The European Court of Human Rights has ruled against the use of crucifixes in classrooms in Italy.
It said the practice violated the right of parents to educate their children as they saw fit, and ran counter to the child's right to freedom of religion.
The case was brought by an Italian mother, Soile Lautsi, who wants to give her children a secular education.
But the ruling has sparked anger in the largely Catholic country, with one politician calling the move "shameful".
The Strasbourg court found that: "The compulsory display of a symbol of a given confession in premises used by the public authorities... restricted the right of parents to educate their children in conformity with their convictions." ... ... =====
Italy now/tomorrow, EU next?
Finland's media says that Soile Lautsi was born in Finland, then moved in Italy and has 8 years fighted against crusifixes in schools as violation of hers childrens rights...
On Nov 3, 5:05 pm, Kari Tikkanen <ktikk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Finland's media says that Soile Lautsi was born in Finland, then moved > in Italy and has 8 years fighted against crusifixes in schools as > violation of hers childrens rights...
good for her....takes people with courage to stand up for rights
> The European Court of Human Rights has ruled against the use of > crucifixes in classrooms in Italy.
> It said the practice violated the right of parents to educate their > children as they saw fit, and ran counter to the child's right to > freedom of religion.
> The case was brought by an Italian mother, Soile Lautsi, who wants to > give her children a secular education.
> But the ruling has sparked anger in the largely Catholic country, with > one politician calling the move "shameful".
> The Strasbourg court found that: "The compulsory display of a symbol > of a given confession in premises used by the public authorities... > restricted the right of parents to educate their children in > conformity with their convictions." > ... > ... > =====
> Italy now/tomorrow, EU next?
> Finland's media says that Soile Lautsi was born in Finland, then moved > in Italy and has 8 years fighted against crusifixes in schools as > violation of hers childrens rights...
There is a much older decision from Bavaria on that. Though the German constitutional court was slightly less rigorous - crucifixes are OK if they are so small that there is no danger that the school as institution is identified with the religion. In typically German rigorousness, the court specified the exact measurements a crucifix is allowed to have in order to be constitutional (bit bigger when without body on it)
This is utter fucking insanity! Is EU here to break down countries values and culture? Its not a secret that this means A LOT to Italians, so if this bitch doesnt like it, its their way or the highway! This is nothing about rights.
> The European Court of Human Rights has ruled against the use of > crucifixes in classrooms in Italy.
> It said the practice violated the right of parents to educate their > children as they saw fit, and ran counter to the child's right to > freedom of religion.
This is not the first time this issue is brought up in Italy.
A Muslim father attempted to have the crucifix removed from public schools. Initially a court ruled in his favour, sparking a political controversy, eventually an higher court overturned the previous ruling, absurdly claiming that the cruicifix was a symbol of secular values.
> The European Court of Human Rights has ruled against the use of > crucifixes in classrooms in Italy.
> It said the practice violated the right of parents to educate their > children as they saw fit, and ran counter to the child's right to > freedom of religion.
> The case was brought by an Italian mother, Soile Lautsi, who wants to > give her children a secular education.
> But the ruling has sparked anger in the largely Catholic country, with > one politician calling the move "shameful".
> The Strasbourg court found that: "The compulsory display of a symbol > of a given confession in premises used by the public authorities... > restricted the right of parents to educate their children in > conformity with their convictions." > ... > ... > =====
> Italy now/tomorrow, EU next?
> Finland's media says that Soile Lautsi was born in Finland, then moved > in Italy and has 8 years fighted against crusifixes in schools as > violation of hers childrens rights...
Finnish public tv (and internet) has interviewed her. She's atheist. During process She has got death threats, unsigned letters, insolent/ rude phone calls and letters. This has not been very funny, Lautsi said in YLE (Finnish Broadcasting Company ) News interview. "We are scum in this country" (headline) She said that Italy is very powerfully religious and repressive against other religions. And probably atheists are even more persecuted than other religions.
(Maybe her's view is colored and distorted somebit during process? I've read that Italians are quite secularized, for ex they use condoms, gets divorced etc and already even in Middle ages: Renaissance etc?)
On Nov 4, 12:18 am, Rebdominator <dontspam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is utter fucking insanity! Is EU here to break down countries > values and culture?
Values such as bigotry and hypocrisy?
> Its not a secret that this means A LOT to > Italians,
Italians are still free to keep crucifixes in their religious schools, churches, homes and on their person. There is no reason to display it in a public school.
