www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Storm over Italy crucifix ruling - Pray Europe wakes up

Dear Alex,

I agree with you that we have no separation of church and state in our country written into the words of the constitution.

What we do have is freedom from government imposing a religion on any of us. That is in the constitution. It is the issue we're talking about!

Do you sell tickets? :rolleyes: (You know who made me do that!)

Looking forward to seeing you again!

Steve

I think what we have nowdays in America is not an insistence on freedom of religion, but rather freedom from religion (in the form of Christianity) When a large cross in San Francisco's Mount Davidson Park (remember Dirty Harry) must be sold to a private interest, because the cross, which was in a public park, represents a violation of the seperation of church and state, you know we're living in a society that is increasingly becoming anti-Christian. How much longer before our country follows Republican Spain, with laws that make the public display of religion ( read Christianity) a crime.

But isn't Protestantism the religion of the United States? I always had the idea that American laws were originaly based on Protestant Humanism.

Actually, Mexican, the language of the founding fathers of the U.S. is not just inspired by Protestant religious priorities. There is a significant influence from Freemasons of that time, George Washington included, who are known for their deist tendencies, but do not promote any one religion at the expense of another. The Constitution and Declaration of Independence are very much products of the Enlightenment era itself, the Age of Reason, as opposed to one particular religious mindset. The freedom from a state imposed religion makes even more sense in light of that. The danger comes when folks decide to use the law for their own ends instead of the common good, IMHO.

Crux of the Crucifix, and Over-80 Cardinals
The Cross Finds New Friends, Sort of

By Delia Gallagher

ROME, OCT. 30, 2003 (Zenit.org).- The front page story of Italian newspapers this week is about the crucifix. A Muslim man from Egypt, Adel Smith, who now lives in the Italian town of Ofena, sued his son's public school because the crucifix in the classroom "bothered him." He won.

On Saturday, a district judge of Aquila handed down a sentence siding with Smith. "Public schools must be impartial regarding religious phenomena," the judge said.

Italy is in an uproar. Political leaders, both conservative and liberal, have condemned the sentence as "absurd" and "without intelligence." Italian President Carlo Azeglio Ciampi said the decision "is not definitive." Investigations into the judge, not to mention Smith (who is considered something of a maverick even by Muslims) have begun.

Suddenly, the crucifix has found itself with a bevy of new enthusiasts. Politicians hitherto antagonistic or indifferent to the Catholic Church (and to one another) have jumped to the defense of the ultimate Christian symbol. The Vatican need hardly say a word.

These politicians do not defend the crucifix insofar as it is a religious symbol, but because it has become a cultural symbol, "a symbol of the values that are at the base of our identity," says President Ciampi.

"It is an outrage to say so for a believer," writes author Umberto Eco in La Repubblica, "but the cross has become a secular and universal symbol."

Eco, who favors retaining crucifixes in the classroom, exhorts Adel Smith and all Muslims to "accept the uses and customs of their host country." He also invites the host country "to make sure that your uses and customs do not become impositions of your faith."

So it seems those who wish to save the crucifix from a Muslim who takes it to court, are themselves suing it for divorce. To separate faith from the cross will perhaps save it in the classroom but, to paraphrase C.S. Lewis, it makes it less like a cross.

The real question raised by this story is: When is a cross not a cross?

Yes, freedom of religion also includes the freedom FROM religion for Atheists and Agnostics.

Freedom of religion means the freedom to practise any religion..or none...

Christian

Christian

If you don't live in the US, you may not be aware of what I'am refering to. I know of people who have been threatened with termination from there job, if they so much as talk about there faith on company property. I know of people threatened with termination for so much as wearing a Crucifix or Cross while at work. I've heard of High School students threatened with suspension for praying OUTSIDE their school before classes, and personally, I was warned by an employer about 10 years ago, that I could not say Merry Christmas to customers ! That is what I mean by freedom from religion.

hal,

Your logic if faulty. One of the major factors in religious schools doing better than public is parental support. It has nothing to do with money. I see public school children every day waiting for the buses with hardly any books or bookbags on their back. What exactly do they do all day at school? They might not know where Brazil is on the map, but they do know where the nearest body-piercing shop is.

I tutored children years ago who came from pretty poor families in the inner city. They were quite intelligent and skilled.

Private/parochial schools would be much more affordable, hal, if our tax dollars went to the school of our choice. A lot of my money goes in taxes to support a poor performance public school, which spends more money per capita to educate than the parochial school my son attends. Why is this so?

Going with your logic, then those schools that are spending much more to educate a child should do better in school. Some public schools spend more money per capita than the first year at Harvard University! So, why do you suggest that wealthy families are the key factor to a better score when many public schools are spending more per child?

Do the math, my friend. It has nothing to do with money. It has everything to do with discipline and parental responsibility and involvement. The public school children in my area don�t have assignment books to be checked off and signed by parents every night. A student in my son�s school cannot slip by for one day without his teacher and parents knowing what he is not doing. The follow-up and monitoring is relentless. Discipline doesn�t cost money; poor performing schools do. How do the parents, who benefit from a more costly public school, know what their children are doing for homework? Its no wonder why high school graduates in my area can get a diploma while being illiterate.

