Tuesday, 3rd November 2009 - 18:57CET
Uproar over European court ruling against Crucifix - Archbishop Cremona reacts
'Should this situation arise in Malta one day, it will be my duty to insist, along with Maltese Christians, that the crucifix retains its place in public places.'
(Adds Archbishop's reaction, question in Parliament)
The European Court of Human Rights ruled today that Italian schools should remove crucifixes from classrooms, sparking uproar in Italy, where such icons are embedded in the national psyche.
"This is an abhorrent ruling," said Rocco Buttiglione, a former culture minister who helped write papal encyclicals.
"It must be rejected with firmness. Italy has its culture, its traditions and its history. Those who come among us must understand and accept this culture and this history," he said.
The court (which is the court of the Council of Europe, not the EU) said crucifixes on school walls, a common sight that is part of every Italian's life, could disturb children who were not Christians. Italy has said it would appeal.
Italy has been in the throes of national debate on how to deal with a growing population of immigrants, mostly Muslims, and the court sentence is likely to become another battle cry for the centre-right government's policy to restrict newcomers.
The Vatican spokesman said he would not comment until he knew more about the ruling but Italy's powerful bishops' conference said the ruling "evokes sadness and bewilderment".
Members of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's government bristled, weighing in with words such as "shameful", "offensive", "absurd," "unacceptable," and "pagan".
MORTAL BLOW
Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said the court has dealt a "mortal blow to a Europe of values and rights," adding that it was a bad precedent for other countries.
Condemnation crossed party lines. Paola Binetti, a Catholic in the opposition Democratic Party, the successor of what was once the West's largest communist party, said: "In Italy, the crucifix is a specific sign of our tradition."
The case was brought by an Italian national, Soile Lautsi, who complained that her children had to attend a public school in northern Italy which had crucifixes in every room.
Education Minister Mariastella Gelmini said crucifixes on the walls of tens of thousands of classrooms "does not mean adherence to Catholicism" but are a symbol of Italy's heritage.
"The history of Italy is marked by symbols and if we erase symbols we erase part of ourselves," Gelmini said.
Lautsi, the woman who filed the suit, said crucifixes on walls ran counter to her right to give her children a secular education and the Strasbourg-based court ruled in her favour.
"The presence of the crucifix ... 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 court said in a written ruling.
"The State (must) refrain from imposing beliefs in premises where individuals were dependent on it," it added, saying the aim of public education was "to foster critical thinking".
"JESUS DOESN'T BOTHER ME"
At least one Muslim girl disagreed with the court.
"If the crucifix is there and I am a Muslim I will continue to respect my religion. Jesus in the classroom doesn't bother me," Zenat, a 14-year-old girl of Egyptian origin, told Reuters Television.
Mario Baccini, a senator in Berlusconi's People of Freedom party, said the court had "gone adrift in paganism".
Two Italian laws dating from the 1920s, when the Fascists were in power, state that schools must display crucifixes.
Alessandra Mussolini, granddaughter of Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, said such rulings were leading to "a Europe without an identity".
Only a handful of politicians defended the court, including some members of the Democratic Party, as well as members of the communist party and atheist groups.
ARCHBISHOP PAUL CREMONA'S REACTION
Archbishop Paul Cremona said that should this situation arise in Malta one day, it would be his duty to insist, along with Maltese Christians, that the crucifix should retain its place in public places.
A spokesman for the curia said it was still early to comment on the decision as the judgement could be appealed.
ISSUE RAISED IN PARLIAMENT
Opposition MP Alfred Sant this evening raised the issue in Parliament and asked if the government had a reaction. The Acting Speaker, Carmelo Abela, however, said the question could not be raised at that time.
RSS
Comments
"I do not hold the view that a "holiday" (whether Christmas, Easter or some other religious event) can be a representation of Christianity." Ok so you DON'T personally think that Christmas, i.e. the celebration of the birth of Christ, "can be a representation of Christianity". But earlier you told me: "It's not about how you or I view the crucifix, but how the pupils in the classroom view the crucifix." Hence, I ask you again, what if some pupils DO hold that view? I mean what if some pupils do consider/view Christmas holidays as a very important representation of Christianity?
What if some pupils -or better still their parents- feel that religion (Christianity in this case) is interfering with their children's education when in public schools they are being denied education during Christmas and Easter holidays in the name of the birth/resurrection of Christ?
I didn't dodge your question. My aim is to address the issue being debated here. The issue is the appropriateness of the presence of the crucifix in public places.
Nevertheless, your question: "What if some pupils view the the Christmas/Easter holidays as a very "important representation" of Christianity?" I do not hold the view that a "holiday" (whether Christmas, Easter or some other religious event) can be a representation of Christianity. Christianity as a religion has nothing to do with holidays. Furthermore, it is not the role of the Church in Malta to officially declare "holidays".
The Church in Malta, however, has all the freedom to organise and preside over religious festivities. In fact, it is the responsibility of the Church to do so. There is also no reason why the festivity is not organised on a Sunday; a day of rest in the Gregorian calendar.
It is entirely the prerogative of any government to declare a public holiday on any working day in the calendar, but not because the Church or any other entity says so. Constraints on public holidays, in general, are purely economic. Only employers object to a "holiday".
"refers to how pupils could "interpret" (and mistakenly) this most important representation. It's not about how you or I view the crucifix, but how the pupils in the classroom view the crucifix."
Ok, I see you dodged my direct question and don't want to give your personal opinion regarding whether the removal of the Christmas/Easter holidays from public schools is necessary to "achieve separation of State and Church". So let me rephrase the question: What if some pupils view the the Christmas/Easter holidays as a very "important representation" of Christianity? In that case do you think students in public schools should continue being denied education in public schools in the name of the birth of Christ (christmas holidays) and in the name of the death/resurrection of Christ (Easter holidays), or should we say goodbye to these holidays and make school obligatory in public schools on, for example, Christmas day?
We are talking about the most important religious representation in Cristianity, and not about "religious signs". What the ruling of the ECHR sated, namely "... [the crucifix] could easily be interpreted by pupils of all ages as a religious sign" (your quote) refers to how pupils could "interpret" (and mistakenly) this most important representation. It's not about how you or I view the crucifix, but how the pupils in the classroom view the crucifix.
It is for this reason that the Maltese government has the obligation, in my view, to remove the crucifix from the classroom of public schools on Malta. The removal would also be in accordance with constitutional law in Malta. A nation can only achieve separation of State and Church by putting the crucifix where it truly belongs, namely, in chapels, churches and cathedrals and not in public places.
It is crystal clear that In effect you state, with continuing persistence, that all those who oppose the Maltese government on the issue of the crucifix in the classroom of public schools are not Roman Catholic.
The Court "held unanimously 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"
We're talking about religious signs here not just the cross. Hence, what about being denied education in public schools in the name of the birth of Christ (christmas holidays) and in the name of the death/resurrection of Christ (Easter holidays), should we say goodbye to these holidays and make school obligatory in public schools on, for example, Christmas day?
Can’t you understand that you have no right to question my own version of what my own opinion is? You have absolutely no competence and no right to rephrase my categorical version and to assert that “in effect” I had voiced an opinion that I deny? Prove it or shut up! For the last time those who oppose the crucifix in our classrooms, even though they may pretend to be Catholics, in fact they are nothing of the kind because they oppose the authority of the Church authorities.
You claim that my opinion is unsolicited, only to go on and take to liberty to state your own opinion: "My opinion is that ..." (Saliba)
Dr Saliba, you have in effect stated in this thread more than once that anyone who opposes the Maltese government putting the crucifix in public places is not Roman Catholic.
Forget your unsolicited opinion about what I “assume” and what I “decide” and see if you can understand this simple sentence. My opinion is that those who are opposing the presence of the crucifix in the classrooms of Christian nations may be atheists, anti-Christians or anti-Catholics. They may also be among those who pretend to be “Catholics” (but only in name) because they do not recognize the authority of the Catholic Church.
You claim it's not an assumption on your part. Instead of assuming, you simply take to liberty to decide that all those who oppose the Maltese government putting the crucifix in the classroom of public schools are not Roman Catholic.
As the saying goes, let me "add my two cents worth". I was born and brought up in Malta in a very Catholic family and enviornment. And, while I believe that Christianity today has emerged from its dark ages and evolved into a "civilized" religion, I myself am not religious. I am an agnostic as I believe that the existence of God is highly improbable. Nonetheless, I consider myself a "Cultural Christian" as I value the history, traditions, art ,architecture etc. of Christianity.
So, how do I react to the cricifix issue in schools and public places? I believe that the crucifix should be retained. However, in my case this is obviously not because of religious reasons, but because the crucifix represents a very important part of our culture and tradition...indeed our very identity . I also believe that the minority should not dictate to the majority who surely favour the crucifix be retained in schools. On the other hand, the majority also has a responsibilty to be sensitive about the GENUINE needs and concerns of the minority. However, the crucifix is surely not a GENUINE issue with the minority.
I did not make any wrong “assumption” - you made it. I do not assume that “ … all those who want the crucifix to be removed from the classrooms of public schools (and from public places in general) are not Roman Catholics”. My true contention is that that many of them in the local scene are avowedly atheist, that Lautsi, the Finnish cause of this rumpus, is definitely an atheist and that those "Catholics" who agitate for the removal of the crucifix from clasrooms would not be genuine Roman Catholics at all because they do not follow the official teaching of the Church,
What I have added in my latest comment are two undisputable FACTS in support of my true contention as stated above. They do not become “allegations” because you say so.
