Simon Oosterman, Sliema
Crucifix controversy continues (1)
The European Court of Human Rights' (EHCR) ruling banning crucifixes from classrooms in Italian State schools has produced a surfeit of emotional comments but an astounding deficit of straight forward logical analyses.
From the emotional reactions, one would have to conclude that the judges are, at best, ignoramuses and quite possibly conspirators intent on destroying Europe's cultural heritage. However, nothing could be further from the truth.
Let us look at the facts. The ECHR exists to safeguard the fundamental rights of the individual against the dictates of the majority. Italy is a secular state. Children are obliged to attend school. It is their right not to be constantly confronted by religious symbols while attending schools run by this secular state.
Clear and logical. I have been unable to come up with any arguments to justify a different decision.
Claire Bonello (The Sunday Times, November 15) quotes reactions from selected readers of The Guardian, presumably because she agrees with them. One says: "If Catholics are supposed to tolerate pictures of crucifixes submerged in urine, why should an agnostic object to a cross?" When and where did she, or The Guardian reader, see a picture of a cross submerged in urine in a classroom of a state-run school?
The next argument, shared by Mark-Anthony Falzon, is that the cross really does not make an impression on the students so there is no need to remove it.
But, of course, this argument cuts both ways: if the cross is ignored by the students anyway, there is no reason to leave it on the wall, let alone get emotional about it.
Then there is the argument that it is divisive, that there was great uproar following similar decisions in Italy and Bavaria. Then again, as the Maltese court pointed out in the VAT fraud case, judges are supposed to uphold the law, not pander to public opinion.
Then there are those who warn against allowing foreigners into the country because they may ask for similar consideration. This argument seems to imply that the Finns were always agnostic, but they were not. Large parts of the populations of Northern European countries consider themselves agnostics or atheists and have become so by thinking for themselves instead of accepting dogma.
Dr Falzon fears that the decision may have an impact on the decision to allow the building of minarets in Swiss cities. This is nonsense.
Building minarets in historic city centres should and will probably be disallowed, just like the building of skyscrapers in Valletta, or probably all of Malta, should be disallowed. Jumping from the removal of crucifixes from classrooms run by a secular state to being forced to allow min-arets in historic city centres is not reasonable.
However, for the Maltese there is one point of concern or hope, Malta's Constitution forces religious indoctrination on children in State schools.
What if one of the current University students, who, according to surveys, have started to think for them-selves more and more, will not want their children indoctrinated?
Would the court find Malta's Constitution in conflict with fundamental human rights?
17 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Chris Reiff
Nov 30th 2009, 08:06
@Simon Oostermann, that's exactly what the ECHR thought and that's why they banned the crucifixes in Italian state schools. Very well written.
William P Flynn
Nov 30th 2009, 00:04
@EmanuelCiliaDebono My children grew up in an excellent cultural, academic and intellectual environment free from religion and death cults; and it shows. I am well pleased with my family, thank you. There most certainly are negative implications in crucifixes dripping with blood and death messages. Psychological scientists in Arizona (Google it) proved that even subliminal death messages trigger negative aggression in people's minds; let alone the constant "death-noise" in a place like a Maltese classroom and Maltese life generally, where the system is a “blitzkrieg” of dead and dying saints and crucifixes. It affects adults too; especially those who are so fully intellectually (pardon the reference to intelligence) invested in their religion – whatever religion. The comments in this paper indicate that many Maltese are tired of it; while for others, the investment has been too great to even think about challenging it.
edward bartolo
Nov 29th 2009, 23:12
Everyone is to some extent agnostic. That is, many people sometime in their lives, doubt the existence of a god. Even Mother Theresa of Calcutta had a very long crisis of faith, notwithstanding that, she dedicated all her life to God! The only difference, is that some people struggle with themselves to win over their doubts, others may feel that they are helpless, and that, they cannot believe anymore without experiencing a painful interior struggle. So, they choose not to commit themselves... The good news, is that there are many examples of people, who were "agnostic", and had the courage to face their doubts, fight them and win over them.
