We read:
"The Vatican has welcomed as "historic" a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that said displaying crucifixes in schools in Italy does not breach the rights of non-Catholics.
The European Court of Human Rights ruled that displaying crucifixes in schools in Italy did not breach the rights of non-Catholic families, overturning a previous decision.
The Strasbourg, France-based court initially ruled in November 2009 that displaying crucifixes in schools across Italy breached the rights of non-Catholics, drawing howls of anger from Church and political leaders in the staunchly Roman Catholic country.
In its new ruling, passed by 15 votes to two, the court said: "While the crucifix was above all a religious symbol, there was no evidence before the court that the display of such a symbol on classroom walls might have an influence on pupils."
Source
The court may have realized that Italians would have defied a ban anyway. Italians are very attached to their statuary.
Instead of "statuary", I originally wrote "graven images" above. My fundamentalist Presbyterian background does show at times. Below is a picture of the interior of my old Presbyterian church. It is very beautiful but there is neither cross nor crucifix there.
29 comments:
Oh Yah? Look on the flag.
If there was no evidence of the crucifixes having any affect on the pupils, then what was the point of having them in the classrooms? And what does that say about the mostly catholic pupils if the main symbol of their religion had no affect on them?!
How nice to see a return to sanity, albeit a rare one. And thank you Jon for allowing a "few of us" to indulge in our beliefs.
9:15 AM - What a predictably feeble retort from a typically weak-minded religionist.
"What a predictably feeble retort from a typically weak-minded religionist."
Indeed.
What a predictably feeble retort from a typically weak-minded religionist.
What religion do you think that is? It's not consistent with Christianity. Sounds more like Trollism to me.
Now if they would only make the same ruling here and kick out the ACLU out of our schools
Now if they would only make the same ruling here and kick out the children of conservatives out of our schools
" It's not consistent with Christianity"
LOL. You take the cake on this one Luke. LOL. Your delusions entertain me.
To sum up, all of you be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit; not returning evil for evil or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead;
— 1 Peter 3:8–9a
Where's the delusion? That the Bible says this? Or that 9:15 acted contrary to this?
Note: Before you point out "eye for eye, tooth for tooth," pay attention to the context were those instructions were given: sentencing guideline for Israel's legal system. Personal revenge is never taught or sanctioned in the Bible.
Oh yes - the old "context" excuse for anything dubious in the Bible - then any interpretation of the context can be argued.
What seems to be overlooked here is that the original rationale against the crucifixes - that they were somehow a violation of non-believers' freedom of religion or speech - is obviously nonsense. It may reinforce the view that Christianity is the default position and majority culture, but dissenters are not being forced to accept it.
Oh yes - the old "context" excuse
Context matters in EVERY statement, not just in the Bible.
For example, you wrote, "indulge and humor the religious". So why are you arguing with me instead of humoring me?
"So why are you arguing with me instead of humoring me?"
I, for one, laugh at your delusions.
Is name calling all you've got? You can't even point out the supposed error!
Why can't you just admit that I'm right about Anon 9:15 violating what the Bible teaches and move on?
You say "Is name calling all you've got? ". But previously you said, "Sounds more like Trollism to me."
So now, who is it that is doing the name calling? Of course you will never admit it.
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
If the definition fits…
Stan,
You're exactly right. Well said.
What I find curious is how some people hate Christianity so much that they reject even obvious truths with extreme prejudice. There are definitely a number of people here who fit that category.
I was right. You will never admit the name calling.
Sigh… More false equivalency.
I feel sorry for you.
Seeing as that I did NOT even call you a name, you got a lot of fucking nerve.
9:07 / 2:06
9:07 / 2:26
Seeing as that I did NOT even call you a name,
— 4:48
Your delusions entertain me.
— 9:07
What is a delusion? What does it say about the person when it is claimed that they have delusions?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delusion
By "name calling" I was using informal terminology to point out that you were using the ad hominem fallacy instead of actually responding to my point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
What name do you claim I called you?
Troll
Christianity becomes so vague a term that anyone's views can be ascribed to it or anyone can be accused of not being a true follower of it - much like the term "atheist".
Troll
Are you saying you posted the 9:15 comment?
"Christianity" means a specific set of teachings taught by the Bible. In other words, the Bible is the authority on what is, and is not, "Christian". Just because that label has been falsely applied to teachings which violate the Bible does not change that basic definition.
In fact, the word Christian literally means "little Christ". It refers to someone who similar to Jesus Christ. (It was meant to be derogatory, but being like Christ is a badge of honor to the Christian.) To say that someone who is nothing like Christ is "like Christ" is a meaningless statement. The measure of "Christianity" is "The Bible" and it cannot be otherwise.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Christian
Atheist simply means someone who believes that there is no god. Period. It doesn't say anything about whether they're Marxists, or believe in the free market, Libertines or self-controlled, etc.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist
Each word's definition is specific. It does not define anything more, or less, than what it defines.
Luke - You just beg the question what Christ (Jesus) was like. The accounts in the Bible are second-hand or multiple-hand and have been subject to wide ranging interpretation throughout history - even leading to wars and untold misery because of it!
Post a Comment