Lisbon Treaty Signed (small anti-EU rant)

[LV]

I'm personally that chuffed off with the 3 uk parties that i actually would be happy with EU rule as long as they got rid of our government.

[Usenko]

I have to agree with Mystik. To describe a crucifix as divisive when the Buddhas (Which, let's not forget, are symbols of a religion regarded as idol worship by the majority of the local populace) are not is simply disingenuous.

I do see a difference, however - no lasting damage is done by the removal of a crucifix, whereas the buddhas were irreplaceable.

I would disagree with the crucifix removal at one level[1]. But I wouldn't get so upset about it as I would about the Buddhas simply because of the permanence of the destruction.

[1] Actually, as a protestant Christian who sees symbols like this as idolatrous, my own opinion is that they SHOULD be removed - but I am putting myself into the point of view of a majority Catholic country, and they shouldn't be forced to change something that they do which is completely harmless for the sake of a few who get upset too easily.

[mystikmind2005]

[Java Jawa]

[mystikmind2005]

[IcarusJones]

mystikmind2005 wrote:

[Usenko]

We're actually on a slippery slope here if we start making judgements on what is or is not art . . .

Java Jawa:
Most of what you say is opinion, and you have your right to it.

Fictional character? Wrong.

Enjoy.

[mystikmind2005]

[IcarusJones]

Nasty!

I looked at that link, just for politeness sake you understand, and nothing on there changes or even impinges on what I wrote before.

From the site:
[/quote]An object may be characterized by the intentions, or lack thereof, of its creator, regardless of its apparent purpose. A cup, which ostensibly can be used as a container, may be considered art if intended solely as an ornament, while a painting may be deemed craft if mass-produced.[quote]


My point is that a crucifix, in general, is manufactured as a symbol of christianity. Whether it is artistic or not has zero bearing on its purpose.
Unless you want to argue that a more 'artistic' crucifix has greater efficacy than a simple wooden cross? (Go on, make my day )

But I am not denying that over the years there have been some stunningly artistic crucifixes, I am saying that vast, vast majority are not made with Art in mind.

And I'm not offended by the suggestion of ignorance on your part. I poke fun of you, you poke fun at me!

Here you go - † - artistic eh? Should be tax deductible at the very least!

As for the other part of the thread, I am in two minds about what is permissible in schools. On the one hand allowing freedom of expression, thought, and faith are important in the wider context of Western Democracy, and yet on the other hand there is a very good reason why schools generally have a uniform.

Still thinking about it.

Icky

edited for content.

[IcarusJones]

<addition to previous>

Just had a re-read of the article on crucifixes in Italian schools.

I should have read it earlier because I was assuming that we were talking about worn crucifixes.

A crucifix on the wall is not generally seen as a decoration but rather as a statement of faith.

If this was in a school run by a religious group then there would be no issue.

However, in secular schools there it is inappropriate to adorn the walls with the symbols of faith of only some of the pupils/staff.

I realise that in the past virtually all of the staff/pupils would have been Catholic and therefore this would not have been a problem, but times have changed and the mix of religious beliefs among the inhabitants of these edifices has broadened.

As someone pointed out on another thread (can't find at the mo), in these cases if the minority are offended by such symbols then the symbols must be removed.

That's not my opinion by the way, it is pretty much how the law seems to operate. It's a bit like having the radio on at work. If 9 people want it on and only 1 person wants it off, if gets turned off.

Still don't know about personal symbol wearing though.

Icky

[Usenko]

Icky: This is where you and I disagree. I believe the radio to be a very different matter, because it's intrusive. Visual stimuli are not so. It's easy enough to look in a different direction and not have the image forced on you. So the radio analogy doesn't work here.

Again, I'm not a fan of religious symbols (unless you count ceremonial objects - the bread/wine of communion, a wedding ring etc; they have their uses). But objectively I see absolutely no potential for harm in their display.

I accept that some people could be offended by it, but only because people can be offended about the darndest things. As one of my students likes to say, there's a four step procedure required:

1) Go to Bunnings (replace with local hardware chain)
2) Buy some wood
3) Build a bridge
4) Get over it

Note that I am impartial here. I don't like so-called artworks that involve (for example) a crucifix covered in urine or whatever. I also dislike Buddhas, African cult[1] objects (some of which would border on obscene from my point of view) or Egyptian cult statues either. For that matter, I am especially not a fan of Saint statues and crucifixes. But we have a free society, and I am willing to fight for the right of people to display whatever the heck they like.