> > The European Court of Human Rights has ruled against the use of > > crucifixes in classrooms in Italy.
> > It said the practice violated the right of parents to educate their > > children as they saw fit, and ran counter to the child's right to > > freedom of religion.
> > The case was brought by an Italian mother, Soile Lautsi, who wants to > > give her children a secular education.
> > But the ruling has sparked anger in the largely Catholic country, with > > one politician calling the move "shameful".
> > The Strasbourg court found that: "The compulsory display of a symbol > > of a given confession in premises used by the public authorities... > > restricted the right of parents to educate their children in > > conformity with their convictions." > > ... > > ... > > =====
> > Italy now/tomorrow, EU next?
> > Finland's media says that Soile Lautsi was born in Finland, then moved > > in Italy and has 8 years fighted against crusifixes in schools as > > violation of hers childrens rights...
> Finnish public tv (and internet) has interviewed her. She's atheist. > During process She has got death threats, unsigned letters, insolent/ > rude phone calls and letters. This has not been very funny, Lautsi > said in YLE (Finnish Broadcasting Company ) News interview. > "We are scum in this country" (headline) > She said that Italy is very powerfully religious and repressive > against other religions. And probably atheists are even more > persecuted than other religions.
That doesn't appear to be correct. Italy doesn't presecute atheists other non-catholics, however the Catholic Church, even if it not formally considered the state church anymore, enjoys a priviledged position, and recently it seems to have a big lobbying power over politicians.
> (Maybe her's view is colored and distorted somebit during process? > I've read that Italians are quite secularized, for ex they use > condoms, gets divorced etc and already even in Middle ages: > Renaissance etc?)
Italy exists since 1861, and divorce wasn't allowed until 1970. Similarly, abortion was illegal until 1978. Catholicism was the state religion until 1984, even if the Italian Constitution grants religious freedom since 1946. Catholicism is still taught, at taxpayer expense, in Italian public schools to students who request it.
>> The European Court of Human Rights has ruled against the use of >> crucifixes in classrooms in Italy.
>> It said the practice violated the right of parents to educate their >> children as they saw fit, and ran counter to the child's right to >> freedom of religion.
>This is not the first time this issue is brought up in Italy.
>A Muslim father attempted to have the crucifix removed from public >schools. Initially a court ruled in his favour, sparking a political >controversy, eventually an higher court overturned the previous >ruling, absurdly claiming that the cruicifix was a symbol of secular >values.
What it actually is, is a Roman torture and execution device.
I cannot think of a more bizarre symbol for a religion of peace.
> >> The European Court of Human Rights has ruled against the use of > >> crucifixes in classrooms in Italy.
> >> It said the practice violated the right of parents to educate their > >> children as they saw fit, and ran counter to the child's right to > >> freedom of religion.
> >This is not the first time this issue is brought up in Italy.
> >A Muslim father attempted to have the crucifix removed from public > >schools. Initially a court ruled in his favour, sparking a political > >controversy, eventually an higher court overturned the previous > >ruling, absurdly claiming that the cruicifix was a symbol of secular > >values.
> What it actually is, is a Roman torture and execution device.
> I cannot think of a more bizarre symbol for a religion of peace.
Rebdominator <dontspam...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is utter fucking insanity! Is EU here to break down countries > values and culture? Its not a secret that this means A LOT to > Italians, so if this bitch doesnt like it, its their way or the > highway!
Half of the Italian's values. The other half (all those not voting for Berlusconi) are commies, didn't you know?
> This is nothing about rights.
Sure, and the Brits have their god-given rights to beat up their kiddies too!
On Nov 3, 6:18 pm, Rebdominator <dontspam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is utter fucking insanity! Is EU here to break down countries > values and culture? Its not a secret that this means A LOT to > Italians, so if this bitch doesnt like it, its their way or the > highway! This is nothing about rights.
seems to me italians, french, british, germans, etc. have chosen 'european' values as central to their identities. 'national' values don't seem to mean much.
that, in and of itself, is a 'european' value so removing crucifixes is totally consistent with the decision europeans have made.
On Nov 3, 6:52 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
> A Muslim father attempted to have the crucifix removed from public > schools. Initially a court ruled in his favour, sparking a political > controversy, eventually an higher court overturned the previous > ruling, absurdly claiming that the cruicifix was a symbol of secular > values.
here in the states we have supreme court justice scalia objecting to removing crosses in national cemeteries, saying the cross is a 'universal' symbol of the dead
he didn't comment on the lack of crosses on jewish graves
wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote: > On Nov 3, 6:18 pm, Rebdominator <dontspam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > This is utter fucking insanity! Is EU here to break down countries > > values and culture? Its not a secret that this means A LOT to > > Italians, so if this bitch doesnt like it, its their way or the > > highway! This is nothing about rights.
