Italy wins European Court appeal on crucifixes
The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has backed Italy in favour of the display of crucifixes in public schools.
The court ruled after an appeal hearing that displaying crucifixes in schools in Italy did not breach the rights of non-Catholic families.
In its ruling, the court said that "while the crucifix was above all a religious symbol, there was no evidence before the court that the display of such a symbol on classroom walls might have an influence on pupils".
The first court had said in 2009 that displaying crucifixes in state schools breached religious freedoms enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights.
The first decision by the European Court of Human Rights had been a victory for Soile Lautsi, a non-Catholic mother who complained that her children, aged 11 and 13, were exposed to crucifixes in classrooms at their school in Northern Italy.
Italy was ordered to pay the mother £4,500 in damages, but Rome decided to appeal to the Court's 17-judge Grand Chamber which overturned the verdict today.
Malta had joined Italy in the appeal.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Petrol price up 6c
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
87 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joseph Galea
Mar 20th 2011, 17:56
As an atheist I see nothing wrong by displaying these symbols.But I tend to disagree on one thing ,that is ,it is a bit gory by displaying a figure of a man with blood oozing out of his body and crucified in public places .With all the variants of different faces and figures on these crosses ,I think that they represent all those millions of criminals which were crucified during the days of the roman empire.
charles caruana
Mar 20th 2011, 16:46
@Kevin Cassar
It is you who are failing to get it Kevin, and as usual, you are reluctant to admit as much. You have not answered a single point of the many raised by Robert Caruana. In any Catholic country, Christian symbols and architecture adorn almost every city and street, and they are as unavoidable to sight as crucifixes in obligatory school classes. Is it not obligatory to pass through some of these streets and by certain monuments, or even go to a train station or an airport at some time or other? Are these non-obligatory places? Should they be removed because someone may take offense at them? Or should that someone remove himself from the country to avoid being offended? That is the reductio ad absurdum of your argument. Can’t you grasp that the fault is in the one who takes offense at symbols that are an intrinsic part of the religious, cultural and historical identity of many? Is this not abuse against the many in the name of a personal offense to which a particular person has no right? This is why ‘displaying crucifixes in schools in Italy did not breach the rights of non-Catholic families.’
Kevin Cassar
Mar 20th 2011, 22:18
I have made it clear enough, but of course you'll spin it around as usual. The religious symbols in the streets can be avoided if one were to find them objectionable. Those in schools and in court can not. Now if you cannot get yourself to acknowledge this obvious truth, suit yourself.
Kevin Cassar
Mar 20th 2011, 22:27
To answer Robert's comments even though they did not have anything to do with my point - No, I do not object to any religious symbol or otherwise that is displayed in public places which I can choose to avoid (if they bothered me). I thought I was very clear in saying that my objection was to them being displayed in public places WHICH ONE CANNOT AVOID BY LAW - SCHOOL AND COURT.
Raymond Sammut
Mar 20th 2011, 12:45
To all those who thank Italy for the latest decision by the ECHR, please note. It was not Italy per se who made the appeal, but Franco Frattini and his little inner Catholic circle which includes no other than Laurence Gonzi.
The secular Italy of today has nothing to do with the crucifix in the classroom for the simple reason that the issue has never been a policy in post-WWII Italy. The Crucifix is in the classroom not through legislation of a democratic Italy but by decree that dates back to 1928 under the then fascist government.
Instead of appealing at the ECHR, Mr Frattini should demonstrate his democratic values and table a motion in the Italian parliament. In this way, Mr Frattini would initiate debate among lawmakers and seek a majority vote that would support or overturn the decree of Mussolini.
