Thursday, 5th November 2009
GETTING CROSS
The European Court of Human Rights gave judgement recently in a case brought by an irritatingly strident atheist against Italy.
Let's start by making something clear, since many people were quick to blame the EU for what they perceive to be an attack on their religion and their ancient way of life, soon to be followed by the making of divorce compulsory and abortion a natural consequence of intercourse. The ECHR has nothing to do with the EU.
Is that clear? Nothing, nada, zilch, rien, niente and, just to be clear, ma ghandux x'jaqsam.
Let's get something else out of the way, because I really have to mention it: is it only me who finds the Archbishop's characterisation of the judgement as a form of censorship just a bit ironic?
I truly have great respect for the gentleman, but the leader of the Catholic Church in Malta really can't call something censorship, as if it was a bad thing, when the Church itself has been identified, for better or for worse, as a prime mover behind recent censoring (a.k.a. banning) of theatrical and written works.
In other words, you can't have it both ways.
The judgement, predictably, let loose a storm of protest, much of it, unfortunately, thinly-disguised xenophobia. Finally, a reason to shout and scream about how our "European Identity" was being destroyed and how "alien practises, shock horror" were taking over has appeared, to give people an excuse to give vent to their distaste for other cultures without seeming to be overtly racist.
If you don't think I'm right about this, take a look at the tone of many comments about the story. The same level of quasi-fundamentalism was unleashed against the ECHR and against anyone who tried to take a mildly liberal view of it as was unleashed against anyone who thinks that banning of plays and newspapers is repressive and repulsive.
Personally, I find the whole thing something I can take or leave: I prefer to believe that Christianity, or any other faith or belief system, for that matter, should concentrate more on actions than on symbols. I also tend towards mild distaste (actually, strong revulsion) towards people trying to ram their beliefs down my throat.
I think the woman who started the case against Italy is as annoying and obnoxious as, say, the assorted happy-clappies and the Islamic fundamentalists who litter the scene, with the added irritation that some of the latter tend towards killing people who don't agree with them, much on the lines of the Christian zealots of old, but at the end of the day, it has to be admitted that she has a point, annoying though she may be.
If a State proclaims itself to be secular, it should be secular and there's an end to it: traditions are all very well but at some point, they have to be circumscribed by respect for everyone, even for a single pain in the ass. It's a question of where to draw the line and, frankly, I think the line was drawn a bit too far on the wrong side of reasonable, but it's only a matter of degree, nothing more, and in this regard, my opinion, and yours, and Berlusconi's (now there's an excellent role model) is as good or as bad as that woman's or the Court's.
Of course, most people who suddenly found themselves to be such fervent adherents to the Catholic Faith haven't actually read the judgement. It's only available in French, so I haven't read the whole thing either, but for the convenience of all, here's a pretty comprehensive summary.
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 and they would feel that they were being educated in a school environment bearing the stamp of a given religion. This could be encouraging for religious pupils, but also disturbing for pupils who practised other religions or were atheists, particularly if they belonged to religious minorities.
The freedom not to believe in any religion (inherent in the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Convention) was not limited to the absence of religious services or religious education: it extended to practices and symbols which expressed a belief, a religion or atheism. This freedom deserved particular protection if it was the State which expressed a belief and the individual was placed in a situation which he or she could not avoid, or could do so only through a disproportionate effort and sacrifice.
The State, the Court continued, was to refrain from imposing beliefs in premises where individuals were dependent on it. In particular, it was required to observe confessional neutrality in the context of public education, where attending classes was compulsory irrespective of religion, and where the aim should be to foster critical thinking in pupils.
The Court was unable to grasp how the display, in classrooms in State schools, of a symbol that could reasonably be associated with Catholicism (the majority religion in Italy) could serve the educational pluralism that was essential to the preservation of a "democratic society" as that was conceived by the Convention, a pluralism that was recognised by the Italian Constitutional Court.
The compulsory display of a symbol of a given confession in premises used by the public authorities, and especially in classrooms, thus restricted the right of parents to educate their children in conformity with their convictions, and the right of children to believe or not to believe.
And that, people, was all that the Court said. Within the context of the Italian Constitution, that recognises that Italy is a secular state, the State should not be seen to "favour" one religion over any other or over no religion at all.
You may, though I don't think you should, believe that the Catholic faith is the be-all and end-all of belief systems and should therefore be imposed on everyone, whether they like it or not. If you do believe this, might I humbly suggest that you consider practising the tenets of that faith in their completeness, beginning with "the House of My Father has many rooms" and "do unto others as you would wish done unto you"?
But it's up to you, though I think you should bear in mind that otherwise, what you see as a perfectly reasonable response to what many, including me to a degree, see as an unreasonable judgement will be latched on to by the racist xenophobes thugs as a way to call you to arms.
And that way lie the Inquisition and the Crusades, to say nothing of the Jihad and ethnic cleansing, a road down which I don't want to travel.
RSS
Comments
"Chopping off hands of thieves is 'deserving punishment' - Imam" -see todays article.
Somebody may stereotypically label me "xenophobic" or "racist" but this won't stop me from saying that I "distaste" some "other cultures" main practices and that I prefer our culture over many others, and hence would like to protect it and pass it on to our future generations.
I really shouldn’t be wasting my time answering.
Apart from you, I do not think that there is anyone else who would object to mixing desire, speculation or wishful thinking. They are all near synonyms.
NO! I did not say anything resembling your allegation that there is a question of introducing an Education Law. I said that departmental policy rather than the whims of an imaginary Jewish headmaster should determine the presence of the crucifix on schoolroom walls.
I find your last question utterly incomprehensible! There is no connection between finding myself “midway of a Mathematics test” and my anticipated appearance before Christ on Judgment Day.
I see the decision of the ECHR as a stepping stone towards a change in the attitude of most people's minds, if the majority of people are christian that doesn't mean a green light to put a religious symbol wherever they please, if the religious symbol is so important to these people they can send their children to a church school if they wish so but that belief system can't be imposed on any one else even if it's a minority.
Now to all the people that actually believe in a personal god, and actually believe that if they oppose the removal of the crucifix with all their might they are earning credits for judgement day (which at the moment is pretty popular, even in cinemas).
Well I just ask, why don't these people do something better that will earn them more credit, like for example charity? or give away their material goods to people in need? or do voluntary work maybe? rather than stay nagging about a religious symbol stuck on a wall and that they will be doing whatever they can to oppose the removal, what a waste of energy jahasra!
We are living in an age of knowledge and information and gone are the days where because the majority of people have faith in a particular religion the minority have no rights to say anything or do anything, the catholic religion is slowly but surely loosing it's grip for obvious reasons and that is probably the only reason why a lot of people are making a scene out of this court decision.
It doesn't make a difference whether the majority (7:1 as stated by Francis Saliba) is catholic because that :1 ratio can make all the difference in the world, and that is happening NOW. The point is that if we are truly a democratic country and if we truly want secular teachings than yes ANY religious signs in public schools should be removed.
Religion as a subject should not be a brain washing session about a particular faith but rather an informative session about spiritual/faith and believe systems. We are light years behind on this topic and is definitely considered a taboo. Religion is one of the topics where people are most of the time unable to communicate unless they are agreeing with each other.
@Dr Francis Saliba - "No one is “introducing” the problem...is there already."
Very right indeed. How about we fix the problem?
"desire", "speculation" and "wishful thinking"
That's some words I wouldn't mix.
And did you not say that the issue at hand was introduced by an Education Policy (law) which you mentioned and which it apparently never existed?
In the end, what purpose does the cross serve in classroom? Prayer? Symbolism? Most importantly, Education?
