Arthur Galea Salomone
'Secular' indoctrination
The Lautsi v Italy judgment has and will continue to generate debate and controversy. The European Court of Human Rights decided that the display of a crucifix in premises used by public authorities and, especially, in classrooms, violated the right of parents to educate their children in accordance with their religious and philosophical convictions - protocol 1, article 2 taken jointly with article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention of Human Rights. Predictably, other Lautsis will follow suit and, if confirmed by the Grand Chamber, it is difficult to envisage how the precedent may be ignored by states signatories to the European Convention, unless they have made express reservations to protocol 1, article 2 of the European Convention.
Malta endorsed the right of parents to ensure that state education is in conformity with "their own religious and philosophical convictions" with a reservation "only insofar as it is compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure, having regard to the fact that the population of Malta is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic". Additionally, while a number of constitutions expressly profess religious neutrality, the Constitution of Malta states that "The Religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion".
The Court stated: "The state was required to observe confessional neutrality in the context of public education, where attending classes was compulsory..." It is submitted however that confessional neutrality is a choice a state makes. A state may opt for confessional neutrality or it may not, choosing instead to express a religious preference endorsing the fundamental values that have shaped a nation's history, culture and identity. Confessional neutrality is not necessarily a sine qua non to respect for human rights. The right of parents to bring up their children as non-believers should not imply that states are obliged to delete all reference to God and religious symbolism in state schools.
The route chosen by the European Court of Human Rights is in fact a bias in favour of educating children in a secular environment devoid of religion. It endorses the prevalence of one "philosophical conviction" over all the others. Could not a contrary claim be made to the effect that that the imposition of secularism is contrary to the human rights of whosoever would like to believe otherwise and have their children brought up within a religious environment which values rather than displaces God?
The removal of a crucifix or any other religious symbol and its replacement by a blank wall or any austere looking public dignitary, for all that matters, is a symbol in itself. It is a symbol of the imposition of secularism and the displacement of religion from officialdom.
The progressive application of the legal "logic" applied by the judges may lead to the gradual removal of religious symbolism. Admittedly, the judgment refers to "premises used by public authorities", especially classrooms within the context of the "right to education". However, if the same logic is applied to "freedom of conscience", so that the expression of a religious preference by a state and the display of religious symbols by a state in "other public premises" is similarly regarded as offensive, what is there to halt the process of removal of the crucifix from Parliament, the law courts, government departments, state hospitals?
Faced with the Lautsi circumstances, the challenge for a court lies in interpreting human rights in a manner that balances potentially competing claims. The application of the "margin of appreciation doctrine" allows states to decide what measures to take in the circumstances. A government school in a state that displays a preference for a particular religion, say, the Catholic religion, by displaying a religious symbol, like a crucifix, may still respect the rights of parents of Muslim or Hindu children by providing religious instruction in the Muslim or Hindu creeds. Religion classes may be taught by providing instruction in various religions.
Children of diverse religions may request that symbols of the religion of their choice be displayed in class with equal prominence. Children of non-believers have the right to opt out of attending religious classes. However, it is taking it to extremes to maintain that non-believers may, on the pretext of human rights, impose their secular conviction on others and imply that religious symbols should be removed from state schools. That is not "religious or philosophical neutrality". Nor is it a manifestation of the right to education or freedom of conscience. In effect, that is secular "indoctrination" and imposition.
It is indeed sad and ironic that the crucifix, a symbol of the ultimate selfless sacrifice carried out for the redemption of the whole of humanity, Christians and non-Christians, believers and non-believers, has been regarded as offensive and its display in state schools regarded as a breach of fundamental human rights. Hopefully, the judges in the Grand Chamber will exercise better judgment and interpret the European Convention of Human Rights in a more respectful manner. In reality, it is the "crucifix judgment" and not the crucifix that is offensive.
The author is a lecturer in commercial law at the University of Malta
Popular Stories
In Discussion
17 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Edward Camilleri
Dec 4th 2009, 19:57
The author finds the crucifix decision as imposing and calls it as 'Secular' indoctrination. What does he call 15-20 years of catholic indoctrination or better still brainwashing? Was it possible when we were young to opt out of religious studies at school? And if it is called religious studies then why not study religions in general instead of being brainwashed with the catholic religion? Isn't it more healthy that the young, at least in state schools, are thought on the different kind of religions instead of this narrow mindedness focused on the catholic religion?
