Missing the point about the crucifix ruling
Children should not be exposed to this kind of thing. They will either he horrified and disturbed or they will become immune to the cruelty and violence, which I think is worse.
The internet is now rife with comments about the European Court of Human Rights’ ruling that crucifixes should not be displayed in Italian classrooms because they can disturb children who are not Catholics.
I have trawled through scores of them, read the remarks of politicians in Italy and in Malta, and of the Archbishop of Malta, and find myself astounded that not one person seems to have grasped the essential point. If some people have done so, then they are keeping their views to themselves.
The court has not ordered the removal of the Christian cross, but of the Catholic crucifix. The distinction is fundamental to the decision and should be essential in the current debate, but it has been overlooked completely, perhaps because most people cannot distinguish linguistically between a cross and a crucifix or understand that there are differences in religious tradition between both.
The Christian symbol is the cross, and not the crucifix, which is used mainly by Catholics. The crucifix bears the representation of the tortured body of Christ. The cross does not.
The European Court of Human Rights ruled for the removal of crucifixes – and not crosses – and then only from classrooms, on the grounds that these might disturb children who are not Catholics. Unfortunately, the meaning of the ruling was blurred by unnecessary references to religion, when essentially this is not about religion at all, but about psychology and the exposing of young children to depictions of torture and cruelty which are entirely unsuitable for their consumption.
The European Court of Human Rights is correct: depictions of cruelly flogged and bloodied men nailed to crosses through their hands and feet, with a crown of thorns rammed onto their head and a spear rammed into their abdomen, are (not ‘might be’) profoundly disturbing to children who are not inured to them by constant exposure in an overwhelmingly Catholic culture.
Even Catholic children are disturbed by such things. I was one of them, which is why I am in agreement with this ruling and why I understood it immediately to have little or nothing to do with religious freedom, and everything to do with protecting children’s sensibilities from horrific depictions of extreme cruelty, torture and murder.
Though I was raised a Catholic, I grew up in a home without crucifixes. There was the occasional saint and Madonna, maybe even a cross, but absolutely no crucifixes. I can only assume my mother thought she shouldn’t hang depictions of terrible torture in a household with four young children, because I once found an inherited crucifix carefully concealed in a drawer.
Whenever a present was bought for baptisms, it was a little gold cross and not a little gold crucifix. If you were on the receiving end of a crucifix rather than a cross, and you were going to insist on hanging that little tortured man around your neck, then you would have to conceal it completely beneath your clothing and refrain from wearing it with open-necked shirts, because displaying a crucifix around your neck, unlike displaying a cross, was considered unseemly and tasteless.
I went to two Catholic schools, one of which was housed in a properly old-fashioned convent of nuns in an ancient building in Mdina. I don’t recall that there was ever a crucifix hanging in any one of the 12 classrooms in which I sat over the years. My chief encounter with a crucifix outside a church, in my childhood, was at my paternal grandparents’ home (my maternal grandparents had none on display).
I realise now that it must have been a magnificent thing, with an exquisitely-wrought Christ nailed to a vast, ebony cross, but though the room in which it hung was right next to the room in which we sat when we visited, that crucifix kept me out. It horrified me.
Though I lacked the language with which to form the thought coherently, as a child I somehow understood that this was not a religious symbol but a graphic description of terrible torture and murder, and that its routine display in banal contexts detracted from the hideous reality of what was being depicted. I detested crucifixes and still do. They make me shudder. My reaction to them is no different than it is to other depictions of torture, which I cannot bear to look at.
When I was a little older, I thought it very odd that children were shielded from extreme cruelty in films and books, but exposed to it in the name of religious devotion. I was in London for the last two weeks and visited every special exhibition going, except for The Sacred Made Real, which is replete with graphically realistic images of a suffering, tortured and torn Christ, from the extreme end of Spanish Catholicism.
When I am exposed to too much of this sort of thing, I am left with the lingering impression that this kind of Catholic-inspired art was a refuge for people of suspect psychology or sadomasochistic inclinations, just as it is today with that nasty little Catholic drunk who produced The Passion of the Christ and, in quick succession, a revoltingly bloodthirsty and graphically sadistic epic about indigenous central American people.
Crucifixes, like depictions of saints carrying their breasts and eyes, being flayed alive, boiled in oil or cooked on a griddle, are a hangover from pre-literate society when people needed such aids to devotion because they couldn’t read and couldn’t imagine anything which wasn’t interpreted for them visually.
They are, essentially, a portrayal of torture and murder and as such have no place in rooms where children are exposed to them. Most children are incapable of understanding abstract concepts and the idea of a symbol, and will see a crucifix with startling clarity for what it is: a bleeding and cruelly beaten man nailed to a piece of wood. It makes no difference to them that he is Christ. He is still a man, in the shape of a man.
But to my mind, what is worse than exposing children to this kind of horror is inuring them to it. A classroom of children glossing over the fact that on the wall above their head hangs an image of a tortured man nailed to a cross and dying fills me with distaste so profound, so disturbing, that I cannot find the words to describe it. It is perverse beyond description.
This article is published in The Malta Independent today.
87 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
True – the judgement does refer to the word Catholic crucifix. However, the spirit of the complaint was against the display of a religious symbol, and the spirit of judgement was that there should be nothing that contradicts the state’s secularism within a classroom.
[Daphne – No, actually it wasn’t. I haven’t read the judgement, and nor, I imagine, have the politicians and the archbishop, but it the whole thing clearly hangs on the word ‘disturb’. As the archbishop said, “I am not disturbed when I see somebody wearing a burka.” Precisely. But children are disturbed by the effigy of dead men nailed to crosses. Like the archbishop, they are not disturbed by burkas, nor are most adults disturbed by crucifixes (though many are and I am one of them). On first reading the report, I too thought it was all about the banning of a religious symbol per se. What made me read the reports again, this time more carefully and with an eye for the specific terminology, was an email from one of my sons who, as it turns out, was unaware of the difference between a cross and a crucifix because I didn’t raise them as Catholics. “It’s crazy to suggest that children are going to be disturbed by two pieces of wood,” he wrote. Exactly. It is crazy to suggest that children are going to be disturbed by two pieces of wood – and that is not what the court is saying. It’s saying that the dead man on the two pieces of wood is the actual source of the problem.]
I imagine that based on this ruling, the same argument can be made for the Christian cross as it too “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”.
[Daphne – No, because two pieces of wood don’t disturb children. So there will have to be other grounds for the ruling which have nothing to do with disturbing children’s minds.]
You’re right about the horrible feelings that the crucifix inspires. Ironically, while it inspires fear and disgust, it also induces guilt for those very same feelings. I think that’s part of what makes the Catholic religion such a negative one.
I am in total agreement with your assessment and I too have always had the same views about the crucifix. First of all, a crucified man does not necessarily represent Christ, because at that time under Roman rule crucifixion was a common form of execution. It was not exclusively reserved for Christ. Secondly, like you I do believe that the creators of Catholic tortured images must be of dubious mental tendencies to get satisfaction from depicting detailed representations of the most horrible tortures. But then you only have to look at the Catholic Church inquisition courts. Since I was a kid I used to be disturbed by the images of the Via Sacra in church, let alone some huge overbearing crucifix. I think it is correct that the EC of Human Rights acted the way it did. Children must be protected from such strong imagery.
Good article, Daphne.
Getting the crucifix out of the public arena could, plausibly, force Catholics to move away from symbols that have lost their meaning, towards displaying for instance, solidarity with immigrants.
We should not be too surprised that the vocal majority of those who proclaim their Catholicism loudly are also those who are indifferent to the plight of the stateless Africans seeking refuge in Europe. These, of course, are precisely the same people who “their” religion deems rightful inheritors of the Kingdom.
The Maltese criminal code seals up these injustices. Articles 163 and 164 were drawn up in 1933, precisely the time that the Church was attempting to Aryanize Christ and the year Hitler passed his anti-Semitic Nuremberg laws, which led to the Holocaust.
Steven,
Cut your bullshit and get real We don’t care about your beloved immigrants, our culture is here to stay and not 1 illegal immigrant is going to dictate us as long as we are here. all illegal immigrants must be repatriated before we end up in an Islamic state and you can go with them and take your African wife/girlfriend with you. just to let you know i am not Catholic.
[Daphne – Easy now. I love how everybody has assumed that the case was brought by a Muslim immigrant. It wasn’t. It was brought by an EU citizen (born and bred, not naturalised): a Finnish woman, brought up in a Christian culture. People are surprised when they hear this. There was an argument at lunch yesterday and somebody was holding forth about ‘these Muslims coming into our culture and wanting to change it’ and then somebody else said, ‘But the woman is Finnish’. And that kind of deflated things.]
