No freedom from religion for you
Marc Alan di Martino told me an Italian judge had been fired for refusing to work under a crucifix. Yes really. There’s no reporting on it in English; all I could find was a blog post by…well, a theology-fan. The blogger could be writing approvingly.
Italy’s highest court of appeal — the Cassation Court — confirmed today (March 14, 2011) the sacking of a judge who refused to hear cases with the crucifix in the courtroom, according to the Life In Italy website…
The CSM said in its ruling that Tosti – who is a Jew – was guilty of refusing to do his job in the Marche town of Camerino from May 2005 to January 2006, when he withdrew from 15 hearings to contest the presence of the cross displayed in the courtroom.
It’s arbitrary, but at least in English “a Jew” sounds different from “Jewish,” and not in a good way. The blogger may not have meant it that way – but it sounds…well, you probably know how it sounds.
In its ruling today, the Cassation Court said that CSM was wholly “correct” and rejected Tosti’s argument that the presence of crosses was a threat to freedom of religion and conscience.
Because…? Because it doesn’t stand for religion and thus, in a courtroom, for theocracy? Because it doesn’t stand for one particular religion, and thus, in a courtroom, cast the judge as an outsider at best? Because it’s entirely neutral and has no meaning for atheists and other non-Christians? Because it doesn’t claim to stand for “God” and thus, in a courtroom, make secular law subordinate?
I don’t know. I look forward to finding out. I think Marc will be telling us more.
Update: Terry Sanderson alerted us to background from the NSS.
It’s not very nice for the accused to have a torture device hanging in the courtroom. It seems a bit sadistic to me. And if it’s a symbol, well then, what is it meant to symbolize? A symbol to show it’s a Christian courtroom? I don’t see any justification for such a symbol to be in a modern courtroom.
Some discussion of this here: http://secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=10798
Those like me whose French is rusty can use Google translate for the news article.
There’s some interesting info here on the International Humanist and Rthical Union.
“Under Italian law, a crucifix must be erected in every courtroom, classroom and hospital room.”
‘In a separate case, Italian Muslims Union president Adel Smith was sentenced to eight months in prison for throwing a crucifix out of the window of a hospital in L’Aquila, Italy.”
http://www.iheu.org/node/1902
Looks like the judge has a blog. Even through google translate it is hard to read, however.
Yeah, this is just such a sordid affair it’s hard to even find words. I’m actually growing tired of repeating myself. Let’s hope theocracy takes a nice slap on Friday!
Thanks all for the useful links. I like this judge; stout fella.
What I don’t get about the people who fight so hard to keep religious symbols in secular government buildings is that if, as they tell us, they aren ‘t really all that meaningful or we should just ignore their meaning, why is it so important to have them there?
So self-defeating, logically.
You can read some more details about the Tosti case (in English) at http://www.secularism.org.uk/judge-tosti-wins-secularism-batt.html
You might also be interested to know that judgment is another case is to be announced at the European Court of Human Rights on Friday. It concerns the Italian law that requires crucifixes to be displayed in schools. Read more here: http://www.secularism.org.uk/lautsi-judgment-imminent.html
You can keep up with all these events by subscribing (free) to the National Secular Society’s weekly e-newsletter Newsline at http://lists.cuttlefish.com/public/jKpo/PLV/subscribe
Mike, that’s why they are attempting to tell us the crucifix is nothing more than a symbol of Italian identity, like mozzarella cheese. Who doesn’t like mozzarella cheese?
There was a European Court ruling on banning crucifixes in the Italian classrooms in 2009. I don’t know if the ruling has been overturned yet, but I doubt many crucifixes have been removed. The case was in the news in Finland a lot, because the person who brought the case to court was a Finnish woman, Soile Lautsi. She was severely criticized for being a a rabble-rouser and insensitive to local culture.
I do get that “when in Rome” thing but Italy is not a Christian country the same way Iran is a Muslim Country. Italy, at least in princple, has freedom of religion, and the non-Christian minority is much larger than the Vatican wants people to believe. And even if Soile Lautsi is a foreigner who should observe local customs, Luigi Tosti is as Italian as Silvio Berlusconi and his being Jewish doesn’t make him any less so.
What is being done here is connecting Italian culture inextricably with religion in people’s minds and viewing any attempt to remove religion from public square as an attack on Italian (or even European) tradition, culture and values. It’s being done with some success, especially when it’s connected to the fight against islamisation of Europe. As if removing crucifixes would create a vacuum that would in no time be filled with crescents.
Even though Lautsi is an atheist and Tosti a Jew (who wanted to replace the crucifix with a menorah) we can’t have these discussions anywhere in Europe without someone bringing up Islam.
I am not surprised at the verdict of the italian court. Just google for: italy crucifix classroom, to get an impression of how Italy reacted when the European court of human rights ruled that crucifixes in classrooms were a violation of religious freedom. This verdict is completely in line with Italy’s past dealing in this.
I googled “italy crucifix classroom” and found a true pearl here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10456956
Oh, yes? The Vatican said that?
damn you Hertta – that’s my last irony meter destroyed.
Marc-Alan: mozzarella? blah! Now a fine gorgonzola…….or aged romano even!
“Since the revision of the 1929 Lateran Pacts of between Italy and the Holy See in 1984, the issue of displaying the crucifix in public buildings such as schools, hospitals and law-courts has been controversial and the subject of much debate.”
http://www.ejpress.org/article/2490
Did Tosti not want to replace the crucifix with a menorah? If so – would that then not have anything at all to do with secularism? A crucifix is often inscribed with the letters INRI, an acronym for (translated from Latin), “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews. … RC’s often use their own spin on the letters, referring them to as ‘iron nails right in’.
