The European Court of Human Rights has just upheld Italy's policy of displaying crucifixes in its public school classrooms. In Lautsi v. Italy, an atheistic mother of two public school children challenged this policy, in place since 1924. After losing in the Italian courts, she appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that the presence of these crucifixes in public schools violated her and her children's rights to religious freedom and to a secular education guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. On Nov. 3, 2009, an unanimous seven-judge chamber of the European Court held for Ms. Lautsi. On March 18, the Grand Chamber reversed and held 15-2 in favor of Italy.
The Court stated clearly that the crucifix is a religious symbol, that atheism is a protected religious belief and that public schools must be religiously neutral. But the Court held that a "passive display" of a crucifix in a public school classroom was no violation of religious freedom -- particularly when students of all faiths were welcome in public schools and free to wear their own religious symbols. The Court held further that Italy's policy of displaying only the crucifix was no violation of religious neutrality, but an acceptable reflection of its majoritarian Catholic culture. With European nations widely divided on whether and where to display various religious symbols, the Court concluded that Italy must be granted a "margin of appreciation" to decide for itself how and where to maintain its Christian traditions in school.
The Lautsi case echoes many familiar arguments that the United States Supreme Court has used over the past three decades to maintain traditional displays of crèches, crosses and Decalogues on government property. While not entirely convergent in their religious symbolism cases, the American and European high courts now hold six teachings in common.
First, tradition counts in these cases. In American courts, older religious displays tend to fare better than newer displays. The longstanding customary presence of a religious symbol in public life eventually renders it not only acceptable but indispensable to defining who we are as a people. In Lautsi, Judge Bonello put this argument strongly in his concurrence: "A court of human rights cannot allow itself to suffer from historical Alzheimer's. It has no right to disregard the cultural continuum of a nation's flow through time, nor to ignore what, over the centuries, has served to mould and define the profile of a people."
Second, religious symbols often have redeeming cultural value. American courts have long recognized that a Decalogue is not only a religious commandment but also a common moral code, that a cross is not only a Christian symbol, but also a poignant memorial to military sacrifice. When passively and properly displayed, the meaning of a symbol can be left in the eye of the beholder -- a sort of free market hermeneutic. The Lautsi court echoed this logic. While recognizing the crucifix as religious in origin, the Court accepted Italy's argument that "the crucifix also symbolized the principles and values" of liberty, equality and fraternity that "formed the foundation of democracy" and human rights in Italy and well beyond.
Third, local values deserve some deference. In America, the doctrine of federalism requires federal courts to defer to the practices and policies of individual states, unless there are clear violations of federal constitutional rights to free exercise and no establishment of religion. The Supreme Court has used this doctrine to uphold the passive display of crosses and Decalogues on state capitol grounds. The Lautsi Court uses the European "margin of appreciation" doctrine in much the same way. Lacking European consensus on public displays of religion and finding no coerced religious practice or indoctrination in this case, the Court left Italy to decide for itself how to balance the religious symbolism of its Catholic majority and the religious freedom and education rights of its atheistic minorities.
Fourth, religious freedom does not require the secularization of society. The United States Supreme Court became famous for its image of a "high and impregnable wall of separation between church and state," that left religion hermetically sealed from political life and public institutions. But the reality today is that the Court has abandoned much of its strict separatism and now allows religious and non-religious parties alike to engage in peaceable public activities, even in public schools. The European Court of Human Rights likewise became famous for promoting French-style laïcité in public schools and public life, striking down Muslim headscarves and other religious symbols as contrary to the democratic "message of tolerance, respect for others, and equality and non-discrimination." Lautsi suggests a new policy that respects the rights of private religious and secular groups alike to express their views, but allows government to reflect democratically the traditional religious views of its majority.
Fifth, religious freedom does not give a minority a heckler's veto over majoritarian policies. Until recently, American courts allowed taxpayers to challenge any law touching religion even if it caused them no real personal injury. This effectively gave secularists a "veto" over sundry laws and policies on religion -- however old, common or popular those laws might be. The Supreme Court has now tightened its standing rules considerably, forcing parties to make their cases for legal reform in the legislatures and to seek individual exemptions from policies that violate their beliefs. Lautsi holds similarly. It recognizes that while the crucifix may cause offense to Ms. Lautsi, it represents the cherished cultural values of millions of others, who in turn are offended by her views. But personal offense cannot be a ground for censorship. Freedom of religion and expression requires that all views be heard in public life.
