EU is becoming anti-christian in politics

[DanS]

I'm a firm Republican. May the Queen of England go to the guillotine!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DanS
By the way, I view a lot of what Buttiglione has said as more having to do with Italian machismo than any real issues that need to be discussed.

I don't think that an avowed sexist is the guy we need at the justice department. If he was in the Agriculture or transportation department, that wouldn't bear on his job. But in justice, where opinions about social phenomena do matter (for example, the issue of father's rights, which is being raised in several parts of Europe), such machismo does make unfit for the job, IMO.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DanS
I'm a firm Republican. May the Queen of England go to the guillotine!

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Christianity

If it were not for Christianity European civilization would have developed under the influence of Wotanists. Think about it. The basic principles of Wotanism are similar to that of the Klingons of Star Trek - an unabashed warrior cult which holds military honor as the highest value. How, pray tell, do you think you would have fared in such a culture. Would you be a slave or a master?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


If it were not for Christianity European civilization would have developed under the influence of Wotanists. Think about it. The basic principles of Wotanism are similar to that of the Klingons of Star Trek - an unabashed warrior cult which holds military honor as the highest value. How, pray tell, do you think you would have fared in such a culture. Would you be a slave or a master?

Actually, would they not be under the control of Islam? Or some sort of centralizing eastern potentate?

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

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

Well, isn´t he?

True Catholics are also allowed to vote and argue according to their conscience, as any other person is.
So, if for example in Parliament it will be decided wether Abortions should be outlawed or not, catholic parlamentarians are allowed to vote and argue according to their belief (i.e. against abortion).
They just shouldn´t expect that the majority within the parliament will share their opinions and beliefs (and therefore wioll de facto outlaw abortion).
Same goes for public life.
Catholics are allowed to be against abortions, and therefore never procure an abortion.
But they just shouldn´t try to enforce their beliefs on others and try with force, to hinder other people from procuring abortions for themselves.
(although they are of course allowed to try to persuade such people not to abort their children )

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by GePap
Aren't a few members consitutional monarchies were the Sovereign is also the head of the Church? (aka Sweden, UK)

Yep, holds true for Sweden also. Not that many seems to care much about it. It was not like back in the days when Queen Kristina, the daughter and heir of the defender of christian faith in the 30-years war King Gustav II Adolf, stepped down from the throne and joined the papists...

It seems to me like the Vatican is a bit to concerned, or perhaps the journalist just want to overdo it to get a better story. The EU isn't really founded on catholic orthodoxy, so why should it come as a suprise? As someone living in a pretty protestant enviroment (in spirit and tradition, not in faith) the EU seems quite catholic at times.

As has already been pointed out from the start by DanS; the issue with Buttiglione has more to do that he's been selected by european leader that makes Bush look good in comparison for many europeans.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by GePap


Actually, would they not be under the control of Islam? Or some sort of centralizing eastern potentate?

Would Islam have existed without Christianity? IIRC Mohammed was influenced in his youth by tales about Christianity. When he grew up he decided to correct what he perceived to be the errors in Christian teaching. Besides, a Europe dominated by the warlike Germans might have been more than a match for the muslims. Christianity had at least some moderating effect upon Germanic culture. Unfortunately Germanic culture greatly warped the basic principles of Christian teaching as they became applied in the Middle Ages.

[GePap]

Yes, but would not the rich southern civilizations have in the end, one way or another come to control europe? Or some new horde from the steepes of Asia?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I suppose you have evidence supporting your position.

How many of the founding fathers fall into this category?

Let's see: Sam Adams, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson were deists throughout their adult lives. James Madison, James Monroe and George Washington dabbled with deism at the time of the revolution, but eventually came back to Anglicanism (Episcopalianism). John Adams and John Hancock were New England congreagtionalists.

It very much depends upon whom you consider to be a founding father: the elite who drafted the Declaration and led the revolution, the entire Continental Congress (many of whom didn't even vote for independence), or everyone who supported and/or fought for the revolution?

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
If it were not for Christianity European civilization would have developed under the influence of Wotanists.

Hurrah for the lesser of two evils!

[Pekka]

Strangelove, that's like saying if that guy didn't invent telephone back in teh day, there wouldn't be one now either. That is, false conclusion.

Anyway, I didn't know Catholics were being persecuted in Europe? I never even heard of it. And the protestants vs. catholics in the Island doesn't count.

If someone is being slapped all over most of the times, it's the muslims in Europe. They get it worst, and the raw deal. Euros are most racist against them.

Do I want muslim reps, catholic reps, and all kinds of other reps to put in their 2 cents in EU politics? No. Why shouldn't the casino owners have the same right too, I mean, they believe in .. maybe money and sex, why shouldn't they have the right to represent themselves too? What makes religion such power, that they think they can have that right? They don't have that right. They have the right to exists and practice it freely.

Catholics, muslims, jews, anyone can join politics. As individuals. They can run, just like everyone else. I don't see why they should get any extra points for being religious of some of the clubs.

Vatican etc stays influential and powerful. But they have very little to contribute to EU politically and most of all in decision making, I don't see why they have to be in the table for anything.

If the argument it, shouldn't someone be able to follow their own morals and rules, being religious of a religion? of course, and they can do that right now. And as individuals, they have all the same chances to rise to what ever position. Usually they don't do so good in here. Because we don't like religion in our politics. We don't believe that God has blessed that party, or their leader, as if someone would claim it, we'd see it as dangerous, fundamentalism.

Now, if the Pope gets to say anything in EU, then we need other counter parts also, and soon we have like double EU, the inner circle and the outer circle, and none of them works anymore. Religion has no right to be in politics. Just like politics has no right to be in religion.

To say EU persecutes Catholics is laughable. We persecute muslims if we persecute someone. Now, when Turkey joins and we have a lot of new muslims in EU, does anyone realistically think EU will allow the religious side to rule ANYTHING in EU policies? Absolutely NOT. And that's the way it should be. I don't see why we should make an exception when it comes to catholics. They're not special anymore than the rest of us. A person should decide if he comes to the decision table as politician, or religion practicer. And no they don't blend, other one has to come first and other one follows close behind. I say politicians first. But at the end, we can all vote on it, and so far, politicians comes first and in Europe they will continue to do so now and for a long time to the future.

oh and ps. it's not anti-christian. Just because someone doesn't give into demands of someone, doesn't make then anti-anything. Religionistas have no place in EU politics, never had, never will, so it's anti-religion equally, not just anti-christian. And if religion can interrupt politics, can politics interrupt religion? Why not?! What makes religion such superentity. Besides those bozos are as corrupt as mafia anyway, we don't want their blood money and what else. You think there's no blood money in Europes churches? Look again, I can start with mafia (yes it wasn't a joke), or what about .. no wait! Catholic church hiding and assisting nazis to flee, coordinating the routes to argentina etc? And countless other times, no we don't want their blood in our hands, because criminals influence through church a lot. If you don't believe it, you should live in Europe and see it yourself, and stop being so naive.

[Sava]

Pekka

[Japher]

Apart from

Strangelove, that's like saying if that guy didn't invent telephone back in teh day, there wouldn't be one now either. That is, false conclusion.

Pekka

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Christianity

It shoud be religion !