Quanvert Installation Error -115

CROSS SYMBOL SINGLE POINT OF LAW ALLOWED IN CLASSROOMS: 'IS NOT A THREAT TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOM '

ROME - to exhibit in public offices, which include the halls of justice, religious symbols other than the Crucifix "is necessary discretion of the legislature that the state does not exist. "It stresses the motivation with which the Supreme Court upheld the judge's removal from the Magistrates 'anticrocefisso' Luigi Tosti, who refused to hold a hearing until the symbol of Christianity was not removed from all the Italian courts. Or Tosti asked, even the Supreme Court, to exhibit the 'Menorah', a symbol of the Jewish faith. Having rejected the claim of Tosti regarding the request to display the Jewish symbol next to the crucifix, the Supreme Court noted that such a move could also be made by the legislature considering, however, the risk of "possible conflicts that may arise by the display of symbols of different religious identities. 'It is true that in theory the principle of secularism - the Supreme Court writes - is compatible with a model of assimilation up (for secularism addition) that would allow each person see represented in public symbols of their religion, treated with either a model down (secularism by subtraction). "This legislative choice, however, implies - explains the Supreme Court - which are assessed a variety of profiles, the first between all the practical feasibility and the balance between the exercise of religious freedom by the users of a public place with the same exercise of religious freedom negative by the atheist or unbeliever, and the balance between ensuring pluralism and possible conflicts between a plurality of religious identities are incompatible. "NOT 'THREAT TO FREEDOM' RELIGIOUS - Exposing the crucifix in the courtroom and in public offices, can not be perceived as a threat to religious freedom of those who are not Christian. The Supreme Court stresses the reasons for the sentence in 5924 by which the Judiciary has confirmed the removal of the judge of Camerino, Luigi Tosti. " The presence of a crucifix - he wrote the Supreme Court - may not necessarily constitute threat to their rights of religious freedom for all those who attend a classroom justice for various reasons and not necessarily only for those users of Christians, with the result "Tosti that the court could not" refuse his professional services only because other courts of law (as compared to that in which it operates) This was the Crucifix. "Tosti In contrast, the presence of the cross violated the rights of freedom of religion and conscience of the members of those classrooms. A Tosti had been made available to a classroom without any symbol, but he had refused the same hold a hearing seeking removal of the crucifix from all the Italian courts.