Religion has its rights.

[Heresson]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Religion has its rights.

Originally posted by Spiffor

1. It is consequential. The mention of Christianty (not even religion, but Christianty) would mean the EU is a Christian club,

well, isn't it?

and it would mean that potential Muslim members (such as Albania, Bosnia or Turkey) would be "something else". It would mean that Muslim and Jewish people are somehow less European than others.

Because they actually are. Even Turkey, Albania and Bosnia have Christian history before being Muslim.
And You are wrong. It wasn't demanded: Christianity and nothing else, but "Christianity and also Islam and Judaism"
And France was still against it
Such radical vision of secularism was only french and belgian as far as I know

2. It is not hostile to christianty, as we would have done just the same if any other religion was suggested. Stop being paranoid for your precious little religion. It is exactly the same as all the others, in that we don't want it interfere with politics.

Christianity is the religion that is a majority in every European state but three, haven't You noticed?

Except that the constitution is not a school book. The Preamble of the European Constitution is about the common values every EU member should cherish. Values of democracy, values of enlightenment.

Who said that everyone should cherish them? I can understand democracy, but enlightement doesn't have to be judged good. French revolution was, after good start, a giant misunderstanding, to say the least

Again, including Christianty into this, is the best way to insure non-Christian countries will stay out, or will be considered as "something else".

EU is not just common market and politics. It's also common history and culture. And it was and still is Christian history and culture. Turkey was an alien element in in, and tried to destroy it. And Albanians and Bosnians are result of Turkish conquests. They want to be in - welcome, of course. But it's exception from a rule.

Precisely, this is the role of school.

Who says so?

Religion does have a major influence on today's belief systems, and it is good to explain about them at school. If the kid (or rather his parents) want to teach the One Truth, there are Churches that do that. Heck, in my hometown, there's a Sunday School right in front of my highschool.

The same You can say that if the parents want their children about anything, they can learn it elsewhere.
Why is it compulsory to learn about poetry, but not about
The Truth?

Nope. And?

The further part of Your post proves that You know the answer to "and"

By the same token, plenty of people in France know about Baseball. Does it mean we discriminate against Baseball by it not being in the curriculum?

Again, comparing baseball to religion is not appropriate.
And again yes, if You can not play baseball at school, and You only have subject "sports" in which You learn theory of each one. And note: You can play several sports, and it is kind of less important part of life

[molly bloom]

Re: Re: Re: Religion has its rights.

Originally posted by Heresson

Atheism is a religion, just very different than any else

No it isn't.


Atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of a god.

A religion is most usually a system of faith and worship.

I do not 'worship' in the way a Catholic or Muslim or Jew worships.

I have no holy books, no sites of pilgrimage, no sacred buildings or grounds, no special ceremonies, rites of passage, bodily mutilations, special foods, belief in the supernatural, ritual purification ceremonies, special celebratory days, nor do I need anyone to act as an intercessor between me and some unspecified otherworldly realm.

I am entirely free from irrational commands relating to animal foodstuffs, types of clothing, menstruating women, people with disabilities, and the disposal of dead bodies.

I suggest if you can find any criteria which cause my atheism to resemble a religion in any significant respect, then please let us all know what they are.



Otherwise, it's just blether on your part.

[Heresson]

Religion is a view in spiritual matters. Atheism falls into that cathegory

[Heresson]

What's blether?

The point is that lack of religion is a religion, just like not participating in a voting is a way of voting
It's a matter of discussion, of course

[Combat Ingrid]

Just like not participating in killing is a way of killing?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Spiffor

They aren't. However, they differ from monotheistic ones in that they are much more open-minded.

[

Where did you get that idea? How tolerant was the Roman empire towards those who refused to acknowledge the deity of their emporer? How tolerant were the pre-WW2 Japanese?

Buddhism originated in India and rapidly flourished and spread across the sub-continent. Some of the great dynasties of India were Buddhist. Yet by the time that westerners arrived Buddhism was extinct within its homeland. The indigenous peoples had even forgotten the meaning of the ancient shrines and stupas left behind by Buddhist rulers, and the life of Buddha was considered to be a myth. Evidently Hindus felt threatened by Buddhism and over a period of many centuries managed to obliterate the religion from the face of India while simultaneously incorporating many elements of Buddhism into Hinduism.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Combat Ingrid
Just like not participating in killing is a way of killing?

