From the oral submission given on Wednesday by Joseph Weiler, on behalf of several third-party intervening states (Armenia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Lithuania, Malta, The Russian Federation and San Marino) in the case (Lautsi v. Italy) regarding Italy’s right to display crucifixes in its public schools.<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
23. If the social pallet of society were only composed of blue yellow and red groups, than black \u2013 the absence of color \u2013 would be a neutral colour. But once one of the social forces in society has appropriated black as its colour, than that choice is no longer neutral. Secularism does not favour a wall deprived of all State symbols. It is religious symbols which are anathema.<\/p>\n
…<\/p>\n
24. What are the educational consequences of this?<\/p>\n
25. Consider the following parable of Marco and Leonardo, two friends just about to begin school. Leonardo visits Marco at his home. He enters and notices a crucifix. What is that?\u2019, he asks. \u2018A crucifix \u2013 why, you don\u2019t have one? Every house should have one.\u2019 Leonardo returns to his home agitated. His mother patiently explains: \u2018They are believing Catholics. We are not. We follow our path. Now imagine a visit by Marco to Leonardo\u2019s house. \u2018Wow!\u2019, he exclaims, \u2018no crucifix? An empty wall?\u2019 \u201c We do not believe in that nonsense\u201d says his friend. Marco returns agitated to his house. \u2018Well\u2019, explains his mother, \u2018We follow our path.\u201d The next day both kids go to school. Imagine the school with a crucifix. Leonardo returns home agitated: \u2018The school is like Marco\u2019s house. Are you sure, Mamma, that it is okay not to have a crucifix?\u2019 That is the essence of Ms. Lausti\u2019s complaint. But imagine, too, that on the first day the walls are naked. Marco returns home agitated. \u2018The school is like Leonardo\u2019s house,\u2019 he cries. \u2018You see, I told you we don\u2019t need it.\u2019<\/p>\n