It probably comes as no surprise that I keep a fairly weather-eye on the religious news, and not just in the official publications (e.g. Church Times or The Church of England Newspaper).
The Case Of The Crucifix
I have been following a case in Italy in which a Finnish immigrant (married to an Italian man) objected to the display of Crucifixes in the classrooms of the local school. This objection was raised on the grounds that she was raising her children in a secularist manner and that this infringed their Human Rights in terms of a right to education and freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Her claim was that the Crucifix presented a possible influence to adopting a Religious Tradition (i.e. Christianity). This was also perceived to be at variance with the avowed intention of the State-run school, which is secular.
Originally, the European Court of Human Rights found in favour of the woman. Then the Italian government took it to the High Court. This made it an extremely important debate because any decision made by the European High Court of Human Rights would be binding on all 47 member states of the Union. If the High Court decided in favour of the woman, then all member states would be required to remove religious symbols from their educational environments. This would, of course, raise some very interesting debates around the teaching of RE, and the Act of Collective Worship, in the UK.
What was decided?
The decision was finalised, and judgement given on 18th March 2011, and I only really found out about it (ahead of the current issue of the Church Times*) in an overheard conversation. I asked the person to forward the weblink where she got her information from, and, about a day later, she duly did so**.
Given the importance of what she was saying, I thought it would be quite easy to find something on the Net. I couldn’t have been more wrong. In The Guardian, it was a blog comment; The Independent doesn’t appear to have given it print space; and The Times wanted me to pay!
Here’s the interesting part. If I had only gone on the blog comment, or the Church Times article, I still wouldn’t be aware of the implications of this momentous judgement. Perhaps those who did write on it haven’t really thought about it either.
The quotations I am going to refer to largely come from the Christian Institute’s website news item (link given below).
In no uncertain terms the High Court has overturned the decision (given in 2009), and decided against the woman. But the way in which it was done has a massive impact on the way in which the cultural, educational, and legal lives of the member states now work.
Firstly, it can be noted that the judges said, “In Europe, secularism is optional, freedom of religion is not.”
This was further qualified by noting that Freedom of Religion is not secularism, nor is Freedom of Religion the separation of Church and State. Likewise, secularism is not neutrality, one judge going so far as to say that the pursuit of secularism could actually lead to intolerance of others’ beliefs.
The judges also said that it is cultural Alzheimer’s to forbid the very things which have founded and moulded a State. Any State which pursues a secularist agenda, thus risking a culture of intolerance, is also risking contravening the Convention on Human Rights.
In the words of the judges, the only truly neutral state is one which values and practices a pluralist approach to the beliefs and practices of its citizens, and encourages respect for all world views whilst favouring none.
In this understanding, secularism is not seen to be neutral and is only considered to be one ideology amongst all others (both religious and non-religious). As such it cannot be favoured over and against a religious one, nor vice versa.
Legal Implications…?
I immediately thought about a recent landmark decision in the UK in which an African couple were denied the possibility of continuing to Foster Children because they said in front of the Social Worker that they wouldn’t be able to promote the view that a gay lifestyle was acceptable. Whatever the rights and wrongs of their position, the judges who made the decision against them began by saying that they were secular judges and would not be swayed by religious opinion. In the light of this judgement from the European High Court, this is something which the judges may now no longer be able to say, and may even provide grounds for the over turning of the decision (but I’m not a legal expert, so I’ll leave that to those who are).
But there we now have it. It’s legally official that secularism is not a neutral opinion, nor is it a neutral agenda. It will certainly make the future debates in and around the practice of religion in the public sphere very interesting. What do you think?
* http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=109695
** http://www.christian.org.uk/news/crucifix-case-judges-knock-secular-myths/
Hmm, there is some tosh in those reports, media spin. However…
The problem is one of consistency. Equality is a bit of a catch-all expression which is rarely thought through thoroughly. For instance in education equality should be one of opportunity to fulfil potential, not to penalise or promote one group above another something which is definitely happening. For me, while I would advocate secularism across a far broader spectrum than it is now, the problem has been the balance between secularism and equality. I have never understood, possibly like yourself, how some equalities are greater than others when applied to the same situation. The recent fostering case is an ideal example, as is the Bed and Breakfast case.
If this country wishes to pursue Secularism properly then it should do so by the total removal of religion from the state other than political representation like any other group. However if this country wants to hold itself up as a champion of Equality, then religion has to have the same access to that equality as homosexuals, children or Asians.
@frustratedhistorian
In what way do ‘homosexuals, children or asians’ have any more access than religion?
In the House of Lords right now sits someone with only a religious institution’s best interests at heart. If you want to balance the playing field chuck the Archbishop of Cantebury out of the House of Lords. Better still, make the HoL an elected house. Better still, scrap the HoL all together.
