Austrians say: either Croatia is in or we block Turkey

[Heresson]

I've lost my post, so I'll summorise.
Armenia is 3x smaller and 2,5 less populous than Azerbeycan.
Turkey and Cyprus, however...

The union between Cyprus and Greece didn't take place after all, so...

Armenia is many many times smaller and less populous than Turkey and the chances it will invade it are not big.

Armenia proposed accepting the boarder in exchange for admitting Armenian genocide

Claims for Karabach are not only historical, but also ethnical.
Also, Azerbeycan 1991 cancelled Karabach's autonomy and attempted to divide it between surrounding regions...
I think that Armenians simply do not believe Azerbeycan will respect the autonomy.

The West has more reasons to support Azer oil-state,
as was proven in example of Polish president, who proposed mediations, and a while later supported Baku completely

I think time must pass for the peace to be possible.
Otherwise, it'd have to be forced.

[VetLegion]

For me, Austrian nationality is something artifictial today, sorry, but with time, it may indeed became a true one.

We had a thread about that, wherein it was conclusively demonstrated that Austrians indeed, are a nation for themselves.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=120035&highlight=austrian+nation

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Heresson
It is a serious problems, because all this case was shown in a histerical and false light.

By all sides. It was hysterical and there's been no reason for doing so. In my eyes, it's legitimate to block a minister who doesn't share one's own opinion in core matters of his ministry. Like Christian politicans would never vote someone in a position dealing with religious matters who says "religion is opium for the people" - no matter whether this person vows not to discriminate against them.
This is supposed to be a normal democratic process.

I have nothing against divorces themselves, but Christ's said: "It was said: who divorces his wife, ought to give her divorce papers, and I say that every man that divorces a wife - except for adultery cause - makes uh a women practicing adultery out of her, and whoever marries her, practices adultery"
I think modern Church's approach is more strict than Christ's himself, and I do not support it, but I think many people treat this sacrament (it is a sacrament in catholicism) not seriously enough and they should know that if they marry, they should at least try to make it last.

I guess, we're mixing up statal and religious marriage here.
Furthermore, it's one thing to morally plead to people to take it seriously or to tutelage them by forbidding people (or make it ridiculously difficult) to divorce even when life gets hell.

I think it is dangerous.
"Lets build an atheistic club" it says.
EU parliament spends too much time supporting ultraliberal ideological sollutions, like when it issued statesment encouraging the parliament of states applying to EU to relax abortion laws.
They are majority, they allow such laws - OK.

Laicistic politics doesn't equal atheist politics at all, it rather means absolute religious neutrality in public by eliminating religious symbolism. You shouldn't mix it with positions on certain issues liek abortion, it's rather about God in the constitution, wearing of religious outfit in public offices, crosses in classrooms and thelike.

But they should not promote it for the money of all the citizens.

I'm not sure I understand.

Imagine EU dominated by Christian conservatives that issue an appeal to Turkey to christianise in order to become a member...

Not a good comparison at all. I know of no atheist politician who'd demanded that Poles or anyone should become atheists before joining the EU. If someone does, I'd hate him for that.
And the EU DOES expect from Turkey to comply with many "European values" and we all know that beside Enlightenment, Christian tradition influenced them.

No. That's overuse of your majority. Again, imagine catholics who take the rule and state-promote the catholic faith. Wouldn't You mind it?

Sure I'd mind. Promoting catholicism breaks seperation of religion and state and be illegitimate.
If catholics would state-promote abstinence instead of condoms, I'd also mind, but this is not breaking fundamental principles of democracy

Of course it will, if people will obey.
We should try to find out
And promoting the use of condoms is like promoting the use of airbag instead of telling people to reduce their speed.
People will feel safe, so they will speed up even more, and no airbag will help them.

Too many topics in line34 SQL Try later

Got to go to bed.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
By all sides. It was hysterical and there's been no reason for doing so. In my eyes, it's legitimate to block a minister who doesn't share one's own opinion in core matters of his ministry. Like Christian politicans would never vote someone in a position dealing with religious matters who says "religion is opium for the people" - no matter whether this person vows not to discriminate against them.
This is supposed to be a normal democratic process.

