Say possible goodbye to religious symbols in the classroom. UPDATE: No Joy!

Biggins

EU could ban religious symbols in classrooms

Religious symbols in classrooms could be banned across Europe if a human rights ruling is upheld on appeal today.

The Italian government is trying to overturn a verdict that displaying crucifixes in state schools breaches religious freedoms enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights.

The decision by the European Court of Human Rights in 2009 was a victory for Soile Lautsi, a non-Catholic mother who complained that her children, aged 11 and 13, were exposed to crucifixes in classrooms at their school in Northern Italy.

The Strasbourg judges agreed the presence of religious symbols violated the children’s “right to education” and their “right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”, safeguarded by the Human Rights Convention.

The judges rejected Italian government arguments that the crucifix was a national symbol of culture, history and identity, tolerance and secularism, saying the crucifix in the classroom was against the principle of secularism by which Ms Lautsi wished to raise her children.

The judgment said: “The presence of the crucifix – which it was impossible not to notice in the classrooms – could easily be interpreted by pupils of all ages as a religious sign and they would feel that they were being educated in a school environment bearing the stamp of a given religion.”

It went on: “This could be encouraging for religious pupils, but also disturbing for pupils who practised other religions or were atheists, particularly if they belonged to religious minorities.”

The judges said the freedom not to believe in any religion – enshrined in the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Human Rights Convention – was not limited to the absence of religious services or religious education. It extended to practices and symbols which expressed “a belief, a religion or atheism”.

The ruling concluded: “The compulsory display of a symbol of a given confession in premises used by the public authorities, and especially in classrooms, thus restricted the right of parents to educate their children in conformity with their convictions, and the right of children to believe or not to believe.”

Italy was ordered to pay the mother £4,500 in damages, but Rome decided to appeal to the Court’s 17-judge Grand Chamber in a bid to overturn the verdict.

Today’s final decision, if it upholds the original verdict, would only directly affect Italian schools where religious icons are in all classrooms.

But a breach of the Human Rights Convention identified in one of the Council of Europe member states – 47 including the 27 EU countries – applies in all.

One human rights expert commented: “Another parent who feels similarly affected by similar circumstances in a state school in another Council of Europe country could launch a similar case, but all the governments would already be aware of the state of play if the judges do uphold the original verdict in the case of Italy.”

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/eu-could-ban-religious-symbols-in-classrooms-497714.html#ixzz1GxLKl2iq

Personally (and this is NOT a go at just Rome and its org') I'm glad if this comes about.
One religion should not have preference over another when it comes to displays.
...That path only leads to resentment by some others and the eventual, sometimes deadly effects from that later.

MagicMarker

Dey took ouer religious symbols!!

Biggins

MagicMarker wrote: »

Dey took ouer religious symbols!!

Da hussies! :pac:

Chaotic_Forces

I'm confused. Is it just preventing the school itself from displaying symbols? If so, couldn't the kids all draw them and if they aren't put up on parents day (or whenever), it'll cause a fuss since the child is being bullied?

Or are we just banning symbols 100%?

What about if the child wants to wear one as part of their faith?

Sorry for the questions, I'm not really sure I understand the article.

Nodin

Theres only two fair ways of doing it - all or none. Though an atheist I'd rather "all", though the fact that theres always a whinger will mean it would probably be none....

Zebra3

Great news.

Personally I think all religions should be banned.

They're just a money making scam from gullible people.

RichieC

I don't think a man nailed to a cross is a particularly good thing to have on the walls of childrens classrooms anyway.

EU might actually do something good for once

OutlawPete

Welcome to the melting pot.

Ireland R.I.P.

Biggins

Chaotic_Forces wrote: »

I'm confused. Is it just preventing the school itself from displaying symbols? If so, couldn't the kids all draw them and if they aren't put up on parents day (or whenever), it'll cause a fuss since the child is being bullied?

Or are we just banning symbols 100%?

What about if the child wants to wear one as part of their faith?

Sorry for the questions, I'm not really sure I understand the article.

Its ONLY my own reading of it (and open to be wrong) but I think as a state building, such symbols they are saying, shouldn't be put up in an official capacity.
What a child wears, draws etc, is another area that might have to be addressed in following up from this possible ruling.

Manach

I take this will be followed by banning nationalist symbols such as the tricolour.

MagicMarker

Zebra3 wrote: »

Great news.

Personally I think all religions should be banned.

They're just a money making scam from gullible people.

Queue Jackass in 3.....2......1.....

Chaotic_Forces

Biggins wrote: »

Its ONLY my own reading of it (and open to be wrong) but I think as a state building, such symbols they are saying, should be put by in an official capacity.
What a child wears, draws etc, is another area that might have to be addressed in following up from this possible ruling.

