Petition for Christianity in the EU Constitution

rde

http://euobs.com/?aid=15197&rk=1

A number of countries - including Ireland - are lobbying for a reference to Christianity in the forthcoming constitution; now 3/4m people from all 25 states have added their voices.

Personally, I'm dead set against it; however, as an atheist, I have to wonder whether I'm just opting for my own beliefs, rather that an opposition based on the overall good of the EU and - soon! - the world. After all, there is a case to be made; despite the Church's atrocities (and they are many), there can be little doubt that the church has been a powerful influence over the centuries. In the dark ages, for example, they were pretty much the sole keepers of knowledge, and we'd have even fewer of the works of the ancient greeks were it not for them.

On the other hand, if we look only at modern Europe, the church's influence has been much less, and in considerably more pernicious in many ways. Atheism is finally gaining acceptance, and our Islamic and Jewish brothers and sisters make up a not insignificant part of the population. Then, of course, we have to consider Turkey, and any further expansion eastward.

I'll assume that most christians are in favour, and most non-christians against. But are there any of you out there who buck the trend? Any Christians who think it's a terrible idea, or atheists who are all for it?

arcadegame2004

Yes I am against this though theoretically a Catholic. I am in truth an atheist though. I feel that religion is a destructive force, leading to wars historically, or else obstructing or opposing science. I would not oppose referring to religion as part of the heritage of Europe in a Constitution, but no way do I want it to prejudge to question of whether a "God" exists or not.

ArthurDent

Lapsed Catholic here and I'd have a problem with this. As far as I'm concerned all you have to do is look at the growth of fundamentalism across the world at the moment (from Israel to Palistine to the US) to see where giving any religion a superior position gets you.

The Muppet

Religion is at the root of most of the worlds worst problems. Anything that makes the divisions between different religions worse is a bad thing. If this petition makes non Christian religions feel excluded then it is a bad idea and will only serve to further the divide. BTW I,m a practising Christian.

JohnK

I'm completely against this too. I feel that there should be no reference to religion in this constitution, especially a specific religion. If there must be a reference to religion, and I hope there isn’t, then it must be a neutral reference.

mike65

Bad idea. Organisations which are have a political aspect and which involve multi-lateral co-operation should be strictly neutral on such matters.

Mike.

Sparks

It's already in the constitution, and not just the preamble. It's in article 51, as explained here and needs quite badly to be deleted.

rde

I personally don't have much of a problem with article 51. Sure, it'd be nice to see it gone, but that's not going to happen. It's in the draft, and for it to disappear, all 25 countries would have to agree. They won't.

And is it really that bad? Quoting the Irish Humanists' typically shrill, apocalyptic warning:

The article is both dangerous and unnecessary. It is dangerous because Clause 1 enables the churches to ratchet up their influence state by state, and the European Union will be powerless to interfere. It therefore poses a major threat to democracy in Europe.

The implication here is that without article 51, the EU would be free to somehow counter a country's nationally elected representatives and their foolish decisions. However, any power they would have to do so would be there anyway, irrespective of article 51. The European Court will always be there, as will the assertion of freedom of religion.

article6

Speaking as a Catholic, I would be opposed to mentioning only Christianity in the Constitution. The influence of Islam in Europe, from Valencia to Vilinus, is too great to ignore. Similarly, Judaism should be mentioned if Christianity is included. But where would we stop? Seeing that none of those religions was actually founded in Europe (with the exception of sub-divisions), in my opinion the best option would be to refer to "religion" as a cultural part of Europe.

Clause 1 is just letting states go their own way on religion - though naturally the Irish Humanists would prefer to see the EU "prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member States".

EDIT: If the Irish Humanists are concerned with "additional, privileged, undemocratic rights of access to the European institutions", and not just being opportunistic, why aren't they complaining about women's rights delegations?

Sparks

Originally posted by rde
I personally don't have much of a problem with article 51. Sure, it'd be nice to see it gone, but that's not going to happen. It's in the draft, and for it to disappear, all 25 countries would have to agree. They won't.

All 25 countries would have to agree for the constitution to be adopted as well, don't forget.

And is it really that bad? Quoting the Irish Humanists' typically shrill, apocalptic warning:

That's an ad hominem attack on the AIH, not an argument.

The implication here is that without article 51, the EU would be free to somehow counter a country's nationally elected representatives and their foolish decisions.

No, it isn't. The implication is that Article 51 gives protection to religious bodies that is not given to secular ones.

Sparks

Originally posted by article6
EDIT: If the Irish Humanists are concerned with "additional, privileged, undemocratic rights of access to the European institutions", and not just being opportunistic, why aren't they complaining about women's rights delegations?

If women's rights delegations were actually lobbying for access to EU institutions for women that was superior in nature to that which men enjoy (instead of what they are arguing for, which is equal access), then the AIH wouldn't get a chance to be the first to complain, because damn near everyone would be up in arms over it.

