose its decision on country of some 60 million citizens because of the aaction of one person? What are referenda for may I ask!!

Kevin Camilleri

Nov 3rd 2009, 23:23

So you come in MY country, WITHOUT being welcomed, given MONEY from taxpayer's taxes, given education and all the dignity rights that you did not have in your country, and then you want and protest to remove the cross from the classrooms and public places? NO WAY!! No one asked you to come here, you are free to go back if you do not like our culture and tradition.

NO ONE is force to beleive or practice, but this does not remove the RIGHT for christians to have a cruxifix in public places in THEIR country. If in Malta this should happen, it will be mayhem. The Crucifix has to have a place in our classrooms.

Joseph Grech

Nov 3rd 2009, 23:22

"The presence of the crucifix ... could be encouraging for religious pupils, but also disturbing for pupils who practised other religions or were atheists, particularly if they belonged to religious minorities," - Well, I guess if that's the case, then crucifixes on top of (and inside!!) churches are just as disturbing. Do we bring them down?

Why does Jesus bother some people?

mike pace

Nov 3rd 2009, 23:17

Please Mr Government don;t given in to any different religions to make a stand and keep our right that we are Catholics and keep the Crucifix were its stands in our schools , in public places etc and if these mix religions complains they can pick up their belongs and go to their country of origin and leave us run our internal home affairs by ourselves as they do the same when they are in theirs.
A true Maltese Catholic he or she of any political stands must support the Maltese bishops with their rights to defends this crusade

Galea. L

Nov 3rd 2009, 23:17

It's a great shame. They want to change our way of life. If the government has and decency and guts it will defy them and tell them to go to hell. Those who don't like what we do they are free to go elsewhere.
It's about time countries leave the Council of Europe because they are interfering in our way of life. Let them rule themselves not rule over us.

Ivan Scicluna

Nov 3rd 2009, 23:17

Nobody has a right to impose on, or try to influence the public in favour of any religion. I agree with the decision in Italy.

p.grima

Nov 3rd 2009, 23:10

With so many opinions, advertisments, sex, violence, etc, being pumped daily on all media, why should a crucifix be so offensive?

If I don't like a program on any media I simply switch off or change channels; likewise whoever is offended by the crucifix can simply ignore it or look the other way.

This is yet another attack on Christianity and all that is Christian.

JBrownie

Nov 3rd 2009, 23:04

This is a new low as far as the Italian Court has managed to dip. Europe is built on Christian values and Christianity defines its very identity - it is a most absurd decision of these Courts ,which should forcibly be resisted across all Europe not by Italians only . No wonder that sound morality and the social fabric of entire societies across Europe are crumpling like sugar pastries.

Andre Rizzo

Nov 3rd 2009, 22:58

This is a big victory for human rights protection and secularism and a big blow to indoctrination and christian dogma forced down children´s throats. Well done to the ECHR for such a forward-thinking judgment. Of course people like Buttiglione, Frattini and Berlusconi will slam the judgment but we all know where these guys are coming from.

Andrew Paris

Nov 3rd 2009, 22:56

Shocking decision which takes no account of the traditions and values of Christian Europe. God forbid that this should ever be contemplated in Malta

Alex Borg

Nov 3rd 2009, 22:55

Agree totally. Religion is a private matter. Catholics should not feel offended if crucifixes are not affixed to classrooms or public offices.

MBorg

Nov 3rd 2009, 22:53

@ M Attard & M.Brincat

No that is not how it should be, and no it is not a good decision. Religion has a place in our classrooms. Malta is a catholic country and nobody should have the right to make us remove the Crucifix from classrooms and public places.

Archbishop Cremona is right if the situation should ever arise in Malta all Maltese Christians should insist that the crucifix retains its place in public places.

The European Court of Human Rights should not have the power to play about with our faith.

Anthony Bezzina

Nov 3rd 2009, 22:50

@M. Brincat
I wonder how you seem to have arrived to the conclusion that the removal of the Crucifix from a class room could encourage high IQ attitudes? As if the Catholics are less intelligent than the non-Catholics! Go and tell it to the marines.
@M Attard
Religion is a way of living and hence it is not that private........ Even with the Catholic Religion embedded in our Constitution, the Crucifixes should remain in our classrooms.

Paul Barrett

Nov 3rd 2009, 22:45

Really why do people get so very uptight about these things - is it really so very important one way or the other. I would have thought that the emphasis should be on the lesson, not the decoration of the classroom.
May your God be with you.

Tania Walters

Nov 3rd 2009, 22:44

If the majority of the people are catholics, then the minority should respect that. Otherwise it will be another form of dictatorship. A free democratic country means respect for everyone regardless not adjusting one's principles and beliefs to please the other. If I migrate to a muslim or hindi country I should not expect or impose on them to remove their icons and replace them with a crucifix. If the new migrants don't like it, they can always go back where they came from.

