"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 the pupils. " This was established by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg upheld the action brought by a small Italian town.
You know that I am Catholic and believing (even if I did not realize you're idiots, eh), and that the crucifix "forbidden" is one of many stupid things you see in democratic countries full of free time has power to rip a straightforward "But go fuck!" and innocent of the safety-at-TV.
My view of religion, as I have explained elsewhere, is not based on a simple concept of divine existence (which is obvious), but basically anchored on cultural principles: to me an Italian who claims to be Shinto, Hindu or Buddhist is ridiculous, because it is lived, was born and raised in geographical areas where they have developed those religions, then those "visions of the world ", and therefore can not assume that those lifestyles do for him.
observe that Christianity itself has many faces, depending on national circumstances in which it has developed: the materialistic Calvinism, Protestantism, the pathetic, those poor Mormons, the exalted Lefebvre.
It occurs to indicate the religion as an anthropological fact, a clear manifestation of our cultural roots, not only Italian but also and mainly Mediterranean.
So, it's almost obvious to me that the crucifix is \u200b\u200b symbol of Italian history and culture and consequently the identity of the country , not because the Bible tells me so, but because our culture tells me so.
atheists or not, the truth is this: is not the Catholicism imposed for having "a certain way of thinking, in fact religion is nothing but the expression of a specific cultural identity.
For example, when you think that the rich because they are such dishonest, this is a legacy of the Christian religion, as well as what physical force and violence are not the best methods to obtain justice or personal prestige.
Most of our admirable artistic covers religious themes, and it's always exciting to see the amazing and emotional interpretation in these works, full or spirituality, or veiled sensuality or spudoranta bombast, are filled.
Tourists looking The Pieta by Michelangelo is left excited, but it certainly does not feel offended by the fact that he is looking at a religious work.
not expected to remove some of the paintings by Caravaggio St. Louis of the French because they are works of art and therefore belong to a museum, and certainly do not do petitions or appeals to the European Court of Human Rights, I repeat, the European Court of Human Rights , why an atheist to see the frescoes by Giotto must enter into a basilica and then be raped psychologically and morally.
course, compare the Majesty of Duccio in a miserable crucifix contemporary age is almost criminal, but the concept is the same.
If my house I have a picture depicting Padre Pio and friends were atheists or Muslims should remove it to see me at dinner not to offend? While
if an atheist considers art a crucified frog then everything is fine, and if anyone opposes then it is medieval obscurantist power.
But that too will not be the action is to remove a crucifix obscurantist, or maybe my confusion is less valuable because it provided with papal approval (ie "church" and "non-secular" and "anti-democratic")?
do not know, nobody has ever thought to refer to the antics of Kippenberger European Court of Human Rights , probably because not all have the leisure of the lady Lautsi.
Come on, come on! We are all one step away from becoming a cluster of gray made politically-correct, and nerves on edge for ideal foam in an abstract moral system.
Then I'll citarvi for emotional distress, puppets!
- I wonder if then European Court of Human Rights to force the Italian government to pay 5000 euro for moral damage for me: D
0 comments:
Post a Comment