> seems to me italians, french, british, germans, etc. have chosen > 'european' values as central to their identities. 'national' values > don't seem to mean much.
Not really. Europeans have agreed to a certain minimum standard for human rights. (which are not particularly European)
> that, in and of itself, is a 'european' value so removing crucifixes > is totally consistent with the decision europeans have made.
National laws conflicting with the human rights standard have to be revised,
> The European Court of Human Rights has ruled against the use of > crucifixes in classrooms in Italy.
> It said the practice violated the right of parents to educate their > children as they saw fit, and ran counter to the child's right to > freedom of religion.
> The case was brought by an Italian mother, Soile Lautsi, who wants to > give her children a secular education.
> But the ruling has sparked anger in the largely Catholic country, with > one politician calling the move "shameful".
> The Strasbourg court found that: "The compulsory display of a symbol > of a given confession in premises used by the public authorities... > restricted the right of parents to educate their children in > conformity with their convictions." > ... > ... > =====
> Italy now/tomorrow, EU next?
> Finland's media says that Soile Lautsi was born in Finland, then moved > in Italy and has 8 years fighted against crusifixes in schools as > violation of hers childrens rights...
Intresting. Thanks for posting it.
There is a bigger picture to be considered here. The European Court of Human Rights is located in Strasbourg, Germany.The complaint was in Italy made by someone that was born in Finland. So we have 2 outside entities telling the population of Italy to change the way it has lived for a couple thousands of years.
Now, there are some in America want to give that court the same ability to tell you in America how to live as well. Which is no problem right now because most of you agree with the ruling since you are atheist.
But what will happen when the winds of change bring new attitudes within populations as we have seen happen all throughout history? What will you say when the winds of change bring something like a "One World" religion and it will be ruled by the court that all atheist will bow their knee or suffer the consequences?
Truly I say to you, A ruling such as this is bad for everyone. It offers no personal freedoms although it may seem on the surface that it does. In fact we may be witnessing the begining stages of a world wide dictatorship where the few will dictate to the many how they will live; which by the way has even been prophisied about in the bible.
It would be better for the Atheists in Italy to have more tollerance (as hard as that will be in an all Catholic Country i realize) then to allow a hand full of people in another country to dictate how millions will think and live.
The same attitudes are even here in America. The cross is just a piece of metal in a specific shape. It is the repersentation of the cross to the individual that is meaningful. So If you are truly atheist then the cross means nothing to you. Your perception of the cross it that of just another piece of jewlery. It would not have an ability to "offend" you. In fact, anything of a religious nature would not have the ability to offend you if you had a true atheist outlook.
So this means there is something else going on with this issue other then just wanting to remove a cross, or remove a nativity scean from public view. And certainly this court's ruling is bad for all of humanity. Including the atheists.
>> The European Court of Human Rights has ruled against the use of >> crucifixes in classrooms in Italy.
>> It said the practice violated the right of parents to educate their >> children as they saw fit, and ran counter to the child's right to >> freedom of religion.
>> The case was brought by an Italian mother, Soile Lautsi, who wants to >> give her children a secular education.
>> But the ruling has sparked anger in the largely Catholic country, with >> one politician calling the move "shameful".
>> The Strasbourg court found that: "The compulsory display of a symbol >> of a given confession in premises used by the public authorities... >> restricted the right of parents to educate their children in >> conformity with their convictions." >> ... >> ... >> =====
>> Italy now/tomorrow, EU next?
>> Finland's media says that Soile Lautsi was born in Finland, then moved >> in Italy and has 8 years fighted against crusifixes in schools as >> violation of hers childrens rights...
> Intresting. Thanks for posting it.
> There is a bigger picture to be considered here. The European Court of > Human Rights is located in Strasbourg, Germany.The complaint was in > Italy made by someone that was born in Finland. So we have 2 outside > entities telling the population of Italy to change the way it has > lived for a couple thousands of years.
You mean like when the US Supreme court, located in Washington, D.C. rules on a case brought by someone born in Nevada but living in Colorado from Nevada which has implication in every state/
> Now, there are some in America want to give that court the same > ability to tell you in America how to live as well.
