Italy's reaction to the ECHR's decision was not surprising. Here is a report on the ensuing outcry .
Silvio Berlusconi even claims that Europe's Christian "roots" are being denied!
Italy is a mountain of contradictions. Nobody there really cares what the Pope preaches, but Italians somehow feel attached to religious-cum-cultural symbols which have no rightful place in state-run establishments of an officially "laicised" country.
Of Latin Europe's 'Catholic' nations, Spain and Portugal have slowly progressed beyond such archaisms (although the Church still demands unwarranted respect and privileges, examples of which are tax exemptions and the concordats with the Holy See).
The French, as usual in such matters, are ahead of the pack. I admire their tradition of rigid and no-nonsense separation between the State and religion(s) and their model of 'assimilationist' multi-culturalism: the former is one of the everlasting legacies of the Revolution of 1789, while the latter is a core feature of the unifying and egalitarian spirit of "la République".
Of course, Northern Europe does not have this problem with trivial objects: Luther and Calvin condemned the worshiping of symbols and icons.
I think there is clearly a lack of common sense in this whole issue. Based on the arguments, all european countries should also ban the cross symbols on the curches: it is a threat to the religious freedom of the citizens! But then, the freedom of having the cross is also being denied!
ReplyDeleteI'm not, never was and will never be a defender of Berlusconi, still, I do defend that each Country has the right to defend its own culture. Trivial objects (religious or not) are unquestionaly part of it. If they don't mean nothing to non-religious, then what's the point of this whole discussion?
To make my point, China has an an incredible number of symbols and icons, but that doesn't make it an archaic Country.
Regarding Luther, I must say that the guy may bave done a lot a good things (like for example translating the bible for the first time), still, he was a serious nut case... let's not forget that he advocated that the Jews' homes should be destroyed, their synagogs burned, money confiscated and liberty curtailed.
In my opinion, if the schools want to keep the cross, let them have it. If they don't, that's ok too. I don't see why a laicist system should impose a position on this dislocated issue. Most of all, I wouldn't, based on this aspect, jump into considerations regarding a country's "aheadness".