What did the Finnish woman have to do with the Italian schools?
[Daphne – She is raising a family in Italy, and her family is Italian.]
finnish or no finnish this will only contribute to the downfall of western culture meanwhile the Muslims are growing excessively. let’s see this finnish being an atheist under an Islamic regime
I’m really doubtful to whether you are right about this one. True enough, I did not read the ruling, but the original complaint was a call for secularism in the public classroom. The woman in question (of Finnish origin, I believe – those Scandinavians again…) did not want her child to be overexposed to religious symbols.
I agree fully about how horrendous the crucifix is. As someone had wittingly expressed it, if Jesus was executed in the 60s, Christians across the world would have worn little electric chairs around their necks. Saying that, I haven’t seen any indications that this is what the ruling is about.
A true joy to see the horde of amusing comments about immigrants wanting to take over, the scourge of atheism and the never failing Christian values of Europe.
Man, it’s fun to be an atheist in Malta.
The ECHR judgment makes reference to crucifixes and not crosses because Italian law imposes the presence in classrooms of the former and not of the latter. If, following this judgment, the Italian authorities decide to impose the presence of crosses in classrooms (which they could do while still abiding by the letter of this judgment), a fresh action could be brought based on the same legal claim albeit on different facts (i.e. crosses not crucifixes). The Court’s judgment would, barring a revolutionary change in the interpretation of the Convention, in all probability be the same as in the Lautsi case.
The decision of the Court has got absolutely nothing to do with “exposing children to this kind of horror is inuring them to it” and the distinction between cross and crucifix is not only not fundamental to the case but it is absolutely irrelevant.
Great article, but I agree with Ian that probably the motivation for the Court’s decision was a different one. I say ‘probably’ because I haven’t read the judgement either, but the official press release of the Court on the case reads as follows:
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.
I didn’t read the judgement becuase it’s in French (although a Google translate version is here: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcmiskp.echr.coe.int%2Ftkp197%2Fview.asp%3Faction%3Dhtml%26documentId%3D857724%26portal%3Dhbkm%26source%3Dexternalbydocnumber%26tabl&sl=fr&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8); I read the press release: http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=857732&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649
“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”
The tone of the decision was all about the separation of church and state and the protection of reloigious minorities, not the traumatic effect of the crucifix per se.
I agree with you on how traumatic Catholic symbolism and teachings are to children, and in some cases adults as well. It’s a religion based on fear of retribution, inevitability of suffering, helplessness, guilt, oppression, and so on.
However, I still feel that the point of the judgement is the separation of Church and State – that is why I think this is an important judgement and certainly a step in the right direction. Religious symbols belong in churches and in religious schools, not in government schools.
Also, I think the archbishop made several severely flawed arguments
1. “Mgr Cremona said everyone should enjoy the right to show their faith through images” – this is not ‘everyone’ but the state placing religious symbols in every classroom, requiring us to kiss a crucifix when signing an affidavit, etc. The state does not enjoy freedom of expression in the same way as citizens do because the state is seen to enforce something when it displays a particular symbol.
2. “What if one did not like għana (folk singing)?” he asked (referring to the banning of the crucifix as insensitivity to culture). Well if someone was folk-singing in a classroom, I’d see his argument, but this is just plain silly – there’s no comparison here.
3. He also called it a form of censorship – come on, the church taking a stand against censorship? That’s too much.
P.S. One needn’t read the judgement; admittedly it is rather tedious. So here goes a very reliable shortcut for anyone who’s interested:
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=857732&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649
While not arguing with the basis of your article, I fail to see on what grounds you raised the distinction between cross and crucifix, seeing that by your admission you did not read the judgement. I did not read the judgement (it’s only available in French, and back in my time I had to choose between French and Latin), but the official press release (see link reproduced below) says that
“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.”
So the judgement is based on grounds of religious freedom and does not enter into the argument raised by you, namely of violence and torture.
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=857732&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649
Nowhere do they specify that a cross is OK but a crucifix no. True they refer to the “crucifix”, but the reason why is not because of the reasons you mentioned.
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=857732&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649
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.
Daphne, I don’t think you’re 100% corect on this one or I’m reading another ruling. This is the ruling I found:
“The presence of the crucifix … 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. Such symbols could be disturbing for pupils who practiced other religions or were atheists.”
Maybe I got the wrong quote but this is absolutely different to what you are saying here and if this is the correct ruling even the cross in a classroom would be disturbing to pupils.
Well, nothing to do with court ruling but my sister once took her young (3 year old) son to a Good Friday procession and he came home crying his eyes out because “Jesus has mimmi”
Maybe I’m completely wrong here and this is just a personal guess, but being so exposed to such depictions can render people insensitive as to what pain and torture really mean which might also explain why the nastiest teachers I have ever had were nuns.
Daphne, sorry to say this, but you are wrong.
The case is about religion and not about torture and horror; it’s not even about a man being nailed on two pieces of wood.
It has nothing to do with children being disturbed by torture etc. Should that be the case then cartoons displaying violence and similar films and programes broadcast during hours when children have easy access to TV should be banned totally. But this case has nothing to do with that. The judgment is totally about religion.
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=857732&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649
The following are excerpts of the press release on the judgment from the Courts Website:
“CRUCIFIX IN CLASSROOMS:
CONTRARY TO PARENTS’ RIGHT TO EDUCATE THEIR CHILDREN IN LINE WITH THEIR CONVICTIONS AND TO CHILDREN’S RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education)
examined jointly with Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion)
……
On 23 July 2002 the applicant complained to the Veneto Regional Administrative Court about the decision by the school’s governing body, on the ground that it infringed the constitutional principles of secularism and of impartiality on the part of the public authorities.
…..l
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.”
In my opinion this is all about secularism and religion and not about exposing children to this kind of horror.
I *HAVE* read the judgment and the distinction between crucifixes and crosses being raised here, be it fascinating is off the mark.
I have to agree with Ian Castillo and Pat that the scope of the judgment is the removal of ALL religious symbols from all state owned premises.
At long last, might I add…
Capital article, Daphne. Let us say that I believe in the obscure teachings of someone who was drawn and quartered in Elizabethan England. I guess I would have the right to hang miniature gold dismembered body parts around my neck although I am sure that I would be shunned as a deranged maniac. It sounds ridiculous but it is no less ridiculous to adopt as the main symbol of one’s belief the horrors of one of the most gruesome capital punishments ever devised by man and insist on depicting it in all its goriness.
But Daphne, how can you say that a crucifix will horrify or disturb children? Our National Board of Film and Stage Classification classified that gorefest called The Passion of the Christ as a PG, for all children to see. How can a mere crucifix disturb them? Unless of course, they are cuckoo and got their ratings wrong . . . again.
I agree with the ruling, and in truth I believe it is simply fills a gap in Italian legislation which is already filled in France, Germany, Spain and the UK, where religious symbols are banned from the classroom. Of course as an atheist, my view is exactly as biased as that of believers who wish to retain the symbols.
But quite apart from the issue of separation of church and state, there is another issue arising out of this uproar which disturbs me and should disturb us all, believers or not.
There was a time when we had no chance of human rights redress beyond Malta’s Constitutional Court. So in a time where human rights were being abused both directly (e.g. torture) and in-directly via anti-democratic laws restricting our personal freedoms or enabling the expropriation of property etc etc, all the goverment (the MLP, surprise surprise) needed to do, and did, was not appoint judges to the constitutional court – which effectively gave them the chance to do whatever they liked.
So, in order to make sure this did not happen again, we ended up making our courts subject to judgments in the ECHR, which is a GOOD THING.
But the thing about courts and the rule of law, is that you do not pick and choose which laws to obey or judgements to abide by, you either obey all of them, or use legal avenues to get them changed if you disagree with them. You cannot apply the Astrid Vella/FAA school of thought to human rights. Applying it to planning issues is bad enough.
So when I hear calls to disregard a court judgement, I worry, especially when the person to make that call is our Archbishop.
Where do you draw the line? What if an anti-democratic legislator passes a law legalising certain forms of torture, (for instance waterboarding) and the ECHR rules that this is inadmissible? Will the legislator then turn around and say “We ignored the crucifix ruling so I’m going to ignore this one?”
I disagree in the strongest way possible, Daphne. Because your logic is flawed. It implies that we shouldn’t take children to art galleries or churches or anywhere that where images of crucifixion or torture are displayed. And it follows that literature that describes such actions shouldn’t be studied in schools. Out go Shakespeare and Dante. And so on to cinema. And history books.