Hertta, as I understand it, Lautsi is a Finnish-Italian citizen so…so much for “local” custom. She had every right to do what she did, nor does this begin with her and her family. It goes back a few decades to another family named Montagnana. Historian Sergio Luzzatto just published a book called Il Crocifisso di Stato, my review of which is pending publication, where he teases apart the threads of the matter.
Also, Italy appealed the 2009 decision. Across the board, politicians sided with the church, which really tells us something. They said a number of obtuse things in defense of the crucifix, none of which had any basis in reason or reality. The final decision from Strasbourg will come on Friday. So this is really in the news in a big way.
My reading of this is that he does not actually think that there should be a menorah to replace the cross, but to try to illustrate his point – the Christians wouldn’t like a menorah in their court, and he doesn’t want a cross in his, and the only way to satisfy everyone is to remove religious symbols altogether.
On the other hand, in Montreal (a province with a giant crucifix in the provincial government’s legislative assembly), a cabby was told that he is not allowed to display (Jewish) religious artifacts in his taxi ( http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec/montreal-cabbie-fined-for-decorating-taxi-with-personal-religious-items/article1911303/ )
Marc, of course she had every right and her country of origin or even her being an atheist should have nothing to do with it. It’s not the secular side that’s attempting to make classroom or courtroom crucifixes a matter of Italian identity. We have exactly the same discussion here every Christmas season about the nature of Christmas celebrations in schools, and the theocrats have the same argument: tradition, history, culture and tradition. And so far it seems to resonate with the majority who, unsurprisingly, like traditions. And so it is unfortunate, that Lautsi happens to be non-native, even if it really has no relevance to the issue.
Marie-Thérèse, it seems Tosti wanted to replace the crucifix with a religious symbol of his choice, but it doesn’t mean it has nothing to do with secularism. The question is, should a judge be able to decorate his/her courtroom with the religious symbols they like or is there only one religion that’s allowed such exposure. It is very hard to make the case, that’s it’s fair and just to have a crucifix in every courtroom and not allow menorahs. It’s interesting to see how the case is argued trying to avoid the obvious solution to the problem: not allowing any religious symbols.
Ah, thanks, Terry. I’ll add that link.
Judge Tosti commented on my post – a very interesting comment I’ll translate as soon as I have a moment. His was a brilliant gambit with the menorah, actually. The pope is naked.
A question for Ophelia: I’m curious about your comment about calling someone “a Jew” vs “Jewish”. Historical connotations, perhaps? Oddly, it seems ruder to call someone “atheistic” as opposed to “an atheist”.
(I am a Jew, though perhaps I am not a Jewish Jew because I am an atheist Jew – or maybe a Jewish gnu?)
Nice, Marc!
Theo…I know; it’s tricky. I read a short story once that actually turned on the idea that saying “a Jew” sounds…hostile, at least. The idea was that it was deeply suspect to take it that way…which seemed odd and wrong to me.
But hey, I grew up around some actual living breathing anti-Semites, and I can still hear “a Jew” in their voices, so maybe I’m warped.
I see everywhere that Tosti is a “militant atheist” so I’m presuming that the menorah was brought in above all to make a point. Looking forward to Marc’s translation of his comment.
I agree that “who is a Jew” and “who is Jewish” sound radically different. And I say that as a Jew (it doesn’t hold true in the first person, apparently). It’s about context, music, timbre. Nor do I think being Jewish has anything to do with religious belief. Jerry Coyne is always citing that joke about what to call an atheist Jew on his blog. (The answer: a Jew.) Gnews?
If it’s a profoundly Italian issue, then why is the Vatican getting involved?
The Vatican, as we are told ad nauseum, is its own sovereign nation. I happens to be surrounded by Italy, for sure, but that can’t be of any concern to us. Lichtenstein is surrounded as well and it doesn’t stick its nose into the affairs of Switzerland and Austria.
Oh right….it ISN’T an Italian issue. It’s a RELIGIOUS issue.
Hypocrites.
Marc’s translation of Tosti’s comment is in this post.
http://marcalandimartino.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/hypocrisy-expose/
I’ve never really understood it when Christians waved around the “Judeo-Christian” flag. Why the sudden espousal of something they have such a long history of hating? Tosti is exposing that sham for the lip-service it is.
Marc, could you tell us what the main argument of the defenders of the crucifixes is? All I got from the video is that it had to be shouted. And thanks for translating Tosti’s comment.
Basically the guy with the long hair was under the impression one must swear on the bible in American courts, thereby “proving” that Catholic Christianity is the basis of modern secular law. Ho-hum. The woman with the long hair just kept hollering, “Oh, so now you people want to outlaw the sign of the cross?” Point is, they are out of arguments, and now imitate IDers with Trojan-horse style arguments. It’s a masquerade.
I have found out a bit more about Tosti’s bearded antagonist and sent it to Marc. Rather than spill all the beans here and now, let’s let Marc review it and present it here nicely when he’s had a chance to put something together, which I’m confident he will (I’m good at googling, but I don’t have the Italian background Marc can bring to it).
Thanks, Marc. I love how Tosti, the strident atheist, came across so calm and articulate and made his opponents look hysterical in comparison.
Specifically, he made them look as hysterical as they actually are.
And that’s why I think we’ll eventually win this battle. So much for the nasty gnu hypothesis. ; )