Comments on: “The crucifix creates discrimination”

By: John M.

John M. — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:24:01 +0000

The crucifix is undeniably a clear symbol denoting Christianity. That said, I think it’s a valid question as to whether it belongs in the classroom. My company makes durable home consumer products, and darn good ones, but I don’t want to put crosses on all of them because our business is making stuff, not evangelizing. That’s my responsibility as an individual within the framework of the organization.

I applaud the Church’s stance on this but disagree with their reasoning. Rather than arguing that the crucifix has multiple significances, they should come right out and say “The crucifix is about Jesus, we’re the Catholic Church, and by golly, we think all you people need Jesus”. They should take the rock-basic position from which all others can deviate. That’s what they’re there for.

Report comment to moderator

By: buddyglass

buddyglass — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 04:09:41 +0000

#21:

If the issue is that these schools are in ancient buildings with “built-in” crucifixes, then I’m sympathetic to the Italian govt’s situation in that it would be costly to relocate them just to avoid the presence of religious imagery. In that case I’d support leaving the schools alone.

However, that’s not what I understood the ruling to be about. It sounded like the Italians were hanging up crucifixes in totally modern facilities “just because”.

Report comment to moderator

By: Random Name

Random Name — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 03:57:25 +0000

Whining, whingeing, kvetching…apparently we Jews have a monopoly on terms for loud and persistent complaining.

If a member of a married couple dies, the other gets some benefits. I have set up my pension from working for a library so that my wife gets full payments if I die first. I made a trade off in that our current benefits are lower, but it is a choice we have to make.

My daughter and her partner can not get the same kind of benefit. Our granddaughter’s sperm donor and his partner (a stable and long-time couple) do not have the opportunity to have similar arrangements. I think both those couples should have a similar opportunity. You don’t. We are enemies in this regard. Civil and non violent enemies, I presume, but opponents none the less. In five minutes the first election results should be coming in for Washington state. I hope you will be losing, though I don’t take it for granted that you will be. If you are, I look forward to your whining.

Report comment to moderator

By: tjs catlover

tjs catlover — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:51:22 +0000

Mynock: I think Random has a point about the whining. I’m not going to pretend that I haven’t seen Christians do it too.

Social Security benefits? Educate me: what are these benefits? Why do gays not have them? And why do they merit “huge controversy” status?

Report comment to moderator

By: Justus331

Justus331 — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:37:03 +0000

The only reason people around the world get such a bellache over a crucifix or a cross, is that they have to aknowledge personal accountability for themselves, and their eternal desitination is determined by it.

1 Corinthians 1:18 says: For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

end of story

Report comment to moderator

By: mynock

mynock — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:27:36 +0000

Random, are you sure that “whining” is the term you would like to use to describe the gay rights movement? What about asking for social security benefits is a “whine”?!

Report comment to moderator

By: Random Name

Random Name — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:25:09 +0000

But of course the crucifix causes discrimination. Christians are discriminated against world wide, even to the point of having wives and daughters raped and murdered, husbands and sons murdered, property destroyed, and made to run for their very lives.

During the history of Christianity, Christians have been persecuted and Christians have persecuted.

I think Christians should be allowed to wear crosses and display crosses. I don’t know that government institutions should be displaying religious symbols and slogans.

As I’ve said, I think persecution or lack thereof of Christians and of homosexuals should be linked together. At the moment in the United States, neither group is much persecuted, though both groups engage in considerable whining. However, homosexuals’ status in society seems to be on the rise and Christians’ status in society seems to be on the wane.

Under my proposal, we will balance these out. However, as always, the devil is in the details.

Report comment to moderator

By: mynock

mynock — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:22:17 +0000

While renaissance images of the Madonna and child might fall correctly into the category of “Italian Culture”, I don’t think that it can be said that the crucifix itself has any unique Italian meaning, and if that meaning alluded to is to enforce the idea that Italy is a “Catholic Country” then the court is most likely correct to say it is creating discrimination.

Report comment to moderator

By: Sylvie

Sylvie — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:36:54 +0000

BuddyGlass # 12: “And they didn’t say the cross is evil. They said it may be offensive to people who aren’t Christians and that, as such, the Italian can’t force public school students to view it.”

According to your summary of the ruling, the court’s order seems a wee bit nit-picky. Has this court taken a stroll through any Italian city recently? Crosses, crucifixes, and religious symbols adorn nearly every building over 100 years old. If the Italians can’t force public school students to view crucifixes displayed in the schools, why can they force the entire population to view them displayed in the streets? It seems a bit, well, legalistic to say that displayed inside a building, the symbol is offensive ;however, protruding from the tallest spire in Rome, the symbol is cultural.

(clarification: I don’t know where you stand on this ruling, just discussing the summary of it that you posted.)

General comment: it doesn’t pay to sue in Europe. All she gets in 5000 euros?? If I remember correctly, that’s not even half of the minimum salary for a year’s work in France (the SMIC.) She was trying to make a statement, but I’m not quite sure what she accomplished in the country of the Roman Catholic Church.

Report comment to moderator

By: buddyglass

buddyglass — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:36:10 +0000

#17:

The EU can make judgments like that, yes. Because it’s a voluntary union. If want in then you play by their rules. If you don’t want to play by their rules, well, that’s your prerogative, but you won’t enjoy the theoretical benefits of being an EU member state. At least that’s how I understand it. If that’s accurate, then I have zero problem with it.

As for the anti-christ, if it is prophesied that he’ll take control of the nations, then it’s going to happen EU or no EU. One-world government or no one-world government. So I’m not especially concerned on that account.

Report comment to moderator