Italians go ape with Christ!

[Nessus]

Human rights ruling against classroom crucifixes angers Italy
European court of human rights rules crucifixes that hang in classrooms violate religious and educational freedoms


There was uproar in Italy today over a ruling by the European court of human rights that the crucifixes that hang in most Italian classrooms are a violation of religious and educational freedoms.

The seven judges, whose decision could prompt a Europe-wide review of the use of religious symbols on public premises, said state schools had to "observe confessional neutrality".

Except on the far left, the ruling met with condemnation among Italian politicians and was denounced by the Vatican. Silvio Berlusconi's education minister, Maria Stella Gelmini, said: "No one, not even some ideologically motivated European court, will succeed in rubbing out our identity."

A Vatican spokesman, Federico Lombardi, said the crucifix was a fundamental sign of the importance of religious values in Italian history and culture, and was a symbol of unity and welcoming for all of humanity, not one of exclusion.

A European court had no right intervening in such a profoundly Italian matter, he said, adding: "It seems as if the court wanted to ignore the role of Christianity in forming Europe's identity, which was and remains essential."

The ruling marked the end of an eight-year battle by a Finnish-born mother, Soile Lautsi. She took her cause to court after failing to get crucifixes removed from the school at which her two children were being taught at a town in north-east Italy.

Lautsi appealed to Strasbourg three years ago when her case was thrown out by Italy's constitutional court.

Although more than 7% of Italy's population is now of immigrant origin, multiculturalism has made few inroads and most Italians argue passionately, as did their government's advocate in Strasbourg, that the crucifix is a symbol of national identity.

The court disagreed. "The presence of the crucifix 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," it ruled, ordering the Italian state to pay Lautsi €5,000 (£4,476) in damages.

Classroom crucifixes were made compulsory by two laws in the 1920s when Italy was a fascist state.

They have been applied less rigorously since 1984, when Catholicism ceased to be the state religion.

One government minister, Roberto Calderoli, of the Northern League, said yesterday: "The European court has trodden on our rights, our culture, our history, our traditions and our values."

Claudio Scajola, a member of Berlusconi's Freedom People party, said: "The crucifix is a universal symbol of love, meekness and peace. Preventing it from being displayed is an act of violence against the deep-seated feelings of the Italian people and all persons of goodwill."

The mayor of Rome, Gianni Alemanno, said he was flabbergasted. And the new, ex-communist leader of Italy's biggest opposition group, the Democratic party, Pierluigi Bersani, protested: "An ancient tradition like the crucifix cannot be offensive to anyone."

On the Facebook website, 23,000 people signed up to two pages opposed to the court's decision within hours of the news breaking.

The government's lawyer said he would seek leave to appeal to the Strasbourg court's 17-member Grand Chamber. If his petition is rejected, or if an appeal is subsequently thrown out, then Italy would be obliged to comply.

Apparently there's a video on YouTube where the Italian minister of Defence loudly hopes everyone looking to ban crucifixes dies. True message of Christianity++

[']['ear]

Two words: lost empire

IMO the Italian over-the-top enthusiasm for Catholicism in inextricably linked to their angst about being a has-been, marginalized country. Catholicism is their one coup; they have influence over a good chunk of the world in that one regard.

[Steely Glint]

Italy had an empire? Apart from a few years in the forties, I mean.

[']['ear]

Pilate called them the "Womans."

[Nessus]

Which people are those?

e: And the lady won, doesn't that mean she picked the right fight

[wabigbear]

It's not just in Italy, you enter any government office here in Brazil and you'll have a crucifix on one wall and often times a statue of Nossa Senhora de Aparecida, the patron saint of Brazil, on another.

I think Brazil just signed some treaty with the Vatican that ensures religious education in public schools, although the government claims it's not a Catholic religious education.

[GGT]

Originally Posted by wabigbear

It's not just in Italy, you enter any government office here in Brazil and you'll have a crucifix on one wall and often times a statue of Nossa Senhora de Aparecida, the patron saint of Brazil, on another.

I think Brazil just signed some treaty with the Vatican that ensures religious education in public schools, although the government claims it's not a Catholic religious education.

How's that work? A 'treaty' with a religious group can't be enforced in court.... can it?

[Angel_Mapper]

and was a symbol of unity and welcoming for all of humanity, not one of exclusion.

el oh el

[Hazir]

Originally Posted by GGT

How's that work? A 'treaty' with a religious group can't be enforced in court.... can it?

The Vatican is a state, not a religious group.

[wabigbear]

Originally Posted by Hazir

The Vatican is a state, not a religious group.

Exactly. Although much of what the Vatican placed in the treaty they wanted signed was of a religious nature. It's hard to separate the two. While a majority here are Catholic, there's still a lot of other religions plus Christian evangelicals who aren't happy about it, and it probably unconstitutional here. The government is using the flimsy excuse that the treaty says childrens shall be afforded religious education based on catholic principles...and 'catholic' was spelled with a small letter 'c' so isn't referring to just the Roman Catholic Church.

They also have a bridge and some prime swampland to sell to people too.

[Hazir]

Originally Posted by wabigbear

Exactly. Although much of what the Vatican placed in the treaty they wanted signed was of a religious nature. It's hard to separate the two. While a majority here are Catholic, there's still a lot of other religions plus Christian evangelicals who aren't happy about it, and it probably unconstitutional here. The government is using the flimsy excuse that the treaty says childrens shall be afforded religious education based on catholic principles...and 'catholic' was spelled with a small letter 'c' so isn't referring to just the Roman Catholic Church.

They also have a bridge and some prime swampland to sell to people too.

