| Author | Post |
|---|
TR1985
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 02:09 pm |
|
S. wrote: TR1985 wrote: European Snob wrote: TR1985 wrote: What does the text of Article 2 Protocol No 1 state?
http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html
Happy hunting. 
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
I'm assuming this is where they get the legal reasoning for their decision.
Article two of Protocol 1 is here:
No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religions and philosophical convictions.
Thank You.
|
European Snob
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 02:13 pm |
|
TR1985 wrote: European Snob wrote: TR1985 wrote: Its ridiculous. This has been a tradition of the Italians for centuries, they haven't opted to outlaw it, and now this court decides to issue a ruling to tell the Italians that they have it wrong.
Again, follow the treaty you've signed or withdraw from it.
No. There's always the tradition of ignoring it.
Indeed, and in Italy that tradition is exceptionally strong. Besides, we're forgetting that the court didn't even order the crucifixes to be removed.
"The court awarded her 5,000 euros (£4,470) in "moral damages", which will have to be paid by the Italian government. It stopped short of ordering authorities to remove crucifixes from all state-run schools and the long-term implications of the ruling were unclear."
Telegraph
Last edited on Fri Nov 6th, 2009 02:14 pm by European Snob
|
TR1985
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 02:16 pm |
|
How rude for the Finnish woman to complain about the crucifixes. It's akin to me going to a black friend's and complaining about the soul food.
Unless Europeans now accept that there is as little difference between Italy and Finland as there is between Ohio and Colorado.
|
andytown
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 02:16 pm |
|
NO ! COME YOU OVER SNOB--AND I REALLY WILL SHOW YOU HOW DIPLOMATIC I AM,AND IF YOU FIND SOME IRISH MP BASTERRD TO AGREE WITH YOU ,WELL I'LL SHOW BOTH OF YOU.
NO WAY --IRELAND IS NOT GOING THE WAY OF AMERICA,OR ANY OTHER OF THESE FREE LOVING EUROs
WE ARE NOTED FOR OUR FREEDOM AND LIBERTY ,AND THE PRICE WE PAID FOR IT,BUT NO ONE STEPS ON US OVER TRIVAL SHYTE LIKE THIS.
IT WOULD TAKE A BRAVE MAN IN THE DAIL TO SUGGEST SUCH CRAP
I CAN ASSURE WHERE THERE ARE NO CROSSES...HUNDREDS WOULD APPEAR ALL OVER THE PLACE---EVEN UP YOUR JACKSEY
|
European Snob
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 02:19 pm |
|
TR1985 wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateran_Pacts
No. It isn't. Italy provides funding for Catholic Churches.
So does France.
|
TR1985
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 02:21 pm |
|
European Snob wrote: TR1985 wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateran_Pacts
No. It isn't. Italy provides funding for Catholic Churches.
So does France.
Indeed. So why not have the European Court of Human Rights declare it illegal?
|
European Snob
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 02:22 pm |
|
TR1985 wrote: How rude for the Finnish woman to complain about the crucifixes. It's akin to me going to a black friend's and complaining about the soul food.
Unless Europeans now accept that there is as little difference between Italy and Finland as there is between Ohio and Colorado.
Some have a European identity, some don't. But I certainly agree that the woman in question lacks tact to say the least...
|
Axis Mundi
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 02:22 pm |
|
TR1985 wrote: Axis Mundi wrote: TR1985 wrote: Axis Mundi wrote: Slaol_121 wrote: Symbols have a tremendous power to convey meaning, and the secularizing forces reigning in the European Union seem bent on eradicating all signs of the Christian civilization which once flourished in every one of its 27 member nations.
As the Lisbon Treaty tightens the noose around the necks of the nations of what was once Christian Europe, an appalling circumstance in Italy summarizes the shape of things to come. A report at Catholic.org (“Italy’s Bishops Irate over Crucifix Ban by European Court”) demonstrates what ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ actually mean in practice: A ban on expression of a nation’s Christian heritage.
Italy's bishops are saying the European Court of Human Rights is guilty of a partial and ideological outlook with its Tuesday decision that crucifixes in public school are a violation of freedom.
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5597-european-court-fines-italy-for-classroom-display-of-the-crucifix
Public schools are paid for by everyone. Not everyone in those cutnries are Christians. There is no logical reason or reasoning why Christianity should enjoy special treatment in a ppublic school.