Saviour Porter
Nov 29th 2009, 19:38
For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him [ Jesus], and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. (Colossians 1:19,20)
Emanuel Cilia Debono
Nov 29th 2009, 14:50
@ William Flynn
So do you want our children to be brought up in an arid culture reminiscent of T.S.Eliot's 'Waste Land'?
Irrespective of what some individuals ( including nonconformist priests) may say, the Crucifix is still part of Maltese culture and Maltese citizens are entitled to have it publicly displayed.
The blood you refer to sometimes shown dripping from the Cross is symbolic of the suffering our Redeemer endured with Supreme Love at the hands of unbelievers. There is no negative implication in it.
Our children have been living with Crucifixes in their homes for many generations and parents have never found anything repellent in it - the symbolic Crucifix is certainly not more disturbing than violence often displayed in cartoons meant for children on television.
The decision of the Council of Europe Court is however irrelevant to much of the current argument. I understand from a legal source that the Council of Europe did not actually decide upon the removal of the crucifix in all schools , but merely implied providing classrooms without crucifix for children of objecting parents.
William P Flynn
Nov 29th 2009, 14:33
If secularists are in the minority, why has Malta declared itself as a secular state? There must be thousands of Catholics who are secularist as comments on Mark Montebello's articles indicate.
People who say secularists should leave should consider themselves lucky then. They believe they don't have to leave and just as well; were will they go?
Almost the whole world is made up of secular states.
Gerry Cowie
Nov 29th 2009, 14:29
Sadly few people use these blogs yet some who do would use them as statistical proof for their so-called arguments.
Yes, a priest may disagree, so people jump on the secularist bandwagon and make out that one priest makes the whole Church!
If you do not like statues and other such religious representations then there is no need to put such a spin on such things as being "all blood and guts". That approach is extremist and ill-judged.
Malta, in particular, has had some very lifelike statues for centuries. If they offend foreigners then that is just too bad. Those who actually have children in Malta can make their own minds up. Centuries of tradition are not going to be wiped out by people who wish to see Malta become totally secular, with religion driven out.
Those secularist apologists who refuse to accept Malta is a Catholic country and that it's not going to change for them, despite their constant barrage of sarcastic venom against the Church, will never cease their campaign.
Neither will the majority of Maltese succomb to their desires.
Whatever the balance between religion and secularism, Malta will never sacrifice religion to the hidden evils of secularism.
CarmelSerracino-Inglott
Nov 29th 2009, 14:00
@Simon
I do not agree with you that I do not think for myself because I am a convinced Catholic. On the contrary I so much think that I cannot ( though accept) understand how people who do not believe in Christ may justify that the Holy Cross is not needed WHEN they are ignoramuses about the Christian Faith. Do they have Faith in Nothing? Maybe. Suppose that the Cross is removed and then individuals put a cross on their working desk and their are 50% of these students THEN we will have 50% ( MORE OR LESS) MORE CROSSES PER CLASS. Definitely more than one. Also if I believe that driving on the right is best, Am I being indoctrinated to drive on the left? No because the majority wishes so. Therefore if the majority in a class ( state) ( not in Malta because of our constitution) decides to keep the Holy Cross then be it. Somebody suggested that a classroom for Cross haters be provided . Is it a practicable suggestion?
Galea. L
Nov 29th 2009, 13:55
Simon Oosterman
The rest of the citizens have the right not to have their rights trampled on because someone objects to a crucifix. This is especially so when it was a foreigner who thinks she can change the culture and insult her host country at the same time. If she doesn't like it she can send her children to a school which does not have a crucifix and better still get out of the country. No one sent for her. Same applies to those foreigners in Malta who think that they may have it their way. We shall not bend to accomodate you. We have our customs, traditions and beliefs and it you don't like them get out. NO ONE SENT FOR YOU. YOU ARE FREE TO LEAVE. As for a Maltese person trying the same stance, the minority can never impose their will on the majority. By the way, why do you not want to look at a crucifix? Does it bother you and if it does why?