Adrian Borg

Nov 3rd 2009, 22:35

Whether you belive or not in Christianity, as Maltese we should stick to having crufixes in classrooms and public places. This is a symbol, part of our culture.

Are we going to let people from other countries invade us and impose on us what we can show and what we cannot in our country? NEVER!

If we ban crucifixes, then we should ban that silly dress the Muslim women cover themselves all over with!

C A Camilleri

Nov 3rd 2009, 22:34

Personally its not a matter of the crucifix or not. It is a matter of a minority imposing over a majority. Just look at the Politically correct English. They have become strangers in their own country. Sad. You want to call me a racist, go ahead then I am one and proud.

M Agius

Nov 3rd 2009, 22:32

'The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion.' - Karl Marx

Alex Ellul

Nov 3rd 2009, 22:28

What the despotic Communist regimes managed to carry out by brute force in Russia, Poland, Albania, Romania, China, etc, is being perpetrated now by the atheists that have managed to make it to the top echelons of power in the 'new' Europe and the UN. One day even our street names dedicated to Christian saints will have to be renamed for political-correctness sake. Most probably even the crosses on the church spires will have to be removed and maybe we Christians will be tagged with special ID's, our children attending 'special' educational classes, we will be taxed even, for burning candles and thus contributring to global warming.....However the communist regimes finally fell like a pack of cards, the reason being that their power was top-down. Real Democracies get their power are bottom-up. Now let's see who the real Christian politicians in Malta are? Adenhauer, De Gaule and De Gasperi, the Christian founding fathers of the European union must be turning in their graves.

Tessie Orsini

Nov 3rd 2009, 22:26

Christianity is our culture. The crucifix is the sign of our culture and should be displayed in all public places.

Andy Towler

Nov 3rd 2009, 22:16

A further, welcome, nail in the coffin of fascism.

Eleonora Bonnici

Nov 3rd 2009, 22:10

Good judgement!!! If all the crucifiexes in public places and all the madonnas at mater dei are not removed by 31-12-2009 I will personally go to the same court to get them removed.

Marisa Bugeja

Nov 3rd 2009, 22:08

Right; if we are obliged to take the crucifix off the wall, each student can take one to school with him/her and put it on his desk-that way there won't be one crucifix per class but thirty! No one can stop an individual from professing his faith.

D Buttigieg

Nov 3rd 2009, 22:08

Wrong decision for two main reasons: (i) you don't achieve freedom of worship by banning religious symbols and (ii) this will ultimately lead to further intolerance as minorities will be blamed for the removal of the Crucifix - From now one those who didn't ever bother about religion will use religion to their own ends.

J. Sammut

Nov 3rd 2009, 22:04

@M.Brincat
I wonder how one can improve one's IQ just by removing Crucifixes from schools. How does a Crucifix hinder one's IQ. Are we CHRISTIANS or what?
Archbishop Paul Cremona's comment deserves praise.

Sylvia Zammit

Nov 3rd 2009, 22:03

M.Brincat - and M.Attard have a right to their opinion, but so do the rest of us! If it does not mean anything to you - it should not bother you.if it does signify the crucified Christ to you, then shame on you both for rejecting it. Personally, I object to the fact that the Italians see it as 'just part of their culture' - ie, on a par with bullfighting in Spain etc etc.

Andrew Paris

Nov 3rd 2009, 22:02

Pork products will be banned next by Europe because it is offensive to some.
I renember in history of people who try to change society because they thought it was right without letting the people choose. It resulted in 2 World Wars and the destruction of Europe.

K. Pullicino

Nov 3rd 2009, 22:01

I'm going to use an argument, liberals are so much in love with: "If you don't like it, don't look at it."

@M.Brincat: "Good decision when considering schools need to encourage high iQ attitudes." Obviously, our University has students with a high IQ level, otherwise they wouldn't be discussing condoms and how it's acceptable to publish obscenities.

c.caruana

Nov 3rd 2009, 21:57

Crucifixs are there only to give more power to the church because with every symbol, the chruch is having a social space. you can see religious symbols everywhere, maybe it's time for change.

Ivan Attard

Nov 3rd 2009, 21:56

The insatiable, all-devouring appetite for Multiculturalism is taking it's toll all over Europe. When the last symbols of its cultural and religious heritage are obliterated, Europe will be ripe for the Muslim takeover. It will then be the turn of the church buildings and stone crucifixes scattered all over the continent which once stood sentinel over its inhabitants.
...and all this with the blessing of some pathetically naive and misguided citizens of this once proud continent called Europe! The wolf is no longer howling at the door - it is within.
Long live diversity! O what beauty lies in Multiculturalism!

