The case arose from the "offense" taken by an Italian citizen of Finnish nativity. She alleged that the presence of crucifixes in some of the schoolrooms attended by her two children violated her rights of parental control. When the case was first filed in a local Milan court it was dismissed. The woman was undeterred in her search for justice and filed her case with the Strasbourg based Human Rights Court.
The Strasbourg crew ruled in her favor ordering the Italian government to pay several thousand Euros to the woman as damages. The Court did stop short of ordering the Italian government to pull the crosses out of the schools. But, the firestorm of protest and outrage with which the Italians greeted the decision could scarcely be increased had the Court gone to that extreme.
The Italian Prime Ministers and many others noted sharply that the cross was far more than a purely religious symbol. They protested that the cross and the Christian religion of which it is emblematic are a part of European history which is integral and cannot be separated from all other aspects of the European past--and present.
The Geek has no personal dog in the fight. His religious preferences are both loose and varied. However, he is a historian by both education and propensity. As such he has both studied and taught the role of the Christian religion in all its many denominations in the weaving of the historical tapestry in both Europe and the US.
Indeed, the Geek's emphasis upon the critical role of religion, particularly the Protestant flavor in US history caused significant friction with his coworkers in the Grove of Academe. The importance of Protestant theology and its secular outgrowths in the American historical experience cannot and should not be understated, but this reality was seen by the vast majority of the academics at three universities as both unfortunate and unworthy of mention.
The reasoning for this anti-historical conclusion was (and is) difficult to fathom. At least some of the Geek's fellow professors did use a line of logic resembling that taken by the Human Rights Court: Religion should be excluded from the public square as it was (A) a matter of personal values, (B) a source of "offense" to those who do not share the religion, (C) without a complete silence on religion it would be impossible to construct an impermeable barrier between the secular state and the assorted communities of faith.
The Geek is a very strong proponent of the separation of faith and state. But, this does not mean eliminating either discussion of the role of religion in the historical development of a state or the abolishment of symbols emblematic of that reality.
The Christian religion in both its Catholic and Protestant forms is integral to the history of Europe generally and Italy in particular. Whether the elites of the European Union are comfortable with that reality or not is irrelevant. Whether the elites of the European Union are happy with the centrality of Christianity having defined the very nature of Europe is also irrelevant.
Far more relevant is the view held by most of the hoi polloi of Europe. That view is simply that Christianity is so central to the European identity as that has developed over the centuries that any attempt to extract it and its symbols serves to destroy both the power of the past and the identity of today.
A survey of the European media (including the "new" media) indicates that this view is prevalent from Ireland to the Eastern Marches of Poland and Slovakia. Implicit in this view is the understanding of the role of intangibles such as history and religion in history as a source of collective identity at a time of homogenization. The perceived triumph of transnational corporations, the seeming victory of transnational cultural products, music, TV, films, fast foods, shopping malls, combine to reinforce the centrality of symbols which contain historical resonance.
Like it or not, the crucifix is one of the most potent symbols in the establishment and heralding of community (and, often, personal) identity. The power of the cross in this very role is underscored by both the lawsuit itself and the Court's ruling.
The Court pointedly argued that the presence of crucifixes in classrooms might serve to discomfort people who were not adherents of the Christian faith as well as atheists. The Geek doubts that too many non-theists would be so perturbed as it takes a strong sense of personal identity and value to let go of the comfort blanket of faith and its expressions. So, the crux of the case is the fear that Muslims would find themselves offended by this particular symbol of European history.
The Geek makes this surmise on the following predicates. First, the record shows both in Europe and the US that few, if any, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, or others find themselves "offended" by the presence of Christian symbols ranging from towering spires to simple wooden crosses with or without a suffering human body. Second, Muslims alone have been pushing repeatedly for special protection against any symbol or word which they subjectively define as offensive or defamatory. Third, only Muslims have demonstrated a propensity to attack symbols or expressions they consider "offensive" or "defamatory" with physical violence.
In short, it seems quite probable that the Human Rights Court was influenced in its attempt to deny the reality of the past not only by the multi-cultural fads of today but also by an unexpressed fear of Muslim actions. Implicit in the Court's ruling was a genuflection to the fear that, unless placated, some Muslim or another would express personal outrage by perpetrating public outrage via the suicide bomb or some other expression of jihad.
Placation or appeasement by self-inflicted denial of one's own historical past and its direct connection to the present is a very short-sighted action. It is doomed to fail. Not only will the casting of a steak to the wolf not convince the critter to become a vegetarian, it excises the historical backbone of a community. A community like an individual cannot live long without a backbone.
The Italians and others are absolutely correct in flipping off the Court. By so doing they are acknowledging a great truth.
The community or the person who casts off his past is forsaking his future. The past is never dead and without the past being fully accepted it is not possible to have the solid base necessary to have a future.
The greatest human right of all, a right tossed in the ditch by the Court, is the right to have a past and express it in the present. After all, what are we, any of us, any of our communities, without a past?
And, if we do not know who we are and whence we came, how can we hope to have a future?
No comments:
Post a Comment