Welcome the brave new generation of uncultured Harry Potter fags.
Children are tougher than you think. They can deal with images of death and suffering and torture. Now if it had been about abolishing that MUSEUM scourge, then of course I’d have agreed. Because it serves no purpose, except to breed ignorance and fritter away the already limited free time during one’s childhood. Same goes for ‘religious knowledge’ lessons.
Besides, you chose to put a picture of a baroque-style crucifix (or a tacky baroque-inspired one) where the whole point was the drama of suffering. Why not put a picture of an early medieval crucifix? See my point? The ruling is as absurd as it gets, because it uses a particular case to draw up a general rule, claiming to base itself upon aesthetic arguments.
This is a complete non sequitur. A museum, art gallery or a church would feature a specific genre, hence anyone entering such a place do so by choice. A pupil entering a PUBLIC school should not have to face the symbolism of a different religion on a daily basis, just as they should not have to face the propaganda of a political party.
And yes, I agree with you that children are tougher than many adults give them credit for, but it does not mean we introduce the study of horror films at an early age.
Shakespeare and Dante can stay, as they are studied for what they are. Fiction, which have helped shape the culture we live in. The cross, or crucifix, can also be studied for its historical and cultural value, but do it in the right context. We don’t see artistic depictions of Dante’s inferno glued on the school walls (I hope).
Then you did not understand what Daphne said. She agrees with the ruling because it’s about crucifixes, not crosses, which are deemed to be disturbing to a child – a question of aesthetics. Your argument is entirely different: a question of religious symbols. Which could be crosses, kippas, burqas, Sikh turbans, Muslim beards, and so on. The law requires that a line be drawn somewhere. But this ruling tackles the problem arse-on. It rules against crucifixes, but not against Christmas cribs. And we’re back to square one.
I understood very well what Daphne said, but no, I didn’t agree with her assessment of the verdict. I’m under the impression that the verdict is about religious symbols and I’m also of the opinion that the verdict, if that is the case, is correct.
Sure, religious symbols can be crosses, kippas, burqas, turbans, or noodle soup if you’d like and I would defend staunchly a ruling saying you can’t nail them to a classroom wall as well.
The line is simple. In a truly secular state, no public funding or property can be used to empower one faith over another (or lack thereof).
Also, to make sure I’m clear. I don’t oppose to teaching children about Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or the Flying Spaghetti Monsters (may you be touched by his noodly appendage), but they should be studied comparatively to provide all students with an understand of each. Public schools are not there to teach children about the supernatural – existing or not – they are there to teach them about the world we live in.
Here’s the text of the judgement (unfortunately, it’s only been published in French):
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=30814/06&sessionid=36712031&skin=hudoc-en
As can be seen, it did not ban the crucifix or ask the Italian government to take them down, It said (correctly) that a religious symbol in a public school infringes a parent’s right to educate his children according to his religious or philosophical belief, in this case atheism.
The Italian government would be in line if it only repealed the Fascist-era law which makes crucifixes in classes and gives parents the right to ask that it be removed if they want to. If all parents agree, it could well stay there.
But of course, they won’t pass by the opportunity to launch a crusade …
Gosh, you were a terribly impressionable child, Daphne! We had a crucifix at home and none of us – to my knowledge – ended up in S & M clubs.
I suppose you’ll also tell us that children under the age of 16 shouldn’t go to church, because there are crucifixes, the stages of the cross etc. all over the place.
[Daphne – Oh yes, that was another thing that really got to me as a child. All those bleeding, stabbed hearts and whipped men on the walls of Stella Maris Church. I wasn’t an impressionable child, but an observant one. I didn’t just look at those things and blank them. I wondered about them. And I didn’t like what they told me. I would say that, in great part, all that savagery was responsible for my impatience with Catholicism, and my refusal to allow my own children to have anything to do with it, except as observers. I think the question people have to ask themselves is not whether Catholicism harms children (in my view, it does, because of the particular way in which it is taught here) but whether being brought up without it causes harm (it doesn’t, if proper values and principles are taught).]
You frequently refer to yourself as a “social observer”. Is it possible that that you haven’t twigged yet that symbols have little to do with society. With all our Catholic symbols, are we a Catholic people? Conversely, with a dearth of symbols, why are Islamists so easily convertible into terrorists? It comes down to two things: upbringing/education and politics.
Just because you see things in a certain way, it doesn’t mean that you represent society. Ian’s comment is spot on.
“all that savagery”?
Your arguments are weaker than Man U’s defence at the moment.
I’ll tell you what impressed my (brought up as Catholics) children: the Twin Towers collapsing with 2,000 people inside them – that’s what. That’s real savagery. Or was that something you could live with?
[Daphne – For heaven’s sake, Chris. That’s news, a real-life current event (or it was in 2001). I can guarantee that if your children had to be exposed to the real life current event of a man being flogged up a hill, stabbed with a spear, crowned with thorns and nailed to a cross, then they would be a lot more impressed than they would be by the relatively ‘distant’ filming of skyscrapers falling down with people inside. What can I say? Maybe some children just have the imagination to connect the crucifix with the reality of the event it portrays. I was one of them. I didn’t just see a piece of wood with a little dolly on it. I saw what it meant.]
Honestly, I can’t believe what you’re saying! If 9/11 was some kind of tea party coz it happened far away, then there really is no hope for you, woman.
Christ’s suffering (which I personally think we would all do well to keep in mind), great though it was, at least had the – possibly minor, in Ms DCG’s opinion – merit that it offered humanity salvation. We should recall it everywhere, not just in classrooms! (Though that doesn’t mean you have to believe in it).
9/11, far from being “distant” was the here-and-now slaughter of 2’000 innocents for no reason at all. Shame on you for trivialising their deaths. Shame shame shame on you. I am deeply upset/outraged by your way of thinking. Are you telling us that these weren’t our bretheren?
Honestly, if any relatives of those killed in 9/11 are reading this you had better apologise. Again, SHAME!
[Daphne – Madonna, Chris, calm down. Who’s trivialising their deaths? Jesus.]
To my mind, this is complete hogwash – how many people do you know that are mentally distrurbed just because they grew up with a crucifix hanging on a wall at home or at school? It has been reported that “crucifixes might be disturbing for children from other religions or atheists”.
Sorry but the other dominant religion I know of has no problem sending their own kids to martyrdom with bombs tied to their chests. Really and truly, I think we have lost the plot and all we’re doing is rasing a generation of sissies who always want to blame someone else for their own problems. Most parents of our generation lived to see the butchery of a five-year war and their own parents were dealt with double that dose of horrifying experience. They blamed nobody but got on with whatever was left of their lives and rebuilt Europe as we know.
And yes, I’m also convinced that religion played a role here. The Catholic faith is constantly singled out for attack under the pretext of civil liberties and freedom of expression, which these bigots use to have their own way and to insult the sentiments of others in the process. There is a prevailing trend in Europe that it is hip to mock the Catholic faith and erase anything of significance that underlines what is essentially our heritage and the point of departure of most things around us. Just take a look at these – do we really have to go this far:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8342056.stm
http://www.tfp.org/slideshow/slideshow/blasphemy-in-spain-when-will-the-hate-stop.html
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/13888/CFI/family/index.htm
“Just take a look at these – do we really have to go this far:”
Or as I would put it, that’s a good start…
Mark, spot on. Daphne, I didn’t know you are being influenced by these new anti-Catholic, atheist ideologies. Maybe they are the new hip?
[Daphne – I have not been a Catholic for virtually all of my adult life, and I was a Catholic before that only because I wasn’t given a say in the matter. Not being a Catholic is not the same thing as being anti-Catholic. I am no more anti-Catholic than I am anti-Muslim or anti-Buddhist. To each his own. And that means I don’t like having Catholicism rammed down my throat through laws, just as I dislike the assumption that Maltese society is homogeneously Catholic, when it clearly is not. It is really painful for me to have to sit through conversations in social situations where everyone speaks as though everyone else is Catholic. I don’t approve of arguing about religion in social situations, because matters of faith can’t be countered with rational argument, and also because it’s very rude, so I just sit there and say nothing. It’s very tedious.]
I agree, but that’s not my point is it? But it may be that it’s hip to be non-Catholic – fine, but why impose it? There are those of us who don’t mind it but then who want to be Catholics.
Just go to the source…read the press release issued by the European Court of Human Rights. Unfortunately, until now the whole decision is not available in English.
this is the link:
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=857732&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649
I agree with the decision of the Court. All religions should be respected and there should be no privileged or dominant religion in any country.