I do not recall Christian politicians asking candidate, whether He condemns homosexuality as a sin and making of it a condition of voting on him?

I guess, we're mixing up statal and religious marriage here.

The church, at least in Poland, has never attempted to make state divorce hard to get.

Furthermore, it's one thing to morally plead to people to take it seriously or to tutelage them by forbidding people (or make it ridiculously difficult) to divorce even when life gets hell.

If it gets, it should be possible to divorce of course. But these are moderately rare occasions.

Laicistic politics doesn't equal atheist politics at all, it rather means absolute religious neutrality in public by eliminating religious symbolism.

Which doesn't make it neutral at all. From the walls of institutions - perhaps, but from the necks or faces of the people working there, it's breaking religious freedoms...
Even in the cases such as crosses in classrooms it's not at all obvious to me.
If a definite majority of the class, of the teachers or of the parents would like some Picasso painting to hang there, wouldn't it be right to make it hang there, despite some people would vomit at sight of it?
If a majority of these people, or at least some, want a cross hang there, why not?
Is cross offencive to someone? Someone would have to hate religion or Christianity to say so.
Everyone should be able to hang their stuff there, unless it's offensive to someone else.
I wouldn't mind this that much if such attitude was present all over the world.
Somehow, however, it is only in Christian states, in which people are willing to commit a cultural suicide not to break the rules of political correcteness.

I'm not sure I understand.

The catholics pay taxes, of which the condoms shall be promoted, too

Not a good comparison at all. I know of no atheist politician who'd demanded that Poles or anyone should become atheists before joining the EU. If someone does, I'd hate him for that.

However, EU has no objections to promote or even demand ideological changes in the questions of abortion or of attitude towards homosexualism.
If it's a part of someone's religious beliefs, forcing him to abandon them is like forcing him to abandon his religion.

and we all know that beside Enlightenment, Christian tradition influenced them.

No, France and Belgium don't know that, and in result, entire Union doesn't know that.

Sure I'd mind. Promoting catholicism breaks seperation of religion and state and be illegitimate.

I think separation of church and state today is wished to be used as a way of restricting one's political and religious freedoms.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Heresson
I do not recall Christian politicians asking candidate, whether He condemns homosexuality as a sin and making of it a condition of voting on him?

Youß missed my point here.

If it gets, it should be possible to divorce of course. But these are moderately rare occasions.

But who except for those in the marriage should define that?

Which doesn't make it neutral at all. From the walls of institutions - perhaps, but from the necks or faces of the people working there, it's breaking religious freedoms...

I don't support such laws either.

Even in the cases such as crosses in classrooms it's not at all obvious to me.
If a definite majority of the class, of the teachers or of the parents would like some Picasso painting to hang there, wouldn't it be right to make it hang there, despite some people would vomit at sight of it?
If a majority of these people, or at least some, want a cross hang there, why not?
Is cross offencive to someone? Someone would have to hate religion or Christianity to say so.
Everyone should be able to hang their stuff there, unless it's offensive to someone else.

Here, I disagree strongly. In Austria and Bavaria (and Italy IIRC, and I'd guess in Poland too), a cross is hanging in ALL classrooms and it is put there by the school authorities. And that's breaking religious neutrality. It may be offensive to a non-christian as it creates the sensation to be in a Christian institution, or at least an institution that values Christianity higher than the own religion.

I wouldn't mind this that much if such attitude was present all over the world.
Somehow, however, it is only in Christian states, in which people are willing to commit a cultural suicide not to break the rules of political correcteness.

Eliminating religious symbols from public space is no cultural suicide. European states aren't exclusively Christian states. Many WERE Christian states and now only have strong/mediocre Christian influence. Actually, now I feel somewhat defended if you define everything non-Christian as not being part of European culture.

And it's utterly wrong to point to the rest of the world and say: "Look, they do the same!" or "Look, they're worse!"
Of course, it's right in large parts. And of course it's right that there are forces (I know it in case of islam) who try to use our free society against Europe. Like those islamistic muslims who sued Italian schools because of the cross there. Sure they didn't do that because they support laicistic politics.