No.
There is no law saying we should be doing this (except a fictitious policy) and not even in Church.
Truth is, the cross is being *used* as a territorial marker, "this is our Catholic school, get the heck out".
You mentioned being near God, how near do you want to be when instead you're midway of a Mathematics test?
Christ said, in so many words, that He will acknowledge before his Father those who had acknowledged Him on earth and that He will disown those who disowned Him on earth. He does not need to consult any poll percentages to know all about human deeds and what lies hidden in their hearts!
Confusion, worse confounded!
No one is “introducing” the problem of “putting a cross” in a classroom because the crucifix is there already. You may desire that “in the future it will most likely be removed” but that is only your idle speculation and wishful thinking. I know what “policy” means without having to consult any dictionary; it has nothing to do with any “law”, “Maltese” or foreign, “glorified” or not, and whether it existed or “never existed”.
@Dr Francis Saliba - Why introduce a problem (putting a cross in each classroom as a school policy) when we know that in the future it will most likely be removed anyway?
As to the main issue, didn't you say it is a department policy to put a cross in each class? Do I have to remind you the meaning of "policy"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_policy
So now you know about the "law" the Maltese glorified which never existed?
"To understand what I'm saying, you must try to think from the perspective of the unbeliever. Then the analogy with the PN or PL emblem will work."
I AM an "unbeliever". Didn't I tell you that before?
I strongly believe that the Crucifix should remain in the classrooms however I do not believe that God will reward me for that notion. I also believe that when,
On Judgement Day, we appear before Christ to be judged by Him, He will not condemn the 20% or whatever because they do not share my views on this matter.
I think that God, in His infinite mercy, will judge us on the way we lived not on how many times we went to church or whether or not we belonged to the 80%, God is not a fundamentalist or a tyrant.
I am desolate but no matter how hard I try, I am unable to answer your question about breaking things up to fix them up later, or what you could possibly mean by the Maltese glorification of a mistake nowhere named in law. To me it is absolute gibberish.
On Judgement Day, when I appear before Christ to be judged by Him, I do not expect to be condemned by Him because I, together with the vast majority of Maltese Christians and their political and religious leaders, objected to the removal of the Holy Crucifix from our schoolrooms simply because some Finnish atheist, who denies God's very existence, was awarded 5000 euros by the ECHR
And does God care what we define as a "right"? No.
Does he care about the things we do (which are right or not)? Yes.
No need to keep up with this argument. Besides, our Doctor already certified how my statement "is obvious".
"identified by the name of CHRISTian than."
However nice my name is, (which I value highly), I cannot but resent the degraded society were a child is named for a saint. Ironically I may not be that much of a good impression of Who my name represents.
@Dr Saliba - "that your minority of < 20% could at some time in the future increase to some majority, at least."
So what's the point of breaking things to fix them up later on? What I'm talking about is, the Maltese glorified a mistake which isn't named anywhere in law, only to find that it's instead a behavioral problem which is evident from comments like "if they don't like it, get out of Malta" (=egoism).
Dr Saliba, when you're in front of Judgment, go mention how that 80% made all the difference.
Only NOW are you belatedly conceding that I (and about 80% of the Maltese population) have the right to resist the imposition of the banning of the crucifix from our classrooms because we are practicing Catholics. Previously you were consistently challenging us, tooth and nail. and trying to ridicule us for doing precisely that!
The Pontiff or the Catholic Church do not claim an absolute truth in everything they say.
I see, so (excluding private and church schools) you think we should rename half of -if not more- the public schools in Malta&Gozo. And what do you think about Christmas decorations in schools, should we remove them too? And 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 other public holidays like the Feast of St. Paul's Shipwreck, Feast of the Immaculate Conception etc and make school obligatory in public schools on, for example, Christmas day?
"Well, in that case we should rename ALL the six public schools in Hamrun (just to name one locality)".
If you want my opinion, yes, we should.
"I did not say that you, or any other atheist, had the cheek to claim that atheists had a monopoly on absolute truth – in fact I excluded that bare faced arrogance!".
Interesting. So for one to say that one has a monopoly on absolute truth shows bare faced arrogance. I agree. However, I wonder where that leaves the Catholic church and its Pontiff.
"The point you seem to be missing is that the stamp of approval of one religion (crucifix) in a classroom (of a Government school) by default makes other children look and feel inferior"
Well, in that case we should rename ALL the six public schools in Hamrun (just to name one locality). Because Maria Assunta Girls' Secondary School -just to name one- has the stamp of approval of one religion, since it's named after a key religious figure.
Our religion, culture and identity are too intertwined to be able to hit religion without hitting the others.
I am totally against directly imposing beliefs on others, but the mere presence of the cross does NOT directly impose beliefs on others.
"The betrayal would be committed by the overwhelming majority of the Catholic population that succumbs to that imposition without resisting it with all its might".
I see. Well, since I am not a Catholic, that doesn't concern me. You may as well oppose and resist the "imposition" (legally) with all your might, for all I care. You have every right to do that.
What's comical is your constant invocation of the "80%", as if it actually matters in questions of truth and justice.
"I did not say that you, or any other atheist, had the cheek to claim that atheists had a monopoly on absolute truth".
And I didn't say you did. Read my replies more carefully.
"I said that some atheists BEHAVE AS IF they held a monopoly of truth".
And so do some Christians. But since I am replying to you, unlike you, I won't indulge in straw-man arguments.
"You have an obnoxious habit of blatantly distorting and misinterpreting my written word".
I haven't. Check again.
":the issue is not whether the crucifix or not..... it is whether any of persons attending the function in a public building has a right to have any other non-offending symbol of religion or atheism for all its is worth, in the same prominence"
The reason why the Court found that the cross is in breach of the human rights is not because the cross offend or does not offend someone. The reasons given by the Court are: "thus restricted the right of parents to educate their children in conformity with their convictions, and the right of children to believe or not to believe"
Hence the Court based its judgement on Protocol 1, Article 2 - education (which I personally found to be nonsense) and Article 9 - conscience and religion.
More comedy of the absurd!
I did not say that you, or any other atheist, had the cheek to claim that atheists had a monopoly on absolute truth – in fact I excluded that bare faced arrogance! I said that some atheists BEHAVE AS IF they held a monopoly of truth without actually saying so! Check it out for yourself!
You have an obnoxious habit of blatantly distorting and misinterpreting my written word (see above). That is why I have to be extremely careful not to “provide ammunition for the enemies of the Church” in my comments.
Your “arguments” are assuming an aura of some comedy of the absurd!
The very real and the very objectionable solid act of REMOVAL of the crucifix (decried by 80% of the Maltese) is what constitutes an objectionable "shift towards atheism". It is not the sanguine atheist who demands that the crucifix be removed that commits the “betrayal” of trust. The betrayal would be committed by the overwhelming majority of the Catholic population that succumbs to that imposition without resisting it with all its might.
Cont...
Also, I never claimed that atheism has some monopoly on absolute truth (another straw-man argument). As a matter of fact, atheists generally do not believe in dogmas and always seek to back claims with evidence, keeping in mind that there will be errors to be corrected.
You say that you do not know of any atheist who has had the cheek to say that (atheists hold a monopoly on truth), in so many words, but that you know of many who act and who argue on that assumption.
That is exactly your problem, Dr Saliba. You are so prejudiced against atheists that you assume too much, even about the way they think. On the otherhand, it is not an assumption of mine that you will not concede a point if conceding it will "provide ammunition for the enemies of the Church". You actually made that self-defeating claim yourself on the 2nd September 2009, which kind of makes any debate with you futile - I don't know why I actually bother. Perhaps it is because it doesn't take much to refute your "arguments".
