The "ungodly" EU (no spam)

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 4:28 pm

All reference to God is to be omitted from the future European Union constitution, despite a personal plea by the Holy Father to retain a spiritual aspect to the document.

The Convention on the Future of Europe has announced that it had decided all references to divinity were to be removed from the key Article 2 of the new written EU framework.

Arguments have raged for some time as to the merits of putting God's name in the future constitution, with strongly religious members pushing the case and others more wary. And as the Convention prepared to discuss the matter, the Pope himself had called on its president, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, to include a "clear reference to God and the Christian faith" in the document and to "cement the extraordinary religious, cultural and civic heritage that has made Europe great down the centuries."

As the news of the decision broke, a Vatican spokesman described the decision as "completely unsatisfactory" as it "went against the explicit desires of a great part of Europe's peoples", but despite the anger there appears to be little the Church or other faith groups can do to alter the situation.

Meanwhile the EU is currently under pressure to allow Poland a clause guaranteeing that Brussels will not interfere with its pro-life stance should the Poles gain entry to the organisation.

Comments?

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 4:36 pm

I consider that a smart responsible move on the part of the EU. Personally I believe that is the exact direction the world needs to be going right now.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 6:09 pm

I agree. The tiny shreds of tolerance I have for religion goes straight out of the window as soon as there is interferance with any factual matter, such as politics.

I do not think any exceptions should be made for Poland on the ground of religion. Morality and laws should not depend on zeal.

...cement the extraordinary religious, cultural and civic heritage that has made Europe great down the centuries.

And perhaps not entirely on topic, but the above line strikes me as one of the most absurd things that can come out of someones mouth. The religous and cultural heritage of Europe is imo something we should strive to distance outrselfes from. Its mostly a horrible story of cruelty and oppression.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 7:04 pm

I read that it was almost included, if only the Polish would have agreed to back Verhofstadt.

IMHO I wouldn't want it included. Religion has no place in politics.

According to a European cabinet minister, Blair told Chirac at the G-8 summit meeting at Sea Island, Georgia, barely a week earlier that the Belgian was out of the question. But Chirac remained so fixed on his nomination, the cabinet minister said, that France privately proposed to Poland inserting a reference to Christianity in the EU constitution in exchange for its support of Verhofstadt.

Aqua-chan · Post by **Aqua-chan** » Mon Jun 21, 2004 7:05 pm

I fourth this. I believe in keeping politics and religion - ANY religion - apart. In my mind they are two seperate matters with many conflicting views, both of which are to be respected but should not be mingled together.

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 5:39 am

I'm Roman Catholic.

I don't see how religion fits in not unless the EU is similar to the OIC. (which of course, it is not).

No offense, but I see no reason talking religion and business at the same time with a non-believer. Like, why would you want to insert religion anyway?

Precisely why for a significant number of countries (especially those that were former colonies) there is the separation of Church and State.

Monolith · Post by **Monolith** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:27 am

The problem with Poland is that it's about 98% Roman Catholic. I was born in Poland and many of my relatives live there. I'm sure that a reference to the Christian God is the least they demand - and they don't give a flying **** (removed by Maharlika) if other people think differently.

I'm an atheist, but I can understand their position. I talked with a teacher of mine ( who is a Roman Catholic pastor) about that subject. He's of the opinion that a constitution of that importance *has* to be refered to a god. He simply doubts that the fundament of the European Union (which is the constitution) can be plane enough without an imbedded substance which every country relates to - in his opinion this substance can only be god. He argues that without such a thing all European countries have in common it will be hard or even impossible to build a strong and peaceful union.

I argue differently though...
I think that the constitution itself can be a strong enough glue to hold all the different countries together - as long as only things are involved everyone in Europe can relate to. I'm an atheist and there are many other atheist as well. I wouldn't be happy with a reference to a god. I think you got the point...

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:55 am

A friendly reminder.

Monolith,

Your post is quite okay except for that part that I edited.