Finally, religious symbolism cases are serious business. It's easy to be cynical about these cases -- treating them as much ado about nothing, or as expensive hobbyhorses for cultural killjoys or public interest litigants to ride. But that view underestimates the extraordinary luxury we now enjoy in the West to be able to fight our cultural contests over religious symbols in our courts and academies, rather than on our streets and battlefields. In centuries past in the West -- and in many regions of the world still today -- disputes over religious symbols often lead to violence, sometimes to all-out warfare. Far more is at stake in these cases than the fate of a couple of pieces of wood nailed together. These cases are essential forums to work through our deep cultural differences and to sort out peaceably which traditions and practices should continue and which should change.
John Witte Jr. is Director of the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University in Atlanta, Ga.
Clay Shirky: After Tahrir: Protecting U.S. Muslims From Bigotry
Lautsi v. Italy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Religion in Public Schools - Role & Place of Religion in Public ...
Putting a relgious symbol in a place, is a statement of that power.
The masses are now happily reading textbooks and using birth control with no regard for the superstitious authorities.
It is too bad that the embodiment of a religion is in a symbol rather than a person.
The most productive thing to a society is a person that lives the belief rather than hoping for magic from a symbol.
That's what *happens* when you wage a 'culture war' against your fellow citizens and humans, particularly with government power, and against the rights and human dignity of others.
Even the Bible says everyone is to have a chance to speak.
I'm in the UK, which is a very mixed society regarding religion, with somewhere between 30% to 50% atheists/agnostics (depending which survey you read). Religions have long since lost the power they once had to be oppressive, so religious symbols in public buildings (there aren't many, and they are mostly old) are no big deal here.
In much of the US it seems (from what I read in the media, on internet forums, etc) it is very different, an aggressive form of Christianity which really does seem oppressive to non-believers and followers of other religions, so much more reason for these minorities in the US to 'fight back' and keep religious symbols out of public spaces.
I suggest you read some of the comments in the US news media about atheist billboards in the US. Some believers go mental about them, despite the profusion of religious billboards in the same cities. It seems they only want free speech for their side.
Mr. Witte seems to find a correlation between Italian public schools and American public schools.
I am someone who remembers praying in public school and when we stopped praying.
My suburban Boston classroom had children literally from all over the world in it (Russia, Indonesia, Japan for instance).
Things grow a lot more comfortable when we finally stopped saying The Lord's Prayer every day.
There may be a time and a place for religion but our public schools are not it.
2 Chronicles 15 13 That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.
Not allowing the teaching or outward displays of one religion over another is correct. However, not letting the children learn diversity and about other beliefs is wrong.
Your good Christian son is not going to convert if he learns about Judaism, or Islam. And if he does...so what? What he just may learn is an understanding of the conditions in the world today and be able to know who is spewing hatred and who is telling the truth. He may be able to at least understand what he reads in the paper and learn that when we say Freedom of Religion, we mean it.
Of course teaching about world religions in schools would mean training the teachers and writing text books that are not slanted...a thing of impossibility in today's political climate.
Americans need to know much more about Islam for instance.
But forcing elementary school children to say or listen or be a party to a prayer that is not part of that student's religion is against that family's civil rights.
Keep the preaching and praying in the home and the church and not in the public schools.
By the time the kids are teenagers their values are pretty much set.
How do we teach world history without mentioning Luther? Muhammad? Wars fought in the name of God and keep God out of it?
Many of the adults today do not have any understanding of the true history of our county, thinking it all started in the eastern colonies over freedom of religion with little attention put on the economical factors and ignore the Spanish and French contributions as well as the Native Americans. (Not to say anything of the thousands of years of history before the English came) We can't even get that right...how will we ever get the teaching about religion and how it shaped the world correct.
While some clamor to ban all religious expression in public, U.S. and international Courts hold that for democratic self government to be effective, all voices must be allowed in the public square. The power to ban one viewpoint from public expression is the power to ban any contrary view from public debate. That would destroy a variety of Constitutional freedoms including, freedom of religion, free speech, free press, freedom to assemble, and the freedom to petition government. Indeed, in one respect, for a government to ban any viewpoint from the public is the governmental establishment of the contrary view as the state preference or religion.
As for the decision of the European Court, we in the U.S. can forget that many European countries actually have government established and supported religions. In Italy it is the Roman Catholic Church. In Finland (the country of origin for the complaintant in this case) it is the Lutheran Church. Those governments actually impose and collect a tax and hand the money to the state established church. (It is debatable whether this enhances or detracts from the faithfulness of members of such churches) Actually funding a church with a direct tax is a core establishment of religion. By comparison, displaying a crucifix in a classroom or public building is a far lesser entanglement.
