The first impression was of annoyance: a lay believer and convinced supporter without reserves dell'aconfessionalità in institutional relationships, the idea of \u200b\u200bhaving to compare in an affair that threatens to assume the character of a confrontation in the name of religion made me uneasy. A distress amplified by the possibility that manipulation could arise: what is lacking today (used) in Italy is not the resurgence of a religious conflict and a war of ideas.
The second impression was of surprise: I was wondering what it meant to remove the crucifix in public places to avoid the risk of upsetting the sensibilities of its view of any visitors. How is it possible that, given the more tawdry and scandalous demonstrated indifference and ignorance of religion (just follow the transmission and TV quiz) is stressing even the possibility of emotional in front of the symbol of a religion? And the reader can tell me if this public building in that there is or there is a crucifix on the wall? The third impression is of sorrow: it was really impossible to avoid an appeal to the Strasbourg Court, even referring to the Human Rights Convention? It 's a piece of legislation certainly relevant, but rather out of proportion when you consider how many and which human rights are violated with impunity and excruciatingly in the world and close to zero for compression against the presence of crucifixes in classrooms imposing human rights of children who are forced to view it.
Obviously after impressions, it requires careful evaluation of the issue, which has already been compared, not only after the Court of Strasbourg, a number of positions for and against the display of crucifixes in public places. I therefore limit myself to a few comments, saying once that I am not reasonable, nor to our tradition, nor the interest of humanity in general, the removal of our religious symbol, obscuring the presence of the law. But I want to extend the concept to every religious symbol, because if I just would risk our crucifix to account for those argues that this symbol can be marked by the exclusive representative of religion.
I speak therefore of a non-removal, while recognizing that the question was how to place, could hardly be different sentence. In fact there was no discussion in either the civil or religious significance of the crucifix or the positive or negative perception of students. The decision concerns the obligation, imposed by the State to put the crucifix in classrooms, as it says the Strasbourg Court "compulsory exposure of a symbol of a particular religious faith" in the context of a civil service managed by the government. And this obligation to oppose all the principles of the modern state of law.
But I believe there is only the written law, there are customs and common culture (although changing as the evolutionary cycles once lasted centuries, decades now) and if so we thought we would the removal of the crucifix for granted ' absence of the religious motivation of the people and the experience of the human person, even contradicted by the most careful consideration of cultural and scientific. While historians have long past the idea of \u200b\u200ba reading limited to institutional aspects in order to emphasize the importance of popular mentality and customs, while also re-evaluate the sensitivity popular religious influence in the different traditions and diverse structures cultural, what is the logic that would deny the presence of a symbol of this fundamental component of the experience popular?
But allow me a small addition, which also took place a few comments about it. There is a tendency to exorcise the reality shared humanity: I speak of pain, of which the crucifix is \u200b\u200bperhaps the most symbolic expressions, that pain that unfortunately does not spare anyone, believers of every faith and non-believers. But we do not want to take note, taken from the frenzy of a life of pleasure seeking perspective, the false illusion, we want to forget the reality most common humanity and more consistent but we draw the illogical conclusion.
One last point: I feel very reductive to limit the crucifix to a simple furnishings, a symbol of our tradition, a witness of our culture, a sign of our identity to compare well with ham that wants to deprive us of some claim school canteens, all positions atheist, but very obedient, they tend to gain the benefits of religion as a civil religion.
willy-nilly, the crucifix is \u200b\u200bthe symbol of a religion and not the Italian state. And in these statements back my initial annoyance: the last thing I would like our God (the God of love) that there on that cross is hung, is to bring the anxiety, hostility and confrontation in society and in particular places (the school), where a generation are choosing (and perhaps only enduring) their future. Then we try to counter measures that could hurt the younger generation, of Italian origin or not. What have their faults and what we deserve? I think this is a true answer to so many words on the crucifix and its universal message.
0 comments:
Post a Comment