However, EU has no objections to promote or even demand ideological changes in the questions of abortion or of attitude towards homosexualism.
If it's a part of someone's religious beliefs, forcing him to abandon them is like forcing him to abandon his religion.

Bullsh!t.
No one is forcing you to change your attitude or belief. It's an issue and no one forbids you to oppose it or argue against it. You're free to campaign against it or vote for someone who opposes it freely, no one would censor you (oppose you, of course!) or strip you from citizen rights or prosecute you before court. You have to live with the fact that your position is a minority position.
It's stupid to expect democratically elected politics not to promote condoms or to abandon abortion because someone's religious feelings get hurt.
If tomorrow a conservative majority decides to abandon abortion, it'd not be an attack on my religious freedom either, no matter how much I oppose it.
However, if, say, a Christian legislation makes a law discriminating homosexuals on the basis of their beliefs, that'd be a break of a fundamental basis of our society, namely equality of rights for all people.

No, France and Belgium don't know that, and in result, entire Union doesn't know that.

The problem is that, as you said it yourself, that the EU aims towards all European nations. And Islam also had/has considerable influence on large parts of Europe for a long time, be it Portugal, Spain, southern Italy or much of the Balcans (what does a Bosnian or Albanian think about Christianity being named as the only mentioned religious tradition of Europe? They'd feel excluded, right?). And older, pagan, traditions also influence(d) European culture(s) not to a small part. Not to forget atheism in the past 200 years.
I agree that, overall, Christianity is the largest single factor, but how to form all that inshort text.

I think separation of church and state today is wished to be used as a way of restricting one's political and religious freedoms.

As said above, it is not, it grants fair neutrality. Of course, that can be perceived as limiting religious freedom, and then one has to ask if that belief is even constitutional. For example, muslims have a difficult time to imagine a possible way to accept the secular state because Islam is not only an inner belief but a complete social system. A social system that does not execute muslim demands is soon preceived as anti-muslim. And it's worrysome if some Christians, be it protestants or catholics, can't accept that idea either.

[Spiffor]

nm.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III

Youß missed my point here.

What was it, then?

But who except for those in the marriage should define that?

In catholicism, marriage is a sacrament, a blessing from the church, and as such, the church should decide whom it shall be given.
If someone wants to be together - they will be, they may take laic marriage or live without any.
But if they want the church to approve their relationship and bless it, they should keep it the way the church describes it.

Here, I disagree strongly. In Austria and Bavaria (and Italy IIRC, and I'd guess in Poland too),

Nope, at least not in the schools I've ever been to

a cross is hanging in ALL classrooms and it is put there by the school authorities. And that's breaking religious neutrality. It may be offensive to a non-christian as it creates the sensation to be in a Christian institution, or at least an institution that values Christianity higher than the own religion.

There's a point, but...
The presence of the crosses in the classroom simply mean the majority of people working or living there share the values presented by it. If a person is offenced by that most people do not share his views, He has personality problems.
Oh, I know that a minority may not feel comfortable about it... But otherwise, a majority may not feel comfortable.
And again; if the school puts state device on the walls,
or flowers of some type on the windows...

Eliminating religious symbols from public space is no cultural suicide. European states aren't exclusively Christian states. Many WERE Christian states and now only have strong/mediocre Christian influence.

Is there any European state but Albania and Turkey (Bosnia is not) in which Christianity is not the dominant religion?
is there any other state but them and Czech Rp perhaps in which Christians are not a majority?
(here, perhaps)

Actually, now I feel somewhat defended if you define everything non-Christian as not being part of European culture.

No

Must be going now will continue later on

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Heresson
What was it, then?

I referred to disagreement over central issues within the agenda of that person. As politics/measures concerning gays and women are one of the central competences of the ministery Buttiglione was assigned to, it's normal to ask him questions about it, dig into them and in case of disagreement, not wanting him in that position.

In catholicism, marriage is a sacrament, a blessing from the church, and as such, the church should decide whom it shall be given.
If someone wants to be together - they will be, they may take laic marriage or live without any.
But if they want the church to approve their relationship and bless it, they should keep it the way the church describes it.