The European Court of Human Rights reasoning wasn’t based on your argument, at least from the reasons given on the court website.
It appears to be based on a particular type of secular ideology which is tending to impose itself in Europe.
I believe that this issue is to be decided by individual states, which have different traditions and laws regulating the place of religion in society.
For once I tend to disagree with your argument regarding the ECHR ruling. Although I can appreciate your reasoning about the difference between a cross and a crucifix, the ECHR ruling makes no distinction between the two. Your article provided some valid points on the differences and the potential effect on children.
However the judgement itself makes no reference to this at all. I admit that I have only read the accompanying ECHR press release (since the original judgement is published in French) but there is a clear reference to the fact that the crucifix displayed in Italian State schools was considered a religious symbol and that a public display of this symbol may affect children from other religions and atheists.
For completeness sake, the original text is the following:
“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.”
As one can clear see, there reference is to the religious symbol not to the fact that there is a dead man nailed to cross.
Unfortunately across Europe we have taken secularism to the extreme, banning crucifixes (or crosses) from classrooms in Italy, banning the hijab in France. What next? closing down and demolishing churches and mosques so that atheists can pass through the village square without having to be reminded that there are still a few people out there who believe in some religion or other?
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=857732&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649
Neither the complaint nor the judgement is anything about the psychological effects of the crucifix (if ever) on the children. It is all about secularism or non-secularism. So nobody missed anything.
The crucifix does not have any scary effects on children, in the physical sense. It did not have on me. Most crucifixes found in classrooms are small wood and plastic with no blood dripping. They are no Gibson’s Passion.
If ever this becomes an issue, then any ‘life-like’ crucifixes should be replaced by more pupil-friendly ones. But I doubt. When we were young we had no problems with more graphical holy pictures. We used to collect Pannini stickers from Zefirelli’s Jesus of Nazareth. Even more graphical.
This argument for removal does not hold any ground.
Daphne, I disagree with you, but here is my opinion on this. It is interesting that the European Court of Human Rights arrived at an intellectual conclusion that the crucifix is disturbing to children and yet it doesn’t view some the violent programmes that are on television as disturbing.
To me it is a cheesy attempt to try to keep Jesus out of the classroom. Today they want the government to remove the crucifix and tomorrow they want to eliminate the cross.
Are children placed, by the state, in front of the television?
Case can be viewed (in French) at:
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=30814/06&sessionid=36742198&skin=hudoc-en
This is the essence of the case:
“La requérante alléguait que l’exposition de la croix dans les salles de classe de l’école publique fréquentée par ses enfants était une ingérence incompatible avec la liberté de conviction et de religion ainsi qu’avec le droit à une éducation et un enseignement conformes à ses convictions religieuses et philosophiques.”
Rough translation: The appellant alleges that the displaying of a cross in the classrooms of the public school frequented by her children, was incompatible with the right to freedom of belief and relgion and incompatible with the right to (them receiving) instruction and education that were in conformity with her religious and philosophical convictions.
The above is a very rough translation and I may in fact have mistranslated. The judgement uses both the words cross and crucifix and does not seem to go into the difference between the meanings of the two words. I have not really read it properly and my French is not as fluent as I would like it, however I believe Ian is right.
The Court of Human Right examines whether specific rights have been infringed or not and, although I completely share her feelings when it comes to crucifixes and crosses, if does not really get into the issue of exposing children to horror or about people being disturbed.
It is about Article 9 of the Convention:
Article 9 Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom,either alone or in community with others and in public or private, tomanifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and
observance.
and
Article 2 of Protocol 1 to the Convention:
Article 2 Right to education
No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of anyfunctions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, theState shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education andteaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical
convictions
Daphne
Much as I wish to believe that the ruling is against the exposure of crucifixes and not crosses as per your very clear distinction between the two terms, I beg to suggest that you are not correct in your deductions that the purpose of this ECHR decision is to protect Italian schoolchildren from the horrors of extreme torture and murder.
You may wish to read the official Press Release which includes a summary of the case Lautsi v. Italy (application no. 30814/06) here:
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=857732&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649
The condemnation of the display of ANY religious imagery in classrooms is clearly declared here:
“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.”
Daphne, I think that your article is making an effort to sugar the pill that Catholics (and any other religion, it seems) all over Europe are being made to swallow. ALL forms of religious symbols, thanks to this ruling, are to be removed from all Italian (and subsequently, I presume, from all other European) classrooms, in order to protect the principle of democracy.
You have to accept, like all the rest of us, that secularism in our beloved European Union is here to stay. When we joined the European Union it was “for better of for worse” and we bound ourselves to accept these kinds of rulings, offensive some might consider them to our religious culture.
And in my opinion, that is good.
JoeM, what you fail to mention is that this is NOT an EU ruling, but a European Court of Human Rights ruling. These two are not the same animal.
The removal of the crucifix would clearly be seen as the denial of the wishes of the majority, to accommodate the wishes of a very small minority.
[Daphne – Majority rule for religion, Mario? That’s very dangerous thinking. Look what it’s done to the Arab world.]
I also disagree that the crucifix is a horrendous object. It is not. It reminds us of the sufferings one man went through in order that we may be saved through his sacrifice. It is also a symbol of God’s love for us. Nobody can take that away. Nobody can now stand up and force their denial of this simple belief on the rest of us admittedly erring Catholics.
This Finnish woman who forced the issue is just an opinionated “kiesha”, and is wasting everybody’s time in trying to go against the majority who not only do not mind, but want the crucifix to stay in place.
Yes, it may be an instrument of torture to some. To many more, it is a symbol that we are not just mammals on the earth, but that there is a purpose in life, and we don’t just become dust. The crucifix is testament that the soul exists, and that the body is its mirror. That’s what one man proved.
[Daphne – Well guess what, Mario: it’s a symbol of death, and not of a purpose in life, unless that purpose is death. I don’t see any connection with the soul. Incidentally, that’s something else that used to fox me when I was a child, and I never got a decent answer when it first occurred to me and I thought to ask my RE teacher. If the chief tenet of Christianity is Christ’s resurrection, then why is the symbol of Catholicism Christ being murdered, rather than the resurrected Christ? That really used to bother me. It still does, because the crucifix is just not consonant with the Christian message on resurrection.]
I myself am not a model Catholic. But believe me, the first thing I look at in times of trouble is the crucifix, and not just the cross. As it gave me solace as a five year old, so it still does now.
[Daphne – Well, that’s the difference between us, then, Mario. As a five-year-old I got solace from my Lego bricks, and if my mother had found me at the age of five finding solace in a crucifix she would probably have sent me to a psychiatrist and whisked me off to another school. I would have been very worried indeed if I had ever seen my five-year-old pondering Christ’s suffering over a crucifix.]
But that’s me. Funnily enough, many people feel the same. It must be true also in Italy, and if there is a nation of lapsed Catholics, that’s one of them. All my Italian friends, even the most church-uncaring, feel that way. I was with them during most of last week.
Just because some people are atheists, or gays, or whatever, and are not mainstream, does not give them the right to impose on the mainstream. The mainstream should respect them and their views, but not be suborned by them.
Unfortunately, the ECHR has been suborned by strange people, with strange views, who exploit the law to impose their small will on the majority. That is not acceptable. Never going to happen, Lausi, or whatever your name is.
[Daphne – Any other European Court of Human Rights rulings you might care to scorn and ignore? Shades of Mintoff, I’m afraid. You can’t pick and choose the ones you respect and the ones you don’t respect. You’ve got to respect them all.]
@Mario De Bono
“this is NOT an EU ruling, but a European Court of Human Rights ruling. ”
That’s very true but only for now since, and I stand to be corrected, with the Lisbon Treaty you wouldn’t be able to make that distinction any more.
[Daphne – No, it’s not true.]
Daphne, it depends which way you look it since in practice, and I quote –
“The “Lisbon Treaty’s” text provides a reinforced framework to defend citizen’s rights and freedoms. First, the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights – which sets out a whole range of civil, political and social rights – will now be part of the treaty and, therefore, legally binding. This means that citizens will be able to use the Charter to challenge any decision taken by EU, or by governments implementing EU law, if they feel that their rights have been infringed upon. EU citizens could bring a matter before a judge in their country, who, in turn, could request an interpretation from the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. The “Lisbon Treaty” will also allow the EU to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights as a legal entity and be bound by judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.”
Daphne,
Have you ever pondered on this question as well? If Jesus died on the cross for our sins (as though Jesus died because of Adam’s and Eve’s original sin), therefore all Christians are going to heaven, then why do we still baptise children when they are born, to remove the original sin stain? Also, if we believe God is merciful, why did he have to send his son on a cross to die for another person’s sin? Wish I could get answers for these questions but never got any.
