I would say my feelings about the ruling of the European Court on the crucifix in schools. The sentence is unexceptionable: Once jurisdiction over the matter, the Court could not decide so, because there was no question the usefulness, relevance, significance, religious or civil, the crucifix, the positive or negative perception of children, largely unaware of Christianity, may have a man "hanging on the cross naked, humiliated and killed, and so exposed for all to see. Not on this issue in the proceedings and not on this is expected to develop the debate on the decision, the reasons to hate the one or the other, as I have seen in newspapers even friends. The decision concerns the obligation, imposed by the State to put the crucifix in classrooms, as it says the Strasbourg Court "exposure a mandatory symbol of a given religion "in the context of a function is run by the government. It is clear that this obligation, arising out of royal decrees and circulars fascist imposed on the crucifix with the portrait of King, are opposed to all principles of the modern rule of law, the provisions of the Constitution, the European Convention, and maybe even the conciliar Declaration Dignitatis Humanae on religious freedom.
However I would say my sense of sorrow for what happened and even more for what can happen.
First I am sorry to activate the process in its various phases, with undeniable tenacity, was a mother of two children who is also a member of the Union Rationalist Atheists and Agnostics (Uaar), which suggests that in addition to the defense of two children from unwanted religious interference, including the grounds of appeal there was a more general ideological interest.
I also regret that the Italian administrative courts and the government have been so myopic, both in substance and in the grounds in rejecting the applicant's reasons (as would have been enough reason to give the Constitution), to cause the ' appeal to the Strasbourg Court, and therefore call into question even the Human Rights Convention, certain relevant legal text, but rather out of proportion when you consider how many and which human rights are violated with impunity and excruciatingly in the world, and compression near zero, for which, the presence of crucifixes in classrooms inflicts human rights of children who are forced to view it.
I also regret that Italy, in a home as significant as the Strasbourg Court has shown the lowest degree to which the law came in view of the government of our country, putting in the grounds of his memory defensive, "the need to find a compromise with the parties of Christian inspiration, which at best is an inherent right to political politician, that is in power, not law.
But above all I regret that, with recognition by all that there is no state religion, and that can not be imposed on all the symbolic representation of a single confession, there is a call to say that the crucifix should be maintained because it would have ceased to be a religious symbol, and instead would be "a symbol of the Italian State," "a symbol of Italian history and culture," a sign "of the Italian identity", "a banner of the Church Catholic, the only one - pointed to the Administrative Tribunal of Venice - to be named in the Italian Constitution "and indeed, in the Council of State, the cross would become a secular value of the Constitution and represent the values \u200b\u200bof civic life. As rightly said third intervened in the proceedings at Strasbourg (an organization for the implementation of the principles of Helsinki), this position is offensive to the Church. "
This position is in fact an atheist, but devoted, and tend to gain the benefits of religion as a civil religion. And I say the truth: if the crucifix became the flag of an identity, nationalism, a racist, a religious struggle, and if his defense had to be placed in the hands of the Gasparri Calderoli or Pear, the League or Villa Certosa, and ceased to be the memory of a God who became man, to make men divine, and who "having loved his own until the end" was accepted by his executioners the fate of the victims, and continues to climb all scaffolds erected by power, money from and war, then I would not see more than a crucifix in my life.
And I'm sorry that this dispute has finally kicked off by a legal regulation, rule against rule against debt elimination. The law can not operate that way, and what was required before it can render unlawful today. But I think that not only the written law, there are customs, there is a common culture, which slowly changes, that yesterday was "Christian", is now an agnostic, tomorrow will be secular, you can grow processes, without charges and without bottlenecks, accompanying with the variation of educational proposals, the life-worlds, cultures widespread ethnic groups co-present the changes in the shapes and symbols by which a society represents itself. It is said that all change must take place all at once and all over the country, such as when only one signal was reversed portraits of the king and the symbols of fascism.
I do not think that what is lacking today in Italy is the resurgence of a religious conflict, an ideological war. Of course the government would like, because it would yet another way to divert attention, to remain exempt from the assessment on the disaster produced by its actual policies.
If I were to say how, I would say that the state require schools to stop the crucifix, and non-appealable Strasbourg, claiming that the Church not the obligation, much less as a symbol of identity and roots, rather than as a symbol of salvation, and to have not run into the arms of government, and that with common sense, according to the traditions and the needs of places, there is a consensus among parents, pupils and teachers on leave or remove the cross. The last thing that God wants a slave who is suspended, is to bring the anxiety, hostility and the conflict in places where a generation is choosing, and perhaps only suffering, its future.
0 comments:
Post a Comment