EU is becoming anti-christian in politics

[Ben Kenobi]

Well duh. The guy is avowedly intolerant, and openly advocates sexual inequality. It is completely opposite to what the EU is building, and it is only normal the representatives of the European population to vote him out.

Spiffor:

I rest my case. The EU is avowedly anticlerical.

You mean, like this French editorialist who openly stated that "[he doesn't] like Islam. Not for the extremists, but for the religion in itself. This religion makes you stupid"? (for info, this mainstream conservative editorialist was completely unscathed, despite working for a newspaper that is very protective of the Jews)

You believe France would shout down a journalist who belabours Islam?

Yeah, those are issues of the day, so there are debates. Why should there be a problem because we aren't inclined to follow the Catholic demands?

Yes, but the EU insists that there is only one right answer to these debates. That's why they are so hostile to the Vatican, because the Vatican disagrees that modernity must be equated with the principles fostered by the EU.

Whatever. The EU is a democracy, and they can say whatever they want. And we are free not to listen to their crap.

And by the same token, Buttiglione ought to be free as the Vatican's representative, to serve in the EU true to his principles.

[Whaleboy]

Whaleboy enthusiams for burning Catholics at the stake is remarkable given as it comes from a person who denies there is a right or wrong moral philosophy.

Does the Nedaverse have a place for jest?

How many of the founding fathers fall into this category?

Assuming they are even moderately intelligent, it seems a reasonable supposition.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi




Yes, but the EU insists that there is only one right answer to these debates.

As does the Vatican.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes it is! I say that it's about time the atheists had revenge for the inquisition. BURN THE IGNORANT!!

Wouldn't be a first for atheists. They have a very good track record so far.

Actually, in my experience in the UK, Catholics aren't. It tends to be the happy clappy "SIINNNNNEERRRRS" evangelicals that get most hostility, and I can't say I disagree with that, but no hostility to catholics.

I don't speak for England. I'm not English, and I've never been there before.

Catholics as far as I see are the more laid back and relaxed of them... ironically they seem most comfortable with their faith and able to question it!

Unlike the atheists.

As long as religion doesn't come into it when they have positions of power, just as I'd say for any religion.

Sorry, no dice. A man who is Christian ought to be able to follow his conscience as stringently as any atheist in parliament.

[Arrian]

The EU is avowedly anticlerical.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

Assuming they are even moderately intelligent, it seems a reasonable supposition.

Still wrong. Many reasonable ideas have a similar fate.

[Sava]

good for the EU

[Ben Kenobi]

but no hostility to catholics.

The home country of Sir Thomas More?

That is a change, if this is true!

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I suppose you have evidence supporting your position.

How many of the founding fathers fall into this category?

Definitelly Washington, Franklyn, and Jefferson
And Ben, its sort of a well known fact about our founding fathers-most of them were enlightenment gentlemen.

[Arrian]

And besides, who cares if they WERE religious? It's not like they're our gods or anything.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Catholic wars
Robert Novak


October 20, 2004

WASHINGTON -- John Kerry's promise in the last presidential debate that he would impose an abortion litmus test on Supreme Court selections deepened anxiety of pro-life Catholics. For Charles J. Chaput, Roman Catholic archbishop of Denver, and Brian P. Golden, a Democrat in the Massachusetts House of Representatives, election of a pro-choice Catholic spells disaster.

The archbishop and the state representative, who have never met, are part of a loosely connected national network sending a message to Mass-attending Catholics: For all of his new emphasis on his Catholicism, Sen. Kerry violates the Church's "foundational" belief with blanket opposition to all anti-abortion measures. I talked to Chaput and Golden this week, and both see Kerry endangering the Catholic position on abortion.

In a largely unpublished interview with The New York Times, the Denver archbishop said: "If the Church challenges a President Kerry on [destruction of unborn children through embryonic stem-cell research], it will appear to be interfering. If the Church remains silent, it will appear cowardly." In a monograph ("Should Catholics Vote for Kerry?"), Golden writes that Kerry rejects protection of life "through humane public policy" and that "his frequent declaration that he 'was an altar boy' is not enough to dispel Catholics' concerns."