Check out the Forum Rules.

7) Again, please refrain from swearing, trying to avoid the filter i.e. “!” for “i” etc. won’t be tolerated. The only exception to this is a genuine word such as the film director Alfred Hitchc0ck, etc.

This applies to emoticons or smilies as well. No obscene gestures, words etc.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 8:09 am

[QUOTE=Maharlika]No offense, but I see no reason talking religion and business at the same time with a non-believer. Like, why would you want to insert religion anyway?[/QUOTE]

It's a little like trying to discuss MidEastern culture without reference to Islam, Mah. Christianity put down European roots over a period of roughly 1000 years. For better or worse, it made the continent what it is. It was the factor that defined the Arabs and Berbers who conquered much of Spain in the 8th century as "other," but accepted the Vandal rulers as "us," just as it defined the Ottoman Empire, in its conquering of much of southern central Europe, as "other." The values of European Christianity have mutated over time, whatever the current occupant of Rome may like to say on the matter, and its influence has definitely waned, but it remains a powerful force in the shaping of an overall European culture.

Is this a justification for including some mention of Christianity in a government structure? Absolutely not, in my opinion. This blurs the line between secular and sacred authority, and makes it all too easy for the two to be confused. This is especially easy in countries where the dominant religion has mutated over time into a form that supports local cultural values, such as some of the Protestant and Pentecostal Christian sects display in the US, or Catholicism does in Poland and a lesser extent in France, Italy and Ireland. The list is much longer, as we both know. This isn't the fault of religion, or government. This is simply the way human nature operates.

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Tue Jun 22, 2004 9:10 am

It's strange that so many concieve the separation of church and state as something mutually agreed upon by both parties. Quite the contrary, the church is generally opposed to the process but have had to accept it nontheless to avoid a direct confrontation that may threaten their still privileged position in western society. As for the historical value of the church, one of their "greatest contributions" must have been their constant meddling in political affairs that made it necessary to exclude them from the political process to begin with. My personal opinion on the matter is that religious activities should be made equal to any other hobby activities people may have, and not have any special status at all. Only then will you have true freedom of religion.

CM · Post by CM » Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:56 am

Well you all would know i am on the opposite side of the argument here. I come from a society where religion is not just integrated with politics, but it permeates every aspect of our society, which i find to be a good thing. Yes there are abuses and people have been corrupted or corrupted aspects of the religion for their own needs.

But that doesnt mean religion in politics is not without merit. The basic tenets of religion are that of modern day morality. French for all its secularists stance would never tolerate it if someone burned down a church, because it would be seen as an attack on "us".

No matter how many people say it, once a religious icon is attacked or presumed under attack many people revert to the religious feeling they may have once felt in their life.

Now on to the constitution. I have no problem with God being mentioned. I have no problem that religion is mentioned. However i would find it reproachable if only one religion would be mentioned in the constitution. I dont want Islam mentioned or anything. There are not enough people. But not everybody is christian in the EU. And if you mention Christainity does it mean you include the Roman Catholic doctrine, or the Russian Orthodox or the Protestant or the English church etc etc.

I can see many political and moral battles for the EU with the inclusion of a singular religion as the basic foundation. However i see no problem in mentioning GOD.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 2:12 am

[QUOTE=CM]<snip>
I can see many political and moral battles for the EU with the inclusion of a singular religion as the basic foundation. However i see no problem in mentioning GOD.[/QUOTE]

Problem is that you can't just "mention God", because to every religion and religious person, this means something different. So a mention of a God will cause people to argue/discuss which's version of a God is the correct one, and the mentioned one.
The problem with religions are that they are somewhat mutual exclusive at their core.

In my oppinion - Religion has been at the core of much of the problems throughout civilisation - and many wars and prosecutions have been (and still are) sparked by religious arguments.
I fail to see religions justification as a government form or foundation for a government, especially in the western world where the separation of Church and State is the "ideal" to strive for - where everybody should be allowed to practice their religion as a personal thing, without it affecting the person next door.