Marlon Harmsworth
Mar 19th 2011, 02:30
When I heard the sentence in 2009, on Italian media I was awestruck. I couldn't understand why the European court had ruled against such display. I beleive (but I stand to be corrected) that Italy, like Malta is Christian and Catholic by constitution. While it is the duty of the country to protect the beleifs of minorities (in this case religious), and in no way hinder the practice of such beleifs (as long as such beleifs don't violate human rights), the country does nothing wrong by displaying what its values, stated even in constitutional law, are. I don't think that by displaying a cross, one is enforcing the Christian religion upon anybody. If it were so, there would't be a secular crisis in the happeningl It is then up to the occupant of the country to follow the country's beleifs. Occupants should try to blend in themselves rather than attempt to change what has been there for centuries. If I myself go to to a country of Islamic, Buddist (or any other) beleif, I would not demand the removal of there religious symbols from public places, but rather admire and see what new, positive things I can learn.
Victor Vella
Mar 19th 2011, 01:28
Well done. If for some the crucifix is a nuisance all they have to do is to turn their faces. We are Catholics and the sign of the cross is our religion. I don`t expect to go to an Islam state and I see the crucifix. But, I do respect the Koran and Mohammed and other religious denominations.
On the other hand I expect others to respect our religion and the crucifix as the symbol of our faith.
Frans Sammut
Mar 18th 2011, 21:06
I could never, for the life of me, perceive why there should be any person complaining against the presence of the Crucifix in countries with a dominant Catholic population. It simply denotes their identity, be it seen from a religious, cultural or historical perspective. I can clearly recall the Imam of Casal Paola expressing his approval of such a symbol being exhibited in Christian countries. If the Imam, an important representative of another faith approves why should there be persons from the native culture who disapprove? I'm, what shall I say, gobsmacked by the bile certain elements amongst us are ready to spew each time they detect a subject that may lend itself to controversy. And, believe you me, I am as liberal as they come, yet I try to retain my rationality rather than jump on the bandwagon each time a theme crops up that seems capable of serving as a potential weapon against bigots and conservatives. The more I see of half-baked 'modernists' the less I feel inclined to take up the cudgels in their defence.
Andy Farrugia
Mar 18th 2011, 22:22
Well said.
Joseph Meli
Mar 18th 2011, 19:40
I do not agree with the statement of Mr. Anastasi when he said "That symbol in classroom just enforces this feeling for non catholics. and you also said "It should have been removed as its not the place for it." In my opinion no one would forced any none believer to look at the crucifix? But then the Grand Chamber's on March 18 ruling (today), the Court Registrar Erik Fribergh explained that the judges had found “nothing to suggest that the authorities were intolerant of pupils who believed in other religions, were non-believers or who held non-religious philosophical convictions.” So how on earth would one state and expect us Catholics / believers to remove the crucifix of our Lord Jesus Christ ? I never can imagine that this person is above the Seventeen judges of the Grand Chamber's ruling on the European Court of Human Rights ?
P Borg
Mar 18th 2011, 18:26
Great news... Finally Europe is going back to its Christian Roots. Now let's show Europe that being in favour of abortion and divorce is also against its Christian roots. Let's show them that we are in favour of life and in favour of strengthening the family unit.
Timmy Farrugia
Mar 18th 2011, 18:30
dont bring divorce into this. there is nothing wrong with you keeping your crucifix but do not impose your christianity on everyone
David Ellul
Mar 18th 2011, 19:23
Europe's roots are very pagan, even to the point that a certain branch of "Christianity" which we call Catholicism has adopted many of it's traditions; primarily at the time to help swell the ranks of the church and make conversion more acceptable to the pagans. The cross, (without a man nailed to it) was used long before Christianity, and it is almost certain from biblical and historical reference that Jesus would have been nailed to a simple stake, without a cross beam. Christmas and many of it's traditions are absolutely parallel to "rebirth of the sun" rituals, and Jesus was very unlikely to have born near that date if again going by biblical and historical references. Some fun Christian roots I'd like to remind you of are: 1. Witch burning (of those who the superstitious couldn't understand or accept). 2. The Inquisition. A sadly common way that some Christians treat those who they don't think are being Christian enough. 3. The Crusades. The way some Christians have treated those who were not Christian. I pray that Europe does not go back to it's "Christian roots"
charles caruana
Mar 20th 2011, 16:01
@David Ellul
Most of the things you mention are old hoary chestnuts easily picked up from a three-penny atheist tract. If you claim that Jesus and Christianity are gigantic inventions based on similar pagan myths and rituals, why don’t you give empirical proof of this possibility by starting your own ‘scientific’ Ellulian movement and see whether it will have the same impact on European and world history that Jesus and Christianity have had? A saner option would be for you to open the Gospels and compare yourself to Christ – who knows, you might learn a little humility and perhaps start seeing ‘Christian roots’ from another perspective.
