1. Comment #429446 by Pedantic Twit on November 4, 2009 at 5:04 pm

So it's not a symbol of Christianity? And Christianity isn't a group defined by exclusionary dogma?

Fascinating.

Other Comments by Pedantic Twit

2. Comment #429448 by blakjack on November 4, 2009 at 5:08 pm

A crucifix in a classroom is a reflection on cultural history, not present-day religious persuasions. We have many instances of cultural history, for example use of Roman Numerals on clocks, but that in no way implies that we want to change our number system back to that used by the Romans.

Frankly, there are far better things to get excited about than the odd crucifix here and there. They mean nothing to me any more than does for example, the current plot in popular soap operas.

Jack

Other Comments by blakjack

3. Comment #429451 by Enders on November 4, 2009 at 5:13 pm

Freude schöner Götterfunke
Tochter aus Elyssium
wir betreten feuertrunken Himmlische,
dein Heiligtum.

Awesome news. About time I'll say.

Other Comments by Enders

4. Comment #429457 by WilliamSatire on November 4, 2009 at 5:26 pm

Because of course, telling people what to do always works!

Other Comments by WilliamSatire

5. Comment #429462 by Border Collie on November 4, 2009 at 5:37 pm

Don't get me wrong here, I'm all for much more secularism and much less religion, but who really cares about this? When symbols such as these are gone, they'll be replaced by symbols of the state and the corporation. Yeah, yeah, I know, what evidence do I have? Just watch what happens. Simply because we won't allow ourselves to be ruled by idiot wing-nuts doesn't mean that we won't allow ourselves to be ruled by idiot politicians, corporations or world courts.

Other Comments by Border Collie

6. Comment #429465 by keddaw on November 4, 2009 at 5:40 pm

"The crucifix is a universal symbol of love, meekness and peace" Or an horrific way to torture someone to death.

"...a symbol of unity and welcoming for all of humanity, not one of exclusion." Except if you don't believe you go to hell for eternity.

"An ancient tradition like the crucifix cannot be offensive to anyone." I dare say some Jewish people may get offended by it, not to mention athiests who think the very idea of someone else dying for their sins is abhorrent.

Other Comments by keddaw

7. Comment #429467 by FXR on November 4, 2009 at 5:50 pm

The anorexic nailed to two planks should be offensive to anyone with any concern for their children. It's a violent symbol that celebrates masochism. It carries with it a pessimistic view of human life and a glorification of suffering. It should be banned from schools, public buildings, church grounds in public view and mountain tops.

Other Comments by FXR

8. Comment #429470 by Rawhard Dickins on November 4, 2009 at 5:54 pm

I don't think children need to be frightened by the idea of being nailed to a cross any more.

Although it has been a great way of winning recruits!

Other Comments by Rawhard Dickins

9. Comment #429475 by George Lennan on November 4, 2009 at 6:08 pm

"Classroom crucifixes were made compulsory by two laws in the 1920s when Italy was a fascist state"

says it all...

On the other hand, rather a nice chwistian cwoss than a sodding crescent moon, which is what we'll get unless we stand up for our progressive values against them-from-there's.

Other Comments by George Lennan

10. Comment #429476 by dal on November 4, 2009 at 6:09 pm

In that case, could the Vatican please hand over all their crucifixes to the Italian state? Being a symbol of Italian national identity, they have no place in an international religious institute.

Other Comments by dal

11. Comment #429477 by Demotruk on November 4, 2009 at 6:10 pm

I wonder will this have implications here in Ireland, where we have predominantly religious schools, but they are funded by the state (and have mostly secular staff).

Other Comments by Demotruk

12. Comment #429478 by mlgatheist on November 4, 2009 at 6:27 pm

"said the crucifix was a fundamental sign of the importance of religious values in Italian history and culture, and was a symbol of unity and welcoming for all of humanity, not one of exclusion. "

1st, the crucifix is a sign of sick minds. A statue of a man tormented and hanging from a cross for over 1700 years is sick.

2nd, Italy may have the vatican on it's soil, but that does not mean that everyone in Italy is catholic. Nor is everyone there even some version of xtianity. All non-xtians have a right to attend a school without being made to feel less than a 1st class citizen.

3rd, xtianity is not unifying nor all embracing. They treat people who believe the nonsense in the new testament far differently than they treat those that do not. Remember what they did to so-called witches and jews during the dark ages, when the catholic church ruled Europe.