Seems to me like the treaty was a means to circumvent the constitution; once a treaty is ratified it becomes part of the law of the land and takes precedence even over a constitution.

[GGT]

Originally Posted by wabigbear

Exactly. Although much of what the Vatican placed in the treaty they wanted signed was of a religious nature. It's hard to separate the two. While a majority here are Catholic, there's still a lot of other religions plus Christian evangelicals who aren't happy about it, and it probably unconstitutional here. The government is using the flimsy excuse that the treaty says childrens shall be afforded religious education based on catholic principles...and 'catholic' was spelled with a small letter 'c' so isn't referring to just the Roman Catholic Church.

They also have a bridge and some prime swampland to sell to people too.

Vatican City may be a "state" with its own zip code, but is it a nation-state? When people say The Vatican I think of the Papacy. I don't know a thing about Brazil's constitution, that's why I asked.

Originally Posted by Hazir

Seems to me like the treaty was a means to circumvent the constitution; once a treaty is ratified it becomes part of the law of the land and takes precedence even over a constitution.

It does?

[Hazir]

Originally Posted by GGT

Vatican City may be a "state" with its own zip code, but is it a nation-state? When people say The Vatican I think of the Papacy. I don't know a thing about Brazil's constitution, that's why I asked.



It does?

The Vatican is besides a religious center a real state, not a real nation-state because it is a theocracy, but that' s not really relevant.

And yes, ratified treaties take precedence. It is implied that parties in a treaty may not use national considerations that may prevent the application of the treaty. Which of course doesn't mean a treaty can't be cancelled.

It also explains why the Lisbon treaty was the subject of all these constitutional cases in Europe prior to ratification. As things stand now, the Treaty can no longer be tested in court. (And it explains why Cameron's claim that he will 'repatriate powers' is so empty it resembles a vacuum).

[Chaloobi]

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Italy had an empire? Apart from a few years in the forties, I mean.

Well, there was that Roman thing.

[Hazir]

Originally Posted by Chaloobi

Well, there was that Roman thing.

That was a Roman Empire, the Italians were just the first to be incorporated in it.

[Chaloobi]

Originally Posted by Hazir

That was a Roman Empire, the Italians were just the first to be incorporated in it.

That's one way to look at it I guess. Another is to say that the Romans are the ancestors of the modern Italians and the connection is loose at best, though there is the thread of the Catholic Church which was born at the end of the Roman Empire and has existed continuously ever since.

[GGT]

I could swear the original title said ape-****. Ape-nuts just sounds silly.


Anyway, I know nothing about treaties vs constitutions, but it still seems odd that a nation would have written agreements with what's basically a theocratic figure head. Do other heavily Roman Catholic nations have treaties with The Vatican about religious education in public schools? Spain, Mexico, etc?

Sounds like sharia law.

[Nessus]

TO THE MODERATOR WHO CORRECTED THE THREAD TITLE

I'm gonna change it to plain "ape" rather than "ape-nuts", a phrase I have never heard

I feel this preserves my original meaning better but does not violate decorum, and I thus would not consider this an act of insubordination nor is it intended as such

[Chaloobi]

Originally Posted by Nessus

TO THE MODERATOR WHO CORRECTED THE THREAD TITLE

I'm gonna change it to plain "ape" rather than "ape-nuts", a phrase I have never heard

I feel this preserves my original meaning better but does not violate decorum, and I thus would not consider this an act of insubordination nor is it intended as such

Ape-Ass would have been funny.

[Nessus]

Does ape-ass really mean anything, though?

[Chaloobi]

Originally Posted by Nessus

Does ape-ass really mean anything, though?

No, not at all. But it sounds funny as hell.

[Nessus]

If you say so, sparky

[Chaloobi]

Originally Posted by Nessus

If you say so, sparky

Ever see an ape's ass, like in the zoo? Especially when the ladies are in heat? Man, disgusting. Anyway, reminds me of Italians freaking out over crucifixes for their children's education.

[Nessus]

[Chaloobi]

Originally Posted by Nessus

Or baboons. Are they the ones with rainbow colloration on their asses? Reminds me of Italians trying to keep their crucifixes on their classroom walls.

[Hazir]

Originally Posted by GGT

I could swear the original title said ape-****. Ape-nuts just sounds silly.


Anyway, I know nothing about treaties vs constitutions, but it still seems odd that a nation would have written agreements with what's basically a theocratic figure head. Do other heavily Roman Catholic nations have treaties with The Vatican about religious education in public schools? Spain, Mexico, etc?

Sounds like sharia law.

It isn't strange that they would have a treaty withthe Vatican. What is strange that they would enter into treaties that only obliges themselves. Like I said, a strange way to circumvent your own constitution. And for that reason not right.

[Dreadnaught]

Originally Posted by Nessus

TO THE MODERATOR WHO CORRECTED THE THREAD TITLE

I'm gonna change it to plain "ape" rather than "ape-nuts", a phrase I have never heard

I feel this preserves my original meaning better but does not violate decorum, and I thus would not consider this an act of insubordination nor is it intended as such

Not at all. Just changed because you know the issue with unwanted attention from filtered words in thread titles. Especially important as we're now trying to tweak the curse filter a bit.

[EmperorNorton]

Yeah, like how you can't say ***** anymore.

*****. *****. *****. *****. *****. *****. *****. *****. *****. *****.

[Nessus]

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Not at all. Just changed because you know the issue with unwanted attention from filtered words in thread titles. Especially important as we're now trying to tweak the curse filter a bit.

I genuinely forgot about the whole damn thing when I made the thread

[Hazir]

Is every thread going to be about the curse filter now ?