You already have such a court, it is called SCOTUS
Which is no
> problem right now because most of you agree with the ruling since you > are atheist.
> But what will happen when the winds of change bring new attitudes > within populations as we have seen happen all throughout history?
The court applies the European convention of Human rights, it does nt make up its own laws.
> What will you say when the winds of change bring something like a "One > World" religion and it will be ruled by the court that all atheist > will bow their knee or suffer the consequences?
> Truly I say to you, A ruling such as this is bad for everyone. It > offers no personal freedoms although it may seem on the surface that > it does. In fact we may be witnessing the begining stages of a world > wide dictatorship where the few will dictate to the many how they will > live; which by the way has even been prophisied about in the bible.
> It would be better for the Atheists in Italy to have more tollerance > (as hard as that will be in an all Catholic Country i realize) then to > allow a hand full of people in another country to dictate how millions > will think and live.
> The same attitudes are even here in America. The cross is just a piece > of metal in a specific shape. It is the repersentation of the cross to > the individual that is meaningful. So If you are truly atheist then > the cross means nothing to you. Your perception of the cross it that > of just another piece of jewlery. It would not have an ability to > "offend" you. In fact, anything of a religious nature would not have > the ability to offend you if you had a true atheist outlook.
> So this means there is something else going on with this issue other > then just wanting to remove a cross, or remove a nativity scean from > public view. And certainly this court's ruling is bad for all of > humanity. Including the atheists.
> >> The European Court of Human Rights has ruled against the use of > >> crucifixes in classrooms in Italy.
> >> It said the practice violated the right of parents to educate their > >> children as they saw fit, and ran counter to the child's right to > >> freedom of religion.
> >> The case was brought by an Italian mother, Soile Lautsi, who wants to > >> give her children a secular education.
> >> But the ruling has sparked anger in the largely Catholic country, with > >> one politician calling the move "shameful".
> >> The Strasbourg court found that: "The compulsory display of a symbol > >> of a given confession in premises used by the public authorities... > >> restricted the right of parents to educate their children in > >> conformity with their convictions." > >> ... > >> ... > >> =====
> >> Italy now/tomorrow, EU next?
> >> Finland's media says that Soile Lautsi was born in Finland, then moved > >> in Italy and has 8 years fighted against crusifixes in schools as > >> violation of hers childrens rights...
> > Intresting. Thanks for posting it.
> > There is a bigger picture to be considered here. The European Court of > > Human Rights is located in Strasbourg, Germany.The complaint was in > > Italy made by someone that was born in Finland. So we have 2 outside > > entities telling the population of Italy to change the way it has > > lived for a couple thousands of years.
> You mean like when the US Supreme court, located in Washington, D.C. > rules on a case brought by someone born in Nevada but living in Colorado > from Nevada which has implication in every state/
Actually... Yes. The federal government's original scope of responsibility was originally only two things. 1) Provide for the common defense of the states that united together and 2) Conduct foreign policy.
So if Boston wants to allow Gay Marriage that does not mean that Kentucky has to do the same. But the Federal courts step in and dictate how each state will allow it's people to live. It was not suppose to be that way. Each state should have the right to live by the will of the people in that state.
> > Now, there are some in America want to give that court the same > > ability to tell you in America how to live as well.
> You already have such a court, it is called SCOTUS
Yep. But thay want to put that court under the The European Court
> Which is no
> > problem right now because most of you agree with the ruling since you > > are atheist.
> > But what will happen when the winds of change bring new attitudes > > within populations as we have seen happen all throughout history?
> The court applies the European convention of Human rights, it does nt > make up its own laws.
Someone makes up the laws. The point stands. The few (in another country) are telling the many how to live in another country. Do you always get so easily distracted from the point?
> > What will you say when the winds of change bring something like a "One > > World" religion and it will be ruled by the court that all atheist > > will bow their knee or suffer the consequences?
> > Truly I say to you, A ruling such as this is bad for everyone. It > > offers no personal freedoms although it may seem on the surface that > > it does. In fact we may be witnessing the begining stages of a world > > wide dictatorship where the few will dictate to the many how they will > > live; which by the way has even been prophisied about in the bible.
> > It would be better for the Atheists in Italy to have more tollerance > > (as hard as that will be in an all Catholic Country i realize) then to > > allow a hand full of people in another country to dictate how millions > > will think and live.
