Thursday, 31 December 2009

Swords crossed over a crucifix

The following article from the 21 November edition of The Tablet is reproduced by kind permission of the Editor.

Swords crossed over a crucifix by Aidan O’Neill

The Italian Government is seeking to appeal against a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights that could lead to the removal of crucifixes from state school classrooms. A leading human-rights lawyer looks at a case that goes to the heart arguments about the relationship between Church and State.

In the last few years the European Court has, in general, been sympathetic to various attempts to regulate what, in their particular national contexts, the authorities have considered to be excessive individual religious displays. Thus the Court upheld the human rights compatibility of France’s ban on pupils dressing in a manner that made their religious affiliation immediately identifiable. It also upheld a law in Turkey barring from university lectures and tutorials students sporting beards and women wearing Islamic headscarves. In these two decisions the Court confirmed that the French and Turkish principle of laïcité or secularism, with its insistence on the strict separation between Church (or mosque) and State, was consistent with the democratic values of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR).

In its 3 November 2009 decision in Lautsi v. Italy, however, the European Court appears to have gone significantly beyond this line of case law. The court has now determined that the requirement in Italian law – in place since the 1920s Fascist government under Mussolini – that crucifixes be hung on the walls of the classrooms of state-run schools (originally, alongside a portrait of the king) was incompatible with human rights. The court ruled that such display violated the right of parents to educate their children in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions, and the right of their children to believe or not to believe.

The Italian Government argued, somewhat disingenuously, that in context, crucifixes in classrooms need not be understood in religious terms. Instead, the cross could properly be imagined as representing a whole host of ethical values – among them non-violence, equality and dignity, justice, love of neighbour, forgiveness of enemies, freedom of choice, and separation of religion and State – upon which contemporary European democracies were founded. As a matter of history, the humanist values of the Enlightenment were said to have their roots in, or be in reaction against, Christianity. The classroom display of the crucifix could be seen as a reminder of this. The cross in the Italian classroom could therefore be stripped of any specific religious significance or meaning; it could be regarded as nothing more than a cultural relic; or, indeed, it could simply be ignored.

The third party intervener, the Greek Helsinki Monitor human rights organisation, described these arguments as offensive to the Church and to believers. The cross could only be seen as a symbol of religious faith, of a belief in the truth of Christianity. The Court agreed that the primary meaning of the crucifix was as a religious symbol, readily associated with Catholicism. But it considered that the legal requirement to display a crucifix in the classroom could be justified neither on historical nor cultural grounds, nor on the basis of the views of the majority of parents. The court declared that in the context of the provision of public education the state was bound to a “confessional neutrality” and that such state education should be aimed at fostering “educational pluralism” and encouraging “critical thought” among its pupils.

Article 9 of the European Convention proclaims the absolute right of everyone to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs is also said to be a fundamental right, though one which may be limited by law. Such limitation must be shown to be “necessary in a democratic society”.

The right to education is set out in Article 2 First Protocol ECHR. This provides that parents have the right to ensure the education and teaching of their children “in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions”. Where the state assumes a role in relation to education and teaching, it must respect that right of the parents.

However, in the Lautsi v. Italy ruling, the European Court would appear to be committing itself to the claim that not only is a strict separation of Church and State permitted under the European Convention but it is actually required by it. Such a claim can certainly not be justified by the plain text of the Convention. It appears to owe more to United States Supreme Court jurisprudence on the separation of Church and State. But this American case law is based on the text of its Constitution’s First Amendment requirement that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion”.

This clause has resulted in a seemingly endless line of court cases on such issues as whether Nativity scenes, or the text of the Ten Commandments, can lawfully be displayed on state-owned property; or whether prayers can be said, or oaths of allegiance recited, in public schools.

To apply such an American separationist analysis within a European context simply does not do justice to the wholly different understandings of the proper relationship between religion and the State which have historically existed among the countries of Europe; where, indeed, religious establishment of forms of Christianity – whether Protestant, Orthodox or Catholic – was the traditional norm.

