Home Cultura da Avvenire The Crucified master of civilization
The Crucified master of civilization Print
Written by Administrator   
Thursday, 16 February 2006 10:20

JUDGMENT OF THE COURTS


"For everyone, believers and unbelievers, his exposure does not discriminate: it immediately draws the concepts of" tolerance, mutual respect, human rights, freedom '

The crucifix is "It synthesis of values even for the laity '

For the Council of State is "the appropriate symbol to express the fundamentals civilians" and has "highly educational function" regardless of religion

From Rome Danilo Paolini

It is a sign that does not discriminate but unites, not offend but educate: outside churches, in a public office can be like a school, the crucifix is a reference to faith for Christians, but for believers and non-believers during his speech will be justified and assume a non-discriminatory meaning in terms of religion, whether it is able to represent and recall in summary form and immediately perceptible intuibile (like every symbol) values civilly relevant, namely those values that inspire the subject and our constitutional order, the foundation of our civil coexistence. "

Or 'tolerance, mutual respect, enhancement of the person, assertion of its rights, respect for its freedom, autonomy of conscience against the moral, human solidarity, rejection of any discrimination. " Values that have soaked himself traditions, way of life, culture of the Italian people. " In this sense "the crucifix can play, even in a horizon" secular ", other than religious that is a highly educational symbolic function, regardless of the religion professed by the pupils." With the ruling number 556/2006, filed last Monday in the secretariat, the sixth section of the State Council chaired by Giorgio Giovannini some fixed points, in strictly legal terms, in a debate, one on freedom of religion and secularism of the Italian Republic, too often inspired by the same interpretation that courts have described as "ideological". Indeed, even after the publication of the verdict were raised voices of doubt that use exactly the same arguments rejected by courts of Palazzo Spada. These, in fact, have deemed "unfounded" the appeal of Mrs Soile Laut, which in 2002 had directed the Regional Administrative Court of Veneto to ask for the removal from school Visited Abano Terme by his sons, the crucifix, whose exposure would say it violated the principles of secularism and the rule of impartiality. The Tar del Veneto, after having raised the matter before the Constitutional Court (which had declared ineligible), had rejected the appeal. The same was done in an appellate capacity, the Council of State, maximum administrative court. What has motivated its decision with the principle of secularity of the state: "You can not think of the crucifix in classrooms exposed as a furnishings, furniture object - in fact write the judges - and even as an object of worship, we must thinking rather as a symbol to express the high foundation of civic values above, which are the values that shape the secular order in the State. A secular state, therefore, that respects the sensitivities and religious freedom for all, while reaffirming values common to all citizens. Indeed, we read the ruling yet, "the Italian cultural context seems difficult to find another symbol, in truth, which lends itself more of it (the crucifix, ndr) to do so, and the rest of the appellant wishes (and claims) a white wall, only that it seems particularly appropriate with the value of the secular state. " The decision of school authorities "in implementation of regulations" to display the crucifix - said the council of state - would therefore not be objectionable with regard to the principle of secularism just the Italian State. Neither is true object - as did lawyers in the application of the lady and continue to systematically make some politicians - that those regulations (contained in Royal Decree 965 of 1924) were issued when the Catholic religion was "the only religion of the state" because "It is equally true that this rule did not prevent at least legislature, over several decades, to take in many areas of life of state legislation contrary to the interests of the Catholic confession" and even "due to the Catholic Church among the groups illegal ' .