European Court bans classroom crucifixes
And there really is not much to add to this, this or this.
God forbid that schoolchildren might ever again have such an oppressive and disturbing art project as this imposed upon them.
Essentially, it is a further clash to establish one’s ranking in the emerging EU hierarchy of rights; a further battle in the interminable internecine war in the quest for supremacy. So far throughout the EU, ‘Muslim rights’ and ‘Gay rights’ are pretty much neck and neck, and this latest spat is just the Atheists putting down a marker for their own rights. Since each group has mutually-exclusive objectives, the only way to keep them from mutually-assured destruction is to unite them against a common enemy – the Christians. And so, in its infinite enlightened wisdom, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that crucifixes should not be displayed in state schools.
Of course, this will affect some EU countries more than others, and the wise and learned judges of Strasbourg have chosen Roman Catholic Italy to commence their secularisation programme. Henceforth, it is decreed that crucifixes violate the rights of parents to bring up their children according to their own beliefs: the crucifix is ‘disturbing’ for children who are inter alia Atheist, Muslim, or Gay.
And Cranmer has purposely capitalised the terms, for they have attained a status superior to the Christians, for whom, incidentally, the crucifix is also ‘disturbing’: it is supposed to be. Perhaps the ECHR might permit a classroom picture of an androgynous Jesus-looking man lying upon a wooden bed covered in a snug duvet – no nails. History and culture are of little consequence against the quest to eradicate all offence and diminish that which may ‘disturb’.
It becomes even more alarming when one considers that the Atheist complainant in this case was a woman by the name of Soile Lautsi, a native of Finland who subsequently acquired Italian citizenship. And she has enriched herself and her Atheist children to the tune of 5000 euros for ‘moral damages’, to be paid by the Italian government for subjecting them to a school which had ‘disturbing’ crucifixes in every classroom.
The consequences of the ruling are far-reaching. For surely, if the crucifix is offensive, so is the cross. And if the cross, why not every picture of Jesus or representation of God? And if those, why not every Christmas tree, nativity play or Easter egg? Not only will the ruling potentially force an entire continent to reconsider the use of religious symbols in the public realm, it appears that any ‘foreigner’ may now enter a country as a guest, choose to dwell there as a naturalised alien, and then directly challenge the country’s cultural unity and moral values by forcing change to suit their own beliefs and social mores.
And the supreme arbiter in all cases will be the European Court of Human Rights, which has set its face against Christian history, Christian culture, Christian tradition, Christian belief and Christian expression. As far as the Court is concerned, Europe moved from the language, culture, government and religion of the Graeco-Roman world directly to that of the Enlightenment. A millennium-or-so of Christianity in between may not be mentioned.
The children might find it ‘disturbing’.