EU is becoming anti-christian in politics

[Kuciwalker]

The killer, Oncle, is that even an atheist could conceivably hold the opinion that life begins at conception. Therefore it clearly is not an inherently religious assertion.

[Heresson]

Involving religion in the EU, such as mentioning god in a constitution, would be a real incentive for people here to actively work for us getting out of the EU.

Doesn't your constitution mention it, hm?
Anyway, the real discussion was not about if we should start the constitution by "In the name of God, in the name of God, in the name of God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" oslt,
but there was a mentioning of stuff that influenced Europe through history.
And France was willing to mention everything,
like Enlightement, like ancient Romans and Greeks,
just to keep Christianity out, even when it was proposed to say Christianity, and also Islam and Judaism.

They are already in there

Like where?

We already follow the 10 commandments pretty good and keep them as moral guidelines anyway

1. No God but God - no, EU doesn't do that.
2. mentioning the name of God without any reason -
Europeans mention it where they should not, and do not mention it where they should.
3. Holidays - well, well
4. Respect for parents - about right
6. cheating your wife/husband - bah, EU forbid Turkey to forbid that
7. don't steal - taxes!~!
8. false allegations - a lot of them visible in this thread
9. don't hm, want the wife of sb - not a crime
10. or anything else - not a crime

They already have the right to practice their religion and the right to participate in politics by running for a position, voting, and every OTHER right every citizen has

No; each time You want to make a claim based on your religion, You are being attacked. The church is said to keep quiet and when it dares to speak, it is bashed.

You can't do this, and at the same time seriously consider to let Turkey join, anyway. They would love Christian phrases in the constitution, I am sure.

Because they are Muslim? I don't think so, esp. since the proposition mentioned Islam too.
But they'd be against it - because they are more secularist than France.

but other parts are just redicilous (ie the part about other gods).

Why is that part ridiculous?

Catholic church hiding and assisting nazis to flee, coordinating the routes to argentina etc?

Yup, yup, St Edith Stein and St Maksymilian Kolbe, the friends of the nazis...

They have no right to influence us at political level

WHy?

The idea of "separation of church and state" is very simple: the government shouldn't punish people for things you think are "sins", your god should. The government should just protect people from being harmed by others. As such, the RCC advocating its opinion (or even legislating) on the abortion issue is not a violation of separation of church and state, because it is not punishment for being sinful, but protecting innocents from being harmed by others. They happen to think that fetuses are people.

Exactly

And on what grounds do they happen to think that fetuses are people?

And on what ground do You claim they aren't?
They have legs, arms, head with brain, they dream and feel pain.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


"Personhood" is not a scientific fact, it's a personal opinion. They don't refuse to accept those scientific facts, the facts just aren't relevent to their opinion (that is, the application of their first principles).

So belonging to a specy is not a scientific fact?

It wasn't then.

I didn't say "unreasonable", I said "irrational". Clearly, this opinion was not based on science or rationality but rather on strong (and primitive) emotional dispositions.

And what is "irrational" about removing personhood based on skin color? Why is your definition of personhood somehow inherently true?

Tricky one, that's for sure. I'd say that rights are supposed to be derivated (in the modernist tradition) from some intrinsic characteristics and predispositions to those belonging to the human race. When looking at these assumptions which, independantly of ulterior philosophical evolution, were at the foundation of America, you realize that skin color is highly accessory compared to other things (sentience, the ability to reason, emotions, and, on top of that, no physical difference affecting biological and intellectual fonctions).

In all fairness, it's very possible to define personhood in a completely arbitrary manner with such things as whiteness, or eye color. But in the present case it's absolutely irrelevant, as personhood is clearly associated with the idea of rights, with all the universality requirements that come with it, which are fulfilled in a much more satisfying manner when contingental properties are disregarded.

Mathematical statements are statements of inherently true relationships between ideas.

But the assumption that you can use these statements to describe the world is dogmatic. Besides, logical relationships must assume the absolute and unalienable validity of logical connectors.

The killer, Oncle, is that even an atheist could conceivably hold the opinion that life begins at conception. Therefore it clearly is not an inherently religious assertion.

True, but politics is something practical. An atheist could also hold the opinion that sodomy is somehow a sin; the right thing to do here, is to be prudent and look at facts. When a moral idea is held in an overwhelming majority by fidels of a Church, and that these people have a clear agenda of pushing their beliefs at (almost) any cost, then we should be wary about the principle of Church and State separation.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


True, but when the EU funds floating abortion clinics, and helps to pay the costs for Irish women to seek abortions in the UK, then this could be easily construed as actively undermining the Irish legislature.

I wonder how the EU would feel if Ireland arrested abortionists across Europe and tried and jailed them in Ireland?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


How?

Do you think that a person who holds that blacks are inferior to whites could hold a position in the US government?

I am very sure, UR, that you are not trying to immitate a complete numskull for a reason. But, in the US, discrimination on the basis of religion is ILLEGAL. I assume it is also in the EU.

[Ned]

Originally posted by alva


I think the EU's position on this, is that everyone should fill this is in, the way they see fit.
Some are calling for a more traditional form though( for example in Holland: Balkenende )

I'm not sure if I understand the EU's position. Are you saying that a person who favors traditional families as best for raising kids is not welcome in the EU?

