No one will take on Obama, and the Washington establishment, like Newt Gingrich
Fantastic: Obama would like to replicate Detroit’s foibles elsewhere
New York Times scandalized as NYPD is trained on Muslim-perpetrated violence
Detroit boldly choosing to crackdown on the innocent
South Carolina stopped Romney. For now
Cartoon: Down and out
In which I praise Mitt (but explain why I won’t vote for him)
Bernero the gambler sells Main Street for a shot at the slots
The Emergency Financial Manager law is undemocratic, but opponents need an alternative to guard against local fiscal calamities
Memo to Snyder: Don’t stop the radical reforms now!Seeing a crucifix does not violate your religious freedom
November 27th, 2009 | 
Author:
Dan Sherrier
Political correctness not only plagues the United States, but Italy as well.
According to CNN, a European panel of judges has advised the Italian government to consider taking down the Christian cross in some public spaces, particularly schools. It’s not a mandate at the moment, just a suggestion.
If it bothers you, just pretend it's the letter 't.'
The rationale: “Saying the cross violated the principle of secular education in public school, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg said the display of Christian crosses, which is common but not mandatory in Italian schools, could be ‘disturbing’ for children of other faiths,” CNN reports.
Why would it disturb children of other faiths? If you’re not Christian, isn’t it simply a t-shaped object, utterly meaningless one way or the other?
I’m a Christian, but if the Jewish Star of David was hanging up in my classrooms as a kid, I wouldn’t know what to make of it, for good or bad. It would just be a six-pointed star that carried little, if any, effect on my life. At most, I might’ve learned something new about another religion.
CNN quotes Italian Judge Luigi Tosti, labeling him as an atheist: “I want to challenge the crucifix being a symbol of morally, culture and civilization. We must consider that the swastika for example is a symbol of negative values because Nazis are responsible for the death of six million of people, of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals. And if we evaluate the history of Christianity, we are not talking about 6 million people killed, but of a 100 million people killed, tortured, ghettoized in its 1,800 years history, with the crusades.”
So Christianity is worse than Nazism? Because of religious wars waged hundreds of years ago?
I admit, I’m not an expert on the Crusades, nor am I a theologian. But I’ve spent enough time in Catholic churches (and even a few years in Catholic school) to know that Christianity is certainly not a violent religion. For every religion that’s ever existed, it’s a safe bet that someone along the way twisted it toward malevolent or self-serving ends. That doesn’t make the religion bad, just the individual people and their actions.
When Jesus died on the cross, the Crusades hadn’t happened yet. That occurred later, led by people who didn’t understand Jesus. If the Crusades were so pivotal to the concept of Christianity, they probably would have begun in Jesus’s lifetime, led by Jesus himself.
Nazism was Hitler’s political movement, and the Holocaust took place under his direction. We don’t condemn the country of Germany for all time because of the Nazis. We merely condemn the specific actions of a group during that era.
That some Christians were bad does not make Christianity bad for all time, especially since no one alive today experienced the Crusades first-hand.
“The crucifix exposed in the public places violates the principle of religious freedom,” Tosti is also quoted as saying.
Is there anything oppressive about encountering a religious symbol in public? As I said, if you don’t believe in it, then it’s a meaningless object. Hanging a crucifix on a wall does not force anyone to pray before it. There’s nothing to fear from it.
Unless you’re a vampire. In that case, I can understand how crosses might cause you harm.
Religious freedom means that all peaceful religions can practice out in the open, without fear of reprisal. It does not mean freedom from religion. Banning religious symbols and artifacts would actually reduce religious freedom, as would governments mandating the placement or exposure of such items.
If a school, anywhere, wants to display a religious object that reflects the beliefs of the majority, why shouldn’t it? Shouldn’t that decision lie with the individual school communities rather than some high-and-mighty judges who think they know best? And then, when any religious activity takes place, simply allow the minority religions to opt out and engage in their worship, too, and everyone gets to practice religion freely.
