(See Endnote)
On March the 18th. the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (France) ruled that Italy had not violated human rights by requiring Crucifixes to be displayed in school classrooms.
That may not sound like much of an important victory to you but in reality it represents the realisation by many Europeans of many different nationalities that the doings of the various corrupt and undemocratic European institutions such as this trumped up, patently absurd Court (which in any sane society would simply be laughed out of existence – all of its so-called judges are political appointees and very few of them have ever had anything to do with the law or the legal profession) need to be carefully monitored in exactly the same way that the equally as corrupt and undemocratic institutions of the European Union are closely watched.
This whole daft court melodrama came about because back in 2002, Soile Lautsi, a Finnish-born atheist, brought suit after being offended, or so she claimed, by the sight of Crucifixes in her children’s classrooms. Lautsi and her husband, Massimo Albertin, who live in Northern Italy, claimed that the display of Crucifixes violated their human right to raise their children according to their atheist beliefs. After losing in Italy, she appealed to the Lower Chamber of the Human Rights Court where, in November 2009, she won her case with a 7 to 0 ruling.
However, things didn’t stop there. It became very obvious to a lot of people that that silly suit and that risible Court were about to damage the traditions of Europe in a very extreme way. The stupid ruling of the Lower Chamber of the so-called Court was actually dangerous for many states in Europe: England, Scotland and Denmark, for example, have established state Christian Churches that potentially were illegal, the independent Vatican City and the Republic of Italy have formalised relations under a Concordat that could be potentially illegal, Poland – that most Catholic of countries – after years of Communist rule, can finally have Crucifixes its in classrooms again and that could now be illegal.
That ruling by a non-EU Lower Chamber of the Court threatened the European Union’s own hands off approach to individual member countries’ religious affairs. Other countries both within and without the Union also felt threatened, including Albania, Armenia, Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Norway, Poland, Romania, the Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia and the Ukraine. These countries were joined by the Holy See in launching an appeal against the initial ruling.
“... authored a friend of the court brief to the Court in collaboration with Professor Paolo Carozza of Notre Dame Law School on behalf of a coalition of European and American legal scholars. The brief argued that the display of passive symbols like the crucifix do not compel or coerce anyone to engage in religious activity but actually represent an invitation to dialogue.”
Into this already heady mix stepped Professor Joseph Halevi Horowitz Weiler, one of the foremost authorities on European Law and a devout and observant Jew. He represented many of the countries involved in the suit pro bono. His powerful arguments coupled with the various documents presented to the Court persuaded the Grand Chamber of The European Court of Human Rights to overturn the Lower Court’s decision by 15 to 2.
Professor Weiler, who wasn’t present in Court to hear the ruling because of his Sabbath obligations, released a statement expressing satisfaction with the result:
“Overturning the decision of the Chamber represents a rejection of a ‘One Size Fits All’ Europe and a vindication of its pluralist tradition in which equal dignity is accorded to the constitutional choices of a France and a Britain, an Italy and a Sweden and the other myriad formulae for recognizing religious symbols in the public space ...”
“Europe is special in that it guarantees at the private level both freedom of religion and freedom from religion, but does not force its various peoples to disown in its public spaces what for many is an important part of the history and identity of their states, a part recognized even by those who do not share the same religion or any religion at all.”
[There is] “particular spirit of tolerance [in Europe] which explains how in countries such as, say, Britain or Denmark to give but two examples, where there is an established state church no less—Anglican and Lutheran respectively—Catholics, Jews, Muslims and, of course, the many citizens who profess no religious faith, can be entirely ‘at home,’ play a full role in public life including the holding of the highest office, and feel it is ‘their country’ no less than anyone else. It is an important model for the world of which Europe can be justly proud.”
“The prohibition of religious symbols should not be understood as a denigration of religion or religious people and the requirement of a religious symbol such as the cross, should not be understood as denigrating other religions or those who do not profess a religious faith at all,” he said. “For the most part, this spirit is a contemporary European reality, Italy being a shining example.”
In the final ruling, the Grand Chamber of the Court maintained that a Crucifix has a meaning beyond the religious one. The judgement found that the Crucifix:
“... symbolised the principles and values which formed the foundation of democracy and western civilization, and that its presence in classrooms was justifiable on that account.”
Allowing Crucifixes to hang in state school classrooms does give the Christian religion far greater exposure than any other, the court acknowledged, however:
“... that was not in itself sufficient, however, to denote a process of indoctrination on Italy’s part.”
The real significance of this particular piece of attempted meddling by the unelected dictators of the law in the affairs of our already threatened nations is just how easily the left-wing fascists in Europe can attempt to slip things past even the most vigilant of populations. But for a few, a very few, highly observant people who constantly monitor the insane institutions and crazy bureaucrats of modern Europe – and who are deeply unpopular with those selfsame institutions and bureaucrats – a pernicious and evil piece of legal interpretation by unqualified people, socialists to man by the way, could easily have become part of the fabric of European Law. That, in its turn, would have unravelled in many countries the carefully engineered consensuses about the role of religion, specifically Christianity, in their societies.
Oh yes, make no mistake about it: this whole affair was aimed squarely at Christianity and the Lower Chamber of the Court colluded in that attack. The Grand Chamber chose, on this occasion, to throw the Lower Chamber to the wolves when it saw the strength and international character of the opposition. Now, however, the subject of Crucifixes, and established Churches and Concordats and all the rest, is in the public domain and it’s only a question of time until someone else manages to successfully persuade the Grand Chamber that the time is right for it to overturn its previous decision and to launch its legal salvos yet again at Christianity and the sensible accommodations made with The Faith in European societies. Would to G-d they’d line Islam up in their sights as well, but that’s never going to happen.
You can find the whole judgement behind this link and a press release from the European Court of Human Rights giving a summary of the case behind this one.
Endnote:
Feast of the Victory of The Cross – celebrated on September 14th. This feast dates back to earliest times and led to the building of the great Church of the Holy Sepulchre on Mount Calvary in Jerusalem and its dedication in AD335. This not to be confused with the Feast of the Finding of The Holy Cross which is May 3rd. for Anglicans but that Feast has been amalgamated with the Exaltatio Sanctae Crucis (‘Exaltation’, literally ‘raising up’, ‘of the Holy Cross’) on Sept.14th. for Roman Catholics.
Posted on 03/25/2011 11:34 PM by John M. Joyce
.jpg)
%20(2).jpg)
.jpg)
