Bollestad into the debate about cross removal: – Disrespectful

The KrF leader calls the proposal to remove the cross “frivolous” and “disrespectful”. And the leader of the Human-Ethical Association believes it is not “national policy to remove crosses”.

VG wrote on Thursday that the Human-Ethical Association (HEF) in Hamar sent out a letter to the ecclesiastical joint councils in the area, with a list of buildings and monuments with crosses that are located by the burial grounds and are used for funeral ceremonies.

In the letter, the union asks that these crosses be removed or covered.

In Løten municipality, this means that the cross on top of Løten chapel must be removed because it seems “obtrusive and threatening to those who do not belong to a chosen way of life”, as is clear from the letter from HEF.

“The common areas at the burial grounds should be designed in a neutral way (…) The symbols should be dismantled to give a neutral touch.”, wrote Magne Kvalbein, head of the local team of the Human-Ethical Association, in the letter.

View-of-life neutral design means in plain text that all use of the cross must go away in these places, HEF believes.

– No, dear friend, there must be a way, said Mona M. Nygaard, leader of Løten parish council to VG.

– Disrespectful

She is supported by KrF leader, Olaug Bollestad, who reacts strongly to the removal of distant crosses from church buildings.

– This proposal is nonsensical, the Human-Ethical Association misses the mark. Norway is open-minded, not neutral – and religious symbols are not dangerous. It is only natural that churches have crosses, says Bollestad to VG.

She reminds that close to 85 per cent of the population is a member of a community of faith and outlook on life.

– These represent important community arenas, which contribute to solving social challenges and are important carriers of culture. That HEF wants to make them invisible is nothing but disrespectful.

Silje Hjemdal, Frp’s cultural policy spokesperson, believes that the National Human-Ethical Association should come out and clarify what they mean.

– This will be too late. I’m not a big churchgoer, but I actually react to this. We have a Christian history We should be proud of, not cover up and hide away, says Hjemdal to VG.

Frustration

– What do you think of the action from your local team leader in Hamar?

– It is not national policy in HEF to remove crosses and religious symbols from buildings belonging to religious communities. Nevertheless, we understand the frustration this shows when it comes to the lack of good, open-minded and dignified ceremony spaces in the local communities, says Christian Lomsdalen, Leader of the Human-Ethical Association.

And the frustration in this case applies to the chapels described in the letter, because it is these premises that the municipalities make available as ceremony rooms, without them being designed to be open to life.

– We have an increasing diversity of views on life in Norway and it is politically determined that Norway is a society open to views on life, and we have supported this for many years, he says.

– I expect us to have respect for each other by having good open-minded ceremony rooms available for the most painful ceremonies we carry out for our loved ones.

The local funeral authorities and the municipality must resolve this in the best possible way, he believes.

– How do you do that without, for example, removing a cross, on a basically Christian building? Should you build new or find other premises?

– I will not get into how the municipality and the funeral authorities will solve this. But very many places lack good and dignified ceremony rooms, says Lomsdalen.

VG has received many reactions from readers who react to the wording of the local team leader that symbols such as the cross seem “intrusive and threatening to those who do not belong to a chosen way of life”

– Do you understand that people react to this formulation?

– I would not use this wording. I don’t think about crosses that way. But we must have respect for the fact that there are people who have traumatic experiences from Christian movements, says Lomsdalen.

He recalls that as recently as this summer there was a big debate in Christian newspapers, such as Vårt Land, about the fear of hell that causes many people to live with mental health problems.

Not “threatening”

VG has submitted Lomsdalen’s clarifications to Magne Kvalbein, who wrote that religious symbols such as crosses seemed “obtrusive and threatening”.

– I take self-criticism for using the word “threatening”, but the symbols can be “obtrusive” in the sense that they are authoritative, says Kvalbein.

He also agrees with Lomsdalen that it is not HEF’s policy to remove crosses and symbols churches.

– What applies here are symbols found on other buildings and fences and entrances to burial grounds. These are public places and we are actually required to use them when we die. And it is also stated in the Funeral Act that we must take into account the deceased’s outlook on life.