Editorial

The question of the crucifix in public school classrooms: next stop Strasbourg

A hearing of the Grand Chamber of the European Human Rights Court will be held today (June 30th) in Strasbourg on the question of the display of crucifixes in public school classrooms in Italy.

Here’s a brief summary of the situation, which is in and of itself a rather long story. The first complaint to the Veneto Regional Administrative Court dates back to 2001. At the time Ms. Soile Lautsi, an Italian citizen of Finnish origin, brought complaint against the display of crucifixes in the classrooms of the public school her children attended. The Veneto Regional Administrative Court involved the Constitutional Court to decide about the constitutionality of the laws. Currently, no law in Italy mandates the presence of the crucifix in public buildings. The Court declared that it had no jurisdiction, since it was not a dispute over a law per se and sent the question back to the Regional Administrative Court of Veneto.

In the meantime The Council of State, whose opinion was requested in another context, pronounced in favour of placing crucifixes in public buildings, not inasmuch as a symbol of any particular religion, but as a symbol of Italian tradition. The Regional Administrative Court of Veneto agreed with this opinion, declaring further that the crucifix is a symbol of the secularism of the State! It appears evident that the Regional Administrative Court, which had previously considered the presence of crucifixes in public places as unconstitutional, politely (and somewhat facetiously) forced the State Council to state it’s position - the latter also happens to be the Court of appeals for the Regional Administrative Court’s decisions.

For the Italian justice system, that is the end of the story. But Ms. Lautsi then appealed to the European Human Rights Court, who on November 3rd, 2009 declared that the display of the crucifix violated rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950.

According to its own jurisdiction, the Court of Strasbourg did not annul any norm (because, as we have said there was none to annul), but established compensation for damages that the Italian government shall pay the claimant.

The Court of Strasbourg belongs to the Council of Europe (“Wider Europe”, which includes for example Russia and Turkey) has made significant decisions on religious freedom in the past, as in the case of Greece who required a person’s religion to be stated on identity cards. The Court ordered compensation to applicants in several cases until recently the Greek government, who had refused at length to change the norm, finally annulled this requirement.

The European Union considers the norms described in the Convention of Human Rights of 1950 as “fundamental principles” and it has its own Charter of Rights that recognizes the right to religious freedom as well as the value of “diversity”. That said, it has declared for decades (now article 17 of the Treatise on the functioning of the EU, modified by the Treatise of Lisbon) “the Union respects and does not affect the rights churches, associations or religious communities enjoy within their own Member States’ legal systems”; basically leaving the question to the discretion of individual States in terms of relations with religious organizations.

The Italian government, supported by almost every political institution, claims for itself jurisdiction on matters such as the crucifix and declares that it is a symbol of Italian national identity. The phrase that was intended almost as polemic – that the crucifix is a symbol of Italian secularism – has now become the official position of the Italian government.

The display of the crucifix in public places is a relatively recent tradition for Italy. It was introduced in the fascist period and required the symbol to be displayed along with portraits of the king and the “Duce” (Mussolini) (strange that this part has been since forgotten!). The custom of displaying an image of the crucified Christ, bearded and with long hair is somewhat older, but not ancient. In the first century of Christianity, Christ was depicted beardless and with short hair, because of Paul’s statement in I Corinthians 11:14: “Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him?”. The image of a bearded Jesus is Byzantine, inspired by the desert hermits, who considered any modification of the human body conformation to the world (including cutting any hair and even washing). That is how a certain image of Christ came about and became dominant over others, but it is false according to the New Testament. This might be a good topic for meditation for those who think traditions should overrule human rights (nev-notizie evangeliche 26/2010).