Atheist Ireland

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/bre ... ing45.html

Will comment on this later.

The judgment

http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view. ... n=hudoc-en

Very disapointed, would it be ok to hang them upsidedown?

The ruling is much more secular than it seems at first glance.

In effect, it says that the display of crucifixes are okay in a secular State school environment such as Italy's, because it is not accompanied by compulsory Christian teaching and in that context can be viewed as a passive symbol.

The situation in Irish primary schools is quite different. The State provides for (not provides) schools with a religious ethos, in which the crucifix would not be viewed as a passive symbol as it is in practice accompanied by compulsory Christian teaching.

There's a brief analysis on the Atheist Ireland site at http://atheist.ie

We'll have a more detailed analysis sometime next week.

Judge Power:

Neutrality requires a pluralist approach on the part of the State, not a secularist one. It encourages respect for all world views rather than a preference for one. To my mind, the Chamber Judgment was striking in its failure to recognise that secularism (which was the applicant's preferred belief or world view) was, in itself, one ideology among others. A preference for secularism over alternative world views—whether religious, philosophical or otherwise—is not a neutral option.

aZerogodist wrote:Very disapointed, would it be ok to hang them upsidedown?

It might, since the upside down cross is a symbol of St. Peter.

peter63 wrote:Judge Power:

Neutrality requires a pluralist approach on the part of the State, not a secularist one. It encourages respect for all world views rather than a preference for one. To my mind, the Chamber Judgment was striking in its failure to recognise that secularism (which was the applicant's preferred belief or world view) was, in itself, one ideology among others. A preference for secularism over alternative world views—whether religious, philosophical or otherwise—is not a neutral option.

That is the stupidest thing I have read all week, and I read about Dan Brown on TV Tropes.

http://www.atheist.ie/2011/03/atheist-i ... lassrooms/

the display of a crucifix could be seen as a passive symbol.

Is it the basic cross T or the "man nailed to a bit of wood" -(as per comment)

Also significantly, the Court today rejected the argument by Italy that the crucifix is not a religious symbol, but is a cultural and ethical one. This is an important victory for secularism, as it prevents religious symbols from being introduced by stealth into secular environments.

Wouldn't having the crucifix being classed as non-religious be in part good, (aside from being an ethical? symbol) taking the claim of ownership away from the CCL, so if a painting of a crucifix was done with JC as a demon with hoofs, the church couldn't claim defamation of religion, or even the crucifix could be used in an advert for McDonalds with Ronald McDonald on the cross eating a bag of chips.

In this particular case, because the Italian education system is already secular, with an overall school environment that respects all religions, and because the crucifix is not associated with compulsory teaching of Christianity, it found that the display of a crucifix could be seen as a passive symbol.

I could go along with this if they also display the Jewish star and a scarlet-A

It's a bit strange isn't it, the way a lot of christians have adopted the crucifix as their symbol? If someone I revered was shot with a gun, I wouldn't wear a pendant of a gun around my neck in memory of the person.

Wouldn't having the crucifix being classed as non-religious be in part good, (aside from being an ethical? symbol) taking the claim of ownership away from the CCL

Isn't there some debate about the whole notion of a crucifix in the first place. Apparently in the original Greek the word translated today as a cross actually meant an upright wooden post. (The JW's take this original interpretation, and they're always right )

That would seem more practical in the region when wood was scarce and the 'bloody Romans!' were crucifying on industrial scales.

The crucifix is also either an adaptation of the Ankh or else mirrors the cruciform layout of pagan places of worship.

If it is allowed in a place of education, perhaps it should be open to an enquiry about it's origins and applications. Education never hurt anyone.