Exactly my point, Mark. A voice of reason!
Well, gentlemen of the holy protest: what is your plan in the United States to put crucifixes throughout a single public school. Pick one, any one...But until then, this talk of sedition and protest and revolt is back room tavern at best. Maybe more like sophomore political debate at a junior college
Amen to that Mark.
I am sorry. I am looking for a job, which means little projects popping up that I cannot postpone.
When I have more than 30 sec to respond I will respond.
If you need a good C/C++ programmer, hire me.
Till then, keep your dynamite plentiful and your aces to your chest.
The topic so far has been: what is religious freedom. Specifically, does it include the freedom to preach in a respectful non-disruptive manner in a public place.
I believe, the answer is unequivocal yes. Therefore, a placement of a crucifix (or any other religious symbol) in a public place, for example, in a school run in a non-sectarian way, — for example, a taxpayer supported school known to us in America as a public school, — is a right so long as it is non-disruptive.
Two aspects are germane to the question of possible disruption: — has a deliberative process lead to it? and, — is the symbol otherwise customary and inherently inoffensive?
The first has to be looked from the subsidiarity point of view. The school is operated in a certain way, the parents are one input and the principal is another input. They are a unit completely capable of figuring out if a symbol is appropriate. Usually, — at least, hopefully, — the process has a democratic component. If the majority of the parents prefer one particular symbol, that is a potent factor for that symbol. Unless the principal has a solid reason to overrule the majoritarian decision: for example, the symbol is blasphemous or calls for violence - -the principal should go with the majority. In a predominantly Catholic environment, a crucifix is placed, in predominantly Protestant Christian a naked cross, and in predominantly Muslim — an Islamic symbol would be just as appropriate.
The offensiveness of the symbol is to be seen in the local context as well. If it is otherwise customary it is already proven to be inoffensive. Such is a cross in a Christian community, a Star of David in a Jewish community and so on. If two symbols are juxtaposed in an absurd cacophonous way (Christ next to Shiva) then the less common symbol has to give way.
In short, freedom of religion means that the local community allows for the dominant religious symbols routinely, and for non-dominant symbols on an exceptional basis. The minority groups are free to form a minority-dominant enclave and enjoy the dominance of their religion in that enclave.
This is how religious freedom was understood for centuries, in the Roman Empire or Muslim Caliphate in their better days, in medieval Europe and in the United States, and till recently everywhere in the formerly free West. We lost that clarity thanks to the ACLU militant litigants. They should be rolled back.
Obviously, religious freedom suffers when immigration is blind to this most critical aspect of the immigrant’s identity, his religion. If a nation values religious freedom, that nation should give preference to the immigrants of the dominant religious confession and especially avoid confessions that are known disruptors of peace, such as the Muslim and the Atheists.
You then asked how the above program can be realized in America. My answer is threefold. First, whether a principle of justice is valid is not controverted by the difficulty of achieving it in practice. Christian communities lived under Roman and Islamic persecution for centuries, under Atheist persecution for nearly a century; slavery was the law of the land for centuries as well. That polytheist or atheist empires denied religious freedom, or slaveholder societies denied economic freedoms, does not make religious freedom a false principle or slavery a right principle. What we need is patience and clarity of thought, and the right side wins in the end.
Second, the countries in immediate view are Italy, Poland, Greece and Cyprus, that are already confessionally solid. They had crucifixes and icons for centuries; it took a foreign power to deny them their freedom. That battle is easy to win, and we see how it is being won: the Church takes leadership position, and the population, encouraged by their civil leaders engage in civil disobedience. Either the EU will back down, or these countries leave the EU. The worst that can happen is that the EU will lose its moral authority and will be seen as a foreign oppressor. That will not last.
In the US the situation is a bit different as we are being brainswashed into thinking that multi-confessional diversity is a virtue. I think that the likely progress of the battle in this country will be that every time ACLU knocks down a Christian monument someone erects a tall cross on his property. Children already defy the system by publicly praying in public schools (what a pun!). Teachers often join them. This, again, is civil disobedience. The difference with healthier countires in Europe is that we have the American insitutions of government working against us. I think civil disobedience will be productive in this country as well. We may not see crucifixes in public school any time soon. But we shall see them more and more often. One day, the damb will break. Note, too, that the system is crumbling down from the other end: the maintenance of the public school system is fiscally untenable. Perhaps the public education system in America will simply — poof! — collapse.
Rejoice.