Under Article 43 ECHR, a party has three months from the date of a judgment to request that it be reheard on appeal before the Grand Chamber of the Court with its 17 judges. To be successfully referred to the Grand Chamber the case must be found by the court to raise serious question of interpretation of the Convention or some other issue of general importance.

The questions raised in Lautsi clearly highlight tensions within the European Court itself. In June 2007, in Folgerø v. Norway, the Grand Chamber split nine to eight on the question of whether a group of avowed humanist parents should be able to demand the complete exemption of their children from a state-sanctioned school course on Christianity, religion and philosophy. The dissenting eight-strong minority considered that it was precisely the increasing pluralist nature of Norwegian society that justified the Norwegian state in making such provision, which emphasised the historical importance of Christianity in Norway. The state had a duty to ensure mutual tolerance between differing groups in society and, in the minority’s view, providing for a common state education in religion and ethics, which did not seek to proselytise and convert but to inform, was a proper means to that end.

It is clear that we have not heard the last word on these issues.

■ Aidan O’Neill QC is a Scottish advocate, based in Edinburgh, and a barrister member of Matrix Chambers in London.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Thursday, 31 December 2009 at 8:19am GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: equality legislation

Good googly-moogly, what sophistry! A crucifix represents the "separation of religion and State"? Teaching "the historical importance of Christianity in Norway" supports "the increasing pluralist nature of Norwegian society"?

I agree, however, that these half-measures, as decided by the ECHR, don't cut it. It ought to rule that *establishment of a particular religion itself*, in any/every nation, is inconsistent with the European Union, and must be abolished. With establishment comes INEVITABLE violations of human rights. Be done w/ establishment already, and let ALL religious groups rise or fall on a voluntary basis! [In THIS case, it's not just the (U.S. of) "American Way", it's the only just, SANE way to go.]

JCF, who if had been compelled to "say the Lord's Prayer" in school, would almost CERTAINLY be an atheist today. God bless you, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, whether you would have wanted that blessing or not! ;-)

Posted by: JCF on Thursday, 31 December 2009 at 9:28am GMT

There are numerous and perfectly appropriate places to affix crucifixes. The walls of state-sponsored schools is not one of them.
The Italian government, in its desperation to hold onto a religious custom, is engaging in the same kind of argument that the US Supreme Court has engaged in for some time with creches in front of public buildings, and that is to say that in a secular context, religious symbols lose their religious meanings. That should be an affront to every devout Christian.
The crucifix has a specific religious meaning. So does the creche. To reduce the former to a warm fuzzy symbol of values, and the latter to only being a warm fuzzy scene of a homeless couple and their baby spending the night in a barn is a desecration.
A modern secular state shouldn't advance any specific religion. But in its efforts to desperately hold on to certain customs, it shouldn't destroy those religions either.

Posted by: peterpi on Thursday, 31 December 2009 at 4:17pm GMT

Where I am a creche is a child mindding facility

Posted by: Rev L Roberts on Thursday, 31 December 2009 at 5:09pm GMT

I think it is a little mischievous to reference the separation of church state and the US Constitution. This was decided entirely (and unanimously) on the basis of the European Convention on Human Rights referring to the right to bring up children according to your own views (interesting in other contexts for other reasons).

It doesn't mean you can't have a crucifix in any school only that it's a breach of human rights to do so in secular state run schools that people are obliged to use.

The whole case is the attempt to extend the influence of Christianity through institutional power in a way that's fast becoming out of date.

Seems to me like a sensible ruling.

Posted by: Craig Nelson on Thursday, 31 December 2009 at 5:15pm GMT

Heard of the Georgetown University Crucifix Wars? There was a big kerfuffle when some idiot administrator decided that the crucifixes in classrooms of this Catholic college should be taken down in the interests of "diversity." There was a big protest movement against this. The pro-crucifix party included students of all religions as well as Jewish and Muslim chaplains.

Crucifix wars have played out in lots of Catholic college in the US--including my own.

