in Michele Martelli
What does it matter who was crucified by the Italian Constitution? Nothing. By the time, the Composition of the revision of 1984, signed, his goodness, by the Church / State of the Vatican, was revised Article 7 of compromise and contradictory, and deleted the formula, dating from 1929 Concordat of Catholicism "sole religion of State '. Since then, as decided by the Constitutional Court Judgement No 203 of 12 April 1989, the Italian government is expected to be in effect, a secular state, and non-denominational, let alone Catholic: "The principle of secularism, which is clear from Articles. 2, 3, 7, 8, 19 and 20 of the Constitution, implies not indifference to religion but the State before a State guarantee for the protection of freedom of religion, under the confessional and cultural pluralism. "
If Italy is to respect the constitutional legality, if secularism, pluralism, spirit, style and rules of constitutional democracy had become common sense, who would argue over crucifixes in the courts, schools, classrooms Board and public places? But yes. We discuss it. Because we live in a country that is still the backyard of the Vatican. That at least is designed not only by Roman Curia, but also by the ruling center-right, spineless, prone and always ready to fulfill the sacred desired Cei and the Vatican (the strengthening of private schools in bioassays). And since in Italy, from the time when Bertha was spinning, who's in charge makes the good and the bad weather, such is the indifference of most people qualunquistica ("Fuck", "this and that to me are equal" ), it's no wonder that it should be multiplied by a radial episodes and regressive phenomena, from the medieval old Christianitas being restored.
And they are already too many. We can cite the statements of the former pagan Celtic cross-Lega and Deputy Castelli ("We will propose to place the cross in the flag") and those of his party colleague Minister Maroni (satisfied no minarets in Switzerland, did not think that that would not caused, in retaliation, the threat of jihadist Gaddafi against Switzerland?). Or we can remember loving the transport of Berlusconi for the Church ("Against the Church in Italy does not rule": better to govern "with" fact "below, submitted to the Church?") And his anxiety to get lost, his "birbanterie" with the escort, by Cardinal Bertone, Secretary di Stato vaticano, alla Festa aquilana della Perdonanza, sotto i riflettori di stampa e tivvù (Palazzo Chigi varrà pure un baciamani!). O il ricorso del governo di Sua Maestà di Arcore contro la sentenza della Corte europea dei Diritti Umani di Strasburgo sulla rimozione del crocifisso dalle aule delle scuole pubbliche italiane (“Quei giudici devono morire”, è stato il commento del ministro La Russa; intendeva: magari con un incursione della X Mas, se ci fosse?).
L’Italia filo clericale, invaticanata, contro l’Europa laica e secolarizzata.
Alla Corte di Strasburgo ha dichiarato Luigi Tosti of wanting to appeal, "the court anti-crucified" (declined between 2005 and 2006 to conduct hearings in the courtroom of Dressing topped with a crucifix), recently expelled from the CSM, although it was already acquitted by the Court of Cassation. So a judge of a secular republic should be forced to issue rulings with the crucifix hanging behind him? Tosti is no coincidence that defined the process of the CSM "worthy of the best Holy Inquisition of the Catholic Church." Camerino in the province of Macerata. Do you know what resolved the right-wing majority of the provincial council? The permanent exhibition of the crucifix in the council chamber. "Chronicles of Macerata" ha avviato un sondaggio. I risultati? Al 22 gennaio 2010: su 70 votanti, 57/% sì, 47% no. A San Severino Marche (Macerata) in consiglio comunale è stato votata una “mozione sul crocifisso” che ne obbliga l‘ostensione in tutti gli uffici pubblici. Un’altra spia di un’Italia poco laica e molto clericale. Se così è, i laici hanno davvero molto da lavorare.
Ancora più eclatante la notizia che arriva da Pescara, dove è stata vietata l’affissione di un manifesto dell’Uaar, ispirato alla citata sentenza della Corte di Strasburgo. Vale forse la pena di riportarne per intero il brevissimo testo: "Crucifix in school? No, thanks. The classrooms are not asked, the chairs are not altars. Human rights are always respected, beyond the religious or political beliefs. " In a civilized country in Europe would be obvious. It is not right for the Mayor of Pescara, Albore Luigi Mascia, that 'as an administrator and as a Christian, "feels a duty to protect" the credibility of a historic landmark shared by Christianity "(Note supporting the December 23, 2009 and signed by the males). Not content to refer to a configuration fantagiuridica crime of contempt of religion, calls art. 19 of the Constitution, which states all the 'right to profess freely their religion 'and' practice in private and in public worship. "
What has art. 19 with the prohibition of posting? And then, if there is religious freedom, there is also freedom for those who are not religious? And why a mayor would confuse its role as public with their private religious beliefs? And why treat as second-class citizens non-believers? If the mayor Mascia hypothesis was not a Catholic and a believer, but an atheist or agnostic, for this would be allowed to discriminate against believers? No, the Constitution does not allow him: atheists, agnostics or believers of any faith, all have an equal right to freedom of expression.
why the crosses are symbols of the party if exposed in public places. What is all the public is not a party, not even the majority.
This is secularism. The rest is clericalism. And moreover, unconstitutional.