You know Daphne, your writings in the past have made me more and more Labour, as regards politics. Now you are making me more and more Catholic!
[Daphne – That’s because you never liked me at the off, Albert. It’s not like you were neutral towards me or anything, and so your assessment of what I say is coloured by personal animosity. Also, your inclinations are probably right-wing and conservative to start with, hence your eagerness to embrace both the Malta Labour Party and Catholicism as a badge of identity rather than in the true spirit of Christianity.]
Funny, isn’t it? These attempts to suppress this simple symbol, which can be drawn even by the youngest child, have been going on for hundreds of years. Yet it is still there! If i may use my imagination a bit, I can imagine God chuckling at these arguments. Like an elephant hearing a discussion among ants on how to crush him! OK, ok, I HAVE read Dawkin’s Opus.
[Daphne – Sigh. Another Maltese dinner party where I have to hear this kind of thing and I shall probably top myself.]
To be honest with you, Daphne, I tried hard to understand whether I was ever impressed by a 20cm bronze figure nailed to a 30cm by 20cm wooden cross which hung some three metres from the floor in the classroom. Sometimes I wonder whether it was always there.
It is incredible how this European Court of Justice (Council of Europe) objected to this macabre Catholic symbol in classrooms while it could not find anything wrong with bullfighting.
I wonder whether this mother of Finnish origin takes her child to school blindfolded in Italy. Her first duty as a mother is to teach her child to integrate in different cultures not protect him/her from the sight of an innocent smaller than life statue.
I am some two years older than you; at the tender age of six we used to watch thousands of cowboys, Indians, Romans, and American soldiers fighting and getting killed on our screens, and don’t know how much real bloody killings we witnessed in our yards at home on Saturdays when rabbits or hens were slaughtered to be eaten on the next day.
[Daphne – Funny you should mention that. At dinner last night, one of my fellow guests was an otherwise entirely sensible, pragmatic woman in her 60s who can’t eat poultry in any shape or form. It wasn’t some finicky dietary fad, she explained reluctantly. It was permanent damage caused by seeing chickens and ducks killed in their backyard when she was a toddler. It’s easy to laugh it off, but the damage caused at such an early age really is permanent, and we never know how toddlers are going to take things, so it’s best to stay off. Look at me with my horror of crucifixes. I really cannot bear them. And I’m not a squeamish person at all.]
We were exposed to real life or death and weren’t negatively affected with what we saw when we were young.
[Daphne – That’s what you might think. Exposure to too much death, suffering and ugliness actually brutalises children and makes them inured or immune to it. Worse than that, it could make them cruel and callous.]
This removal of the cross story is like having a posed picture in a silver frame of a disfigured grandfather who was a hero of the Second World War with an amputated leg, patched eye and a hook instead of a hand. The framed picture is on a corner table in your sitting room. Your Asian daughter-in-law comes from abroad and starts objecting to this picture because it may influence her child whom she wants to be a conscientious objector and demands that you put it in a drawer. You would not succumb to her capricious demands mainly for these reasons:
You furnish your home however you like.
Grandfather fought for your liberty.
He always gave you good advice.
He was highly respected by all.
He gave us all he could.
My grand child could inherit some of his things he left for us.
Daphne’s advice would be to leave the silver frame on the table…..without Nannu’s picture.
[Daphne – Completely wrong, sorry. Your analogy is off the wall. The crucifix represents the process of torture, and not the recovered individual with his handicaps. Why an Asian daughter-in-law? Conscientious objectors tend to come from North America and western Europe. A woman raised in Asian tradition would never demand the removal of an ancestor portrait, for whatever reason, but rather the opposite. You are conflating private space (the home) with public space (state schools). ‘My grandchild could inherit some of the things he left for us’ – typically Maltese and mercenary.]
Come to think of it Daphne, this slaughtering at the backyard could have been beneficial to me because it could also be the reason why I don’t panic much when I see blood on others and myself, and help the injured person. I took my children several times to hospital with severe injuries. And it could be the reason why I don’t find it hard to donate blood?
[Daphne – Not really. I have absolutely no problem with blood, injuries, whatever – not even my own, which I deal with calmly. It’s not the blood that upsets, nor the injuries. It’s the cruelty. Don’t you get it?]
Tomorrow and next Sunday there’s going to be the blood mobile unit at Zurrieq. I will be there to donate blood. People at Zurrieq are encouraged to donate blood – a voluntary group within the parish will provide refreshments and sandwiches and the waiting area is the parish priest’s sitting room. These happen to be followers of the crucified person, whose image you cannot stand.
[Daphne – John, you don’t have to be a Catholic to donate blood or to encourage others to do so. It’s completely irrelevant. Can’t you see that? Where would the world be if only Catholics donated blood or helped others?]
It’s also the same crucifix which Dr Sant did not kiss on his swearing in as prime minister and you were scandalised by such behaviour.
[Daphne – No, I wasn’t scandalised. I don’t kiss the crucifix either, as any number of magistrates and judges in our law courts will tell you. I think it’s gross, and not just because of the germs. I thought it was about time that the then leader of the opposition admitted to being an atheist – not because atheism scandalises me (it doesn’t) but because hypocrisy does, and so do politicians who lack the courage of their convictions.]
At that time you didn’t point out that he could be suffering from the problem which you had since your childhood. Hallina Daphne!
Can’t we out of respect for these people and the work they do in silence leave their sacred symbols where they stood for ages?
[Daphne – As I remarked to somebody the other day: your sacred symbol isn’t mine. Given that we are both Maltese citizens with equal rights in this country, who is to say that your wishes about sacred symbols should take precedence over mine? And please don’t give me that hogwash about the constitution. It shouldn’t be in the constitution in the first place. Where religion is concerned you cannot and should not have majority rule, and if you think that majority rule applies to religion, you have no right to criticise hardcore Muslims for thinking the same way.]
The removal of symbols is a negative attitude. Why should I object to your sacred symbols? Be positive and put yours next to mine. After all that’s what’s happening in some of our schools. I think these news have not reached Bidnija yet.
[Daphne – Why have religious symbols in state schools at all, John? What are you worried about – that the children will forget they are Catholic if they are not looking at a crucifix all day? Religious symbols belong to pre-literate society, but given all the pre-literate thinking around, I shouldn’t be surprised they’re still considered important. What next? A PN flag on your wall to remind you what party you support?]
Your objection is against all religious symbols. Your story is just the means to justify your attack on crucifixes in public places.
My oh my, now just have a look at a facebook group called “Hands off our Crucifixes in schools and public places”. The group has already amassed over 3500 mostly Catholic (I imagine), mostly Maltese people in a couple of days, who in the name of their religion are posting some pretty atrocious, not to mention ignorant and illogical, comments. The description of the group is the following:
“Respect our faith, beliefies and traditions…. do not dare remove crucifixes from public places and homes… If you do not like it, kindly ignore or return to your country of origin or to those countries that share your belifies. We never asked you to come over.. and never asked you to change your traditions (such as not eating pork).”
Enough said!
There is no need for crucifixes. Christ said: “This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
Most Christians tend to do exactly the opposite. I’m not against any symbols, but let’s start with the basics of love, respect and tolerance.
I don’t know what dinner parties you attend, definitely not prayer groups. But you know very well that all this is about ideology. This has nothing to do with “protecting” children.
[Daphne – It has everything to do with protecting children. My decision not to send my children to doctrine classes or to raise them as Catholics was taken purely to protect them. I didn’t want anyone playing with their minds. I also happen to think that religious indoctrination from a young age inhibits the development of thinking skills, the critical faculties, and powers of analysis. They might have overridden the indoctrination and come out the other end with their thinking skills well developed, but then again they might not have done and I wasn’t prepared to take the risk. The only reason I survived it was because I was born bloody-minded. I used to sit there and ask awkward questions, thinking all along what hogwash it all was, until the teachers lost patience and threw me out after resorting to ‘But it’s a matter of faith’ for the umpteenth time. But that was at school. We didn’t have to go to Tal-Muzew in those days. Imagine if I had been sent there. It would have been a riot every afternoon. Children are better off being taught useful and interesting stuff. And you can relax: they don’t turn into axe murderers if they don’t get a Catholic upbringing. Turns out they’re more likely to become axe murderers if they do, though the two might not be interlinked. Let’s face it: these islands’ multifarious horrendous criminals all got a good old Catholic upbringing, didn’t they.]