1. When there is a presence of something, you cannot create an absence of it without removing it. Now since you concede that the absence of a cross does not prove anything, how does its removal make it a move towards atheism?
2. I am not "fellow atheists". I am Kenneth Cassar. So when you reply to me saying that a crucifix is not something to be feared, as a point in favour of the keeping of the crucifix, I am perfectly justified in saying that it is a straw-man argument. When rebutting my claims, keep to my claims and do not invoke words I never said.
3. When saying that removing the crucifix from a classroom where previously it was revered is a betrayal and a renouncement of a previous trust, you are assuming that the person asking for the removal of the crucifix is a Christian. That's the problem with most Christians. They assume too much. What trust exactly is being betrayed? Please be specific.
Cont...
It is an obvious fact that there have been many mistaken popular beliefs in all walks of life. This does not mean that atheism has some monopoly for the absolute truth. I do not know of any atheist who has had the cheek to say that, in so many words, but I know of many who act and who argue on that assumption.
it is whether any of persons attending the function in a public building has a right to have any other non-offending symbol of religion or atheism for all its is worth, in the same prominence (and I believe yes). And this not to create challenges but to induce understanding and personal enrichment in positive diversity.
It is opportunistic personal agendas that misuse religion to create divisions.
1. The ABSENCE of the cross from a bathroom does not prove anything. Its REMOVAL from a classroom IS a deliberate move away from Christianity towards atheism.
2. If you yourself never said that the crucifix is something to be feared fellow atheists did say that it terrorized children.
3. Removing the crucifix from a classroom where previously it was revered is a betrayal and a renouncement of a previous trust.
It is also safe to deduce that there was a time when 99.9% believed that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth.
"The PN or PL emblem does not symbolize the identity of our nation".
Neither should the crucifix, but on this we will clearly disagree, so I'll leave it at that. To understand what I'm saying, you must try to think from the perspective of the unbeliever. Then the analogy with the PN or PL emblem will work.
A majority of >80% cannot be such a "meaningless number" after all, because you expressed the hope that your minority of < 20% could at some time in the future increase to some majority, at least.
"Besides, 80% may agree on something which in the end is wrong, it doesn't make it right."
80% doesn't necessarily make it right but 80% can make it a right. -(pun intended)
"The president concerns the whole nation, whereas Christ a particular religion." Christ isn't an integral part of our (Maltese) identity? Hmmm, maybe that's why you are identified by the name of CHRISTian than. (pun intended)
@Dr Francis Saliba - Except that a number is meaningless, remember the wars where the Jews were outnumbered 1-5, and they won with the guidance of God?
Today you see 80%, in the future, possibly right after the issue is settled, it will get lower then 20%. Besides, 80% may agree on something which in the end is wrong, it doesn't make it right.
As for concept of 'identity' about ourselves - racial, linguistic, religious, class or whatever, it disunites, could, well, be big-beheaded, extremely narrow.
"Forget about it!" the writer Amin Maamood, (Arab,christian,french-speaking) argues, quite rightly, many would agree, in his long essay "Identity". Everyone is essentially a composite of 'identities' and to highlight one identity only : for instance: Arab,so not a christian. Wrong!
Only universally shared identity is that we're all human.
Now there's a leveller!
"Let's start by making something clear, since many people were quick to blame the EU for ..." "The ECHR has nothing to do with the EU. Is that clear? Nothing, nada, zilch, rien, niente and, just to be clear, ma ghandux x'jaqsam."
"Old habits die hard" Wasn't it the PN who used to confuse people in thinking that Europe and the EU is the same thing? In fact they used to say 'nidhlu fl-Ewropa" instead of 'nidhlu fl-Unjoni Ewropea'. As if Malta weren't already 'fl-Ewropa' for thousands of years. No wonder then, that many people thought that the European Court and the EU's Court is the same thing.
"To give an analogy, imagine going to a supposedly independent non-partisan conference as a participant, and finding on the main wall facing all participants either the PN or PL emblem. You would be uncomfortable"
Certainly, I agree. But I don't think that your analogy is similar enough. The PN or PL emblem does not symbolize the identity of our nation. Imagine for example that when going to an "independent non-partisan conference as a participant" I find, instead of the PN or PL emblem, a picture of the President of Malta. If I were a PN supporter, I would not feel uncomfortable by having the picture of a person from the PL camp, just like I wouldn't feel uncomfortable if I were a PL supporter and finding on the main wall a picture of the president Eddie Fenech Adami (had the conference occured when he was president). The reason is that when you have someone like Eddie Fenech Adami/George Abela as president of Malta, he not only represent the PN/PL but also the whole nation. Just like the cross not only represent christianity, but also our traditions/culture, values, and identity.
The ECHR does not and cannot enforce any of the 47 States to change their laws or to remove the objectionable symbol, that is the prerogative of the individual state. They do however have the mandate to ascertain that the complainants receive their financial award. There are no ‘opt-out clauses’ the States have no alternative other than getting out of the Council of Europe which no state can afford to do. It’s all or nothing like any club rule.
The point you seem to be missing is that the stamp of approval of one religion (crucifix) in a classroom (of a Government school) by default makes other children look and feel inferior.
To give an analogy, imagine going to a supposedly independent non-partisan conference as a participant, and finding on the main wall facing all participants either the PN or PL emblem. You would be uncomfortable (to say the least...I would be outraged) if you did not consider yourself a PN or PL supporter.
"The classrooms crucifix case was about the state discriminating between different religions."
I think that discrimination isn't always a bad thing, on the contrary, without discrimination justice cannot exist. I think that if one consider that the cross isn't just a religious symbol, but also represent the maltese/italian traditions, values and identity I conclude that this discrimination is justified. I mean, is buddha for example, a fundamental part of Italy's identity? No. I personally don't think that the cross is necessary in a classroom but think it should remain a domestic affair. The ECHR conclusion that the mere presence of a cross in a classroom violates the children's fundamental human rights is, in my opinion, a farce.
"...no law can impede a parent or any individual from indoctrinating a child in any religion or belief. The classrooms crucifix case was about the state discriminating between different religions."
I understand your point. The court said that the state must not violate the children's right to believe or not while it also indirectly said that it's ok for the parents to violate their children's human right to believe or not. Hence my point is that if it is ok for the court that the children's fundamental human rights are violated by some people, then these human rights may not be so fundamental after all.
1. The removal of the crucifix from government schools could be perceived as "a deliberate move away from Christianity", but in fact it is not. That my bathroom does not have a crucifix on its wall does not mean that it is an atheist bathroom.
2. I never said that the crucifix is something to be feared - straw man argument.
3. Nobody betrays anyone by removing a symbol, particularly if the one demanding the removal of the symbol has no allegiance with the person the symbol represents. Betrayal implies a former relationship of trust.
1. The removal of the crucifix from a schoolroom wall is a deliberate move away from Christianity towards atheism.
2. The image of a revered crucified victim in a classroom is not some objectionable symbol to be feared. What we should fear are the tribunals who "crucify" harmless victims be they an ancient Pontius Pilate tribunal or the modern version the EHCR.
3. The crucified Christ was betrayed for thirty pieces of silver paid to Judas. Today's price for betraying him in Italy is the 5000 euro being offered 5000 to Soile Lautsi.
1. Lack of any religious symbols does not imply atheism. Religious symbols imply belief or acceptance of particular religions.
2. Priority does not mean anything in this context, otherwise we should replace the crucifix with a statue of the Fertility Goddess. She was here first.
@David_Seychell
You have to appreciate that ECHR, much like our Constitution, protects the citizens from STATE discriminatory actions. As far as I know, an individual cannot take a case to ECHR against another individual. I went through that experience when I initiated a Constitutional complaint for inhuman and degrading treatment against Air Malta. Dr. Giovanni Bonello argued that Air Malta is not part of ‘The executive government’ and therefore can’t be sued for breach of the Constitution. Dr. George Abela and KMB, my attorneys, did not even contest that notion; instead they got the Court to accept that Air Malta is indeed a company belonging to government. Only after that ‘judicial exception’ was won my case continued. That judgement became a precedent and was used again by Joe Debono Grech vs. Medserv and made a legal land mark. It is used as a case study at the university.
If the above is something to go by, no law can impede a parent or any individual from indoctrinating a child in any religion or belief. The classrooms crucifix case was about the state discriminating between different religions. And I’m not saying that I agree with the judgement.
Fi knejjes u skejjel u ghaqdiet, tista' tinghata xi forma ta' qima lill-Kurcifiss, per ezempju bhall-bews tieghu fil-Gimgha l-kbira. Mexxu dan is-suggeriment b'kull mod. Tistghu tibdew issa stess, mal-contacts kollha taghkom.
Jekk taqbel ghamel bhall hafna .......Grazzi pass on
History: shouldn't all children in European state schools be taught about the civilisation of Greece and Rome? That the cross was a form of punishment for slaves who stole or ran away from their masters? "You'll get me crucified!" one of the slaves often says to the other slave who nearly got him into trouble.
History is bound with place. Tell the French that! (Histoire/Geographie 1subject)
Symbolism in literature and in everyday tragic events: is any child in Europe unaware of suffering / unfair 'punishment' in the world? No! Is removing crucifixes from classrooms going to make any difference? No! To these children of our time, could not 'the crucifix' (having hung on the wall possibly for generations) still make sense? Isn't that training minds to think? Central to education?
"Saying that someone has the right to believe or not believe is like saying that someone has the right to be composed of matter or not."
With the statement that children have a right "to believe or not to believe", I think they mean to say that no one should be persecuted/prosecuted for his beliefs and that no one should impose his beliefs on others.
Now, since according to the court, the mere presence of a cross in a classroom is imposing beliefs on children, which goes against their fundamental human right to believe or not, then, according to the court, parents have the right "to educate their children in conformity with their convictions/beliefs" -by hanging a cross in their home for example-, which by the same argument of the court is equivalent to imposing beliefs on their children, which in turn violates the children's fundamental right to believe or not. Sounds like a contradiction to me.
I NEVER said people should not have the right to believe or otherwise in a particular religion or lack thereof. Believe me i have so many friends of different believes. One thing is for sure, we mutually respect each other but NEVER impose changes on each other. That 's the difference between a realistic relationship and a theoretic ruling which proved to be more dividing than the plaintiff's motives.
regards,
the resultant fallout of such a judgement goes to prove that in some cases, individual cases have to be addressed in a different method and not all out against a state. the sense of proportionality has been lost along the way.
Read my post again, in context of what the removal of the Cross means and the frivolousness of such a small symbol compared to other more prominent monuments which then represent the people's right of worship.
The person concerned is atheist and therefore has no belief in God or otherwise. Removing the symbol means that she has forced her choice of non-believer on the believers. In this case it is as if she placed a figure of Buddha instead of the Cross.
Is there any doubt which was first for any religion? God for Christians, Allah for Muslims and nothing for atheists! So there you go you have again proven that the removal of such a small symbol goes all the way of the very context why the ruling was against Human rights in the very first place.
to be cont..
Where to begin?
1. Why shouldn't we have single people suing states?
2. Who is removing anyone's right of worship?
3. Regarding who was there first, Christianity or atheism, actually I think it was belief in the Fertility Goddess.
4. A country is a collection of individuals. It is each individual who has the right to consider himself of a particular belief or philosophy - at least that's a fundamental right in every modern democracy.
I am sure the above is a misinterpretation of the actual court judgement. Belief is beyond the scope of rights, since belief (in the absence of surgical intervention to the brain) is beyond the control of the believer/unbeliever or of others.
Saying that someone has the right to believe or not believe is like saying that someone has the right to be composed of matter or not.
"I mean, if a cross on the wall -allegedly- is imposing beliefs on children, then by the same argument, their parents too are imposing their religious/atheism beliefs on their children with their right of educating them "in conformity with their convictions."
You would seem to have a point, except that a decent atheist would not teach their underage children atheism, since questions of religion are best left for adults who would understand the issues and decide for themselves.
Richard Dawkins put it succintly when he said that there is no such thing as a Christian/Muslim/atheist child. There is only a child of Christian/Muslim/atheist parents.
While a crucifix in the classroom makes it a Christian classroom, the lack of a crucifix in the classroom does not make it an atheist classroom.
Doesn't this sound a little contradictory? If children have a right to believe or not, then why their parents are allowed to "educate their children in conformity with their convitions" which may include their -parents- religious convitions/beliefs? I mean, if a cross on the wall -allegedly- is imposing beliefs on children, then by the same argument, their parents too are imposing their religious/atheism beliefs on their children with their right of educating them "in conformity with their convictions."
If a cross on the wall in classrooms is imposing beliefs on children, and if this goes against the human right of children to believe or not, then by the same argument a cross in the children's home is too imposing beliefs. Then how come parents have the right "to educate their children in conformity with their convictions" which includes having a cross displayed in their home which goes against the fundamental human "right of children to believe or not"?
This same ruling goes against the very principles of tolerance and mutual respect towards citizens. By the way, the ruling should be disseminated in all applicable languages, lest someone is offended and have it revoked due to human rights!
And I too...would like to apologise
Dr F. Saliba - I'll stray no more...promise!
I appreciate what you are saying & I apologise.
>allow the religious intelligentials to share their profound knowledge with us.
let it be so!
:)
@ Ivan & Mary
You are two of my favourite people and perhaps because one may only be rude with one’s friends you would appreciate this comment,being: -
With your exchange of nostalgic anecdotes you managed to derail the subject matter of an interesting debate. You guys should go on a chat room and allow the religious intelligentials to share their profound knowledge with us.
You think the editor my allow me to push my luck as far as deviating a little bit further from the subject matter and also mentioning Jasper Carrot to the above list...?
Now he was one to have tears of laughter springing out within a few minutes of his mixture of Rugby and jokes...!
(here's my clever way of twisting this back into the 'subject matter'...)
In them days...when I wore a nipper..... theatrical acts were GENUINE fun, highly entertaining & immortal in my memory!!
No need for shocking tactics to even be noticed.
Not like today's crud (you see how I managed?!)
Jasper Carrot
Monty Python
Porridge
Yes, Minister
The Two Ronnies
Fawlty Towers....
Morcombe & Wise ( I can still see Shirley Bassey (welsh) singing her heart out fantastically in a fantastic evening dress... and as the camera pans out, we see Eric tieing up her army boots' laces in order to trip her up, or Ted Heath playing classical piano again as you pan out you see him completely (but tastefully) naked....
Les Dawson-that great commedian who would play the piano fantastically but would crease you up as he played the odd bum note...
;)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8353598.stm
No.
But most loved of the golden seventies - the genial Ray Gravell - more fluent in Welsh than in English. Made a member of the "gorsedd" the bardic circle as an honour.
So, 'Grav', as he became affectionally known, would don his white robe and sit with the bards on the stage at the national eisteddfod held every year in August.
