Yeh, innit a shame to deny them nice little Italian children the sight of bloody crucified figurines as they learna their Englisha? As if they don’t see them at home for the rest of the day and at week-ends! (Your argument, Bryan, feeds into the modern fallacy that education is primarily the concern of schools.)

But take the parallel situation in America, please! Here, there is an ongoing fight over religious symbols in public places, a fight in which the US constitution takes a firm stand. Schools are the more common battle grounds, but now, coming up to Christmas, any public green or park will do. If a “crib” is allowed, then a menorah must be allowed, and God knows what else. So all are banned. But the battle ground nature of schools is not confined to symbols or the X Commandments. Science is also a target. And the teaching of Creationism is the goal. To that end, the science of evolution, which is voluminous, is trashed, and of course, “our children must hear both sides of the story.” As if Creationism is a scientific theory, at any stage of proof.

Whatever the case may be in Italy, in America it is never about just the one thing, There’s always another waiting in the wings, as the wedge is driven in deeper and deeper. And in parts of Texas, the denialists have already won. So what if it does show the hypocricy of “patriots” who revere the constitution when it suits them, and revile it when they disagree with it? God’s work must be done.

Bryan,
I don’t see how the verdict makes a case for cultural relativism. On the contrary, it places limits on the values the public authorities are entitled to espouse.
You introduce the notion of religious pluralism, but there is a difference between allowing individuals to choose their own faith, and permitting the state to espouse or endow one faith (or even a number of faiths). This case concerns the latter, so I don’t see how religious pluralism (understood as permitting individual self-determination) is relevant here. You might appeal to communit values, but implicit in the judgement is that not everyone availaing of these public facilities shares the most common community beliefs (in this case, Catholicism). If we really wnat to uphold the right to self-determinaiton, then that must involve taking account of minorities who are not comfortable with state-sponsored religion.

The case of Italy is not particularly important, but more generally speaking the problem with cultural relativism is that it places precedence of group rights over those of the individual and consequently there is a big danger that the tyranny of the majority will be tacitly accepted without debate. Iran is a good example of this. Can it really be argued that all Iranian citizens voluntarily uphold the cultural norms of the country or do some merely conform out of fear? Without credible and transparent democratic institutions and enforceable individual rights it is impossible to ascertain whether individuals compliance with social norms is voluntary or not. This is why liberalism only makes sense at the level of the individual if it is not to be hopelessly compromised. I realise that this view seems very “ethnocentric” but I think people who are serious about human rights should recognise that treating cultural groups as if they are homogeneous entities relies on deeply flawed logic and leads to the paradox of the liberal toleration of illiberalism. The flip side of this is that if believers in liberalism are to be truly liberal they need to be illiberal with regard to their acceptance of non-liberal systems of governance. This is exactly the problem I have with Rawls concerning his view on toleration in the diplomatic sphere (which I mentioned here before).

Not to trivialize the discussion, but my immediate reaction to this was:

1. What kind of jurisdiction does this court actually have over Italy? If the Italians don’t comply with this ruling, then what? I understand why people are mad, but is this much ado about nothing? (I am not being snarky, I really don’t know)

2. In Italy, how in the world can anyone avoid religious imagery in public spaces? Full compliance with this ruling would require reconfiguring half of the country; I have never seen so many crucifixes and pictures of the Virgin mary in my life. And I would guess that many of these images predate Italy’s existence as a modern state.

3. Did the court withhold their decision on this until the issue of the Lisbon Treaty was settled? Because this seems exactly like the kind of thing that people were worried about: some far-off court making decisions on questions of national culture. (and, yes, I know that a lot of this was unrelated to what was actually in Lisbon, but people weren’t any less worked up about it).

@ Erica

The Lisbon treaty has very little to do with the ECHR. The Lisbon Treaty is primarily an effort to streamline power and decision-making within the EU.

The ECHR is an arm of the Council of Europe, which is a much broader organisation than the EU with 47 members including many former Soviet satellite states.

