Changes

In the secularising EU, the [[w:Holy See|Vatican]] has also been vocal against a perceived "[[w:Militant atheism|militant atheism]]", this being based this on a number of events, including the rejection of Christian religious references in the Constitution and Treaty of Lisbon.  In another highly charged case, in November 2009 the [[w:European Court of Human Rights|European Court of Human Rights]] ruled against the use of crucifixes in classrooms in Italy, prompting a backlash from the Vatican, the [[Church of Greece]], the [[Church of Russia]] and others;<ref group="note">INTERFAX-RELIGION News. ''“[http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=6614 ECHR's banning of crucifix in Italian schools could destabilize Europe - Russian Church.]”'' Nov. 5, 2009.<br>David Quinn (Irish Independent). ''“[http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-the-european-court-of-human-rights-is-part-of-an-aggressive-and-belligerent-drive-towards-secularism-1935799.html The European Court of Human Rights is part of an aggressive and belligerent drive towards secularism.]”'' Nov. 6, 2009.<br>National Secular Society. ''“[http://www.secularism.org.uk/115187.html Gas is turned up on the battle for a secular society.]”'' Fri. Nov. 6. 2009.<br>Zenit.org. ''“[http://zenit.org/article-27532?l=english Cardinal Affirms Common Goals With Orthodox.]”'' Nov. 12, 2009.<br>Malcolm Brabant (BBC News). ''“[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8358027.stm Greek Church Acts on Crucifix ban.]”'' Thurs. Nov. 12, 2009.<br>Taiwan news. ''[http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=1107622&lang=eng_news Austrian bishops criticize Italian crucifix ruling.]'' Nov. 13, 2009.</ref> Cardinal Walter Kasper affirmed a few days later that: ''"Our enemies today are not other confessions, but secularism and godlessness."''<ref>Zenit.org. ''“[http://zenit.org/article-27532?l=english Cardinal Affirms Common Goals With Orthodox].”'' Nov. 12, 2009.</ref> Since the November 2009 case above, cases have abounded in which the state has sided with individuals clamouring to expunge religious symbols, holidays, prayer and even Christian conscience from public life.<ref name=CATH-REG>''[http://www.catholicregister.org/columns/item/14053-insult-to-the-cross Insult to the cross]. '''Catholic Register'''. 13 March 2012 16:07.</ref> In 2012, actions by the British government elevated state-sponsored religious intolerance to a new level, as the coalition government of David Cameron declared that citizens have no right to wear a cross around their necks at work and can be required to remove their cross if ordered by the boss, resulting in dismissal if they refuse.<ref name="CATH-REG"/> The case (''[[w:Eweida v British Airways plc|Eweida v British Airways plc]]'') has been taken to the European Court of Human Rights, which is to decide on whether the right to wear a cross is protected under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights:<ref name=EU-TIMES>''[http://www.eutimes.net/2012/03/uk-denies-christians-right-to-wear-crucifix/ UK denies Christians right to wear crucifix].'' '''The European Union Times'''. Mar 13th, 2012.</ref> :Article 9 states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.”<ref name="EU-TIMES"/> However the authorities insist that since wearing the cross is not a “requirement of the faith” it does not fall under the remit of Article 9.<ref name="EU-TIMES"/>