Government should be done with reason and religion in my opinion often contradicts this point, mostly because of the "ancientness" of religion. Take the Bible and the Quran (sp?) for instance, age old books. There have been marginal change in these - and society (civilisation if you wish) and its population is always changing - thus Government should change with it.
Religion is static but society is not.

Therefore I'm very pleased by the omitting of religion from the EU Constitution, because religion has no place as Government nor foundation of Government.
Freedom, Human rights and Equality should be the foundation in an ideal world - and I fail to see much of this in many of the larger religion.

CM · Post by CM » Wed Jun 23, 2004 2:25 am

[QUOTE=Xandax]Problem is that you can't just "mention God", because to every religion and religious person, this means something different. So a mention of a God will cause people to argue/discuss which's version of a God is the correct one, and the mentioned one.
The problem with religions are that they are somewhat mutual exclusive at their core. [/QUOTE]

But that is the beauty of politics. Take an ambuigious word and use it to describe who you want. It doesnt really matter what type of god or whose god it is in my opinion. I doubt the Polish want Roman Catholisism (spelling?) to be built into the constitution. You mention that god is there or whatever and be done with it. Look at the US, seperation of church and state, yet the President is still sworn in under god and has to take an oath with God mentioned. It doesnt affect the functioning of the government now does it? Well it didnt until now.

According to the Western Ideal then yes, they should strive for it. I agree that for europe it is the best case scenerio, though most of the Christains in the new EU - 10 will not be happy. But on a purely theoritical level, God being mentioned is not a bad thing. After all if you omit god from a text because it will upset other people or aethists, you are infact discriminating against those do believe. You are giving preference to those who choose not to follow A god, or god or various gods.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 2:45 am

[QUOTE=CM]<snip>
According to the Western Ideal then yes, they should strive for it. I agree that for europe it is the best case scenerio, though most of the Christains in the new EU - 10 will not be happy. But on a purely theoritical level, God being mentioned is not a bad thing. After all if you omit god from a text because it will upset other people or aethists, you are infact discriminating against those do believe. You are giving preference to those who choose not to follow A god, or god or various gods.[/QUOTE]

Well - in my oppinion - Religion has no place in goverment at all.
So the omitting of God is not only because various groups of people would feel offended by it (should not be, in my oppinion), but because of the evermore seperation of Church(es) and State.
Besides - I'd be sure that any fleeting reference to a generic "God" would cause much controversial as blasphemic from the various religions.

As I said, and belive - Freedom, Human Rights and Equality should be the foundations for the EU (and everybody else, in my oppinion), and the concepts to strive towards and not some religion or "God".

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 4:40 am

@Fas: I don't agree that moral values necessitate religion. This has been discussed at length elsewhere, more than twice. The mention of god not only upsets those that don't believe in a god, ie atheists, but also all those coming from polytheistic religions. Not mentioning god shouldn't upset anyone, and I cant see how it would discriminate against religious people not mentioning something. By the same argument, we would be discriminating against communists for not mentioning Karl Marx. Are you suggesting that whether or not something is discrimination is a matter of majority?

To me, mentioning God even in an abstract sense is a very bad thing. It calls to a higher authority that can (and will) be used to justify wars, used to muster the ranks of fanatics and to let those responsible stand without guilt. This has been seen countless times through history, and no less these days in the religious state of the USA. True, they have separation of church and state, but it is still a religious state nontheless and they will remain so for as long as "god" is written into their constitution.

Gevaudan'sBeast · Post by **Gevaudan'sBeast** » Wed Jun 23, 2004 5:15 am

I could write a lengthy discussion explaining my views, but reading through the posts it seems my views have already been expressed for me

, but I would like to point out that I agree with Silur's view, as there is no need to incorporate a concept that if expressed would instigate more conflict, then not expressing it, as not expressing it doesn't favour any party, not even the atheists, as it does not explicitly deny the existence of a God or many Gods etc..., it just establishes its existence without the element of religion included. I'm pretty sure that last sentence didn't make too much sense, and I apologise, I was just very tired when I wrote this.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 8:43 am

Whereas I am highly critical towards many other EU-decisions, this for one I find a good decision. Religion is something I think should belong to the private rather than the public, social and governmental level of a society.

