So, all these values we have nowadays were non-existent before the rise of the major religions? Sure thing Mike, sure thing. Most Christian holidays aren't even purely christian. I can understand this bs coming from a blind christian fundamentalist... I didn't think you were one of them.
What good reasons are they? I'm for Turkey joining and I think the dangers of Turkey not joining are a lot bigger.
No, because Turkey isn´t an european nation (by culture and territoy) and allowing them in would creat a dangerous precedent (Morocco, for example has already asked for EU membership). Not to mention other issues like the respect for human rights, equallity between men and women, the economic issues of such a large and poor country like Turkey joining, the problem of having vast borders with countries like Iraq, Siria and Iran, the influence of the military over the government (Turkey still has a long way to go to be a truly democratic country), the Armenians issue, the Cyprus issue, etc.
Sure it has played a role in it... but that wasn't the point. I picked out christianity because I often hear people say things that come down to how christianity is the very fundament of western civilization... if anything christianity held back western civilization for centuries. And many of it's ethical principles were widespread before anyone ever heard of Christ. Just as many of it's ethical principles are hard to find throughout the times in which it's main earthly embodyment ruled Europe. Is it a broadly shared background for westerners? Yes of course, but 'civilization' as we know it is not the result of christianity. And neither are our common modern day values. Read a few pages back and tell me who's changing the argument? I was responding to someone who believes that our whole system of laws is based upon religion. I'm not ignoring it, that's what you read into it. Just trying to put things into perspective.
Mike, you Americans weren't that much better than us Europeans. Just talk to the Indians and the Blacks about it (not to mention the Arabs atm). About Turkey: Even though I do not think it is ready on issues like democracy and human rights, I would not esclude it forever. It's culture is not entirely near-eastern, neither, it is a mix of European and Asian culture. The religion is the same as in big parts of Bosnia-Herzegowina for example, and Greece is cultural-wise for sure nearer to Turkey than to Sweden. Russia and Turkey are European countries. They can't be left out of the European Union forever if they ever get their democracy and human right things right. And I don#t think that the pilgrims for example shared the same values as we did, yet they were more christian than we will ever be. Our values and all that stuff does not come the church. They partly may come from the bible or Jesus, but their bigger parts are either older or younger than them.
Not going around killing whoever you want, taking whatever you want, taking care of the needy... those kinds of things. Depends on what you call a nation state. As far as I know city states and the likes still played a big role in Europe by the time we started killing native Americans and long after that. About 50 years after Columbus sailed to America the city of Utrecht tried to conquer Amsterdam, just to name something. It's not all that black and white. Meaning? Says the man from the nation robbed from the Indians and built upon the labour of black slaves who have been able to sit wherever they like on the bus for at least 40 years now. You tell em. Which I don't. Have you tried actually reading? Now, would you be so kind to tell me what values I have christianity to thank for?
If you hadn't noticed yet segroves, this thread started out about christians. For the sake of keeping our international audience at ease I went as far as 'major religions'. An Italian portuguese in the service of the spanish (or something like that)... what the hell were you expecting? We try to keep the Utrecht/Amsterdam thing going What vast respect for the other culture? Open a history book first. Please do. That's not what I'm saying. And even after the Romans decided they were christians... it was still a mess. Yes, it was christianity that first came up with the idea that just killing each other was wrong, taking what you please was wrong, etc, etc. Get real segroves.
Someone be a sport and let us know what the EU constitution would/does say about freedom of religion. Is the constitution violated by French restrictions on religious symbols in schools?
Article II-9: Right to marry and right to found a family The right to marry and the right to found a family shall be guaranteed in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of these rights. Article II-10: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes freedom to change religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or in private, to manifest religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. Article II-21: Non-discrimination 1. Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited. Article II-22: Cultural, religious and linguistic diversity The Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity. Article III-3 (new) In defining and implementing the policies and activities referred to in this Part, the Union shall aim to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. Article III-8 (ex Article 13 TEC) 1. Without prejudice to the other provisions of the Constitution and within the limits of the powers assigned by it to the Union, a European law or framework law of the Council may establish the measures needed to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. The Council shall act unanimously after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament
Mel - Thanks. Here's an interesting angle on how religion is playing on the Constitution vote in France: http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=5807514&cKey=1116763528000 OK - the source is Swiss, but I'm just a humble, poorly educated American, so all Euros are the same to me.
There is more to it, but don't ask me where to find it. Just about every article has a huge set of 'directives' I believe they're called. Everything is covered so well that the 'constitution' becomes pretty meaningless. Anyway, I'm voting no.
Plato, and this is just one example, talked about exactly that centuries before christianism. And I doubt you can trace the origins of his reasonings to any major or otherwise religion. And I'm pretty sure you are aware of Plato's great influence in Western thought.
So the aztecs or incas didn't have slaves, huh? (though the incas had a less rigid form of slavery) These civilizations were as bit as imperialist as their European counterparts.