OK, so we DID confuse statal and religious marriage here. I personally don't care about catholic marriage as long as it's not mixed with the concept of state marriage, you may have the rules you want. However, I think it's not fair from your church to exclude people from communion who remarried, after all these state marriages should be irrelevant to the church. But even that is your problem, people who don't like it, think that's not just might leave the club, like I did.

Nope, at least not in the schools I've ever been to

Maybe the communist heritage then.

There's a point, but...
The presence of the crosses in the classroom simply mean the majority of people working or living there share the values presented by it. If a person is offenced by that most people do not share his views, He has personality problems.
Oh, I know that a minority may not feel comfortable about it... But otherwise, a majority may not feel comfortable.
And again; if the school puts state device on the walls,
or flowers of some type on the windows...

Completely wrong, even worse, this shows the intent of such symbols. To create the illusion that " the majority of people working or living there share the values presented by it".
First of all, many are simply catholic by birth, as I am, and either are too lazy to change that or actually don't care that they are and think "OK, this is tradition, so well" or remain catholic as it still may help you to get a job more easily if you are (hey, I live in a catholic country too and I know what I'm talking about).
Secondly, you'll see it in many issues, like marriage, condoms and abortion, a majority certainly does not "share the catholic values", and in other cases, like gay rights it's not nearly in such a majority as the number of "official" catholics would suggest (in Austria, support for equal gay rights is about 50%).
The third point, which you might have missed as you say in Poland you don't have crosses in ALL classes put there by the administration, not the people within the classes may decide if it should be there or not.

Is there any European state but Albania and Turkey (Bosnia is not) in which Christianity is not the dominant religion?
is there any other state but them and Czech Rp perhaps in which Christians are not a majority?
(here, perhaps)

1. Even if in Bosnia a majority might be Christian, there's a large muslim ethnicity, so claiming Christianity is the dominant religion is not true. Furthermore, this "dominant" can't be the only parameter. Bosnia certainly has a strong muslim tradition and cultural influence.
2. About majorities being Christians I referred above. It's often only by name and you know it.
3. No, I wait for you to continue. But think about answering to my whole argument about God in the constitution, not just a bit.

No

The word in my former post should have been "Offended". Do I really interpret your "No" the right way?

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
I referred to disagreement over central issues within the agenda of that person. As politics/measures concerning gays and women are one of the central competences of the ministery Buttiglione was assigned to, it's normal to ask him questions about it, dig into them and in case of disagreement, not wanting him in that position.

The thing I do not like is that the same people who think it's OK (the one that asked that) would be outraged if any catholic politician would do the same: asked about the candidate's approach towards homosexuality, and decided he will not vote on him, because the candidate doesn't consider it a sin.

Also, here the case was even less right: because Buttiglione's words were shamelessly deformated,
misinterpretated etc.

OK, so we DID confuse statal and religious marriage here. I personally don't care about catholic marriage as long as it's not mixed with the concept of state marriage, you may have the rules you want. However, I think it's not fair from your church to exclude people from communion who remarried, after all these state marriages should be irrelevant to the church.

Not quite. State marriage does not count as a catholic marriage, so people in state marriage engaging in sexual acts are in fact commiting adultery from catholic perspective.

Maybe the communist heritage then.

Most probably

Completely wrong, even worse, this shows the intent of such symbols. To create the illusion that " the majority of people working or living there share the values presented by it".
First of all, many are simply catholic by birth, as I am, and either are too lazy to change that or actually don't care that they are and think

The same can be said about every religion, atheism included, and about every case. People will say they like Picasso because he is reknown and they wouldn't like anyone to think they don't know good art and such.
Still, as they belong to the church, and do not deny it...

Secondly, you'll see it in many issues, like marriage, condoms and abortion, a majority certainly does not "share the catholic values", and in other cases, like gay rights it's not nearly in such a majority as the number of "official" catholics would suggest (in Austria, support for equal gay rights is about 50%).

Was it stated "do You support equal gay rights"
or "do You support gay marriages"
or something like that? A lot depends on the question.
And even if a majority does not support the views of the hierarchy of the church, it does not mean it can't change if the church tries to change it.
In Poland, the approach towards abortion changed a lot due to discussion that was held.

The third point, which you might have missed as you say in Poland you don't have crosses in ALL classes put there by the administration, not the people within the classes may decide if it should be there or not.