David Ellul
Mar 21st 2011, 15:30
Timmy Farrugia
Mar 18th 2011, 18:16
im not christian and do not believe in the crucifix and therefore it does not concern me if there is a cross, an image of buddha etc....if it makes some people feel better why cant they have a crucifix in their school? if one does not believe in it so it shud not bother me, but once they allow the crucifix they should allow symbols from other religions as tolerance goes both ways
miketurner
Mar 18th 2011, 17:52
May I point out that Italy has only been a nation for less than 200 years.
A. Grech
Mar 18th 2011, 17:17
Thank you Italy. Well done and God bless. It seems that soon we will need HIM more than ever.
Mary Attard
Mar 18th 2011, 17:11
Well done, Malta! We are proud of your stand. For those afraid of looking at the cross, look the other way like you told us when we objected to soft porn etc. Prohibition of religion is as bad as forcible institution of it. It seems many already forgot the brutal persecutions in the communist regimes in the past.
Matthew Farrugia
Mar 18th 2011, 19:56
The danger of this is that it gives leeway to precisely that. It's not the prohibition of religion which is dangerous, but the enroachment on our rights to exercise religion. I'm glad you mentioned the Communists who used to display (and still do) Stalin and paraded his image around.
David Ellul
Mar 18th 2011, 16:56
Second Commandment (Exodus 20:2-7):
You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments
Sylvia Zammit
Mar 18th 2011, 16:54
So glad to hear that!
James De Giorgio
Mar 18th 2011, 16:45
Now if Ms Lautsi still feels offended she can pack her bags and go back to icy Finland where she belongs
Moira Galea
Mar 18th 2011, 16:43
Thank God! Good sense and justice prevail!
G A Bonello
Mar 18th 2011, 16:35
Religion is a major weapon in the war against reality.
Faith is a euphemism for prejudice and religion is a euphemism for superstition
R.E. Saliba
Mar 19th 2011, 12:40
Yet you somehow 'have faith' that someone will agree with your comment.
You might argue that it wasn't why you scribbled - that you were simply exercising your right to comment.
In that case you clicked on the submit and had faith that your comment would be shown...
GA Bonello, faith is everywhere, whether you like it or not. Unfortunately lack of understanding about the nature of faith is just as common. Hence comments like yours.
Kevin Cassar
Mar 21st 2011, 21:51
@ R.E. Saliba
"Yet you somehow 'have faith' that someone will agree with your comment."
Based on the evidence that others have agreed with the comment before.
"You might argue that it wasn't why you scribbled - that you were simply exercising your right to comment.
In that case you clicked on the submit and had faith that your comment would be shown..."
Based on the fact that that happened every time one clicked on submit.
"GA Bonello, faith is everywhere, whether you like it or not. Unfortunately lack of understanding about the nature of faith is just as common. Hence comments like yours."
Faith has no such thing as nature. Faith is the concept of believing something without the need for evidence. How much evidence is required depends on the nature of the claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If faith was a virtue, gullible people would be the most virtuous people.
Kevin Cassar
Mar 18th 2011, 16:34
Many of those who are applauding this decision are saying that if one does not like crucifixes then one can not look. They fail to comprehend (or perhaps ignore) that there is no choice here, since one is bound by law to attend school up to the age of 16 and failing to go to school will incur legal penalties on the parents. This is clearly abuse, but of course any abuse done in the name of religion is totally accepted or swept under the carpet.
Ronald Rico
Mar 18th 2011, 18:11
Mmm... so if non-Maltese attend a Maltese school, the Maltese flag should not be flown?