I detest this stupid puritanism. In the US religious symbols in public spaces are verboten--but it's not verboten to teach Creationism/ID in the public schools if the local school board wants it.

I like religion. I'd like to see religious symbols all over the place, including crucifixes, Buddha statues, Hindu idols and anything else that's available. What's the problem?

Posted by: H. E. Baber on Thursday, 31 December 2009 at 11:49pm GMT

Mr Baber, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I would argue that being religious and manifesting it in signs and symbols is a sign of defiance against a false "pluralism" that actually wishes to wipe out the religious sense inherent in humanity that no ideological scheme has been able to wipe out.

On that note, I wish everyone a blessed feast of the Circumcision and Holy Name of Jesus Christ! Happy new year.

Posted by: Ren Aguila on Friday, 1 January 2010 at 1:37am GMT

Talk about non sequitur! We're not talking about crucifixes in *Catholic* universities. Nor are we talking about some sort of montage of religious symbols "all over the place". We're talking about *one* religious symbol, the crucifix, in *one* taxpayer-paid-for place, the state school classroom. THAT is what the ECHR ruled against, and rightly so (IMO).

Happy New Year to all: religious, secular or somewhere in-between. ;-)

Posted by: JCF on Friday, 1 January 2010 at 2:45am GMT

In Italy, the whole problem of religious symbols in secular schools should not be an issue. The only way to allow such a situation would be to allow any and all religions to display their own religious symbols. After all, in Western airport building, where there happens to be a facility for people to pray, their is usually provision for all faiths - and for anyone to pray - with various religious symbols. No-one complains.

Anyway, the theory of state-sponsored religion's hegemony is over, surely - if only because this has been a primary source of factions and 'holy' wars. If God is Creator of All Peoples, then all religions which honour God are loved by God.

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Friday, 1 January 2010 at 9:54am GMT

It would be helpful for someone to clarify the relationship between the Italian state and the Catholic Church.

Does anyone here know if the Italian government makes any financial provision for Catholic schools, or whether the origins of the present state school system lie in parish schools?

The Norwegian case discussed at the end of the article raises another question. Given that Norway has an established Church, it strikes me that at least some teaching of Christian principles is embedded in the mission of the state school system.

Posted by: kieran crichton on Friday, 1 January 2010 at 10:03am GMT

In Italy any group may found a school 'at no expense to the public' - those attending the school will have to be able to pass a public test administered by the Department of Public Instruction, if the school (or university) is to be recognised. As a long time resident of Italy (not at the moment though) I would say that crucifixes should be removed not just from public (USA use of the term) schools, but also from courts of law, post offices, and lots of other public offices where they remain affixed. The presence of crucifixes in those places seems to me totally impious and often blasphemous. Just one priest's idea of course.

Posted by: Sara MacVane on Friday, 1 January 2010 at 5:56pm GMT

Sara's contention must be the very best solution to the placement of a crucifix in public places - especially in the courts of some parts of italy, where the 'justice' system is often tied up with un-Godly organisations like the local Mafia.

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Friday, 1 January 2010 at 10:20pm GMT

"It doesn't mean you can't have a crucifix in any school only that it's a breach of human rights to do so in secular state run schools that people are obliged to use." - Craig Nelson, on Thursday -

This seems eminently reasonable to me. At least, the state is not banning the use of religious symbols in their own context - which is in the buildings where faith precepts are taught and honoured by those willing to enter that specific environment.

To insist that all state schools identify with the majority faith's religious symbols, would be to exclude those whose faith is of a different order or none. Simple democratic principle would require the presence of all symbols of religion or none - which is what the European Court seems to be advocating here. If Islamic students are attending a state school in the U.K., they would not expect a crucifix to be part of the 'decor'.

Members of the European Union countries have to decide for themselves whether they want true democracy in all matters - including the issue of religious tolerance, or not. It would seem that the European Union is opting for the integrity of a democratic system of mutual respect, which is common to all members.

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Thursday, 4 March 2010 at 11:38pm GMT
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.