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.
I agree with this point. A large percentage of America’s problems today are caused by the existence of government provided education. The lack of required religious and moral eduction not to mention the other harms caused by union control make public education a danger to our children and our country. It must be eliminated quickly. As a side matter this would entirely eliminate the controversy in this thread.
Schools are not public "places." They are public institutions intended for learning. Parks are public places for people to do public things.
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
That's not what democracy means. Democracy means it is everyone's world, not just majority's.
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.
You are calling for ghettoizing of America, in addition to calling for sedition. I am not sure where you are coming from or what you are thinking, Alex.
If two symbols are juxtaposed in an absurd cacophonous way (Christ next to Shiva) then the less common symbol has to give way.
So much for the freedom of religion. What you are advocating is a system of exclusion on rleiigous gorunds. Ye, when the law of the land says there is freedom of religion, that means each individual is free to preach and believe what he or she wants; it doesn't say minority's rights are abrogated, Alex, but you are advocating abrogation of individual rights in the name of a local majority. That's just unAmerican!
The offensiveness of the symbol is to be seen in the local context as well.
Tell you what: why don't you run for office on that agenda in 2010 Good luck.
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.
I can't believe you are saying this. This is not how this country works. This country is about individual rights. That's what makes it so great. No one has more rights because he or she is majority.
Besides, majority is a relative term. It depends how you define the borders of a community. The whole ting is absurd.
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.
Well, this country does not discriminate on the basis of gender, race, or religion, and that is not something only the ACLU came up with. What you are advertising is contrary to the law of this land.
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.
They are free to leave the EU. They should have thought of these things when they decided to join the EU. Thye know what the EU constitution says.
Besides, it's not "Italy" but not even a handful of (if I recall correctly, two) Italian mayors!
I think you need a reality check, Alex. Seriously. First the Vatican will do no such thing as to call for civil disobedience. Second, only 6% of registered Catholics actually attend Sunday Mass every week. This is not the age of strong Church influence, but rather a minimalist age.
In the US the situation is a bit different as we are being brainswashed into thinking that multi-confessional diversity is a virtue.
That may be so, but the people accepted it, or–if you wish–were brainwashed to believe it.
You don't have to wait for anyone to knock down a Christian monument, you can decorate your yard and home with a cross or crosses if you so desire.
Children already defy the system by publicly praying in public schools (what a pun!).
Hypocrites. Their own God tells them to pray in pirvate.
The difference with healthier countries in Europe is that we have the American institutions of government working against us.
Public prayer has no place in public schools. It is Pharisaical. No one should have to listen to you pray.