All you have done is added two allegations to your assumption, while at the same time you have not explained why you make this assumption.
“ALL” those who want the crucifix to be removed from the classrooms cannot be all Roman Catholics because:
a) atheists openly present themselves at the forefront of those who are clamouring for the removal of the crucifix and who take their case to the ECHR
b) those who are protesting AGAINST the removal of the cross are predominantly Christians and Catholics.
P.S. Are you sure that you understand your own question?
I never claimed that The Times poll was a scientifically exact statistical survey. I said that it will remain the only poll at our disposal while we wait for you to trace a better one collected by just about anybody else – not just yourself! Until then you have no grounds for reasonably doubting that this poll would be acceptable ad interim as “fairly representative of the whole country”. Please, do not blame me when I am only following your advice to use it!
There are at least two reasons. One is, The Times' sample is not random. This means that the sample will, in all probability, be biased. The other -- the sample is too small. Say it came to around 3,000. That's only about 0.75% of the country's population. The rest is just textbook material for anyone who wants to check on The Times' poll validity.
"...I will continue to use it until you provide another..." (Saliba)
I cannot provide a poll, Dr Saliba. I am not a pollster. And surely you can use it. Please use it to your heart's content. That's what it's there for.
"Do you enjoy any similarly widespread support for your view? Of course not!" (Saliba)
You are obviously enjoying something here, Dr Saliba. My interest is not in whether there is "widespread support". May I remind you that the crucifixion of the Nazarene also had widespread support. My interest is in the ruling of the ECHR and the pending appeal of Ms Gelmini.
The Times’ poll is the only one known to me and I will continue to use it until you provide another and more reliable one! Until then there is no reason to suspect that it is not fairly representative of the whole country.
The separation of state from religion obviously does not preclude the democratic right of our Catholic religious leaders from declaring their disagreement with the ECHR decision and their intention to resist if anyone attempts to remove the crucifix from schoolrooms. They have the support of 80% of those who participated in The Times poll and of the leaders of all the political parties democratically elected to parliament. Do you enjoy any similarly widespread support for your view? Of course not!
I dismiss as utterly ridiculous your conjecture that Gonzi/Muscat would crucify Christ, given half a chance. Neither Gonzi nor Muscat are in any position to commit judicial murder because neither of them is a judge.
When I told Mr Christian Sciberras that “the matter is closed” because he had conclusively settled the issue I was being sarcastic – everyone else must have understood that!
You know what? You win.
You could keep up the *tradition* of having your ways. You said it is your country, you affirm that the Maltese have been doing what is right all this time, you can see the outcome yourself, I need not point it out.
Say what you want, I won't have another argument (or reply) to your talk. I've learned something from you though: some people never see their mistakes no matter what, which is while it's useless arguing. No human is eternal, I hope at some point we get a more reasonable nation then we have now.
By the way, don't even bother with a reply, because I most certainly will not.
Regards,
Christian Sciberras.
May one revise your list, Dr Saliba.
80% of the people? I am more inclined to think that it is 80% of readers of The Times, who can hardly be regarded as representative of the Maltese population.
The leaders of both po[l]itical parties represented in parliament? In my view, they are no better than Pontius Pilate. Under the circumstances, both Gonzi and Muscat would have done the same to the Nazzarine for their own political ends. Both will serve their respective parties before you, I and everyone else, including a Jewish rabbi.
The religious leaders of the official religion of the Republic? May I please remind you that the authority of religious leaders is separate from the State, and they have no jurisdiction whatsoever under constitutional law on whether the crucifix is present or not in public space.
[P]arliamentarians? These, in my view, are no better or worse than their respective leaders.
I do not think the matter is closed. Many are now waiting for Ms Gelmini to live up to what she said in the heat of the moment and put forward her appeal at the ECHR High Chamber.
If you say so, then it must be so. Never mind what 80% of the people say, never mind what the leaders of both poitical parties represented in parliament say, never mind what the religious leaders of the official religion of the Republic say, never mind what parliamentarians say. You have spoken! Matter closed!
2. You mean, the priests you, alone, consider "good".
3. Ah, right. Because, you, as usual, direct your comments, to everyone, that is, putting atheists and anyone else that doesn't agree with you in the same boat.
4. So is it a department policy to put a cross in each class and office? As far as I know, it is not. Having classrooms with a cross simply is the collective personal opinion of the majority you keep talking about.
5. Intolerance for outsiders is caused by this issue (apart from many others).
6. Wait, remind me where Christ (and hence the Church) said we need a cross in each classroom of the schools we attend (irrespective of the kind of school including the majority's religion).
It's about time we fix our problems rather then believe they never existed.
I don't like seeing an international court bossing Malta (and other countries) around, however, the court is right.
No one likes changing his ways of lives, but it is a must.
1. The Catholic religion is both MY religion AND the STATE religion. You have absolutely no right to order me about and to demand that I leave its defense to others simply because you have a soft spot for cohabitation.
2. Good priests who are innovative within the message of Christ do not advocate the removal of the crucifix from the schoolrooms of Catholic countries.
3. Evidently my comment is directed at those commentators who had definitely opposed the crucifix in classrooms because of its alleged terrorizing effect.
4. Your personal appraisal of what constitutes insults and mockery of Christ and Christianity does not tally with mine. Headmasters, irrespective of their religious convictions, should be guided by departmental policies not personal tastes.
5. Any personal endorsement for cohabitation rather than marriage does not justify the removal of the crucifix from classrooms in predominantly Catholic Malta.
This blog is about the threat of removing the crucifix in our classrooms. It is foolish to exploit this threat so as to blackmail the Church to conform personal preferences. That won't work!
Actually, I said more than your truncated quotation i.e.“I may have been “abrasive” at times but only because that is the only language that these people deserve AND THEY UNDERSTAND. The phrase that you censored out is very important.
That does not justify the same reason for everyone, which I'm not even part of.
"5. Your last two points do not merit a reply."
Of course they do not, they are right and you know it.
"In defending Christ and Christianity from mockery and insults"
You know where's the insults and mockery? It's when people preach about praying and peace of heart/mind then proceed to *impose* a rule to put a cross in each classroom, just because your are the headmaster.
What if the next headmaster were a Jew? Would he not work to replace the crosses with stars?
But I beg to differ. I believe in a religion which teaches tolerance, peace and cohabitation.
You may like it or not, but in the future, this is where Malta (as other countries) is headed.
If you keep going in circles rather then tackle this point, I won't write here again. I'm fed up of talking.
The religion of Malta, or your religion? Catholicism is sworn to be under the control of his Holiness, the Pope (acting on behalf of God). Let it defend itself, against an nonexistent enemy.
"2. I am not defending myself"
You're making it your religion, thus it is a personal entity. There are priests, most of which very knowledgeable which, according to you, would agree with the "atheists".
Have you thought, for one second, why a Catholic is arguing against your point? It's because there is a rift through the Church; conservative and innovative. I prefer the later part where both parts of the Bible are adhered to, instead of the old "my religion's the best" mentality.
"3. People have to appear before earthly tribunals even when they are proved to be innocent"
Innocent of committing a crime. I don't see the cross any similar to this.
Thank you for clarifying your position. I am generally encouraged by your response except for your comment that. "I (you) may have been “abrasive” at times but only because that is the only language that these people deserve". I think that this is much too harsh a reaction . It is also so totally inconsistent with what Christianity is supposed to be all about....i.e., love thy neighbour/enemy...turn the other cheek.
Nonetheless. I particularily appreciate your candour in your last sentence.."I promise that I will continue to attack arguments, but not their authors " to which i can only say ...GREAT. I look forward therfore to civilized debate on issues which by thier very nature (i.e religious) are exceedingly sensitive.
Cheers
Arthur
I am proud that you understand that I am " !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! but sooooooooooooooo predictable" in defending the official Catholic religion of the Republic of Malta.
It is my pleasant duty, not to be neglected, to teach our young children and their responsible parents that what thay must fear is NOT the crucifux but earthly tribunals like those of Pontius Pilate and the ECHR.
The citizens of this Malta, practicing Catholics in their overwhelming majority, are invited to access www.ppsmeditazionipreghiere.org
Quote..."This blog has been sidetracked from the ECHR preliminary interpretation of human rights with respect to crucifixes in schools into the usual commercial advertising atheism. I will not participate any more in this irrelevance."
It seems that you did not keep your word despite the sidetracking of this blog, to which you had to add your usual last word. Pity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! but sooooooooooooooo predictable.
I do not object to your answering o.b.o. “Arthur”. I only wanted to ascertain if you have formed some sort of Limited Liability Company that has delegated you to publish the views of that company in their original version or in some other “shortened up” version peculiar to yourself.
I don't remember blaiming anyone for that, in fact:
"(and come) in God's name to do something which THEY believe is right"
My point remains, the collective action of citizens, even in majority, doesn't make it any right.
"You have maliciously distorted my comment where I denied"
Distorted? I just shortened it up.
"Why are you answering for "Arthur"?"
If you believe you shouldn't be writing publicly, use emails instead. Anything you write is open to anyone else, whether you like it or not.
I simply make it a point of why you're wrong, whether it's an argument against me or anyone else.
@S Azzopardi - The point is not removing th cross from everywhere, but rather where it's place is of no use. A cross on a flag is a different matter; tradition, culture, identity (which is why I agree the George cross should stay on ours, but that's differently). I don't suppose classrooms with crosses are a part of our culture?
