<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: UPDATE: Uproar after court says no crucifixes in Italian schools</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/11/03/uproar-after-court-says-no-crucifixes-in-italian-schools/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/11/03/uproar-after-court-says-no-crucifixes-in-italian-schools/</link>
	<description>Religion, faith and ethics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 05:33:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: sidney</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/11/03/uproar-after-court-says-no-crucifixes-in-italian-schools/comment-page-1/#comment-19778</link>
		<dc:creator>sidney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:17:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=9408#comment-19778</guid>
		<description>If we were to replace the crucifix with say a burqa, hijab, star and crescent or other symbols representing islam, there would be no uproar and people would actually applause this ruiling.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If we were to replace the crucifix with say a burqa, hijab, star and crescent or other symbols representing islam, there would be no uproar and people would actually applause this ruiling.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Noah Idea</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/11/03/uproar-after-court-says-no-crucifixes-in-italian-schools/comment-page-1/#comment-19746</link>
		<dc:creator>Noah Idea</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 02:09:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=9408#comment-19746</guid>
		<description>There is nothing in the bible, or church rules, that a person must wear a crucifix.

So not being allowed to wear one is simply a restriction of personal choice. Not religious freedom.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is nothing in the bible, or church rules, that a person must wear a crucifix.</p>
<p>So not being allowed to wear one is simply a restriction of personal choice. Not religious freedom.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mufaso</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/11/03/uproar-after-court-says-no-crucifixes-in-italian-schools/comment-page-1/#comment-19729</link>
		<dc:creator>Mufaso</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:31:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=9408#comment-19729</guid>
		<description>If the schools are secular, then absolutely no religious symbols belong there. This includes pariotism as well, since patriotism is a religion. No flags, no statues, no monuments, no nothing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If the schools are secular, then absolutely no religious symbols belong there. This includes pariotism as well, since patriotism is a religion. No flags, no statues, no monuments, no nothing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TheraP</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/11/03/uproar-after-court-says-no-crucifixes-in-italian-schools/comment-page-1/#comment-19724</link>
		<dc:creator>TheraP</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:29:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=9408#comment-19724</guid>
		<description>Snark alert:  How can children possibly learn in a room without a crucifix?

Sadly... many will believe my question is NOT snark at all!

More snark... Thank you for giving me proof that I am a person!  (the anti-spam word...)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Snark alert:  How can children possibly learn in a room without a crucifix?</p>
<p>Sadly&#8230; many will believe my question is NOT snark at all!</p>
<p>More snark&#8230; Thank you for giving me proof that I am a person!  (the anti-spam word&#8230;)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bryan</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/11/03/uproar-after-court-says-no-crucifixes-in-italian-schools/comment-page-1/#comment-19701</link>
		<dc:creator>Bryan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:03:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=9408#comment-19701</guid>
		<description>The quotation above &quot;The presence of the cross...religious minorities&quot; from Para 55 of the Judgement leaves out the important words and thus the judgement is less clear. Here is a ham translation of the missing words:

&quot;The presence of the Cross could easily be interpreted by pupils of all ages as a religious sign and they might feel that they were being educated in a school with a particular religion.&quot; 

The Italian govt argued that the Crucifix was not a religious symbol but a ethical symbol representing self giving and peace etc and that the Italian State, which was &quot;laique&quot; had freely left the crucifix in classes in order to find a compromise with Catholics in Italy (see para 42) and not for religious reasons. 

This argument seems contradictory. The State does not view the crucifix as a religious symbol but leaves it in the classrooms to compromise with those who do regard it as a religious symbol. So the State does understand that the crucifix does is an important religious symbol in eyes of many Italians but it&#039;s up to one&#039;s own ideas whether it is a religious or ethical symbol.

I hope Italian Catholics will strongly protest this judgement and demand the State keep the crucifix in classrooms of Italian schools.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The quotation above &#8220;The presence of the cross&#8230;religious minorities&#8221; from Para 55 of the Judgement leaves out the important words and thus the judgement is less clear. Here is a ham translation of the missing words:</p>
<p>&#8220;The presence of the Cross could easily be interpreted by pupils of all ages as a religious sign and they might feel that they were being educated in a school with a particular religion.&#8221; </p>
<p>The Italian govt argued that the Crucifix was not a religious symbol but a ethical symbol representing self giving and peace etc and that the Italian State, which was &#8220;laique&#8221; had freely left the crucifix in classes in order to find a compromise with Catholics in Italy (see para 42) and not for religious reasons. </p>
<p>This argument seems contradictory. The State does not view the crucifix as a religious symbol but leaves it in the classrooms to compromise with those who do regard it as a religious symbol. So the State does understand that the crucifix does is an important religious symbol in eyes of many Italians but it&#8217;s up to one&#8217;s own ideas whether it is a religious or ethical symbol.</p>
<p>I hope Italian Catholics will strongly protest this judgement and demand the State keep the crucifix in classrooms of Italian schools.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