(February 26, 2010)
What does it matter who was crucified by the Italian Constitution? Nothing. By the time, the Composition of the revision of 1984, signed, his goodness, by the Church / State of the Vatican, was revised Article 7 of compromise and contradictory, and deleted the formula, dating from 1929 Concordat of Catholicism "sole religion of State '. Since then, as decided by the Constitutional Court Judgement No 203 of 12 April 1989, the Italian government is expected to be in effect, a secular state, and non-denominational, let alone Catholic: "The principle of secularism, which is clear from Articles. 2, 3, 7, 8, 19 and 20 of the Constitution, implies not indifference to religion but the State before a State guarantee for the protection of freedom of religion, under the confessional and cultural pluralism. "
If Italy is to respect the constitutional legality, if secularism, pluralism, spirit, style and rules of constitutional democracy had become common sense, who would argue over crucifixes in the courts, schools, classrooms Board and public places? But yes. We discuss it. Because we live in a country that is still the backyard of the Vatican. That at least is designed not only by Roman Curia, but also by the ruling center-right, spineless, prone and always ready to fulfill the sacred desired Cei and the Vatican (the strengthening of private schools in bioassays). And since in Italy, from the time when Bertha was spinning, who's in charge makes the good and the bad weather, such is the indifference of most people qualunquistica ("Fuck", "this and that to me are equal" ), it's no wonder that it should be multiplied by a radial episodes and regressive phenomena, from the medieval old Christianitas being restored.
And they are already too many. We can cite the statements of the former pagan Celtic cross-Lega and Deputy Castelli ("We will propose to place the cross in the flag") and those of his party colleague Minister Maroni (satisfied no minarets in Switzerland, did not think that that would not caused, in retaliation, the threat of jihadist Gaddafi against Switzerland?). Or we can remember loving the transport of Berlusconi for the Church ("Against the Church in Italy does not rule": better to govern "with" fact "below, submitted to the Church?") And his anxiety to get lost, his "birbanterie" with the escort, by Cardinal Bertone, Secretary di Stato vaticano, alla Festa aquilana della Perdonanza, sotto i riflettori di stampa e tivvù (Palazzo Chigi varrà pure un baciamani!). O il ricorso del governo di Sua Maestà di Arcore contro la sentenza della Corte europea dei Diritti Umani di Strasburgo sulla rimozione del crocifisso dalle aule delle scuole pubbliche italiane (“Quei giudici devono morire”, è stato il commento del ministro La Russa; intendeva: magari con un incursione della X Mas, se ci fosse?).
L’Italia filo clericale, invaticanata, contro l’Europa laica e secolarizzata.
Alla Corte di Strasburgo ha dichiarato Luigi Tosti of wanting to appeal, "the court anti-crucified" (declined between 2005 and 2006 to conduct hearings in the courtroom of Dressing topped with a crucifix), recently expelled from the CSM, although it was already acquitted by the Court of Cassation. So a judge of a secular republic should be forced to issue rulings with the crucifix hanging behind him? Tosti is no coincidence that defined the process of the CSM "worthy of the best Holy Inquisition of the Catholic Church." Camerino in the province of Macerata. Do you know what resolved the right-wing majority of the provincial council? The permanent exhibition of the crucifix in the council chamber. "Chronicles of Macerata" ha avviato un sondaggio. I risultati? Al 22 gennaio 2010: su 70 votanti, 57/% sì, 47% no. A San Severino Marche (Macerata) in consiglio comunale è stato votata una “mozione sul crocifisso” che ne obbliga l‘ostensione in tutti gli uffici pubblici. Un’altra spia di un’Italia poco laica e molto clericale. Se così è, i laici hanno davvero molto da lavorare.
Ancora più eclatante la notizia che arriva da Pescara, dove è stata vietata l’affissione di un manifesto dell’Uaar, ispirato alla citata sentenza della Corte di Strasburgo. Vale forse la pena di riportarne per intero il brevissimo testo: "Crucifix in school? No, thanks. The classrooms are not asked, the chairs are not altars. Human rights are always respected, beyond the religious or political beliefs. " In a civilized country in Europe would be obvious. It is not right for the Mayor of Pescara, Albore Luigi Mascia, that 'as an administrator and as a Christian, "feels a duty to protect" the credibility of a historic landmark shared by Christianity "(Note supporting the December 23, 2009 and signed by the males). Not content to refer to a configuration fantagiuridica crime of contempt of religion, calls art. 19 of the Constitution, which states all the 'right to profess freely their religion 'and' practice in private and in public worship. "
What has art. 19 with the prohibition of posting? And then, if there is religious freedom, there is also freedom for those who are not religious? And why a mayor would confuse its role as public with their private religious beliefs? And why treat as second-class citizens non-believers? If the mayor Mascia hypothesis was not a Catholic and a believer, but an atheist or agnostic, for this would be allowed to discriminate against believers? No, the Constitution does not allow him: atheists, agnostics or believers of any faith, all have an equal right to freedom of expression.
why the crosses are symbols of the party if exposed in public places. What is all the public is not a party, not even the majority.
This is secularism. The rest is clericalism. And moreover, unconstitutional.
(February 26, 2010)
0 comments:
Post a Comment