We may soon find out whether "lame" is the right word here. First we have to see whether Ms Mariastella Gelmini, the Italian Minister for Education, will live up to her own rhetoric and proceed with her appeal to the ECHR High Chamber.
The ECHR has only pointed out that the exhibit of the crucifix in the classroom violated religious and educational freedoms guaranteed under the European Rights Convention. In her appeal, Ms Gelmini will be required to demonstrate how this violation has not occurred.
It is hard to see how cribs on roundabouts is a way to separate State and Church. Separation of State and Church is a constitutional obligation of the Maltese government and a right of the Maltese citizen. This right is being continually and flagrantly abused by the Maltese government.
One has to start and question why the Maltese government continues to openly abuse this fundamental right of the citizen. It's up to Maltese citizens to start and question: "Why the crucifix is in the classroom?" and "Why the crib is on the roundabout?". Why religious symbols are so conspicuously and ubiquitously present in public places funded by the tax-payer?
I hold the view that the European Court of Human Rights is the only avenue open to Maltese people on Malta to pursue their right of separation of State and Church as accorded to them by the constitution. The Maltese government refuses to meet its constitutional obligation, and appears to be adamant in continuing to do so unless challenged in the European court.
Quote “ All one has to remember is that atheism has made people suffer and die by the millions, not a thousand years ago, not 100 years ago but at this very point in time.” I have no idea where you get your facts and figures , but they are surely incorrect. Where exactly do you see atheists killing millions of people today? There are certainly many repressive dictatorial regimes in the world but they are governed primarily by political ideologies (e.g. communism) or religious fanatics (e.g. Iran,) not atheism. These regimes will suppress anyone and anything that may challenge their authority, including religions, but especially the freedom of the press.
You also note that “Christians in China still suffer and die”. Let me again challenge your assertion. Christianity in China has been growing at least since 1970 when China loosened its restrictions on religions generally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_China
The clash of religions is certainly the biggest threat facing Western society today, not atheism. Saddam Hussein may not have had weapons of mass destruction, but if Iran ever develops a nuclear weapon, I would then wonder whose side God would be on… , Islam, Judaism or Christianity? What do you think?
This blog has been sidetracked from the ECHR preliminary interpretation of human rights with respect to crucifixes in schools into the usual commercial advertising atheism. I will not participate any more in this irrelevance.
You simplistically and erroneously conclude that the horrors committed by Stalin were the result of his atheistic beliefs, rather than that of a deranged mind pursuing a flawed political ideology. While there are bad people who happen to be atheists, it does not follow that atheists are somehow more “bad” than religious people. You well know that there are several examples of very religious people/institutions who are guilty of untold atrocities……for example, Spanish and Roman Inquisitions, Crusades, and Muslim extremists, etc.
One cannot simply attribute the problems and injustices in the former Communist countries to the Godlessness of their leaders. (As an aside, I doubt whether they were all atheists anyway) Perhaps they may have been better off with religion…perhaps? .. but not necessarily. Consider that the USA is that most religious country in the Western world with Church attendance far greater than in Western Europe. Nonetheless the USA has a much greater level of crime and lawlessness. On the other hand, Sweden is the most secular of Western societies and has the largest percentage of atheists. It also happens to have one of the lowest crime rates in the world.
You say that murders have been committed in modern times by “some form of Catholics” in God’s name. These murders can never be blamed on God or on Christianity because they would be categorically forbidden by the teaching of Christ and his Church.
You have maliciously distorted my comment where I denied that I had ever said that all atheists are bad people. What I really said, (in answer to Migel Micallef), was that if, as he said, atheists never kill anyone in the name of a god in whom they do not believe they still murder on their own authority - and I was referring to Stalin’s notorious massacres.
P.S. Why are you answering for "Arthur"? Why is this dialogue is being deviated so to distract attention from its true subject of the ECHR interpetation of the crucifix in classrooms? You make me suspect that all this palaver is a concerted attempt to boost atheism and has nothing to do with human rights at all!
By the way, we do still have a crucifix in our public schools, but we do not have Columbine-style shooting sprees in our schools.
"I did not say anywhere that “atheists are bad people” ".... "Of course they don’t. They massacre on their own authority. "
Ironic?
You mentioned the USSR as an example of a mass genocide by atheist, however, many argue that the cause was not aetheistic; blindly pursuing a faith, irreasonably and even less inconscient of the outcome is mostly defines "religion" (and speaking of all religions).
What makes Catholicism any different? He specifically told us to respect our neighbours, regardless of faith/ideals.
Do people hear Him? Apparently not.
In he rest of the iron curtained countries, religion could not be removed from social life altogether, therefore the regimes tried to control it, hide, suppress it by banning believers from university and the civil service etc etc.
Life is really beautiful in an atheistic state.
It's not a "grey" area as you would like to depict it, Mr Ellul. It will always remain up to the Italian government to decide whether they want to remove the crucifix from the classroom. It's a clear case.
The first step would be to wait and see whether they will live up to their word (the Italian government) and go ahead with their appeal at the High Chamber of the ECHR. Then we would have to wait and see whether the appeal would be repealed.
If it gets repealed, the Italian government would still be allowed to retain the cross in the classroom (even though this would be contrary to the constitutional amendments of 1984). If they (the Italian government) still refuse to remove the crucifix from the classroom, they can then expect suits from the Italian citizenry who have a constitutional right of separation of State from Church; a right which is being denied to them and their children.
I do not need to check my facts. Your statement about Catholicism being the number one killer religion past and present and future is utterly ridiculous, palpably untrue as regards the past and present – and a false wothless prediction for the future with you as its sole undependable prophet. I mentioned Stalinist USSR as an example because not even you would dare deny that it was thoroughly atheist, more so than any other modern state, that it carried out large massacres of its own people and that these are authenticated facts within living memory, acknowledged as true even by the present rulers of the former USSR. That should be more than enough to convince any intelligent person that atheists do kill on a massive scale even though they do not do it in the name of a god that for them does not exist!
@ArthurSoler
I did not say anywhere that “atheists are bad people” – those are false words put into my mouth. I only exposed Miguel Micallef outrageous howler that “Atheists never kill anyone because they don’t kill in the name of their god”. Of course they don’t. They massacre on their own authority.
Popping up russia is no excuse. I'd still rather have atheists surrounding me than religios fanatics, they are still less likely to kill me for not believing in their god.
Stalin murdered millions not because he was an atheist, but because he was politically motivated and also,a horrible man. I am sure that you are aware that Hitler was brought up a Catholic and he murdered millions too. Pol Pot was neither a Christian nor an atheist, (Buddhist I think) but he too killed millions. Bad people come is all "shapes and sizes" so to speak. To imply that atheists are bad people because they do not believe in God is simply ludicrous. Let me suggest to you that all religions have one thing in common...they all think that they are the only true one...which is why this world has seen so many atrocities committed in the name of (their) God.
Atheists on the other hand do not blow up anybody in the name of anybody.
For a very long long time I have not heard anything so ridiculous as your “Atheists never kill anyone because they don’t kill in the name of their god”. You should try to explain that to the millions of Russians who experienced the mass slaughter in the Gulags of a Communist and atheist Stalin. Try to convince them that what Stalin did was not killing because he did not have a god in whose name he would have been able to kill. You must be really devastated at having missed your chance to live in his “society 100% made up of atheist”.
Many wars and genocides have been waged in the name of gods and religions, mostly abusing these for material gains. Millions have died due to these wars, but those are in the remote past. These went against Christianity's LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR morality.These have now been replaced by the atheist religion, killing millions and nobody can deny it. Let me put one thing straight: The right to practice one’s faith or to deny one’s faith and to be an atheist is a basic human right. Grey areas exist such as whether a crucifix may be removed from a classroom on one person’s wish without the consent of the other 29 persons. But where would this stop? Do we decorate our streets during Xmas? Etc etc.
"All one has to remember is that atheism has made people suffer and die by the millions, not a thousand years ago, not 100 years ago but at this very point in time."
Are you serious? Last time I checked the world history the Catholics where on the undisputed number 1 for violence, brutality and kills, even more than muslims.
Atheists never kill anyone because they dont kill in the name of their god ;)
I'd rather live in a society 100%made up of atheist than anything else. Religion kills, my friend.
You problem, as I see it, is that >80% of the local population and our representatives in parliament and our Church authorities are collectively much more likely to be correct than Christian Sciberras.
We only have to remember that we have just celebrated 20 years since the fall of the Berlin wall, which had represented the most despotic ideology that ever ruled the world and by which 50 million to 100 million people perished. This ideology was based on the removal of the crucifix not only from the classroom, but from out heart and mind. This ideology lasted 70 years in the Soviet Union and its satellite countries, but still extant in China. Christians in China still suffer and die, together with people of other faiths including Buddhists in Tibet and Falun Gong followers.
All one has to remember is that atheism has made people suffer and die by the millions, not a thousand years ago, not 100 years ago but at this very point in time.
However, having a cross, symbol of a particular relgion, up in a public place, in a democratic country, does not make logical sense. Why..? Because, it's either taken down (with an uproar as has happened) or just about anyone having the right to attach what they want to the wall, next, we'll be getting disputes why the cross is on the left instead on the top of the star.
Since I hope I'm talking to intelligent person; having people (majority, government officials, MPs...) decide on killing a particular person (for instance) does not make it right, nor legal.
What the people says doesn't make it right.
Regards,
Christian Sciberras.
"GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT... Only 1, (one) of the poems you mentioned is right"
You are probably right. More than a decade have passed since I sat for my exams so I'm not surprised that some changes to the syllabus occured. But anyway which religious poems they really need to study is beside the point. My point was that some of the poems that students need to study have Christianity as their main theme.
Now, that I corrected my mistake, let me correct yours. You asked me: "One should also keep in mind that religion is a central part of our culture/way of living/environment... so if we are to remove the cross from our classes... then (keeping in mind the same argument) should we remove also all the crosses and statues from our streets?" Your question shows that you misjudged me. I was NOT the one arguing in favour of the removal of the crucifix, on the contrary I was the one, -see my previous comments- that said that religion is part of our culture and hence you can't hit "our" religion without hitting our culture.
The point at issue is not if a crusifix on a schoolroom wall "is of any use" to any student. It is if it should be allowed in a country like Malta where the overwhelming majority (over 80% at the last count) insists that it should be retained there, when our culture and religion are officially Catholic and when our leaders in parliament are also outraged by an alien judiciary, whose jurisdiction over us can be retained or rejected according to the will of the people.
You claim that ... " Secondary school students need to study many poems with Christianity as their main theme for their Maltese O Level exam. These poems include 'AVE MARIA!, ZJARA LIL GESU; HELWA MADONNA; TALBA; REQUIEM' and many more "
GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT... Only 1, (one) of the poems you mentioned is right.
One should also keep in mind that religion is a central part of our culture/way of living/environment... so if we are to remove the cross from our classes... then (keeping in mind the same argument) should we remove also all the crosses and statues from our streets?
I can see absolutely no problem here, David. This provided that students are permitted, and even encouraged, to be critical of the poems that they are reading. At age about 15 they should be able to write critiques on what is being presented to them. A good critique, based on a sound argument and supported by the right quotations (two or three, say) should be well rewarded by assessors whether they agree or disagree with the views expressed by students. One has to assume here that assessors are impartial, although this may not necessarily be the case (unfortunately).
I agree. Maltese poetry and religion are intertwined. In fact, the reason that the Maltese language is so rich in poetry is because Malta has been deeply religious throughout its history. Even her Neolithic temples are build around religion. Much of its architecture and art works are inspired by religion. Religion is a good thing. It's with those who proclaim to be "religious" that one needs to exert some degree of caution -- initially at least.
"It could be time not to make history topics compulsory at primary and secondary levels."
It's not just about history. Secondary school students need to study many poems with Christianity as their main theme for their Maltese O Level exam. These poems include 'AVE MARIA!, ZJARA LIL GESU; HELWA MADONNA; TALBA; REQUIEM' and many more. The reality in Malta is that Christianity and our culture are truly amalgamated.
@Alex Ellul - I was speaking metaphorically. Point being, education is not all that fine and dandy. Plus, your "reliable informer" is incorrect. For one thing, I've been to a (major) school in Gozo where they lacked whiteboards. And, the computers you mention only were to be found in the computer lab, running on a 10 year old Xeon core. But then again, Maltese talking statistics tend to forget Gozo from the pretty picture.
@adrian grech - "min ma jogbux jitlaq"
That is exactly why your point needn't any arguing.
You seem to be misunderstanding the situation, Mr Flask. The ECHR will not be asking Malta to follow court orders. Instead, should the pending appeal of the Italian government fail in the high chamber of the ECHR, the Maltese government will be faced with potential lawsuits from parents on Malta for subjecting their children to the crucifix in the classroom.
The issue here is that, regardless of how Mr Flask perceives the crucifix -- namely, a symbol of "faith", "truth", "suffering", "kindness" and "love" -- the State has no right whatsover to try and manipulate how a child thinks in the classroom.
To recap on what I had commented ealier: What the euro court did was just exactly what the despotic Polish regime of General Jaruzelski did to the Polish people. However, the next day that the crucifix was removed from the Polish classrooms, 30 crucifixes appeared, one on each desk, brought into the classroom by the students. The euro court just accepted one person's intolerance to other people."
Now, how come nobody took me to task on this one?
I am Christian, because I do believe in someone great, in someone whom can protect my children, in someone whom I can at least pray to when I have problems... I sin as well! Thus I don't agree with the possible removal of the Crucifix from our class rooms. A counter solution would be to provide a space for other Religious icons, and offer all pupils and school children a learning experience about all the other Religions.
Should Malta follow possible court orders, I think that if we can live a Christian life and help our children to understand truth, kindness, suffering and love, then we will be the Crucifix, thus the EU court will have another bone to tackle, you cannot have a class room without Crucifixes!
One day we were all Christians, and we were all thought to do the sign of the cross before doing this, that, and so on. Nothing wrong. The Crucifix is a symbol of faith, truth, suffering, kindness and love, the list goes on, so why it is wrong in having it in very class room?
We live in an open minded culture and the Church can live with other Religions. The problem isn't that we will have to remove the Crucifix from our class rooms, but being imposed to do so.
What about having the Crucifix in Muslim class rooms for example or teaching Christian Religion in Muslim countries? Same applicable to Hindu, Buddhism, and so on.
Maybe its time, whatever the EU court of Human Rights has assessed, that the Pope and the Leaders of the other Religions work towards a modern religious unity / reality, not only acceptance.
The fact that theology is still taught in our publicly-funded schools in Malta is disgraceful. I agree with Christian Sciberras, whiteboards before crucifixes.
Also, if the recent ridiculousness over the Nadur Carnival nuns has shown us anything, it is time to move away from a state-sponsored religion. The 21st century has no place for a state that gives preferential treatment to any one religious or ethnic group (see Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc.). Equal protection under the law, for all Maltese and for all Europeans.
Being in a room on the walls of which a crucifix is hung is not the same as practicing Christianity! That much should be obvious to anyone who does not need to go the school any more.
So is that it? Tradition over progress? Let's all move a step forward and 5 back.
Personally, it doesn't bother me to see a cross in each classroom. But this isn't for anyone else.
Plus, as I raised the question above. What is the point of having a school, teaching students or just showing them crosses (which they might as well see crucufuxes better elsewhere, such as a church)?
What's wrong in practicing religion in a church instead of DURING lessons IN A CLASS?
Do you ever read anyone elses comments ??
Where you got the idea that I was against crosses being displayed, I cannot imagine !!
Also, why should I leave ? Do you get told to leave if you disagree with another persons comments..........yet you are a migrant just like me.
If you don’t agree, please send a copy of this email to all your friends and at last but not least send a copy to the Comitee of Ministers of the Council of Europe at the following email: cm@coe.int
Jesus was not ashamed to be crucified showing his love to you. If you love HIM, don’t be ashamed to send this email as requested. May Jesus be with you and your family.
Talk about foreigners imposing their customs on us.
If she's not happy, she should return to Finland.
Same goes for all foreign atheists and people who come to our countries expecting to indulge in what we have to offer, while at the same time stripping us of our National, Cultural and Religious heritage.
Adel Smith, the Italian Muslim leader in Italy was another one who wanted to remove crucifixes. Probably his next step would've been to push for some Islamic half-moonery in classes which muslim immigrants' children would have a majority.
Anyone on this board arguing that the crucifix is NOT a religious symbol is being disingenuous.
Sandro Pace: Your argument about the separation of Church and State is precisely why the crucifix SHOULD NOT be posted in our state-funded public schools. Why should my tax dollars go to subsidize your religion?
And for everyone here blaming this ruling on the Muslims, I would remind you that this ruling does not replace the crucifix with a star and crescent, but rather prevent the posting of any religious symbol. Blaming your discontent on vulnerable newcomers is an easy out for racists and it is beneath our modern society. We should not compare ourselves to the Arab world, which is very much controlled by theocratic rule, we should be better than that. I welcome this ruling.
I hope you get to read this. Thanks a lot for your reply. It's nice to see responses like that sometimes, Political bickering over everything under the sun bugs me. Whilst I admit I too get Political at times, I also admit I get frustrated that everything is politicised right from the start before the facts are laid down for all to see. Hope your post helps people understand the situation better before rushing to comment.
Thanks again.
You said "A big and important step towards a secular society" - Chris Reiff.
I say "another big and important step at losing our values, creed, morals and much more" it is shameful to say one is catholic and not live a catholic life, it is even more shameful to be passive over such a simple gesture (removing the crucifix) but with such a deep underlying meaning (denying your faith). As always (we are humans) we only revert to God when in need.. The other times we ignore him or even disregard his existence.
The crucifix is not a symbol of ancient execution. Its a symbol reminding us Roman Catholics and also Christians, that the son of GOD himself, sacrificed himself for us (during that period of time crucifixion was a popular method of execution) to manifest his love, more than anything, for us... something which is becoming alarmingly rare now a days (no need for examples ey?).
If I were you, rather than jumping into conclusions and statements, I'd rather see to my own actions and conscience, instead of pointing fingers at others.
what is being suggested is obliteration
European filth will soon be removed.
Oh requires courage does it to ask for the Cross to be eliminated from public places ? Now I would have rather thought it requires a certain bold courage to privately sneer at Christ BEFORE demanding such a course of action ! And why ask for others to proceed - have the courage of your convictions and do it yourself ! And then explain to us why you feel 'freer' .....
I would like to point out that the woman who raised the case with the European Court was Finnish - and so from Europe, as opposed to the comments I am seeing that claim that this is some Muslim conspiracy. And the court that decided this ruling is part of the Council of Europe, not the EU.
Muslims invaded, Maltese and knights defended. Fortunately successfully. It's a fact. If a Muslim boy in a Maltese class is offended, well, tough luck.