What? The first part I don't really understand. Can you dumb it down, please?

fontanalis

OutlawPete wrote: »

Welcome to the melting pot.

Ireland R.I.P.

What with the what now?
Your version of Ireland never existed. Wrapping the country in suppsosed catholicism didn't prevent institutionalised child abuse, mass emigration and high unemployment.

Penn

Goodbye.

RichieC

OutlawPete wrote: »

Ireland R.I.P.

lawl.

Dan133269

As far as I am aware, this case concerns the compulsory nature of the religious symbols in Italian schools as required by law. It is possible that this will have no implication for the Irish situation.

Also, this is the European Court of Human Rights, not the ECJ. While we must respect the European Convention on Human Rights, breaches happen without consequences, for example the recent ECtHR decision that Ireland's abortion laws breached the ECHR.

Interesting case nevertheless.

Canis Lupus

MagicMarker wrote: »

Queue Jackass in 3.....2......1.....

de na na na na na na na JAKKASS!!!

ScumLord

Bye bye heavy metal tshirts and pencil cases.

RichieC

fontanalis wrote: »

What with the what now?
Your version of Irleand never existed.

it was better when christian brothers were beating children to within an inch of their lives and priests were raping kids.

Biggins

Nodin wrote: »

Theres only two fair ways of doing it - all or none. Though an atheist I'd rather "all", though the fact that theres always a whinger will mean it would probably be none....

Indeed. Personally I would have no objection to anyone having some sort of display of ALL the religions represented according to those that are in any one particular classroom.
One symbol for each religion maybe?
If the class room is 100% catholic then to be honest, I don't see a problem with a symbol of their faith being displayed.
It obviously would be different if there was other denominations/religions in the same rooms however.

...Just a thought and open to be corrected...

fontanalis

RichieC wrote: »

it was better when christian brothers were beating children to within an inch of their lives and priests were raping kids.

Some people seem to get misty eyed about it.
But if we piss of god he might inflict a famine on Ireland.

fontanalis

RichieC wrote: »

I don't think a man nailed to a cross is a particularly good thing to have on the walls of childrens classrooms anyway.

EU might actually do something good for once

Good job he wasn't killed in the dark ages or it may be a symbol of a man being burned at the stake.

Biggins

fontanalis wrote: »

Good job he wasn't killed in the dark ages or it may be a symbol of a man being burned at the stake.

...Or hung, drawn and quartered...

* shudders at the thought *

RichieC

fontanalis wrote: »

Good job he wasn't killed in the dark ages or it may be a symbol of a man being burned at the stake.

imagine if they had of smashed his face in with a hammer!

Nodin

RichieC wrote: »

imagine if they had of smashed his face in with a hammer!

...broken on the wheel, maybe?

Ebbs

Im kind of split over this. While I am a angry keyboard atheist, the cross has grown to mean more than christianity.

Ive seen people get tattoos, necklaces and such that dont believe in christ, but believe in a god. While I agree these people are indeed idiots to disassoiate the image of christ as christianity, it is widely accepted in popular culture that a cross means more than christianity.

MitchKoobski

Hopefully it goes through, please god.

richymcdermott

how can they teach math to kids now :S (+) sign no more

Cool Mo D

The ruling will make almost no difference either way.

The vast majority of Irish schools are private (although they are state funded).

Therefore banning religious symbols in state schools will have no effect.

Unpossible

Biggins wrote: »

Its ONLY my own reading of it (and open to be wrong) but I think as a state building, such symbols they are saying, shouldn't be put up in an official capacity.
What a child wears, draws etc, is another area that might have to be addressed in following up from this possible ruling.

Highlighted is the tricky bit, in Ireland your average "religious" school e.g. C.B.S. schools are technically "private" aren't they? As far as I'm aware state owned schools are already free from religious symbols. Similarly I've been told that this is the case in the UK, the public schools have no symbols but the private catholic ones do.

If this is aiming for all schools it will also affect the small number of private Islamic schools.

Personally I think it would be interesting to see all religious symbols banned frm schools. However a more practical idea would just be to not allow schools to display them.

MagicMarker

Ebbs wrote: »

it is widely accepted in popular culture that a cross means more than christianity.

Such as......?

positron

Do we have a secular constituation to begin with..?!

fontanalis

Ebbs wrote: »

Im kind of split over this. While I am a angry keyboard atheist, the cross has grown to mean more than christianity.

Ive seen people get tattoos, necklaces and such that dont believe in christ, but believe in a god. While I agree these people are indeed idiots to disassoiate the image of christ as christianity, it is widely accepted in popular culture that a cross means more than christianity.

