In the case of Lautsi v. Italy, Ms.
Soile Lautsi brought a case against the Ministry of State Education for refusing to remove crosses from classrooms after she complained (in 2001-2002) that the presence of crosses violated her right to raise her children in accord with her (secular) philosophical beliefs.
The decision of the court officially states:
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. Read the official overview
here.In short, the court ruled in favor of Ms. Lautsi, that crosses should be removed in order to protect her right to raise her children as atheists.
However, this ruling has been challenged by Italy. In addition to Italy, 20 members of the EU have sent
amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs to the Court supporting Italy the state-sanctioned crosses. Gregor Puppinck, Director of the European Centre for Law & Justice, wrote in
L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican Newspaper, the case against the Lautsi ruling. Essentially, he argues that the country's society and history should be taken into account, that Italy is a socially and historically Christian country and that religion is a significant component of its culture and that to refuse to allow countries to show their culture is wrong. Further, it is a twisting of the law protecting religious freedom to use it to against public religion. Religion is an integral part of society and to force it into the private sphere alone is an unjustified discrimination.
Puppinck also argues that the Lautsi ruling is victory for relativism, or the idea that no religion or espouser of truth can ever be favored or depicted as legitimate, which he says shows that secularism is its own "pseudo-religion with its own solid doctrinal tenets and moral norms (p. 8)" ie it is pseudo philosophy to claim that no truth should be accepted except for that the idea that there is no truth. Indeed, "the real debate clearly seems to be that which focuses on the religious dimension of a collective identity and the social dimension of religion." Puppinck is saying that what's at stake is a culture of secularism versus a culture of Christianity.
It is interesting to note that all the countries who have joined Italy are Eastern European (not the England, France and Germany that we tend to think of as Europe), which reveals a clear cultural divide on secularism between Western Europe and its Eastern and Southern sisters.
The court held hearings on the appeal on June 30, 2010, but is not expected to make ruling for several months. As a note, the EU cannot legally force Italy to remove the crosses. The punishment imposed in 2009 was a fine, which is now being appealed.
My personal views are that Puppinck's reasoning of the basis of national history and culture is fine so long as we equally insist on the right of Islamic countries to fill their classrooms with symbols of Islam.
Also, I find Ms. Lautsi's complaint valid: that parents should be able to raise their children in accord with their own philosophies. The harsh truth, though, is that removing crosses from classrooms does not create a philosophically neutral environment. Indeed, creating a culture of atheism in the classroom prevents Christian parents from that same right to educate their children in their preferred philosophy.
I think a balance is needed. We live in a world within certain cultures, and we have to work with that. Indeed, it is not possible for each of us to bend the state towards favoring our personal wills as Lautsi desires to do.
What do you think the court should rule in this case? Do you think parents should have the right to decide what environment their children should be taught in?
Recommend
Comments (12)
atheism (at least, weak atheism) is the default setting when it comes to religious belief. as someone who plans on raising her children as agnostic, the only times i want my children seeing religious symbols present in a public school are when they are actually learning about said religions.
I've taught physics and math to students of different ages and in different academic settings. My classrooms have been filled with calculators, scales, slinkies, pendulums, vacuum chambers, and so on. Never in a million years would I think it appropriate to fill my classroom with crosses, or any other religious symbols. Not because I favor atheism over religion, but because my classroom is a secular place of learning. (Note: Secular classrooms are different from atheist classrooms.)
There are eight hundred million reasons not to hang a cross in a classroom. Here are two:
1. By displaying a cross, the instructor risks alienating students who do not belong to that faith.
2. Everybody pays taxes, not just Christians.@Megan - Muslim nations fill their classrooms with Muslim symbols because they are theocracies.
As for the court's ruling, atheists are not being given any benefits. In a math class where no religious symbols are displayed, the students' minds do not wander by default towards atheism. However, as soon as a crucifix pops up, students start thinking about Christianity.
Secular classrooms are not atheist classrooms. If you'd like to talk more about the distinction, I'd be happy to endulge.
I'm pretty sure the same people who want the cross up there would be enraged if a teacher put a pentagram up there.
@jim_the_american@xanga - "as soon as a crucifix pops up, students start thinking about Christianity"
I'm fairly sure that those who are inclined to think about Christianity will do so with or without a cross, the same applies to those who are not inclined to think about Christianity.
As a Christian, I feel so discriminated-against here in America that I say, the woman is just another of the people who drive me nuts: the ones who want to say 'happy holidays' instead of 'Merry Christmas', that kind of silly stuff, because they can't bear any Christian symbolism at all.
First of all, Puppinck has a major point. Read any book on Italian history [I have] and it is not only a culture but a COUNTRY steeped in its own form of Christianity. Crosses hanging on the wall? I'd expect that in Italy, like I'd expect them to be speaking Italian or drinking espresso at a cafe [;) ].
I think the blogger has a more balanced point of view than I do, and the woman certainly has a right to her own opinion and an environment in which she feels safe. But I'm really, really sick of a minority tyrannizing the majority.
Puppinck's argument is shallow in that in it he makes references to beliefs other than Christianity as "pseudo", a characterization many make of Christianity. Secularism is not the only issue. There are also other religions involved. He seems to be arguing that only Christianity bears truth by implying that not allowing open displays of Christianity would amount to a belief that there is no truth. That is simple arrogance. He can believe what he wants to believe. Maybe the solution to this ongoing problem is to put symbols of every religion, belief system, and non-belief system side by side in the same way that flags of the world hang around the United Nations as a representation of the many ways in which mankind searches for truth. That sounds fair enough.
If anyone really believes a child's mind is not influenced by the images and symbols around him why is there so much concern about not exposing children to pornography and why does Madison Avenue spend billions of dollars on research and creating images that will influence what children want?
Also, in the U.S. The Constitution was written to protect the rights of everyone, including minorities. Many settlers came to the U.S. to escape the oppression of church/state and the many signers of the Constitution and important figures in The Revolution were Freemasons who understood the ramifications of a church/state society with its inherent religious suppression.
@SuperCrazy_CStuff@xanga - That's true, Christian students will be thinking about Christianity regardless of whether or not there is a cross in the classroom. My concern is for the non-Christian students; what's the purpose of alienating those students? How does a cross help them achieve their learning goals?
@When_We_Were_Both_Cats@xanga - Or even a peace sign.
@When_We_Were_Both_Cats@xanga - It's worth remembering here that the argument for crosses comes from the country's cultural history, which is Christian. The issue is not about the teacher's right to display religious symbols.
@WritingPassion@xanga - @StephanieP - There are Italians of different religions besides Christianity. Plenty of Jews in Italy, you know. The same goes, but even much more so, in the US. We are a country of many many faiths, so to single out one is unfair to the rest. Leave your crosses at home and in your Churches. They do not belong in schools. Sorry. I don't remember who said it, but we also have to protect the minority from the majority!