It only takes one
These days it only takes one person to change life for hundreds, or even millions of people. I am not talking about a Hitler or Mao, or even a Blair, but the ordinary person in the street with a chip on his shoulder as large as a sack of spuds.
Take the case of the Finnish woman who lives in Italy and decides she doesn’t want her children taught in classrooms with crucifixes on the walls. Somehow she feels that her yuman rights are affected and so she goes to the European Court of Human Rights to ask for them to be removed: and wins.
This is how it works. If millions of people are happy with something, but one isn’t, it’s the one who gets her way. This is how the European megalomaniacs are re-engineering society. They stir up hatred and resentment with their legislation and someone unfeasibly selfish gets the hump big-style and the courts use these laws to suit the minority.
This case highlights the real purpose of the ECHR/EU’s ‘equality’ and ‘human rights’ agendas. It means that just one person’s complaint gets upheld and slowly but surely, all the cultural and religious institutions get wiped out, to be replaced by a grey, atheistic, homogenous, empire-wide culture of fear, ignorance and poverty. And of course, the people will be persuaded to exchange devotion of family to love of the EU, its President, Anthem, future EU Olympic team, etc. Europe really is becoming the new Soviet Union: by design! Perhaps the old USSR became dismantled so relatively painlessly in order to make an even larger one comprising many rich nations.
Similar instances of one person getting their way are becoming more common. Last month I wrote about the Church in London which was effectively ‘silenced’ by a Court after a decision by magistrates to uphold a noise abatement notice, not to play excessive sound, after just one Muslim neighbour complained about noise levels of worship in a church which was next door to the house he purchased. It used to be the manse, in fact!
This is how totally absurd the situation has become with this extraordinary desire to throw all sense, decency and justice out the window and apply these evil rules that only exist to ruin civilised society.
In the General Election, I strongly urge you to vote for a party that is totally committed to complete withdrawal from the European Union. You cannot negotiate with people whose aim is your destruction!
“Take the case of the Finnish woman who lives in Italy and decides she doesn’t want her children taught in classrooms with crucifixes on the walls.”
If she’s disappointed in God why doesn’t she worship milk instead, the answered prayer rate is exactly the same and we know that milk exists.
Your prejudices are beside the point, Mr Gibbs. Why should one person be allowed to change how a whole country is run? That’s the point of my post.
How many people will it take to stop religion forcing itself on children in schools? …meanwhile I’m not forcing my “prejudices” on anyone, simply commenting.
The woman who filed the suit, said “crucifixes on walls ran counter to her right to give her children a secular education” and the Strasbourg-based court ruled in her favour.
“The presence of the crucifix … 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 court said in a written ruling.
“The State (must) refrain from imposing beliefs in premises where individuals were dependent on it,” it added, saying the aim of public education was “to foster critical thinking.”
Two Italian laws dating from the 1920s, when the Fascists were in power, state that schools must display crucifixes. If when the Fascists were in power in Italy they had favoured Pastafarianism over Christianity there might be spaghetti nailed to the wall in every classrooms in Italy today. I think most Italians would acknowledge that pasta symbolises Italian tradition as much as a cross symbolises Catholicism there.
Mr Gibbs,
You still haven’t answered the point of the post: why should one person be allowed to change how a whole country is run?
The court and the law is there for a reason, she went through the correct channels and it took several years…go figure.
Do you think it’s better for a bunch of fascists fully supported by the Catholics to change the whole country to their one-eyed propaganda.
There are probably 10million atheists in Italy who to be honest have been aquiescent enough to let this unreasonable practice continue even though they might prefer not to have crosses in every classroom.
There are also plenty of religious and non-religious secularists in Italy the cross really doesn’t represent them or their conviction that religious privilege is unwarranted, removal of crosses from schools and opther public places is a reasonable option the alternative would be to plaster every conceivable religious symbol in classrooms and elsewhere which might end up resembling something approximating a voodoo shrine.
Is that what you want?
“The European Court of Human Rights ruled today that Italian schools should remove crucifixes from classrooms, sparking uproar in Italy, where such icons are embedded in the national psyche.”
