Extract from ContExploration.net
|
extract
document nr |
8010 |
|
local link |
http://contexploration.net/extracts/8010.htm
|
|
remote link |
http://www.brazzil.com/content/view/9443/76/
|
|
title |
|
|
date
published |
|
|
author |
Janer
Cristaldo |
|
source |
Brazzil.com |
|
further
reading from author |
|
...And
Deliver Us from the Cross in Brazil's Public Places
Written by Janer Cristaldo Tuesday, 18 October 2005
When I had to perform the only mission that I'd rather never have to perform in
my life, I suddenly stumbled upon the problem. I carried the inert body of my
beloved to the crematorium's chapel and there he was, naked, obscene and dirty
with blood, extended arms, dominating that funereal chamber, with an air of
someone who for centuries felt very well at ease in that wood cross, always
hovering over corpses.
My reaction was immediate: "Take out this thing at once!" The staff
members, surprised at my infuriated gesture, did not know how to react. But
they ended up finding a way to hide the image of the Jew. The touched visitors
started dropping in and you could see in their expressions that they were
missing something in the room.
Let them miss it. That would be the last straw, me, an atheist, having a wake
for my wife, also an atheist, under the shadow of a cross! And to those who
have to accompany me when it's my time to return to the nothing I came from I
leave a message: 'I do not want torture instruments hovering over my carcass.'
To this day, I haven't been able to understand the success of the cross as a
logotype. More than a death instrument, it is a torture instrument. If to the
Romans it was an utensil for executing sentences, to Christians it became a
slaughter heralding banner as soon as they took over power.
In its name thousands of people who did not accept the sole Christian god were
massacred, in its name altars and cults to other gods were destroyed, in its
name whole cultures were wiped out from the map.
For the first and only time in history, a torture instrument turned into a
glorious flag. The flag with the scythe and the hammer bloodied the 20th
century, but these two objects at least were work symbols and not symbols of a
shameful practice.
Like concentric waves of a far-off earthquake, the battle between the West and
Islam ended up reaching Brazil. Judge Roberto Arriada Lorea from the 2nd Court
of Family and Successions of the Central Forum of Porto Alegre, proposed the
removal of crucifixes from court rooms in the forums and in the Rio Grande do
Sul's Supreme Court.
"The presence of religious symbols - basically crucifixes - puts the
forums and the court under suspicion," explains the judge. And he's sure
right about that. Brazil is a multi-religious country. If the cross means
redemption to a Christian, the same symbol brings quite unpleasant memories to
Jews or Muslims: the bonfires of the Middle Age, the Inquisition tortures, the
Crusades. But what does the Gaúcho judge's proposition have to do with Islam?
It happens that the debate had its origins in Europe, more precisely in Italy,
country that hosts the Vatican. The issue was raised for the first time in
Milan, more precisely it was raised in
Italy's Muslim Union sided with the nurse, arguing that the presence of the
Catholic crucifix in public places was a violation and challenge to the Church
and state separation doctrine. Still that same year, in another Italian town, a
teacher had asked for the removal of the crucifix from class rooms in order not
to hurt immigrants children's susceptibilities. Suddenly, Europe realized that
it had adopted a behavior that it condemned when practiced by Muslims.
The reaction of Rosa Petrone was the answer to the fight of the European
against the Islamic veil. If some European countries brandish the argument of a
laic State against the display of religious symbols, the Italian nurse
concluded - and with good logic - that the public agencies should not exhibit
symbols even those belonging to the Catholic religion.
This seems perfectly appropriate to me. By the way, the separation between
clergy and laity was not an initiative from the laic power, but from the Church
itself. This powerful agent of progress in Europe, was started in the 11th
century. The idea didn't come from a layman, but from pope Gregory VII. The
so-called Gregorian reform's intention was to remove the Church from the
laymen's dominance and most of all to free the Roman papacy from the Germanic
emperor ambitions.
But Gregory VII's timely decision doesn't seem to have been adopted seriously.
Pope comes, pope dies, pope takes over and the Vatican keeps interfering in
matters concerning the State. João Paulo II, in a flagrant provocation to
Europe, went as far as recommending that judges be subject to Church guidelines
in matters concerning abortion and divorce.
With the haughtiness of monotheists, who believe that their god is the true and
only one, he spent good part of his pontificate condemning homosexuality and
sexual pleasure. To condemn such practices in the Vatican and among his herd,
would be understandable, it's a matter of idiosyncrasy. To condemn them,
however, in other nations, is not only a demonstration of authoritarianism but
also vain presumption.
Alas! Nowadays, the good Greek sport thrives more under the altars shadow than
in the barracks. This is the natural consequence to the behavior of a religion
that removed its celebrants from the female sex. But this is another matter.
In my opinion, the legislators might as well offer Catholics an exclusion
clause. Abortion and homosexuality do not constitute crime, except when carried
out by Catholics. In this case, let these gentlemen get all the rigor of the
law. In my view, this simple solution would satisfy both parts.
Are you Catholic and have you consented on having an abortion? According to
your belief, you are a criminal and must be punished with jail. Are you not a
Catholic? Have a good day, after all you haven't committed any crime. If I know
well enough my flock, the Pontiff's herd would decrease significantly in a
short while.
I come back to the cross. For judge Arriada Lorea the symbols placed on the
walls show disregard to article 19 of the Federal Constitution, which forbids
subordination relations between the State and religious institutions. So the
story goes, that in the 1970s. a judge from Tupanciretã county, in the state of
Rio Grande do Sul, right after taking over his post ordered that the crucifix
be removed from the court room. Since this happened in a little hidden corner
of Brazil the gesture has remained unknown, as a folkloric act from the
country's chronicle.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, in
He stressed, however, that is not acceptable either that these same
institutions carry crucifixes, something that still occurs in some places of
the Catholic Bavaria. Ratzinger answered saying that he "would not forbid
any Muslim woman from wearing the veil", but added: "But we wouldn't
let the cross be forbidden as a public symbol of culture of reconciliation
either".
The European discussion comes to Brazil. As an atheist and layman, and a
defender of a multi-religious country, I convey my support to the Gaúcho judge.
Janer Cristaldo - he holds a Ph.D. from University of Paris, Sorbonne - is
an author, translator, lawyer, philosopher and journalist and lives in São
Paulo.
--
Return to ContExploration.net