@ getoffmycloud

But wasn’t much of the “debate” around Lisbon Round One around fears of some faceless bureaucracy in a place far away making decisions about how things are done in individual countries? Because to me, that’s exactly what you just described.

As for the “punishment” of embarrassment, given their current prime minister, I think Italians may have more important things to be embarrassed about…And certainly nobody is going to lose political capital there by thumbing their nose at this decision, given the near-unanimous response across the political spectrum.

Its a very complex debate but just to get one scenario out of the way. I don’t know where to stand on crosses, swatikas, or hijabs draped off people or in private residences. And I am assuming that churches, mosques, buddhist temples etc. in Italy are private properties in addition to residences.

But when you come to public/state property thats a different matter. Taxpayers in a secular state deserve secular treatment in sate buildings……..hospitals, schools, court rooms and prisons.

If the EU is ruling on the latter I agree, and I think I would agree even if I was a believer. Crosses must come down from school walls.

If the EU is ruling on the former I probably don’t agree but I would need to tease it out further in my head. For example in the hajib case the issue was security, not freedom of expression, so I had to agree. But a swatika tattoo on someone forehead could also be a security risk. So what we cover our face with or hang on our bodies is not clear to me.

But in secular states hanging religious or cult symbols on public/state property is a no no for me. Unless of course you are hanging them on schools in the Vatican State which like Iran is a religious not a secular state !.

Patrick

Bangkok

Its probably still normal to see religious icons in Irish hospitals , but I am more troubled in the way a particular religious ethos effects treatment of patients here particularly in maternity hospitals, any women going though a miscarriage in Ireland will potentially have delays in treatment because of the religious ethos and a JW can potentially have their ethical choices overridden wrt bloof transfusions. Objectively religions can’t be rated on a reality scale except that one may be able to put “the way of the Jedi” at the far end of the scale. As Spock would say “its not logical captain!”

This is a ridiculus ruling which highlights all thats bad about Europe, namely a faceless power that ignores the view of an entire nation. Don’t comply Italy. What are they going to do?

Bryan,

You say of the cultural relativists that “the fundamental rights in one place will not necessarily be the same as those in another”. I presume you speak of fundamental human rights.

The Universal Declaration on Human Rights is neither “relativist” or “absolutist” but an interesting combination of the two we might call “universal”. So the relativist/absolutist duality should not be seen as all that is on the menu.

But the Declaration refers to the rights of the individual not the State. Yet I think it is informative in this debate.

Article 18 of the Declaration reads: * Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

And Article 19 reads ” Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

So based on the foregoing people have the right to freedom of religion and “freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

This is why I believe that individuals have the right to wear symbols of their religion like crosses etc.

But this is subject to another Article in the Declaration Article 7 which reads * All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to any such discrimination”

So we are all entitled to equal protection against any incitement to discrimination.

Does the cross on your neck incite me an atheist to discriminate against you, or does the cross on the neck of three office colleagues incite them to discriminate against the other three colleagues wearing the hijab and vice versa? In which case which human right takes precedence? Theres the rub.

But this is about the individual. What about the State? . The Declaration in Article 21 states “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government” as manifested through democracy.

Have the Italian people voted for a Catholic state or is it in their Constitution ?. If not the Government have no right to place crosses in public buildings such as schools. The people have not willed it, so the Government cannot do it!

I quote these Articles Bryan to show that the Declaration is Universal (or aims to be) but it is not absolutist, in the sense than within the fundamental human rights laid down there people have individual freedoms. In fact it allows Iran to be an Islamic society just as much as it allows Italy to be a secular one, subject to both respecting the freedoms of the individual enshrined within the Declaration. But it does not allow Iran to be secular if in a fair free election the majority of people want it to be an Islamic State and it does not allow Italy to be a Catholic State if the Italians have voted through their Constitution and elsewhere that it is a secular State.

So down with the crosses off school walls!

Patrick

Bangkok

The legitimacy of the European Council and the ECHR IS a big issue. Legitimacy seems to be a problem for a great number of EU institutions. Since the liberal perspective has been referenced several times in this thread, let’s go back to it, since I think it demonstrates the greater point that I am trying to make.

