EU is becoming anti-christian in politics

[Kuciwalker]

edit

edit

[Pekka]

An overweight person walks to a modelling agency.

"Hey.. I want to be a supermodel for skimpy clothes"
"Hmm ok.. there's one problem though.. you are overweight"
"SO!? SO!?!??!?!?!"
"Well we have a policy, that our clients AND customers prefer, and that is that skimpy clothes shall be filled with skinny girls"
"This is discrimination and racist"
"what ever. If you wish to be a supermodel in our agency, you have to lose weight. Come back when you have lost weight and we'll hire you, ok?"

Overweight person goes to lose weight and coems back.

"Hi'ya! Look at me! I'm skinny as hell!"
"Oh howdy partner, ohh yeah you look like you can fit in our agency great now. Why don't you fill this form and you're in.. how's that sound?"
"HORRIBLE! Discrimination! I had to lose the weight so you'd accept me to work in here!"
"MUhhhh. .Like I said, it's the company policy and our buyers and customers prefer it this way. Sorry. Without this you just can't fit in. We have demandings, we just can't let anyone who wants to come with their own demands."
"Well ok.. but I can still force feed my own kids?"
"Yeah"
"Ok.. well sign me up then. Sorry about the outburst"
"That's ok."
"Ok here's my signature... BASTARDS!"
"HEY! If you DON'T LIKE WORKING HERE, because our LEGAL policy is like this, then why don't you find yourself another agency, I know couple that take big girls for their modelling shows, clothes for big girls?"
"NO I WANT TO WORK HERE!"
"Well PLEASE DECIDE!"

That's it.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


There are more modern religions. Moreover, they often do NOT actually espouse the morals espoused by practitioners of their religion 2000 years ago. And morals based up religion are jut as valid as morals based upon something else.

There may be, but i thougth we talked about religions with heavy impact and here any new religion falls through - nobody takes them seriously.

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
That's clearly not the case regarding abortions.

Of course it isn't - a religion as ex christianity says go multiply - will of course as a reflex deny any reson against this. Despite the fact that we are too many on this planet, the chistian church says that we shall continue this suicidial action. They are not against abortion because of some kind of life protection, but because they want perpetual multiplication no matter the consecuences.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by BlackCat
As a far out example - it would be ok to hire a outspoken childmolester as a kindergarden teacher ? He states that he won't abuse his position and you trust he wont ?

A childmolester is someone who has already broken that trust. Moreover, a pedophile is someone who will inherently have urges to break that trust. A Catholic can't really do that much damage in a bureaucratic position - if he doesn't do his job, fire him!

I wasn't specific enoùgh - it should have been a phedopile in spe - but then again - why hire the person if you have strong reson to belive he will do something wrong ?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The two are the same case, BlackCat. A government controlled by clerics inherently strictly limits other religions. It's just in this case, the government is controlled by atheists.

The statement is false on both ways:

1. Most politicians in the EU are believers (essentially Christians), even though only a few of them shove it to the voters.

2. An Atheist is not the cleric of the 'Church of Atheism'. Just like most Christians aren't priests. I am not aware of any priest being in one of the top positions of power in Europe, yet I know of auite a few Christians. Do you think these Christian leaders are inherently stricly limiting other religions?

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Heresson



You're wrong. If they are making a problem of that someone prefers traditional vision of family, it means that
what they want is not an alternative, but that they want to replace the traditional model. They have right to want
to do it, but not by intolerance towards people prefering the traditional model, and that's just what they did!

There is no Problem,
as the State doesn´t force Priests to carry out homosexual Marriages.
The only thing which it can do by these gay marriages is, to provide homosexual partnerships the same Rights (Taxes, Adoptions) which traditional Families have.
But the church can still choose to deny gay couples a church wedding, so that gay couples are married in the eye of the state, but not married in the eye of the church

Originally posted by Heresson

Oh, and that fetuses are humans, it's as obvious as that 1-year old child is a human. They don't vary that much from humans, and they are definitely humans a while later. There's no reason for not considering them humans.

So you agree that in the embryonic Stages, i.e. till maybe week 10 of pregnancy you shouldn´t consider the embryo a human?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Actually, the opposite is true. There's no wrongful discrimination in an election, by definition, but in hiring any discrimination not absolutely necessary is wrong. And being a Catholic wouldn't necessarily prevent the person from doing his or her job.

Being sexist would however blind his judgment in many issues, as the EU's justice minister.

Hence his being voted out by the Parliament.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by BlackCat
Are you saying that the Vatican isn't trying to forcing religious beliefs upon the rest of eourope ??? I don't think that it's accepted by any members of EU that the vatican has the right to do that!

I don't understand your "black" argument. It was with the church's (and the vatican's) approval that slavery was implemented - the church actually said that back people wasn't as good as others !!!

My point is that forcing people to stop having abortions is no worse than forcing people to stop holding slaves (I'm
referring to the American Civil War here, which, while technically was not fought over the issue of slavery, essentially was).

I'm a little confused - I had the idea that you were against abortion, but what you say is that legislation against abortion is just as bad as legislation preventing you holding slaves ?????

[Heresson]

Of course it isn't - a religion as ex christianity says go multiply - will of course as a reflex deny any reson against this. Despite the fact that we are too many on this planet, the chistian church says that we shall continue this suicidial action. They are not against abortion because of some kind of life protection, but because they want perpetual multiplication no matter the consecuences.

You are wrong. But it's not a big suprise.

There is no Problem,
as the State doesn´t force Priests to carry out homosexual Marriages.
The only thing which it can do by these gay marriages is, to provide homosexual partnerships the same Rights (Taxes, Adoptions) which traditional Families have.
But the church can still choose to deny gay couples a church wedding, so that gay couples are married in the eye of the state, but not married in the eye of the church

I agree with You in the matter of gay marriages, but not in the case of abortion.

So you agree that in the embryonic Stages, i.e. till maybe week 10 of pregnancy you shouldn´t consider the embryo a human?

For me, the existance of brain is a border, but protecting pregnancy from the start isn't without a reason and should not be laughed at

Oh, Pekka's post is irrelevant to this discussion

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by Heresson
Who put it there?
Morality isn't a thing that there's from the beginning.
You have to learn it.

Actually, the tendencies towards morality ARE there. It is developed and maintained by society and upbringing.

You are wrong. There are societies with completely different moral values. If the moral values were in human brain from the beginning, it wouldn't be possible.

[Kuciwalker]

Actually, societies often do have practicaly similar moral values. There are a few noted differences, but those are the working of chance (and even moreso, economics).

[BlackCat]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Heresson


You are wrong. But it's not a big suprise.

Originally posted by Heresson


You are wrong. But it's not a big suprise.

Dear Heresson. I really loves it when i get a clear and unmistakeable answer just as yours. You have really proven your point and i just bow and accept your godlike wisdom. I have just one small question - where the hell do you think i'm wrong ????

IF you really thinks that you have some golden words that will enlighten the rest of us, then please send them instead of this BS.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Actually, societies often do have practicaly similar moral values. There are a few noted differences, but those are the working of chance (and even moreso, economics).

I agree.

Will it be evil to point out that this happens despite what religion those societies may be adobted to ?

[Kuciwalker]

No. Actually, that was my point.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
No. Actually, that was my point.

Then again, why isn't it's possible to say that moral and etics isn't decided by religion ? According to my matematichs it should be possible.