History should be taught without distortions. Middle eastern countries do not ban the crusades from their history teaching, irrispective of who is listening. Rightly so.
A country that does not know its' history is an ignorant country and a disrespectful one for that matter. So is advocating its banning from primary and secondary school.
Ban religion, ban history, ban crucifixes ban, ban, ban......We are all getting fed up. And it does not seem what the majority want.
Thank you for the information.
The person may not be Italian by birth, but nor does she seem to be an illegal immigrant. She seems to be a product of today's western lay mentality which seeks to impose its own ideas on society while denying those who disagree to express their own.
Whether it will hold will soon be known when the Italian government appeals at the European Court of Human Rights’ Grand Chamber of 17 judges. I think it will hold in a very convincing way. This decision has been long overdue. We are talking here about the brainwashing of a child in the classroom, and not about a call to prayer coming out from a loudspeaker mounted on a minaret.
That's right - the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has nothing to do with the EU. Malta is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights which established the ECHR (as is practically every other European country), and is therefore bound by the court's rulings. Justice Giovanni Bonello is a judge there, and has been since 1998. His term expires next year.
Had Malta not joined the EU, we would still be bound by this ruling because it has nothing to do with the EU. The EU's court is the European Court of Justice, which does not accept petitions from individual citizens but is rather focused on state vs state cases. There is an unwritten agreement that the 2 courts refer to each other's rulings when deciding upon cases, in order to prevent contradictions between the 2.
The Lisbon treaty will bring the 2 closer together, as part of the treaty stipulated that the EU as an institution will sign the European Convention of Human Rights and therefore become bound by the ECHR. Hope that helps!
On the bright side: my neighbour will have to pull down his Man U. Flag..... its bugging me!
This was not an EU decision.
It's a good and valid point. Education subjects are always evolving. It could be time not to make history topics compulsory at primary and secondary levels. History as a subject can be taken later as an elective. One should also point out that History as a school subject is not about winners and losers, as we were accustomed to in primary teaching back in the sixties. A History subject is about a chronological order of historical events which shaped the world we know today for better understand among nations, cooperation and advancement.
Christianity changed the course of history in Europe, if the western society is what it is today, its just because of the christian faith, otherwise islam would have swept all over Europe probably we would still be in the dark ages had this happened.
Besides Pagan Rome was so void that paganism melted down within 20years in the 4th century. Christianity preserved civilization by mellowing the barbarian that brought
down Rome.
Learn your history pls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Or say that a burka is making you feel uncomfortable...will the women remove it?? Then has Europe a right to hold its values and culture?
The roots of Europe were, indeed, without Christ. The cradle of western philosophy believed in Zeus and his parthenon.. as did Rome at its height. As for most parts of Europe, they were anything but Christian for hundreds of years after 0AD.
What are the roots of Europe, anyway? To my mind, the most logical candidates for such an honour would be the first people to set foot on the continent.. about 36,000 years ago.. that's 34,000 years before the birth of Christ.
Kinda lights it from a different perspective, dunnit?
Billboards are a major distraction to drivers and have been banned in many cities around the world for safety reasons, just like smoking.
My previous comment referred to religious icons "obstructing" the drivers' view. But I think they should be removed anyway because they look ridiculous on the roads to non-Catholics. They belong on religious premises such as, for example, "zuntier" (parvis). I do not think there would be any harm if they were removed from the roads.
If Malta remained in the EU and road standards had to be applied, they will have to be removed, causing even more uproar. But clearly the whole thing is just hilarious, especially from many of the comments that keep streaming in. Even Archbishop Cremona should know better. No-one needs to feel threatened here. It's all about bits of wooden crosses and gypsum! Everyone should just go and have a break.
how you people panic. relax, simmer down:
a. this is not an EU ruling (so eat your yes vote - reap what you sow - chickens come to roost - comments are not valid)
b. the crucifix hasn't been BANNED or eradicated or destroyed. no one is trying to stop anyone from wearing a symbol of the crucifix or displaying it in their own private space/home/cubicle. it's not going to be removed from streets/churches/your back yard.
it's not going to be replaced by any other symbol of any other religion.
it has been ruled that displaying it in a public place of learning where there are multiple religious beliefs may be a bit selfish.
wear it round your neck/waist/wrist/ankle. tattoo it on your forehead. keep it in your heart (which is where it should be really). but don't drag burkas into this.
peace out.
no its not the case.. the woman who made the report is 100% pure bred european from finland that emigrated to italy.. she is not islamic she is an atheist.
anyone with some courage to do the same with malta? so we may start enjoying a bit of freedom , freedom from the strong power the church has on us?
Soile Lautsi is from Finland who emigrated to Italy. I do not assume that she did so illegally. The point is that when you emigrate (both legally and illegally) to another country you have to respect the culture and customs of the people who accepted you. I believe that I would be really selfish and disrespectful if one day I had to move to a country of 60 million people (Italy) and I expect that they renounce to their traditions because of me! If I had to do that I would be abusing my own human rights!
Hence, this is not an issue of illegal immigration or of non-Christian religions! As a matter of fact I truly believe that because of the selfishness of one disrespectful individual, a lot of non-Christians (mostly Muslims) will now be unjustly victimised in a number of European countries.
"If you want to send your children to a religious school you should not complain about religious symbols. Paying tax does not entitle you to dictate to the vast majority."
If my taxes are being used to subsidise these schools then I have a right to object to offensive symbols ni church classrooms. Otherwise these schools should not have any share of my taxes.
@G Darmanin
"What about hiding the facade of churches, because also these can be seen from public places and they also have religious symbols on them! What about prohibiting the Good Friday processions because afterall these take place in public places"
I agree with G.Darmanin, these religious symbols and street processions should be prohibited. I don't agree though , that we should hide the facades of the churches, just strip them of all religious imagery. Also our hospital name "Mater Dei" should be changed, the hospital if for all sick people not just christians.
Correct me if I'm wrong - so this ruling is a precedent for all members of the Council of Europe , not EU member states right? So for instance, had malta NOT joined the EU in 2004, would this ruling still be enforceable in Malta so to speak? Would an average Joe be able to claim this ruling as a precedent? A clarification would really help as I don't want to have misconceptions about this court and it's remit in my mind.
Thanks.
If you don't like it, tough! Just **** off and go back to wherever you sprouted from. That's your "right" too.
What arrogant cheek.
If you think that the small niches that one often encounters along the narrow streets in villages cores are obstructing drivers' view, what do you think about the huge billboards that one encounters along the main roads? These billboards include contents of both a graphical and textual nature. Some weeks ago I was driving along Triq Aldo Moro during the rush hour and one of the adverts (of a local bank) caught my attention. I was reading the message when all of a sudden I realised that I was a few seconds away from bumping into the car infront of me! I can assure you that this experience is not some invention of mine to make my counter argument! This really was going to happen to me! So, shall I now ask for the removal of these billboards because they distract me? I will not be doing that because this experience taught me an important lesson, that is to focus on the road and on the traffic while driving! I think that unfortunately this is one lesson (to focus on what is really important for one's life) that people like Soile Lautsi are failing to learn.
You may disagree with the ruling (as I do) but don't confuse matters. The EU has nothing to do with this.
If they do we could have big representations of him everywhere instead of Jesus. That wouldn't offend anyone - as Christians, Muslims and Jews worship the SAME God!
Then maybe you could stop bickering like the Bigendians and Littleendians...
Chapels are built on land off the road. They would have their rightful title to the land. It's hard to see any problems there. But I think there will be some very serious problems with niches and all the Catholic symbolism items one often encounters along roads, sometimes even obstructing drivers' view. They often pose a Health and Safety issue to say the least. They are more likely to send someone to hospital than anywhere else. But of course, contrary to what Archbishop Cremona is fearing in this report, we would still be allowed to have the crucifix with us once we reach hospital. I always held the view that nothing can ever overcome Roman Catholicism. It's a perfect system.
Europe is Finnished !!!
How can one expect that the removal of centuries old tradition by an overnight decision will not create an 'unChristian' backlash against those bringing it, which will only have themselves to blame. Fortunately for Ms. Lautsi's children, Italy may be large enough to spare her children from social consequences. Malta would have been a different story.
Atheism, being what it is, has no symbols, hence one can only represent it with nothingness.
Thanks for your useful contribution. However, you must understand that the average Joe Public has not studied the function of all European instituitions. So, it does not mean that just because someone does not know that the ECHR is not the ECJ, that someone is promoting Anti-EU rhetoric. Since you are a Press Officer at the EC Rep Malta, maybe you could inform your superiors that most Maltese citizens (both in favour and against this ruling) will surely appreciate an official statement from a high EU official on this matter. Is Joe Public, instigating any anti-EU rhetoric for making such a request?
These people are coming to European countries to search for a better life, right? Then they must also respect our traditions and Religion, in the same way that they expect us to do with respect to their Religion.
David ellul it's immaterial on what type of cross Jesus was crucified. the argument is about a religious symbol. I assure you that if Jesus was depicted nailed to a stake the same protest would have erupted. The solution is quite simple. those who feel offended by the crucifix can just ignore it. It's not as if it is calling out to them and disturbing their concentration. They can treat it as another decoration hanging on the wall and before someone writes about the 'violent' sight I say don't be ridiculous.
I don't think that the name of your street can be changed because the word Crucifix can refer to any kind of crucifix, and not just to the religious symbol.