Robert Callus
Nov 29th 2009, 13:21
@William P Flynn
We (secularists) are a minority, and don't use comments here as a statistically reliable data.
Having said that, we are a very substantial and increasing minority. If the church continues to ignore it will be only shooting itself in the foot.
I don't really care about crucifixes or symbols. What's in a symbol anyway? The problem is that the church wants to hold strong to suppress non-canon civil liberties. The report in this newspaper on the deficit in sexual health education in Malta also points its fingers (and rightly so) to the sronghold the church has
Peter Vella
Nov 29th 2009, 12:34
Very well put and ;ogically argued Mr Oosterman. Unfortunately this island is so full of hypocricy that very few will admit how right you are. As you say, children take religion lessons as a joke and they could not care less whether the classroom has a crucifix or not. This is the island where the churches are full and then eveyrone shapes the moral teachings of the church to suit his own needs. Incidentally the symbol of the cross pre-dates Christianity and therfore is ultimately a pagan symbol.. The Egyptians used it as a symbol of the material transcending the spiritual. Romans did not uses crosses but T shaped constructions to torture their victims! But there you are, expect a lot of moralising in these comments, none of which are likely to be genuine.
William P Flynn
Nov 29th 2009, 12:05
@E.CiliaDebono
Where is this minority you speak of? Even priests are disagreeing with you. Look at the comments and count the for and against. And anyway, the ruling was given on behalf on one person’s objection about her children. This makes the "majority/minority" argument vacuous and irrelevant. One person is enough.
We shouldn't expect children to handle heaven, hell, and crucified cadavers dripping with blood.
Emanuel Cilia Debono
Nov 29th 2009, 11:23
The emotions raised by the Crucifix issue shows that the Crucifix forms part of our culture . It would hurt the sensitivities of many to have it removed. The Constitution respects the culture of its adherents..
The Constitution does not impose any precepts . It respects the liberty of those who believe and the liberty of those who do not believe; but non- believers cannot expect the Constitution amended so as to enable them to impose their own views as if they formed part of the common good. Is this the vaunted democracy they believe in ?
A secular State does not lose its secularity by recognising the need of citizens to acknowledge their Creator. The presence of the Cross implies such need for Maltese citizens. Its removal from public places implies a denial of Christ and an affront to those who believe in Him.
The loud cry of a minority for the removal of the Crucifix may betray a state of insecurity or denial on the part of some individuals living in the modern 'Waste Land' (T.S.Eliot). Some may be denying (unconsciously) a religious urge they want to repress? Removing the Crucifix would not solve their problem.
Charles Sammut
Nov 29th 2009, 11:17
Of course Malta's Constitution is in conflict with fundamental human rights. It discriminates in favour of Catholicism against other religions. It declares that the state religion is Catholicism when Malta is supposed to be a secular state.
PM Camilleri
Nov 29th 2009, 10:50
As one Muslim recently said about the ECHR ruling: "Human rights seem to be increasingly used to end human rights." How very true.
Robert Callus
Nov 29th 2009, 10:43
Great Article. I agree with this, but it's only part of the story:
"Then there are those who warn against allowing foreigners into the country because they may ask for similar consideration. This argument seems to imply that the Finns were always agnostic, but they were not."
Atheists and agnostics are not just being 'imported', When at 14 years old something I started realising there was no evidence for believing what I always did, no Scandinavian influenced my thoughts. Internet wasn't even available. It was just asking questions to Maltese Catholics, especially in the clergy and getting no answer. Im sure many Maltese agnostics and others did not become such due to foreing 'intervention' (which is not wrong by the way)
JOSEPH ZAMMIT
Nov 29th 2009, 10:12
@Simon Oosterman--good, agree!
As long as the state is secular, religion should never be included in the Constitution--for the sake of our fundamental human rights.