[UnixMac]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Makes me wonder how much paperwork and red tape is involved with owning a firearm there.

Surely your aware that firearms are anathema to the average European. Those people have been banning firearms ownership since the Godless Nazis took control of Europe in the late 30's.. An Armed public makes it hard for the Government to be tyrannical against the people. They know this, and this is why their culture forbids private ownership of self defense weapons. The Swiss being the only acceptation, and look at them in WWII... Hitler dared not enter that country with his mighty Army.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by UnixMac:
Surely your aware that firearms are anathema to the average European. Those people have been banning firearms ownership since the Godless Nazis took control of Europe in the late 30's.. An Armed public makes it hard for the Government to be tyrannical against the people. They know this, and this is why their culture forbids private ownership of self defense weapons. The Swiss being the only acceptation, and look at them in WWII... Hitler dared not enter that country with his mighty Army.

Oooookay.

Now back on topic: Europe and God. By Buttiglione.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that it is a blatant effort to unseparate the state from the church - just because.

As if the government didn't like the notion of having no control over religion...so they keep a little bit of control, just in case.

It would be if the tax had any political significance.

It doesn't.

(though I will look into the history of how this situation came about, I promise)

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Having to register with the state in order to attend church is kinda strange. Makes me wonder how much paperwork and red tape is involved with owning a firearm there.

Lots.

But that is a different thread.

[Tarambana]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Countries with established religions

That's much of Europe. The US states disestablished just after the Revolution.

I'm not so sure about the rest, but that webpage is at least wrong when it states that in Spain there is a State Religion (so called State church or stablished church). There hasn't been such thing for a good part of our history, much less since the 1978 Constitution.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Tarambana:
I'm not so sure about the rest, but that webpage is at least wrong when it states that in Spain there is a State Religion (so called State church or stablished church). There hasn't been such thing for a good part of our history, much less since the 1978 Constitution.

Exactamente

[Tarambana]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Exactamente

Yep. It makes me sad to see otherwise intelligent people talking about things they know little or nothing about.

I guess that's one of those unexpected aoutcomes of the internet.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Tarambana:
Yep. It makes me sad to see otherwise intellligent people talking about things they know little or nothing about.

I guess that's one of those unexpected aoutcomes of the internet.

Bienvenido a Polital Lounge

Es siempre lo mismo. No preocuparte.

[Tarambana]

Thanks for the advice.

[Spliffdaddy]

http://countrystudies.us/spain/44.htm


In 1976, however, King Juan Carlos de Borbon unilaterally renounced the right to name the bishops; later that same year Madrid and the Vatican signed a new accord that restored to the church its right to name bishops, and the church agreed to a revised Concordat that entailed a gradual financial separation of church and state. Church property not used for religious purposes was henceforth to be subject to taxation, and gradually, over a period of years, the church's reliance on state subsidies was to be reduced. The timetable for this reduction was not adhered to, however, and the church continued to receive the public subsidy through 1987 (US$110 million in that year alone). Indeed, by the end of 1987 issues such as financing and education had not been definitively resolved, and the revised Concordat still had not been agreed to in final form, even though the 1953 Concordat had expired in 1980.

It took the new 1978 Constitution to confirm the right of Spaniards to religious freedom and to begin the process of disestablishing Catholicism as the state religion. The drafters of the Constitution tried to deal with the intense controversy surrounding state support of the church, but they were not entirely successful. The initial draft of the Constitution did not even mention the church, which was included almost as an afterthought and only after intense pressure from the church's leadership. Article 16 disestablishes Roman Catholicism as the official religion and provides that religious liberty for non-Catholics is a state-protected legal right, thereby replacing the policy of limited toleration of non-Catholic religious practices. The article further states, however, that "The public authorities shall take the religious beliefs of Spanish society into account and shall maintain the consequent relations of cooperation with the Catholic Church and the other confessions." In addition, Article 27 also aroused controversy by appearing to pledge continuing government subsidies for private, church-affiliated schools. These schools were sharply criticized by Spanish Socialists for having created and perpetuated a class-based, separate, and unequal school system. The Constitution, however, includes no affirmation that the majority of Spaniards are Catholics or that the state should take into account the teachings of Catholicism.