If anyone wants it, it should be there.

1. Even if in Bosnia a majority might be Christian, there's a large muslim ethnicity, so claiming Christianity is the dominant religion is not true.

How come?

Furthermore, this "dominant" can't be the only parameter. Bosnia certainly has a strong muslim tradition and cultural influence.

Even there, Christian tradition (in Turkey and Albania as well) is older than Muslim.

2. About majorities being Christians I referred above. It's often only by name and you know it.

But the name is what counts.
You do not have other parameters.
Also, even agnostics and atheists are Christian by culture in Europe I believe.
You know, even an atheist ruler of Poland during communistic times, Gomulka,
f.e. He once stated: "As an old Polish proverb says:
You don't live by (eating) bread only".
It's a quote of the Bible, of course.
You can't set completely free of this tradition, even if You deny the faith in God.

The word in my former post should have been "Offended". Do I really interpret your "No" the right way?

I do not think everything European has to be Christian, of course.
Europe has its pagan tradition, has some Jewish and Muslim tradition, though 1000x less important, today it has some atheists...
I do not need God in constitution, though I do not view mentioning Him in it as anything wrong. But I think the French-Belgian blackmailing Europe in the case of mentioning Christian tradition in Europe as an example of religious intolerance.

And it's utterly wrong to point to the rest of the world and say: "Look, they do the same!" or "Look, they're worse!"

Even if it is so?

Bullsh!t.
No one is forcing you to change your attitude or belief. It's an issue and no one forbids you to oppose it or argue against it. You're free to campaign against it or vote for someone who opposes it freely, no one would censor you (oppose you, of course!) or strip you from citizen rights or prosecute you before court. You have to live with the fact that your position is a minority position.
It's stupid to expect democratically elected politics not to promote condoms or to abandon abortion because someone's religious feelings get hurt.

The thing I did not like was that You've said that You are angry at catholic politicians who don't want to subsidy condoms.
However, it is a touchy point.
It's like in a majorly Muslim or Jewish - even nominally -
nation a majority would vote for donating free dishes for the poor, but pork only.
It's a lack of tact.

If tomorrow a conservative majority decides to abandon abortion, it'd not be an attack on my religious freedom either, no matter how much I oppose it.

Because You are not bound by atheism to support abortion.

However, if, say, a Christian legislation makes a law discriminating homosexuals on the basis of their beliefs, that'd be a break of a fundamental basis of our society, namely equality of rights for all people.

Oh, not. Everyone would be discouraged from such sexual activities, not only gays!
Having that said, while I disagree with the church's teachings in that matter, I understand them, and your point is irrelevant.
It's rather a matter of separating a sin from a crime. A crime is doing something harmful to others, and homosex do not fall into that cathegory.

The problem is that, as you said it yourself, that the EU aims towards all European nations. And Islam also had/has considerable influence on large parts of Europe for a long time, be it Portugal, Spain, southern Italy or much of the Balcans (what does a Bosnian or Albanian think about Christianity being named as the only mentioned religious tradition of Europe? They'd feel excluded, right?). And older, pagan, traditions also influence(d) European culture(s) not to a small part. Not to forget atheism in the past 200 years.
I agree that, overall, Christianity is the largest single factor, but how to form all that inshort text.

But You forgot that the Church, and especially Poland in that matter, did not want to push through mentioning of Christian tradition ONLY. Not at all.
Everyone agreed on ancient Greek tradition, even the French (and that's why I find them hypocrites).
the Enlightement was supposed to be mentioned too,
as well as Jewish and Muslim influence in pair with Christianity.
That's why I find it outraging that it did not pass.
If it was about Christianity only or nothing else, You may have been right. But it was not.


[quote] As said above, it is not, it grants fair neutrality. Of course, that can be perceived as limiting religious freedom, and then one has to ask if that belief is even constitutional. For example, muslims have a difficult time to imagine a possible way to accept the secular state because Islam is not only an inner belief but a complete social system. A social system that does not execute muslim demands is soon preceived as anti-muslim. And it's worrysome if some Christians, be it protestants or catholics, can't accept that idea either.
[quote]

I believe we should remember about separation of sin and crime, and should not be against some law just because it is backed by religious tradition. Also, local religious tradition should be respected everywhere it's possible.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Heresson
If anyone wants it, it should be there.