And I think we all now know exactly how the cross imbedded itself in the national psyche.
with every child receiving thousands of school hours with the Vatican logo planted in his/her sight-line right beside the blackboard.
Should other multi-national commercial companies should be given wall space in schools for their logos, the Golden Arches? Colonel Sanders?
(Stewart Cowan wrote:”Why should one person be allowed to change how a whole country is run? That’s the point of my post.”)
Stewart I think this will provide ample explanation.
Decision of the Court
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. 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 freedom not to believe in any religion (inherent in the freedom of religion guaranteed by the 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. This freedom deserved particular protection if it was the State which expressed a belief and the individual was placed in a situation which he or she could not avoid, or could do so only through a disproportionate effort and sacrifice.
The State was to refrain from imposing beliefs in premises where individuals were dependent on it. In particular, it was required to observe confessional neutrality in the context of public education, where attending classes was compulsory irrespective of religion, and where the aim should be to foster critical thinking in pupils.
The Court was unable to grasp how the display, in classrooms in State schools, of a symbol that could reasonably be associated with Catholicism (the majority religion in Italy) could serve the educational pluralism that was essential to the preservation of a “democratic society” as that was conceived by the Convention, a pluralism that was recognised by the Italian Constitutional Court.
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. The Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 taken jointly with Article 9 of the Convention.
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=857732&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649
Mr Gibbs,
I was under the impression that you considered yourself a Christian.
It is possible that I was mistaken in this belief, but if I am not, why do you appear to derive such pleasure from all things anti-Christian?
Speculating upon where or why I might derive pleasure is not really relevant to this discussion.
Guaranteeing freedom of religion requires freedom from religion as a given. I don’t support special privileged treatment for any one religion or world-view.
It is unfair and quite untrue to caricature my support for the ending of long held but now anachronistic religious privileges as anti-Christian.
P Gibbs
Knowest thou Christ?
It is a simple question.
So why complicate your simple and simply off-topic question with an unnecessary veneer of fake antiquity?
Oy, Gibbsy,
D’ya know that Jesus fella then, or what, init?
Modern enough for you?
There is a limit to how well anyone can honestly claim to know a character one has read about in a book, especially a book built on fragments of ancient writings, selected, edited and compiled in antiquity, subjected to various translations and interpretations, but yes I have read what survives of the resulting book.
There is just the one book isn’t there English Viking comprising of (Part 1 OT) and (Part 2 NT)?
So unless you or someone else has a pre-release Part 3 stashed away somewhere secret then it’s fair to say that I am as aware of the scant information there is about the Jesus as anyone.
Mr Gibbs,
Judas was familiar with Jesus. I didn’t ask if you knew of Him, I wondered if you follow Him, i.e. are you a Christian?
In reply to your question on the number of books in The Bible, there are the 39 books of the OT and the 27 of the NT.
BTW The muslims think the quoran is ‘Part 3′.
(English Viking wrote:”Knowest thou Christ?” and he also wrote,”D’ya know that Jesus fella then, or what, init?”)
Now he writes, “I didn’t ask if you knew of Him”
Is that so English Viking?
You are showing a great deal of interest in me but none whatsoever in the topic of the discussion. I’m flattered EV but let’s discuss whether or not the compulsory display of religious symbols, in this instance the cross, in non-religious Italian classrooms can today be justified … I think it cannot.
Well, there’s quite a difference between knowing someone and ‘knowing of’ them.
Re the topic, it interests me that our generous host (I mean that btw, just in case anyone thinks that’s a smart Alec remark) is very sensitive to ways in which goverments allegedly conspire to condition us towards acceptance of, say, homosexuality, yet reacts vehemently against steps taken to prevent conditioning to acceptance of religious symbols.
How is that consistent Stewart? (I’ve changed my e-mail – the one beginning with ‘v’ seems to have stopped working).
Mr Gibbs, really! “she went through the correct channels”.
Those being the anti-Christian Eurobots.
You still have not answered my question. So what if there are 10 million ‘atheists’, they probably couldn’t care less. The reality is that this ‘equality’ and ‘human rights’ garbage is to destroy nations via wasting religion, family and community.