Eric Gahn

Nov 3rd 2009, 21:56

It is high time religion be given its rightful standing in society. I am not going to speak for muslims, jews, buddhists or any other religion. I speak for those who like me simply do not beleive in any religion.

Malta (yes this little island) is no longer the blind catholic country it was. People have learned to read, and think. Society should wake up to the fact that if one believes that their sin will put them in hell, others simply believe otherwise, or nothing at all. Why should everyone suffer their so called piety. Nothing religuously significant should be allowed in public places not just crosses.

I also raise a point on religous education itself. Schools should be teaching 'Religions of the World' (seeing how many people seem to want to believe in magic) or simple 'Ethics' and not just bang the one brainwashing drum of Roman Catholic Dogma where 1+1 = 3.

(please note I am not attacking Roman Catholicism but all religions).

Jesmond Micallef

Nov 3rd 2009, 21:45

How can a culture exist without a faith ?

Henry S Pace

Nov 3rd 2009, 21:41

What do you expect from a godless Europe. Look at the Libon Treaty no reference to God.
Europe was built on christianity now whoever proclaims God is being subdued and admonished. Europe has no values whatsoever.

Roderick Bajada

Nov 3rd 2009, 21:41

If this happens in Malta, all the Curia could do is say "mea culpa, mea culpa".........

Charmaine Galea

Nov 3rd 2009, 21:27

What should be taught in classrooms is basic morality which is common to all religions - let's leave out man-invented dogma.

Kids should be taught only what helps them in their moral and spiritual development. It's the right of our children once of age, to feel which religion they ought to follow.

We have to quit our blinkered reasoning that "us catholics" are always right.

"A man arrives at the gates of heaven.
St. Peter asks, "Religion?"
The man says, "Muslim."
St. Peter looks down his list, and says, "Go to room 24.
But be very quiet as you pass room 8."

Another man arrives at the gates of heaven.
St. Peter: "Religion"?
Man: "Buddhist."
St. Peter: "Go to room 18. But be very quiet as you pass
room 8."

A third man arrives at the gates.
St. Peter: "Religion?"
Man: "Jewish."
St. Peter: "Go to room 11. But be very quiet as you pass
room 8."

The man asks, "I can understand there being different rooms
for different religions, but why must I be quiet when I pass
room 8?"

St. Peter tells him, "Well, the Catholics are in room 8,
and they think they're the only ones here."

Emile Cassar

Nov 3rd 2009, 21:25

I think the Monsinjur is wrong to consider it his duty to insist that we keep the cross in public places. Religion is a private matter... Jesus was the first to emphasize this.

Emile Cassar

Nov 3rd 2009, 21:23

I agree in principle, but in practice I'm not so sure it's a necessary measure. I think it is insensitive of a non-Italian to raise the issue. Ideally an Italian atheist raised it.

Dr Sandro Vella

Nov 3rd 2009, 21:21

I am sure many will agree that the Catholic faith embraces the values cherished by the majority of Maltese citizens. Beyond its theological teachings, Christianity has moulded Europe and its values of democracy, freedom, justice and ethical bahaviour. We cannot afford to negate our origins and values, unless we want to risk a downward spiral towards anarchy. The Maltese Government is duty bound to resist any such maneuvre.

Sean Mangion

Nov 3rd 2009, 21:16

Christ is alive, His word is alive, and the duty of every Christian is to spread His message so that everyone shall have life.

Yes the Crucifix should remain in all public places in Malta and throughout the world !!

Our children should be raised in Gods love and in a Christian ambience. The Crucifix is an important symbol of how much Jesus has suffered for us so that we would be free, happy, saved and content in the union with God.

W Spencer

Nov 3rd 2009, 21:12

@ M Brincat & M Attard

You miss the whole point !!! Crucifixes this time, what next ??? The ECHR decides what YOU will do or not do, you will have no say !!

Amanda Ellul

Nov 3rd 2009, 21:11

What's next? Maltese women wearing the burqa, for otherwise it may offend some illegal? It'd be up in arms, fighting tooth and nail should anyone dare to force a similar thing down the throats of the ordinary Maltese.

Robert mifsud

Nov 3rd 2009, 21:06

prosit Archbishop,wake us up before its too late,lets not pave the way for the king of darkness and evil.Sewwa jieghdu id dinja sejra lura.Is it the begining of the end ? These are not good signs at all guys !

Dennis Zammit

Nov 3rd 2009, 21:04

If atheists feel that the Holy Crucifix is a threat to them, then they should run a Referendum in Malta and dream of winning it.