Manach

I would have a mention of respect for certain people's belief in a concept of a higher power.

Sparks

Originally posted by Manach
I would have a mention of respect for certain people's belief in a concept of a higher power.

Why?

Hobbes

Around three quarters of a million citizens from the 25 member states of an enlarged EU have signed a petition calling for a reference to Christianity to be made in the Constitution.

Unless I am missing something, this says to me "A tiny amount of the EU citizens have signed a petition to get the constitution changed". That is what? 3/8 of the population of Ireland alone? Not even a majority vote in Ireland.

Nothing about it being changed, 3/4 of million is feck all in the population of the EU. The other site linked to, again acknowledges this and mentions that the EU reconises religious bodies, nothing about Christianity.

It doesn't say anything about countries, only that certain countries have people giving more votes. Also they need a million votes spread over most of the EU before it is even looked at, much less put into the constitution.

btw this was the only paper on the net I could find quickly that was mentioning this.

Also the Pope said "Europe's religious heritage.", while he wanted Christianity listed it also covers other religons as well.

MeatProduct

Originally posted by rde
In the dark ages, for example, they were pretty much the sole keepers of knowledge, and we'd have even fewer of the works of the ancient greeks were it not for them.

Rde, the chuch managed to destroy a remarkable amount of knowlegde. As an example I would like to highlight Cortez. This man kicked the crap out of the Mayans ( with the blessing of the Church), and followed it up (with help of members of the Church) with the attempted destruction of all the Mayans' knowledge. This almost completely succeeded too, only a few original texts (codices) still exist.

History shows how intollerant the Church is to other beliefs systems. Giving more power to this body is certainly not progress.

Nick

rde

Agglomerating a few separate posts, here...

That's an ad hominem attack on the AIH, not an argument.

Actually, it's neither. It's an introduction to an argument that includes an opinion.

All 25 countries would have to agree for the constitution to be adopted as well, don't forget.

It's got to be accepted by an IGC before it gets that far. And it won't; it's far easier to not introduce something than it is to remove it. Once it's there, it's there to stay. IMO.

No, it isn't. The implication is that Article 51 gives protection to religious bodies that is not given to secular ones.

So what? Like it or not (and personally, I don't), most of the people in the EU are religious. The article reflects that. If you want to expand it, what language would you use? 'Secular' means nothing in this context; UFO groups are typcially secular. The same could be used for 'philosophical' or any other adjective you'd care to use.

Unless I am missing something, this says to me "A tiny amount of the EU citizens have signed a petition to get the constitution changed". That is what? 3/8 of the population of Ireland alone? Not even a majority vote in Ireland.

I don't think that's the point. Hands up everyone here who heard of that petition, and declined to sign? A concerted effort by the church in every member state could well yield a number that's ten times higher. Still infinitesimal, but 3.5m signatures more than any opposing petition.

In truth, though, I'm less concerned by the petition than by the positions taken by various governments, including our own.

Rde, the chuch managed to destroy a remarkable amount of knowlegde. As an example I would like to highlight Cortez.

Not just South America; the Church's malign influence in China (for example) resulted in tragic amounts of historical documents, temples, etc, being destroyed. But that doesn't negate the fact that they've done a lot of good work in the past, both through officially sanctioned actions and the work of religously-minded individuals. I'd say that overall the total influence was against humanity's advancement, but there are millions on the continent who'd probably disagree. And millions more who'd agree.

History shows how intollerant the Church is to other beliefs systems. Giving more power to this body is certainly not progress.

Neither article 51 nor the putative preamble would give any more power to the church. Neither would their absence diminish it.

Thing is, overall I think it's a good constitution. Absolutely it has its areas where I'm not happy, and if this were included in the preamble, it would be one more area. But a constitution of 25 nations is by neccessity a compromise, and overall I think the final draft is fair, particularly if Bertie's 55/55 percentages in Qualified Majority Voting goes through. None of the other problems I have would be enough to make me vote against the constitution's ratification, and I'm not sure that this would either.

sceptre

Originally posted by Manach
I would have a mention of respect for certain people's belief in a concept of a higher power.

I'm perfectly fine with some reference to supporting freedom of religion or something similar (which by definition includes supporting freedom for those who don't want a religion), which I assume is what you're getting to. I'd also like to see a provision added that the EU guarantees not to endow any religion. I suspect that the latter won't happen though, given the current situation in Sweden (with a State-sponsored church supported from a tithe on registered ahherents) and other countries with a similar system and in the UK with an official established religion.

I'm rather against a reference to religion outside the above (which would merely be an affirmation of a right people should have) - any religion. Thinking as a non-religious type, I went and asked my better half who went to mass today. She's against it too, for the reason that Mike mentioned above.