Genuine sadness when Grav died not so long ago.
Watching JPR Williams, Gareth Edwards and if memeory serves me well was there not also a player called Phil Bennet...?
Watching them beat England in the 70's... freezing cold singing your head off, and off for a plastic cup of hot oxo at half time....
Probably before your time in Cymru, Mary?
Why ask me? What concerns me is that the subject was genuinely informative without being unduly sensational and it was discussed with due respect towards the priests, the psychiatrists, religion, the mentally sick, to those possessed and to the incredulous among the audience.
They showed people profaning and kicking a priest while holding the crucifix in a reality show on TVM in the presence of six exorcists and nobody complained. Has it got anything to do with the lucrative advertising revenue the show attracts?
Wrexham - yes, but next time try and venture a little bit into the hinterland to watch a rugby match - a big one. Behold Welsh "patriotism" in the spectacle of giant daffodils and red dragons. And great singing and great expectations... especially if they're playing the English!
It seems we have another thing in common.
I support the Robins.... and spent many happy a year of my youth on the welsh border enjoying Wrexham lager...
:)
@"the One"
I assure you that from my part there are no "agendas driven by circumstances which are extraneous to the blog"....
My real agenda is that I mostly disagee with your narrow-minded, colour blindness, twisting of history to suit your requirements and lack of tolerance shown to those who disagree with your point of view.
If you care to review more closely, I think you'll find the latter to be the case and not your interpretation thereof.
It is not the person per se but the attitude & stance taken which merits 'engagment.
And this is done with no disillusion whatsoever that there will be any improvement on your part: it is done to expose the bigotry you accuse others of....!
Just for the record, of course.
We are all pure, we all respect everybody’s opinion and we all have difficulties to understand why others don’t give us our due respect.
Undeniably what goes round comes around.
I never thought that you personally were insulting me or anybody else. Those who in their frustration resort to personal insults instead of logical arguments and those others who strut off stage in a huff know very well who they are.
I do not take myself too seriously at all. What I do take very seriously is the attempt to mock my religion, its tenets and its emblems, for example by fostering the removal of the crucifix from our schoolroom walls or the kicking of the crucifix across the stage. I hope that this clarification will help to put this blog back on track again.
So relax man and don't take yourself so seriously!
And no political ("frustratingly") undertones please not least because, where I happen to live, the Plaid Cymru candidate always gets elected. Meaning: don't bother going to vote unless you like Plaid Cymru.
(It just occurs to me: we're now a long way from 'crosses'. Sewwa jghid il-Malti li l-kliem bhac-cirasa!)
Mary,
Also bear in mind that this list MUST be ranked somehow...since Dr FS was warned that he's slipped up (or "down" of course) in its ranking.
So the question is:
If Dr FS slipped up the list ...does that mean that before he was 10 times 'in coventry'(and will not be soken to 10 times over) and now he is 25 times more not spoken to?(I make that 15 time more "not spoken too"!)
..or 15 times less not spoken to....depending on how this mysterious list works....!
BTW if you're not in it yet, do try to catch up: its FUN being on it, you know!
At least get yourself initaited...even if you find yourself in Coventry "once over".I'm sure you've cottoned on by now that being in Coventry more times obviously gives you more brownie points....
Which in itself begs the question: would you start at the top of 'the list'...or the bottom?
BTW my friend Indri il-Bajda (of Tiko Tiko Bar fame) just wanted to add...when bloggers(sic!)like "the one" are more concerned in putting people in coventry rather than mentioning the dire straights we are in,no wonder our country is in such a mess...
Yes Ivan, there must be a lot of people losing sleep about "the list" so, perhaps, there's some comfort for, well, everyone on it!
However (and just to be precise) some may have more to worry about than others. You, yourself, do you, perhaps, fear you may be fairly well up on it? In the top ten maybe?
Still try and keep in mind Dr F.S. : he seems to have landed on the list quite unexpectedly, accidentally, actually!
Whatever your age "The List" misses no one. Think now, for instance, of Mr Prictoe. He very nearly risked, at one point (I vaguely recall), going on it didn't he? Could it be that everyone is or could potentially be on it? Now there's a thought! With the long evenings and winter coming, too.
Hi Mary,
For me, knowing:
- where I stand in the list
- who is above/below me
- whether I am more (or less) "in coventry" than the person above(or below me) is so , so crucial!
After all, I have my reputation (not to mention standards!) to keep.
No laughing matter this, you know.....
;)
You're both in dead trouble now!!!
That list is getting longer and it sounds as if neither of you knows exactly whereabout you're on it!
Perhaps ABC should publish his list, league table... Who knows, it could be that many many more bloggers might be on it without even knowing it!
Sensible, direct & non sensationalist piece of writing, with valid points put forward on the subject matter for serious discussion.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20091108/religion/pumpkins-yes-crucifixes-no
"However, I doubt that Italy (or our government) would do that" I too doubt it because when one weighs all the pros and cons it's still better in than out. But I'm not too sure about it, that is, if one considers the possible ramifications of this principle. In other words, the removal of the crucifix could be the key that opens a pandoras box. For example, by the same principle we must also remove all Christmas decorations from schools and say goodbye to those happy Christmas parties. And by the same principle, some non Christians may argue in court that their children have a right to NOT 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). I mean, I already can picture a non-Christian saying in court: 'my children have a fundamental right of NOT having religious beliefs/festivitis interfering with my childrens education!!' In other words we would also have to say good-bye to our beloved christmas/easter holidays and go to school on Christmas day.
Welcome to "Coventry"!
You're now in the "club of the few" who dare to voice an oppinion not in conformity with "the One"...
Erm...now that you are not to be "spoken to"...and "your feeble attempt at wit places you even further up the list of people to ignore."
Erm..Since you have just slid up(?) further in the ranking of "those not to be spoken to",does that mean that you will be "not spoken to" more(or less?) than someone lower in the list???
And am I higher in the list than you,you think?
Will I be more 'not spoken to' than you or the other way round...??
And-bear in mind!-all this 'banishment/censorshop/ Kindergarten playground behaviour' comes from those who are just "mortified" at the law being used properly to stop garbage from shown in our public places.
From those who see nothing but police state, ayatollahs, freedom of expression being removed forever... etcetc(!)
How dare philistines like us not see this all as 'art' ?
How we are so antiquated and closed in mind....!
With this mentality one can only summise that these guys would handle a ticket from a warden as censorship of their "artistic rights" too,no doubt!
Sigh!
Is it to bolster the child's faith lest the few hours of a secular education threaten that faith? Hardly.
Is it to place the Catholic religion above all others in a very visible and 'in your face' manner? Possibly so.
In which case the judgement of the ECHR begins to make some sense.
@ Kenneth Cassar
Yes classroom crucifixes were made compulsory in Italy by two laws in the 1920s during the Fascist regime probably to please the pope but that is besides the point and although they have been applied less rigorously since 1984, when Catholicism ceased to be the state religion the laws are still there and may be enforced to the letter.
Mussolini’s Catholicism was as ironical as that of Franco and Pinochet but not all of the laws enacted by their respective regimes were despotic. Mussolini did some great things for Italy too.
@ David Seychell
On 6 Dec 08 I did admit that even I sometimes fall in that mistake. Kliem ix-xieh zomm fieh. Glad you remembered my advice. Some of us, sometimes, tend to stretch an argument beyond its limits and lose sight of the actual subject matter. The essence of this debate is the crucifix in classrooms and it generated itself into a debate about, concubines, polibigamy and adultery. Cabbages and kings. Lol.