Other Comments by mlgatheist

13. Comment #429488 by Linda Ward Selbie on November 4, 2009 at 6:49 pm

Here is another GU, Cif, piece on the subject that seems to be rattling the cages of believers:

'Italians reject crucifix ruling' by Manuela Mesco.

Crucifix Ruling

The Italian public has united against the European court in its ruling against crucifixes in classrooms

Ms Mesco's piece in the GU is more like tabloid trash as it isn't reflecting fact based reality of what Italians do think about this issue:

I crocifissi nelle aule

La presenza dei crocifissi nelle aule scolastiche costituisce ''una violazione del diritto dei genitori ad educare i figli secondo le loro convinzioni'' e una violazione alla ''liberta' di religione degli alunni''. Lo ha stabilito la Corte europea dei diritti dell'uomo. Siete d'accordo?

The presence of crucifixes in classrooms is''a violation of the right of parents to educate their children according to their convictions''and''a violation of freedom 'of religion of students.'' This was established by the European Court of Human Rights. Do you agree?

It looks to me as if the 'Si's' are the majority at (64%). This reflects that the Italian population is growing up intellectually. If only they would purge the priests from the Vatican and stop being tithed (4 billion euros a year) to support that mob of clerics. Hampered by mobsters and the Vatican it may take Italy a few more years to get with the programme.

Shame on the Guardian for giving Cif space to those who are not telling the truth.

If kids stop being initiated at birth then the true number of believers would be counted. Advertising Iron Age beliefs in classrooms, post offices or any public public buildings is inappropriate.

It is rather weird to see crucifixes, implements of torture, on display in banks too.

Other Comments by Linda Ward Selbie

14. Comment #429490 by j.mills on November 4, 2009 at 6:53 pm

Great fun. A cross in a classroom is a passive endorsement of christianity in particular and religion in general. It renders more acceptable what instead should be more challenged. Getting rid is a Good Thing.

Depressing standard of 'argument' in response, though:

Silvio Berlusconi's education minister, Maria Stella Gelmini, said: "No one, not even some ideologically motivated European court, will succeed in rubbing out our identity."

Daft strawman, no one's trying to 'rub out' the 'Italian identity' (whatever that would mean); but out of interest, how is catholicism not "ideologically motivated"?

The anger of the clerics indicates how important they perceive the classroom crucifix to be in their cause. Which means a blow has here been struck against religiosity.

Other Comments by j.mills

15. Comment #429491 by Jos Gibbons on November 4, 2009 at 6:53 pm

One wonders whether or not these crucifixes had Jesus on them. The Catholic Bible for some reason is missing the commandment against idolatry, and lo and behold they like having Jesus on their crucifix, whereas Protestants do not. Whichever kind of crucifix was found in a classroom would be preferential regarding the Catholic-Protestant distinction, not just pro-Christian. This being Italy, which if I understand correctly is mostly Catholic (insofar as it is religious) with very few Protestants, I imagine the crucifixes were the kind amenable to the majority of local Christians, especially since Mussolini had them installed. All the same, one wonders how Protestants feel about all this.

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

16. Comment #429492 by Richard Dawkins on November 4, 2009 at 6:53 pm

Forgive me for not welcoming this judgment with unalloyed joy. If I thought the motive was secularist I would indeed welcome it. But are we sure it is not pandering to 'multiculturalism', which in Europe is code for Islam? And if you think Catholicism is evil . . .

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

17. Comment #429494 by TIKI AL on November 4, 2009 at 6:57 pm

Children are intimidated, pressured, and influenced by these crosses.

As I recall another part of Italy's history involves a twisted cross, however I do not see these on prominent display in the classrooms.

Other Comments by TIKI AL

18. Comment #429497 by Linda Ward Selbie on November 4, 2009 at 7:06 pm

Richard Dawkins - Surely you noticed that the pro-sharia UK march fizzled last weekend into nothing.

Shaaz Mahboob:

A good day for democracy

Supporters of Islam4UK called off their demonstration, but on Saturday we went ahead, marching to defend secular values

BTW - My Berkeley question is more of hope actually that you will write a book addressing the issue of human overpopulation.

Linda

Other Comments by Linda Ward Selbie

19. Comment #429498 by Flapjack on November 4, 2009 at 7:15 pm

I'm almost tempted to think let them have their crucifixes in the spirit of live-and-let-live. But then I think of the expression on Darth Ratzinberger's face when they break the news that he can't even make Italy conform to catholic dogma, and somehow it makes it all worthwhile!