Government financial aid to the church was a difficult and contentious issue. The church argued that, in return for the subsidy, the state had received the social, health, and educational services of tens of thousands of priests and nuns who fulfilled vital functions that the state itself could not have performed. Nevertheless, the revised Concordat was supposed to replace direct state aid to the church with a scheme that would allow taxpayers to designate a certain portion of their taxes to be diverted directly to the church. Through 1985, taxpayers were allowed to deduct up to 10 percent from their taxable income for donations to the Catholic Church. Partly because of the protests against this arrangement from representatives of Spain's other religious groups, the tax laws were changed in 1987 so that taxpayers could choose between giving 0.52 percent of their income tax to the church and allocating it to the government's welfare and culture budgets. For three years, the government would continue to give the church a gradually reduced subsidy, but after that the church would have to subsist on its own resources. The government would continue, however, its program of subsidizing Catholic schools, which in 1987 cost the Spanish taxpayers about US$300 million, exclusive of the salaries of teachers, which were paid directly by the Ministry of Education and Science.

[Spliffdaddy]

94% of the Spanish population is Catholic. It's a small wonder that the government made an effort at distancing itself from religion - and a miracle that it had some success.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
94% of the Spanish population is Catholic. It's a small wonder that the government made an effort at distancing itself from religion - and a miracle that it had some success.

Yet over 50% believe that abortions are OK, support gay marriage, contraception etc. Only a very small number of Spaniards go to church.

Spain and Italy are not very religious countries. Many people consider themselves culturally 'Catholic', but religiously athiest.

[UnixMac]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Yet over 50% believe that abortions are OK, support gay marriage, contraception etc. Only a very small number of Spaniards go to church.

Spain and Italy are not very religious countries. Many people consider themselves culturally 'Catholic', but religiously athiest.

now that's the first bit of honest truth I've heard in this thread in a few hours.

Catholic? yeah right.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Yet over 50% believe that abortions are OK, support gay marriage, contraception etc. Only a very small number of Spaniards go to church.

Spain and Italy are not very religious countries. Many people consider themselves culturally 'Catholic', but religiously athiest.

That's quite an assumption. In Spain, 53% of Catholics "more or less agree" that the decision on abortion is the woman�s to make, with her doctor only providing information about consequences.

The institutional church teaches that abortion is morally wrong in all circumstances. This is not, as most Catholics think, based on the belief that the fetus is a person. The church has no firm doctrine on when the fetus becomes a person. Thus, this teaching has never been proclaimed as infallible by the pope.

The church is also more than the pope and bishops. It includes all the people of God. Clergy, theologians and laity work together to develop church teachings. Many theologians and lay people today believe that abortion can sometimes be a moral decision and that conscience is the final arbiter of any abortion decision.

[Tarambana]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
http://countrystudies.us/spain/44.htm



[snip]

It took the new 1978 Constitution to confirm the right of Spaniards to religious freedom and to begin the process of disestablishing Catholicism as the state religion. The drafters of the Constitution tried to deal with the intense controversy surrounding state support of the church, but they were not entirely successful. The initial draft of the Constitution did not even mention the church, which was included almost as an afterthought and only after intense pressure from the church's leadership. Article 16 disestablishes Roman Catholicism as the official religion and provides that religious liberty for non-Catholics is a state-protected legal right, thereby replacing the policy of limited toleration of non-Catholic religious practices. The article further states, however, that "The public authorities shall take the religious beliefs of Spanish society into account and shall maintain the consequent relations of cooperation with the Catholic Church and the other confessions." In addition, Article 27 also aroused controversy by appearing to pledge continuing government subsidies for private, church-affiliated schools. These schools were sharply criticized by Spanish Socialists for having created and perpetuated a class-based, separate, and unequal school system. The Constitution, however, includes no affirmation that the majority of Spaniards are Catholics or that the state should take into account the teachings of Catholicism.