I will follow the good advice you gave me on 6/Dec/08 and will not reply to your comment so as to avoid falling "in that pit"
http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20081202/andrew-borg-cardona/a-master-speaks
Regarding the law demanding a Crucifix in classrooms in Italy, it seems that you are correct. It was a law enacted by Mussolini in 1924 (no wonder I did not know about it). However, you will note that laws may be repealed and the UCHR has jurisdiction over states that fall under its remit. So it seems that Italy has two options - repeal the law or opt out of the Council of Europe.
By the way, perhaps you will appreciate the irony. The law requiring obligatory crucifixes in classrooms is quite literally a Fascistic law.
Perhaps I should elaborate on the prima facie basis. What is the first thing that comes to mind when you enter a classroom with a cross being the only religious symbol there? I don't know about you, but the thought that immediately comes to mind is: "This is a Christian school" - except that in the case of government schools (not church or private schools), they are actually not.
Hence the prima facie case.
@ David Seychell.
In a democratic State, the courts of laws act in accordance to the laws enacted by the majority of the members in parliament. No argument could change that.
If a person commits the most horrendous act imaginable and all the people demand the execution of that person through a signed petition or whatever, the court would still not act on the will of that majority.
“If”, as you put it, “the majority of the Maltese vote to get out of the EU, then they would be able to legally ignore the EU court decisions”, then there would be no EU law for the people to adhere to David.
A real and tangible example of the ‘rule of law’, the principle that every member of a society, even a ruler, must follow, was the 1981 Election result when the majority voted for a PN government but our constitution then dictated that the PL had a right to govern, and our court could do absolutely nothing about it.
What you probably have in your subconscious is Adolf Hitler’s ‘People’s Court’ (Volksgerichtshof) or a ‘State of Anarchy’.
1. I still can’t see the ‘prima facie’ bases for that notion to have been entertained. Sorry.
3. The argumentations in our parliament in favour of legalising adultery were secular not spiritual. Spiritually adultery is a sin.
4. The exhibition of a Crucifix in each Italian Classrooms is law and still enforced. Check your facts before being so categorical.
Regarding ‘officialdom,’ all the Christian Churches (except Mormons) and all the Western World only recognise a marriage between a man and one woman. Some of the Western Countries also recognise same sex marriage and any official or unofficial (common law) union by two. Yes the latter states also ‘rules’ on unmarried partners after they had been together for a length of time and give the same rights and demand the same obligations as officially married couples, it’s what that call common law.
When you said “Of course our government can always opt out” you really hit the nail on the head. A duly elected Malta government opted to sign the convention to join the European Court of Human Rights at a time when the crucifix hanging in our schoolrooms was not an issue. Now it has become a very hot issue indeed. This interpretation of “Human Rights” by transient evanescent court functionaries in Brussels has outraged public opinion throughout Italy and in Malta. If this interpretation is confirmed on appeal it will be obligatory for our democratically elected representatives in parliament, - who have already expressed their outrage at the hands of these gnomes in Brussels - to “opt out”.
@ Joseph Galea
I can sympathise with a person’s confused thoughts about the existence of a God, the agnostic, as we are all subject to human weaknesses. Atheism in its vulgar terms does not exist as no person is capable to believe, at all times, that the universe was created and moves on its own without the empowerment which we don’t understand and refer to it as our God or Gods. People who call themselves atheists are fakes.
Cont...
"Tell me, if you enter a classroom with a crucifix on display in a majorly Catholic Country, what rights you are being denied".
No rights are being denied unless I am not allowed to hang symbols of my own beliefs.
"I wouldn't be surprised if Malta is forced to introduce (abortion) because a small group of people decided that the Maltese are breaking a law written in a far away place away from Malta".
If Malta willingly remains under the jurisdiction of the ECHR, and the ECHR decides that in denying abortion Malta is denying human rights, then it would not be a "small group of people" who would be forcing us to do that, but a judge to whom we ourselves authorise to judge on human rights cases. A judge is always a minority of one, be it in local courts or the ECHR. And by being signatories to international treaties (or European ones) we fall under the jurisdiction of international or European law. Welcome to globalisation.
You need to do some research.
I beg to differ that my new example is weaker, unless one believes that showing porn movies in schools is worse than killing the handicapped. But let's agree to disagree.
"Not only that, but, here in Malta we consider life a fundamental right that requires an even larger majority to remove".
Herein lies your confusion. Fundamental rights cannot be removed. They can only be denied. The decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) only decides on what it sees as fundamental human rights. But let us move on.
You mention the US which allows the death penalty and say that the law courts "cannot intervene". However, you are ignoring (or perhaps you don't know) that the US does not fall under the jurisdiction of the ECHR. If it did, it would have to abolish the death penalty. The US is an unfortunate choice to offer as an example.
"I still cannot understand how the ECHR decided to butt in".
For the simple reason that it is its right and duty.
Cont...
I obviously don't agree with killing handicapped persons. Not only that, but, here in Malta we consider life a fundamental right that requires an even larger majority to remove. If a very large majority agrees with removing that right, the laws courts cannot intervene. Just as they do in the US: Given certain conditions, the majority has decided that a person has to die (capital punishment).
I still cannot understand how the EHCR decided to butt in. Tell me, if you enter a classroom with a crucifix on display in a majorly Catholic Country, what rights you are being denied.
And by the way, what you mention happens already all over the world. A person can opt to kill off an unborn human being who is handicapped and I wouldn't be surprised if Malta is forced to introduce such an option because a small group of people decided that the Maltese are breaking a law written in a far away place away from Malta.
It is not often that I agree with you. However, on this I agree that you are 100% correct. The only way that Italy (or Malta if it comes to that) can choose not to abide by the European Court of Human Rights' sentence is to get out of the Council of Europe.
However, I doubt that Italy (or our government) would do that.
"Law courts apply the law of the land. And who enacts those laws? In a parliamentary democracy the elected majority enacts laws according to the mandate given to it by the majority of electors".
Ah, but you are forgetting the fact that we are all signatories who fall under the jurisdiction of the Court of Human Rights. The mandate to this court is given by its member countries.
So it seems that everything is falling into place. We elect our government in the knowledge that it keeps us signaturies under the jurisdiction of the Court of Human Rights. So we give our mandate to the Court of Human Rights.
Of course, our government can always opt out. That is the only option for the religious fundamentalists if they want to keep archaic laws. But I doubt it that this will happen in the case of Malta. We would have much more to lose than gain from that. But who knows...the government (be it PN of PL) might surprise me and the rest of Europe.
1. It would seem that in this particular case, there IS a prima facie case of abuse. So the case shouldn't have been dismissed.
2. Thanks also for clarifying that you would not object to schools having symbols of other religions on their walls. That would be reasonable (although I don't see it as practical).
3. Regarding adultery, I know there was a time it was illegal, but it isn't anymore. I also know that adultery goes against the interest of the legal spouse. It changes nothing from my point.
4. "The Crucifix in Italian classrooms" was not a right given by anyone. It was simply assumed that it is the thing to do. However, with the acceptance of diversity comes the realisation that having a crucifix in the classroom means endorsing a religion at the expense of all others. So it is not a question of taking a "right" from someone, but respecting the rights of others. Public schools do not belong to Christians only.
Regarding "officialdom" recognising only a partnership of two, you must mean Church "officialdom". The state only recognises a marriage between two persons, but has no rules on unmarried partnerships.
" If what the majority wants is deemed wrong by the court, then the majority, however big, cannot have its way"
I think that is not correct. All they have to do to is to vote accordingly. Let's take the EU for example, we must obey the EU laws even if 100% of the Maltese disagress with it. But, if the majority of the Maltese vote to get out fo the EU, then they would be able to legally ignore the EU court decisions.
