Post‐Secularism and the E uropean C ourt of H uman R ights: O r H ow G od N ever R eally W ent A way

This article analyses the critical yet elusive notions of state neutrality, secularism and religious coercion under the E uropean C onvention in light of the E uropean C ourt of H uman R ights recent decision in L autsi v I taly . We contend that the real concern in the Italian crucifix case was not the infringement of the school pupils’ religious freedom nor the proselytising or coercive effect of the ‘passive’ religious symbols. Rather, opponents of the longstanding symbols were animated by desire for strict religious equality, a notion that is, correctly in our view, not guaranteed under the C onvention. L autsi has significantly cleared the conceptual undergrowth surrounding state neutrality and the varieties of secularism, reined in the elastic notion of religious coercion and eschewed attempts to squeeze the constitutional diversity of E uropean religion‐state frameworks into a strict American‐style separationist mould. The C onvention jurisprudence on freedom of religion has finally come of age.