If You know about that the killing is being done, and You do not inform the police, actually it is according to the law

A view in religious matters or voting in elections is a common matter of all citizens, while murdering someone is a singular case. Your analogy is nice indeed, but wrong

[Spiffor]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Religion has its rights.

Originally posted by Heresson
Because they actually are. Even Turkey, Albania and Bosnia have Christian history before being Muslim.
And You are wrong. It wasn't demanded: Christianity and nothing else, but "Christianity and also Islam and Judaism"
And France was still against it
Such radical vision of secularism was only french and belgian as far as I know

Indeed, our understanding of secularism is different from many other countries. Our national mottos don't mention God. Our taxes don't pay the clergy (unlike Germany). There aren't crosses or other religious symbols in public schools.

If your point was to say the French brand of secularism is uncommon, it was already obvious. If your point was to say that France promotes atheism as its state religion, I'm still waiting for arguments.

Christianity is the religion that is a majority in every European state but three, haven't You noticed?

So what?

EU is not just common market and politics. It's also common history and culture.

You're right about EU no being merely about common market and politics. EU is also our greatest hope to achieve long-lasting peace in our war-torn continent. For millenia, our countries fought each others for their greed, for their paranoia, or for their fanaticism. Religious beliefs and nationalism were used by warmongers to push peoples against each others.
The European history is not one of common history or culture. We fought against each other. We hated each other. We were sure the others were some sort of demons, because they were different, because they spoke a different language, worshipped some other God, or behaved in unfathomable ways.

The argument that the EU should be a Christian club is utterly absurd. There are as many differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, as between Christianty and Islam.
Maybe one day, if the EU ever becomes a devout organization, it will fear the rise of atheistic China and polytheistic India. And on this day, it'll unite with the Muslims on the grounds there is a common history between us, and a common culture of monotheism. These claims would be just as real as today's claims that there is a common Christian culture within Europe.

And it was and still is Christian history and culture. Turkey was an alien element in in, and tried to destroy it.

Turkey was an alien element of Europe that tried to conquer it. Same for the Vikings. Heck, German tribes were even external to Europe in a Roman perspective. I've heard people who claim that only France, Germany and Benelux can form a true Europe, because only they belonged to Charlemagne's empire. Such a claim would make Poland "something else", something that doesn't naturally belong to the EU, but you're in because we true Europeans were nice enough to invite you.

The same You can say that if the parents want their children about anything, they can learn it elsewhere.
Why is it compulsory to learn about poetry, but not about
The Truth?

Just the same way the school teaches different brands of poetry, it does teach several brands of The Truth. Just like it is up to the kid to decide what kind of poetry he likes (if any), it is up to the kid to decide what brand of Truth he wants to believe (if any).

Again, comparing baseball to religion is not appropriate.
And again yes, if You can not play baseball at school, and You only have subject "sports" in which You learn theory of each one. And note: You can play several sports, and it is kind of less important part of life

To a great many people, sports is far more important than religion. And the kids who want to practice their favorite sports, if not featured at school, can try to look at the ample offer given in every reasonably-sized town.
And you can worship several religions as well, if you so wish. Nothing legal prevents you from worshipping whatever and however you like, as long as it doesn't disturb public order (i.e if your brand of religion requires sacrificing children, that will be punished)

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Heresson
A view in religious matters or voting in elections is a common matter of all citizens

False. Religion is just one thing on the agenda. It is one of the great many issues that must be adressed by the community. Just like waste disposal is one political issues among many others.

In most countries, elections are held to give one opinion about the whole bunch of issues, all bundled together (when you elect representatives). However, sometimes, referenda are held on a very specific issue people may not care about. I think that in Switzerland, the nearly-weekly referenda often have less about 20% participation. That's because most of the population couldn't care less about some agricultural subsidy, about the location of the next statue, about the specifics of the immigration law, etc. In these issue-specific votes, not voting doesn't mean anything, except that the voter has no opinion nor interest on the topic.