Those concerns are intensified by the campaign of the first Catholic nominee for president since John F. Kennedy. While Kennedy 44 years ago did not want to call attention to his religion, Kerry stresses his Catholicism -- an emphasis not apparent in his Massachusetts campaigns the past three decades. He says he accepts the Catholic doctrine that "life begins at conception" but will not impose it on others. It then becomes something like rooting for the Red Sox, which should not be forced on Yankee fans.

"Catholics with a little catechism and logic know better," Representative Golden writes. He asserts that Kerry "for 20 years, on matters most fundamental to Catholics, has been consistently wrong" and "is among the fervent supporters of abortion in the Senate." The confirmation came in the Tempe, Ariz., debate when he answered a question about Roe v. Wade: "I'm not going to appoint a judge to the court who's going to undo a constitutional right."

Archbishop Chaput, in the Oct. 12 New York Times, is quoted after an interview with two of the newspaper's reporters: "If you vote this way [for a candidate like Kerry], are you cooperating in evil? And if you know you are cooperating in evil, should you go to confession? The answer is yes." That is interpreted in the story as asking Catholics to vote for George W. Bush.

But there is much more in the transcript of Chaput's interview with the Times, prepared and given to me by the archbishop's office. Chaput rejects the "seamless garment" of Catholic issues woven together "as an excuse to sideline the abortion issue." The archbishop calls on Catholics "to get over this compromising" and deliver "a very clear, collective 'no!' -- a grand refusal to vote for anybody who is pro-choice, so that we have some political influence on this issue."

While Chaput says President Bush surpasses all predecessors on the life issue, he made clear he has no affection for the Republican Party beyond opposition to abortion. "If it goes in the wrong way," he said, "we won't be natural allies." If pro-choice Republican Rudy Giuliani were nominated for president in 2008, "you're going to see the Republicans screaming at the Church for making such an issue of a pro-life matter."

Golden, who also supported Bush in 2000, is not much of a Democrat. But he is no Republican. The 35-year-old third-termer representing a Boston inner city district advocates social justice, opposes capital punishment and votes solidly pro-environmentalist. Like the archbishop, he could not support Giuliani for president.

Golden four years ago was the only elected Democrat north of the Mason-Dixon Line to endorse Bush. Chaput is regarded as indiscreet by many colleagues in the hierarchy. But Golden and Chaput represent pro-life Catholics who fear the nightmare of John Kerry in the White House and the defeated GOP abandoning their issue. The attack on human life, says the archbishop, is "not going away. It's getting worse."

[Ned]

I'll repeat my question.

Euro's, why does a statement that the family exists for the protection of women while raising children cause such an uproar in Europe?

[Sava]

Robert Novak is a scumbag and a hack... don't post his garbage

[Whaleboy]

The home country of Sir Thomas More?

That is a change, if this is true!

It's true! Obviously I can't speak for all of England but there is always a pecking order of minorities, my observations have them in three tiers for Northampton, in order of acceptance by the status quo...

Tier I: Jews, Irish, Catholics, Buddhists, Chinese, Japanese, Metrosexuals, Americans/Canadians (latterly diminished since Iraq)

Tier II: Evangelical Christians, Black people, homosexuals, Asians who assimilate to a great degree, Australians, South Africans (indeed, most of the white former-empire except the aforementioned Canada).

Tier III: Muslims, homosexuals, Asians who retain cultural identity, all non-white first generation immigrants, Kosovans, Iraqi's and all from the near East and Middle East (with the exception of Israelis), residents of the non-UK EU, particularly French people and German people.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ned
I'll repeat my question.

Euro's, why does a statement that the family exists for the protection of women while raising children cause such an uproar in Europe?

Do you honestly not know, or are you just trying to bait someone? If it's the former, then explaining it to you would probably be pointless. If it's the latter, good luck to you!