Not only has Italy banned the crucifix from a classroom — now they've thrown the Pope's "Jubilee Cross" into the garbage.
The classroom crucifix ban accedes to the wishes of "Muslim activist" Adel Smith, who was offended by the thought of his daughter having to gaze in class at a "miniature cadaver."
Smith pressed all the right buttons: "I have simply been granted the constitutional right that religious symbols not be on display in classrooms where my children study." So one may argue that the Italian court's ruling on this was not supine dhimmitude, but simple constitutional justice in a secular state.
But contrast this solicitude to recent events in Egypt, where 22 Christians have been arrested in the last week — many of them converts from Islam. It's not illegal in "secular" Egypt to convert from Islam to another religion, but in Islamic law such a conversion carries a death sentence, and Egyptian officials are showing how influential that law remains in Egypt.
No one in Egypt is helpfully removing Islamic symbols from public places in order to avoid offending that country's non-Muslim minorities. Ultimately, the Smith ruling in Italy and the harrassment and torture of ex-Muslims in Egypt are just two manifestations of the fact that, far from being a relic of the past, dhimmitude is alive and well, and growing in power. Both post-Christian secularists in Italy and radical Muslim thugs in Egypt seem to agree: relations between Christianity and Islam must not be characterized by mutual coexistence as equals, but by the supremacy of Islam and Muslims.
You wrote that "one may argue that the Italian court's ruling on this was not supine dhimmitude, but stimple constitutional justice in a secular state." You then go on to discribe dhimmitude in Egypt. Is your argument that the removal of religious symbolism in an Italian classroom is in fact "supine dhimmitude"? If so, how is your case made or bolstered by the Egyptian example?
I think the Italian courts ruling was both supine dhimmitude via constitutional justice in a secular state. Muslims have become savvy in how to use contructs and devices in democracies to tear down and achieve dhimmitude, like removing the crucifix. In Egypt, there is active dhimmitude and Islamic Sharia law requires it, which explains why Christians are threated as secondary citizens.
These two incidents are juxtaposed to demonstrate that even in a secular democratic country like Italy dhimmitude can be achieved in small cuts, and reveals that in Egypt dhimmitude is a huge gash on the body of humanity.
Chir and Moor, being an American in a country that is increasingly anti-religions, especially around Easter, Christmas, and the Jewish Holidays (sorry, not Jewish, can't spell them, nor do I know when they occur), I think I understand the point he is trying to make.
What is happening in this country is that the secular atheists, link in the ACLU, use the first amendment to strip religious (except for kwanza and Muslim images) symbols and terminology from public places. This occurs in schools, public squares with "merry Christmas" signs, and in all other locations, religious holiday symbols once stood.
While these religious symbolism in public offends the political atheists and increasingly, the Muslims, the Jews are never offended by the Christmas postings and the Christians are never offended by the Jewish postings, which makes the only people to contest public postings, the secular atheists and now, increasingly, the Muslims, who claim offense at sights like the cross (crusades), nativity scenes (Christians in Muslim lands???). However, Muslim prayer rooms in public schools are rarely ever contested because, frankly, the Christians and Muslims really don’t care.
These law suites are based on the supposed separation of Church and state, which is really a prohibition on the State from establishing a state church. I would imagine similar laws are manipulated the same way in Europe. The idea is to remove state favoritism of a certain religion, but because of the select application or manipulation of these laws, the end result is an ad-hoc system of persecution of Christians and Jews and the appearance of favorability towards the Muslims.
The solution, in my opinion, is for the Muslims and atheists (I am one) to get some backbone and bug off the Christians and Jews. However, the Christians and Jews make the atheists feel guilty about their promiscuity and infanticide and typical immoral life style and the Muslims are offended, well, because we are all supposed to be Muslim. You will note a complete absence of Buddhists and Hindus from filing these kinds of law suites, because, again, they tolerate other religions.
I think that the author brought up Egypt to show where this can lead, and frankly, he has a point. Twenty years ago, we were asked to stop saying prayer in school. Now kids are getting suspended for mentioning Jesus and God as major influences in their life and success at public graduation ceremonies from public schools. And worse yet, Christians and Jews are in some cases, being told to remove necklaces with the star of David and a cross on it. The authors point was that this is a downward spiral that needs to be stopped now. You see, he recognizes the agenda of these people and knows where it will lead.
Last sentance of second paragraph of last post should read...
the Christians and Jews (not Muslims) really don’t care.
Sorry bout the polution.