I wonder why religion should be held in any different regard.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Heresson
Religion is a view in spiritual matters. Atheism falls into that cathegory

Fine, go ahead and make up your own definition as to what religion is.


By your logic, Catholics who do not believe in Hindu gods actually believe in them, because their unbelief in Hindu deities is just as much a belief as their belief in Jesus and the Christian god.

I haven't killed anyone. By your strange conception, I share a category with serial killers and mass murderers.


I don't 'lack' religion.


Frankly, I view that as on a par with saying I lack serious mental illness, or a second head.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Heresson
And You are wrong. It wasn't demanded: Christianity and nothing else, but "Christianity and also Islam and Judaism"
And France was still against it

Indeed, we are opposed to naming specific religions, because it would mean that our Sikhs, our Buddists, our Zoroastrians, our Hindus... have no place in the Union our country adheres to.
The only way to avoid disfavoring any religious person is to not specify religions by name at all.

BTW, we did agree to leave the word "Religion" in the constitution at all, which is an immense compromise already. As an agnostic, I am quite displeased that the Union to which I'll adhere bundles religion with the many other positive aspects of European history, and even pretends to "draw inspiration" from it among others.

If I wasn't opposed to this crappy constitution already, the statement that Europe should take inspiration from our religious past may be enough for me to vote against it.

[Heresson]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Religion has its rights.

Originally posted by Spiffor

If your point was to say the French brand of secularism is uncommon, it was already obvious. If your point was to say that France promotes atheism as its state religion, I'm still waiting for arguments.

It's a matter of opinion. For me French "secularism" is a state atheism. It just goes too far.

Christianity is the religion that is a majority in every European state but three, haven't You noticed?

So what?

So my special concern about christianity in this discussion is not without a cause

[quote]
You're right about EU no being merely about common market and politics. EU is also our greatest hope to achieve long-lasting peace in our war-torn continent. For millenia, our countries fought each others for their greed, for their paranoia, or for their fanaticism. Religious beliefs and nationalism were used by warmongers to push peoples against each others.
The European history is not one of common history or culture. We fought against each other. We hated each other. We were sure the others were some sort of demons, because they were different, because they spoke a different language, worshipped some other God, or behaved in unfathomable ways.
[quote]

And what?
Btw, modern nationalism is a child of "enlightement" and french revolution.

The argument that the EU should be a Christian club is utterly absurd. There are as many differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, as between Christianty and Islam.

You must be kidding. Speaking strictly, catholicism and orthodox church are still the same denomination, and the separation is a schism, not a heresy, hough some people may think so.

These claims would be just as real as today's claims that there is a common Christian culture within Europe.

If You don't see cultural unity between christian cultures of each culture, You must be blind.

Turkey was an alien element of Europe that tried to conquer it. Same for the Vikings.

Which were christianised after some time, weren't they...

Heck, German tribes were even external to Europe in a Roman perspective.

Is there a bigger cultural difference between France and Germany today than between France and Greece?

I've heard people who claim that only France, Germany and Benelux can form a true Europe, because only they belonged to Charlemagne's empire. Such a claim would make Poland "something else", something that doesn't naturally belong to the EU, but you're in because we true Europeans were nice enough to invite you.

Don't be silly. Two big countries and three tinies in the west don't have a right to call themselves Europe. The same Poland could form an "Europe" with surrounding states. We must find something that unites almost all countries on the continent. And it is roman/greek and christian heritage

[quote]
Just the same way the school teaches different brands of poetry, it does teach several brands of The Truth. Just like it is up to the kid to decide what kind of poetry he likes (if any), it is up to the kid to decide what brand of Truth he wants to believe (if any). [quote]

You can be fan of many poeths at the same time, while You can either belong to some church, or do not.

To a great many people, sports is far more important than religion.

And the kids who want to practice their favorite sports, if not featured at school, can try to look at the ample offer given in every reasonably-sized town.

But if enough of them wants to practice it at school, and there is such a possibility, their plea won't be denied by law.