If it genuinely was about human rights, then I’d be going ‘hooray, the EU loves us’, but I don’t because it’s not true.
Jim,
You’re very kind. I am not per se in favour of Italian schools having crucifixes on their classroom walls, but neither am I in favour of bullies and selfishness.
This includes the homosexual activists who want to make children think their deviancy is normal and should be taught as such. It’s a line that should never have been crossed.
Once you know that the agenda is for a global government and that nation states have to be destroyed morally and economically to achieve this, then it all becomes clearer.
OK Stewart, but surely, in this case, the bullying and the selfishness are on the part of those who wish to give their beliefs preference, and the protester in question is the one who has stood up to bullying.
With regard to global government, we’ve had that for a long time now.
But Jim, if everything ‘religious’ is banned in case offence is caused to a very small minority, then what is left? Especially if that religion defines the very nationhood. Like I said, this is all about destroying nations. I’m no apologist for the Church of Rome.
Global government that overrides national parliaments is coming, with tax-raising powers (to help save the planet, of course), world army, police, etc. It’s going to be a great deal different and very scary.
Unless we can stop it in its tracks.
We’re not talking about everything religious being banned though in this case. We’re talking about public places, supposedly non-demonational schools, where children are required to be together. Why should some children’s faith, or their families’ faith, be allowed to take precedence in such places? It’s not about whether people take offence: it’s about what is supposed to be a public institution siding with a faction. Isn’t that state bullying?
Er, denominational…, not to be confused with national demons.
Jim Baxter
I don’t think that it is State bullying to favour one religion over another, as in the case of Italy. Not when the religion allegedly being favoured is the State religion, nationally recognised, for centuries, by the people as well as the State. If the people were against this, they could have voted for a party that promises to scrap the recognition of Christianity as the State religion. As they haven’t done so yet, I agree with Stewart’s point about millions being dictated to by one.
I also don’t see why a Finn should be allowed to dictate Italian law, any more than an Italian should dictate Finnish law, etc. When in Rome…
What people have been doing for centuries is no argument for what they should do now.
Jim,
As I said, if the people were not happy with the status quo, they could have voted against it. They haven’t, one foreigner did.
That a successful system has been in place for centuries seems a pretty reasonable argument for at least resisting change based on the ‘offense’ caused to one foreign citizen.
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
English,
They could have voted against it, indeed, if it had mattered to them enough. If it matters they can now protest that they want things back the way they were.
I agree about what to do if it aint broke, but this was broke, just as something was broke when Christian non-conformists would have been persecuted here with the approval of the state for their non-conformism.
That the person was a ‘foreigner’ really isn’t too relevant, is it?
Jim,
Like EV says, wouldn’t it have been right to make a political issue of it and judge public opinion that way rather than one foreigner coming in, saying ‘I don’t like’, then wallop; all change?
Jim, doesn’t your view change in light of the fact that the whole anti-religion thing is a deliberate attempt to destabilise society?
Stewart,
Maybe it just wasn’t important enough to be a political issue either way for most people. As I say, they could make it one now if they felt strongly enough. I don’t think that will happen.
My impression is that you keep trying to broaden this out. Whatever its broader implications may be, your post was about a specific example, was it not? (What is your view of the ban in French schools of female Muslim headress, may I ask?)
O/T are you planning to give as an account of your opinions on ‘genetic entropy’ anytime soon?
Hi Jim,
It has far wider implications, for sure. The Muslim thing is unfortunate. Our masters have been using them as their pets to cull Christians and now they are beginning to get it in the neck as well. Western governments allowed millions of Muslims to settle – they should either *not* have done this or else made sure they would fit in, but they knew full well that such an alien religion/culture would have difficulties.
The social engineers have deliberately messed things up so much that sometimes it’s hard to know what to do to be fair.
Did I say I would write about genetic entropy?
‘Did I say I would write about genetic entropy?’
Not that I recall, but I’ve noticed you mentioning it a couple of times. I should say that, were you to do so, I would do my level best to give that ‘theory’ a thorough pasting. But I’m sure you know that anyway and are unafraid (!)
