"Dommen sætter stat og religion på en uundgåelig kollisionskurs," skriver professorerne.

Professor i statskundskab på Københavns Universitet Ole Wæver, der blandt andet har specialiseret sig i sekularisering, mener, at professorerne har fat i den lange principielle ende, hvad angår glidebanen fra retten til religionsfrihed til en ret til ikke at blive fornærmet.

Et nyligt eksempel er sangerinden Medina, som i Ishøj blev overdænget med æg fra unge med muslimsk baggrund. De følte sig angiveligt krænkede over hendes påklædning og hendes kunstnernavn, som også er islams næsthelligste by.

"De unge kunne jo bare blive væk. Der er ingen, der tvinger dem til at gå til koncert," siger Ole Wæver.

Han finder korsdommen, der blev afsagt sidste år og nu altså skal appel-behandles, meget interessant i den sammenhæng, fordi der mange gange blot skal rykkes lidt, før afgørelserne også får betydning i andre sager.

"Jeg kan heller ikke forestille mig andet, end at vi snart får danske sager ved domstolen," siger han.

Til gengæld mener Ole Wæver ikke, at korsdommen får betydning for Dannebrog.

"Jeg gætter på, at Storkammeret (appel-instansen ved Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedsdomstol, red.) ender med at sige, at en skoleklasse er en særlig kategori."

Professor i lov og religion Marco Ventura fra universitetet i den italienske by Sienna holdt i går et oplæg i Oxford om korsdommen. I en mail skriver han, at dommen, hvis den stadfæstes, næppe vil strække sig ud over skoleverdenen, og ikke mindst vil den blive langt bedre argumenteret i Storkammeret.

"Siden 2001 har den italienske regering hævdet, at korset er et kulturelt symbol. Og paradokset i sagen om korset er, at Italien erklærer sig som en sekulær stat, og derefter beder Menneskerettighedsdomstolen om at acceptere, at sekularismen er symboliseret i korset," siger han.

"Faktisk er blandt andet de italienske protestanter ret glade for dommen, fordi de opfatter den som et vigtigt bidrag til en mere seriøs opfattelse af religion i Italien," siger Marco Ventura.

Dokumentation: Eksperternes vurdering (engelsk):
PRESS RELEASE
May 26, 2010
37 Law Professors Urge European Court to Reject Ruling Banning Cross from Italian Classrooms

Thirty-seven law professors hailing from 11 countries have submitted written comments asking the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights to overturn a seven-judge panel’s ruling that crucifixes may not be displayed in Italian classrooms. The Grand Chamber of the Court, located in Strasbourg, France, will hold a hearing in the case on June 30.

Last November, a lower panel of the Court ruled in Lautsi v. Italy that the Italian government had violated the human rights of a Finnish atheist parent who objected to crucifixes displayed on the walls of her children’s classrooms. The panel’s decision to find a violation of the Convention provoked widespread outrage in Italy.

The coalition of law professors consists of prominent legal scholars from across Europe, including, for example, a past President of the Italian Constitutional Court. In their friend-of-the-court comments to the Grand Chamber, the law professors argue that the panel’s ruling needlessly threatens the wide variety of religious symbols on display on public property all over Europe, including national flags, coats of arms, and public art: “[T]he attempt to exile religious symbols and ideas from the public square would be foolhardy, because religious symbols and religious ideas are an integral part of the tapestry of European civilisation. Pull out that thread, and the entire tapestry unravels.”

The professors also warn that the panel’s decision risks setting off a widespread conflict between government and religion. Given the wide diversity of religious practices across Europe, it makes little sense to try to create a secularist “common denominator.” Rather, the professors argue, the Court should give states substantial leeway to structure the church-state relationship in harmony with tradition, history, and culture.

“A ban on religious symbols that offend someone, somewhere, is a ban on all religious symbols,” said Eric Rassbach, National Litigation Director at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, who was part of the team who drafted the comments, along with members of the law professor coalition and Professor Paolo Carozza of Notre Dame Law School in Indiana. “Rather than announcing a State crusade against religion, the Court should recognize that religion and government can be in harmonious dialogue with one another,” he added.

Based in Washington, D.C., The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. The Becket Fund has a 15-year history of defending religious liberty for people of all faiths. Its clients have included Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, and others. Its attorneys are recognized as experts in the field of church-state law. The Becket Fund is also a non-governmental organization with consultative status before the United Nations.