So you think if anyone wants, a cross bottom down could also be placed there?

Even there, Christian tradition (in Turkey and Albania as well) is older than Muslim.

And pagan tradition is yet older, so what? (Beside, the Bogomils of Bosnia were some heretics the catholics would only have wanted to get rid of in a little crusade.

He once stated: "As an old Polish proverb says:
You don't live by (eating) bread only".
It's a quote of the Bible, of course.
You can't set completely free of this tradition, even if You deny the faith in God.

And there's lots of traditions, sayings and cultural substratus of pagan origin too or taken over from muslims and jews. What's European culture without jews?
But better look to the bottom of the post to understand my position.

Even if it is so?

Sure, otherwise I would have used other words to make my point.
That's what seperates an open society from a closed one.
Of course that works only if one doesn't identify, say, muslims in Europe as being "them (=those, in whose society there's no or little freedom)" by definition, as long as they accept the principles of this society, neutrality in religious matters and accepting secular order even if it's not in accordance with their religion.

Oh, not. Everyone would be discouraged from such sexual activities, not only gays!

The old fear: "Don't be liberal with gays or we all will end up being gay."

Having that said, while I disagree with the church's teachings in that matter, I understand them, and your point is irrelevant.
It's rather a matter of separating a sin from a crime. A crime is doing something harmful to others, and homosex do not fall into that cathegory.

In Austria, the "age of consent" for heteros is 14 and for homos is 18. Until not so long ago, we had criminalization of gays in our society, and such laws were always defended by the Christian right.


[quote]
But You forgot that the Church, and especially Poland in that matter, did not want to push through mentioning of Christian tradition ONLY. Not at all.
Everyone agreed on ancient Greek tradition, even the French (and that's why I find them hypocrites).
the Enlightement was supposed to be mentioned too,
as well as Jewish and Muslim influence in pair with Christianity.
That's why I find it outraging that it did not pass.
If it was about Christianity only or nothing else, You may have been right. But it was not.
[quote]
I don't understand the fuzz either then. But I'd have to know the exact phrasing of the text to really judge for myself.

[Az]

I haven't read the thread, so maybe someone already said it, but WRT the title, couldn't this be a clever ploy by the EU to get rid of turkey?

EU: well, turkey, we're really sorry, we really wanted to let you in, but we can't. Austria insists that we'll allow Croatia in, and we can't. Why? Uh, well, thats, uh, because, their bananas aren't properly curved!

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Azazel
I haven't read the thread, so maybe someone already said it, but WRT the title, couldn't this be a clever ploy by the EU to get rid of turkey?

EU: well, turkey, we're really sorry, we really wanted to let you in, but we can't. Austria insists that we'll allow Croatia in, and we can't. Why? Uh, well, thats, uh, because, their bananas aren't properly curved!

You definitely SHOULD read the thread, although it has been jacked by me and Hereson. Wherever this "news" has come from, the source has been badly informed. Austria never claimed such direct link. Read pages 3 and 4 of the thread, somewhere there you'll find conclusions.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
So you think if anyone wants, a cross bottom down could also be placed there?

Satanism is a religion of evil, and the bottom down cross is a sign of fall of Christianity. The essence of this cult is opposition to another cult. No, it should not be allowed. It's something completely different than anything else.

And pagan tradition is yet older, so what?

Pagan tradition is long dead.

(Beside, the Bogomils of Bosnia were some heretics the catholics would only have wanted to get rid of in a little crusade.

And what?

And there's lots of traditions, sayings and cultural substratus of pagan origin too or taken over from muslims and jews. What's European culture without jews?

I wouldn't overestimate their input. It was big, but not essential.

Sure, otherwise I would have used other words to make my point.
That's what seperates an open society from a closed one.

Perhaps we misunderstant each other; that others do wrong is no excuse for doing something wrong oneself,
though perhaps some balance should be present.
For example, the West should pressure Muslim countries for more religious freedom.