Robert Caruana
Mar 18th 2011, 18:32
Totally disagree with you Kevin The crucifix is just a symbol - it has value for Christians but should not bother atheists or members of other denominations. I would definitely not be bothered at all by symbols of other religions, even more so if I live in a country where these symbols are significant for the majority of the people. If I decide to go and live in a predominantly Buddhist country, should I object to images of Buddha? This smacks of extremism and intolerance We might as well knock down churches, mosques etc because even these cannot really be avoided. Try going to Valletta without seeing a church or go down Kordin without seeing the mosque. So what? Should the mosque bother me if I am catholic? or if I am atheist?
Alfred Cassar
Mar 18th 2011, 19:10
Very well said Robert Caruana
Kevin Cassar
Mar 18th 2011, 22:00
@ Robert Caruana
The crucifix does not bother me. My argument could be put in any context with any particular object. The thing that bothers me is the double standard that is obvious to all. Let me give an example. If I come to your house and you have a symbol that offends me, I have no right to ask you to remove it because I can simply leave unless you decide on your own account to remove it to avoid clashes. On the other hand school is OBLIGATORY by law, so if there's a symbol that offends someone, he does not have the choice to leave. That's the real problem. Religious symbols may be offensive to people who hold other religions. If you think about it and place yourself in that situation you would realize that I am right. No one has the right to ask for the removal of religious symbols from non-obligatory places and neither am I. I agree though, that public places which are obligatory (schools and court) should not have any religious symbols.
Andy Farrugia
Mar 18th 2011, 22:21
Kevin, the symbol of a prostrate person who willingly suffers to wipe away our sins, though we continue to commit the most heinous ones, should not offend anyone. All other interpretations have some kind of hidden agenda.
Kevin Cassar
Mar 19th 2011, 23:41
@ Andy Farrugia
You just don't get it do you? Or do you pretend?
Raymond Sammut
Mar 18th 2011, 16:31
This is what Nicola Lettieri --representing the Italian government at the ECHR-- said about crucifixes: "...in Italian classrooms [crucifixes] are "a passive symbol that bear no relationship to the actual teaching, which is secular".
The Crucifix is a "passive" symbol, thanks to the Italian government. This is truly heretical since the Crucifix would not exist had the Christ been the least passive at any time during his mission. Most disappointing is the fact that the Grand Chamber did not ask Nicola Lettieri what the Crucifix is doing in the classroom if it is not related to the actual teaching.
Nicola Lettieri, Franco Frattini, Laurence Gonzi, and the rest of them who keep beating their chest --and squealing mea culpa-- in the hope that they may have salvation, seem to treat the Crucifix like some kind of a fixture. They are truly and immensely a disgusting lot.
R.E. Saliba
Mar 19th 2011, 12:43
Well said Raymond, I agree with your focus.
Yet symbolism does have impact value in promoting Christianity to non-believers who only understand what they see and touch, don't you think? Speaking their language may be the only way to get their attention.
Reminds me a little of missionaries having the speak the native language in order to integrate before spreading the good word.
Emanuel Debono
Mar 18th 2011, 16:23
Christus vincit
Christus regnat
Christus imperat
Andy Farrugia
Mar 18th 2011, 16:22
Justice and common sense have finally prevailed in a non-issue brought up by arch provocateurs.
C Muscat
Mar 18th 2011, 16:20
Good judgement full of respect. Well done.
Alfred Grech
Mar 18th 2011, 16:17
Fantastic news. Hope the few who are "offended" with Crucifixes in public places emigrate back to the country they came from.
Jesmond Farrugia
Mar 18th 2011, 16:14
It seems as though the EC has dismissed crucifixes as 'irrelevant'.
Quote: the court said that "while the crucifix was above all a religious symbol, there was no evidence before the court that the display of such a symbol on classroom walls might have an influence on pupils".
Ramon Casha
Mar 18th 2011, 16:13
This paves the way for Muslim and other symbols to be added to the classroom.
Andy Farrugia
Mar 19th 2011, 10:05
It does nothing of the sort for obvious reasons - the fact that Muslims do not approve of iconic symbols and the symbols they approve of ( the veil) are already in the classroom, plus that particular section in our Constitution which annoys you so much. So we can conclude that your comment is merely a puerile attempt at scaremongering.
