Tweet
**** you Ben, Finland wasn't allied with Nazis and if you don't care to read some history, then don't make such accusations. You know **** about the subject and as such, there is no other way to take this than an insult. An insult of being accused of being allied with Nazis no less. The blood is in our hands? What the **** are you saying? What blood? Whose blood? Get a clue.
As to other claims:
"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."
I said this already. So why should we think the Pope is any special, Vatican, Catholics or someone else? Do you not see the point, that Catholics as such have all the same individual rights as everyone else?
"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."
No they are not asking it, and if they would, they would be shut down as well with their weird suggestions. I don't understand the rest of it. If someone owns a casino, then he is a casino owner. Yes?
"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."
And most do! The ones usually who have gotten so far however are quite moderate, like the most of the people, the people that person is representing. I don't see a problem in here. No one is stripping no one to believe something else.
"Either they have influence, or they do not. If they do not have the influence, then you need to ask yourself why."
They do. It doesn't mean they should have superhuman powers and be in the tables with EU decision making. They don't need THAT kind of power. They have all kinds of other powers though. This has many levels.
"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."
Exactly, so why do they need to interfere with EU? Why don't Canada or US let Vatican come to the tables?
"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."
This is an extremist view. And it's not true. No burning churches here yet.
"As such, they will always be diametrically opposed to Catholicism, and to the Vatican. There is no room for compromise."
Well Vatican better suck it up then. It can be said that Vatican has a problem with EU. Too bad.
"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."
And they do. Most of everyone is already affiliated with a religion. You just don't think it as a factor because they are more moderate. And that moderate is in the center of the atheist and the far right religion people. Seems to be in balance, so what's the problem?
"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."
No, we won't be having any problems. Turkey bends over.
"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."
So it's the EU's fault now? Hey, no one forced them to join. If they don't feel like getting on with the program, fine, it's only a Union so they shouldnt' have joined. I'm sure they knew the rules before joining in, plus their local politics should have jammed the whole thing if it was such a big deal to them. Other than that, it's just hot air. It IS a Union. You either get with the program and join, because it has rules. If you don't like the rules, then don't join. They can only blame themselves. EU won't bend over because of one or two new members. The members bend over. Because members WANT to join to the union.
"The Vatican is a state within the EU, and as such, should have representation due to any state."
Why should they? I don't see any reasons why they should.
"If the EU wishes to remove the presence of the Vatican, then they need a good reason to do so."
No one is removing anyone.
"Ironically, a religious government can tolerate other religions far more than a secular body."
Oh you mean like Iran? Or perhaps Saudi Arabia? This is just hot air and moot point, you have not proven it at all, and even if you did, it means nothing.
"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."
Well if they don't like the policies, they shouldn't join!!!! It's nothing anti. EU has policies and it doesn't bend over because someone doesn't agree with those policies. Listen, EU has a LOT of more countries than few who feel this and this policy is not very good to our beliefs. We majority countries with these policies have already made them lke this and this is the way they are. Very simple. Majority rules. We don't change the policies to something we don't like to, just because a new member wants to.. that's just redicilous.
"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."
You know honestly, this is one of the most ****ed up things I've ever ready on the internet and I'm not just saying it. I'd be a bit worried. You treat religion as some kind of uber entity. And that it has some kind of rights that no one else has. Politics interfered with religion.. what the hell is that? Not in here they didn't. So why should Vatican have a say in Union WE belong to, we didn't mess with religions. Oh, but that's like a collective punishment, and now Pope gets to say into policies that affects us too? NO WAY! I don't want that, and because they're not a member as such, and they present no political wisdom or entity, they should be where they belong, out of decision making in EU. So, since we haven't done anything, now religion is doing it to us, so can we go back in mess with religion now? No? Why not, we have justification to. It just doesn't make any sense and I'm surprised that intelligent lad like you would even make such pollution of letters and words.
