Once again I was going through my archives of comments I've made on other forums over the last year or so, and I've reproduced it here;
Below is a summary of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights to order Italy to remove the cross from Govt schools. While I'm a huge supporter of institutions like the ECHR, I believe on this occasion that they've over stepped the mark. The ECHR does a great job in protecting minorities victimized by the state, but in this instance, is it really an unbearable hardship to ask non Christians (in a christian majority country) to sit in the same classroom where a crucifix is displayed? Does that really impinge their human rights and make them feel like lesser people? It's not like they're being asked to recite (or abstain from) the lord's prayer or something, where it's clearly visible to all as to who is "different", ie non christian. But what really concerns me is what's the next step? Just like the forced removal of head scarves of women in French schools, will pupils be forced to remove religious symbols from their person in future? I believe in FREEDOM, and to me that actually means allowing people to wear Taliban style full head covering if they freely CHOOSE to, it's not my place to force them to remove it. And the same goes with a school displaying a crucifix on the wall....who bloody cares? These court cases are just a breeding ground for intolerance, regardless of which side of the ledger you're on.
And I like what one Greek Orthodox Bishop said about this case, basically that it appears religious symbols of tolerance will be replaced by adulation of tv stars and pop singers. Summed up nicely I thought?
"Decision of the Court
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. This 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. The freedom not to believe in any religion (inherent in the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Convention) was not limited to the absence of religious services or religious education: it extended to practices and symbols which expressed a belief, a religion or atheism. This freedom deserved particular protection if it was the State which expressed a belief and the individual was placed in a situation which he or she could not avoid, or could do so only through a disproportionate effort and sacrifice.
The State was to refrain from imposing beliefs in premises where individuals were dependent on it. In particular, it was required to observe confessional neutrality in the context of public education, where attending classes was compulsory irrespective of religion, and where the aim should be to foster critical thinking in pupils.
The Court was unable to grasp how the display, in classrooms in State schools, of a symbol that could reasonably be associated with Catholicism (the majority religion in Italy) could serve the educational pluralism that was essential to the preservation of a “democratic society” as that was conceived by the Convention, a pluralism that was recognised by the Italian Constitutional Court.
The compulsory display of a symbol of a given confession in premises used by the public authorities, and especially in classrooms, thus restricted the right of parents to educate their children in conformity with their convictions, and the right of children to believe or not to believe. The Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 taken jointly with Article 9 of the Convention..."
Below is a summary of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights to order Italy to remove the cross from Govt schools. While I'm a huge supporter of institutions like the ECHR, I believe on this occasion that they've over stepped the mark. The ECHR does a great job in protecting minorities victimized by the state, but in this instance, is it really an unbearable hardship to ask non Christians (in a christian majority country) to sit in the same classroom where a crucifix is displayed? Does that really impinge their human rights and make them feel like lesser people? It's not like they're being asked to recite (or abstain from) the lord's prayer or something, where it's clearly visible to all as to who is "different", ie non christian. But what really concerns me is what's the next step? Just like the forced removal of head scarves of women in French schools, will pupils be forced to remove religious symbols from their person in future? I believe in FREEDOM, and to me that actually means allowing people to wear Taliban style full head covering if they freely CHOOSE to, it's not my place to force them to remove it. And the same goes with a school displaying a crucifix on the wall....who bloody cares? These court cases are just a breeding ground for intolerance, regardless of which side of the ledger you're on.
And I like what one Greek Orthodox Bishop said about this case, basically that it appears religious symbols of tolerance will be replaced by adulation of tv stars and pop singers. Summed up nicely I thought?
"Decision of the Court
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. This 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. The freedom not to believe in any religion (inherent in the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Convention) was not limited to the absence of religious services or religious education: it extended to practices and symbols which expressed a belief, a religion or atheism. This freedom deserved particular protection if it was the State which expressed a belief and the individual was placed in a situation which he or she could not avoid, or could do so only through a disproportionate effort and sacrifice.
The State was to refrain from imposing beliefs in premises where individuals were dependent on it. In particular, it was required to observe confessional neutrality in the context of public education, where attending classes was compulsory irrespective of religion, and where the aim should be to foster critical thinking in pupils.
The Court was unable to grasp how the display, in classrooms in State schools, of a symbol that could reasonably be associated with Catholicism (the majority religion in Italy) could serve the educational pluralism that was essential to the preservation of a “democratic society” as that was conceived by the Convention, a pluralism that was recognised by the Italian Constitutional Court.
The compulsory display of a symbol of a given confession in premises used by the public authorities, and especially in classrooms, thus restricted the right of parents to educate their children in conformity with their convictions, and the right of children to believe or not to believe. The Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 taken jointly with Article 9 of the Convention..."
No comments:
Post a Comment