Frankly, I prefer the U.S. protection against establishing religion. But, even more than that, I prefer the right of democratice self-governance or popular sovereignty where every person has the right to advance their own preferences in public and have them adopted or rejected on their merits. If the people in Italy want to establish the Catholic Church impose taxes to support it and display crosses, that is their right. Just as it is the right of the Iranians to establish and support the Muslim faith. In the U.S., I will readily join you and others to protect religious freedom by avoiding unnecessary entanglements between the goverment and religion.
This is a favorite tactic of the Right. Planing for end of life issues becomes "The government is going to kill grandma" and separation of church and state becomes "banning all religion". Spreading these pernicious falsehoods to an unsophisticated and credulous public is, itself, reprehensible.
Here is an example (an exact quote) of the types of comments posted on this very website that would ban religion from public discourse.
“Religion is not based in fact, and it is for this reason that it should not be part of the public political discourse, let alone the basis for any legislation, domestic policy, or foreign policy”
Such statements like the quote above follow the agenda to "marginalize" religion. My comment was not a pernicious falsehood but accurate report of what others comment on this exact website. Apparently it is someone else who reprehensibly wishes to dupe the unsophisticated and credulous. You frequently comment on this website, it surprises me that you have failed to notice the numerous comments like that quoted above.
That's interesting pro-religionist phrasing there, professor. I would go so far as to sugest that it typifies the heckling of non-religious people so typical of biblebeltery and its adherents. That's going to have stop and if it takes yet another trip to the Supreme Court, that's what it'll take. Lautsi is right to take Italy to court, the court was prejudicial to cave in to European Vaticanism. That's likely to change yet again because theheckling comes from the majoritarian side and must stop.
if it is specifically that term you are objecting to.
When I see the Christian cross, I am not reminded of the sacrifice of the putative Jesus, who, depending upon the account may have been hung from a tree, but rather the Emperor Constantine's cross, which bears witness to the light of his favorite god, Deus Invictus. Had there been an actual Jesus, he may have been crucified on a tau cross or an X - more likely than the crossbar version depicted around the necks of modern religionists.
The cross with the lowered crossbar depicts the rays of Constantine's Unconquerable Sun, with the rays emanating in all directions and the lower beam reaching us here on earth.
So if the cross is a religious symbol, one might well ask which religion it symbolizes.
Oh no, this brought to mind a Crucifix Clock! :P
Unfortunately, the ch.urch has much money plus a shared agenda with the banksters, a revolution of sorts is taking place and soon in America chr.istianity will enter the minority stage of its reign. Then things will change quickly and for the better because this will signal that the consciousness of our country has evolved to one where people understand that we can solve our problems without divine intervention.
My guess is that 40% of the 72% are closet Atheists who claim belief only out of peer-pressure, fear of jobloss, and attachment to family members who are "believers".
I agree with you but I think under the right conditions things could move faster than we might think.
Consider that 72% of 310 million is 237 million "Christians" right?
Well 310 million minus 237 million is 72 million non-Christians! That is a HUUUUUUGE number and that market is not being served, they are thirsty for acknowledge as a group in this society and we need to activate and get them talking, doing our own proselytize-ing.
=========
A short but effective defense of the idea of the tyranny of the majority.
In addition, a public school room is different from a museum of cultural history in ways that are relevant to this case.
Most nations' "flow through time" has included a change from being more willing to impose religion on the citizens by law to being less willing. Recognizing this would mean ruling against crucifixes in a public school; allowing the crucifixes indicates “historical Alzheimer’s”.
I wonder if American Christianists who support banning Sharia law or any foreign law in our courts will want this ruling cited in American courts. This ruling is as inappropriate for present American culture as Sharia law is.
(please excuse my hyperbole)
In every American we place a flag; they placed a crucifix.
It is an historic artifact in the classroom. It is part and parcel of the architecture.
Atheist have become no different then the conquering religions before them; extreme. They'll decry the destruction of the two Buddha statues in Afghanistan, by the Taliban, but don't see themselves in the same light, wanting to **** on the grave of any an all representations of Christianity in not just America, but all over the world.
And if the truth were told, more men died who would be proud to wear that cross, defending all your right to **** on their grave, then any other religion or non religion, in America, but that doesn't give you the right to do it.
You are still my favorite atheist........but I won't let you **** on their grave.
There are enough legitimate fights regarding separation of church and state and religious symbols, no matter the religion, without becoming the Taliban.
I can argue about the validity of truth claims without that, and so can you. I am not doing anything to anyone's grave.
I am a person who is not a member of any religion. That doesn't imply disrespect or denigration of anyone. Some of the people I love most are religious and I would never insult their person.
Their beliefs are fair game, as are mine. I expect the courtesy and respect that I give to you to be returned to me in full measure.
Well, so much for your moniker...