In Austria, the "age of consent" for heteros is 14 and for homos is 18. Until not so long ago, we had criminalization of gays in our society, and such laws were always defended by the Christian right.

So Austria is backward
I think the best way of changing such attitude of conservative people is to prove them that their religion is not necessarily against it.
If there are some points against homosexuality in Bible, it's Old Testament, which should not be treaten too seriously, and perhaps there was a part in a letter of St Paul (that the effeminates should not think they'll go to Heaven).

Still, it seems Austrian catholic church is more conservative than Polish, hm?

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Heresson
Satanism is a religion of evil, and the bottom down cross is a sign of fall of Christianity. The essence of this cult is opposition to another cult. No, it should not be allowed. It's something completely different than anything else.

But if anyone wants it...

Pagan tradition is long dead.

Don't be ridiculous. Not only in the deepest Alps, there's many pagan traditions well and alive (and actually more alive among Catholics than among protestans). Not to mention art and literature, unimaginable without the stuff of pagan traditions and mythology. There's all kinds of spirits, superstitions, values and even daily rituals in popular culture that date back to pagan times in all European societies. It's worth to read reports from inner-European "missionaries" who went around in rural areas in the 19th century because people there believed in anything, but not the catechism. And it has not been erradicated at all. While neo-paganism is a modern phenomenon, it builds on many old and alive elements.

I wouldn't overestimate their input. It was big, but not essential.

Define "essential".
Sure, European culture would be the same without the many jews who were linkages between the muslim and Christian spheres. Or the explosion of innovation especially since the 19th century by jewish academic and artist elites...

Perhaps we misunderstant each other; that others do wrong is no excuse for doing something wrong oneself,
though perhaps some balance should be present.
For example, the West should pressure Muslim countries for more religious freedom.

Sure, but always with the eye for how much pressure is actually covered by our asses and with much thinking about whether the effect will be any good. But in essence, true.

So Austria is backward

You don't need the , I agree.

I think the best way of changing such attitude of conservative people is to prove them that their religion is not necessarily against it.
If there are some points against homosexuality in Bible, it's Old Testament, which should not be treaten too seriously, and perhaps there was a part in a letter of St Paul (that the effeminates should not think they'll go to Heaven).

As you said yourself some posts ago. I'm no catholic anymore, so I have to leave this as an inner-catholic discussion. But yes, such lively debate is good and necessary in my eyes.

Still, it seems Austrian catholic church is more conservative than Polish, hm?

Depends on where, there's very liberal bishops too. But Opus Dei is getting quite strong. And compared to the old bishop of Lower Austria (Krenn) with all the scandals about child pornography, sick sexual double-moral and alcoholism, in whose diocese the - in my eyes - fascist "brotherhood of Pius X" (they don't accept the 2nd vaticanum) has a stronghold, the new Opus Dei bishop seems like a moderate...

[Heresson]

But if anyone wants it...

Then we should arrest him, true.

Don't be ridiculous. Not only in the deepest Alps, there's many pagan traditions well and alive (and actually more alive among Catholics than among protestans). Not to mention art and literature,

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. There are no real pagans - that's what I've ment.

Define "essential".
Sure, European culture would be the same without the many jews who were linkages between the muslim and Christian spheres. Or the explosion of innovation especially since the 19th century by jewish academic and artist elites...

I think Poland was influenced by Jews more than any other nation in Europe, yet I think their input was not essential. Without Jews, we would still be Poles, though of course we'd lose much - some of the greatest Polish writers were Jewish by origin.
However, without Christianity, there would be no Europe.
But it's a matter of discussion, I don't think there's a real difference in opinion, just a question of placing the accents in different places, so lets skip it.

Sure, but always with the eye for how much pressure is actually covered by our asses and with much thinking about whether the effect will be any good.

It's very easy and comfortable to say "it will have 0 effect" "it can only make things worse" "we got buiseness to do". If Europe wants to be multicultural,
let it happen not only at local religion's cost

You don't need the , I agree.

As you said yourself some posts ago. I'm no catholic anymore, so I have to leave this as an inner-catholic discussion. But yes, such lively debate is good and necessary in my eyes.

My point is that telling about something that it's backward is no arguement in the questions of faith.