In the very early days of this blog I wrote about the scandalous decision of the mickey-mouse tribunal called Europe’s Human Right Court (an organisation not even part of the EU and mainly created, as all these institutions are, to give jobs to the friends and the friends of the friends), that said that a crucifix in a schoolroom was, well, not atheist enough.
It seems a long time but it was, in fact, a little more than eights months ago. Today the matter comes to its provisional (and hopefully: definitive) conclusion with the decision of said mickey-mouse tribunal (appeal, this time) that er, no, well, the crucifix is a religious symbol but, er, ah, well, it also isn’t.
What has happened is, in my eyes, very simple:
1) the “court” is a motley conglomerate of well-connected, lefty cretins mainly without experience as a judge, or a legal background in the first place;
2) said cretins enjoy playing God, but they would also like to keep their, no doubt, very well paid jobs;
3) in order to do so they must avoid ending in the centre of the public opinion, their incompetence and ideological bias exposed;
4) their decision about the crucifix was clearly against point 3). They angered the Vatican and the Italian government massively, and the latter were certainly not isolated at all. In short, our cretins were biting more than they could chew.
5) A backpedaling was clearly in order, as otherwise the shutting down of this useless, senseless, non-Eu (“what”? Yes. “Are you sure?” Yes, I am) organ would have become a real possibility.
Only eight months after the blunder, the solution: the absurd decision (which everyone pretends to believe) that the Crucifix is a social symbol.
The Crucifix. A social symbol.
What’s next: that Muslims bow in direction of the Mecca because it’s good for your back?
Of course, crucifixes have a vast social importance in countries like Italy, or in places like Bavaria or rural France. A country that is Catholic in its very social fabric will obviously see its religious symbols acquiring a cultural role. They’ll be part of the landscape like the pizza, the Weissbier, or the baguette. But this role is there exactly because of its religious significance, not because, say, Italians like football, pizza, beautiful women and, of all things, crucifixes.
By all the efforts of my imagination, I really can’t see how the realistic depiction of a Man horribly suffering whilst being tormented to death can be something of a social phenomenon. Cricket is a social phenomenon, not crucifixes!
Be it as it may, the idea of the “social” significance has been the argument of the Italian government from the start. Gotta love these Italians, really 😉 : always ready to twist and turn with suave shamelessness, as long as they reach their goal 😉 . The “social” argument allows the Italian government to play “secular” whilst making very clear (what, make no mistake, more than 99,99% of the Italians will immediately grasp) what the real issue is and where the journey goes. At the same time, this kind of argument allows the above mentioned cretins (or their colleagues, equally concerned with their job) to backpedal in a halfway elegant way, keep their job, congratulate themselves on the continuation of the lucrative employment and promise to themselves that they won’t do anything so stupid anymore, ever.
Once again, I must point out to what I have written on several occasions: that the government of the rather uncontrolled Berlusconi is making things for Christianity that a Cameron would find not only inconvenient, but positively “intolerant” and “discriminatory”. Whilst I do not think that any of them has big chances of avoiding hell, my pint is on Berlusconi any day.
Summa summarum, the situation as per today is that a huge suppository is hovering around the offices of the so-called Europe’s Human Right Court.
I wonder whether the suppository is a social symbol, too.
You might have read (actually, I hope you haven’t) about all the turmoil in Italy in the last months and particularly in the last weeks.
As many other Italians, I watch with a certain consternation the level of decay those who represent the Institutions have reached. As many others, I wonder what the future holds and as many others, I wonder what the unintended consequences of a “morality drive” might be.
Let us take 2006. The centre-left government wins the election with the shortest of margins. Catholics are heavily represented and the PM is a rather devout chap with an irreprehensible political pedigree and (as far as one can ever be certain of such things) immaculate private life; a “Mr. Clean” not only in comparison to the “Mr. Dirt” (and I am not talking about his private weaknesses here) he fought against, but by any conceivable standard. For those who shouldn’t know, in Italy centre-left generally means “centre-centre-centre-with some crumbles left to the lefties”. It was a centre-“left” government that bombed Serbia without UNO approval, and it was centre-“left” governments who introduced the most relevant pro-market reforms of the last 20 years.
Everything looked fine, then, until the point where the left part of the centre-left coalition decides to get one or two ideological scalps to counteract the, once again, very obvious moderate/Catholic/centrist drive of the PM and his government. The battleground of choice is – in the impossibility of choosing dogs or cats – the “marriage” of men with…. other men, a sacred cow of anti-Catholicism the world over.
The proposal, obviously going against the grain of the vast part of the population, sends the Catholics of the centre-left on the barricades whilst the opposition laughs heartily and says “we told you so”. To make a very long (and as usual very emotional) story short, the Prime Minister finally gets his way in the usual Italian way (victory against internal opposition; then resignation at the first possible occasion; then re-appointment with new and more centrist platform to show who is boss; if you’re not Italian, I bet you’ve lost me…..).
The Catholics, then, win the battle, but the country listens and learns. Millions of aged and less-aged Italians discover that the inconceivable almost happened and that a centre-left coalition does carry the risk of very nasty surprises. At the following general elections, the bill is presented and it is an expensive one: both communist parties don’t get entrance in parliament (first time after WW II) and the vocally pro-poof greens are also kicked out (first time since they first got in). Centre-right wins big and whilst it can’t be said that it was exclusively because of the attempt to institutionalise sexual deviancy, if you add 2+2 you know that the matter played an important role and opened many people’s eyes as to what the real dangers are.
And so we come to the present days. Top Pig (or as many call him “Il nano pelato”, “the bald dwarf”; try that in the UK…..) is in power again, but he is a very shrewd marketing man; he knows who keeps him in power and what he must deliver if he wants to hope that the electorate overlooks his very, very many shortcomings. Therefore you have the very strange situation where a government who is nothing less than the embodiment of private decadence and public corruption is also a strong defender of Christian values (euthanasia, say; “civil partnerships” are for now just not on the radar screen anymore).
The last example comes from here, with the Italian government the first one (France followed in tow) to actually say to every other European government to wake up and smell the Christian coffee, and being rather outspoken and rather effective in the process.
Italians – and, make no mistake, the Vatican – are now confronted with the choice whether to push a change which might end up very badly, or to live with the non presentable but reliable deliverer of conservative values.
After reading the link provided you might conclude, with me, that a Berlusconi is still preferable to a Cameron every day of the week.
No, it is not a compliment for the bald dwarf.