However, think about all those street-corner shrines which are found in every Maltese town and village. What if Soile Lautsi had to to move to Malta and ask for all these shrines to be removed because they are disturbing her while she is driving? Afterall, streets are public places, and we would not want that Soile Lautsi is involved in some traffic accident as a result of her being disturbed by religious symbols! Right?!
Like public schools, streets are also public places so what will stop this ruling being applied to all 'public' places in the future?! What about hiding the facade of churches, because also these can be seen from public places and they also have religious symbols on them! What about prohibiting the Good Friday processions because afterall these take place in public places, and we dont want that Soile Lautsi is disturbed from seeing the Crucifix in a public place, right?!
The ECHR is a court of the Council of Europe and Malta has been a member of the Council of Europe since 1965.
Anti-EU rhetoric is misguided and misplaced!
I am not surprised by the European court's decision, good no more religious symbol, but it should have conitnued in this free world where everyone lives together in harmony no matter what religion one should not be ashamed to show his face to one's neighbour.
Why not open for all a europe wihtout religions, no crucifix, stars, cresents, veils, face masks, and at this point can we say
I remove my crucifix if you show me your face.
Now THATS a real myth!!!!!
what would happen say a muslim come & live in my streer! cos it's called, CRUCUFIX Streert, do we have to change the name of my street ?/ so we don't offend them?? PLS answer me, cos i'm very worried!!
People are always in a uproar about things they barely comprehend.
As you say the ECHR is not the ECJ, but the Euobserver http://euobserver.com/ also made reference to the EU court in the title although in the text it refers to the ECHR. See their news ticker. Any inference of what is in store if a similar case is brought up in the EU following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty with its Charter of Fundamental Rights?
EU court decision on religious symbols angers italy
Today @ 09:33 CET
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that Italy is violating educational and religious freedoms by displaying crosses in classrooms. "The presence of the crucifix in classrooms is not a sign of belief in Catholicism, rather it is a symbol of our tradition," said Education Minister Gelmini.
Loss of morals have resulted in shameful behaviour.
How many of Christians out there, including Archbishop Cremona, obey to this second commandment ?
And what is all this fuss about Muslims? Nowhere in the article is mentioned due to any Muslim the EU has passed the law, but an ordinary EU citizen from Finland?!
BTW dear Editor, is it a coincidence that my comments are not published, although I am a Maltese citizen who pays taxes always in time, or don't you like my straight forward truthful comments?
First of all thanks for explaining the difference between the ECFH and the ECJ but do note that according to http://www.echr.coe.int/50/en/#countries-infos , Malta is a member of the European Court of Human Rights, the same court that ruled against the Crucifix in public schools. So, since Malta IS A MEMBER of European Court of Human Rights, what will happen if a Maltese national asks for this rule to be applied in Malta.
Julian Vassallo and Jacques René Zammit kindly explain.
If you want to send your children to a religious school you should not complain about religious symbols. If a crucifix is offensive to you it is not to the vast majority of Maltese citizens. If you are an atheist then send them to an atheist school. Paying tax does not entitle you to dictate to the vast majority.
Re Muslims, it does not appear that they were involved in this case, but it was an atheist mother. Indeed, Jesus is considered as one of the prophets in Islam.
Please dont be stupid ask from the law to start with the kill our history and culture. If you dont believe in God its your private matter, BUT dont impose it on me.
That is our tradition and if you don't like it leave. No one sent for you.
To those Maltese persons who are similarly opposing crucifixes in schools and public places that is the way of life of the vast majority of Maltese citizens and if you don't want your children to see crucifixes in schools educate them yourself.
This political correct madess has gone too far and is the result of trying to appease the minorities including the minorities that have been invading Europe from other continents.
It has already been said that religious symbols will also be prohibited from public places and have already led to baby Jesus being replaced by a teddy bear in a UK airport crib, no public display of religious symbols, no Christmas cards with Jesus and the Holy Family etc.
I am not particularly religious, but I if public display of religious symbols is made in Malta I shall DEFY such a prohibition. Let them try to do it.
Whoever disagrees with either country following that religion and hence displaying symbols (crucifix) of that religion is free to leave either country.
so what if someone opposes mosques being present in these countries? will the court order to bring them down too?
The European Court of Human Rights is NOT THE COURT OF THE EU but the court of the Council of Europe which Malta joined soon after Independence.
This judgement does not come from an EU institution.
Why so much fuss about this particular "crucifix" in the classroom and in the school yard when, for example, some 6,000 men were crucified only 70 BCE along the street between Capua and Rome? These men were crucified systematically by Roman administrators over a matter of a few days only because they wanted to be released from bondage. For many, there is no "love" in the crucifix. There is, instead, the perspective of arrogance and political dominance, be it physical or psychological.
The real issue here is how governments across a modern Europe are going to deal with this situation which is long overdue. How are they going to bring about a social environment that promotes equity in the way we view ourselves, our histories and cultures, and our surroundings.
Religion only in private please! None of this nonsense!!!
To be fair to the Times, many of the commentators who leapt at the opportunity to shoot down the EU and its court without getting their facts right only proved their extensive grasp of the workings of the EU.
For the record, the European Court of Justice (EU Court) would not rule over the presence of crucifixes in classrooms as this matter does not fall within its jurisdiction.
For the record
The Maltese constitution says clearly that as a state, we are Roman Catholics and that is our religion. Having a symbol in the classroom reflects that. These are the simple conditions. No on goes to an Arabic country and asks that text in Arabic from the Koran is not shown, or that you change any thing related to Muslim religion!
God forbid we go by this ruling. This is a predominantly Roman Catholic country and our usages and traditions are based on this.
The presence of a Catholic symbol should not offend anybody, in the same way as any other religion's symbol should not offend us.
It all amounts to respect! If you don't respect me, my traditions, my affiliations you have nothing else to do in this country....go some other place. All others respecting us in toto are welcome.
With love like yours, who needs hate?
'if i go to a muslim school and there is someone wearing a burka, or there is a picture of Allah or Muhammed, or whatever it is that is against my traditions/likings, will these be removed? '
On the contrary I'm afraid. a fatwa will most probably be issued against you.
Don;t give in we do as the Crusades done in the pass defend up to last drop of blood our Catholic rights and Christ and our Holy Mother will be behind us in our struggles
"One should note that the person who brought the case to court is a native Italian with no known allegiance to any non-Christian religion."
Finland's media says that Soile Lautsi was born in Finland, then moved to Italy and since 8 years has fighted against crucifixes in schools as violation of hers childrens rights...
This is not a question of what your child is taught in school. it is a question of displaying a symbol. You have every right to ask that your child does not attend religion classes and your request will be met. If your child feels that the crucifix, in some strange way disrupts his concentration, then the teacher can seat him in a way that the offending symbol is out of his sight. As far as I know crucifixes do not emmit any sounds that could disturb anyone.
Criticism should be directed at the European court of justice which vision is worse than myopic and reflects a subjectivism with full negation of the common good and the will of the people.
Next time there be an administration which does not have my sympathy, I will challange the people's choice in the European court of justice with chance that the Prime Minister of the day will have to hide himself from my presence since my political beliefs are different!!!!!
yes still throwing the rubbish the fascists managed to do .
these simbols should be removed completely , along with religion studies and along with baptism at child birth.. who are you to decide for your children if he should be baptised or not?, baptism should be done when people are adults (like it was done in your bible)
or like that you wont have control on the population? or you fear that people nowadays have common sense and dont get involved in your mambo jumbos?or you will loose income from the so called "donations?"
Easy solution. If the crucifix was proving such a distraction to this sensitive boy all they had to do was place the boy in such a way as to be unable to see this 'offending' sight.
By the same argument the court could order the dismantling of churches as I am sure this boy goes outside and passes by churches sometimes. The pity is that these measures are being aided and abbetted by europeans we are giving europe to them on a silver platter.
@ Charles Sammut: where are the catholics inMalta the most vociferous where 'tolerance' towards other cultures, creeds and races is concerned? Why are you namecalling our catholic authorities? Let me tell you something. This will not be allowed to happen in Malta under the present government. And if any other government will try to impose it, it will find a strong resistance no one can imagine and no one will change our constitution with regards to our religion. When Mintoff tried to remove the crucifix from our public places we stood up to his decision and there they remain. Even our beloved President exposes the Crucifix in his meetings with those who visit him. Those who dont want to see Christ had better go someplace else, And we dont want any foreign interference from hinddus or any other imams be they in US or anywhere..
What is ironic however is that the EU's view of religion was obvious to us way before 2003. The Church, which has waged crusades on condom wielding university students and civil marriage was strangely silent in the debates leading up to membership.
I have to ask why!?
The stark reality is that Malta has joined a club and change, sometimes painful change, is bound to occur.
You see, for all those Caholics complaing, seeing that these are the same people who vocally complain against the introduction of divorce, EU membership shouldn t be hard to understand.Its like their views of marriage...for better or for worse, and till death do you part....
No, the "Middle Ages" you are referring to us will remian..... we are still proud to be Catholics and we will do our utmost to remain so. This despite the continuous atacks on the Church and its teacings, all of which are still relevant today.
In accordance with the Italian Constitution, the Italian government may allow schools to display the crucifix in classrooms. However, there also appears to be a conflict in this same constitution which requires separation of State and Church.
More serious is what this report is omitting, namely, the fact that Ms Soile Lautsi has been awarded €5000 in damages by the ECHR which the Italian government has to pay.
