http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lautsi_v._Italy
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/mar/...es-allowed

What are your thoughts regarding religious symbols in classrooms?

The Italy V. Lautsi case ended with the European Court allowing crucifixes to be maintained in classrooms as a symbol of cultural identity. Firstly they decided against religious symbols in classrooms, but after that the court reunited fully with all judges and they decided it was not against the Italian constitution or Human Rights

I've studied extensively and debated this case in college, I'd like to know other people's opinions

Keep in mind this is not against personal symbols every person can wear, but against symbols placed deliberately in public schools/classrooms where everyone can see them.

If it has anything to do with religion then they have no place in public schools. It sounds like they skirted around the issue to find a loophole. Is a pentacle allowed to express cultural identity? What other symbols are permitted in public schools and when is that line crossed?

As a secularist and an advocate or pluralism, I'd have to say either no symbol, or all of them (or no ability to object should someone want any religious symbol placed in school, including i guess the usual atheist 'A' or even the IPU or FSM.

At least in state schools, or schools that utilise public funding. Fat chance of that in the UK though where the state is happy to fund religious schools of any persuasion so long as they utilise the national curriculum. But even that's being eroded as so called free schools and academies can be set up by anyone, with state funding, to teach almost whatever they want (so long as they teach the curriculum as a minimum).

(July 3, 2014 at 12:41 pm)Elskidor Wrote: If it has anything to do with religion then they have no place in public schools. It sounds like they skirted around the issue to find a loophole. Is a pentacle allowed to express cultural identity? What other symbols are permitted in public schools and when is that line crossed?

I used the loophole argument against my Christian professor, the fact is Christianity influenced our culture, but what's the first thing you remind when you see a cross? Jesus Christ, AKA the Messiah of Christianity, the cultural argument sounded like bullshit and it's depressing seeing it coming from a court composed by qualified judges that should satisfy the principle of impartiality.

When someone invokes 'culture' in their argument one should automatically be suspicious.

It's a catch all term that can be used to justify just about anything.

I can accept all of them, but only in the classroom where a comparative religion course is being taught.

Any religous symbol a student wants to wear that's not otherwise against the dress code, but no need for a public school classroom to be decorated with religous (or anti-religious) symbols.

If there is one thing they should have in Italy in abundance it is colanders.

The FSM will be well-represented.

I say, go whole hog. If you want to wear a cross as a symbol of your Christian faith, you should be required to wear a crown of thorns to show you're serious. Similarly, if you want to wear a star of David to announce your Jewishness, you should have to drag a dead Palestinian about with you wherever you go. Fair is fair.

Boru

I don't see an issue with the use of religious symbols of whatever faith in the classroom. If you start banning and censoring, you lead yourself towards fascism.