The Maltese in a vast majority are Roman Catholics and we will defend our right over those who want to impose theirs. The Crucifix must STAY and local churches and parishes should start a tradition of creating major crosses around the island just like the one in Kordin.

The say of the majority is the rule.

ALBERT FENECH

Nov 3rd 2009, 21:01

Well said Archbishop Cremona. If there were any attempt to inflict this insult and injustice on Malta, it should be resisted in every way possible. This is a Christian, Roman Catholic country with centuries of tradition and no upstart Brussels bureaucrats are going to change that. If anybody is offended then it's their tough luck. We should never be afraid to show our sentiments and must continue to show our love for the Christian faith by manifesting and showing our traditions.

david vella

Nov 3rd 2009, 21:01

Let's not make these decisions effect us and keep our own beliefs as Christ the King our saviour!! It clearly shows the EU as the antichrist! Guilty of apostacy even those who support such decisions! Human rights? Where? by allowing abortions or euthanasia to go ahead? They don't know what they're doing? But anyhow, he's forgiven them too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FORZA ITALIA fight for your religion & tradition - an ENGLAND fan!!!

D.Zammit

Nov 3rd 2009, 20:57

indeed it's very sad.I don't care how many immigrants come to my country ,or members of other religions, but one must understand that this is My Home country, and all other foreigners must except my believes since i respect them. I hope the Parliament for once be united in this issue.

Frans Sammut

Nov 3rd 2009, 20:55

May I register my full support for the stand taken by Archbishop Cremona? Why the Crucifix offend students in any classroom is simply beyond me.

M.BEZZINA

Nov 3rd 2009, 20:55

Qiskom tisthu turu li intom insara!Mur f xi post musulman u tara tridx taddatta ghalijom!!

Ant Anthony

Nov 3rd 2009, 20:51

So i must assume that we have degraded society to the extent that we can now make a mockery of our justice system that will not require anybody to take an oath for testifying in court, and that our politicians will be relieved for not having to take an oath to serve our Country, as it would offend some in our society.
Hypocrites
Matthew 10:33 “But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven

John Borg

Nov 3rd 2009, 20:50

@M.Brincat
The crucifix is the ONLY cetainty !
The ONLY One 100% reliable and will NEVER let you down!
very very high IQ indeed!!!!!!

Miguel Micallef

Nov 3rd 2009, 20:48

Finally. Some good sense and logic being forced upon these hypocrites. This is the good of being in the EU.

I hope the appeal gets rejected. Crucifixes can remain in churches, where they belong.

Josette Camilleri

Nov 3rd 2009, 20:36

I encourage acceptance of other religions but I wouldn't betray my relgion. Will Muslims refrain from praying in public when not in Muslim countries? Will they stop wearing veils when not in Muslim countries? Jesus' place is everywhere not just the classrooms and yet we barter him so as not to 'disturb' other religions.

Joseph Seisun

Nov 3rd 2009, 20:35

Welcome to the EU. Welcome to political correctness, the new EU religion. These are just the first symptoms. What's next? No prayers at school?
I agree with the Archbishop's opinion. I just hope that if we Maltese are truly Chrsitians, we shall not accept this.

fredmallia

Nov 3rd 2009, 20:33

Dr Sant was right. the gonzipn must say something on this. but we know that we have a 'yes' gonzipngovernment.
fred

Charles Zammit

Nov 3rd 2009, 20:33

@ M. Attard
However private religion is Catholicism is what gave this people and many others a true way of life based on correct moral behaviour. There is nothing wrong in manifesting a people's beliefs. Democracy is about respecting the majority's views and desires too.

@ M. Brincat

I don't know where you got these assertions from. To me it is exactly the opposite. I feel more comfortable with the crucifix nearby. It gives me true reassurance. I am more than 100% sure that many others feel the same.

Jason Borg

Nov 3rd 2009, 20:32

Religion is has place everywhere for us Christians, because it is a way of life.

E.Muscat

Nov 3rd 2009, 20:31

@Brincat and Attard:what does IQ have to do with one's beliefs and religion is not only a private matter when we christians are being systematically told to submit to other religions and to deny our judeo-christian roots:europe is a lost soul ready and willing to be taken over by heathens and atheists who will sacrifice our heritage in the name of correctness to other religions who are hell bent to take away our freedom:wake up and use your head!

J S Borg

Nov 3rd 2009, 20:29

Just wait another twenty years, and you all will forget about freedom of worship and freedom of expression, when you will be dominated by a better religion other than Christianity. then you won't have time to argue and discus religious freedom.

