Last Tuesday, I was asked on TVM to comment on the decision of the European Court of Human Rights against the use of crucifixes in classrooms in Italy. The court was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe member states in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.

I described the decision as shameful. How anyone could consider the crucifix as a symbol of intolerance or imposition is beyond me. Christ was the victim of intolerance and imposition. He did not impose His teachings on anyone; he was killed because of his teaching.

How can the victim of intolerance be considered the source of intolerance?

A lot has been written and said since then. Some things I do not understand.

Why do religious people feel threatened by the religious beliefs and symbols of other people? In this day and age, people of different religions should find comfort in each other instead of fighting each other. Unfortunately this is not always so.

I had written about the disgusting comments posted last summer under the story in timesofmalta.com reporting about Muslims praying on the Sliema front. The intolerance shown was very worrying. I am neither threatened not insulted by the symbols and liturgies of another religion, whether it is Islam, Buddhism, Judaism or Hinduism. I respect them all, as they are all evidence of the yearning of the human spirit for the transcendent.

However, the current issue is not one between different religions. This decision of the European Court of Human Rights is the result of the liberal tendency which is doing its very best to banish religion from the public sphere.

The decision is not just a decision against Christianity. It is one against all religions. The decision is part of a process which manifested itself in France with the banning of the veil used by Muslims and the use of large crucifixes in schools. There were similar attempts in some German states, and currently, in Switzerland, there is a move against minarets.

It is weird that a culture that finds nothing wrong in scantily-clad men and women in public places is offended by the Muslim veil. Isn't it offensive that a culture that lets an artist desecrate a crucifix by placing it in a jar of urine (claiming freedom of expression) will now object to a crucifix fixed on a classroom wall, thus denying freedom of religion?

Cardinal Meisner's warning that religious faith was needed to "save humanity from tyranny", and should be publicly expressed, is a very valid warning. "Where God is no longer present, human beings take His place and become absolutes for themselves," the cardinal said. He continued: "Christianity isn't a private affair - it's the most public thing in the world. Twentieth-century history shows what tragic consequences threaten the world when God becomes a private matter."

Vatican secretary of state Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone's cutting remark was right on target: "This Europe of the third millennium has left us only the pumpkins of the recent holiday and has taken away our most precious symbols."

It is the court's decision that is an affront to tolerance and human dignity, rather than the presence of crucifixes in schools.

An apology

I am told that during a recent televised discussion, a priest said that people who live together without being married do not love each other. He also said, I was told, that a child born of such a union is not the fruit of love.

I would like to apologise to all those couples who understandably felt insulted by these inconsiderate words. Let it be clear that not all priests share these views.