Crucifix: what evangelicals have not been able to say
Paolo Naso
A virtually unanimous chorus of outrage and confusion has accepted the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg that the display of crucifixes in public school classrooms is "a violation of the freedom of parents to educate their children according to their beliefs and freedom religion of the pupils. "
What was the sentence he would discuss the order of things: one that astonishes and worries, however, have been radicalized and exasperated tones that have prevented those who appreciated the decision to explain the reasons and the meaning of his opinion. With a very strong and direct language, the Catholic hierarchy have called for a "generalized reaction" (Cardinal Bertone) to a sentence "surreal" child culture "secular" rampant in Europe (Cardinal Bagnasco), until direct appeal to the "believers" "not to sleep and raise their voice" launched by a person usually moderate such as Cardinal Kasper.
On this occasion, in short, the Catholic hierarchy gave up their classic plush tone to adopt the popular language and extreme degree of political culture in general are critical.
As for the political picture is even more worrying because it would be to them - all of them, both those deployed and those deployed to the right to the left - who are obliged to respect the national and European institutions and to foster a civic consciousness attentive to the principle of secularism and the statutory rights of minorities. Waiting disappointed with some of the predictable exception of the newly elected PD Bersani former governor of the New Right Lazio Storace was a unique celebratory paean of the crucifix as a symbol of national unity, the Italic traditions, and then - paradoxically - the value of gentleness and self-giving.
Conservative Jews too ("From a theoretical point of view I believe that public buildings as a home for all symbols should not have a specific faith, but I realize that a strict application of this principle in Italy might offend sensibilities and stories rooted, "said the chief rabbi of Rome, Di Segni) and very perplexed Muslims be worried about becoming embroiled in a war on the crucifix." By the European Parliament, in evident embarrassment, now comes a proposal to add other symbols of the crucifix: creative suggestion, but tighter to legitimize the crucifix quietly adding that the crescent or menorah on the walls at school.
Evangelicals have found it almost alone in appreciating the sentence, often deliberately confused and share with atheists, rationalists, relativists, with short, how carefully Christian identity of Italy and Europe.
Personally I see nothing wrong with that sometimes, and on some issues, some believers and some atheists are found to say the same thing: the fundamental constitutional principles and important battles for civil rights have been established thanks to the encounter between different cultures. But this time the evangelicals - and more united on other issues unique to - They tried to say something different from their own faith. Basically they tried to claim three ideas.
First, the cross of Christ is a fundamental symbol of Christian faith and is not a flag of Western identity, democracy or the EU. Christians, in other words, they argued that the natural place of the cross is in our minds and not on the walls of classrooms, reducing it to a symbol of civil religion, as well as paradoxical, cancels and ridicules its theological significance.
Second, as citizens stressed that public spaces are indeed "public" means that should express the idea of a civilized community that does not discriminate and does not rule on the basis of ethnicity, gender or religion. The third
: as citizens and believers have claimed the value of pluralism of different cultural and spiritual traditions that have all the right to speak in public space. Are not Christians of the catacombs, and they too want to, instead, "shouting from the rooftops" the truth of which they are witnesses. But just because they love freedom know that they must also respect and protect that of others. It is not relativism, is aware of the value and richness of its diversity of any democracy.
This is what they tried to say. And that obviously failed to communicate.
Posted via web from ideeali
0 comments:
Post a Comment