I mean when one considers what children are exposed to in the various media today. This is about suppressing an ancient symbol which millions upon millions of people hold dear. You see, Daphne, the suppression of this symbol HAS been tried, very systematically even.
[Daphne – What drama. Nobody is suppressing it. You’re just being asked to keep it out of other people’s faces if they don’t want it in their face and have no means of avoiding it, like in the classroom, for instance.]
Anyone remembers the Communists in Eastern Europe? I suppose I don’t need to say what the result of this suppression was.
[Daphne – I think you’re a little confused. The ECHR ruling was made precisely to counter dictatorial imposition. It was the fascists who legislated for crucifixes in the classroom. It was a fascist imposition.]
In any case, this is the real danger: these acts of suppression will eventually breed a counter-reaction, and this is all fertile ground for fundamentalism – Christian or not. I am sure you have heard many already blaming immigrants for all this.
The short-sighted judges in Strasbourg have no idea what a Pandora’s box they have unleashed.
[Daphne – I don’t think they can be blamed for people’s ignorance in blaming Muslims when the case was brought by a Finnish woman. So what now? A Catholic crusade of right-wingers on horseback, slaying buggers and heretics and adulterous women en route to Strasbourg? Ring Mel Gibson. He might sponsor it (in between drunken bouts of adultery).]
Daphne stop being an idiot and dont try to change history. The Cross and the crucifix are one and the same piece of wood where Jesus Christ was crucified. It doesn’t matter where the efigy of the crucified cross appears or not. Even the first christians used to paint it. And besides why does the hOLY Cross or Crucifix, makes one afraid of it? “Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.” St Paul (1 Corinthians 1:22-25)
Daphne,
The decision is clearly in favour of secularisation and has nothing to do with the traumatisation of the young.
In any case, your description of the sensitivity of your younger days and your present frame of mind clearly illustrate that you have amply managed to overcome your childhood nightmares with flying colours.
[Daphne – Not at all. I have a disproportionate hatred of crucifixes and find them profoundly disturbing. And by this I don’t mean medieval crucifixes, but the real, gruesome deal. I race past them in museums with my head down, skirt around them in churches, and won’t have any in the house.]
So have hundreds of thousands of Maltese who were exposed to such “psychological traumas”. In my case, since childhood, the man on the cross never traumatised me. On the contrary he frustrates me because he has set me a goal which I find most difficult to achieve, i.e. to forgive and love those who do evil things to me. I must also admit that I find it difficult to understand how some consider such a goal to stifle advancement in the human moral dimension, scientific progress and cultural development.
[Daphne – Repeat after me, lamp: you don’t have to be a Catholic or even a Christian to forgive and forget. I do it all the time. You just have to be a sensible human being, because it makes life easier all round. Sometimes, though, you should forgive but not forget, just in case the bastard, or bitch, tries it on again. Forgiveness doesn’t make the forgiven a different or better person, so in some cases you have to forgive but stay alert.]
Dear Daphne,
I do not know how easy or difficult it is for somebody who does not believe to forgive or forget. All I know is that it is a very difficult thing to do, especially if you are being crucified. Hence my admiration for the symbol that the crucifix stands for.
If it is very easy and sensible for you to forgive and forget, I will admire that too. But somehow your writing sometimes does not always quite convey this message. But then maybe I am not always understanding your message.
The Cross and the crucifix are one and the same piece of wood where Jesus Christ was crucified.
That must have been one hell of a big tree.
Actually, as a graphical representation of Christianity the crucifix dates only from around the 10th century. The first Christians used the “Icthus”.
Last week I was watching one of the several news items on the subject on Italian television. It gave some more perspective to the story. It is to be noted that the whole community of agnostics is behind this woman (they number circa nine million in Italy). This Finnish woman (I still cannot understand why other religious denominations have come into the story) has been fighting her ‘crusade’ for a whole eight years, well after her children have left school. So it is about secularisation of public schools and not depictions of torture. A few years back it was fashionable to wear crosses of every sort – silver, wooden, beaded and much more. Children are exposed to a lot of things everywhere, not just in the classroom.
As a Catholic, it will not make any difference to me if there are religious symbols in public places. I would not mind having fewer symbols if it followed that I hear less swear words wherever I go, for example. But one doesn’t follow the other. I can understand Daphne’s aversion to looking at the crucifix. I seem to get the same reactions when I hear people swearing especially when it is said in very ‘colourful’ language. I feel offended and I shudder at certain phrases.
Also, it is true that children are impressed when still very young. My son used to have nightmares about the end of the world and I had to go and ask his religion teacher to avoid the subject when he was there.
It is foolish for Catholics/Christians to expect non-believers to experience any emotions versus the crucifix. I love to pray and meditate in front of a crucifix in church but that is a completely personal experience and I cannot expect others to behave like I do.
The Italians will be fighting the decision on the basis of tradition. But tradition is not religion. I believe that they will have the decision reversed if they insist on keeping their traditions (and they should like we should). For all I know there may be countries who have a tradition of hanging red ribbon bows in their classrooms. So why should they be stopped?
One last comment: I bet anything that most Italian children and their parents were not aware or conscious that there was a small crucifix on the wall in their classrooms. But now everybody knows and is reacting to the decision. I do believe that ‘crusades’ of all sorts – religious and political – always have the undesired effects.
In the wake of the decision banning crucifixes in Italian schools, may I suggest that the Italian school authorities take the following steps to ensure that nothing offends the sensibilities of atheist parents.
First, care must be taken when teaching literature. Dante must go, as must Milton and Dostoevsky. Other texts need to be suitably edited: Chaucer’s pilgrims had best be presented as package tourists. Second, history is a problem: any reference to the role of Christianity in building up a united Europe might offend, though the Inquisition and the Wars of Religion, presumably must be left in. To avoid presenting atheism in a bad light, the horrors of Nazism and Communism had best be glossed over. In fact, it might be better to drop the subject entirely.
Third, music students must not be exposed to sacred music: Handel’s Messiah is out, Verdi’s Requiem is out, Bach is dodgy and works by Mozart and Haydn must be carefully selected. Fourth, during history of art lessons, the display of images inspired by Christianity should also be avoided: Italian pupils should not be allowed to catch sight of Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel or Leonardo’s Last Supper. Turning to geography, it’s unfortunate that Italian place names are touched by Christian influences: San Marino, San Gimigniano and so on must be carefully erased from the map. The same applies to San Francisco, Sao Paolo, San Sebastian and most Caribbean islands.
In fact, Italian students studying geography would do best to focus on Antarctica. Sixth, maethmatics would seem to present fewer dangers, but pitfalls abound: for younger pupils the number 3 might present difficulties, associated as it is with the Trinity, and the plus sign might also cause offence. It may be best to leave addition and the three times table for secondary school, where pupils will be better able to cope. Finally, care should also be exercised on school outings. Roman children should avoid seeing the Vatican and Milanese children the Duomo.
Florentine and Venetian children had best stay indoors. With these policies in place, the Italian authorities can be confident that nothing in their educational system infringes confessional neutrality. Atheist parents can then send their children happily to state schools. Whether they will actually learn anything meaningful is an entirely different matter.
The things you mention only happen to have a religious element which is incidental or secondary to their artistic, cultural or historical value. They definitely satisfy the criterion which the Italian government made about the cross: that they have significance even for non-believers. On the other hand, the crucifix in the classroom has no merit beyond being a religious symbol that hangs in a prominent place.
The reflection is good, but can we go a bit more in depth. Can we remove all the playstation games that kill, torture or severe people? Can we stop cartoons with characters that explode by violent punches? Can we stop the movies that children watch, where blood seems to be gushing out of every part of their body? I grew up also in a Catholic school and the meaning of the crucifix inspires me still to integrity, giving more than receiving and a sign of being loved by God.
Isn’t this all a storm in a teacup? Who really cares? Except the nutters. I don’t think crucifixes damage children. I bet most children don’t even look at them at school. Personally I don’t think any religious symbols should be displayed in schools, but I’d defend a country’s right to do so if it wishes. If we, as the voting public, think there shouldn’t be any religious symbols in state schools, I’m sure some party will seize the opportunity, and make it part of their manifesto to remove them. Then we can vote for them, if that’s what we think. It’s called democracy.
[Daphne – Not at all. I have a disproportionate hatred of crucifixes and find them profoundly disturbing. ]
Which is why you are over-reacting here and giving such a slant to this ridiculous story when, in reality, the woman involved was complaining about the presence of a religious symbol hanging on the walls at school rather than the fact that the crucifix includes the figure of a battered, tortured Christ.
The crucifix, apart from representing the dead Christ who, Christians believe, died upon the cross for them, represents an everyday reality in the Roman world. What does one gain by running away from the reality of violent deaths? Or the reality of historical facts? Why should we go about life covering our eyes and pretending it never happened – acting like lily-livered cowards? It did happen. Fact.
It would be a very choosy child who’d become psychologically traumatized at the sight of small figure of a dying Christ, hanging on his classroom wall, but not traumatized by the thousands of images of violence which bombard him, every day, from other quarters. A very choosy child indeed.
[Daphne – Not a choosy child, Moggy, but one with an IQ well above average who was able to grasp abstract concepts at an unusually early age, and who wasn’t raised in a household that revered the crucifix and so was able to see it clearly for what it is, rather than for what it symbolises. I didn’t want to say it, but you pushed me. It might interest you to know that I am also unable to read or watch anything even remotely connected with the Holocaust or extermination camps – no, not even the major films, let alone documentaries. And I thought Mel Gibson’s film was hideous, the work of a sado-masochist, which it turned out eventually he really is.]
Funnily enough, neither did we have a crucifix displayed at home, but I was never really tremendously disturbed when I saw one. As long as I knew the truth behind what had happened to Christ (and others) – knew that there was an explanation, however gory – it was OK with me. Maybe I accepted early on that life was not a bed of roses, and that people did terrible, unspeakable things to others.
I am an avid reader of anything to do with the Holocaust, incidentally. I feel that only through informing ourselves and facing facts – however horrible – can we learn from what has happened in the past. Denying the truth is dangerous. It is true that much of what I read is disturbing and that I sometimes find it terribly depressing. It is also true that I find it very difficult to understand how some people can descend to such depths and be so evil. But the truth is often unpalatable and cruel. I prefer to know than not to know.
Dear Daphne,
You seem to be afraid of the portrayal of truth… I am aware that children may not like the sight of the crucifix but it is truly what happened. Like you, I am not keen on the Holocaust but it is what truly happened and you can’t erase it and you will do no good by trying to cover it up… if you haven’t realised the world is full of pain, torture etc. and children won’t learn if they’re kept in the dark about these things.
By the way… active imagination doesn’t render having an IQ above average!!
[Daphne – Actually, it does. Imagination and IQ are inextricably linked. People with a low IQ have no imagination. Intelligent children, presented with the sight of a crucifix, a woman displaying her open breast in which her stabbed heart is displayed, or those gory Good Friday processions, will ask questions and will try to work out what it is they’re seeing. Children of low or average intelligence, on the other hand, will take as read what is presented to them by the authority figures in their world. Duttrina is so damaging to an intelligent child’s mind not because of religion, but because of the indoctrination process that depends for its success on stifling that child’s natural predisposition to question things and even, many times, to see them with startling clarity for what they are. A successful education is one in which children, in those all-important formative years, are encouraged to explore, question and discuss. Duttrina, like all forms of religious indoctrination, trains children not to think. The inability of so many Maltese adults to think clearly, reason rationally, analyse information and organise their thoughts logically is the sad result of our education system and too much religious indoctrination in childhood. On your other point, there is the world of difference between denying that something exists and refusing to glory in it. Children do not need to learn that the world is full of torture and pain. That is the Catholic approach that I thoroughly abhor. They should be taught that the world is full of possibilities and that torture, pain and all forms of suffering should be avoided wherever possible – avoid causing them, and avoid enduring them. There is no dignity or self-respect in enduring suffering unless it is for a just and decently unavoidable cause.]
If you’re not going to proclaim your Catholicity from the rooftops, what’s the point in calling yourself Maltese? This island stalled in the Dark Ages…. and has yet to recover.
I was very upset and angry when I heard about the ban. But then when I read the truth about it I was even more angry, at the press. What is the reason that the newsroom of our national TV station and newspapers didn’t report the whole truth? Sensationalism.
If the graphic disturbance of the crucifix is the reason behind the ban, I totally agree. Although I was raised in a Catholic environment, when I was young, I was disturbed by some religious depictions and films that we were shown at school. So yes, the ban is 100% correct. After all, nobody treasures a photo of the dead body of a beloved relative who has passed away, even if his death is caused by natural causes and not torture.
BBC WORLD – Intelligence Squared Debate
The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world? A new debate, presented from London by Zeinab Badawi
Sunday 8th at 0110, 0710, 1510 and 2010 GMT – BBC WORLD.
If you get the chance watch this, it is excellent. It will be on for today only. Stephen Fry is one of the speakers and his comments on Catholicism ring very true. Form your own opinion, but very topical considering this crucufixes in public spaces debate.
I disagree with the ban because it’s a well-known fact that crucifixes keep vampires away. Now our children will be unable to trust their own classmates lest they turn out to be hellspawn. Before we know it, we’ll be overrun by legions of the undead. Mark my words.
[Daphne – Garlic does the job just as well, and it only offends northern Europeans.]
My son is five and a half and has lived in Malta for ten months. We went to the Good Friday processions here this year, God only knows why. I was horrified and even more concerned by my son’s questioning and my utter loss for words on many occasions.
I felt like a terrible mother exposing him to such sinister depictions. My son has become fascinated by Jesus Christ and most particularly with the idea of him on the cross. This has without doubt been ‘nurtured’ by school but clearly started during the Good Friday procession.
He is full of questions and I have found myself answering them by swapping Jesus for Spiderman and Jesus’s killers with the Sandman and the Green Goblin. It is indeed murder itself trying to explain the story to him. When I was his age what I knew about Jesus was that he was a decent geezer, through bible stories (I have to say though, I bought a book for my son not so long ago in Malta hoping for a genteel recollection of Jesus’s life, but it was all about sacrificing your first born).
I also remember references to him ‘dying to save us all’ which I did not understand (and I dare say still don’t) but certainly have no memories of the bloodied man himself dangling desperately from a cross. This said, my point is, if indeed the European Court of Human Rights banishes dying men on crosses from areas where children spend time, then surely that is both humane and decent. Could any parent think otherwise? God forbid!
Wouldn’t it have been better if you left once you saw that you were unable to handle the situation?
The ruling is, as Ian Castillo (and others) commented, about the secularization of public places on which people depend on for a “normal” life. It was not about the crucifix being a “disturbing” icon, it was about it being a religious icon. So yes, any symbol representing a religion is banned from classrooms, and this includes the Christian cross.
Some people here have said that children are not easily impressed by blood etc. I can say that this is not true. My family used to raise chickens and rabbits to be slaughtered. It is not a nice experience seeing your ‘pets’ being killed over and over again. As you might know chickens are beheaded and some of them still run around after being decapitated while rabbits are clobbered to death. I used to scream at the top of my voice every time for them to stop the killing. Once I even ran away from home (being still about seven I only managed to run about four corners away from home).
On the other hand, I do not remember myself being impressed by crucifixes but my seven-year-old son (who attends a church school because my ex husband says so) is so confused with the whole God/Jesus thing. He can never get it right. We should let children grow up and decide for themselves what religion they should follow instead of ramming it down their throats. Of course, people tell him he has a bad mummy because she is not Catholic and that he should never become like her.
I don’t mind whether there are crucifixes in public places. They don’t bother me. It’s the intolerance of so-called Christians towards other people with different beliefs that gets to me.
This is definetely a step in the right direction. Catholics have become obsessed with symbols to the verge of idolatry. Even the church seems to embrace it these days. Notice how frantic people get at the sight of the statue of the Madonna making its way out of the church during the village feast. This much I can put up with. What I cannot stomach is the act of dressing up the statue of the Madonna with precious jewels, diamonds and so forth. Some people even leave their family heirlooms to “the Madonna” in their will and these are then displayed with pride during the procession. If that is not idolatry then I don’t know what is. The average Catholic has become so fanatical about symbols that taking away their biggest symbol of all is going to stir some trouble.
Idolatry is the worship of idols. Most Maltese people of the festa-following variety have a childish (child-like?) attachment to their toys, but they don’t worship them. Not yet, anyway.
For 2000 years, European spirituality, history, art, culture, social life, economy, you name it, have been moulded under the shadow of the crucifix, and this also includes those who confronted it. Very little that is acceptable of what is European was done in disregard to Christianity.
[Daphne – Don’t confuse the terms ‘acceptable’ and ‘beneficial’. Many times, what is acceptable is anything but beneficial. And may I remind you that Catholicism – and here I divorce it from Christianity – was for centuries a main source of evil rather than a force for good. It also hindered, rather than helped, scientific progress, as Galileo and others discovered. Yes, there were pockets of good in the charity performed by monks and nuns, but this good was far eclipsed by the harm and by the fear of the consequences of apostasy which delayed Europe’s social development in the same way that Islam is holding back the development of significant parts of the world today.]