Other Comments by Flapjack

20. Comment #429504 by carbonman on November 4, 2009 at 7:35 pm

Mixed feelings on this one. If electrocution had been the mode of execution in first century Judaea these schools would presumably have model electric chairs, some complete with smoking corpse, adorning classroom walls. (I think it was Sam Harris who said that.) Getting rid of ubiquitous images of torture and death, especially if they carry a sinister payload of guilt and original sin, can't be a bad thing. Now we need to get rid of the obscene ideology that goes with them.

But the other ingredient in my feelings mix is unease. Words like 'banned' risk deifying the faith heads in the eyes of many, infected as they are with the dangerous notion that religion is all about being nice. I think the ideology has to be the first issue, and the symbology should passively die with it.

Other Comments by carbonman

21. Comment #429510 by Stonyground on November 4, 2009 at 7:55 pm

Though Islam is pretty evil, I would say that in view of European history Catholicism is worse. At the present time the Catholic Church only refrains from the obscene cruelty that it practiced in the past because it is restricted by the secular society around it. If it were ever given free reign again, I think that on balance I would prefer Islam as marginally the lesser of two evils.

Other Comments by Stonyground

22. Comment #429511 by bendigeidfran on November 4, 2009 at 7:56 pm

Comment #429504 by carbonman

Lenny Bruce

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

23. Comment #429514 by clunkclickeverytrip on November 4, 2009 at 8:12 pm

At least it's a move in the right direction, although muslims must be pleased. Anything that dilutes the effects of Christianity while not particularly secularizing, suits their agenda, as RD notes. Here in Ottawa, Canada, there is a separate Catholic school system - I can just imagine their horror at being told to remove crosses from classroom walls (assuming they are there, not having been in such a classroom). How does this ruling affect faith schools in the UK?

Other Comments by clunkclickeverytrip

24. Comment #429518 by Kmita on November 4, 2009 at 8:32 pm

I saw one person had replied to the article saying that despite the fact they were a humanist, he did not agree with the decision. He went on to explain how the religious garbage floating around his english school had no effect on him. He concluded by saying the mother who started this all was in fact wrong.

Why is this such a common mistake? Is it so damned hard for people to understand? Your INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCE does NOT extend to an objective truth. You cannot make such hasty generalizations if you hope to come across as anything more than a stupid jackass.

Other Comments by Kmita

25. Comment #429522 by Tiberius9 on November 4, 2009 at 8:42 pm

"The crucifix is a universal symbol of love, meekness and peace." No. Historically the crucifix is an instrument of torture. What kind of people praise an instrument of torture£ (Yeh, I know.)

Other Comments by Tiberius9

26. Comment #429527 by clunkclickeverytrip on November 4, 2009 at 8:54 pm

The crucifix is a symbol - like the spray of a tomcat marking its territory.

Other Comments by clunkclickeverytrip

27. Comment #429532 by Twatsworth on November 4, 2009 at 8:59 pm

Though Islam is pretty evil, I would say that in view of European history Catholicism is worse. At the present time the Catholic Church only refrains from the obscene cruelty that it practiced in the past because it is restricted by the secular society around it. If it were ever given free reign again, I think that on balance I would prefer Islam as marginally the lesser of two evils.

I severely doubt that this is true. 87% of the Republic of Ireland identifies as Roman Catholic, yet it is frequently held as one of the best places to live in the entire world. Ireland's GDP per capita, Human Development Index, Quality of Life Index, and various other statistics assessing the extent of human well-being in Ireland, are generally near the very top of the pile.

Other primarily Catholic countries such as Italy and Spain likewise perform well enough according to most or all of these metrics. (For instance, they both come ahead of UK in Human Development and Quality of Life indices.) Naturally, Islamic countries achieve poorly on all these things. To get an even worse picture, look at these State of the World Liberty Index rankings. The highest ranked Muslim nation, Turkey, is in position 84.

If Catholism were such a horrible religion, on anything like the scale of Islam, you would not expect Ireland, Italy and Spain to be doing even nearly so well. Catholism still might be an overall force for evil. However, it seems unlikely that it is a very significant force for evil, at least when compared with Islam.

(As goes without saying, the situation would not have been the same 70 years ago, back when the world was threatened by the Catholic-aligned fascism of Mussolini, Franco, and Hitler. The unpredictability of religion is perhaps another reason for fighting all faith, right across the board.)

Other Comments by Twatsworth

28. Comment #429534 by Simon Wilson on November 4, 2009 at 9:08 pm

Sorry, Richard, but I disagree. Those members of Islam who hate us couldnt care whether we are believers or not.
What I like about this decision is that it sets a precedent. Surely, now ALL schools in Italy must take down religious symbols??