I'm voting yes for a number of reasons, notably: 1. There'll no longer be a veto for each individual member, decisions can no longer by blocked by one member, dramatically speeding up the decision-making process. 2. Important decisions such as granting agriculture subsidies can no longer be made by the EU without consulting the individual governments involved. 3. Directives have been specifically set up for each country to protect certain legislation that is unique to them, euthanasia policies in Holland for example are that way protected, and the Dutch cannot be forced to change them by the EU. Overall I reckon that if you're against the European Union you've got more reasons to vote yes than no. Everything I can see in the constitution is geared to making the Union more democratic, to protect the unique identity and culture of each individual member, and simultaneously to speed up the decision making process. I can't see anything in there that I don't agree with.
This is an amazing statement; have you even studied other nations' sets of decision-rules? Do what you want; but to do it for the so-called "reason" above is folly of the highest order.
Have you tried reading the entire thing, complete with all the directives and what not? I have tried but I'll be the first one to say I got bored with it. I know the Dutch constitution and it's quite clear. Besides, changing the Dutch constitution is easier than changing this thing when it's accepted. It leaves too much room for discussion and free interpretation. I have more reasons for my 'no' though.
You are well aware the fact that any possible constitution is not going to be very different than the one you are voting on for years to come? and that on a practicall basis it doesn't change any European rules but just restates them. It is not like a whole set of new laws are going to come with this.
When you can point to a typically riveting set of decision-rules, you let me know. There's nothing unclear about the EU Constitution. These articles come from the 1989 edition of the Dutch Constituton: Article 5 [Petitions] Everyone shall have the right to submit petitions in writing to the competent authorities. Article 6 [Religion, Belief] (1) Everyone shall have the right to manifest freely his religion or belief, either individually or in community with others, without prejudice to his responsibility under the law. (2) Rules concerning the exercise of this right other than in buildings and enclosed places may be laid down by Act of Parliament for the protection of health, in the interest of traffic and to combat or prevent disorders. Article 7 [Expression] (1) No one shall require prior permission to publish thoughts or opinions through the press, without prejudice to the responsibility of every person under the law. (2) Rules concerning radio and television shall be laid down by Act of Parliament. There shall be no prior supervision of the content of a radio or television broadcast. (3) No one shall be required to submit thoughts or opinions for prior approval in order to disseminate them by means other than those mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, without prejudice to the responsibility of every person under the law. The holding of performances open to persons younger than sixteen years of age may be regulated by Act of Parliament in order to protect good morals. (4) The preceding paragraphs do not apply to commercial advertising. Article 8 [Association] The right of association shall be recognized. This right may be restricted by Act of Parliament in the interest of public order. Are you submitting that the EU Constitution is more subject ot interpretation than the Dutch one? I could pull more excerpts from it, but you get my point... Let's hear A reason.
I'm no big fan of the current situation either. Haste has never done anyone any good. My country is getting a crap deal and it's probably going to get worse in the future. We deserve better. Besides, is this an argument to vote for? I'll get back to you on the articles. I'm at work now. First of all, I’m no big fan of the fact that we’re moving towards a Europe unified by laws that go beyond trade. It’s turning into a package deal where you either take it all, or get nothing. The countries and their respective problems are too diverse to be ruled by one superstate. Conflicting interests and stages of development combined with the fact that many if not all nations are mainly concerned with what europe can do for them and how much they can get out of it does not comfort me. I do not like the fact that this treaty talks of people having a right to social benefits without naming the slightest standard. Meaningless, and potentially disastrous for a totally open European economy. I do not like the fact that this treaty moves us towards one EU immigration policy. It’s a recipe for trouble in a time when racial tensions unfortunately have risen. I do not like the fact that this treaty is the first step towards international criminal laws. I do not like the fact that this treaty, as far as I have seen, only recognizes already existing political parties as speaking partners (I’ll get back on this one) I do not like the way the EU makes decisions, this treaty does nothing to improve this or make it anymore democratic (I’ll get back on this one as well) I do not like the way in which my country has been the biggest payer per capita for quite a while. I especially do not like the way in which the EU claims that you pay according to the state of your economy. The Dutch economy has been one of Europe’s worst performers for the past two years I believe and still we’re the biggest payers per capita. Our government has been trying to change this, but no such luck. I also don’t like the fact that the pocket change that was left over has been evenly spread over all members, including the new members that hadn’t paid a single cent yet. I don’t like the fact that there is little chance of changing all this and I don’t like the fact that money is thrown around that easily. I do not like the way in which the UK got the better end of the deal, for no valid reason. I do not like the fact that my country, which has been a leading country in many ways over the past decades will have to let other countries, such as ever backward France, decide about our drug laws, prostitution laws, etc, etc as soon as Europe becomes a fact. There’s more, but that’s a bit more specific. So I’ll get back to you on that together with the articles. Of course we’re not there yet, but this is a major step in that direction. When we said ‘yes’ to Europe I was 12. Nobody asked me then or has ever asked me since. So now that someone asks my opinion, I’d like to take that chance.
That's all fair enough AFCA but if anything, the European Constitution can help to solve those problems rather than worsen them.