Gerry Cowie
Dec 4th 2009, 19:45
Sorry to disappoint Mr William P Flynn over there in Australia, but there is no chance of Malta becoming totally secular. You are fighting a losing battle! See the opposition to your views as a confirmed secularist apologist. Whatever sarcastic comments you throw at people simply come back to you. A more constructive argument might just serve to get people on your side, but you do not seem prepared to do that. You always crow about the rights of all minorities - except when it suits!
Raphael Vassallo
Dec 4th 2009, 19:34
@ joseph seisun I appreciate the respect, which I duly reciprocate. But you will find that salvation is not actually on the cards for non-believers; at least, not in the Catholic tradition (no idea about other denominations to be honest). I am sorry to limit myself to only one quote, but there are countless others where Christ makes the point abundantly clear. Ultimately, salvation remains dependent on one's acceptance of Himself as saviour. Oh, and in case I gave the wrong impression earlier, please note that as far as I am concerned that's absolutely fine. As a non-believer I don't expect to be saved. My only point is that you cannot argue – as I understood the above article to do, and as Italy certainly did in the Lautsi case – that the crucifix symbolises anything more than Christianity itself. From a non-Christian's viewpoint, it doesn't.
Joseph Seisun
Dec 4th 2009, 19:14
@Raphael Vassallo With all due respect sir, but you are totally mistaken by your reasoning. If you want to be serious about the Bible and quote the Scriptures, you just don't pick a line and draw a conclusion! Sadly, that's what most commentators do when trying to criticise or even ridicule God's Word! In a nutshell: God's plan of Salvation is for all mankind. Just as through the first Adam, death came to all mankind, even so through the second Adam, Christ Jesus, resurrection to everlasting life is available to all mankind. All you have to do is reach out and take it through Faith. God does not force you to believe. Everyone is free to choose!
John Caruana
Dec 4th 2009, 19:00
'The route chosen by the European Court of Human Rights is in fact a bias in favour of educating children in a secular environment devoid of religion. It endorses the prevalence of one "philosophical conviction" over all the others.' I couldn't agree more. Whichever way the state goes, or the court decides, it is never neutral. Incidentally, educating children in an environment purposely devoid of religion is itself a sign of a mentality that is closed to other world views - in this case a world view based on faith.
Joseph Seisun
Dec 4th 2009, 18:21
... what is there to halt the process of removal of the crucifix from Parliament, the law courts, government departments, state hospitals? " Exactly my point in other comments. If we give in to one thing, rest assured that those who despise our Faith will continue to want more and more. This is already happening in other countries and especially in the USA. They want to wipe out Christianity. The question is: Shall we, God's people in Malta, let them do this? I don't think so!
Raphael Vassallo
Dec 4th 2009, 17:22
"...the crucifix, a symbol of the ultimate selfless sacrifice carried out for the redemption of the whole of humanity, Christians and non-Christians, believers and non-believers..." This is nonsense, I'm afraid. If you read your New Testament again you will find that Jesus's sacrifice redeemed only believers. The exact quote is: "I am the Resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: AND whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die." (John 11: 25-26) As you can see, there is no reference to 'he who does NOT believe in me". Christianity is and has always been exclusive in this regard... as, I suppose, it has every right to be.
Bill Khan
Dec 4th 2009, 17:01
@Robert Attard, we see the symobols of secularism every where we go. We see them in our drawing rooms in the shape of commercials and how we should live our lives. The children are brainwashed from a very early age. If we are remove religious symbols from schools, then lets remove all symbols of secularism also. starting with Mcdonald, coca cola and Barbie Doll and all symbols of the Church of Disney.
David Farrugia
Dec 4th 2009, 15:11
@ Robert Attard
You are right when you say that with no religious signs in classrooms there will be neutrality, but not when you say that neutrality such does not favour atheists or any other group. Of course it does!! If there are only 2 or 3 children in every class of 30 children (for example) whose parents prefer their children not to see the crucifix in their class, isn't this 'neutrality' favouring these 2 or 3 children then? Isn't such a situation going against the wishes of the other 28 or 27 children whose families would like to see the crucifix? How can you say that if no religious signs are affixed in schools no group is being favoured? In any case, Italy has appealed to this judgment and one would be mistaken to treat such judgment as a definite for the time being.
