In
1924 and in 1928 the fascist regime issued two decrees which provided
the presence of the crucifix in the classrooms. In the following
decades, in spite of the collapse of the regime and the entry into
force of a lay Constitution, the new republican governments did not
repeal these laws. In this way the problem of their validity arose.
The exposure of the crucifix into schools was questioned because some
people perceived it as a symbol which protected the traditional
values but for others its presence was a sign of discrimination
towards people who had a different cultural identity.
Since
the 80s the citizens have raised to the courts some appeals against
the presence of the crucifix in the classrooms. In spite of this, the
judges have always dismissed these actions asserting that the
crucifex did not limit everyone’s freedom to manifest his religious
convinctions. Besides the courts proclaimed that the crucifex had not
only a meaning connected to the Catholicism but it was also an
universal symbol of western culture and identity.
In
2004 the most important italian court case about the crucifix began.
The case was faced by a lot of newspapers and TV programmes and it
started when Soile Lautsi, a finnish citizen living in Abano Terme
(near Padua), complained that the exposure of the crucifix in his
son’s classroom violated the principles of laicity and impartiality
recognised by the Constitution. Therefore she raised an appeal to the
Veneto’s TAR. In 2005 this court dismissed the action proclaiming
that the crucifix transmitted values like freedom, equality and
religious tolerance. At this point Soile Lautsi raised an appeal to
the European Court of Human Rights. She complained the violation of
the parent’s right to educate a son in accordance with his/her values.
It is a right recognised by the “Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms”. The Chamber composed of
seven judges examined the case and in 2009 it issued a judgement
establishing that the presence of the crucifix in the classrooms
discriminated people who had a different belief. Taking note of this
the italian government decided to present an appeal to the the Grand
Chamber made up of seventeen judges. The action of the government was
successful: in 2011 the court proclaimed that the crucifix was a
“passive” symbol because its exposure was not connected to forms
of religious indoctrination. Consequently the State can continue to
adopt the praxis to show the crucifix into schools. Nevertheless this
topic is debated again and it continues to divide the public opinion
of our country.
Sources:
In my opinion, we should not make too big of a deal out of the exposure of the crucifix into schools. Countries like Italy and Belgium have a catholic culture, there are religious symbols and buildings everywhere. It is a part of the culture so I think it is right to leave them there. They are only here to remind us that we live in a catholic culture but it is not a way to force people to be catholic. My home university in Belgium is catholic (only its name is catholic really) so there are crucifixes in every room and that does not bother anyone. Many students of my university are not catholic at all and it is not a problem for them.
ReplyDeleteI think this post is interesting because it shows that religion and secularity are strictly linked to personal opinions.
ReplyDeletePersonally a crucifix in a private home or in a shop do not bother me, it' s freedom of expression; but when I see one in a school or in a hospital, it does bother me. I know perfectly how much Italian culture is connected with Catholicism but I also know that some people suffered because of the absence of secularity in Italy. Let's "only" think about all those women who had to abort illegally ( risking their lives) because Catholicism was/is deeply rooted in public life and state affairs.
I am not against crucifix or Catholicism but if we live in a state that calls itself secular, than we can demand secular state institutions.