STRASBOURG: NO TO THE CROSS SCHOOL 
The Court of Stasburgo leaves finally room for interpretation. The crucifix in classrooms violates the religious freedom of both pupils and parents to educate their children according to their convictions. This is the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, came after the action brought in 2002 by an Italian citizen originally from Finland, who complained about the presence of crucifixes in the classrooms of the institution attended by his two sons in the area of \u200b\u200bPadua. The protest therefore does not come from outside, from the dangerous environment of fundamentalist Islam linked to al Qaeda, but from an Italian mother and western, aware of his right to educate their children until they come of age and the extent of their freedom, claimed secular state and the absolute neutrality of public places. The Vatican goes up there, it becomes unbalanced, it does so through Father Federico Lombardi, Vatican spokesman, who "want to read the motivation, before deciding. " Less cautious statements instead of the political world, especially the center-right, with the Education Minister, Maria Stella Gelmini, which claims as "the presence of crucifixes in the classroom does not mean adherence to Catholicism, but it is a symbol of our tradition." A tradition which apparently should stand up not only with the Christian celebration of the applicant's personal and practice in places of worship and / or in the home, but also by the presumption that a symbol should be placed within common areas, which has the flavor of taxation majority (of the believers, this time) that an allegory of our identity. In line with the Minister also Pier Ferdinando Casini, leader of the UDC, which states that "no crucifixes in classrooms has never violated our freedom of religion, or growth and the profession of religious beliefs. That symbol - he concludes - is a civilian heritage of all Italians, because it is the sign of the Christian identity of Italy and also Europe. "The other part of the Opposition thinks otherwise, particularly in Italy of Values with Silvana Mura: "The fundamental question however relates to a school that will have more and more students will be of races and cultures. The offense against students of different religions by the Catholic Church do not think it represented both by a crucifix hanging on the wall, but rather on programs that do not pose the problem of reconciling the fundamental characteristics that the teaching of state must have with the new multicultural and multiethnic in the future will be represented by students of the Italian school. " Meanwhile, following the ruling of the Court, the Italian government must pay compensation to the woman a sum of five thousand euro (moral damage) and threatens to show immediate action. The debate thus moves from that of religious democracy and the Constitution, according to the principles of which the power of the majority must necessarily associated with a respect for minorities and freedom of worship that is at least in this case and according to the judges, fundamentally infringed.
The Court of Stasburgo leaves finally room for interpretation. The crucifix in classrooms violates the religious freedom of both pupils and parents to educate their children according to their convictions. This is the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, came after the action brought in 2002 by an Italian citizen originally from Finland, who complained about the presence of crucifixes in the classrooms of the institution attended by his two sons in the area of \u200b\u200bPadua. The protest therefore does not come from outside, from the dangerous environment of fundamentalist Islam linked to al Qaeda, but from an Italian mother and western, aware of his right to educate their children until they come of age and the extent of their freedom, claimed secular state and the absolute neutrality of public places. The Vatican goes up there, it becomes unbalanced, it does so through Father Federico Lombardi, Vatican spokesman, who "want to read the motivation, before deciding. " Less cautious statements instead of the political world, especially the center-right, with the Education Minister, Maria Stella Gelmini, which claims as "the presence of crucifixes in the classroom does not mean adherence to Catholicism, but it is a symbol of our tradition." A tradition which apparently should stand up not only with the Christian celebration of the applicant's personal and practice in places of worship and / or in the home, but also by the presumption that a symbol should be placed within common areas, which has the flavor of taxation majority (of the believers, this time) that an allegory of our identity. In line with the Minister also Pier Ferdinando Casini, leader of the UDC, which states that "no crucifixes in classrooms has never violated our freedom of religion, or growth and the profession of religious beliefs. That symbol - he concludes - is a civilian heritage of all Italians, because it is the sign of the Christian identity of Italy and also Europe. "The other part of the Opposition thinks otherwise, particularly in Italy of Values with Silvana Mura: "The fundamental question however relates to a school that will have more and more students will be of races and cultures. The offense against students of different religions by the Catholic Church do not think it represented both by a crucifix hanging on the wall, but rather on programs that do not pose the problem of reconciling the fundamental characteristics that the teaching of state must have with the new multicultural and multiethnic in the future will be represented by students of the Italian school. " Meanwhile, following the ruling of the Court, the Italian government must pay compensation to the woman a sum of five thousand euro (moral damage) and threatens to show immediate action. The debate thus moves from that of religious democracy and the Constitution, according to the principles of which the power of the majority must necessarily associated with a respect for minorities and freedom of worship that is at least in this case and according to the judges, fundamentally infringed. 
0 comments:
Post a Comment