The CNN article makes no reference about everyday citizens objecting to the crucifix. Judge Tosti seems to be anticipating objections, at least as it’s reported–which, granted, might not be the whole story.
Nevertheless, atheism is its own belief system. When an atheist judge wants to remove religious objects from view, isn’t he guilty of seeking to impose his religious worldview on everyone else?
The intent of political correctness might be to strive for equality among religions, but it somehow tends to favor the atheists.
Posted in 
Tags: 25 Responses to “Seeing a crucifix does not violate your religious freedom”
Leave a Reply
- Listen to compelling 911 tape of 2-year-old trying to help authorities save her great-grandmother's life (AUDIO)
- 'Simpsons' joke about Sharia threat in Dearborn
- Fire Marshal: Too soon to say whether fatal fire at 230 Myrtle in Muskegon is arson; investigation continues
- Electrical problems likely cause of Strong Avenue fire in Muskegon; Investigation ongoing
- WXYZ asks a blogger with no law enforcement experience to weigh in on escort murders
- By the numbers: Detroit has spent $20 million demolishing homes since 2009
- 'Simpsons' joke about Sharia threat in Dearborn
- Age-shy Warren Mayor Jim is officially 69, two years older than he claimed, so let's all move on
“If a school, anywhere, wants to display a religious object that reflects the beliefs of the majority, why shouldn’t it?”
Sorry, SCHOOLS are inanimate buildings and cannot “want” to display anything.
What you need to say is “If school administrators want to promote their favorite religion in a state school that they run (whether it happens to match what the majority wants or not), why shouldn’t they?”
The answer, of course, is that state schools shouldn’t push religion on other people’s children. That’s against the constitution in both the US and Italy.
“The intent of political correctness might be to strive for equality among religions, but it somehow tends to favor the atheists.”
Ridiculous. By removing religious symbols, state schools and government buildings are made neutral, instead of promoting a religion. In order to favor atheists, they would need to be replaced by symbols or signs that advocate atheism.
Sorry, a blank wall does not promote atheism.
“Is there anything oppressive about encountering a religious symbol in public?”
Well, if you’re an anti theist it’s like cockroaches scurrying from a light.
Dear Dan,
You write very nicely but unfortunately your article is so full of bad ideas that this isn’t the place to address them all.
If you’re interested in a polite e-mail exchange with an atheist (I promise to NOT try to convert you) to try to understand the non-believers point of view in this, e-mail me at eboreg_fcnz@lnubb.pbz (ROT 13) and I’ll send you my actual e-mail address for an exchange.
Best wishes.
Dan, by your reasoning since symbols alone do not violate religious freedom then placing a Christian cross in a Jewish Temple or Islamic Mosque would not violate the religious freedom of the Jew or the Muslim. And placing a Star of David in a mosque would be innocuous?
Similarly if an American public school in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood wants to put up a Star of David then how will the minority Muslim students in that school react to that symbol? Could it incite violence?
Jews have been villified by some Christians for centuries. Do you think that they have warm, fuzzy feelings when they see a crucified Jesus hanging on a cross in their public school?
Think about all the possible scenarios with all the religions in America. Is it really worth it to favor one religous symbol over any other? No, don’t rock the boat we’re all in. It’s not worth it.
Wow, there’s so much wrong here I don’t know where to begin.
But the thing that made me chuckle is:
“When Jesus died on the cross, the Crusades hadn’t happened yet. That occurred later, led by people who didn’t understand Jesus. If the Crusades were so pivotal to the concept of Christianity, they probably would have begun in Jesus’s lifetime, led by Jesus himself.”
This is amusing in a gazillion different ways. It makes it sound an awful lot like Jesus was around for 60 years, and had enough followers to wage a war, neither of which is true. It certainly shows that you are correct when you say you are not an expert in the crusades, theology, or christianity.
Further, many things are now seen as important to christianity that were not in any way related to jesus. The majority of the bible is more like commentary on jesus, rather than biography. Further, the bible was written well after anyone who ever knew the man was dead (if he ever existed).
