The Crucifix in the Classroom, Religious Symbols, and Public Classroom Walls: An International Perspective on Religion in the Public Sphere, The Lautsi Papers: Multidisciplinary Reflections on Religious Symbols in the Public School Classroom ed. by Jeroen Temperman (review)

All modern democracies require some type of mandatory education for their children, provide some kind of guarantee of freedom of religion, and afford some form of protection against discrimination on the basis of religion. These democracies are not uniform, however, in the way in which they define or implement these rights or guarantees. The Lautsi Papers: Multidisciplinary Reflections on Religious Symbols in the Public School Classroom, edited by Jeroen Temperman, provides a wide-ranging exploration of some of the most difficult issues involving religion in the public school environment in a pluralistic democracy. The intersection of religion and mandatory education has resulted in some of the thorniest and most emotionally charged conflicts in modern pluralistic democracies. Resolution of these conflicts frequently demands a delicate balancing of the competing rights of the state, the rights of parents to direct the religious upbringing and education of their children, and the rights of children to have their own religious liberty and freedom of conscience, separate and apart from those of their parents.

As the book’s title indicates, the contributors examine the issues raised by the two decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the case of Lautsi v. Italy as well as the political and legal fallout surrounding both decisions. At issue in both decisions is the legality under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) of the Italian law that requires the display of the crucifix in Italian public school classrooms. The two Lautsi decisions, rendered less than eighteen months apart, reached opposite conclusions.

The first decision in Lautsi v. Italy was decided by the European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) on 3 November 2009.¹ It held that the compulsory display of crucifixes in Italian public school classrooms violated the parents’ right to educate their children according to their own convictions and the children’s right to freedom of belief.

The second decision was issued on 18 March 2011 by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights.² It held that Italy was within the margin of appreciation in requiring the presence of the crucifix in the public classroom. While the crucifix was clearly a religious symbol, its display was part of a tradition and symbolized “the principles and values which formed the basis of democracy and western civilisation.”³ Its mandatory display did not violate the principles of neutrality. No evidence was produced “that the display of a religious symbol on classroom walls may have an influence on pupils and so it cannot reasonably be asserted that it does or does not have an effect on young persons whose convictions are still in the process of being formed.”⁴ It was “an essentially passive symbol” that did not “have influence on pupils comparable to that of didactic speech or participation in religious activities.”⁵

The Temperman book begins with a recognition that “[i]ncreasingly, debates about religious symbols in the public square are reformulated as human rights questions” to be decided by “national and international judges. Particularly in the area of education, legitimate interests are manifold and often collide.”⁶ The relevant sections of the ECHR with regard to religious freedom and the right to education are Article 9, which provides for “freedom of thought, conscience, and religion,” and Article 2 of Protocol 1, which provides that “[n]o person shall be denied the right to education” and that “the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching [is] in conformity with their own religions and philosophical convictions.”⁷

The book assumes a working knowledge of both the ECHR and the ECtHR as...