http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=319152007
Now, I'm no history buff, but Europe was not founded on Xtian ideals or from Xtian roots - it pre-dates Xtianity, or am I wrong here?"I can't deny that I would have preferred to see a clearer reference to God based on Christian ideals in the constitution," Merkel said.
How dare she talk about "our beliefs" as if she is speaking for everybody. They are certainly not my beliefs, and any constitution that promotes religion is certainly one which I will not be voting for when it is put to referendum.
The arrogance of these people is astounding. Why does a constitution need to refer to god? It is not like the believers are going to be prevented from worshipping their chosen deity just because the constitution doesn't say "Christianity is best".
my understanding from watching the History Channel is that it sort of grew out of the Roman empire. Which of course became the Byzantine empire which was definitely christian.Originally Posted by vbloke
Not that that's any reason for a 21st century constitution to contain any references to religion over and above freedom to worship.
More to the point, Europe wasn't founded at all. It is just a collection of countries, all of which were founded at different times and in difference ways under different religions.
It's all a matter of what you mean by "Europe". I think Angela Merkel is thinking about Western Europe's cultural heritage, which obviously has been strongly influenced by Christianity for a very long time.More to the point, Europe wasn't founded at all. It is just a collection of countries, all of which were founded at different times and in difference ways under different religions.
However, it is a mistake to assume that Europe (the cultural arena) is directly congruent with Europe (the political entity). Apart from anything else, I agree with Cuddles that the diversity of member states in the enlarged EU makes this highly questionable. Forcing the EU, which is only a few decades old, to take on this historical baggage seems totally pointless to me.
This is a bogus argument.
Firstly it presupposes that everybody (or virtually everybody) in Europe shares her beliefs, and as Araneus says this is a highly questionable assumption.
Secondly it asserts that cultures with other beliefs and values will take Europe more seriously if it asserts a Christian identity, which seems totally inplausible. Would (say) Saudi Arabia really prefer to associate with an EU which has affiliated itself to the Church which was responsible for the Crusades, and which disagrees in numerous ways with the tenets of Islam??
RAmen, brother.How dare she talk about "our beliefs" as if she is speaking for everybody. They are certainly not my beliefs, and any constitution that promotes religion is certainly one which I will not be voting for when it is put to referendum.
You're assuming that it will be put to a referendum (I think, unlikely).
The fact that so-called 'leaders of nations', in 2007, still speak of 'belief' in any context other than a serious mental deficiency/neurological dysfunction/psychiatric condition, says, for me, all there needs to be said.
And now for something completely different:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs2HdJ8caIU
And more to the point, why would half of Europe want to associate with that Church? People have had endless fun burning other people with the wrong from of Christianity. Just look at Nothern Ireland to see how friendly different types of Christians are to one another. Which one are they planning to pick for Europe and what will everyone else think?
There'd be no problem if we'd give up our superstitious beliefs and follow the one, true religion.
.
damm.....i keep forgetting to use the FSM....i need to make a point that needs to use it......oh balls to it...here it is
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks