EDMOND — Here’s an interesting bit of trivia. Did you know the words “symbol” and “ballistic” are distant relatives? I discovered that when I started researching symbols for this week’s column. I’ve been thinking about symbols because of a ruling handed down last Friday by the European Court of Human Rights. According to the decision, crucifixes may legally be displayed in public classrooms in Europe because the court found no evidence “that display of such a symbol on classroom walls might have an influence on students.”

This ruling is interesting for a number of reasons. First, in 2009, the same court ruled that display of crucifixes in Italian classrooms infringed on parents’ rights to have their children educated in line with their convictions. Friday’s decision is a remarkable reversal of that 2009 ruling.

What’s more surprising, however, is the fact that this most recent pronouncement arguably runs counter to the tide of modern inclination. In 2008, a British prison declined to include a crucifix in the Christian area of a multi-faith chapel because this symbol is offensive to some. Also in 2008, a court in Valladolid, Spain, ordered crucifixes removed from the classrooms of public schools.

Earlier this year, the Québec Legislature appeared to reject a ruling of Québec’s Human Rights Tribunal by refusing to remove a crucifix from the National Assembly chamber.

Clearly there are large numbers of people in far-flung areas of the world staking a great deal on public display of symbols. We are witnessing a historic clash between deeply held Western convictions. On the one hand, we are repulsed by the notion that any group can impose unwanted religious observances on others. We are quick to speak out in defense of minorities who are bullied into religious orthodoxy by a religious majority.

On the other hand, we are offended if our traditional and treasured practices and displays are assaulted by “outsiders.” It seems to us that the tail is wagging the dog when we are told we must discontinue time-honored observances because others find these observances “offensive.”

Unfortunately, in this contest of competing values, the playing field is not level. The apathetic majority is always at a disadvantage. If history teaches anything, it proclaims that religious (ideological) fanatics operate on a seesaw of intolerance.

At one time, Christians were a persecuted minority. When they rose from cult status to become invested with the power of the state, they became, in their turn, the merciless persecutors. Then, Protestants likewise made the transition from religious scapegoat to formidable political power and, in so doing, became brutal suppressors of Catholicism.

Communism and National Socialism regarded themselves as minority victims of unfair discrimination and persecution. Upon rising to power, each became one of mankind’s most diabolical engines of hatred and destruction.

Time and again, history proves that the most ruthless, aggressive, cruel and intolerant minority that ultimately overwhelms the tolerant majority will impose a regime of cruelty and discrimination.

In the current contest for control of the forum for religious symbols, everyone feels besieged. As these perceived grievances grow more inflamed, risk of escalating “lash and backlash” grows greater. Minority populations far removed from the scene of the alleged offense may be forced to answer for the conduct of distant “others” over whom they have no control. We’ve seen it happen.

Hypersensitivity to allegedly hurtful symbols could escalate to the point of being ridiculous. Consider this. I wear a wedding ring. This is a symbol signifying that I’m a married person. Suppose there are some who find such symbols hurtful because they or “their parents” are not permitted to marry. Should I be required to surrender this symbol anytime I make statements in a public forum? This, of course, would be absurd.

The Supreme Court has embraced the common sense notion that symbols may have as much or more to do with tradition as they do with religion. In such cases, even if the ultrasensitive find the symbol “offensive,” this discomfort is simply part of the burden of people living together. We must face the fact that, no matter what we do, no matter how we come down on this issue, someone’s sensibilities will be offended.

It’s our job, as guardians of our freedom, to resist the push and pull of tyranny whether the tyrant is the majority or the minority. In any case, we’re better off if we don’t go “ballistic” over public displays of religious symbols.

As a final observation, the cross was regarded as a deeply religious symbol thousands of years before the birth of Christianity. Food for thought. I’m Hink and I’ll see ya.



MIKE HINKLE is an Edmond resident and retired attorney.