Almost all religions and certainly the larger world religions, include discriminatory values that opposes the humanistic value of equality.

All religious systems I know of has an inherent morality system, but many morality systems exist without religious aspects but other values.

[QUOTE=fable]And as the Convention prepared to discuss the matter, the Pope himself had called on its president, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, to include a "clear reference to God and the Christian faith" in the document and to "cement the extraordinary religious, cultural and civic heritage that has made Europe great down the centuries."[/QUOTE]

I am happy the pope and the Catholic church has little formal power. The effects the pope's exclamations about not using condoms has already caused increase of problems in regions where HIV is common. Obviously the catholic church believe their faith is of importance, but the referral to extraordinary heritage that has made Europe great sounds is revolting considering the bloody heritage and opression of knowledge that European christianity has brought.

[QUOTE=Xandax]
Religion is static but society is not.

Therefore I'm very pleased by the omitting of religion from the EU Constitution, because religion has no place as Government nor foundation of Government.
Freedom, Human rights and Equality should be the foundation in an ideal world - and I fail to see much of this in many of the larger religion.[/QUOTE]

I agree totally with the above, and I am pleased as well

Morlock · Post by **Morlock** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 2:46 pm

I just wrote a great long post, but for some reason it didn't work so it was lost forever.

Either way, I assure you all of it's brilliance, so please reply to it anyway.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 3:01 pm

Tip of the day: write long posts in a word processor

Untill then - we should proberly hold of replying to your "post"

Lost One · Post by **Lost One** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 5:28 pm

I think God should have a name in Europe's constitution. You say that religion and politics do not go hand in hand, well, religion did dictate politics throughout the whole of medieval history. The clergy were above the nobles, and the King or Queen had always been representatives of God.

Thanks to religion did Europe conquer lands in Africa, the Americas, and certain bits of Asia. I mean, every invasion, every new conquer was in the name of the Church and had the backing of the Pope. So, like it or not, religion has always been a great part of european politics, and taking it off now is a stinging blow to religion.

I'd also like to mention the fact that the majority of European population are in fact religious (well, Christian)...so, if it isn't the majority that governs the face of politics, then shouldn't their religion come into play too? It would only be reasonable. After all religion has done for Europe (you have to take the good with the bad), and since the majority are still religious...you'd think for the sake of respect to them and to their beliefs that the name of God would still be mentioned in the constitution, whether or not it would actually come to affect politics.

I'm agnostic, but raised in Roman Catholic ideals, and I sincerely believe that religion and its importance should not be downplayed like it has here. Jung said that religion is a natural expression of the human psyche, and I agree with him. Whether to give purpose to others' lives, bring happyness, comfort, unity between people or any other reason, it has always been a part of any society, modern or old. Using some of Jung's reasoning, religion is a public channel of expression for our fears, hopes and beliefs. Blocking off religion is like blocking a chimney of a house to prevent smoke from coming out. The smoke will then try to find other ways to get out, whether through a window or a door, lest it should make the house unbearable to live in. Religion is that chimney, that window, that door. (I'm not sure where I got this analogy from, but I thought it was cool).

Anyway, I'm only saying this to reiterate the importance of religion, historically, psychologically, politically, socially, you name it. So, I'd just like to add that it is because of its huge importance and impact on the world that it should have representation in the constitution.

PS: In case you say religion is bad because of the destructive actions of fanatics of different religions, it is like blaming a soccer club for the actions of hooligans that support it. Much like a hooligan is not a true fan, a fanatic that kills others in the name of Islam, is not a true Muslim. In fact, most religions condemn violence.