Mario Cucciardi

Nov 3rd 2009, 20:28

Jesus poured all 3.5 litres of his blood; He had three nails hammered into his members; a crown of thorns on his head and, beyond that, a Roman soldier who stabbed a spear into his chest. Not just a simple crucifix we have on walls, but a reality which is trying to be made forgotten and denied.

No doubt that Jesus suffered and died for this particular decision as well.

Albert Farrugia

Nov 3rd 2009, 20:21

Funny isnt it? What is it that makes the depiction of a man dead on a cross such a powerful symbol, of which so many are so afraid? Who knows. Maybe the time will come when people will actually have to die for the right to be able to kneel in front of it.

Darren Buttigieg

Nov 3rd 2009, 20:21

About time this happened in Malta and Gozo.

Charles Sammut

Nov 3rd 2009, 20:21

Catholics cannot have their cake and eat it too. They are invariably the most vociferous where 'tolerance' towards other cultures, creeds and races is concerned. It would be highly hypocritical should they insist on imposing their creed on others.

This is a most welcome decision by the ECHR and the Maltese government should keep up its tradition of being more European than the EU and remove all crucifixes forthwith from all public places, schools, law courts, government departments, hospital etc.

The Maltese constitution will also have to be changed because it is biased in favour of Roman Catholicism and this clearly violates the human rights of the tens of thousands of immigrants who have been welcomed to Malta over the past few years.

Norman Stivala

Nov 3rd 2009, 20:20

I suppose M.Attard and M.Brincat will soon advocate that we should remove all traces of our God from our country. Let us not stop at class rooms. Shall we remove all the effigies that remind us that there actually is a God. Sometimes I cannot believe where this country is going. Do the 2 M's also think we should remove churches, I am sure by doing so it will increase the IQ of a lot of people. I thank you for your input M&M but I think the rest of us have rights too and although at my age I only go to evening classes I will not tolerate the removal of the cross, if someone does not like it all he needs do is not look at it. Praised be the name of God forever
Norman

M. White

Nov 3rd 2009, 20:20

Italy is one of the most important countries with deep Christian values. Why should it remove the sign of its religion because of some others who are different????
It is the foreigners should change or at least tolerate the country's religion instead of trying to change the country's culture!!

So ok if we remove the crosses, muslims should remove their veils because it irritates some Christians. So is this fair? Where's the true tolerance?


Muslims have made a promise to overcome Christianity and their plan is coming to action.

L Aquilina

Nov 3rd 2009, 20:18

What next, close the vatican?? Bloggers who wrote defending this decision must have one huge chip on their shoulder.

Michael Borg

Nov 3rd 2009, 20:18

Welcome to malta boat people yes you can decide and rule our country as well what wrong with that !

E. Inglott

Nov 3rd 2009, 20:15

Public schools should not decorate their classrooms with expressions of any religion. Not everyone has the same beliefs and public schools should be neutral in that respect.

Where a school is a (private) church school, or a private school organized by Jewish/Buddhist/Muslim institutions for that matter, then expressions of their respective religions should be allowed; parents would send their children to these schools precisely because of the role that that particular religion plays in its educational program. But, once again, I think that state schools should be religion-neutral.

S Aquilina

Nov 3rd 2009, 20:14

Il-kurcifiss gie l-ewwel. Min ma joghgbux jitlaq.

A.Cassar

Nov 3rd 2009, 20:13

Next it will be our processions that have to go as by walking the streets of the general public of the European Union , even if you are here illegally , with a " Catholic " statue might seriously insult the belief and freedom of movement of others !!!

I Abela

Nov 3rd 2009, 20:13

This is unbelievable. What is disturbing is the fact that an immigrant has won a court case against a sovereign nation which is hosting her, in which this single immigrant complained against a crucifix, which has been hanging there for ages, to which the Italian people never complained (anzi they consider it part of their lifestyle). So there goes hundreds of years of christianity, simply because a muslim forced her way into the country and is now trying to impose her lifestyle onto those citizens (citing as usually, their human rights). Why don't these people just stay in their countries, live their lifestyle there, and fight for their human rights there ??

J Bajada

Nov 3rd 2009, 20:09

This is another proof that Islam is on the rise and it will soon be the main religion across the world, having the power to rule on everyone and everything. Christian traditions will simply evaporate.

John Michael Mizzi

Nov 3rd 2009, 20:07

The church has every right to put her symbols in her buildings and schools.
The church or other religions have NO right to impose their symbols in secular state buildings or schools and that includes Malta. If the church imposes its symbols on the government than it is making a gross mistake because it shows that it is still stuck in its old ways. The church has to start showing some respect to the general public that use state buildings and schools irrespective of their beliefs.