> > The same attitudes are even here in America. The cross is just a piece > > of metal in a specific shape. It is the repersentation of the cross to > > the individual that is meaningful. So If you are truly atheist then > > the cross means nothing to you. Your perception of the cross it that > > of just another piece of jewlery. It would not have an ability to > > "offend" you. In fact, anything of a religious nature would not have > > the ability to offend you if you had a true atheist outlook.
> > So this means there is something else going on with this issue other > > then just wanting to remove a cross, or remove a nativity scean from > > public view. And certainly this court's ruling is bad for all of > > humanity. Including the atheists.
All-Seeing-I wrote: > On Nov 4, 9:02 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote: >> All-Seeing-I wrote: >>> On Nov 3, 4:05 pm, Kari Tikkanen <ktikk...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8340411.stm ===== "Italy >>>> school crucifixes 'barred' The European Court of Human Rights >>>> has ruled against the use of crucifixes in classrooms in Italy. >>>> It said the practice violated the right of parents to educate >>>> their children as they saw fit, and ran counter to the child's >>>> right to freedom of religion. The case was brought by an >>>> Italian mother, Soile Lautsi, who wants to give her children a >>>> secular education. But the ruling has sparked anger in the >>>> largely Catholic country, with one politician calling the move >>>> "shameful". The Strasbourg court found that: "The compulsory >>>> display of a symbol of a given confession in premises used by >>>> the public authorities... restricted the right of parents to >>>> educate their children in conformity with their convictions." >>>> ... ... ===== Italy now/tomorrow, EU next? Finland's media says >>>> that Soile Lautsi was born in Finland, then moved in Italy and >>>> has 8 years fighted against crusifixes in schools as violation >>>> of hers childrens rights... >>> Intresting. Thanks for posting it. There is a bigger picture to >>> be considered here. The European Court of Human Rights is located >>> in Strasbourg, Germany.The complaint was in Italy made by someone >>> that was born in Finland. So we have 2 outside entities telling >>> the population of Italy to change the way it has lived for a >>> couple thousands of years. >> You mean like when the US Supreme court, located in Washington, >> D.C. rules on a case brought by someone born in Nevada but living >> in Colorado from Nevada which has implication in every state/
> Actually... Yes. The federal government's original scope of > responsibility was originally only two things. 1) Provide for the > common defense of the states that united together and 2) Conduct > foreign policy.
> So if Boston wants to allow Gay Marriage that does not mean that > Kentucky has to do the same. But the Federal courts step in and > dictate how each state will allow it's people to live. It was not > suppose to be that way. Each state should have the right to live by > the will of the people in that state.
So the southern states should have the right to hold slaves, or a state shoudl have the right to torture suspects? How about the right to prohibit all religion? Read the 14th Amendment
and why stop at states? How is this different from the Texas Supreme Court in Austin telling people in San Antonio what to do? Laws are always about telling people what to do, that is pretty much their point.
>>> Now, there are some in America want to give that court the same >>> ability to tell you in America how to live as well. >> You already have such a court, it is called SCOTUS
> Yep. But thay want to put that court under the The European Court
So the US is in Europe now, or signatory to the European convention of Human rights? Nonsensical fantasy with no basis in reality.
>> Which is no
>>> problem right now because most of you agree with the ruling since >>> you are atheist. But what will happen when the winds of change >>> bring new attitudes within populations as we have seen happen all >>> throughout history? >> The court applies the European convention of Human rights, it does >> nt make up its own laws.
> Someone makes up the laws.
The point stands. The few (in another
> country) are telling the many how to live in another country. Do you > always get so easily distracted from the point?
The point is that these states signed up voluntarily to a law, they now abide by it. Nobody was forced to do anything. The Italians had as much as a say as the Germans etc.
>>> What will you say when the winds of change bring something like a >>> "One World" religion and it will be ruled by the court that all >>> atheist will bow their knee or suffer the consequences? Truly I >>> say to you, A ruling such as this is bad for everyone. It offers >>> no personal freedoms although it may seem on the surface that it >>> does. In fact we may be witnessing the begining stages of a world >>> wide dictatorship where the few will dictate to the many how >>> they will live; which by the way has even been prophisied about >>> in the bible. It would be better for the Atheists in Italy to >>> have more tollerance (as hard as that will be in an all Catholic >>> Country i realize) then to allow a hand full of people in another >>> country to dictate how millions will think and live. The same >>> attitudes are even here in America. The cross is just a piece of >>> metal in a specific shape. It is the repersentation of the cross >>> to the individual that is meaningful. So If you are truly atheist >>> then the cross means nothing to you. Your perception of the cross >>> it that of just another piece of jewlery. It would not have an >>> ability to "offend" you. In fact, anything of a religious nature >>> would not have the ability to offend you if you had a true >>> atheist outlook. So this means there is something else going on >>> with this issue other then just wanting to remove a cross, or >>> remove a nativity scean from public view. And certainly this >>> court's ruling is bad for all of humanity. Including the >>> atheists. -- Seeing it all The All Seeing I- Hide quoted text - >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> On Nov 3, 4:05 pm, Kari Tikkanen <ktikk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Italy now/tomorrow, EU next?