So, I’m pretty sure you want to stay away from this sort of thing when arguing religious freedom.
Dan, if symbols don’t mean anything, how would you feel about having a Nazi Swastika instead of a cross? Yes, symbols have a lot of meaning and in order not to have every symbol of every religion up in the wall in order to be equal, the logical thing is to have none. The constitution doesn’t give more importance to the majority, it gives equality to ALL.
meaningless symbol? its a symbol of death and has been known world wide for over 2000 years as one! utterly meaningless my a@#
Is there anything Jesus preached of which the Crusades were a faithful fulfillment? If not (and I would certainly argue not), then those who perpetrated them were not following him, which means those who do follow him today cannot be lumped with the crusaders of centuries ago.
Also, Dan is not arguing that the symbol is meaningless. He is only arguing that, if you are not a believer, it is merely a symbol of nothingness for you, and as such it does not violate your rights to have to look at it.
Interesting post
I would rather live my life that there is a GOD,
than live my life that there is no GOD,
and then die and find out that there is a GOD.
And that is a nonsensical argument, Dans. Because, as David points out with the example of the swastika, it’s not about some spiritual meaning of the symbol that’s only accessible to the believers and transparent to everyone else. It’s about what the symbol actually means to people.
The cross is just about universally recognizable as a symbol of Christianity. When state institutions nationwide whose mission has nothing to do with Christianity display its symbols, and do so exclusively of all others, that’s a pretty clear statement of preference – a preference that state institutions are not allowed to have.
Don’t worry, though, this article is part of a long tradition of majority whining. Hindus in India complain about having to respect the rights of weird minority religions like Christianity, too.
Johann, I am continually amused by that sort of whining (and I say this as a professional white male, quite possibly the least oppressed class in the US).
Whats sad is what it implies.
When a black person talks about being oppressed, he’s talking about how the forces within our country start him off (usually) in a disadvantaged position, and those same forces work against him throughout his life, keeping him from getting a good education, good job, etc.
When I hear christians complain, what theya re really saying is “We don’t always get our way”. What concerns me is that it implies that they think that is what the various minorities are saying.
Sad, really.
As a Christian, I do not get my faith from the government (nor would I ever wish to), or from anything in the ‘public realm” – including of course, pop culture. I have received my faith first and foremost from my mother and father, and it has been subsequently nourished by my Church, as well as my private parochial education along the way. AS IT SHOULD BE.
I do not look to ANY U.S. political leaders to either give to me, or to nourish, my faith. Not only is that not their role, but if I am so deficient in my beliefs that I somehow need or require anyone in the public realm (outside of the leaders of my church, or Jesus Christ Himself) to serve as ‘example’ or ‘inspiration’ to me, then I am in serious trouble as a Christian.
My faith … my beliefs … are MY OWN. They originate and flow from the greatest leader to ever walk the planet.
Those who wish to perpetuate the notions that the Founders actually believed that govt. should be ‘led’ or ‘rooted in’ or ‘based upon’ *ANY* religious viewpoint clearly lack true understanding of the profundity of the system of government that was originally set up by those men. They recognized just how precious it was to keep any and all religion OUT of the purview of government. Not only to avoid the sort of theocratic tyranny that they put their lives on the line to escape… but for the purpose of protecting religious freedom, FIRST AND FOREMOST.
A clear line of separation between both is paramount to achieve both ends. And if you are a believer, you *must* do your part to ensure that the Founders’ intentions are maintained. Not distorted, or perverted, in the name of political partisanship, or otherwise.
Dear Dan,
If you see a person wearing a yarmulke, would one reasonably think, “there is a person of the Jewish faith”? If you see a person wearing a turban and a large beard and appears to be of middle east descent, would you think, “there is a Sikh”. If you see someone wearing a cross, do you think “there is a Christian”? If you lived in Nazi Germany and saw a person wearing a star of David, would you assume that person is Jewish?
