EU is becoming anti-christian in politics

[DanS]

Yeah, and ironically now despite state religions or whatever the church and religious extremists have much more influence on your politics than ours.

Again, our system is not designed to limit the influence of religion on the state. It's designed to limit the influence of the state on religion.

This isn't tough stuff. I wonder why I have to keep explaining it to you lot.

Edit: Atheists have much more to fear from your system than ours, just as fringe religions have much more to fear from your system than ours.

[alva]

Originally posted by MikeH
Europe's less racist than the US.

Don't think so Mike, anyway, my guess is that most country's are just equall (no pun intented) on the racism question.

The last time I checked passing laws openly targeting our minorities went out of fashion more than a few decades ago. The same can not be said for Europe.

That's the best you can do?

Yeah, and ironically now despite state religions or whatever the church and religious extremists have much more influence on your politics than ours.

Often those who leave will cling on to the old-countries ways more then the ones actually living in the old country.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
As opposed to the greater of two evils? Certainly.

Oh yes, of course. As long as you recognise the evil.

[MikeH]

I was just making random ignorant unsupported statements like most of the US posters were about Europe.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by DanS
This isn't tough stuff. I wonder why I have to keep explaining it to you lot.

There are people who are unable to comprehend recycling rules, and others, who can't understand the bizarre principles of American politics. I'd say, we educate both!

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by DanS
Atheists have much more to fear from your system than ours, just as fringe religions have much more to fear from your system than ours.

What system?

[MikeH]

Originally posted by DanS


Again, our system is not designed to limit the influence of religion on the state. It's designed to limit the influence of the state on religion.

This isn't tough stuff. I wonder why I have to keep explaining it to you lot.

Edit: Atheists have much more to fear from your system than ours, just as fringe religions have much more to fear from your system than ours.

The problem is you are taking the theoretical way our system could work and assuming that's how it does work.

We have freedom of religion - as long as those religious practices don't break the rules of the country. Which is perfectly sensible. The church/state link is purely ceremonial.

[Kuciwalker]

The idea of "separation of church and state" is very simple: the government shouldn't punish people for things you think are "sins", your god should. The government should just protect people from being harmed by others. As such, the RCC advocating its opinion (or even legislating) on the abortion issue is not a violation of separation of church and state, because it is not punishment for being sinful, but protecting innocents from being harmed by others. They happen to think that fetuses are people.

[Fake Boris]

And on what grounds do they happen to think that fetuses are people?

[MikeH]

That's fine, the RCC are allowed to lobby, teach or convert people as much as they want, and the EU citizens are free to make up their own minds and vote as they want.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
And on what grounds do they happen to think that fetuses are people?

On what grounds do you think blacks are people?

On what grounds, for that matter, do you think any human is a person?

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
And on what grounds do they happen to think that fetuses are people?

They are entitled to that view, just as you are entitled to the counter view.

[Fake Boris]

Bunch of cells with no brain and nerve system, subsisting with someone's body and dependant on it for survival != a person.

As for black persons, I don't want to engage in a debate about universals. The easy answer could still be that whiteness can't conceiveably be a good criteria for 'personhood'.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Yes, thqt's what I read. I don't remember the main story being about an "uproar" (at least the way I understand it, i.e the public opinion being widely shocked - I would classify, for example, the French overreaction to headscarves as "uproar" in my vocabulary).

I just saw that a guy had a position completely opposite to that of the mainstream EU-Parliament, and who was politically shot-down by the EU-Parli.

If it was an anti-competition commie who was proposed (and politically shot down, because this legislature is very favourable to free-markets), would you have said that the EU persecutes commies?

OK, no uproar then. But that is not my point. The point of my question becomes this:

Is it true that the EU holds a position that the primary purpose for a family is something other than providing protection (in the form of a wage-earning father, etc.) for a women to raise children?

[Ned]

Second, regardless of all that crap about the EU and abortion about how Catholics are not oppressed, the article seem to suggest that a Catholic who "believes" in positions that differ from official EU policy cannot be a member of the EU government.

That IS discrimination.