Ramon Casha
Mar 20th 2011, 14:34
Our constitution? It's Italy's constitution. Muslims don't have statues but they do have symbols.
K.Anastasi
Mar 18th 2011, 16:12
"while the crucifix was above all a religious symbol, there was no evidence before the court that the display of such a symbol on classroom walls might have an influence on pupils".
Yeah right I remember when I was a boy, if you were not catholic you were looked upon as an outsider. That symbol in the classroom just enforces this feeling for non catholics.
It should have been removed its not the place for it.
J.S.M.
Mar 18th 2011, 18:01
I'm sorry but are there any sociological studies that prove that it has any psychological effect on a student? As stated - there is NO documented studies carried out to support your statement. Also it depends which school you went to. There are various private schools that do not impose the cross on you. If such a symbol offended you then I don't see any reason why you couldn't have just changed school. Especially if you went to a church school. [Please note that I never attended a church school in my life.]
J.S.M.
Mar 18th 2011, 18:07
Another small thing to add: There is nothing wrong with the people wishing to express their religious faith. If those following Islam or Judaism wish to have signs in classrooms of their faith - Why not? We're all free to follow our own paths and to being our authentic self.
Joseph Meli
Mar 18th 2011, 19:12
@K.Anastasi:::I do not agree with your statement when you said "That symbol in classroom just enforces this feeling for non catholics. and you also said "It should have been removed as its not the place for it." In my opinion no one would forced any none believer to look at the crucifix? But then the Grand Chamber's on March 18 ruling (today), the Court Registrar Erik Fribergh explained that the judges had found “nothing to suggest that the authorities were intolerant of pupils who believed in other religions, were non-believers or who held non-religious philosophical convictions.” So how on earth would you state and expect us Catholics / believers to remove the crucifix of our Lord Jesus Christ ? I never can imagine that you are above the Seventeen judges of the Grand Chamber's ruling on the European Court of Human Rights ?
Daniel Laus
Mar 18th 2011, 16:12
A satisfactory outcome!
Wayne Hewitt
Mar 18th 2011, 15:59
Maybe in a few decades we will grow up and stop imposing our imaginary friends on others... I'm hopeful... call me an optimist...
L Agius
Mar 18th 2011, 16:06
I agree with you Mr.Hewitt. It's sad really, that it has to be a couple of decades for the Maltese population to grow up and think democratically.
Stefan Riolo
Mar 18th 2011, 16:23
Optimist? nah.....I'll settle for Atheist
K Grech
Mar 18th 2011, 16:47
I don't know why you bother so much about the so called "imaginary friend". No one is imposing anything on you, you are free to believe or not to believe and if you choose not to, I don't know why you even bother about whatever is nailed or drawn agains the wall.
Dr Francis Saliba
Mar 18th 2011, 16:48
@ Wayne Hewlett et al. Foreign atheists should exercise their freedom to reside in their own native land, or anywhere else, where they can indulge in their atheism to their hearts' content, without giving offence by their arrogant pretensions. These intruders should not be so arrogant and so discourteous as to pretend to impose their alien creed against the wishes of the inhabitants of their hospitable host country with different customs and culture. Common decency demands that hospitality be reciprocated not outraged.
L. Vella
Mar 18th 2011, 17:08
In a few decades I hope I will be going to meet my 'imaginary friends' and enjoy an 'imaginary life' in an 'imaginary place'. As for those without any 'imagination', they can use their scientific knowledge to deduce for themselves as to where they might be going.
M busuttil
Mar 19th 2011, 11:11
@ L.Vella.
Very well said, those who do not believe in the 'imaginery friends' are going to have the greatest shock of their lives, when they face Our Lord Jesus!
R.E. Saliba
Mar 19th 2011, 12:47
In a few decades you will grow old and understand what's more important in life.
That's when you will glimpse what faith and religion is all about.