Other Comments by Simon Wilson

29. Comment #429538 by LaurieB on November 4, 2009 at 9:20 pm

A ban on crucifixes doesn’t go far enough. Italy should take an example from France and ban religious symbols from public schools.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/02/10/france.headscarves/

Apparently there were some protests in France after the law passed but they fizzled out with no further ado.

Belgium may be following their lead.

http://www.euronews.net/2009/09/12/headscarf-ban-in-some-belgian-schools/

Italians may be more receptive to an overall religious symbols ban.

Other Comments by LaurieB

30. Comment #429539 by the great teapot on November 4, 2009 at 9:22 pm

"Shouldn't the symbol of Italian identity be a dropped rifle?"

Tutt, tutt,previous1.
Italians always fight bravely upto the point they are finally liberated by the enemy.

Anyway, I am not saying my mother in law is fat..

Other Comments by the great teapot

31. Comment #429543 by decius on November 4, 2009 at 9:40 pm

Comment #429492 by Richard Dawkins

But are we sure it is not pandering to 'multiculturalism', which in Europe is code for Islam? And if you think Catholicism is evil . . .

The wording of the ruling is indeed ambiguous and may be partly prompted by multicultural reasoning.

...una violazione della libertà dei genitori ad educare i figli secondo le loro convinzioni e della libertà di religione degli alunni.

[Hanging crucifixes constitutes] a violation of the parental freedom to educate one's children according to one's convictions, and of the student's freedom of religion.

However, the legal action was initiated in 2002 by a Finnish-Italian couple, who are both members of UAAR (Unione degli Atei e degli Agnostici Razionalisti). They were entirely motivated by secular and anticlerical considerations.

In Italy they lost three separate rulings, but took the matter further to Strasburg.

As an Italian expat, I perceive this as an important victory and a long-overdue slap to Italian politicians, lawmakers and courts, who contemptuously disregard the separation of church and state granted by the constitution.

Edited for clarity.

Other Comments by decius

32. Comment #429549 by notsobad on November 4, 2009 at 10:12 pm

Angers Italy?
It's just the usual suspects afraid of losing grip on the population.
Where are the marches and people taking kids from public schools en masse?

Other Comments by notsobad

33. Comment #429550 by Mr DArcy on November 4, 2009 at 10:14 pm

Classroom crucifixes were made compulsory by two laws in the 1920s when Italy was a fascist state.

When Mussolini was in charge of the Italian state,(yes he who made the trains run on time), and before Franco had grabbed power in Spain and that other Catholic, Hitler was elected in Germany. And they say the cross is a symbol of love? I just don't get it.

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

34. Comment #429557 by Rikitiki13 on November 4, 2009 at 11:00 pm

Hey, Italians...how about a REAL Italian national symbol:

The olive wreath worn by the ceasars£ After all, Italy has had many more ceasars than "messiahs" and they have an earlier historical provenance.

Wreath = symbol of authority/nation
Olive branch = symbol of peace

What could be more inclusive£ (unless there's some religion that objects to olives, of course...)

Other Comments by Rikitiki13

35. Comment #429560 by Tartan on November 4, 2009 at 11:03 pm

An old one:

Little David was a Jewish boy who was not doing well in math. His father told him that if his grades did not improve, he would have to send David to Catholic school. David didn't know anything about Catholics or Catholic school, so his father's warnings had no impact. When he received his next report card, he had failed math.

His father made good on his promise, and enrolled David in the local Catholic school. After one term, David brought home his grades, and he had an A in math!

His father said, "I guess your new teachers got through to you and got you to learn. What happened?" David said, "When I walked into the school and saw that poor guy nailed to the plus sign, I knew those Catholics were serious about math."

Other Comments by Tartan

36. Comment #429566 by Godfree Gordon on November 4, 2009 at 11:20 pm

"The crucifix is a universal symbol of love, meekness and peace. Preventing it from being displayed is an act of violence against the deep-seated feelings of the Italian people and all persons of goodwill."

And if you don't agree you can burn in hell...

Other Comments by Godfree Gordon

37. Comment #429573 by NakedCelt on November 4, 2009 at 11:43 pm

Comment #429492 by Richard Dawkins:

If I thought the motive was secularist I would indeed welcome it. But are we sure it is not pandering to 'multiculturalism', which in Europe is code for Islam?