@ Kenneth Cassar
1. Everybody has a divine right to seek redress in court yet each claim is evaluated on application. Only where there is a ‘prima facie’ case of abuse the redress goes through the court room mechanism.
2. No I would not object to having symbols of other religions anywhere. Freedom of expression is everybody’s right.
3. There was a time when adultery was illegal, that law was based purely on Christian belief. Adultery still goes against the interest of the legal spouse yet it is no longer illegal.
4. A. Human rights or rights a state might introduce both give a right to the particular citizen. The Crucifix in Italian classrooms was a right given by their Government and now being taken away by the ECHR. B. One may have more than one partner and our laws allow it, however, officialdom only recognises a partnership of two. Polygamy is about one man marrying more than woman and sanctioned by the State.
The passing of laws has nothing to do with the safeguarding of rights. You are confusing law and decision taking with human rights. Parliament is regulated by majority and passes laws, but human rights are safeguarded by Courts and have nothing to do with how tthe electorate voted.
Take the issue of the play STITCHING. If the producers win it either in the Maltese Courts or in Strasbourg, no matter what the majority says, no matter what Gonzi says, no matter what Muscat says, the play will be produced.
The Law Courts are not some branch of the lottery department deciding capriciously who wins and who loses! Law courts apply the law of the land. And who enacts those laws? In a parliamentary democracy the elected majority enacts laws according to the mandate given to it by the majority of electors. And if legislators neglect to do that, the majority at election time kicks out that parliament and installs another parliament that will pass new laws that would reflect the will of the majority.
"Go see it in its RIGHT place: somewhere sleazy not in OUR (society's) public places. "
That's the point - duhh!!! It was not in a public place, it was to be in a theatre only open to adults who CHOOSE to pay and see it!
Dr Saliba: "If only the adherents of other faiths, including atheists, would concede reciprocity, at least when they live in Catholic Malta, we would all be supremely happy".
So I ask again: Would you object to a poster in the classroom saying "There is no God"?
"Anyway, yes... that's the whole point of democracy. If I don't like the situation I have to convince everyone that it is wrong. Otherwise I have to comply with the current laws otherwise bail out".
Ok, so my hypothetical example was not extreme enough, so you could work your way around it. But what if, for instance, a majority believes or accepts that the handicapped should be killed. Please note that this actually happened, in a particular country in the late 30's and early 40's.
So in this case, would you also say "that's the whole point of democracy. If I don't like the situation I have to convince everyone that it is wrong. Otherwise I have to comply with the current laws otherwise bail out" while the handicapped stay in line in front of the gas chamber?
I don't think so, but you might surprise me.
I have had to spend a part of my life in pagan and Islamic countries. I never had the brazen cheek to demand the inhabitants of those countries to forsake their religious customs, abhorrent as they indubitably were, to suit my different religion and culture. I only expected that I would be allowed to practice my Christianity unobtrusively. If only the adherents of other faiths, including atheists, would concede reciprocity, at least when they live in Catholic Malta, we would all be supremely happy. But they refuse to do so – they insist, most unreasonably, to impose their customs on us, in our own Christian country!
Ok. Say after me: Rights are not about majorities. Rights are not about majorities. Now repeat for a thousand times. If what the majority wants is deemed wrong by the court, then the majority, however big, cannot have its way. And believe it or not, that is DEMORACY! It is not a question of Majority wants one thing, minority wants the opposite, Majority wins. It's more like Majority wants A. Minority wants B. Court decides who is right and who wins.
Geddit?
I'm going to assume you meant "while a tiny minority disagrees" there.
Anyway, yes... that's the whole point of democracy. If I don't like the situation I have to convince everyone that it is wrong. Otherwise I have to comply with the current laws otherwise bail out.
I can deliver a whole set of arguments for playing porno videos in all public schools. But, at the moment, the majority disagree with that and rather than go crying to the ECHR, I'd either have to find somewhere where public schools play porno videos or change the laws in a democratic way.
"My opinion is that that claim shouldn’t have been evaluated...".
You have just declared your opposition to the right to seek redress in court, a fundamental right in all democracies.
"The Holy Cross on a classroom wall does not deprive a non believer to practice their religion".
So you wouldn't object to having symbols of other religions on the classroom wall, would you, since this wouldn't deprive a Christian to practice his religion.
"I think that one may safely assume that the main reason why bigamy is illegal in Europe and the rest of the Western World is religion".
One may be wrong. Bigamy is illegal in Europe for the sake of order and the safeguarding of the interests of one's spouse. If it were illegal because of religion, having multiple partners outside of marriage would be illegal too.
"I shudder to think what would happen to the European Culture if a bigamist in Europe demands his human right to marry seven women...".
There is no such human right. You're confusing human rights (which are universal) with other rights a state might introduce. In any case, regretfully one may still have multiple partners legally.
Some thirty years back I was a teacher in a Catholic school (St Bernard's) in Bethnal Green of East London.
I lodged for a while with a Turkish family at the top of Brick Lane and asked my host if I could place a crucifix above my bed and he said he would consult his mosque. He was told that it was acceptable provided that he purchased a certain plaque and displayed it fairly close to my crucifix. It contained Arabic writing but I never asked what it said but somehow I rather enjoyed its presence.
Fair enough. You find my direct question inconvenient. Let us move on.
You say that "in a democracy it should be evident that when there is an irreconcilable conflict between them, the minority of less than 20% cannot reasonably pretend to stampede and ride roughshod over a majority of 80%".
So do you mean to say that if, for instance, a majority believes that all public schools should play porno videos, while a tiny majority disagrees, the minority cannot reasonably pretend to stampede and ride roughshod over the majority and pretend that the porno videos be removed?
Patience! I will have to accept my banishment from your Garden of Eden as best as I can. I would have much preferred to be enlightened about my lack of accuracy and the deficiencies in my argument.
True...a member state may appeal. However, if the appeal is lost, any decision of the Court is binding on the member states and must be complied with, except if it consists of an advisory opinion (Art. 46, European Convention of Human Rights).
I apologize deeply for any possible mistake of identity on my part. I must have had in mind that other person who on behalf of the tobacco industry regularly down-played, in The Times, the danger of smoking as a cause of lung cancer and respiratory infections, who defended the right to present on the local stage a play about Stitching that did not pass the local censor or some other person who had defended the incident of kicking the crucifix during a local presentation of “The Duchess of Amalfi”. I may have rashly concluded that these were all one and the same person and that he would also defend a foreign court's decision ordering the taking down of the crucifix from schoolroom walls. Once again, deepest apologies if I was mistaken and if I hurt your feelings.
Dear Mr Ellul. There is a GREAT difference between criticizing something and banning it. The first is normal in a democratic society. The second is unacceptable.
@Dr Francis Saliba
What is your doctorate in? BTW, democracy is not about the majority stampeding over minorities. Minorities' rights have to be respected. Hence the sentence from the Euoropean Court, which no court can overturn.
My rhetorical question was specifically addressed to a RobertAttard who does not seem to need any clarification. For the benefit of the less gifted I clarify that in any democracy a majority of over 80% rules and a minority of less than 20% has the right to expect that its rights be respected. It does not mean that the will of that minority prevails over and should be imposed on the majority.
"...where do you stand with your insistence that it is the will of this small minority, standing at present as a miniscule 1:7, that should perversely prevail over and be imposed on the majority?".
Please clarify. Do you mean to say that in displaying crucifixes in class rooms, the will of the majority is being imposed on the minority?
