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.

Ire

If there's one thing that makes me angry, it's people.

As is my regular Sunday afternoon, I've been browsing the electronic press and came across an article in the Sydney Morning Herald that informs me the Malaysian government is proposing to impose restrictions on women travelling alone outside the country.

The Malaysian ruling party is debating whether or not women should provide written consent from families or employers before being permitted to move outside the country's borders. Apparently there has been a significant number of criminal cases in which female Malaysian nationals have been duped into transporting illegal drugs and at present over one hundred women are lingering in foreign prisons.

The state news agency views this as a move to counteract criminal activity but I smell religious influence. I very much doubt that Malaysia, with a population of highly-educated nationals in a vibrant, dynamic and multi-ethnic society, has any further use for the stunted minds of officials stunted by misogynistic, God-fearing claptrap.

My grandmother, mother, sisters and female friends and colleagues are living proof that the chicks are equal to men in every way except their ability to remember birthdays and every celebration date I manage to forget. I find it incredulous that once again the evil that is religion pervades even further into a society that seemed secular not so very long ago. I was last in Malaysia in 1992 and retain vivid memories gorging on chicken satays in Ipoh and belting out Country and Western ditties in a karaoke bar somewhere in Sitiawan.

I loathe religion. I detest it because I've never seen it's positive side. Whether God exists or not is up to the individual and not the lawmaker. The Western Church may have given us some rather dab painting commissions and extravagant architecture that would have otherwise never seen the light of day, but for religion to continue to interfere with the rights of the individual is unacceptable and, in this day and age, deserving of two hard smacks to either side of the face.

Equally outraged but more eloquent in style are the words of Norhayati Kaprawi, a spokeswoman for Sisters in Islam. She is quoted as saying 'It is totally ridiculous and it's a totally regressive proposal with regards to women's right to movement'. I agree.

That written permission is going to halt the transportation of A-class drugs across transnational boundaries...

God, if you really existed you wouldn't have made the human race so stupid.

And if I were a Malaysian woman I'd be after someone's head.