I'm not sure it matters as much as your comment implies. A struggle between two rival religions might be ugly, but isn't it likely to promote secularism in the long run as people recognise that neither of them has an unquestioned claim to the truth? It's been argued that's how secularism arose in the first place, out of the Reformation...

Other Comments by NakedCelt

38. Comment #429581 by Rawhard Dickins on November 5, 2009 at 12:11 am

No! Keep them I say!

What are kids going to use for target practice?

Other Comments by Rawhard Dickins

39. Comment #429587 by SaintStephen on November 5, 2009 at 12:28 am

35. Comment #429560 by Tartan on November 4, 2009 at 11:03 pm

An oldie but still a goodie, indeed!

Other Comments by SaintStephen

40. Comment #429593 by The Hogfather on November 5, 2009 at 12:43 am

Firstly, I think I might file that little factoid about fascist Italy making classroom crucifixes compulsory in the 20s somewhere in the dark recesses of my brain. It may come in handy when the religionists try to argue that Fascism=Atheism. Another point is how on earth would compulsory crucifixies be enforced??

Secondly, I really don't care very much about this issue. So some people want to decorate their classroom walls with a symbol of a man being hideously crucified, okay it's weird perhaps and a little disturbing (particularly around children), but not exactly that offensive. Not as offensive as saying that everybody that does not worship the RIGHT God in the RIGHT way will go to hell and suffer everlasting torment, for example. BUT the reason I find this article interesting is because of the extraordinary reaction of the Catholics to the mere threat of these crucifixes being removed. All I have to do is quote Claudio Scajola and that sort of says it all:-

"The crucifix is a universal symbol of love, meekness and peace. Preventing it from being displayed is an act of violence against the deep-seated feelings of the Italian people and all persons of goodwill".

An act of violence, AN ACT OF VIOLENCE!!! What is the man talking about. Plus it would be nice to have him explain exactly how a crucifix, a device of death and torture, can possibly be interpretated as a "universal symbol of love"!!! Actually no, I will take that back, as I know the kind of labourous nebulous theological mumbo-jumbo I will get in reply.

Other Comments by The Hogfather

41. Comment #429597 by martin44 on November 5, 2009 at 1:10 am

I just wanted to correct a factual error made by Twatsworth. S/he wrote that the top "Muslim nation" on the "State of the World Liberty Index rankings" at position 84 was Turkey. Bahrain, Albania, Kuwait, Mali and Senegal are all above Turkey on that list and I think they could all be defined as Muslim nations.

On the larger question of whether one religion is actually intrinsically more evil than the other, I doubt if one can actually easily define either religion so the idea is a bit meaningless. If I were to attempt to define the ideologies by resort to history, however, I would think I could make a case that Islam is actually slightly less evil in practice.

Other Comments by martin44

42. Comment #429605 by Alternative Carpark on November 5, 2009 at 1:43 am

The crucifix only appears inoffensive because most people don't think about what it really is.

Take it down, I say. Stick a smiley up there, or something.

Does anyone remember what the late great Bill Hicks said about crucifixes?

Ah, here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17lNs9EFOYI

Other Comments by Alternative Carpark

43. Comment #429613 by Merlyn LeRoy on November 5, 2009 at 3:11 am

If I thought the motive was secularist I would indeed welcome it. But are we sure it is not pandering to 'multiculturalism', which in Europe is code for Islam?

One of the best ways to combat any religious extremists in my opinion is to fight vigorously for religious freedom and equality for all.

If Italy can have crucifixes in state schools when Catholics are a majority, any area with a Muslim majority will either have to blatantly treat Muslims as second-class citizens and deny them the same "right" to have state schools promote religion, or allow Muslims to also use the power of the state to promote their religion. Genuine religious wars are likely to follow, no matter which path is taken.

Fight for religious rights to keep your own.

Other Comments by Merlyn LeRoy

44. Comment #429629 by prolibertas on November 5, 2009 at 6:44 am

Hm yes, I was thinking 'who cares' until I thought 'well what if it was the crescent moon??'. Yes, they do have to remove the cross from public places, and then we can say that to be consistent they'll have to treat the crescent moon the same way.

And maybe then liberals will wake up to the fact that Islam is a RELIGION, an ideology, not a goddamn 'race'.

Other Comments by prolibertas

45. Comment #429632 by TheVirginian on November 5, 2009 at 7:16 am

The purpose of putting Christian symbols or slogans or having Christian voodoo rituals in government spaces (classrooms, official meetings, courts, etc.) is to declare that Christianity is the official religion and should have government support. Even if this is only an unofficial "official" establishment, aggressive Christians will use it to push the boundaries of Christian control even further.