> > Finland's media says that Soile Lautsi was born in Finland, then moved > > in Italy and has 8 years fighted against crusifixes in schools as > > violation of hers childrens rights...
> Intresting. Thanks for posting it.
> There is a bigger picture to be considered here. The European Court of > Human Rights is located in Strasbourg, Germany.The complaint was in > Italy made by someone that was born in Finland. So we have 2 outside > entities telling the population of Italy to change the way it has > lived for a couple thousands of years.
what we have is italy, having agreed to be part of the EU, how agreeing to be bound by EU decisions...
italy is in europe, if you haven't noticed
> Now, there are some in America want to give that court the same > ability to tell you in America how to live as well.
nope. wrong. no one is proposing that. no one
Which is no
> problem right now because most of you agree with the ruling since you > are atheist.
funny, thomas jefferson agreed with such a ruling as well...ever read the US constitution?
you theocrats just hate religious freedom, don't you?
> But what will happen when the winds of change bring new attitudes > within populations as we have seen happen all throughout history? > What will you say when the winds of change bring something like a "One > World" religion and it will be ruled by the court that all atheist > will bow their knee or suffer the consequences?
yeah. it's called 'christianity'. you guys already tried that, which is why jefferson wrote the 1st amendment. look at the bigotry you guys just pulled in maine.
> It would be better for the Atheists in Italy to have more tollerance > (as hard as that will be in an all Catholic Country i realize) then to > allow a hand full of people in another country to dictate how millions > will think and live.
why shouldn't CHRISTIANS have tolerance? you think jews, muslims, atheists, all think of the cross the same way you do?
> The same attitudes are even here in America. The cross is just a piece > of metal in a specific shape. It is the repersentation of the cross to > the individual that is meaningful. So If you are truly atheist then > the cross means nothing to you.
uh wrong. it means christianity. i have the right, in a public, govt place, not to be exposed to religious ideas i do not agree with. why dont YOU give up your views and accept atheism?
> So this means there is something else going on with this issue other > then just wanting to remove a cross, or remove a nativity scean from > public view. And certainly this court's ruling is bad for all of > humanity. Including the atheists.
On Nov 4, 9:24 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote: > > On Nov 3, 6:18 pm, Rebdominator <dontspam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > This is utter fucking insanity! Is EU here to break down countries > > > values and culture? Its not a secret that this means A LOT to > > > Italians, so if this bitch doesnt like it, its their way or the > > > highway! This is nothing about rights.
> > seems to me italians, french, british, germans, etc. have chosen > > 'european' values as central to their identities. 'national' values > > don't seem to mean much.
> Not really. > Europeans have agreed to a certain minimum standard for human rights. > (which are not particularly European)
i disagree. the modern concept of 'human rights' is very much a european idea.
> > that, in and of itself, is a 'european' value so removing crucifixes > > is totally consistent with the decision europeans have made.
> National laws conflicting with the human rights standard > have to be revised,
i don't know what this means. the vatican seems to think 'human rights' means being religious.
<w...@vsswireless.net> wrote: >On Nov 3, 6:18 pm, Rebdominator <dontspam...@gmail.com> wrote: >> This is utter fucking insanity! Is EU here to break down countries >> values and culture? Its not a secret that this means A LOT to >> Italians, so if this bitch doesnt like it, its their way or the >> highway! This is nothing about rights.
>seems to me italians, french, british, germans, etc. have chosen >'european' values as central to their identities. 'national' values >don't seem to mean much.
You need to talk to more EU "nationals"; national identity and culture are still strong in most EU countries. That fact is one of the major impediments to many suggested EU 'constitutioan" fixes.
I have to admity, thoug, that the younger generation seems to be converging on a common set of cultural values whatever their particular country. Unfortunately, that common set of cultural values seems to be American.
-- ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatu...@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
|