Religion belongs in the private sector, not government.
That's a provision of the American government. Not the Italian. Who are you or a non-elected government to infringe on the wishes of the Italian people?
From the Constitution of Italy...
http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/it00000_.html
 , without regard to their sex, race, language, religion, political opinions, and personal or social conditions.
(2) It is the duty of the republic to remove all economic and social obstacles that, by limiting the freedom and equality of citizens, prevent full individual development and the participation of all workers in the political, economic, and social organization of the country.
Article 7 [Relation between State and Church]
(1) State and catholic church are, each within their own reign, independent and sovereign.
(2) Their relationship is regulated by the lateran pacts. Amendments to these pacts which are accepted by both parties do not require the procedure of constitutional amendments.
Article 8 [Religion]
(1) Religious denominations are equally free before the law.
(2) Denominations other than catholicism have the right to organize themselves according to their own by-laws, provided they do not conflict with the italian legal system.
(3) Their relationship with the state is regulated by law, based on agreements with their representatives.
And especially...
Article 20 [Religious Associations]
For associations or institutions, their religious character or religious or confessional aims do not justify special limitations or fiscal burdens regarding their establishment, legal capacity, or activities.
While their Establishment Clause isn't as succinct as ours, it is still there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateran_Pacts
No. It isn't. Italy provides funding for Catholic Churches.
And we have a Christian prayer for a National Motto, whatser point?
And are you speaking of this political portion of the treaty?...
A financial convention agreed on as a definitive settlement of the claims of the Holy See following the losses of its territories and property.
|
European Snob
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 02:23 pm |
|
TR1985 wrote: European Snob wrote: TR1985 wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateran_Pacts
No. It isn't. Italy provides funding for Catholic Churches.
So does France.
Indeed. So why not have the European Court of Human Rights declare it illegal?
Because it doesn't violate any European laws?
|
TR1985
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 02:24 pm |
|
Axis Mundi wrote: TR1985 wrote: Axis Mundi wrote: TR1985 wrote: Axis Mundi wrote: Slaol_121 wrote: Symbols have a tremendous power to convey meaning, and the secularizing forces reigning in the European Union seem bent on eradicating all signs of the Christian civilization which once flourished in every one of its 27 member nations.
As the Lisbon Treaty tightens the noose around the necks of the nations of what was once Christian Europe, an appalling circumstance in Italy summarizes the shape of things to come. A report at Catholic.org (“Italy’s Bishops Irate over Crucifix Ban by European Court”) demonstrates what ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ actually mean in practice: A ban on expression of a nation’s Christian heritage.
Italy's bishops are saying the European Court of Human Rights is guilty of a partial and ideological outlook with its Tuesday decision that crucifixes in public school are a violation of freedom.
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5597-european-court-fines-italy-for-classroom-display-of-the-crucifix
Public schools are paid for by everyone. Not everyone in those cutnries are Christians. There is no logical reason or reasoning why Christianity should enjoy special treatment in a ppublic school.
Religion belongs in the private sector, not government.
That's a provision of the American government. Not the Italian. Who are you or a non-elected government to infringe on the wishes of the Italian people?
From the Constitution of Italy...
http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/it00000_.html
, without regard to their sex, race, language, religion, political opinions, and personal or social conditions.
(2) It is the duty of the republic to remove all economic and social obstacles that, by limiting the freedom and equality of citizens, prevent full individual development and the participation of all workers in the political, economic, and social organization of the country.
Article 7 [Relation between State and Church]
(1) State and catholic church are, each within their own reign, independent and sovereign.
(2) Their relationship is regulated by the lateran pacts. Amendments to these pacts which are accepted by both parties do not require the procedure of constitutional amendments.
Article 8 [Religion]
(1) Religious denominations are equally free before the law.
(2) Denominations other than catholicism have the right to organize themselves according to their own by-laws, provided they do not conflict with the italian legal system.
(3) Their relationship with the state is regulated by law, based on agreements with their representatives.
And especially...
Article 20 [Religious Associations]
For associations or institutions, their religious character or religious or confessional aims do not justify special limitations or fiscal burdens regarding their establishment, legal capacity, or activities.
While their Establishment Clause isn't as succinct as ours, it is still there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateran_Pacts
No. It isn't. Italy provides funding for Catholic Churches.