In the U.S., we have examples of such theocratic "camel's nose in the tent" activity, such as allowing Christian witchdoctors (with the occasional token Jewish or Muslim witchdoctor) to give a voodoo incantation at city or county government meetings, but denying other religious minorities a similar opportunity. Christians in the military coerce non-Christians or non-evangelical Christians. Every Winter Solstice celebration brings an outburst of the "The heathen atheist commies are kicking our voodoo spirit out of this ancient holiday that we stole from the pagans" propaganda. Etc. If this were just from a powerless fringe, that would be one thing. But we've had prominent government leaders in the U.S. publicly support this theocratic tyranny. U.S. Supreme Court Injustice Antonin Scalia is an outspoken theocrat who says 1950s First Amendment violations "prove" that Christianity is the national religion, and I'm sure his echo Clarence Thomas agrees. Bush simply stole taxpayers money to give to witchdoctors and their cults, using a similar argument, that too many Democrats - Obama included - apparently accept.

So whatever the legal basis of the crucifix ruling, getting Christian symbols in any form out of government is a victory for freedom and human rights.

Other Comments by TheVirginian

46. Comment #429642 by hungarianelephant on November 5, 2009 at 9:43 am

16. Comment #429492 by Richard Dawkins

Forgive me for not welcoming this judgment with unalloyed joy. If I thought the motive was secularist I would indeed welcome it. But are we sure it is not pandering to 'multiculturalism', which in Europe is code for Islam? And if you think Catholicism is evil . . .

That depends how you look at it.

There doesn't seem to be an English version of the judgment published yet. Going on the reports, it looks like a decision that state schools cannot put up religious symbols, and more broadly that they must have "confessional neutrality". That is explicitly secularist in effect. It is also good news if you are in a minority religion esp. Islam, in that you will not have to look at crucifixes in school; but what it doesn't do is promote Islam in schools. Quite the opposite.

The hallmark of British "multiculturalism" has been the preservation of separate groups with little effort to integrate, and different rules apparently being applied. This judgment seems to be the opposite of that: it insists that the state and its doings (including state schools) must be neutral as between religions, and non-religions.

The open question is what should happen in private schools. I would have to read the judgment for pointers on that, but based on the European Convention on Human Rights, I would expect that a private school could put up crucifixes, incense burners and scale models of Hell if they chose to do so.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

47. Comment #429645 by gos on November 5, 2009 at 10:41 am

Go Finland!

The direct quotes from the religious apologists in the article are all pretty hilarious as well.

Other Comments by gos

48. Comment #429660 by Nunbeliever on November 5, 2009 at 12:55 pm

A Vatican spokesman, Federico Lombardi, said the crucifix was a fundamental sign of the importance of religious values in Italian history and culture, and was a symbol of unity and welcoming for all of humanity, not one of exclusion.

Excuse me? How on earth is having an exclusively CHRISTIAN symbol in all classrooms a sign of "welcoming for all of humanity"???

Does Frederico Lombardi's brain know what the mouth is doing? I suspect the answer is NO! Or is the vatican so used to people believing whatever stupidities they say, that they simply don't care.

Other Comments by Nunbeliever

49. Comment #429696 by Tyler Durden on November 5, 2009 at 4:25 pm

Any ruling which takes the macabre sight of a man nailed to a cross out of classrooms where children are taught has got to be a good thing - regardless of what label ("multiculturalism") one would attach to it.

Baby steps Richard, baby steps :)

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

50. Comment #429840 by PresterJ on November 5, 2009 at 10:26 pm

Forgive me for not welcoming this judgment with unalloyed joy. If I thought the motive was secularist I would indeed welcome it. But are we sure it is not pandering to 'multiculturalism', which in Europe is code for Islam? And if you think Catholicism is evil . . .

Richard

Neither I welcome this judgement, for two reasons.

1. I always failed to comprehend how a religious symbol can offend anybody (I consider myself agnostic). How about some tolerance to other people's cultures and traditions?

2. More importantly, this judgement will be hijacked by the right-wing parties, not least by the Lega Nord which forms part of the Berlusconi government. Italy is (unfortunately I might add) not very welcoming to immigrants. This will only fuel anti-immigrant sentiment which is definitely something that Italy doesn't need. Also I would be very surprised if this judgement is going to be enforced at all.

Other Comments by PresterJ