Court allows crucifix in classrooms
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 6:33 pm
Promoting atheism, reason and an ethical, secular state
http://www.atheist.ie/phpBB3/
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.
It might, since the upside down cross is a symbol of St. Peter.aZerogodist wrote:Very disapointed, would it be ok to hang them upsidedown?
That is the stupidest thing I have read all week, and I read about Dan Brown on TV Tropes.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.
Is it the basic cross T or the "man nailed to a bit of wood" -(as per comment)the display of a crucifix could be seen as a passive symbol.
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.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.
I could go along with this if they also display the Jewish star and a scarlet-AIn 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.
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 rightWouldn'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