EU is becoming anti-christian in politics

[Footie Mad]

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.

[Pekka]

Thanks for the thumbs ups guys

Anyway the bigger points where, if we allow someone, then we have to allow everyone. If we don't then we ARE persecuting and anti-someotherreligion. It just won't work anymore, just like EU doesn't work now

I didn't say beliefs have no place, a person can.. I mean vast majority of reps and all that ARE christians. They are christians already, I don't see why we should consider letting more christians in because they feel they need to bring more christian values in to the policies. They are already in there.

and it is totally legal to form a party, that has a big religious importance in their work. They just never do good in here, because yes, they do poor politics and much religion. They are often draconian too. We euros we like sex and stuff, we don't need the far right religionists to say don't use condoms, and don't have sex before you marry someone. Church says that, politicians job is not that.. their job is to do politics.

I just don't see hwo it fits in policits in bigger scale. Religion IS there already, as the HUGE majority does not consist of atheists.

And it's not a question of religious rights or anything else about religious freedoms. That's nto a freedom, the politics. Freedom is to be protected by the politics. THat's it. And again, lot of christians are already reps and other politicians. I mean what do they want? What's their agenda? We already follow the 10 commandments pretty good and keep them as moral guidelines anyway. What more do they want? And why they think it's their RIGHT? 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. I don't see why religious people should have MORE rights than ordinary citizens. That just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Footie Mad
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.

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.

[Pekka]

And if we were pragmatic, our biggest problem would be muslim's rights and all that. It's like it's not even illegal to push them down in here at every step and level. They're kept back and away from everything powerfull, so they will never have any real say in anything. Not to mention the attacks people of all kinds in here do to them. Just like there has been attack against Jews in Europe, most attacks are against muslims.

I don't ever remember hearing a Jew getting attacked here because that person was Jewish, but there have been several incidents even in here, where muslims have been attacked. Many kebab joints have been burned down during the last 10 years (this was pre-911, now we also think they are all terrorists, before that we just thought they were POS).

So we should really think what we can do to protect them, lot of them are EU citizens. And now when Turkey steps in, they'll be a major player. I know it, we all know it muslims will not get any say in here, and if they try to shout louder, no one will really listen, except so that they shut down so they think we listened them.

It's not even close, I mean t here's not even a competition what religion is most oppressed in here, and that's the muslims hands down.

I wouldn't say we are racist against religions here in Finland, but against muslims there is a lot of racism even in here. People just don't respect their culture or habits or nothing. It's pretty clear, I've seen some racism too, and old people are racist against them too, openly too. In fact, it's somehow OK to be racist against muslims in here.

And I don't even defend them. I'm just saying these things, that if we were pragmatic, that would be the REAL issue when it comes to religion, problems and EU. Everything else is SECONDARY. But also in reality we just say ****'em all. Which is equal

[Ben Kenobi]

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?

Certainly not atheists though by any stretch of the imagination.

[Pekka]

But this was no attack against anyone in here or religious freedoms etc.. it was an attack against religion having power in politics. I mean EXTRA power.

It's also cultural in here. The only places I've heard God in a speech or similar was in my own confirmation when priest talked and we repeated after him and stuff, in the army when we pledged, and I think that was 'as God is our wittness', and then the next time I hear it is when I get married. So we don't get that stuff a lot, it's our way of doing things, and our christians (which is the huge majority) agrees to this. In fact, it must be said that christians have chosen this path in here. Has nothing to do with anti-anything or oppression or freedoms.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kontiki
As does the Vatican.

The Vatican permits other opinions.

[BlackCat]

It may be that EU has become anti crhistian, but on the other side, it has not become pro-someotherreligon, so in my view it's a great leap for humankind. No way, some of the ten commandments are sensible, but other parts are just redicilous (ie the part about other gods).

It's rediculous that we in the year 2000+ should be ruled by something written so long ago that the author couldn't fathom what is going on at present time - that wether it's social or technical (just take the example with if its legal for a orthodox jew to take an elevator).

Theoretically Turkey isn't a problem since it's a nonreligious government, but then agian theory is one thing practice is another.

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

Not when we are speaking about the EU, no.

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.

I agree with you here. However, it is not such that the persecution of the Muslims is done out of a preference for one kind of a religion, but in opposition to all religion in public life.

And of course, the Muslims push hard the opposite way, to insist upon their structures because there is nothing for them in the current system. There is no acceptance, so they must form their own structures.

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.

I don't think they are asking this. There is a difference between a casino owner and a Christian. One, even if one owns a casino, is not always a casino owner.

A Christian should not be elected to represent the Christian viewpoint, but rather, as a representative of the people, be allowed to follow his conscience, as any other member. He should not be required to remove his Christian principles, because they are just as much part of his conscience, as atheism may be for others.