Now, for the sake of political correctness, this symbol of Europe’s achievements is again being projected by a high court as a disturbing symbol. Had this symbol been a direct affront towards anybody’s way of thinking, say an atheist symbol (and there might be some) hung upside down, than that would have been definitely condemnable.
All of us, who do not believe in fairies, would never oppose a picture of such fantasies.
[Daphne – Sorry to be a pain, but people who believe that virgin births can take place without artificial insemination, or that babies can be born without the genetic component of a father, should not go around speaking scathingly about others who believe in fairies.]
In fact, from experience, everybody knows that those that are indifferent to Christianity just ignore it, let alone its symbol. It follows that those who feel antagonistic to Christian symbols must have some difficulty/grudge against Christianity. Therefore this ruling of the court is awarding the party that bears a grudge. If that is so, then this is no justice for democratic peoples.
Europe was not born on the 5th of May 1949. Two whole millennia are being dismissed just for political correctness. The decision is not just an affront to the living Europeans but to all who came before us. All those minds, that have primary moulded this continent into its rich culture and its noble spirit, are being sidestepped and thus insulted.
[Daphne – Actually, Mario, contemporary Europe emerged from the Enlightenment and not from almost 2000 years of burning people at the stake or cutting off bits of their bodies if they challenged Catholic thought – or worse, if they were said by others to be challenging Catholic thought.]
This is an injustice. But then Christians are a soft target (for the Inquisition, their bigotry, their reactionary stance, etc.) so you may bash them and look good. But then this brings us back to the raison d’etre of the Court of Human Rights.
[Daphne – Wasn’t it the Catholics who ran the Inquisition?]
“Had this symbol been a direct affront towards anybody’s way of thinking, say an atheist symbol (and there might be some) hung upside down, than that would have been definitely condemnable.”
The only thing in your whole rant which I agree with. I mean, that’s the whole point, isn’t it? A symbol that promotes a specific agenda, with no connection to the studies that should take place in a school, should not be placed in a classroom, whether it’s a cross, crucifix, cross turned upside down, a bowl of noodle soup, or a statue of Ganesha.
A picture of a fairy would not promote fairism (if there is such a thing), it would be a simple artistic piece, no less, no more. While it’s true that many people have, and still do, believe in fairies – Hemingway for one – I find it doubtful that anyone would associate a drawing of a fairy with anything colluding with reality.
Oh, also. Christians are a soft target for many reasons. Here are just some that come to mind.
1. Their beliefs are unjustified.
2. Many of their beliefs contradict and obstruct modern morality.
3. Their beliefs have been imposed on others for millennia – both without and with force, intimidation, violence and cruelty.
4. Still today several beliefs keep being imposed on societies at large, something that is very apparent on this little island.
I’m sorry to have to point it out to you, but if you have ridiculous beliefs be prepared to be ridiculed. You seem to be in the “I’m so offended” camp, who can do naught but feel sorry for yourself when people criticise you, rather than actually defending your train of thought and engage in a rational discussion.
Is-salib tistghu tnehhuh mill-klassijiet u mill-postijiet pubblici. No big deal. Imma lil Gesu’ minn qalbna m’ghandkomx cans tnehhuh. Komplu ppersegwitaw lill-insara. Aktar ma tippersegwitaw lill-insara, aktar l-Armata t’Alla tikber, titwettaq u tisseddaq. Ix-xitan se jitlef il-battalji patetici kollha tieghu. ”Il-qalb immakulata tieghi se tirbah fl-ahhar.” – omm dak ta’ fuq is-salib.
daphne the removal of the crucifix is not just a slap in the face to christians/ chatolics…like ou I myself am not a devout catholic..but if you realized the agenda behind it you wold probably feel differently..fine remove the crucifix..the question is what ill they ask for next…the religious text…fine by me..the historical text? no way .leave it as it is….paintings and art..no way…how the teachers and then us should dress maybe? a burqa perhaps? why can’t you realize daphne that once you give them a finger they will bite off your hand..unfortunately the modern world has left in us a hatred for the church for its imposition on us in the past and even still in the present..censoring..meddling in how we should feast..etc…but I can assure you it is nothing compared to the imposition of islam..now you should start realized ththe immigration..secularism..crucifixes dilemmas…are all part of 1 agenda..europe needs workers becuase of future ageing problems so they decided to infuse us with islam..ofcourse this will have an explosive reaction I have no doubt..becuase what the 2 stand for is totally opposite..the western world and islamic world i mean.
Dear Daphne,
you are boasting about your IQ and mental capabilities. If you see the crucifix as ‘gory’, you might be the most close minded, stubborn person that may have existed on earth. And no that is not intelligence i’m afraid. And only other people can judge whether you are intelligent or not… istra i would love to boast having a doctorate in all subjects and professions.
Min jiftahar jaqa’ l-bahar! u mghandix dubju li jekk ma teghriqx ikun hemm is-sharks jistennew
daphne you know who ordered the removal of crucifixes in the past…guess who…adolf hitler.
I remember a story about an atheist ..on his grave was written…
‘here lies (name).. all dressed up but nowhere to go’ hehe
Mark Cuschieri….and guess who ordered them in state schools?
Benito Mussolini….
Jeremy…and now they will be removed by atheists but what you fail to all realize is that islam is behind this…and that is what worries me…I do not dislike atheists..becuase I am also personally sceptical of any religion. I just wish they understand that this is not about reforming the church and removing its abuses degrading women conserships etc…it’s about the muslim world trying to take over which I object to. Which is much more scary than our own religion which I consider as a sissy compared to islam power. We will soon have to give voting rights..even having to elect anyone who comes and is ‘deemed’ as a refugee. so read straight from the horses mouth please..council of europe..
http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta08/ERES1605.htm
a deal done behind our backs..co sponsored by turkey…that is what scares me.
What is understood from the above is that Catholicism is not a power for the good while Protestantism is. The discussion has moved and in the cross-hairs we now have Catholicism and its history.
Both faiths are Judaic Christian with the same basic beliefs. The differences,which regrettably became battles, were how to arrive to those beliefs. Catholicism conserved a head and a hierarchy, the lack of which, in Protestantism, resulted in the splintering of the cult into myriad groups. This latitude contributed greatly to the spread of Atheism. thus defeating the cult’s very own purpose. Catholicism avoided this and has emerged as the most strong moral force, that can stand up to the world for the spirituality of mankind. And that is definitely a power for good.
What happened in the past cannot be judged with a present mindset. This method is only used to demean an argument not to win it. Brutalities were done by both sides even against Catholics and the majority were done more for political reasons. Enlightenment itself was a result of a disappointment with the Reformation. Not even the Enlightenment can say that it did not have its own prodigal descendants. In fact here is the main point. There is nothing, that man does, that has not been corrupted. That is the reason for anchoring to a faith in a divinity. Now which Faith? The only Faith where the Divinity commanded love and gave the example up to what degree of love he commanded. That is the Crucifix.
All this for what? I will not brag about my self, does not matter who we are, what we know. One thing is for certain when the times comes we all will be calling out “God Help Us”. Believe it or not, in the end we are all going to die, we will either go to Heaven or Hell. Why not be the best that we can be here while we still have a chance. We will all be accountable for what we did or did not do. On this subject we base everything we know on research, reading, theory, ignorance yes ignorance! “shame on us”. What do we really know how dare we think that we can judge. Try living a better life find interest in the things that will make a difference in your life for the better be the best servant we can be to God. Remember we all posses the free right of worshiping religious liberty. We posses the free right of worshiping God according to the dictates of a right concience, and to practice a form of religion most in accordance with our duties to God. Which religion is perfect anyway? I myself am not armed with the knowledge to list the faults of other religions. But if I did, I would not use up my time nor energy to attempt it. I would rather spend my time exercising my respect in accepting other people’s Faith, beliefs to show love and kindness In the name of God. If you ask me, I really don’t think that we know anything but perhaps a morsel of what really is. As far as the priests who have violated the innocent childre. I a devout Catholic feel that they should be punished and not allowed to practice anywhere “ever” but we should remember that while the Catholic Faith is always under attack, many other reverends, pastors, Bishops, have committed horribly ungodly things to innocent victims as well. Thank you Mario you said it best. So many, work so hard to convince others that the Catholic Faith is is nothing but a cult. I believe it is one of the oldest Religions, I am happy to be a Catholic, I accept that many of you are of other religions I believe that God is our Father and loves us all equal. May God Bless You.