- Joined
- Nov 25, 2009
- Messages
- 1,233
- Reaction score
- 197
- Location
- Denmark, Grena
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
A senior Papal adviser has pulled out of the Pope's UK visit after saying arriving at Heathrow airport was like landing in a "Third World" country.
Cardinal Walter Kasper reportedly told a German magazine the UK was marked by "a new and aggressive atheism".
I don't believe in Hell, but I hope the Pope rots in it anyway.
Lol third world country? **** the pope.
Yea yea, britain is very atheistic but I don't really give a ****. Believe it or not, not every person in Britain is named Christopher Hitchens.
At least in athiestic democracies your beliefs and political views are protected under the law regardless of your background.
Uh, no, that just isn't true. France comes to mind, though many of the European atheistic democracies do not afford protections to beliefs and political views. Certainly not to the extent they are protected in the U.S.
What beliefs does France not afford protections to? Before you answer realize this:
If I say I want to walk naked on New York City X street because it is my religious belief that God wants me to do this, that is not protected by the U.S. law.
However if I claim it is God's wish that I do not give my children medicines, that is my right under U.S. law.
Neither example has proof that God wants me to do any of that but somehow the second belief will get protected and the first wont won't even though the first will not be hurting nobody and the first are almost guaranteed to hurt my children.
So do go on. What makes French law anymore protective than U.S. law?
Uh, no, that just isn't true. France comes to mind, though many of the European atheistic democracies do not afford protections to beliefs and political views. Certainly not to the extent they are protected in the U.S.
He's probably referring to the bans on muslim veils in general and any religious iconography (for students that is) in schools. Also, the situations you cite are, to my knowledge, exactly the same in France. You can't walk the streets naked and you can avoid vaccinating your child for religious reasons. So really your post didn't show anything.
He's probably referring to the bans on muslim veils in general and any religious iconography (for students that is) in schools. Also, the situations you cite are, to my knowledge, exactly the same in France. You can't walk the streets naked and you can avoid vaccinating your child for religious reasons. So really your post didn't show anything.
As for the Papal advisor's comments, screw him. England kicked out the Catholic hierarchy four and a half centuries ago. Who cares what that jerk has to say about a perfectly nice country (with a pleasantly high number of atheists)?
Are you under the impression France/much of Europe does not protect freedom of speech?
You must learn that most on the other side of the pond believe we live in a dictatorship where free speech is controlled by government and we have no freedom of movement and are not allowed to believe in what ever religion we want.
That in reality we are in many ways more free than in the US at this time, is just ironic.
But back to subject.. the guy is right ... some parts of the UK are a 3rd world country.. as a whole, not so much. Just go to Gibraltar and you will see what I mean.
But then again, you can say this of pretty much any country.
The guy is a toad btw, as is his whole organisation.
You must learn that most on the other side of the pond believe we live in a dictatorship where free speech is controlled by government and we have no freedom of movement and are not allowed to believe in what ever religion we want.
That in reality we are in many ways more free than in the US at this time, is just ironic.
You are freer to engage in hedonistic activities, but that is not the same as political freedom. In fact encouraging and allowing hedonism is a great way to get people apathetic about political freedom. People simply do not have the liberties people in the U.S. have.
You are freer to engage in hedonistic activities,
but that is not the same as political freedom.
In fact encouraging and allowing hedonism is a great way to get people apathetic about political freedom.
People simply do not have the liberties people in the U.S. have.
Such as? Because i can only name the second ammendment thus far. Even then, it is possible to get your hands on guns in Europe, just not as easily. How do you think our Eaton posh nobs fox hunt?
Yes we are.. we have more personal freedom... our women can go topless if they so desire too.. no moral police to stop them unlike in the US. Here a breast showing on TV is a "so what", where as over in the US it is a national outcry.. you American's do know that most of you sucked on your moms tits once right?
No I agree our political freedom is not as inferior as the US.. here in Europe our political freedom is far far far superior than that of the US. For one, it is damn easy to set up a political party, and actually get elected to the national assembly. We have multi-party systems, not duo-party systems run by corporations. We have for the most part very clean and fair elections and guess what.. we can actually count here.
So you are saying that because we have more personal freedoms that means we dont care about political freedoms that as I stated are superior to yours? Well lets test this theory of yours... who has the higher turn-out of voters... Europeans or the US when it comes to national elections? When was the last time 70+% of possible US voters turned out for a national election?
Like I said, more hedonistic liberties is not a boon to democracy and is often allowed by anti-democratic governments to keep the masses docile. Have you read 1984 or Brave New World?