In the meantime one thing is certain-that everywhere we go, in Malta and in Italy, and most of the other European countries cribs and other religious symbols shall be seen and enjoyed by everyone over this month !!!
E.Muscat
Dec 4th 2009, 15:04
@Robert Attard: atheism is very much a kind of faith and Mr.Dawkins is the high priest with paid adverts on the London buses!That is the extent of the indoctrination going on.
What are going to substitute christianity with?You should have understood that the great majority of people need to believe in the religion of their fathers and mothers to keep the social glue intact.A simple code of ethics is just not enough to keep people behaving correctly towards each other, when most of our earthly instituitions have been shown to have lost a great deal of their credibility.
And political correctness is just hogwash.
Robert Attard
Dec 4th 2009, 14:06
@Arthur Galea Salomone.
Secularism does not support any religion and certainly cannot be classified as some kind of religious philosophy. A classroom should be religiously neutral (unless of course it is a religious class). Being neutral doesnt mean it is taking sides with atheism! What is the use of having a hanging crucifix in maths class anyway?
Do you really think it makes sense to have something constantly reminding the adherents of their faith and constantly reminding the non-adherents that they are as the maltese put it 'il-huta barra mill-ilma?'
MBorg
Dec 4th 2009, 13:11
@ William P Flynn
Dr Galea Salamone is right. This judjement goes against the human rights of parents who do not want their children to grow up in a secular environment , and I am not "passing this through my in-built religious filter ". The majority of Maltese parents want to give their children a catholic upbringing. Like it or not Malta is a Catholic country.
We read your arguments, why shouldn't we ? The funny thing is,we all know the content before we read them. We know beforehand that what we are going to read is hatred and sarcasm aimed at our Catholic religion and religious symbols, seeing that the issue now is the crucifix.
You are proud to state that you belive in a secular state and that you are an atheist. Maybe you can explain, because I must confess I do not understand, how you can hate something ,in this case the Catholic faith and God , when being an atheist you believe that they do not exist. How can you hate something which according to you is not there.? My in-built filter cannot make any sense of this.
E.Muscat
Dec 4th 2009, 13:10
@Mr.W.P.F:what is your argument,except that we should accept secularism which is hidden atheism.In our great majority in Malta we don't want secularism: we don't want to become a confused and bewildered pseudo christian country like you have back home.
martin borg
Dec 4th 2009, 13:04
@ William P Flynn,
Your opinions on the matter, whether you are atheist, Hindu or Zorastrian count inasmuch as their being part of a democratic debate.
However, another integral part of democracy safeguards the rights of the majority without, of course trampling on minority rights and beliefs. These aren't safeguarded by imposing on the majority but rather by providing for them specifically.
As for 'Get over it and get used to it for it's a-coming' , dream on. It certainly won't happen in your lifetime (or mine for that matter).
William P Flynn
Dec 4th 2009, 12:10
So Mr Muscat as I'm an atheist my arguments don't count? I just hope some judges from the ECHR and the upcoming court of appeal are reading these comments by Catholic apologists such as:
If you don't like the crucifix in the classroom/Malta, leave.
Secularism is indoctrination.
Confessional neutrality is not necessarily a sine qua non to respect for human rights.
The penultimate paragraph is toeing contempt of court.
The author like yourself passes everything through your in-built religious filter in your brain.
Secularism demands that the government doesn't pass everything through a religious filter by eschewing all religious symbols. Get over it and get used to it for it's a-coming.
E.Muscat
Dec 4th 2009, 11:38
@W.Flynn:you should present a reasoned out case as Mr Salamone has and then you can say it is rubbish! You are obviously somebody who would destroy all christianity and replace it with nothing.Just tell us you are an atheist and be done with it!
William P Flynn
Dec 4th 2009, 11:02
The "reasoning" (apologies for using the word) of this article is all messed up. The penultimate paragraph shoots all the previous arguments down and his last confirms his own bias. Was there still room on the band wagon? Careful, slippery slop ahead. Unbelievable rubbish.