Jim,
I think it is pertinent that the plaintiff in this case was a foreigner. When guests come to my house I don’t allow them to re-arrange the furniture. If they do not like my rules I do not change them, they leave.
Would you suggest it a fair thing for someone such as myself to go to Saudi Arabia, for example, and demand all promotion of Islam in madrassas should cease immediately? Would it be a breech of my Human Rights if the Mullahs told me where to get off? I guess we’ll never know, because kuffars are not allowed in the two main cities, on pain of death.
Fear God, fear no man! Tell you what, if I put this book on my Christmas list, I’ll hopefully get it and be able to comment once I know what it’s all about.
If genetic entropy is real, then the TofE is totaly wrong, as I maintain, which means we were created.
English,
I think it’s not. It merely took a fresh eye to point out an anachronism. My guess is that a lot of Italians will be grateful. I speak as someone who had to hide his own beliefs, or absence of them, at the age of seven from the wrath of a Christian school-teacher. That I was wise to do so was made most evident once I escaped her clutches and she learned of what I really thought.
Stewart,
That is the very book I had in mind. I’d be willing to get it for you myself.(Spoiler alert! It’s utter tripe – oh – and this might save others some money – the author reckons the planet is between 5,000 and 100,000 years old).
Ready when you are.
P.S. I don’t think we should compare ourselves with or to Saudi Arabia.
Stewart – btw – Internet Explorer seems to be having trouble with your blog, or my version of the wretched thing is having trouble with your blog – the comments have become inaccessible. I don’t know if others have had the same difficulty but if they have they won’t be able to read that the mighty Firefox is the solution.
Thanks, Jim. I nearly always use Firefox, but it’s having trouble on Explorer at this end too. Do you find the site loads slowly at the best of times?
The planet is young as many things show, like coastal erosion, strength of earth’s magnetic field, distance of Moon and the existence of comets (that’s why they had to invent the Oort cloud – nobody’s ever seen it. That’s faith!).
Stewart,
Firefox is fine and your pages load quickly. I.E. turned well-rubbish last week.
The planet is young eh? I see. That’s bad news for the trade in visiting paleo-geologists on Lewis. I look forward to a few exchanges when you’ve read that daft book.
60% of Italians Don’t want the Crucifix
Newpaper->…Repubblica….Corriere….La stampa
No Crucifix………63%……….55%……….56%
Yes Crucifix……..28%……….44%……….43%
Yes Crucifix
non believer………8% (?)
Don’t Know……….1%
Total voters……..75687……41090……12964
Mr Gibbs,
Your post – Number of voters = Somewhere between 12,964 and 75,687. Average of 43,247.
The current population of Italy = 58,751,711, according to the last census.
When you understand the meaning of statistical relevance, you will also realise the utter stupidity of your last post.
You need to also bear in mind that the survey was not conducted in the usual sense, i.e. A questioner knocking on random doors. The survey was conducted in newspapers. This is as useful as asking Guardian readers if they think Cameron is a decent chap, or Mirror readers if they like Capitalism.
P.S. Another anti-Christian post.
I presented this newspaper poll exactly as what it is… a newspaper poll. If you take a look it gives the name of each newspaper and exactly how many voted. It was conducted as any usual newspaper poll
(English Viking wrote:”When you understand the meaning of statistical relevance, you will also realise the utter stupidity of your last post.”)
You call me stupid, as always you resort to personal remarks and insults for lack of any argument or facts. You want to trade insults… well I know a smug and devious fantasist when I come across one and you take the cake English Viking.
I am not at all anti-Christian I am totally pro freedom of religion.
Jim,
Looks like something needs tweaked. I appreciate your comments about it.
I feel sorry for those paleo-geologists. They might as well believe the earth is flat and the sun goes around the earth and that Ringo was a really good drummer. (Dwarfer alert!)
Dwarfer alert eh? OK, but remember this. Humans don’t go to heaven. Someone just made that up to prevent you from all going nuts.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to walk the penguin.
Mr Gibbs,
You’re being catty again. I’m sure your mother must have told you, it’s not big and it’s not clever.