More parties does not mean more political freedom. India has ****loads of political parties. They are definitely not freer than most developed countries with much fewer parties. I would hardly argue the system in the U.S. is the most democratic, but it is more democratic than the system in place in pretty much every country of Europe. Parliamentary democracy is inherently less democratic.
Turnout means very little in terms of a person's rights. In the U.S. our voter turnout was always around 90% in the 19th Century. We had many more restrictions on our liberties back then as opposed to today.
You are freer to engage in hedonistic activities, but that is not the same as political freedom. In fact encouraging and allowing hedonism is a great way to get people apathetic about political freedom. People simply do not have the liberties people in the U.S. have.
Of course, the second amendment seems to be the typical response of a euro. Those barbaric Yanks and their guns. Civilized euros know the people have no right to any means of self-defense, especially from their government that does not think people have a right to speak their mind on any issue.
Yea and those two books have far more in common with modern day US than Europe lol.
First off India, is the biggest democracy on the planet.
And they get higher turn out than the US for the most part.
Secondly, what do you base your claim that the US is more "democratic" than European countries? Considering that it is near impossible to get a nation wide political party up and running because of the 2 big parties, then one has to question how democratic that is.
Considering the gerrymandering there is in defining your political districts based on race and party colour is highly undemocratic.
Considering that you have had elections decided by courts and not the electorate makes your system highly undemocratic.
Considering you that you get voter participation at so low numbers, that makes it a highly undemocratic society to say the least.
in the 19th century, it was only white men of a certain age that could vote.. that something to be proud off? And it was YOU that claimed because we have more personal freedoms we dont care about our POLITICAL freedoms.. no mention of person's right.. so stop changing the subject..
So you claim that our "hedonistic" freedoms are bad for political discourse, seems to be .. totally wrong. In fact I could much easier claim the total opposite.
What liberties do you have in the US that you believe we don't enjoy here in Europe?
You do know that Europe isn't a country, don't you?
People vote freely for a party/person = Democracy.. and that is regardless if a country is a parliamentary democracy, republic or whatever.They may be the biggest, but that does not mean they are more democratic.
Like I said, that is quite irrelevant to the level of democracy in a country.
You question it because you, like most people in the West, have been brainwashed with the absurd notion that more parties is better for democracy. Like I said, if you look at India you will see they have way more political parties running and winning seats but their system is undemocratic and restrictive of political freedoms in countless ways. They are not the only country in that position either. Look at many third world parliamentary democracies and you will find they typically have a large number of parties running and winning seats. None of that translates into more democracy or more political freedom.
In every political system those in power try to find ways to preserve or consolidate power. That system of gerrymandering occurs because the tools for manipulation of elections and consolidation of power that exist in Europe do not exist here in the U.S.
Many countries in Europe allow their courts a lot more influence over elections.
Certain parties are banned outright based on their politics or otherwise restricted by the courts. It's endorsed by the concept of militant democracy, which is itself an oxymoron.
Now it is "everything" instead of nothing? You changing your stance dude.Like I said, turnout isn't everything in a democracy.
I am not talking about just the first half of the 19th Century but even after non-whites could vote.
Nowhere did I say the high turnout was something to be proud of either. I was noting that it did not mean anything relevant to the level of democracy in the United States. By the same token high turnout in India does not mean it is more democratic than the U.S.
I did not say that they are bad for political discourse, but that such freedom is often encouraged by the State as a way of keeping the masses docile and subservient. Getting you to love your slavery and eagerly vote again and again to preserve and increase your enslavement is a far more effective method of building a fascist society than the use of violence.
A few big, sweeping statements there. Have you any evidence to back them up? Or even a few examples that have caused you to come to these conclusions? What is your direct experience of European political cultures btw?Free speech and by that I mean all forms of speech, not just the kind of speech people like. Freedom of religion in most of Europe is not respected. Freedom of assembly in areas like those areas of restriction against free speech. Political representation is far more limited and regulated than in the U.S. Now, you may point to a few states where any one of these things is not the case, but there is a disturbing consistency in Europe as it regards these subjects.
There was a time when the answer to the question is an obvious "duh, silly" but now it really isn't that simple. I suppose one could still say it isn't since parts of the continent are independent, but a substantial portion of European "countries" are no longer sovereign states, except in the way states here are sovereign.
...maybe in other countries in Europe but, I thought Britain doesn't have a written constitution, and even have a state church. So....no...i don't get that impression.At least in athiestic democracies your beliefs and political views are protected under the law regardless of your background. Something religious regimes have been unable to implement.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?