Any Progressive State is secular and cannot impose any religious symbols of any religion on its citizens. If we argue about tradition and culture than that is purely puerile. In the past it was the church's tradition to pass heretics to the inquisition of which some were burnt in the most horrendous ways. Obviously in this case it could not continue with this tradition.

A.Cassar

Nov 3rd 2009, 20:05

There we go a Catholic Country by history and home of the Vatican . Yet you are in your country and instead of outsiders respecting your cultures and traditions , they start first by removing your traditions and beliefs , next they will make you respect theirs as they will call themselves an ethnic minority . Malta is not far away from this , realise that if there is a court ruling in place it is to be effective in all EU countries . Go on fall out with your own about being gay , lesbian and transgender . These are your own blood . The others enjoy these issues as whilst we waste time on these issues they are taking over . And were is the church in this matter ? Is this the same church that encouraged people to vote for the EU entry ? Now the Archbishop wants us to fight on his behalf ? Well the battle is over as the ruling is out and we have to abide to it ? Hooray for the multicultural followers !!

A Pulis

Nov 3rd 2009, 20:04

Indeed the place of religion is everywhere, even in our classrooms! If we strongly believe in Jesus we should promote his word and deeds everywhere. Sincerely I do hope this island is not influenced by this poor person's attitude. Europe should be ashamed for betraying Jesus Christ - first it betrayed the catholic values and now it is betraying our master.

Vincent Galea

Nov 3rd 2009, 20:04

My God, I am ashamed to lift my God, my face unto you.

Michael Vella

Nov 3rd 2009, 20:04

Personally i am absolutely disusted by this ruling. I am not a practicing Catholic but i strongly believe that each country has the RIGHT to decide for itself which religion is the state religion. The fact the the European Court has decided this for Italy just goes to show that Europe has absolutely no regard for the individual cultural identity of it's member states. Why should a whole country have to change it's beliefs and culture to accomodate foreigners with a different religious view, whether it be Muslim, Hindu or anything other religion for that matter.

ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING!!!

I would love to go to Saudi Arabia or Iran and demand that Sharia Law be outlawed in favour of a more liberal code of laws. I would probably be executed for my troubles.But not in Europe, we strive to destroy our cultural heritage to accomodate beliefs of anyone non-european. Put simply the EU has today shown that it is a complete joke!

Mark Wattson

Nov 3rd 2009, 20:00

Totally agree with M.Attard religion is indeed a private matter and should not have place in schools. It is bad enough it brings wars through out the world, there is no need to teach our children hatred from the early days.

Reuben Gauci

Nov 3rd 2009, 19:58

The crucifix is a symbol of our culture. We have a right to a SECULAR life, and a right to our CULTURE!!!

mary camilleri

Nov 3rd 2009, 19:54

today's reading from Romans 12: 10 - 16 says it all:

Let love be sincere;
hate what is evil,
hold on to what is good;
love one another with mutual affection;
anticipate one another in showing honor.
Do not grow slack in zeal,
be fervent in spirit,
serve the Lord.
Rejoice in hope,
endure in affliction,
persevere in prayer.
Contribute to the needs of the holy ones,
exercise hospitality.
Bless those who persecute you,
bless and do not curse them.
Rejoice with those who rejoice,
weep with those who weep.
Have the same regard for one another;
do not be haughty but associate with the lowly.

Sara Baldacchino

Nov 3rd 2009, 19:52

@M Attard
If its a private matter why is it that we teach religion in our schools??

Erin Ciantar

Nov 3rd 2009, 19:51

I would like to make something clear before the usual backlash against immigrants and muslims and different religions starts.

I am maltese, pure maltese with no history of immigration for many generations that I know of. I also am not a catholic or a christian. Do I and my children not have a right to be given a secular education? This has nothing to do with accepting the traditions of a country as this is MY country and should have the right not to be bombarded with religious images everywhere I go. The only schools which should be allowed to show the cross are the church schools. Government schools should be for everyone.

Well done to the european court. This a victory to human rights, dignity, respect and true freedom. I look forward to this decision being imposed in Malta too.

Sara Baldacchino

Nov 3rd 2009, 19:45

Those who come among us must understand and accept our rules and that's it. Shame to them for wanting to remove the crucifix, what else would they want us to do, go else where so they could rule the whole Europe jew? Go back from where you came from.

R. Gauci

Nov 3rd 2009, 19:45

@ M Attard & M Brincat

I'm not a religious person, anzi, but with your attitude in a couple of decades we could easily end up with the koran as a compulsory school textbook. If you want to keep living in a civilised country, unlike many Muslim ones, "our" religion is the first barrier, once this barrier is broken Muslim brainwashers will have fertile ground to accomplish their mission, that is take the World, they couldn't accomplish it by force so now they're using other ways.