Hobbes

Originally posted by rde
I don't think that's the point. Hands up everyone here who heard of that petition, and declined to sign? A concerted effort by the church in every member state could well yield a number that's ten times higher. Still infinitesimal, but 3.5m signatures more than any opposing petition.

Did you read up on it? I did a little. Getting 3.5 million signatures means nothing. They need 1 million evenly spread across all member states. When they get that then it is brought forward as an item to discuss.

It is not even remotely being put onto the constitution.

As for our government? Our government isn't petitioning for it. Some MEPs are, and a large number of votes came from Ireland. This is what is being worded into "Ireland is trying to force it".

Victor

Originally posted by sceptre
I'd also like to see a provision added that the EU guarantees not to endow any religion. I suspect that the latter won't happen though, given the current situation in Sweden (with a State-sponsored church supported from a tithe on registered ahherents) and other countries with a similar system and in the UK with an official established religion.

I'm not sure it's relevant - it's an EU constitution - the individual states will maintain their own constitutions and practices. Germany also has religious "taxes" (with an opt out) with each organisation receiving the contributions as nominated by individuals.

How about baning the EU from setting up it's own rival religion - China has it's own "official" Catholic Church.

Seaneh

Originally posted by The Muppet
Religion is at the root of most of the worlds worst problems. Anything that makes the divisions between different religions worse is a bad thing. If this petition makes non Christian religions feel excluded then it is a bad idea and will only serve to further the divide. BTW I,m a practising Christian.

Back that up.
And I'll prove you wrong.

rde

Did you read up on it? I did a little. Getting 3.5 million signatures means nothing. They need 1 million evenly spread across all member states. When they get that then it is brought forward as an item to discuss.

It is not even remotely being put onto the constitution.

You need to do a bit more reading. Yes, the draft constitution specifies that a topic can be brought forth for discussion of a million people so request. But that's the draft constitution; not the one on which we'll be voting. An IGC will decide on the final text, using the draft as a basis. And that IGC may well decide to include a reference to Christianity.

Hobbes

Originally posted by rde
And that IGC may well decide to include a reference to Christianity.

May well? You mean they haven't.

There is no reference to christianity in the draft. I couldn't find it. Want to point out the exact lines?

rde

May well? You mean they haven't.

Of course they haven't. They haven't met yet.

There is no reference to christianity in the draft. I couldn't find it. Want to point out the exact lines?

Right. I'll try to do this in words of one syllable:
- It's not in the draft.
- Some want it to be in.
- They said that when they meet they'll try to get it put in.
- We're in that bunch
- So are the Poles
- And not just those two; eight lands have said the same, more or less.

When you google for '"EU Constition" Christianity' this is one of many, many stories on the subject

Hobbes

Actually when I googled it there is very little there. You didn't try it did you?

To give you an idea of how little, this page appears in google on the list.

Yourself and others were making it out it was a done deal. I said it wasn't, you have now agreed with me, so I am wondering what it is you are debating?

Its not going to happen.

rde

Actually when I googled it there is very little there. You didn't try it did you?

I did, and the tab was still open as I type. It says:
Results 1 - 10 of about 3,040 for christianity "EU constitution"
And where exactly do you think I got that link if I didn't google? I'm on quite a few EU and news lists, but hardly enough to be able to provide three thousand links. Ten, perhaps.

Yourself and others were making it out it was a done deal.

Look at the title of the thread. Read my posts. Nowhere did I say - or, I hope, imply - that it was a done deal. If it were a done deal, I'd see little point in the thread, so I wouldn't have started it.

Its not going to happen.

I hope you're right. I suspect you are. But that's only a suspicion (and hope); I don't share your confidence, and I don't know where it comes from.

Zombrex

Originally posted by The Muppet
Religion is at the root of most of the worlds worst problems. Anything that makes the divisions between different religions worse is a bad thing. If this petition makes non Christian religions feel excluded then it is a bad idea and will only serve to further the divide. BTW I,m a practising Christian.

Originally posted by Seaneh
Back that up.
And I'll prove you wrong.

Which part?

You think non-christians being excluded is a good thing?

Capt'n Midnight

reminds me of the Ghandi quote when asked what he thought of "western civilization " said " I think it would be a good idea."

then there was the one about "I like your christ but not your christians"

Christinaity would be good in the truest sense of people following Christ's ideals of forgivness etc.

Now will this recognise a christian heritage ? in fairness most of the EU has been almost exclusively christina for most of the last 1,400 years. But even here the attempt to have the catholic church given special rights in the constitution failed so I would not worry so much about the tail wagging the dog.

3m people is 1% of the population, france , uk and spain could get that many muslims to sign a petition if they wanted to - so could the greek othodox

Victor

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
But even here the attempt to have the catholic church given special rights in the constitution

Who even suggested this? Christian doesn't not necessarily mean Catholic.