I am not a lawyer nor a lawyer, but I think the removal of crucifixes can not only rely on the Constitution but, in my humble opinion, undermines it.
First, all part of that many confuse the following:
"state religion" (the state is neutral in religious matters, not taking sides in favor of any belief or disbelief),
"secular state" (take sides by disbelief-tolerated but respected faiths and beliefs),
"secular state" (militantly atheist attacks religious beliefs).
I am sure that Spain, under the Constitution is a secular state ("No religion shall have a state character" but it works with the beliefs of the English), non-secular or less secular. Therefore, the removal of crucifixes can not rely on the Constitution and anti-constitutional.
Secondly, if we have a system based on the concept of popular will expressed in the idea of \u200b\u200bdominance of the majority opinion (and respect for minorities) do not understand how a law can remove annoying symbols that a minority when most (believers) accept them. I do not understand how a minority can impose on the majority in a democratic system. That neither bolsters our Constitution.
Third, and collecting the two previous arguments, we can estimate that believers
1) remove the crucifix is \u200b\u200ba State Party making a choice in matters of religion (in this case for non-belief) forbidden by the Constitution.
2) remove the crucifixes can be considered a hostile act against religion (anti-constitutional: see first story).
3) remove the crucifixes can be considered an act offensive to most believers, as well as to present the crucifix could offend non-believers, as the majority view should prevail (see second story).
First, all part of that many confuse the following:
"state religion" (the state is neutral in religious matters, not taking sides in favor of any belief or disbelief),
"secular state" (take sides by disbelief-tolerated but respected faiths and beliefs),
"secular state" (militantly atheist attacks religious beliefs).
I am sure that Spain, under the Constitution is a secular state ("No religion shall have a state character" but it works with the beliefs of the English), non-secular or less secular. Therefore, the removal of crucifixes can not rely on the Constitution and anti-constitutional.
Secondly, if we have a system based on the concept of popular will expressed in the idea of \u200b\u200bdominance of the majority opinion (and respect for minorities) do not understand how a law can remove annoying symbols that a minority when most (believers) accept them. I do not understand how a minority can impose on the majority in a democratic system. That neither bolsters our Constitution.
Third, and collecting the two previous arguments, we can estimate that believers
1) remove the crucifix is \u200b\u200ba State Party making a choice in matters of religion (in this case for non-belief) forbidden by the Constitution.
2) remove the crucifixes can be considered a hostile act against religion (anti-constitutional: see first story).
3) remove the crucifixes can be considered an act offensive to most believers, as well as to present the crucifix could offend non-believers, as the majority view should prevail (see second story).
Wüldenmar
By Gabriel Ortiz
0 comments:
Post a Comment