Now imagine a potential scenario in Malta where the Archbishop with "Maltese Christians" take to the streets in defense of the crucifix while Gonzi in Castile has to keep forking out €5000 in damages to parents on Malta suing in the ECHR. It would be interesting to see which stance Gonzi will take. Will it be the crucifix or will it be the €5000.
In the meantime, the pro-crucifix Italian government can still appeal to the European Court of Human Rights’ Grand Chamber where we can be sure the Vatican will give the Italian government their support.
One should note that the person who brought the case to court is a native Italian with no known allegiance to any non-Christian religion. Most probably the same applies to the judges involved and to most commentators, including local ones, supporting their decision.
The rot lies within modern permissive society.
I query the wisdom do these European judges.
In all the logic of reason and events, I see the legal equation on the following basis. Someone with different beliefs moves to a country where the people's faith is everywhere openly manifested both private and public since it is ingrained in its history and culture.Than somebody, a foreigner to this country, objects to such, on the basis of a fundament right to give a different education to his children.Such religious manifestation goes against his conviction.
Just to simplify, leaving aside the religious implications to this ruling: It is like that I decide to go close to the torch of an oil well because I have freedom of movement but insists that it is my responsibility to tell you that it is your responsibility that I do not get burned, knowing that the chance to get burnt would be evident!!!! Definitely a falacious judgement on the basis of elementary logic independent of all religious sentiments. I encourage our authorities to start lobbying for the replacement of these judges because they demonstrate evident incompetence.
If crucifixes had to be removed from each classroom, I will be the first to go to school wearing a t-shirt with a crucifix on it as I am a teacher who believes in values. That way the crucifix will still be in every classroom I visit.
Can't you see the magnitude of this issue: according to this decision, nations (because this does not affect Italy only) would have to change age old traditions just because one person complained. Isn't this out of proportion in every way and angle? Should national issues be judged so lightly? What has the world come to?
IF YOU CANNOT STAND UP FOR THE CHRISTIAN SYMBOL THEN YOU WILL DESERVE THIS AND MORE.
I just hope some local follows the example, and sue our bigoted and hypocritical state.
Let us however not make a big fuss on this. This is a sort of hype issue that tends to cover up the paganism of Italian ´realpolitik´. Furthermore, reducing the crucifix to a "cultural symbol" is almost blasphemous. Jesus is not just an fan-club sticker. That´s a brutally tortured man on that wall. And he is the Son of God. No wonder the Church strictly prohibited the symbolic representation of Christ (except using the symbol of the Paschal Lamb) until 692 (Quinisexte Council "in Trullo" - canons 73 and 82), and practically till Nicea II. And the ´naked´ and blood-drenched image we use today was not allowed till the late middle ages; before, only ´glorious´ and fully-clother crucifixes were allowed.
Archbishop - GET REAL!!!
Get those crucifixes off our school , university and office walls! The Middle Ages are over!
No way....in a country which is populated by majority of Muslims no one tells them to remove things which have to do with the Muslim religion.....so why should a country which is mostly populated by Catholics remove it????
i agree with archbishop cremona the crucifix should retain it's place in public places.
But it seems that the New Europe doesn't want to recognise this type of love...loving for your enemy and losing your life so that others may live...
It's funny though, that IF IT WEREN'T FOR THIS TYPE OF LOVE, the people who are claiming that a crucifix is an offense to their religion, belief or non-belief, would have not been accepted to come in Europe in the first place!!!
Well done Europe...another good step towards your self-destruction, since that's what you seem to be aiming at!
I have to state that I made a big mistake when I voted in favour of membership because now I am beginning to realize that Europe has lost its roots, its Christian values and believes. I didn't vote in favour of such a Europe.
@Brincat - infakkru li l-ideali ta' Gesu Kristu bnew l-Ewropa u ghalhekk is-salib mhuwiex biss sinjal ta religjon imma fuq kollox juri li l-fuq min kull intelligenza hemm is-sens komun...li Alla jezisti u jhobb lill-umanita...Alla hekk habb id-dinja li baghat lil Ibnu l-Wahdieni...
Din il-kummiedja turi li l-Ewropa qeghda tichad l-gheruq taghha...u min jichad l-ommu huwa destinat ghar-rovina...u l-moralita bhalissa mhix xi gran che.
Dwar li r-religjon "is a private matter" - m'ghandekx ragun - tant huwa publiku li huwa fil-kultura taghna, fit-tradizzjonijiet u l-folklor, l-Innu Nazzjonali, fil-festi li jgibu ammont sostanzjali ta turisti....issa taf x'jonqos - xi Winter Festival flok il-Milied jew Spring Festival flok il-Gimgha l-Kbira....halluna!!!
@M. Attard: Spirituality, and the way one lives is private true... but religion in itself is qutie meant to be 'public'... people pray together in whatever religion... if you go to a mosque, church, or buddhist temple, you find people praying in groups...
Next Move now......NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO INDOCTRINATE OUR BELOVED CHILDREN ANY KIND OF RELIGION AT LEAST UNTIL PUBERTY.........HALLOWEEN INCULDED.
However, it is plainly obvious that was not done at the behest of the Secular State, the Protestants or the Jews, nor the Atheists or Agnostics, otherwise it would have been done decades ago.
This has become an issue now simply because the West is all out to appease the Islamic faith, the members of which are now strong enough in Europe to start making demands, and to erase our Judeo-Christian heritage that is the foundation of our European Civilization.
Therefore, on this basis alone, I am for the crucifixes to stay. And I call on all sane people who value life and liberty to do the same.
It's not a matter of ' if ' but rather ' when '. It's really sad that the reward for accepting immigrants, most of which entered Europe illegally, is that citizens of the host country have to change their rooted traditions so as not to ' offend' their uninvited guests. A 'not so bright' future is approaching ! This is only the beginning.
It's not a matter of ' if ' but rather ' when '. It's really sad that the reward for accepting immigrants, most of which entered Europe illegally, is that citizens of the host country have to change their rooted traditions so as not to ' offend' their uninvited guests. A 'not so bright' future is approaching ! This is only the beginning.
@ M Brincat. Sadly I can understand your reasoning in a way. After all it does take an idiot to give up ones life for the love of others. Especially when its not appreciated.
NO ONE is force to beleive or practice, but this does not remove the RIGHT for christians to have a cruxifix in public places in THEIR country. If in Malta this should happen, it will be mayhem. The Crucifix has to have a place in our classrooms.
Why does Jesus bother some people?
A true Maltese Catholic he or she of any political stands must support the Maltese bishops with their rights to defends this crusade
It's about time countries leave the Council of Europe because they are interfering in our way of life. Let them rule themselves not rule over us.
If I don't like a program on any media I simply switch off or change channels; likewise whoever is offended by the crucifix can simply ignore it or look the other way.
This is yet another attack on Christianity and all that is Christian.
No that is not how it should be, and no it is not a good decision. Religion has a place in our classrooms. Malta is a catholic country and nobody should have the right to make us remove the Crucifix from classrooms and public places.
Archbishop Cremona is right if the situation should ever arise in Malta all Maltese Christians should insist that the crucifix retains its place in public places.
The European Court of Human Rights should not have the power to play about with our faith.
I wonder how you seem to have arrived to the conclusion that the removal of the Crucifix from a class room could encourage high IQ attitudes? As if the Catholics are less intelligent than the non-Catholics! Go and tell it to the marines.
@M Attard
Religion is a way of living and hence it is not that private........ Even with the Catholic Religion embedded in our Constitution, the Crucifixes should remain in our classrooms.
May your God be with you.
Are we going to let people from other countries invade us and impose on us what we can show and what we cannot in our country? NEVER!
If we ban crucifixes, then we should ban that silly dress the Muslim women cover themselves all over with!
I wonder how one can improve one's IQ just by removing Crucifixes from schools. How does a Crucifix hinder one's IQ. Are we CHRISTIANS or what?
Archbishop Paul Cremona's comment deserves praise.
I renember in history of people who try to change society because they thought it was right without letting the people choose. It resulted in 2 World Wars and the destruction of Europe.
@M.Brincat: "Good decision when considering schools need to encourage high iQ attitudes." Obviously, our University has students with a high IQ level, otherwise they wouldn't be discussing condoms and how it's acceptable to publish obscenities.
...and all this with the blessing of some pathetically naive and misguided citizens of this once proud continent called Europe! The wolf is no longer howling at the door - it is within.
Long live diversity! O what beauty lies in Multiculturalism!
Malta (yes this little island) is no longer the blind catholic country it was. People have learned to read, and think. Society should wake up to the fact that if one believes that their sin will put them in hell, others simply believe otherwise, or nothing at all. Why should everyone suffer their so called piety. Nothing religuously significant should be allowed in public places not just crosses.
I also raise a point on religous education itself. Schools should be teaching 'Religions of the World' (seeing how many people seem to want to believe in magic) or simple 'Ethics' and not just bang the one brainwashing drum of Roman Catholic Dogma where 1+1 = 3.
(please note I am not attacking Roman Catholicism but all religions).
Europe was built on christianity now whoever proclaims God is being subdued and admonished. Europe has no values whatsoever.
Kids should be taught only what helps them in their moral and spiritual development. It's the right of our children once of age, to feel which religion they ought to follow.
We have to quit our blinkered reasoning that "us catholics" are always right.
"A man arrives at the gates of heaven.
St. Peter asks, "Religion?"
The man says, "Muslim."
St. Peter looks down his list, and says, "Go to room 24.
But be very quiet as you pass room 8."
Another man arrives at the gates of heaven.
St. Peter: "Religion"?
