EU is becoming anti-christian in politics

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
But the French have the church of atheism ... but then I did say trend which in the strict sense would take France as an exception... however....

By atheism, I mean religiously or morally, theistically etc neutral in government... the French are pedelling atheism above others... including banning religious items from schools etc which I'm opposed to. There's a difference between draining a lake of muddy water and keeping the dry lake bed... and filling the lake instead with fresh water, where one drowns regardless.

So, if Christians came along and you allowed them to put a cross into the classrooms of a public school,
would you grant the same right to Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Wiccan and the like, to also put a religious symbol of their religion into the classrooms (of the same school of course)?

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by Heresson
I don't think so. Such personalities as Mother Theresa from Calcutta and many others are effect of Christian teaching

Anecdotal evidence. I could as well bring up some christian mass-murderer or an non-believing benefactor from history and you could mention another example for you point and so on. Pointless.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
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?

Yes.

There is one word very fashionable among the EU lawmakers these days: "gender mainstreaming". It's basically feminism taken to the EU's political level. The official doctrine of the EU laws in this matter is to oppose a social order based on gender.

If your question was: "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 parent, etc.) for a parent to raise children?", the answer wouldn't have been as easy.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Heresson
Moral values are not being changed by time

Moral values do change with time, and with locations.

Moral values are a form of unwritten law (with soft enforcement by all members of society), whose aim is to force the individual behaviour into not being threatening to the whole.

For example, there was a time where having sex with women other than your wife (i.e girlfriends, one night-stands etc.) was immoral, because you'd then make kids you wouldn't support. Nowadays, thanks to contraception, this problem is solved. And most modern societies don't see any moral problem wrt sex without marriage.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
I'm not sure if I understand the EU's position. Are you saying that a person who favors traditional families as best for raising kids is not welcome in the EU?

They can raise their family in a traditional way if they so wish. It's just that most European societies don't force families to adopt the traditional way. Other ways are made possible, for the people to choose among.

For example: Gay marriage is legal in the Netherlands. It doesn't mean (and never meant) that Straight marriage is banned.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The Soviets were secular humanists in ideology, if not in practice. So were the Chicoms. The Nazis may have been secular, but they certainly weren't humanists. It doesn't matter. The Western Christians have been content to allow a Holocaust every year in the 3rd world when they have been perfectly capable of preventing it. Every religion teaches that you are your brother's keeper, and they have failed the 3rd world utterly. As bad as Communist countries have been in practice, the religious world has been magnitudes worse. Having ethics means little if you don't act upon them.

Oh look, the pseudo-communist is advocating the re-imposition of colonialism. My, my, my doesn't politics make for some really strange bedfellows?
Perhaps you have some examples of the old communist block interveneing in developing country conflicts out of purely selfless motives?
Perhaps you can make a convincing argument that the "Western Christians" really could prevent all of the tragic conflicts occuring throughout the developing world. Please do take into consideration that our magic wands have been in short supply recently, so we're having a little problem with magically placing the airfields and the supply links necessary to maintain modern armed forces. Also we're in short supply of the force adept Jedi needed to acquire accurate information regarding the disposition of combatant forces, supplies and headquarters required to make the interventions you desire as surgical as possible so that folks like you won't decry our brutality when we make the type of mistakes inevitable in the absence of perfect intelligence.

[Datajack Franit]

Muslims, Jews, Buddhist... Wiccan?

Please, don't mix real religions with new-age ****

[Ted Striker]

Wiccan isn't "new age" dude. Alot of people have hijacked it for that purpose recently but I can't believe even a Eurocom is ignorant to what it really is.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ned
Yeah, sure. We saw a complete collapse of inequality of man in ancient Rome; and of course, the Roman Emperor was the leader in abolishing titles and privileges in the upper classes. It was he who freed the slaves and ended the gladiator contests and executions for sport in the arenas.

Get real.

Christians then spent the next millenium or two perfecting the art of social stratification.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Kucidude, I might care for an answer later, it depends on how I feel. You're definitely being a bore, though, much more so than usual. You can be a lot better than this.

i.e. you're losing.

[Datajack Franit]

Wiccan isn't "new age" dude. Alot of people have hijacked it for that purpose recently but I can't believe even a Eurocom is ignorant to what it really is.

Forgotten=stupid

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


You say that upbringing determines whether a person makes moral decisions, but if this is so, how can we have any form of personal responsibility? Upbringing may influence the moral decisions, but it does not determine them. Two children raised in the same way, can grow up very differently depending on the choices that they make.

Wery few religions give any kind of personal resopnsibility guidance except aganist the actual god. It's gods will etc. - maybe not what you are doing but what others of your own religion do aganist you, so religion doesn't do plus or minus wether you act with personal responsibility. Upbringing on the other hand determines very much how personal responsibility is defined because it's your interaction with the actual environment that builds this including moral and etic. Your two children brought up under strict religious ruling can still end up being a coldblodded killer and a saint helping where he can. Religious upbringing is no guarantee for becoming an etic and moral person.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Secondly, you say that you make sound ethical choices without religion. Upon what basis do you determine a decision is moral? If it is upon the input of others, then you are just replacing one source of influence with another. Who's to say that the people you are relying upon are not under the influence of the church?

Again - moral and etic values are determined by the way the society you are living in defines it, and yes, religion may have a part in this, but religion is no guarantee that it's good in the terms we see it in year 2000+.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Finally, if you base your moral decisions upon your conscience, where does your conscience come from?

That i think is a question nobody have an answer for yet, since nobody have figured out how our brain works. Thousands of religions have given each their answer (and they all differ), without giving any sensible answer.

[Hueij]

Oy, I don't know how I could have missed this thread

But reading through it, BK's and Ned's posts made me realise that I still have to officially unregister as a Roman Catholic at the Town Council. Something I meant to do since the '70s but still haven't come round to.

Thanks guys

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit



Forgotten=stupid

Datajack=Judgemental

The reason you don't see it is because most real Wiccans left your continent after your glorious churches tried to kill them all.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by DanS


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.

I disagree strongly. I prefer a government that strictly controls the church and keeps it in place against a government witch is controlled by some clerical leaders. You forget that this is a historical issue. Scandinavia didn't drop Odin and thor because people thought that christianity was just soo much better. It was because the ruling body (kings etc) found that it was a strong tool to control people. Up until the reformation church strongly meddled with the state but since then church has have very low influence and the states influence on church has been steadily been reduced and may in short time be cut totally - actually, the states influence (in denmark) is mainly collecting tax and maintaining buildings as a museal part of our history.