Crucifixes are not a symbol of history, culture and secularism.

The European Court of Human Rights today ruled against the presence of crucifixes in Italian classrooms, stating that such displays violate religious and education freedoms, rejecting Italy’s arguments that the crucifix was a symbol of culture, history and secularism. Nice one.

The facts in Lautsi v. Italy were thus: Referring to a Court of Cassation judgement of 2000 which found the presence of crucifixes in polling stations contrary to the principles of secularism of the State, Ms Lautsi had written to her sons’ school on the matter of the display of crucifixes in classroom. In response, The Ministry of State Education issued a directive to all head teachers recommending that the crucifixes remain where they were.

Following a number of previous decisions regarding religious garments and symbols in the public area of secular nations, the Court unanimously ruled against the Italian state, failing to understand how a symbol associated with Catholicism could serve the educational pluralism that was essential to the preservation of a ‘democratic society’ as that was conceived by the Convention. Further, the Court recommended the State refrain from imposing beliefs in premises where individuals were dependent on it.

Director of the Holy See Press Office, Rev Federico Lombardi, naturally, as only a theologian can, claimed that the cross and crucifix are not solely religious symbols, but additionally represent European humanist values, and that the Court has no jurisdiction to proclaim on such a profoundly Italian matter.

Well, the act of torture that is nailing a living a human to a cross and leaving him there until such time that he expires has never been a symbol of humanism, but rather of humanity at it most brutally cruel, ignorant and intolerant. The Christian deity so loved that the world that He gave us His only son. And did nothing to save him from a violent death.

To remain impassive while His child was murdered in the most barbaric and reprehensible manner is an act that only the unquestioningly idiotic could interpret as paternal, tender loving care. Try that very same act today and see where it lands you. I’d suggest a life-time of reflection in a psychiatric correctional institution. We’ve moved on from Middle East schlock-horror tales as a system of moral guidance.

Secondly, the Reverend is wrong to think this an Italian matter. The ongoing parliamentary inquiry in France on the burqa and, more importantly, the off-again, on-again debate in Turkey about the headscarf in public office show to what point secular values need to be reiterated and be given legal weight against the insidious creep of religious indoctrination. State and religion were long ago forcefully separated so that humanity could drag itself from the ideologies of fear disseminated equally during sermons from pulpit to minbar.

The rhetoric of delusion has not yet been silenced, however, the European Court of Human Rights offers hope that students of Italian state schools might benefit from a little more effective insulation and protection against the ill-wind that hosts the unstoppable, constantly-mutating bacteria of religion.

The Italian State plans to appeal.