Parents who send their children to private/parochial schools do pay a lot; they pay taxes for failing schools they don't utilize and the school they do utilize. Byzantine parents, like myself pay an additional "non-parishioner" surcharge (an extra 100% in tuition) to utilize the services of a Latin parochial school. I'm not wealthy, but I do pay three tuition premiums: (1) tax dollars with no return, (2) parochial school tuition rate, and (3) non-parishioner rate. Practicing Catholics of other parishes used to get a discount, but now we are lumped with non-parishioners, including Protestants, Jews, and other non-Catholics.

But the discipline at the school is still worth it. So far, my son hasn't asked for any body-piercing or permission to wear military outfits. Discipline in all things, not just homework. Those public schools that instituted a school "uniform" (horror upon horrors!) welcomed the decline in gang activity AND teen pregnancy. Of course, a uniform doesn't make the child, but discipline and parental involvement does. One radio commentator in my area once questioned, "Why do our school girls dress like sl*ts and our boys dress like ex-prisoners?" They also asked why the Cleveland public school, which is performing at the bottom of the heap in NE Ohio, has almost a 300% larger administrative body to educate a lesser number of students than the Cleveland Latin Diocese? It seems that not only the wealthy suburbian and exurbian parents are sending their children to private/parochial schools, but city folks too. In fact, a study was done on some public school systems and it was noted how almost 75% of public school teachers send their children to private/parochial schools too!

There are many NON-wealthy parents who save up for the annual tuition fee by sacrificing. Their children come first. Many families give up vacations, special clothes, and SUVs. We skimped and saved and pinched our pennies dry under the banner of being a working family. That crucifix is symbolic of why many students are there. The lesson we try to teach our son is that dedication, honesty, discipline and integrity will buy him more than wealth. We know a lot of unhappy wealthy people. Because of our 'Christian' family philosophy, we refuse to be lumped together with those who get what they want because they are wealthy.

Homeschoolers are scoring at a higher rate than private/parochial schoolers per latest studies. How does your wealth factor work out here, especially since many homeschooling families are not too rich?

As for having a crucifix in the classroom, it has provided a focus that doesn't promote an ungodly self-centeredness. We shouldn't try to find a class-warfare reason.

Joe

Mexican

The United States was never intended to be a Protestant Republic, and though Roman Catholics were only a small minority at the time of the Revolution, they supported the fight for Independence by a wide margin. Charles Carroll (signer of the Declaration of Independence) Bishop John Carroll of Baltimore, and Commodore John Barry (Father of the American Navy) were all prominent Roman Catholics who supported the cause of Freedom. In addition Catholic sailors from Ireland, the Azores, and Madeira were well represented in our first navy.

I'am not a believer in ecumenicalism, but I have no problem with a general Christian culture, which is manifested through Nativity Scenes, Christmas Carols, Public-Religious Holidays etc, and that favor no particular denomination.

Joe:

You ignore the first of TWO elements I mentioned - intelligent. Now, do I mean intelligent in the book-learning way? No.

I mean families, such as yours, that do what is necessary to give their children a solid moral and ethical grounding. I mean families that know the value of a good education and indeed make the financial and temporal sacrifices necessary to send their kids to a private school.

Still, even the most intelligent family will have to have some level of financial security to accomplish this. You can talk about pinching pennies as much as you want, but if the ends don't meet, the ends don't meet.

Now, if you want a debate about the quality of some public educational instutitutions, you will NOT get it from me.

I also do not disagree with you that kids at private schools have better monitoring ON BOTH SIDES - i.e. the teachers and the parents. Why is that? Becasue their parents care enough about their education.

Getting back to the topic at hand, the point you forgot somewhere in your blind fury was that kids at religious-based institutions do better than kids at public schools becasue of the presence of God in that school.

My point is, frankly, that it has more to do with the parents that send their kids to those schools than it does with the religious aspect of their education.

Tell me you can't find some (probably very expensive) secular private school in the neck of your woods where there is no religious affiliation where the kids do just as well with their Catholic-school covails down the street.

That, my dear sir, is my limited point.

So, thanks for the unprovoked attack. I'll have a good laugh about it Saturday night when I'm at some grunge bar, in all my bejeweled regalia and my Red Army uniform jacket getting drunk with my homies. (Or, at least, that's what I'm sure how you envision me).

Your nowhere-close-to-"friend,"

hal

Dear Lawrence,

You've summarized the case of the U.S. accurately and articulately.

One may argue whether a graduation at a Catholic school is the time to be "controversial" or not.

But the comments of the Cardinal, I believe, was simple and non-challenging statement of Catholic faith and morals - something that Catholics should be accepting of at the very least.

If it is controversial, then perhaps that school shouldn't hold the title "Catholic."

I have some of my own suggestions as to what that school should be called, but perhaps that is fodder for another thread . . .

Alex