Vance,
It identifies on what side of the cross you stand; as the one inflicting the injustice, or the one willing to forgive your enemy. Life is identified by giving onself and forgiving one's oppressors, only in that context does it have meaning.

Interesting article.

Not being Italian nor having a great knowledge of cultural practices in Italy I can't comment on the idea of a crucifix being a neutral symbol in that context. It does seem an unlikely proposition. Agreed that it's used elsewhere and that the issue is complicated by how often the idea of a god pop's up in historical artefacts which continue on (God save the Queen).

I do think that there is a fundamental difference between the rights of individuals to exercise religious freedom and when the state promotes a particular religious belief.

I also don't agree with the idea that religious beliefs should get some kind of special treatment over other belief/value/cultural systems. Eg if people can get an exemption from dress codes/uniform policies then they should be able to get them for other reasons.

R0bert

The article reports some of the Court’s observations but conveys nothing of its line of argument. No wonder, for its approach was entirely wrong-headed. One would have expected it to start by examining - against the background of Italy being a secular state and the State’s “duty of neutrality and impartiality” (para 60), not least in teaching about religion and belief - whether there was a prima facie breach of Mrs Lautsi’s human rights under Article 2 of the first protocol. If so - highly likely given the Court’s original unanimous judgement - it could then have decided whether Italy’s margin of appreciation rescued it from liability.

But it did none of this. Instead, it inverted the question of neutrality into a test of indoctrination (saying in effect “nothing short of indoctrination can be a breach of human rights”). It then argued from a presumption of the Italian law being covered by the margin of appreciation unless indoctrination could be proved.

A more detailed critique on these lines can be found here: http://www.humanistfederation.eu/download/277-Critique%20of%20Lautsi%20appeal%20judgement.pdf.

Professor Weiler's argument enthusiastically espousing the collective rights of nations at the expense of the human rights of individuals was deeply disturbing: where is the logical break between the Italian nation’s denial of Mrs Lautsi’s rights in the name of national identity and the German nation’s denial of the rights of Jews in the name of its National Socialist identity? He would presumably be reduced to arguing that some other Article supervened to rescue him from the logic of his position in Lautsi.

The judgement is seriously flawed, grossly illogical and unworthy of the Court. It was reached in the face of an unprecedented campaign of political and religious pressure on the Court, which seems to have tamely capitulated in the face of what looked like a ‘Holy Alliance’ of the Catholic and Orthodox states that backed its appeal urged on by the Vatican, the Greek Orthodox Church and other reactionary religious interests whose fears of losing influence in an increasingly secular Europe will have been abated by this judgement.

Dave Pollock:

…You could précis all your points with “A classic case of not what you know, but who you know”. Simply demonstration of loyalty at work IMO.

Pericles:

...You express a distaste for the “Antecedent”, but as in maths, discover the inequality; is the inequality to have a cross, or is the inequality not to have a cross? It is all too obvious, so why all the fuss?

...This decision is a small step towards the outcome the “world” awaits, stability and rest from the stupidity of a wayward and moralless Capitalism, and the rule by the Godless!

PS: you have my response re: “Hate session with Wall Street”. Thanks, have fun!

Thanks to David Pollock. I'll admit to not knowing what "margin of appreciation" meant until I read David's cited analysis of the judgment which clearly and convincingly illustrated its flaws. Diver Dan might be right in suggesting that the decision might owe more to the influence wielded by the appealing countries than to the worth of their case but to suggest, as I think he does, that David Pollock's analysis is unnecessary reading misses the point. David's pointing out that the court has effectively begun by assuming as fact the position it wanted to reach by "logic" is revealing and devastating. If you haven't read his cited analysis of the flaws in the court's judgment, I think you should. Even Runner.

By the way, doesn't "crucifix" mean not just a cross but a cross with Jesus attached? How can such a symbol possibly be judged to be merely passive when it is trumpeting as fact the hotly contested belief that the resurrection occurred?

Glen C

...It is interesting how life chooses to form us as individuals. Sadly I am intellectually lazy, and as water follows the easiest path down-hill, I always search for simplicity of applied experience and logic for evaluating outcomes. Since we exercise little control over most major decisions affecting our lives, this is but one example.

...I appreciate the outcome of a decision to allow the crucifix to adorn the walls of public schools in Italy is a decision with little effect in this country, but boy it makes me feel very happy. Should it? Yes I believe it should; is this the turning point against the idiocy of political correctness? If not a step forward, then it must rate as a stopping point in the least! The attitude I confess is not connected to the intricacies of the finer argument, but drawing on the excuse of a lazy intellect and passing the argument over for the priority of the outcome of the benefits of the decision, I believe ignorance is justified!