Man: "Buddhist."
St. Peter: "Go to room 18. But be very quiet as you pass
room 8."
A third man arrives at the gates.
St. Peter: "Religion?"
Man: "Jewish."
St. Peter: "Go to room 11. But be very quiet as you pass
room 8."
The man asks, "I can understand there being different rooms
for different religions, but why must I be quiet when I pass
room 8?"
St. Peter tells him, "Well, the Catholics are in room 8,
and they think they're the only ones here."
Yes the Crucifix should remain in all public places in Malta and throughout the world !!
Our children should be raised in Gods love and in a Christian ambience. The Crucifix is an important symbol of how much Jesus has suffered for us so that we would be free, happy, saved and content in the union with God.
You miss the whole point !!! Crucifixes this time, what next ??? The ECHR decides what YOU will do or not do, you will have no say !!
What's next? Maltese women wearing the burqa, for otherwise it may offend some illegal? It'd be up in arms, fighting tooth and nail should anyone dare to force a similar thing down the throats of the ordinary Maltese.
The Maltese in a vast majority are Roman Catholics and we will defend our right over those who want to impose theirs. The Crucifix must STAY and local churches and parishes should start a tradition of creating major crosses around the island just like the one in Kordin.
The say of the majority is the rule.
FORZA ITALIA fight for your religion & tradition - an ENGLAND fan!!!
Hypocrites
Matthew 10:33 “But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven
The crucifix is the ONLY cetainty !
The ONLY One 100% reliable and will NEVER let you down!
very very high IQ indeed!!!!!!
I hope the appeal gets rejected. Crucifixes can remain in churches, where they belong.
I agree with the Archbishop's opinion. I just hope that if we Maltese are truly Chrsitians, we shall not accept this.
fred
However private religion is Catholicism is what gave this people and many others a true way of life based on correct moral behaviour. There is nothing wrong in manifesting a people's beliefs. Democracy is about respecting the majority's views and desires too.
@ M. Brincat
I don't know where you got these assertions from. To me it is exactly the opposite. I feel more comfortable with the crucifix nearby. It gives me true reassurance. I am more than 100% sure that many others feel the same.
No doubt that Jesus suffered and died for this particular decision as well.
This is a most welcome decision by the ECHR and the Maltese government should keep up its tradition of being more European than the EU and remove all crucifixes forthwith from all public places, schools, law courts, government departments, hospital etc.
The Maltese constitution will also have to be changed because it is biased in favour of Roman Catholicism and this clearly violates the human rights of the tens of thousands of immigrants who have been welcomed to Malta over the past few years.
Norman
It is the foreigners should change or at least tolerate the country's religion instead of trying to change the country's culture!!
So ok if we remove the crosses, muslims should remove their veils because it irritates some Christians. So is this fair? Where's the true tolerance?
Muslims have made a promise to overcome Christianity and their plan is coming to action.
Where a school is a (private) church school, or a private school organized by Jewish/Buddhist/Muslim institutions for that matter, then expressions of their respective religions should be allowed; parents would send their children to these schools precisely because of the role that that particular religion plays in its educational program. But, once again, I think that state schools should be religion-neutral.
The church or other religions have NO right to impose their symbols in secular state buildings or schools and that includes Malta. If the church imposes its symbols on the government than it is making a gross mistake because it shows that it is still stuck in its old ways. The church has to start showing some respect to the general public that use state buildings and schools irrespective of their beliefs.
Any Progressive State is secular and cannot impose any religious symbols of any religion on its citizens. If we argue about tradition and culture than that is purely puerile. In the past it was the church's tradition to pass heretics to the inquisition of which some were burnt in the most horrendous ways. Obviously in this case it could not continue with this tradition.
ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING!!!
I would love to go to Saudi Arabia or Iran and demand that Sharia Law be outlawed in favour of a more liberal code of laws. I would probably be executed for my troubles.But not in Europe, we strive to destroy our cultural heritage to accomodate beliefs of anyone non-european. Put simply the EU has today shown that it is a complete joke!
Let love be sincere;
hate what is evil,
hold on to what is good;
love one another with mutual affection;
anticipate one another in showing honor.
Do not grow slack in zeal,
be fervent in spirit,
serve the Lord.
Rejoice in hope,
endure in affliction,
persevere in prayer.
Contribute to the needs of the holy ones,
exercise hospitality.
Bless those who persecute you,
bless and do not curse them.
Rejoice with those who rejoice,
weep with those who weep.
Have the same regard for one another;
do not be haughty but associate with the lowly.
If its a private matter why is it that we teach religion in our schools??
I am maltese, pure maltese with no history of immigration for many generations that I know of. I also am not a catholic or a christian. Do I and my children not have a right to be given a secular education? This has nothing to do with accepting the traditions of a country as this is MY country and should have the right not to be bombarded with religious images everywhere I go. The only schools which should be allowed to show the cross are the church schools. Government schools should be for everyone.
Well done to the european court. This a victory to human rights, dignity, respect and true freedom. I look forward to this decision being imposed in Malta too.
I'm not a religious person, anzi, but with your attitude in a couple of decades we could easily end up with the koran as a compulsory school textbook. If you want to keep living in a civilised country, unlike many Muslim ones, "our" religion is the first barrier, once this barrier is broken Muslim brainwashers will have fertile ground to accomplish their mission, that is take the World, they couldn't accomplish it by force so now they're using other ways.
Then in Italy out of all places! VERGOGNA!!!!
It is senseless claiming that the Crucifix hurts non-Christians. The Cross is a sign of acceptance of God's will and story given out of His love for each individual, something local baptized Christians rarely understand given the elementary religion (not faith) they have been taught in their doctrine classes.
This is where the Church in Malta and Italy should now step in, with vehement catechesis on the real significance of the Cross and man's adherence to doing God's will.
It's become so cool to denigrate our common heritage and our Faith.... In the meantime, we are losing our moral compass... Wonder why?
We cannot in future complain that Churches should not display any icon on their facade because a person with a different religion use the road and has a right to without feeling that the cross on the church affects him. Do you realise that this is absurd and that in future we'll have to dismantle churches not to offend. Offend what/whom/how?
Do I get offended when I pass corradion hill and see the Mosque. No. Its a symbol of devotion for 1000s of Muslims, who are adoring God. Its a symbol of peace and humanity. Does a Budhist temple affect me? NO for the same reasons.
What really affects me is having pictures of the President / Prime minister in government departments (and I am PN inclined!).
The Cross in school signifies peace and love and also culture, however not subversion to Catholic religion.
Malta must remove the crucifix from our schools too!!!! Dear Maltese throw away your culture and your beliefs.....Its incredible!!!! What happened in Italy must happen here.
Yes allow the other religions to take over, we will be much better off......
HUMAN BEING NEEDS SPIRITUALITY!
misskom tisthu tighdu li inthom maltin
Of course one cannot do that because there's money involved!!! We really are cheap!
Why is it that we are expected to change just because persons from other countries decide to settle in our country? Does the same apply to the countries from where immigrants are coming? Do we dictate to them what they should do in their own country!!! Mhux hekk tghid!
Although Mr M Brincat and M Attard have their own opinion, we are not here to erase centuries of history and culture that has formed us to what we are today. Should this generation erase that?
Should this mean that the Muslims have to do the same in their country, starting from the broadcasted prayers at 4am to the whole village or city and the TV program interruptions with the Koran reading? Should we accept that the Muslims are pushing away embedded European Christian values, by the day? Should we remove "in God we trust" just because there are other religions who do not believe in God? And now removing crosses from schools in Roman Catholic Italy, the epicenter of the Church?
The way forward is what France is doing. banning the Burkas and Abayas, forcing immigrants to learn French and even sing the French national Anthem.
Let not Malta arrive to that situation. It's not even debatable!
I, honestly, find it .. let's say, strange, that we have people who find it insulting to be faced with a crucifix.
This rulng is an eye-opener.
Are you serious? From your comments, I guess you wouldn't find a problem in enforcing such judgement in Malta.
So Muslims can be angry if a drawing of Mohammed is used but we cannot hang a crucifix in a classroom. Is this equality and respect? Unbelievable. They would shout Jihad if something similar had to happen in their respective countries and I'm sure it wouldn't just end there.
Mr. M Brincat, Isaac Newton was a fervent Christian, so I cannot understand the connection with IQ.
I understand that those arguing against the Cross in public cases, would declare that they would not want it even on their final resting place.
With love,
Stephen Farrugia (Sliema)
New arrivals to our continent have to respect our traditions, not necessary adopt our religion.
They knew beforehand that the European continent is mainly Christian, so they knew what they were in for.
Europe should adopt a rule that citizenship given to these new comers, would be withdrawn if they refuse to integrate with the rest of us.
I believe that the European Court made an ass of itself to rule in such a way. The Court ignored the sentiments of hundreds of millions to please a few hundreds.
Europe Losing it's Culture: 90% complete
"If the crucifix is there and I am a Muslim I will continue to respect my religion. Jesus in the classroom doesn't bother me," Zenat, a 14-year-old girl of Egyptian origin, told Reuters Television.’
You are absolutely right Ms. Zenat. Ironically, Jesus is recognized, loved, respected and most importantly his teaches are FOLLOWED by all Muslims than His followers!
One thing for sue Lowell-ismists would will a political mileage now.
I notice that my comments don’t appear. Is it an internet problem or cencorship issue?
Something to reflect upon.
Religion is a private matter and that's how it should be. It has no place in our classrooms.