http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/0...es-human-rights

Good read

Education should be secular. The crucifix should not be used in all rooms as it implies an agreement with what it symbolises by the place of education. The European Court is correct.

If people want to display it at Sunday school or some other institution, that's fine, but it does not belong in normal schools.

:goodpost:

Precisely :goodpost:

Well said

I really don't see a problem with this.

Agreed - I have no problem with the European Court ruling either. :good:

Funny how many of the basic tenets being taught to children such as equality, freedom of thought, sanctity of life are derived from religions, yet secularism claims the mantle for these ideas and insists that the source of these ideas is not given space in institutions of education. Agree with this ruling though.

there are three points here

1) should the ECHR be dictating the terms upon which member states can offer education and the symbols used in classroom? does the ECHR have the right to ban religious symbols within UK schools, state funded or private?

2) how is the display of one religious symbol in any way violating the freedoms of the pupil?

3) will it stop at religious symbols? will it eventually lead to a ban on religious schools or anything but the accepted militantly secular status quo?

with the ruling or with the presence of the crucifix?

The ECHR is there to protect human rights, whilst people might find the cross offensive I fail to see how the presence of it infringes the human rights of someone.

The article says it's

i.e., it's biased towards one particular religion.

Would you be of the same view had the schools in Italy been displaying symbols of Islam and therefore promoting this religion's identity at the insisitence of the State over the wishes of the parents?

:popcorn:

this article says it better, should have known better:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8340411.stm

sounds like the parents wanted a secular state education and they thought the presence of a cross might infringe this.

will the ECHR stop at this or will they target religious schools next? :unsure:

I consider the use of the cross and iconography in general to be unhelpful, misleading and potentially heretical and idolatrous so am not pro religious symbols whatever they are.

Obviously I don't believe Islam is true so I wouldn't defend it or the use of symbols of it but I wouldn't defend the use of Christian symbols either.

What I would contest is the right for the ECHR to dictate member state legislation over such an issue and to elevate the presence of a religious symbol to the point of making it equal with religious indoctrination. Logically it makes no sense.

I'm also worried as to where this will end and whether the ECHR might start to take a more militant stand on militant secularists freedoms potentially at the expense of others.

Hmm. Difficult one. In a Islamic country I'd expect Islam to be part of the curriculem, so I guess in a Christian country you'd expect Christian teaching.

The difficulty is although nominally Christian a lot of countries aren't, in reality, Christian countries.

Whether religion should be taught in schools at all (outside of religion schools) is debatable. My feeling about that is religion should be taught, it's arguable that no bias should be given to any particular religion though and if the parents which to focus on their religion then they should either put the child in a religious school or teach the child outside of school.

:lol:

saw dark knight this evening, quality film. forgot how brutal and bleak it is though.

I think you are making an illogical leap here.

Nobody forces people to have their kids attend faith based schools. It is a matter of choice. In fact it is a choice I made based upon a faith based school being the best in the area.

This was a State School containing religious symbols, and this leaves people with no choice and consequently is an infringement on their rights to send their child to a school free from the promotion or favoritism of one religion over others and over secularism.

would that apply to states that are not officially secular? in this country Christianity is the established religion, could someone say images of or reference to Christ in public offices breaches their human rights? :unsure:

Yes they could.

These parents did, they made their case and were proven to be right.

Roman Catholicism isn't the state religion in Italy which is where the differences are.

also is it the business of the ECHR to tell a state how non secularist it is allowed to be?

The ECHR was asked to make a decision. States signing up to the ECHR are bound by their decisions.

This was a well reasoned decision. Whats more, it was right. The State should not be promoting any religion in any way especially against the wishes of the people who are denied a choice by the actions of the State.

Hopefully they will. If religions want to have extra schools for their religion, fine. However, all children should be given a full education so that when they are adults, they are in a better position to make their own decision as to what code they wish to follow. The state should not allow any brainwashing in the name of education.

Religious schools don't, or shouldn't, brainwash any more than our church groups for young people do. Yes we teach what we believe but it's up to young people to decide for themselves what they believe.

Oh well, these things happen.

I kind of agree with the ruling, but all the same there are things about this that I find worrying.

Firstly, whether you like or not, in Italy the crucifix transcends its immediate religious connotations and is something of a national symbol. I note that the woman that brought this action was Finnish, and it seems to me that in doing so she showed an amazing lack of respect, understanding and sensitivity towards the feelings of the people of the country in which she has chosen to live.

I also find it disturbing that the mere display of a religious symbol should be regarded as infringing the human rights of someone who does not adhere to that religion. I think I detect here another example of human rights legislation being (ab)used to drive through the agenda of an aggressive form of secular humanism which sees religion as nothing more than a lifestyle choice which has no place in the 'public square'. That is only a step away from explicit religious persecution. Considering how much secular humanists constantly bang on about how intolerant religious people are, they seem to show an astounding lack of tolerance themselves if they can be offended by any display of religious affiliation which is not made behind closed doors.

My concern is that 'young people' - i.e. school kids - are vulnerable to presuasion, especially at primary age.

As far as Theo's point about suggesting that treating religion as a lifestyle choice (which I do) is one step short of religious persecution is concerned, that is over the top, IMHO. However, the lifestyle choice of religion is not something for state schools. Whether parents want to take their children to other schools outside normal school time - Sunday school, for instance - is down to their choice and I would not dream of forbidding it.

Well, they are. That's why kids believe in Santa and magic and all kinds of things like that. But when they grow up they come to think for themselves and make decisions about beliefs (not just religious ones) for themselves.
We find most of the kids who come through our youth groups end up leaving and don't come into the church as adults. In some ways I think that's a shame but it shows we're not brainwashing anyone, we're just teaching what we believe and encouraging them to think about it for themselves. If they decide to reject it then so be it.

Well, tbh, I reckon that if religion is booted out of schools altogether so kids can only do the religious school at weekends, then I reckon they'll stop going as soon as they can because their weekends will be messed up. After a few years of not being struck down by a bolt of lightening, they might spot something. :)

Seems a little odd if this were to be applied here when we live in a country with a sovereign head of state ordained by God.

And have a nonsense national anthem where we're meant to ask God to save the Queen.

Like it or not, the country we choose to live in has Christianity ingrained in it's history and everyday living. Until we change that ourselves and get rid of the dipshit monarchy and nonsense national anthem, The ECHR will have to, politely, do one.

Once again you display an impressive ignorance of the beliefs you've rejected.

Oi, mush, yeah the absence of plagues of locusts, boils and frogs are also necessary...

:lol:

Some people take it so seriously.

I wonder if we could go to the ECHR to have the monarchy overthrown. It is undemocratic which is against my fundamental rights. Come to think of it, we should be thrown out of the EU for the same lack of democracy in our constitution.

Oi, mush, do you reckon the Prime Minister that makes the UK into a Republic will get a knighthood?...

Indeed, indeed!

I remember years ago (when i actually bothered to know about this stuff) they were talking about drafting a Succession Act and a Constitution Act pertaining to the monarchy, but i've little to no idea whether that actually happened.

Probably not, but he will gerrymander things to ensure he is the first President - and the second, third,....

I think the way to start is to turn Parliament into a democratic institution answerable to the people first. :good:

Oi, much, you'll get thrown in the Tower if you continue with that sort of seditious thought...