The Constitution of the Republic states that it is the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion that is the religion of Malta – NOT your atheism. All the political parties, democratically elected to represent us in parliament to legislate and to govern, condemn this possible intrusion by the European Court into our domestic laws by any decision to remove the crucifix from classrooms. The authorities of the official Catholic religion in Malta similarly condemn that European Court decision. So do about 80% of those answering The Times poll. In accordance with the democratic principle of rule by the majority (with respect for minorities) where do you stand with your insistence that it is the will of this small minority, standing at present as a miniscule 1:7, that should perversely prevail over and be imposed on the majority?
"Manoel Theatre and St. J. Cavalier are public entities funded by joe the plumber. Hence the public has right to know and criticise what happens inside there".
Of course everyone has the right to know and criticize what happens there. However, there is a big difference between criticizing and banning something that one may choose not to watch.
"Everyone and his non-Christian brother expects that Christians tolerate others, but can all others tolerate Christians please? The only thing we cannot tolerate is intolerance. Otherwise: Apertheid".
I don't believe anyone was forced to remove crucifixes from private property. So I don't get your point.
And since when are you encouraging people to adhere to the Constitution and the law? Only yesterday you were all for students in our University to publish obscenities which is clearly against the law.
This is, in very clean terms, cow dung. It's not like a person who looks at a crucifix suddenly becomes a Catholic, does he? Really, do you imagine the following happening:
Parent: "Son, there isn't a God. We are atheists."
Son: "But God does exist. There's a crucifix in our classroom."
Also, it's not like a person will learn less just because there is a crucifix in the room.
To me, this is a case where if the Italians had a problem, Italy should have dealt with it. Basically, it is the majority bowing their heads to the will of the minority.
I think that Grech Mintoff lives in a warped reality of his own. The banning of STITHING meant that I could not go and see it. That some have been invited to a rehearsal does not mean it was available to everyone. The censors stopped the public from seeing it. Moreover it is not their job to decide what is put on at the Manoel or at St James Cavalier. THAT IS NOT THEIR REMIT (repeat for a hundred times, dear, maybe it sinks in). What goes on in these theatres is the responsibility of the artistic directors of the respective theatres. And yes, it goes against the constitution. Just wait and see.
"I want that Crucifix to stay there is because it was central in my whole life, because it meant and still means, that Christ, Son of God, died on the Cross in order to save moi"
Franco.... so do I!!!
100% and not ashamed to admit it publically.
I wish I was a better Christian...but that is a different matter!
You will see that 'Christians' are included under:
"Could some actually and truly BELIEVE in the power of the cross?(do be tolerant of the fact that some do) "
So yes absolutely,there are Christians who want to see the cross because of faith.
Others not.
My actual argument was that BOTH believers AND non believers must surely agree on:
1) our common Christian historical background,
2) If we (not outsiders but US!!) remove it then we remove part of us.
3) If that happens then there will be a void which will naturally be filled in by something else.
4) It is NOT xenphobia etc etc that is therefore creating the uproar but these 3 points leave both Christains and non Christians uneasy.
Tell me. Does being a Christian clash with any of my points above?
"Why should ppl like yourself keep me away from watching such a play?"
For the MILLIONTH time,"people like me" are NOT keeping you from this play!!!!!!
You want to watch it go watch it! Others have(as they claim here). Why can't you???
Go see it in its RIGHT place: somewhere sleazy not in OUR (society's) public places.
The LAW FORBADE that not 'us' who hold a different view to 'you'!
All "people like me" are asking is (for those who don't want to because they somehow feel superior to the law!!!), to accept the fact that the LAW BANNED the play (or rather did not issue a license) and therefore the law MUST be obeyed! Just accept and get on with life...
you'll soon see that freedom of speech etc are still in place.
So what on earth is wrong with my position on this? Why so much anguish?
Instead,there is a never ceasing whinge from those who demand otherwise and(more importantly who should know better)!
I do not feel anything wrong in my position on this matter.
I am not imposing my beliefs I am asking for the law to be accepted and obeyed.
As is.
2. I agree with you on the Archbishop and the term 'censorship', even though he was rather moderate, effectual and avoided any need to go in bombastic mode!
3. I agree with you about the tone of the comments of many people, both on this medium as well as on other media such as facebook, etc... I am rather expecting a Maltese crusade!
4. I agree with you to a certain extent about the need or not, of a crucifix. I feel abnoxious about people complaining about the absence of a crucifix hanging on a wall when they dont have it hanging in their hearts and shown in their actions!
5. Now, to Mr Grech Mintoff: Yes, banning a play is just that; adults have a right to go and watch it and ppl like yourself who dont want to watch it, just dont! Very simple. Why should ppl like yourself keep me away from watching such a play?
Finally (I hope you're sitting down) you might actually understand that no, people did not oppose the judgement because of xenophobia, jihads, quasi-fundamentalists "sudden fervent adherents to the Catholic Faith" or other hysterical nonsense...
Could some actually and truly BELIEVE in the power of the cross?(do be tolerant of the fact that some do)
Other perhaps not.(for many other reasons)
In either case I think that both parties would agree that:
-Europe does have a CHRISTIAN background and history.
-Anyone who denies his history (not others IMPOSING the denial but he himself denies!) is in effect denying himself.
-Should that happen, then there will be a "vacuum" that will naturally be filled in by something else. Perhaps by "some of the latter tend towards killing people who don't agree with them" or others who go to "liberate" countries democratically via the gun (liberate of oil etc ?),
And that prospect IS a worrying prospect to believers and non-believers in pretty much equal proportion I would suggest, ruling out xenpphobia, zealots etcetc.
Could that not be a genuine concern for most?
Could it really be all that simple....?
Now here is someone who claims:
"I also tend towards mild distaste (actually, strong revulsion) towards people trying to ram their beliefs down my throat. "
A celestial ('scuse the pun on many levels) being no less, who one would think is therefore most TOLERANT of others and THEIR beliefs too....
who then goes on to state:
"But it's up to you, though I think you should bear in mind"
"much of it, unfortunately, thinly-disguised xenophobia"
"If a State proclaims itself to be secular, it should be secular and there's an end to it"
" at some point, they have to be circumscribed by respect for everyone.." (IMPOSSIBLE),
"even for a single pain in the ass" (even two with totally opposing views? you CAN'T!)
"Of course, most people who suddenly found themselves to be such fervent adherents to the Catholic Faith haven't actually read the judgement."
etc etc...
talking about imposing and generalistation!
I suggest:
- get used to people with different ideas and stop being so intolerant towards them.
- the law is there for everyone. If you don't like it change it.
- if you don't get your way, get over it.
Reading through this blog(sic!) and the previous one, I can only come to one conclusion:
This is not AT ALL about "fighting against censorship, right to freedom of speech" etc as is il-bocca will have us believe.
Far, far from it.
It more like huge INTOLERANCE shown to ANYONE who dares to disagree with MY (il-bocca's) belief .
It is in fact a form of oxymoronic imposition by the (self-declared intellectually high and mighty).
- does anyone SERIOUSLY believe that legally banning a play = the first signs of a religio-police state as is hysterically portrayed by some? No it simply means that the law has to be abided by by those who must see themselves above it (and cannot accept reality it seems).
- does anyone believe "see as an unreasonable judgement will be latched on to by the racist xenophobes thugs as a way to call you to arms. "
seriously???!! I for one will not be dragged into such nonsense and I'm sure others won't either!
"And that way lie the Inquisition and the Crusades, to say nothing of the Jihad and ethnic cleansing, a road down which I don't want to travel. "
What??? !