[1] Just making this clear - I am using the usual anthropological/historical term "Cult object" or "cult statue". I am not making any judgments about the practices of the religions in question!

[mystikmind2005]

Interesting posts guys,

What i would say is that i do not think new crucifixes should be erected in public schools as part of the standard decor (if students made one for an art project or whatever, that's different) But Crucifixes that have already been in place for perhaps hundreds of years, it is a disgrace to be suddenly removing those for this political correctness nonsense! There is allot more to this than just religion, there is culture, history and herritage. This is the argument the Italian government are using and it is to this that i agree.

And if you think about it, they could use the same arguments to have paintings removed, lead light windows removed etc etc because of religious connotations regardless of the historical value of the items. We have to stop this at the front line before it starts to get out of hand.

[IcarusJones]

Despite the tangle of arguments over the last few posts I do tend to agree with you on the point of long-term extant decor.

Personally I don't really mind one way or the other, but the problem is that if anyone really objects to it on the grounds that they find it personally offensive then you either relocate the person or remove the symbols.

As you all know, the current approach is to give the benefit of the doubt to the minority. It's not my rule!

Catholicism and all its paraphernalia is an integral part of Italian history and art, as has been pointed out, and I would hate to see it lost. As an Englishman I have keen sense of cultural history myself.

However, in the broader argument the placing of religious symbols in modern public places must surely meet with the approval of the community. If not then the placing of a prominent and obvious crucifix (for example) is a blatant exercise in proselytism and prejudice.

Usenko, you advocate the freedom to display what ever people want to. Does your church mind if I come and place a few prominent icons of my own within? I wouldn't think so because it is a place of specific worship. A school on the other hand is not, and therefore should either be all icons or none.

Think about it simplistically: the classroom without the icon offends nobody.

The radio example was just that, an example. I didn't claim it was a good one, it was merely an illustration of the fact that minorities have power in society!

On the subject of which I must also disagree with Usenko, much as it pains me to do so, because I would imagine that if a schoolchild from a quite unrelated religious background had to sit in such a classroom, upon the wall of which hung a cross bearing a man in such an obvious state of distress, then they would find that quite, quite disturbing, and therefore intrusive.

You can hear the rustle of feathers and the rattling of tarbuckets, can't you?


And talking of minorities, have you noticed that it is only a few people that are making all the noise. The reality is that by far the majority of religious people or atheists really don't pay too much mind to what others are doing.

This Cult of Perpetual Whinging(TM) has become something of a national sport in a lot of countries, and is soon to go global.

As Usenko says, build a bridge and get over it (aren't the southern colonial expressions delightful! )

Seems like we drifted a bit from the OP, eh?

To bring it back a little: It has been said that the root of all problems in Western culture is greed. I contend that this is not so. Greed is the flower, and has its origins in the seed called 'comparison'.

Far too many people spend far too much time and effort, the venting of spleen and the exercise of schadenfreude, and the deliberate targeting of tall poppies, just because they perceive that someone elses' success or attainments is somehow 'unfair'.

How much better would it be if we concentrated on living the best life we can live, and not trying to live some other persons life.

It would be the death knell for reality shows for a start

Sadly yours,

Icky

[IcarusJones]

Tandem post.

Usenko: why do you dislike statues of Buddhas?

Is it the statues themselves, what they represent, or how they are used?

I am curious about this.

Personally I find a really good Buddha statue can depict a man truly at peace with himself, and as such is a timely reminder to me to try and let go of my own prejudices and to keep a proper perspective of my problems relative to those of the people around me.

I find the same reaction in myself when I see a really good crucifix. Particularly if the artist has managed to capture the frailty, despair, distress, resignation and holy acceptance of both the moment and the man - a rare find but they are out there.

Despite not being an adherent of any of the Christian-derived religions the icons of most churches are evocative and thought provoking, and I am not averse to popping into a church (any denomination) for a few minutes quiet reflection.

I also at times derive similar calming influence from the world around us, but that is less common for me.

It's a difficult balance for humans, isn't it?

On the one hand we are such social builders.

And yet, on the other hand we can also be driven individualists.

Frankly, it is all quite beyond me

Icky

[mystikmind2005]

Hmm food for thought Icky

I will comment on this part at this time....