Are Some Atheists Vampires?
What is it about a crucifix that so alarms some atheists? This story from the Daily Telegraph makes for depressing reading. Here is its grubby essence:
An Italian atheist mother has won an European court ruling against the use of crucifixes in her local state school.
Ugh. This is maddening on so many levels. It’s maddening because the ‘atheist mother’ (a Finn by birth, incidentally, which adds an additional level of irritation to this saga– the Finns are usually a splendidly sensible bunch) needs to get over her difficulties with what ought—to an atheist with any sense of proportion—be trivia (she has been litigating this absurdity for a monomaniacal eight years). It’s maddening because of the involvement of the European court in what would, in a more sensible world, be a purely Italian matter. And it’s maddening because, as the Daily Telegraph’s writer (the marvelously-named Will Heaven) points out, the crucifix on the school wall is as much a national symbol as religious. It’s just a tiny, utterly benign part of what makes Italy Italy – the cross should stay.
I totally agree that this woman needs to get a life, but I do agree with her about the crucifix. Of course, the real solution is vouchers/school privatization. Then schools can decide for themselves what they want to do.
Once again, a voice of sanity on religion at Secular Right. I’d add that this case sounds pretty reminiscent of Madelyn Murray O’Hare [sp].
Once again, Secular Right doesn’t get religious freedom.
John says:
Of course, the real solution is vouchers/school privatization.
As long as the government is funding the schools, it is still going to be problematic as a church/state separation issue. Many a godless tax-payer won’t be happy having to support private evangelical schools, and I suspect that evangelicals won’t be happy if vouchers are used for Islamist schools either. Although most people wouldn’t go for it, I’d prefer a complete separation of school and state.
“As long as the government is funding the schools, it is still going to be problematic as a church/state separation issue. “
I don’t see why that should be any more problematic than government employees spending their salaries on church donations.
The crucifix is not a symbol of Italy. It’s a symbol of a religion. Putting up a flag would be tasteless but permissible – the crucifix is a specific endorsement of a religion (and even worse, a particular sect within that religion) by the state, which cannot be permitted.
This is just another example of SR’s tendency to endorse what is conventional and established instead of what is justifiable.
A specific endorsement of religion?
Wow. I guess all the pictures of The Pantheon should come down.
And the Solar system. Can’t have kids focusing that there are objects in the sky with the names of gods now, can we?
Italy, of course, also has plenty of State sponsored, or locally sponsored, or village sponsored fetes and festivals where are christian and Catholic in origin. Well, specifically Catholic in origin. As italy is Catholic.
And has been since Constantine. Which is a long time. So, and I speak as a non-believer- fuck the secular taleban. The Italians are home to a tradition which has lasted thousands of years, much of recorded history. The US is a silly place with silly rules. Why should Italy care about the “separation of church and State” if
a) That is not what the founding fathers meant anyway. Just a dis-establishment.
b) The seperation has led to far greater religous fanaticism than Italy, or Europe (State religion, or not).
c) Italy is far older.
And has been since Constantine.
minor nit, no, since theodosius. the senate was majority pagan until ~400, and during the short rule of arbogast & eugenius rome witnessed a major public revival of traditional paganism (since arbogast was a pagan, and eugenius a sympathizer with paganism despite his nominal christianity). in the context of the late roman empire italy was a late-comer to christianity, probably because of its vested interests in the prestige and pomp of the pagan empire during which rome and italy were central.
i think the point about the difference between italy and the united states in terms of history has to be well taken. why should every country have the same system? some people take it as a presupposition that all values are universal, or, more realistically, that their values are universal. not so. that being said, as the proportion of those from protestant and muslim backgrounds increases in italy the old consensus will be challenged. that is also just so.
“as the proportion of those from protestant and muslim backgrounds increases in italy the old consensus will be challenged. that is also just so.”
Or not. Assimilation into the US would mean the acceptance of the separation of church and State (although I still think the founders mean dis-establishment only*). Conversely in Italy assimilation could mean the acceptance of a low level hum of state sponsered Catholicism. Although I admit that may be more difficult. The fact that this decision was made by the European Court is very significant – if so ( and consistently applied) it means that all State religions, common in Europe, are now defunct. If I gave a damn I might challenge the Act of Supremacy
Conversely in Italy assimilation could mean the acceptance of a low level hum of state sponsered Catholicism. Although I admit that may be more difficult.
good point. the british still have establishment with a lot more pluralism than italy.
I need to contact that Finn’s lawyer. I’m deeply offended by all the sacred groves protected by the Gaia worshipping environmentalists that assail me every day. Establishment of religion must stop.