And you can worship several religions as well, if you so wish.

No

False. Religion is just one thing on the agenda. It is one of the great many issues that must be adressed by the community. Just like waste disposal is one political issues among many others.

Bravo. Comparing religion to waste disposal.
But that's not what I ment. I ment not dealing with the problem with organised community, but rather dealing with the problem by each member of it.
Each person has some view in the matter of religion
I didn't mean that 100% people are interested in elections or referenda, but that at least theorethically, they are supposed to be and their opinion, or lack of opinion, matters in the case

[Heresson]

Originally posted by molly bloom

Fine, go ahead and make up your own definition as to what religion is.

And why can't I? Is there some universal definition of religion?

By your logic, Catholics who do not believe in Hindu gods actually believe in them, because their unbelief in Hindu deities is just as much a belief as their belief in Jesus and the Christian god.

You are mixing it up, being unwilling to understand my point. Read again my definition of religion.
First of all, a Christian can believe in Hindu gods - He can think they are evil demons.
Secondly, even if He just believes they are made up, it's a belief, and as such, it is a religious belief, just opposite.
It is the same line, just opposite direction.

I haven't killed anyone. By your strange conception, I share a category with serial killers and mass murderers.

Read my posts, than discuss.

Indeed, we are opposed to naming specific religions, because it would mean that our Sikhs, our Buddists, our Zoroastrians, our Hindus... have no place in the Union our country adheres to.

They are late immigrants, guests on this soil.
Hindus, Sikhs etc are free to stay and participate. After several centuries perhaps they'll make enough impact to place them in preamble. As for Zoroastrians, why not, though their influence is mostly influencing Christianity, ancient mithraism and Freddie Mercury

BTW, we did agree to leave the word "Religion" in the constitution at all, which is an immense compromise already. As an agnostic, I am quite displeased that the Union to which I'll adhere bundles religion with the many other positive aspects of European history, and even pretends to "draw inspiration" from it among others.

Greek/Roman ancient philosophy, science, art - based on religion
Christian philosophy, science, art - based on religion
Muslim philosophy, science, art - based on religion.

Indeed, the religion was an evil factor all the way.
Lets destroy the cathedrals and burn Plato's and Aristocle's works on a big stake.

Clergy can influence children. If parents want it.

But state is allowed to force children into its schools, and religions aren't.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Heresson

First of all, a Christian can believe in Hindu gods - He can think they are evil demons.

A Christian can believe they might win the lottery if they buy enough tickets. That isn't religious belief.


What part of Christianity is a belief in Hindu gods?


None that I know of.


You're still failing to show that atheism is a religion.

You haven't shown in any substantive way how it resembles a religion, a creed, or faith in the supernatural.

That's because it isn't any of them.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Heresson
The question is, why should they be different?

For starters, the principles to found a state on could and did change over time, and so did the forms of governments. OTOH, religion doctrines are inerrant.

Originally posted by Heresson
TThe wyestion is if separation of church and state is right. and if it is possible without falling into state atheism

If you don't mind giving up freedom of religion. You can't have one without the other.

Originally posted by Heresson
ekhem, LAW IS A MORAL SYSTEM

Not so.

Originally posted by Heresson
So... what is legal then to do with the citizens of conquered territory?

Since a country is not supposed to annex territories by force, I am not sure what your quesiton is.

Originally posted by Heresson
Say, if Corsica would become independant, wouldn't it demand loyalty of its citizens?

Those who aren't probably would have fled during the process of independence.

Originally posted by Heresson
You are wrong. Religion is most often a way of getting divine help. Auspicia - to predict the future. Sacrifices - to make Gods pleased so that they wouldn't interfere or would help. Also, in religion such as Christianity, it is also about helping other people

First of all, lets put aside this divine help business.

Religions do not exist to serve the believers, only to form institutes that would survive perpetually. If any services were provided, they were merely incidental, as means to gain more converts.

They only serve those at the tip of the hierarchy. Much like most of the governments that had ever existed in history. That's why you are confused.

Originally posted by Heresson
Atheism is a religion, just very different than any else

This can't be further from the truth. Atheism is freedom from religion.