[Ned]

May I conjecture that the epicenter of anti-clericism in Europe is France? France seems to have a particularly jarring run-in with the Catholic Church that resulted in what amounts to state atheism. Other portions of Europe had their revolt against the Church hundreds of years ago. Rather than adopting atheism, they adopted Protestanism. But the atheist form of government seems to be the EU paridigm.

[Arrian]

Government should be devoid of religion. Religion is all about personal belief & faith. The government has no place in it, and it has no place in government.

EU

-Arrian

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian
Government should be devoid of religion. Religion is all about personal belief & faith. The government has no place in it, and it has no place in government.

EU

-Arrian

Arrian, just in case you did not notice, this whole point here is whether people who have a religion can hold office. That is a different issue, not the same issue.

Let me ask you Arrian, do you support religious discrimination?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
So belonging to a specy is not a scientific fact?

If that's your criterion, then they're right. Fetuses are clearly members of the human species.

I didn't say "unreasonable", I said "irrational". Clearly, this opinion was not based on science or rationality but rather on strong (and primitive) emotional dispositions.

They certainly had scientific and rational reasons for it. In their experience, blacks were natural slaves, primitive, and sub-human. That some were purely emotional reactions is irrelevent. 99% of people on either side of an issue have purely emotional reactions.

Tricky one, that's for sure. I'd say that rights are supposed to be derivated (in the modernist tradition) from some intrinsic characteristics and predispositions to those belonging to the human race. When looking at these assumptions which, independantly of ulterior philosophical evolution, were at the foundation of America, you realize that skin color is highly accessory compared to other things (sentience, the ability to reason, emotions, and, on top of that, no physical difference affecting biological and intellectual fonctions).

In all fairness, it's very possible to define personhood in a completely arbitrary manner with such things as whiteness, or eye color. But in the present case it's absolutely irrelevant, as personhood is clearly associated with the idea of rights, with all the universality requirements that come with it, which are fulfilled in a much more satisfying manner when contingental properties are disregarded.

Yours, really, are equally arbitrary. Why are your standards of possessing "intrinsic characteristics and predispositions to those belonging to the human race" less arbitrary than simple skin color? For that matter, why do rights have to be based on humans - why not just white people? Why those particular intrinsic characterists? Why not the (by your reasoning) most fundamental and non-arbitrary characteristic of members of the human species - being alive and possessing human DNA? I.e., what the RCC argues.

But the assumption that you can use these statements to describe the world is dogmatic. Besides, logical relationships must assume the absolute and unalienable validity of logical connectors.

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality - Einstein

The dogmatic assumption of a connection between correlation and causation, and that the future will be like the past, etc. is another debate. The difference between this and morality is that no human being is capable of disbelieving in those assumptions, at least any more than at a very intellectual level, so it's a moot point.

True, but politics is something practical. An atheist could also hold the opinion that sodomy is somehow a sin; the right thing to do here, is to be prudent and look at facts. When a moral idea is held in an overwhelming majority by fidels of a Church, and that these people have a clear agenda of pushing their beliefs at (almost) any cost, then we should be wary about the principle of Church and State separation.

But you missed my earlier point: the government can't legislate against sin. Therefore, even if I accept your argument that legislation for the protection of others isn't valid if it is based somehow on religious grounds, I'm right in this case, because this clearly isn't based on religious grounds (or more accurately, it needn't be based on religious grounds; an atheist could make the same argument). Therefore, if you didn't allow the theists to implement it, what you're really doing is saying thaat only atheists are allowed to vote for certain types of legislation.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Arrian
Government should be devoid of religion. Religion is all about personal belief & faith. The government has no place in it, and it has no place in government.

EU

-Arrian

This isn't a separation of church and state issue!

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Ned


Arrian, just in case you did not notice, this whole point here is whether people who have a religion can hold office. That is a different issue, not the same issue.

Let me ask you Arrian, do you support religious discrimination?

Of course someone who practices a religion can hold office. Furthermore, of course their beliefs will influence their politics. I won't like it much, but that's just the way it is.

Meh. Forget it.

-Arrian

p.s. No, Ned, I do not favor discrimination vs. religious people. I have a certain distain for religion, but never would I support a reverse inquisition or anything of the sort.

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by Ned
[J]ust in case you did not notice, this whole point here is whether people who have a religion can hold office.

Just in case someone missed it; Ned has no clue at all about the real issue.

If conservative catholics wouldn't be able to hold office in the EU, there would be no EU. Not before, not now, not in the future.

[Ned]

Arrian, good. This in the first step in bringing you back from the dark side. I personally am agnostic, but I see a lot of religious discrimination going on in the world today that is becoming increasingly blatant.

[Arrian]

To me, Ned, the "Dark Side" is the side of the Dark Ages - the people who yearn for a return to a mythical golden age of years gone by. In other words, the religionistas (which, to me, means religious people who seek to force their way of life on others via legislation and/or people who make foreign policy decisions based on religion).

Look, sometimes I do get a little carried away in terms of my anti-organized religion tendencies. Some of that is due to discussions here at 'poly. Some of it is the current uber-religious administration in power in this country. Some of it is just plain 'ole intellectual snobbery.

I really do wish religion would go the way of the Dodo. But I'm smart enough to know that's not gonna happen in the foreseable future.

So I'll settle for a reduction in militant religion in politics.

-Arrian