RSS
Home
In the interest of diversity
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
How far will the powers of "political correctness" bend over backward in order to demonstrate their opposition to all things Christian? Yesterday, the European Court of Human Rights, based in Strasbourg, France, ruled that crucifixes should be removed from classrooms in Italy! The ruling stated that crucifixes on classroom walls "could disturb children who were not Christian." Whether or not their removal has the potential to disturb those children who are Christians was a question apparently not addressed. Italy will appeal the ruling. Why? There is a better option.
According to the Reuters article by Philip Pullella, published in today's Washington Times, an Italian national named Soile Lautsi sued because her children had to attend a public school that had crucifixes in every room. Awwww. Clearly, Ms. Lautsi has too much time on her hands. The article doesn't make the point, but it would seem that she brought suit at the European Court of Human Rights because an Italian court would probably have unceremoniously thrown her suit out, as the ECHR should have done.
The Italian powers that be should steal a page from Andrew Jackson and make it known that, to paraphrase Jackson, "The European Court of Human Rights has issued its ruling. Now let it enforce it."
What is behind this ruling? The article states that Italy is now home to a "growing population of immigrants, mostly Muslims." Wait just a darned minute! Whose country is it anyway? By definition, a country does not belong to "immigrants." It belongs to those native to the country, i.e., one must be born there.
One may also join the native population through the process of "assimilation." But, in order to assimilate, one must first ask permission. Is there not some sort of application process to which a prospective immigrant must submit in order to gain entrance to the country and society of his choice? Would not that application process include a requirement that the applicant respect all of the laws and customs of the host country? If one were to move to France, for example, would it not behoove him to learn to speak French? Learning to speak English if one moves to America is not required. We just add signs in Spanish and change the telephone menus.
If Ms. Lautsi had had the temerity to bring such a suit against a Muslim symbol in, for example, Saudi Arabia, she might have been stoned. Her church might have been bombed, or gunmen might have lain in wait for she and the rest of the congragation to exit the church at the end of the service. She would not be beheaded by a fanatical Christian in the name of God.
Where do Christians draw the line? When will the line be drawn, if not right now? The freedom to worship as one pleases is not just a few words from the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is the fundamental right of every human being, and it comes from God Himself. No man has the power to take it away, or impose his interpretation. The court did so anyway. U.S. courts sometimes do it as well.
Furthermore, in this case, the court placed the objection of one individual above the the culture and mores of an entire country. Italy is an ancient society, home to the Vatican, the very seat of Roman Catholicism, and a place where the court's ruling would have special significance. Italy should ignore it as unworthy of its attention. It should also make it clear that, while Muslim immigrants are most welcome, in Italy, a Muslim attitude of intolerance toward the established religion will not be tolerated on pain of deportation to their native country.
Italy should also introduce Soile Lautsi to the concept of home-schooling.
Related Articles:
Comments