From the perspective on the individual citizen, one might argue that pan-European institutions seem deeply undemocratic. To paraphrase Locke, those who rule do so with the consent of the governed; if there is no method of relief from a ruling body, then it is illegitimate. For individuals of the EU, large EU institutions that make decisions that affect them individually may seem undemocratic because they have no recourse: they can’t vote the bums out of office, so to speak. To me this explains why countries that have traditionally taken a liberal view of the individual’s relationship with the state (i.e., the US and the UK) have also been quite skeptical of international institutions. It also explains why Italian politicians are siding with public opinion, regardless of the EU regulation: because voters can’t take their anger out on the EHCR, but they can take it out on their legislators.

One could argue that since Italy is a democracy, and democratically elected representatives chose to join the council, then the council’s authority is legitimate and unquestionable. But that misses the grater point that there are two sides to legitimacy in a democracy – the power to consent and the power to sanction. And under the structure of the EU, individual citizens do not directly consent to anything and have no direct sanctioning power. But they can certainly sanction their directly elected representatives. So while it is easy to wag one’s finger at the Italians (or the Irish during Lisbon I, or whoever else disagrees with EU structures and authority), I think the political response in Italy is perfectly rational. No politician with an ounce of sense will prioritize EU directives above what voters want, unless they can convince their constituents that the pain of non-compliance would be worse than the alternative. So unless the ECHR or any other supranational body can strike a blow that is deep enough to penetrate to the individual voter, they should prepare to be challenged or ignored.

Erica,
that’s all well and good, but how different are things for voters with regard to their national governments? No voter in Ireland, for example, ‘directly consented’ to the current government. And voters can directly sanction their publically elected representatives in the European Parliament. The difference appears to be one of degree rather than kind (European laws are proposed by the Council, which is not itself directly elected, and is not subject to any direct sanction by European voters).
Of course, the relation between the public and the ECHR is different to that between the public and their elected politicians, but again the same hodls true in any country where judges are not elected by mass vote.
Finally, instead of asking what politicians in Italy will actually do, shouldn’t we be asking what they ought to do? This judgement, as far as I can see, makes a lot of sense in terms of protecting the impartiality of the state and the rightsof religious minorities. Surely it is reasonable to expect of professional politicians that they try to explain and defend a sound jugement to a sceptical public?

The Christian cult is obsessed with death and suffering.Patriarchal religion has no place in this modern world, where we are awaking to the real scam of the God- a loving God who orders us out to kill our human brothers and sisters.

We seem to have a problem in Ireland distinguishing between what is allowed and what is imposed. The discussions on headscarfs (Irish nuns or Islamic women) and turbans in Ireland is about what we allow people to do. This is very different from the discussion of what we impose on people in public places – hijab in Iran, crucifix in Ireland or Italy. I can understand why Jews, for example, or heretics (protestants), not to mention atheists would object to having to look at the crucifix in order to attend school. You just have to think of how many of their ancestors died horrible deaths for refusing to kneel in front of one.

‘Rights’, whether universal or relative, are all a construct that we agree on, or dissent from!!! What concerns me is that the writer is not talking about the rights of children and young people to form their own belief systems, or even the freedom NOT to form belief systems but to live in the present moment and experience the joy of being without being subject to a stifling belief system. What is wrong with crucifixes is that they are symbols of an outmoded view of education as a process of moulding children (no matter how it is put, this is what it is all about) rather than supporting them (’scaffolding their learning’) to develop their own learning, views and beliefs, which would be better practice. Hopefully when all education gets to this place we will have less conflict and a more emotionally mature population.

ECRH is – ironically – denying freedom of expression to those who wish for whatever reason to display symbols of their beliefs. It doesn’t matter whether its a crucifix a menorah a crescent moon a flying plate of spaghetti. Freedom of expression is a human right (insofar as such fictions as human rights goes). Freedom from being offended is not. End of story.