But ultimately it's sign of jseus dying for everyones sins (ok it's god sending himslef to protect us from him because adam and eve ate some fruit). Now in christianity, only belivers go to heaven and non belivers go to hell; so what you're saying to non christian (children mind you, not that most christian children have a choice in what they believe) children is that because you don't believe in that man/god you are going to hell.
Lovely stuff.

Biggins

Unpossible wrote: »

Highlighted is the tricky bit, in Ireland your average "religious" school e.g. C.B.S. schools are technically private aren't they? As far as I'm aware state owned schools are already free from religious symbols. Similarly I've been told that this is the case in the UK, the public schools have no symbols but the "private" catholic ones do.

You could indeed be very right. Its something that will have to be looked at with the outcome of the ruling today.

Unpossible wrote: »

...Personally I think it would be interesting to see all religious symbols banned form schools. However a more practical idea would just be to not allow schools to display them.

Aye. That might just be the more easier route to take than get bogged down in legal technicalities that some orgs will want to twist through, to get their way.

Zebra3

MagicMarker wrote: »

Such as......?

Well, the cross originally meant the Romans were gonna execute you.

There's also the Celtic cross which is a different type of cross.

Zebra3

positron wrote: »

Do we have a secular constituation to begin with..?!

Nope, loads of stuff about Jaysus in it. :mad:

philologos

Canis Lupus wrote: »

de na na na na na na na JAKKASS!!!

I have zero issue with this actually as long as it only pertains to what is in the room rather than what individual students choose to wear.

PrincessLola

Unpossible wrote: »

Highlighted is the tricky bit, in Ireland your average "religious" school e.g. C.B.S. schools are technically private aren't they?.

But they recieve state funding. Teachers salaries are also paid by the gov.

Nodin

I think its only God....

partyatmygaff

MagicMarker wrote: »

Such as......?

Two perpendicular lines...

Unpossible

Biggins wrote: »

Aye. That might just be the more easier route to take than get bogged down in legal technicalities that some orgs will want to twist through, to get their way.

It would also better prepare students for the real world. Much as I would like religion to be kept quietly in peoples homes the fact remains that it isn't and we need the next generation to look past the fact that the person they are dealing with is wearing a cross/head scarf etc.
Forcing all students to not display religious symbols in school will bring a whole host of difficulties such as enforcement, claims by some quarters that it restricts their human rights and may end up in segregation for certain religions.

pragmatic1

I'm an atheist but I dont think religious symbols should be banned. All religions should be represented instead.

Unpossible

PrincessLola wrote: »

But they recieve state funding. Teachers salaries are also paid by the gov.

Yep, hence my quotes around the word private for the Irish catholic schools and not for the other types I mentioned. Its really trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Biggins

Unpossible wrote: »

...we need the next generation to look past the fact that the person they are dealing with is wearing a cross/head scarf etc.
Forcing all students to not display religious symbols in school will bring a whole host of difficulties such as enforcement, claims by some quarters that it restricts their human rights and may end up in segregation for certain religions.

Indeed, its minefield of arguments for and against.
There already have been cases in England (and Europe elsewhere possibly) similar about clothing at schools.
Its a whole mess what up to now hasn't been resolved to a good conclusion and for the foreseeable future, I don't see being resolved further either.
I do think that we have to start somewhere though and such steps like the above mention in my first post, have to be tried.
It might be hit and miss at times but only by trying such efforts will we be able to further down the line change, tweak etc, maybe come to a better conclusion.
I'm an eternal optimist.

fontanalis

On the plus side it will piss David Quinn off.

Biggins

fontanalis wrote: »

On the plus side it will piss David Quinn off.

Forgive my genuine lack of knowledge. Who?

Zebra3

pragmatic1 wrote: »

I'm an atheist but I dont think religious symbols should be banned. All religions should be represented instead.

Every single religion?

How many is that?

OutlawPete

fontanalis wrote: »

Your version of Ireland never existed. Wrapping the country in suppsosed catholicism didn't prevent institutionalised child abuse, mass emigration and high unemployment.

What are you talking about?

How do you know what MY "version" of Ireland is.

It is the reasons that we are doing this that I take issue with.

What's next, stop Christmas Carols being sung on Grafton St or take down the pope's cross if someone complains that it's spoiling their enjoyment of having a picnic in the park.

Biggins

Zebra3 wrote: »

Every single religion?

How many is that?

Lord knows (no pun intended) but it will be plus or minus one, depending how you feel about Scientology.

Ghost Buster

pragmatic1 wrote: »

I'm an atheist but I dont think religious symbols should be banned. All religions should be represented instead.

All.
We're gonna need a bigger class room:eek:

MagicMarker

pragmatic1 wrote: »

I'm an atheist but I dont think religious symbols should be banned. All religions should be represented instead.

No.