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.

Either they have influence, or they do not. If they do not have the influence, then you need to ask yourself why.

The EU is in an odd position, as a body without direct connection to the states. As such, it is vunerable to the influence of the Vatican, in a way the states are not, because they both occupy similar realms. The Vatican has influence far beyond population and territory, but more of a philiosophical influence, over the ideas and thoughts of vast swaths of the population.

The same can be said for the EU. The EU wants to replace the structure that once occupied Europe, but to remove all the religious references, all the references to religion of any kind.

As such, they will always be diametrically opposed to Catholicism, and to the Vatican. There is no room for compromise.

Religion has no right to be in politics. Just like politics has no right to be in religion.

Yet, each must be allowed to follow their conscience. One who is a Christian, has an equal right to follow his conscience as a representative of the people, as atheists are allowed to pursue their agenda.

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?

You will not be able to avoid such questions. If you admit Turkey, then you have the problem, of how to work either to change Turkey to remove their influences of religion, or to allow Turkey to affect the EU.

That is what is happening right now with the admission of Malta, of Ireland and Poland. The individual states have policies diametrically opposed to the EU constitution, that the EU has sought to stake as central to their secular authority.

Turkey will feel the same problem. But they will not be so hesitant as Poland to work to change the EU to sort their goals.

They're not special anymore than the rest of us.

The Vatican is a state within the EU, and as such, should have representation due to any state. If the EU wishes to remove the presence of the Vatican, then they need a good reason to do so.

If you remove the Vatican, because they are religious, and they make religious arguments, then you have admitted that the EU cannot compromise on such issues.

Ironically, a religious government can tolerate other religions far more than a secular body.

oh and ps. it's not anti-christian. Just because someone doesn't give into demands of someone, doesn't make then anti-anything.

The EU is asking religious people to submit to their policies even against their wishes, in order to become a member. As such, the EU is anti-Christian.

And if religion can interrupt politics, can politics interrupt religion? Why not?!

Remember Ake Green?

Politics has crossed their sphere. They interrupt religion.

Look at France, where the ban headscarves, they interfere with religious practice.

If politics stayed out of religion, then religion and the Vatican would stay out of them. But politics has chosen to draw battlegrounds against religion, so religion now has justification to seek political representation in order to defend their rights.

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

Finland was an ally of the Nazis. The blood is on your hands.

[DanS]

Religion has no right to be in politics. Just like politics has no right to be in religion.

Finland is one of those countries that has a state religion. Denmark does too.

[Ben Kenobi]

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).

Fair enough. Would such a vote be permitted in the EU which upholds pro abortion policies as part of their constitution?

Catholics are allowed to be against abortions, and therefore never procure an abortion.

Are they? The EU has sought to overturn bans on abortion wherever they are, and failing to do such, has supported attempts to undermine the laws wherever they have been found.

They have not respected the rights of Catholics, to represent themselves, and to oppose the EU. Rather they have set themselves as an unelected arbiter over every country that has chosen to partake.

It is much like the HRE, in a sense. And it is curious to see the troubles that are arising from this renewed idea.

[Ben Kenobi]

The thing you seem incapable of grasping is that one can have a personal belief and at the same time accept that others may not share it and be totally fine with that.

Then why do people like Skywalker try to mould the Founders in their own image?

They did not establish a freedom of religion to merely allow people to be free to disagree with religion, but also to practice whatever religion they saw fit to practice.

You cannot go and say, as many try to do, that the Founders sought to remove religion people from serving the state, rather they saw that by refusing to establish one church over another, they could protect the rights of both religious and irreligious people.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by DanS


Finland is one of those countries that has a state religion. Denmark does too.

Yes and no - we have a official church in denmark, but politcally it has no influence - the only fantasy (oops, religious) party we have is struggling at the low water mark for representation (2%) - we also have a serious debate about cutting the bonds between church and state since it's mainly legal rights that are the difference between the to courses (ex you are better secured legally by a church wedding than a nonchurch wedding)

[BlackCat]

Ben Kenobi :

Yes, a member country can have their own legislasion for pro/non abortation f.ex. ireland. So yes, the catholichs has the possibility to make their own desicions, but on the other hand eu also permits people to take their own descisions and go to another country and get the abortion.

I can't see it's a problem if the individual person can avoid the opression of the state especially if it's related to religion.

[DanS]

Yes and no - we have a official church in denmark, but politcally it has no influence

Please note that a separation of church and state goes both ways. Having an official Church of Denmark is a continuing meddling of the state in religion, while not allowing a meddling of religion in the state. To my mind, this is the worst deal available.