Then in Italy out of all places! VERGOGNA!!!!

L. Cutajar

Nov 3rd 2009, 19:44

A very sad world. Why don't we all change our religion to that of Islam as from tomorrow. It seems that Muslims have more rights than catholics.

alex grech

Nov 3rd 2009, 19:44

I am not a religious person but this is absurd removing the crucifix because of muslims, first they enter illegaly, then settle in reap our beniftis, housing , jobs education and now remove the crucifix as it could disturb children who were not Christians wow i wonder if this can hapen in their country (which i do not agree also) will we be next ............

Rocco Cauchi

Nov 3rd 2009, 19:42

Pity such a decision is being interpreted so misunderstandingly by several politicians going against it. They only want to safeguard the presence of the crucifix for historical, cultural and sentimental reasons, little understanding its value and glory when assuming its defence. It would now be up to the Bishops' Conference in Italy, as it should well be to the local Bishops' Conference, to explain the real significance of the Crucifix, the same way it used to be expounded in the old days when trendy homilies or Sunday church dialogues were inexistent and priests used to seize the opportunity at any time to preach Christ, and Christ crucified, an ignominy for Jews and a folly for Greeks, in St Paul's words.
It is senseless claiming that the Crucifix hurts non-Christians. The Cross is a sign of acceptance of God's will and story given out of His love for each individual, something local baptized Christians rarely understand given the elementary religion (not faith) they have been taught in their doctrine classes.
This is where the Church in Malta and Italy should now step in, with vehement catechesis on the real significance of the Cross and man's adherence to doing God's will.

Sergio Galea Vincenti

Nov 3rd 2009, 19:42

There is only one word to describe this judgement: Disgusting.

It's become so cool to denigrate our common heritage and our Faith.... In the meantime, we are losing our moral compass... Wonder why?

M.Gauci

Nov 3rd 2009, 19:41

This ruling in my opinion is dangerous and could spark ethnic divisions. One has to be careful, we cannot go to Israel and ask them not to display their religious items in public places because we are Christian.
We cannot in future complain that Churches should not display any icon on their facade because a person with a different religion use the road and has a right to without feeling that the cross on the church affects him. Do you realise that this is absurd and that in future we'll have to dismantle churches not to offend. Offend what/whom/how?

Do I get offended when I pass corradion hill and see the Mosque. No. Its a symbol of devotion for 1000s of Muslims, who are adoring God. Its a symbol of peace and humanity. Does a Budhist temple affect me? NO for the same reasons.
What really affects me is having pictures of the President / Prime minister in government departments (and I am PN inclined!).

The Cross in school signifies peace and love and also culture, however not subversion to Catholic religion.

Robert Sultana

Nov 3rd 2009, 19:41

I remember back in 2003 those MIC clips on national TV ; one of them was precisely about class crucifixes and if here in Malta we would be allowed to keep them. The answer was always very reassuring; namely that we would decide for ourselves and that the EU would have no say in it. Seems the birds have come home to roost !!!

Joseph Micallef

Nov 3rd 2009, 19:41

With the logic of the same court ruling Italy should dismantle most of its historic monuments, churches and statues from streets, piazzas, museums etc. as most have religious connotations! Italy without Catholicism hardly exists - even if most people are non practicing Catholics, Catholicism is part of Italy as a culture more than as a religion! The court ruling is simply ridiculous!

Sander Depasquale

Nov 3rd 2009, 19:37

UH OH!!!!

Malta must remove the crucifix from our schools too!!!! Dear Maltese throw away your culture and your beliefs.....Its incredible!!!! What happened in Italy must happen here.

Yes allow the other religions to take over, we will be much better off......

HUMAN BEING NEEDS SPIRITUALITY!

JC Mifsud

Nov 3rd 2009, 19:34

Id-dinja spiccat, din kien jonqos. Mhux hekk jigu gewwa pajjizi u jnehhu r-religjon li ilhu jhaddan dan il-pajjiz ghal hafna snin, umbaghad issib xi laqgha bhal t'hawn taht u jighdulek li sew jaghmlu.

misskom tisthu tighdu li inthom maltin

E.Galea

Nov 3rd 2009, 19:31

I don't agree at all. If i go to a muslim country they will not accomodate things for me!!! Everyone must accept other countries traditions.

Maria Zammit

Nov 3rd 2009, 19:31

Bad decision. I vote in favour of removing all advertisements from public places!!!

Of course one cannot do that because there's money involved!!! We really are cheap!

Why is it that we are expected to change just because persons from other countries decide to settle in our country? Does the same apply to the countries from where immigrants are coming? Do we dictate to them what they should do in their own country!!! Mhux hekk tghid!