As an atheist, I have nothing against people worshipping a god, praying at home, etc.. but I don’t want it in my face or influencing poltics. We already have representatives of the people by they religious, atheist, homosexual, child, ethnic or whatever; they’re called MPs and they should be representing the people equally and with impartiality (though yes, I know that probably actually isn’t the case) regardless of their constituents persuasions.
As ever with these things, you need to go to the source documents and not rely on the reports from institution that can be considered biased in the matter.
Download the courts press release and case summary (PDF)
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=open&documentId=883171&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649
The main thrust of the judgment is that this was a trivial matter and did not warrant an infringement of rights.
The Court found that, while the crucifix was above all a religious symbol, there was no evidence before the Court that the display of such a symbol on classroom walls might have an influence on pupils. … not sufficient to establish a breach of Article 2
of Protocol No. 1. … a crucifix on a wall was an essentially passive symbol whose influence on pupils was not comparable to that of didactic speech or participation in religious activities.
Interesting, the court had this to say about the Italian’s claim it was traditional and not religious.
… the reference to a tradition could not relieve them of their obligation to respect the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention and its Protocols.
and
The Court therefore had a duty in principle to respect the States’ decisions in those matters, including the place they accorded to religion, provided that those decisions did not lead to a form of indoctrination.
Meaning that trivial issues such as this one is for governments to decide.
The full judgment can be read here:
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=883169&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649
It is worth noting that the quotes from the Christian Times story is not part of the judgment. They come from a individual judge written in support of the judgment. Known as a concurring opinion it is merely a personal opinion. Two other judges wrote a dissenting piece which includes the quote:
… the right to education requires strict State neutrality in State-school education, which must make every effort to promote pluralism in education as a fundamental feature of a democratic society within the meaning of the Convention.
The bottom line is that this judgment will have no impact on secularism and the positive benefits it brings.
It merely makes the commonsense assertion that religious symbols are by themselves, meaningless.
I still don’t seem to have the hang of this quoting business. That last one was in reply to “brindy”
First of all, thanks for the interest guys. I will try to respond in some sort of logical order, though I may end-up repeating myself at times, so apologies in advance.
@FH: I totally agree that there is bias in the two reports cited, which is why, where possible, I confined myself to the statements of the judges, and what i thought they might mean.
@Brindy: I am not unsympathetic, as I have said elsewhere, to the ‘historical accidents’ which have allowed there to be both Lord’s Temporal and Lord’s Spiritual may be perceived to be unfair, but as some of the Lords (both Temporal and Spiritual) are practitioners of a religion other than Christianity, the process of a fairer balance may be in the process of happening. I would, however, point out that the issue of Cultural Alzheimer’s as stated by one judge was in effect about a Country remembering its historical and cultural foundations re: religion. It does not mean that it cannot change, but it does mean that no one person or judiciary body should ignore it.
@Chris: as always, Chris, a big thank you for your contribution. I especially am thankful for the links as I did want to read the original. Now as to what I have said, and what you have responded. I may not have been clear enough that I was in fact dealing with what the judges have said, but not in going in to the actual wording of the judgement. You have helpfully clarified that. I would however, still argue that although the judges’ statements may not form part of the Law, they are useful in helping to clarify what the law actually means, and are often used in that capacity (as far as i know).
Likewise I would draw your attention to parts of the quotations which you have helpfully provided. To wit, the issue was about the influence of the Cucifix, and this was viewed as being of lesser importance than didactic speech (i.e. teaching, from the Greek ‘didaskolos’ meaning ‘teacher’) or participation in religious activities. But passive is not the same as meaningless, the work of Paul Ricoeur is more than enough to make that clear! Symbols are redolent with meaning, otherwise it is pointless for the German Government to ban the Swastika!
I more than agree that it has been left to the individual State to decide this issue precisely because of the reference to Cultural Alzheimer’s.
You also helpfully quoted exactly the part I was arguing (even though it was from the judges who voted a different way!) – a state must be completely neutral and pluralist, therefore, it cannot favour secularism or any other ideology (religious or otherwise) over another. To do so is to cease to be neutral. I am, however, quite happy to admit that I am not in a position to critique your argument re: the benefits which secularism has brought. Perhaps FH would oblige us with an article?
@FH (again): Thanks for clarifying what you meant, I wasn’t sure myself.
Again, guys, Thanks.
I can give it a go, mighty Rev D, but it will have to wait until April
@FH: LOL, I guess that I can wait 4 days *sticks tongue firmly in cheek*. 😉
Pingback: Secularism: Questioning State, Society and Religion