October 2021

S M T W T F S
     12
3456 789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Navigation

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Crucifixes ok in schools because "passive", headscarves not because "powerful"

sashajwolf: photo of Blake with text: "reality is a dangerous concept" (Default)
[personal profile] sashajwolf
Friday, April 1st, 2011 11:49 am
The European Court of Human Rights has recently ruled that Italian authorities may continue to permit schools to display crucifixes on the walls of public classrooms, apparently in part because they are considered an essentially "passive" symbol and do not constitute proselytisation. In an earlier case, it ruled that Switzerland could continue to ban teachers from wearing Islamic headscarves because those were "a powerful symbol" which could influence children to think that the institution is backing that religion. Here's an interesting blog post on the subject. So the jurisprudence seems to be saying that a school authority choosing to put the official symbol of a religion on the walls of its classrooms is not giving that religion the sort of institutional backing which could influence children towards that religion, but a woman choosing her personal dress in accordance with the requirements of her religion is giving such backing. I think this is only explicable by the fact that the first religion is the majority one and the second is not only a minority, but one that has become politically charged in the mind of the majority. The fish can't see the water (or choose not to.)
Tags:

Prayers in city council meetings

elf: Many Americans have all the virtues of civilized people (American virtues)
[personal profile] elf
Monday, December 20th, 2010 01:27 pm
Someday, I may have to do a huge linkspam roundup of lawsuits related to prayers at the start of city council meetings. The US has plenty of towns with a strong majority of citizens who think that "since we've used Christian prayers to start our meetings for many years, it must be legal and okay; anyone who objects is just trying to cause trouble."

Town du jour: Point Pleasant Beach, NJ, where a Jewish woman filed suit over starting the meetings with the Lord's Prayer and the sign of the cross. (They tried to avert the lawsuit by agreeing to a moment of silence instead--but refused to penalize the crowds who interrupted the silence with, surprise surprise, loud readings of the Lord's Prayer.)

The comments are a breathtaking array of antiSemitism and Islamophobia. That's kinda new for me; I'm used to seeing the anti-Wiccan versions. Apparently, they just recycle the same hate-rhetoric with different labels in the religion slots. (Of course, since Islam was mentioned--why, I have no idea--there are people screaming about the foreigners trying to take over the US.)

Occasionally, a comment or an article offers alternatives like, "Downtown churches could offer a place for local officials to pray before their meetings or could offer to host a weekly session in which the city -- or elected officials from anywhere -- could come and pray or be prayed over. They could host an event in a place that would be common to many to allow prayer to be said before public meetings." These tend to be ignored--how dare those heathens suggest that Christians do their praying somewhere else, not at government meetings?

The issues of prayers at graduation ceremonies and school functions held in churches are related, and inspire similar lawsuits, and similar backlash.
Tags: