Norway's GDP per capita, at $37,800 (for now - their oil will eventually run out), would make it one of the top in the EU, but their population is relatively small (and Iceland is smaller than Luxembourg!). If Norway, Iceland and Switzerland joined, as well as all the other current candidates, Turkey would still be about 12% of the total EU. But honestly - wouldn't it be great (for Europe), to form a union stretching from Gibralter, to Reykjavik, to Tromso, to Sevastopol, to Istanbul, to Valetta? Maybe to Vladivostok, even?
Isn't France's decision to ban religious symbols in public school also fundamentalist (in the sense of irrationality)? Just like a mullah ordering people not to listen to music, it's a stupid thing for the State to prohibit people to go to school with a veil if they want. Both sacrifice the freedom for their political agendas, wheter using religion or not for it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4103931.stm It seems join talks with Turkey will start if they agree to acknowledge Cyprus.
It's ok to start join talks in exchange of Cyprus. Though only if the join talks start with EU saying "1) Stop repressing kurds and kurdish culture, then the join talks can go on and we will address other issues". I have no geographical or racial or cultural or religious issue against Turkey joining EU. Istanbul is Europe. It is not the capital of Turkey but it is the major city. I have a lot of human rights related issues though. From a "strategical" POV I think EU should focus more on the process of integration therefore it should go on cautious and slow in the process of expansion. finally, a joke, I found in another board. (Just a joke, no offence intended)
I concluded an e-mail Q and A with the CPA President (Peter Flower) the other day. I asked: You submit the following: Our aim is to follow and fulfil these principles in British political life: Recognition of Christ's sovereignty over the nations and in politics. Respect of God's law as the basis for constitutional government and a stable society. How, exactly, are you proposing that the United Kingdom recognize “Christ’s sovereignty” nationally and politically, and how, exactly, are you proposing that the United Kingdom respect “God’s law” in government and society? Flower answered: Christians believe that all authority granted is from God, whether to Heads of State, Governments, Board of Directors of a company or whatever. We believe it is important to recognise this: in the UK vestiges of this understanding still exist - for instance the King or Queen is crowned and they acknowledge at this ceremony that there is a higher authority to theirs - Gods. At the end of the Queens speech earlier this week, she said “I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your counsels'' recognising that what happens in Parliament should be under God's guidance. This is why each session starts with prayer. The CPA seek to promote legislation that is in accordance with God's way - the 6 Mayflower Principles are based on biblical teaching and our policies endeavour to be practical outworking of these. I asked: Do you want something codified legally? That is, do you want legal/Constitutional/statutory language in the United Kingdom (and, I assuming – correct me if I’m wrong – the European Union) that recognizes “Christ’s sovereignty” and/or legally states that God’s law is in fact the basis for UK/EU/global Constitutional governance and “stable society?” Flower answered: We certainly do want written confirmation in the EU Constitution of Christ's sovereignty - as do a number of EU states, Poland being one example. Now that, to me, having looked at, for example, Iran's Constitution, does not institutionalize theocracy, but written Constitutional affirmation would, to me, make the EU a theocracy. In fact, aspects of other EU policies, given the legal codification of "Christ's sovreignty," would have to bend, under legal challenge, to interpretations of Christ's intent, which to me becomes theocracy all around. Flower doesn't seem to see it that way. I asked: ...why do you think that anyone not only not Christian, but anyone not engaged with Christ dogmatically in the same way as your organization would ever want to live in a nation where their sense of the Numinous was not as valid in terms of the nation, its politics, it’s governance and its society as your (organizational) sense thereof? Flower answered: We do not seek a theocracy, nor do we preach doctrine as a party - what we seek is laws based on what biblical teaching which we know to be God's best for each of us, as a nation and individually. As Christian Democrats, who have a long history in mainland Europe, we know that those from other faiths are supportive of us and our stand in a number of areas. We share common ground: the support for the stability of marriage, moral education for children, the sanctity and uniqueness of human life (made in God's image) from conception to natural death being a few examples. I asked: How, exactly, do you think that the number of your subsequent principles relating to other religions function practically, given the above? How do they function practically in relationship to those who form a relationship with the Numinous that is scientifically based, or that is outside any dogmatic approach at all, but rather treats coming into an awareness of the state of being in right relationship with the Universe as a process of continuing growth? Flower offered his only real non-answer, in my view, by saying: We welcome members and supporters from those of Christine faith, those of other faiths and those with no faith at all. So, for me, while the CPA (the group that organized this whole petition thing) claims they don't want theocracy, it seems perfectly clear that that's EXACTLY what they want; given the fact that all kinds of people want them to have the right (and would die for them to have the right) to worship in their own way, but do not want to be subjected to their worship (and certainly do not want to be ruled by their worshipping POV), I, like those folks, stand fast against the CPA in all its fundamental political principles.
I had no idea you were joining the BNP! But seriously, you compared the UK and Germany without refering to the massive difference in our respective economies. Germany has a major unemployment problem, and is still dealing with the massive financial and sociological effects of re-unification. In the UK we have skills shortages which range from bus-drivers to teachers to doctors to nurses. We need more skilled and semi-skilled workers. The major immigration problem we have is with housing the people we need here.
1. EU will fail sooner or later. 2. If Turkey joins it will be sooner. 3. Including god could be a very good idea, because politics are far from being logical. And if thats the case I`d like to have my politicians to have a solide basement they should stand on.
It'd be a sad day when GOD had nothing to do with politics. Our whole legal system is based on religious values. The trick is separating Church and State.
No it's not. You're wrong. I don't know if it's from ignorance or dishonesty, but you're really, really, really wrong. "We know where they are, around Baghdad and Tikrit" wrong.
Nonsense, all these values have been around long before any of the major religions has been. People make that mistake quite often.
That's what I was wondering about. How do you going about determining that everything is specifically based on "religious values". Seems like a pretty broad stroke of the brush to put out there. At that, which religious values? Do we go back to the Roman or Greek ways then?
I tend to disagree here. Even though the values I have may be (=are ;-) ) very similair to those 'religous values' we are talking about, the church is not the only authority on earth to have those values. If the constitution refers to god it says that every person should believe in god. I live in a country where there are more atheists than catholics or protestants (both groups as themeselves). The constitution should not exclude those ppl that don't believe in god. That is actually what i think when I think about the US contitution and the political customs.
Propably the constitution would be wrong, but the connections in the pledge of the legion to god and - for example - the endings of Bush's adrresses to the nations (may god be with us) are something a European politician would not use afaik and imho. constitution is propably the wrong word ( I haven't read it), but do you think it would be possible from the political climate in the US for an atheist to become president in the US? a man (or women) who does not believe in god? From what I have heard in the US I don't think so. So if I would be an American atheist I would feel excluded, yes.
The spirit of Christ, IMO, is found in these (among many other) codified guarantees for the humans of the EU: Article II-1: Human dignity Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected. Article II-2: Right to life 1. Everyone has the right to life. 2. No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed. Article II-3: Right to the integrity of the person 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity. Article II-4: Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article II-5: Prohibition of slavery and forced labour 1. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude. 2. No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour. 3. Trafficking in human beings is prohibited. Article II-24: The rights of the child 1. Children shall have the right to such protection and care as is necessary for their well-being. They may express their views freely. Such views shall be taken into consideration on matters which concern them in accordance with their age and maturity... Article II-25: The rights of the elderly The Union recognises and respects the rights of the elderly to lead a life of dignity and independence and to participate in social and cultural life. Article II-26: Integration of persons with disabilities The Union recognises and respects the right of persons with disabilities to benefit from measures designed to ensure their independence, social and occupational integration and participation in the life of the community. Article II-28: Right of collective bargaining and action Workers and employers, or their respective organisations, have, in accordance with Union law and national laws and practices, the right to negotiate and conclude collective agreements at the appropriate levels and, in cases of conflicts of interest, to take collective action to defend their interests, including strike action. Article II-30: Protection in the event of unjustified dismissal Every worker has the right to protection against unjustified dismissal, in accordance with Union law and national laws and practices. Article II-31: Fair and just working conditions 1. Every worker has the right to working conditions which respect his or her health, safety and dignity. 2. Every worker has the right to limitation of maximum working hours, to daily and weekly rest periods and to an annual period of paid leave. Article II-32: Prohibition of child labour and protection of young people at work The employment of children is prohibited. Article II-34: Social security and social assistance 1. The Union recognises and respects the entitlement to social security benefits and social services providing protection in cases such as maternity, illness, industrial accidents, dependency or old age, and in the case of loss of employment, in accordance with the rules laid down by Union law and national laws and practices. 2. Everyone residing and moving legally within the European Union is entitled to social security benefits and social advantages in accordance with Union law and national laws and practices. 3. In order to combat social exclusion and poverty, the Union recognises and respects the right to social and housing assistance so as to ensure a decent existence for all those who lack sufficient resources, in accordance with the rules laid down by Union law and national laws and practices. Article II-35: Health care Everyone has the right of access to preventive health care and the right to benefit from medical treatment under the conditions established by national laws and practices. A high level of human health protection shall be ensured in the definition and implementation of all Union policies and activities. Article II-37: Environmental protection A high level of environmental protection and the improvement of the quality of the environment must be integrated into the policies of the Union and ensured in accordance with the principle of sustainable development. Article II-41: Right to good administration 1. Every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the Institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union. 2. This right includes: (a) the right of every person to be heard... 25 nations coming together (if they believe strongly enough; France will be the first test of that) to decide to create governance tools and minimum - MINIMUM - guarantees like that w/o question make the EU Constitution the document with the highest degree of practical relationship with Christ's Commands ever created. Let's hope that they don't allow those committed to a different way of being in the world to throw them off the rails.
No, it was only a practical solution. The ONLY purpose of this law was to draw a clear line between the small minority of dangerous fundamentalists and the huge majority of muslims who simply want to live in peace. The headscarf in school was just something medias jumped on. We had (correction : we have) also other issues with fundamentalits in France : forced weddings, domestic slavery, girls beaten or even burned alive (it happened !)... We had muslim students refusing to pass exams with non-muslim teachers, muslim parents refusing to see their daughter healed by a non-muslim doctor. All of this abuses, once again, come from a small minority, but we can't let them turn some parts of France into an islamic republic. Headscarf law was the only way, the only practical way we found to make fanatics reveal themselves. The main idea was to prevent the fanatics from hiding into the peaceful majority of other muslims. And personnaly, about separation of church and state, I believe we should give the last word to this israelian thinker, some 2000 ago : Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. (Matthew 22).
Don't talk as if there was a consensus on this issue in France PH. And not everybody in those who opposed the law were dangerous integrists either. As for muslim pupils who refused to undress their headscarves, I think the peak value was 200 cases iirc in one year. I'm not sure this fuss was the best way to adress the issue ; but once again WonderSarko jumped on the occasion to publicise his own agenda. Yet, I agree on forced weddings and all, sometimes the Republic has to say : "we're not targetting you, but some of those things are just unacceptable by our standards". The problem with an ill-managed media frenzy is that I heard stupid reflections about women just wearing an headscarf on daily basis although the original issue related to state schools only.
Horsefeathers... there's nothing there about whom one can and cannot sleep with. How can one talk about "the spirit of Christ" without talking about how, when and with whom one may have sex?