Or in the interim period, you might go through a life changing event that will make you stop and think and feel, rather than rush around from one mind-blocking material thing to another that do not give you the time to see that there may be something beyond it all. Call it a fairy, an ork, an angel, or (correctly) God.
Optimist? No, more like distracted.
Eddie Attard
Mar 18th 2011, 15:59
Good judgement
Joseph P. Borg
Mar 18th 2011, 15:57
The 17 judge panel has overturned the sentence handed down by another judge in a previous declaration. Common sense, which is seldom used these days, has prevailed.
Such a situation makes one doubt whether the judge sitting in the first court was competent enough to occupy such a responsible position in society.
Raymond Sammut
Mar 18th 2011, 17:08
The first court, in fact, consisted of several judges who took an unanimous decision. This time around, there was a humongous push by ten governments --headed by Franco Frattini-- and employing a bandwagon of Catholic NGOs.
This decision was not about justice per se, but about who carried the most weight so that Mr Frattini and his Catholic fraternity will not have to hide in catacombs (as he puts) in defense of their faith. Imagine poor Catholics having to hide in catacombs --as if they ever did.
Lorraine Vella
Mar 18th 2011, 15:50
Good news. Good sense prevails at last :)
John Abela
Mar 18th 2011, 15:43
Absolutely disgraceful. We should be living in a democracy and not a theocracy.
Andre Cilia
Mar 18th 2011, 16:03
What does democracy mean?
it doesn't mean a completely atheist-run country. on the contrary it means a country run by the will of the people. the will of the people is for crucifxes to stay. That is democracy. In such a democracy, the majority DOES have to respect the minority, but that doesn't mean that the minority dictates what happens.
Theocracy is when the country is run by religion, and this has nothing to do with it.
Matthew Farrugia
Mar 18th 2011, 16:09
First of all Andre, it is the will of the ITALIAN STATE that willed the crosses there, not the people. Nobody took a head count, instead it's done in the name of the "common good", like so many evils are.
Are you so polarised that you think this is about atheism? It's about SECULARISM, not atheism. The point is that a STATE - AN NONEXISTENT ENTITY cannot and should not have religious leanings, not because Jesus wasn't the son of God and God doesn't exist bla bla bla but because Christian beliefs (and by extension, symbolism) should not be imposed on others.
Also, anyone commenting that they should go live in Arab countries where their liberty is oppressed... THANK YOU FOR PROVING MY POINT
Wayne Hewitt
Mar 18th 2011, 16:15
Living in a democracy does not mean you have a right to assume everyone is on your side. We are not a catholic country, because not everyone is catholic or religious to that matter.
It's like calling our country, a Nationalist country simply because the ruling party in Government happens to be Nationalist, ignoring the opposition in one statement.
That is gross arrogance to say the least and yes, tantamount of an authoritarian theocracy.
P Agius
Mar 18th 2011, 16:24
What a stupid comment! Just because we are democratic, people are free to display figures they like without other crying foul and trying to impose a ban on such display
John Abela
Mar 18th 2011, 16:35
This is pure undiluted hypocracy. Is that what democracy means? If that is so then abortion is good in most countries of the world because 'it is the will of the people'. Your comment is so hypocritical it makes me sick. Then you should condemn anti-abortion campaigners in the US. Abortion is good there since it is the will of people. I want to live in a secular society where religion is not forced down my throat. Religion belongs only in churchs and in homes but not in public.
J Zammit
Mar 18th 2011, 16:49
John Abela should look up the word democracy
GiovDeMartino
Mar 18th 2011, 17:09
Imisssek tisthi...jekk taf tisthi. This is what French PM Monsieur Fillon declared some time ago: Those immigrants who are not French must adapt. Take it or leave it. I'm tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture..........Most French (not maltese) believe in God. This is not some christian obligation, influence by the rightists or political pressure, but it is a fact, because men and women founded this nation on Christian principles, and this is clearly documented. It is the appropriate to display this on the walls of our schools...If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your home, because God is part of our culture. We will accept your beliefs without questions. All we ask is that you accept ours and live in peaceful hatmony with us. THIS IS OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND AND OUR LIFESTYLE. Hats off to Mons. Fillon.