T Mifsud

Nov 3rd 2009, 19:30

This is very sad news.

Although Mr M Brincat and M Attard have their own opinion, we are not here to erase centuries of history and culture that has formed us to what we are today. Should this generation erase that?

Should this mean that the Muslims have to do the same in their country, starting from the broadcasted prayers at 4am to the whole village or city and the TV program interruptions with the Koran reading? Should we accept that the Muslims are pushing away embedded European Christian values, by the day? Should we remove "in God we trust" just because there are other religions who do not believe in God? And now removing crosses from schools in Roman Catholic Italy, the epicenter of the Church?

The way forward is what France is doing. banning the Burkas and Abayas, forcing immigrants to learn French and even sing the French national Anthem.

Let not Malta arrive to that situation. It's not even debatable!

Franco Farrugia

Nov 3rd 2009, 19:30

I disagree with both Mr Brincat and Mr Attard. I, as an educator, would NEVER teach in a class where there is no crucifix. Religion is not a private matter: it is also a community thing - a matter shared by many. It also happens to form part of our origin.
I, honestly, find it .. let's say, strange, that we have people who find it insulting to be faced with a crucifix.
This rulng is an eye-opener.

Darren Galea

Nov 3rd 2009, 19:28

Depictions of ancient methods of execution shouldn't be hung up on our school walls. We have churches for that.

I M Dingli

Nov 3rd 2009, 19:26

@ M. Brincat, M. Attard

Are you serious? From your comments, I guess you wouldn't find a problem in enforcing such judgement in Malta.

So Muslims can be angry if a drawing of Mohammed is used but we cannot hang a crucifix in a classroom. Is this equality and respect? Unbelievable. They would shout Jihad if something similar had to happen in their respective countries and I'm sure it wouldn't just end there.

Sandro Pace

Nov 3rd 2009, 19:24

Italy should indeed disobey this ruling with firmness, as should Malta in such a case. This is not a State-Church seperation issue. It is a democratic issue. The majority would want it there, and there it should remain. Complete Religion-State seperation is an utopia.

Mr. M Brincat, Isaac Newton was a fervent Christian, so I cannot understand the connection with IQ.

I understand that those arguing against the Cross in public cases, would declare that they would not want it even on their final resting place.

Stephen Farrugia

Nov 3rd 2009, 19:23

Now our church will suffer from their own promotion of multiculturism. Enjoy your shortsightedness !

With love,

Stephen Farrugia (Sliema)

Malcolm Mifsud

Nov 3rd 2009, 19:22

This is a very dangerous ruling as it threatens the rights of millions of people in many other aspects. Hasn't the European Court of Human Rights anything better to do? Why not try to solve, or at least give more attention to the problem of illegal immigration for instance?

Chris Reiff

Nov 3rd 2009, 19:22

A big and important step towards a secular society.

v mercieca

Nov 3rd 2009, 19:20

Europe was built on Christian values and the crucifix is the symbol of Christianity.
New arrivals to our continent have to respect our traditions, not necessary adopt our religion.
They knew beforehand that the European continent is mainly Christian, so they knew what they were in for.
Europe should adopt a rule that citizenship given to these new comers, would be withdrawn if they refuse to integrate with the rest of us.
I believe that the European Court made an ass of itself to rule in such a way. The Court ignored the sentiments of hundreds of millions to please a few hundreds.

D.Abdilla

Nov 3rd 2009, 19:19

Muslim taking over Europe: 60% complete
Europe Losing it's Culture: 90% complete

A. Muscat

Nov 3rd 2009, 19:19

"If the crucifix is there and I am a Muslim I will continue to respect my religion. Jesus in the classroom doesn't bother me," Zenat, a 14-year-old girl of Egyptian origin, told Reuters Television.’

You are absolutely right Ms. Zenat. Ironically, Jesus is recognized, loved, respected and most importantly his teaches are FOLLOWED by all Muslims than His followers!

One thing for sue Lowell-ismists would will a political mileage now.
I notice that my comments don’t appear. Is it an internet problem or cencorship issue?

Carmel J. Caruana

Nov 3rd 2009, 19:17

"Two Italian laws dating from the 1920s, when the FASCISTS were in power, state that schools must display crucifixes."

Something to reflect upon.

E. Psaila

Nov 3rd 2009, 19:15

...help them with your comments...don't you see that this is what they want...they want to achieve what they did not in 1565...

M.Brincat

Nov 3rd 2009, 19:07

Good decision when considering schools need to encourage high iQ attitudes.

M Attard

Nov 3rd 2009, 19:05

Religion is a private matter and that's how it should be. It has no place in our classrooms.