And we have a Christian prayer for a National Motto, whatser point?
And are you speaking of this political portion of the treaty?...
A financial convention agreed on as a definitive settlement of the claims of the Holy See following the losses of its territories and property. My point is that Italy has a right to uphold and protect its traditions, which include a good serving of cafeteria catholicism.
|
European Snob
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 02:25 pm |
|
andytown wrote: NO ! COME YOU OVER SNOB--AND I REALLY WILL SHOW YOU HOW DIPLOMATIC I AM,AND IF YOU FIND SOME IRISH MP BASTERRD TO AGREE WITH YOU ,WELL I'LL SHOW BOTH OF YOU.
NO WAY --IRELAND IS NOT GOING THE WAY OF AMERICA,OR ANY OTHER OF THESE FREE LOVING EUROs
WE ARE NOTED FOR OUR FREEDOM AND LIBERTY ,AND THE PRICE WE PAID FOR IT,BUT NO ONE STEPS ON US OVER TRIVAL SHYTE LIKE THIS.
IT WOULD TAKE A BRAVE MAN IN THE DAIL TO SUGGEST SUCH CRAP
I CAN ASSURE WHERE THERE ARE NO CROSSES...HUNDREDS WOULD APPEAR ALL OVER THE PLACE---EVEN UP YOUR JACKSEY
Andy, take a happy pill. Seriously.
|
TR1985
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 02:26 pm |
|
European Snob wrote: TR1985 wrote: European Snob wrote: TR1985 wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateran_Pacts
No. It isn't. Italy provides funding for Catholic Churches.
So does France.
Indeed. So why not have the European Court of Human Rights declare it illegal?
Because it doesn't violate any European laws?
It doesn't violate a particular interpretation of laws. Who is to say that the Court won't in the future say that it violates religious freedom?
|
European Snob
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 02:27 pm |
|
TR1985 wrote:
My point is that Italy has a right to uphold and protect its traditions, which include a good serving of cafeteria catholicism.
For the last time, they've voluntarily signed the treaty. If they withdraw from it, they can bloody burn witches at the stake if they want.
|
TR1985
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 02:28 pm |
|
European Snob wrote: TR1985 wrote:
My point is that Italy has a right to uphold and protect its traditions, which include a good serving of cafeteria catholicism.
For the last time, they've voluntarily signed the treaty. If they withdraw from it, they can bloody burn witches at the stake if they want.
You are right. They should withdraw. Most likely, I think they will just ignore it.
|
European Snob
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 02:29 pm |
|
TR1985 wrote: It doesn't violate a particular interpretation of laws. Who is to say that the Court won't in the future say that it violates religious freedom?
Who is to say the US supreme court won't in the future say that the constitution bans marriage between man and woman?
|
European Snob
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 02:29 pm |
|
TR1985 wrote: European Snob wrote: For the last time, they've voluntarily signed the treaty. If they withdraw from it, they can bloody burn witches at the stake if they want.
You are right. They should withdraw. Most likely, I think they will just ignore it.
Ignore what, exactly? The 5000€ fine?
|
TR1985
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 02:30 pm |
|
European Snob wrote: TR1985 wrote: It doesn't violate a particular interpretation of laws. Who is to say that the Court won't in the future say that it violates religious freedom?
Who is to say the US supreme court won't in the future say that the constitution bans marriage between man and woman?
Really. Nothing. The American Supreme Court has almost unlimited power and very few checks on it.
|
TR1985
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 02:30 pm |
|
European Snob wrote: TR1985 wrote: European Snob wrote: For the last time, they've voluntarily signed the treaty. If they withdraw from it, they can bloody burn witches at the stake if they want.
You are right. They should withdraw. Most likely, I think they will just ignore it.
Ignore what, exactly? The 5000€ fine?
I'm sure they can figure out a way not to pay.
|
European Snob
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 02:32 pm |
|
TR1985 wrote: I'm sure they can figure out a way not to pay.
If anyone can do it, it's the Italians. 
|
TR1985
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 02:34 pm |
|
European Snob wrote: TR1985 wrote: I'm sure they can figure out a way not to pay.
If anyone can do it, it's the Italians.
The Italian part of me is too distant and assimilated to understand that.
|
Current time is 05:51 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ...   |
|