Now what would you think if you were in a classroom and saw a cross hanging on the wall?
We use these symbols as a means of inclusion/exclusion. Having a cross in a class room says the powers-that-be are Christian and the Christians are in control. You better either be Christian or have “proper” respect for Christianity or you will be in trouble.
Seeing a crucifix doesn’t violate my freedom of religion in it’s most literal sense (I don’t have to be a Christian after school) but having one in the classroom sends a bad message.
I find it so bizarre that many Christians get so worked up when they are not allowed to impose their faith on others. I understand that converting as many “souls” as possible is an integral part of the faith, but get over it. You don’t get special treatment. If you want to stare at the cross all day, go for it. Put one up in your home, or wear the damn thing around your neck. No one’s stopping you. But public schools belong to everyone, not just Christians, or who ever happens to be in the majority.
I agree with you, Dan, on the main point, and I’d like to add some thoughts and comments on the various subjects in your article.
First, I think that a symbol of religion such as the crucifix is full of meaning, and that is why it is so vital to the Catholic Faith. In fact, the crucifix is a symbol of the main focus of the Catholic Faith: the Redemption. Without Christ’s act of love on the cross, it would not be possible for us to reach heaven. Christ’s death reopened the gates of Heaven and conquered the sin brought into the world by Adam and Eve.
The crucifix is not a symbol of violence. Catholics look at it as a symbol of the greatest love known to man: of God becoming human and giving His life for us, even though we are sinners.
When it comes to the Crusades, I have to say first that the Christian nations of Europe were not the aggressors in these wars. The Muslim attacks on Christians countries lasted from the seventh century until the eleventh. The Christian countries of Europe had a right to defend themselves against Muslim attacks and also to prevent future attacks. Furthermore, the Crusaders never attacked the Muslim homeland, Arabia, but only the territories that had originally been Christian. Also, it was and is appropriate for Christians to defend themselves and the helpless against attacks, which is what the Crusaders were doing. It is also just for Christians to attempt to regain lands which their enemy had conquered, as was the case with the Holy Land. Christians had every right to govern the lands where Christ had walked and to protect them from desecration. Finally, there were abuses during the Crusades, including the Sack of Jerusalem and the Sack of Constantinople. However, an immoral action during a war does not make the entire cause of the war unjust. Yes, the immoral action should be condemned, but the war itself shall remain just.
Hi. I go through a few of one’s other posts and wished to understand in the event you would be interested in exchanging blogroll links. welcome to Links of London Charms
I seemed to be aware of this already, but still there was clearly some helpful pieces that completed the picture to me, appreciate it!
I have been searching practically everywhere on info regarding this. Really thanks a ton.
I in addition to my friends were taking a look at the excellent material on your website and so now, suddenly I had a bad feeling I never expressed respect to your blog owner for him or her. All of the men have been consequently glad to read them and provide in effect actually been increasing these things. I appreciate you when getting simply considerate and then getting varieties of high-quality areas an incredible number of individuals are really having to know about. My open regret for not indicating appreciation to sooner.
Hello……
Thanks for sharing superb informations. Your site is so cool. I’m impressed by the details that you’ve on this website. It reveals how nicely you perceive this subject. Bookmarked this web page, will come back for more articles. You, my pal, ROCK! I …
Wow…..
I really appreciate this post. I’ve been looking all over for this! Thank goodness I found it on Bing. You’ve made my day! Thanks again! “That which does not kill us makes us stronger.” by Friedrich Nietzsche….
naturally like your web-site but you have to check the spelling on several of your posts. Several of them are rife with spelling issues and I in finding it very bothersome to tell the reality then again I’ll definitely come back again. Goldstar Locksmith 9620 w russell rd #2134 las vegas NV 89148 United States 702-475-6804
I just now you can put link of one’s blog on my little Facebook Wall. comfortable blog indeed
Eventually I’d like to become a burglar whom just steals delicious baked merchandise. How might you stay crazy at the dude prefer that?