Matthew Farrugia
Mar 18th 2011, 19:39
There we go again... OUR culture... you don't fit in OUR vision of what society is so you should go away. This is exactly why the cross doesn't belong there! FYI Christian principles are founded on other principles, and just because they were doens't mean they should be for perpetuity anyway. We'd otherwise have fat ladies in the class instead of crosses, wouldn't we?
R.E. Saliba
Mar 19th 2011, 12:49
@ Matthew Farrugia
Are you referring to the ELECTED Italian state?
Elected by whom, if I may ask?
Talk about a point being proven....
R.E. Saliba
Mar 19th 2011, 12:55
@John Abela
"I want to live in a secular society"
Fine, go do that elsewhere.
No one's keeping you in religious Europe.
R.E. Saliba
Mar 19th 2011, 13:00
@Matthew Farrugia
More confusion on your part.
Christian principles are ORIGINAL. Christian TRADITIONS are adapted from older cultures, possibly in order to make them more palatable. For instance the crucifix is a pre-Christian symbol yet the principle of a Man nailed to it, dying for your and my original sin is Christian and not found in any other religion, before or since.
David Borg
Mar 18th 2011, 15:43
Prosit Italy.
In hoc signe vinces.
John B.Vincenti
Mar 18th 2011, 15:43
Good news. Now all non christians can go to any country of their choice, where our symbolism does not offend them.
Perhaps, one of the Muslim countries that honours human rights will accept them with open arms (pun).
CRefalo
Mar 18th 2011, 16:00
Well said indeed!!!
Wayne Hewitt
Mar 18th 2011, 16:17
So with the same reasoning the Labour party should go into exile allura, simply because it's in opposition? U hallina...
Kimberly Xuereb
Mar 18th 2011, 15:39
Well done:) Since Italy is catholic overall as Malta, has absolutely the right to expose crucifixes:) Shame for European Court to have even heard the woman!!
J.attard
Mar 18th 2011, 15:34
Well done !!!. Come on its like going to India and telling the people there they cant have a Hinduism statue in a park, as I have seen. We are human ALL of us have identity. If this Scandinavian lady didn't like crucifixes in the children's school then why stay in Italy ?
N. Pace
Mar 18th 2011, 15:50
Well Said
Matthew Farrugia
Mar 18th 2011, 15:53
Because she made the foolish assumption that there are deeper European values that were at stake; the value of freedom, for example- for the protection of which a state, its instituions and the law should remain secular, devoid of manufactured religious pseudo-values which have over the years led to countless atrocities perpetrated in the name of so many gods you'd be forgiven for losing count. It's perfectly okay for the students to display religious belief, but not for the state (or its teachers, who are representatives of the state at work).
Muslim Italians are just as Italian as Catholic, Protestant, Evangelist, etc... Italians. So are Buddhist Italians. And atheists. And Scientologists. And for that matter, what is "Italian"? Is it a concept based in history and custom that is immutable for perpetuity??? If the Italian government wanted to be less secular and more Catholic (and less cliched in its hypocrisy) maybe it can concentrate on impeaching the not-so-Christian Berlusconi.
j.attard
Mar 18th 2011, 16:35
@ matthew farrugia ..
I truly understand that, of course. And Its really good that there is a mixture of religions and ethnicities. But stating what Andre Cilia said above "In such a democracy, the majority DOES have to respect the minority, but that doesn't mean that the minority dictates what happens."
Matthew Farrugia
Mar 18th 2011, 19:45
the minority doesn't and shouldn't dictate what the majority does. Nobody should dictate anything to anybody.
R.E. Saliba
Mar 19th 2011, 12:53
@ Matthew Farrugia
You are describing communism not democracy.
In a democratic state, the majority does dictate what happens.
Everyone has a right to speak up but not to govern.
M. Vella
Mar 18th 2011, 15:33
Common sense has prevailed!
Edric Micallef Figallo
Mar 18th 2011, 15:32
OTTIMO!
Annie Gauci
Mar 18th 2011, 15:30
Some good news at last.