Making religion such a super entity with no control enables the ****os of this world to ruin it even more, make new wars, new hostilities and be more corrupt and that's ALL it can do. Let's not forget religion is not super entity, ok?
As to other claims:
"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."
I said this already. So why should we think the Pope is any special, Vatican, Catholics or someone else? Do you not see the point, that Catholics as such have all the same individual rights as everyone else?
"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."
No they are not asking it, and if they would, they would be shut down as well with their weird suggestions. I don't understand the rest of it. If someone owns a casino, then he is a casino owner. Yes?
"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."
And most do! The ones usually who have gotten so far however are quite moderate, like the most of the people, the people that person is representing. I don't see a problem in here. No one is stripping no one to believe something else.
"Either they have influence, or they do not. If they do not have the influence, then you need to ask yourself why."
They do. It doesn't mean they should have superhuman powers and be in the tables with EU decision making. They don't need THAT kind of power. They have all kinds of other powers though. This has many levels.
"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."
Exactly, so why do they need to interfere with EU? Why don't Canada or US let Vatican come to the tables?
"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."
This is an extremist view. And it's not true. No burning churches here yet.
"As such, they will always be diametrically opposed to Catholicism, and to the Vatican. There is no room for compromise."
Well Vatican better suck it up then. It can be said that Vatican has a problem with EU. Too bad.
"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."
And they do. Most of everyone is already affiliated with a religion. You just don't think it as a factor because they are more moderate. And that moderate is in the center of the atheist and the far right religion people. Seems to be in balance, so what's the problem?
"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."
No, we won't be having any problems. Turkey bends over.
"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."
So it's the EU's fault now? Hey, no one forced them to join. If they don't feel like getting on with the program, fine, it's only a Union so they shouldnt' have joined. I'm sure they knew the rules before joining in, plus their local politics should have jammed the whole thing if it was such a big deal to them. Other than that, it's just hot air. It IS a Union. You either get with the program and join, because it has rules. If you don't like the rules, then don't join. They can only blame themselves. EU won't bend over because of one or two new members. The members bend over. Because members WANT to join to the union.
"The Vatican is a state within the EU, and as such, should have representation due to any state."
Why should they? I don't see any reasons why they should.
"If the EU wishes to remove the presence of the Vatican, then they need a good reason to do so."
No one is removing anyone.
"Ironically, a religious government can tolerate other religions far more than a secular body."
Oh you mean like Iran? Or perhaps Saudi Arabia? This is just hot air and moot point, you have not proven it at all, and even if you did, it means nothing.
"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."
Well if they don't like the policies, they shouldn't join!!!! It's nothing anti. EU has policies and it doesn't bend over because someone doesn't agree with those policies. Listen, EU has a LOT of more countries than few who feel this and this policy is not very good to our beliefs. We majority countries with these policies have already made them lke this and this is the way they are. Very simple. Majority rules. We don't change the policies to something we don't like to, just because a new member wants to.. that's just redicilous.
"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."
You know honestly, this is one of the most ****ed up things I've ever ready on the internet and I'm not just saying it. I'd be a bit worried. You treat religion as some kind of uber entity. And that it has some kind of rights that no one else has. Politics interfered with religion.. what the hell is that? Not in here they didn't. So why should Vatican have a say in Union WE belong to, we didn't mess with religions. Oh, but that's like a collective punishment, and now Pope gets to say into policies that affects us too? NO WAY! I don't want that, and because they're not a member as such, and they present no political wisdom or entity, they should be where they belong, out of decision making in EU. So, since we haven't done anything, now religion is doing it to us, so can we go back in mess with religion now? No? Why not, we have justification to. It just doesn't make any sense and I'm surprised that intelligent lad like you would even make such pollution of letters and words.
Making religion such a super entity with no control enables the ****os of this world to ruin it even more, make new wars, new hostilities and be more corrupt and that's ALL it can do. Let's not forget religion is not super entity, ok?
Comment