If someone were to try and snatch the crucifix from my wall, I would add a hundred more and ask him to remove himself from my home…and from these islands.
Fortunately no political party in Malta has the intention – or even the desire – to entertain the idea of calling for the removal of the crucifix from Maltese walls - especially schools. It is only a few individuals who occasionally express this opinion. The impression they wish to give is that they are progressive, that they are extraverted rather than introverted, that they are citizens of the world not of a small island.
Hiding in the subconscious of these persons, there is a lurking, uncomfortable inferiority complex.
They think that a ‘small island mentality’ is a harmful, regressive phenomenon. The success in business, music, academy obtained by many Maltese abroad tends to contradict the conviction of these persons. Indeed, small in geographical surface often means great in mind.
I was one of a few people who years ago welcomed the guitar in churches, while some thought that this was ‘an instrument of the devil’ and that it would demolish the walls of cathedrals. I also found strange the obligation for women to cover their hair in churches. As a boy, I would wonder why ‘serious, correct’ attitudes were convinced that men’s hair, when it is still there, was more esthetic than women’s and thus women must cover theirs. Or else that uncovered women’s hair was a provocation, turning churches into gentlemen’s clubs. Eventually women uncovered their hair in churches and this did not provoke men into ‘losing their religion’- neither men with hair nor men without.
My participation in various media proves that I am not a conservative, nor a traditionalist. Some people actually think that a person of a certain age promoting progressism is being shockingly bold. Regarding tradition, while generally accepting its occasional benefits, I tend to be a Zolian - a follower of the thoughts and progressiveness of the writer Emile Zola – who was considered a dangerous man in his time when stating that wives do not belong to their husbands and children should go to school, not work in mines. Well, he was called dangerous in his lifetime and a hero later. On second thoughts, he was allowed a place in the Pantheon where he now rests and listens.
I am not a very religious person. Religion does not usually give me euphoric feelings. Respect for religion is, to me, mainly a respect for rationality promoted by some religions such as the Christian religion.
Why is the crucifix not simply an emotional phenomenon? And if it were, there would be no harm in that as long as emotion is not fanatical. I shall try to enumerate a few, mostly unemotional, but basically rational, reasons why the crucifix must stay.
The man on the crucifix preached love and forgiveness of your neighbours and indeed your enemies. If he had done the opposite, he would have spread the love of conflict, of battles and wars. Man has not been able to remove conflict from his life. Conflict exists among individuals, between ideologies, separating nations which spend much of the earth’s natural resources to the wonderful scientific and technological inventions of limited and mass destruction. Man has cleverly used his intelligence very specifically. He created arms that are capable of killing people while sparing buildings. Ironically this is called ‘surgical’ precision! The man on the crucifix clearly stated that conflict was horrid, a veritable madness that harmed humanity. For this, some wish to remove him from the wall.
The man on the crucifix stated that individuals, cultures and nations must continuously strive to seek and understand what is positive in the actions and behaviour of men elsewhere – like men practising agriculture and esthetic culture locally and far away. The man on the crucifix said that feeding the hungry was a positive thing. Others told him that, if a person is hungry, it is his own fault. He explained that it often happens that hunger and poverty are not desired and brought about by people bent on suffering, but by natural disasters and the decisions and actions of those who love the people and solemnly declare that they are close to them. For this, some want to remove him from the wall.
The man on the crucifix had a deep knowledge of personal and social psychology, thus a science that promotes individual and collective harmony. A favour, a deed done to others automatically brings about a reaction of personal and collective harmony and happiness. You bring a person out of a hole and he feels good and happy. But he is not the only one who feels good and happy. By your altruistic gesture, you end up feeling good and happy yourself. Because he preached this personal and social psychology, some want to remove him from the walls.
If, on top of human progress, one had to include religious sentiment in personal and collective behaviour, I do not see any problem if this gives satisfaction and controlled euphoria. Who are we to choke the euphoria of others?
Because a bare wall is better than a wall decorated with a symbol that promotes all that is positive in humanity.
However, a few progressive people, affirming that they have absolutely no harm in intention, that they definitely have no inferiority complex, that they just want their country to be politically, ideologically and humanly superior, have a dream – a dream of embellishing the wall by removing any sign and symbol of improved human harmony and painting it over to render it empty and clean.
Dr Anthony Licari has an academic background in Human Sciences from various French universities.