[snip]

Though a bit outdated, that's quite nice. I'd only like to add, that the final clause in paragraph 3 of article 16 of our Constitution does not have anything to do with religious freedom nor was added due to pressures fo the Church.

In fact the crux of the matter comes from a previous situation, that the new democratic government had to face. While Franco's dictatorship lasted, Spain signed and ratified many international treaties and bilateral agreements with the Vatican State. It was a very complex thing regarding those dilplomatic and international terms, to set away from the preceding relations with the Vatican. And the government had already slashed many of the privileges that had been given to them. There was no way -- I must insist, in political terms; nothing to do with religion -- we could fully and totally cut those relations.

What I am trying to make clear is that those provisions in our Constitution spawn from political difficulties -- and political only -- that were faced then, which had little to no relation with the religious question. As Mr. Hernandez-Gil (the President of the Congress back when the Constitution was voted) put it, our Constitution was a fruit of agreement, contemption and forswearing. Our Constitution, and even our own democracy wouldn't ever had rooted as they have, had we deemed essential to get rid of any mention of religion.



Cheers.

[UnixMac]

Originally posted by voodoo:
That's quite an assumption.

The institutional church teaches that abortion is morally wrong in all circumstances. This is not, as most Catholics think, based on the belief that the fetus is a person. The church has no firm doctrine on when the fetus becomes a person. Thus, this teaching has never been proclaimed as infallible by the pope.

The church is also more than the pope and bishops. It includes all the people of God. Clergy, theologians and laity work together to develop church teachings. Many theologians and lay people today believe that abortion can sometimes be a moral decision and that conscience is the final arbiter of any abortion decision.

What kind of Catholic church do you belong to?

Catechism of the Catholic Church 2270-2275 is explicit about abortion, there is no ambiguity, sorry.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by UnixMac:
What kind of Catholic church do you belong to?

Catechism of the Catholic Church 2270-2275 is explicit about abortion, there is no ambiguity, sorry.

No kind. I'm not Catholic.

[UnixMac]

Originally posted by voodoo:
No kind. I'm not Catholic.

So what gives you any authority to state what the Church position on abortion is? I'm a member of the Knights of Columbus (3rd degree) and don't take that kind of liberty. Other than what's in the aforementioned document that is.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by voodoo:
That's quite an assumption. In Spain, 53% of Catholics "more or less agree" that the decision on abortion is the woman�s to make, with her doctor only providing information about consequences.

The institutional church teaches that abortion is morally wrong in all circumstances. This is not, as most Catholics think, based on the belief that the fetus is a person. The church has no firm doctrine on when the fetus becomes a person. Thus, this teaching has never been proclaimed as infallible by the pope.

The church is also more than the pope and bishops. It includes all the people of God. Clergy, theologians and laity work together to develop church teachings. Many theologians and lay people today believe that abortion can sometimes be a moral decision and that conscience is the final arbiter of any abortion decision.

Put it this way: Hardly any spaniards go to church.

You are correct in stating that the Catholic church's teaching is not based on that fact that the fetus is considered a person (As during the time of the middle ages, abortion was still considered a grave sin, but most people thought that you are only a person when you are born). You are also correct in saying that the church has not clearly defined when a fetus is human. The Church is under the belief that science is not her domain, therefore she must rely on the consuses of the scientific community.The Church's belief that abortion is a sin has been reinforced by common scientific consensus that the fetus is genetically, and for all intents and purposes human. When the fetus becomes human is not clear, but the Church has clearly defined its teachings that abortion at any stage of fetal development is morally wrong.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by UnixMac:
So what gives you any authority to state what the Church position on abortion is? I'm a member of the Knights of Columbus (3rd degree) and don't take that kind of liberty. Other than what's in the aforementioned document that is.

He has as much right as any Catholic; the Church's teachings are there for anyone Catholic or non Catholic to read up. Mind you, he has demonstrated superior knowledge in the nuances of Catholic teaching.

[Spheric Harlot]

This is off-topic, so I'll keep it brief:

Originally posted by UnixMac:
Surely your aware that firearms are anathema to the average European. Those people have been banning firearms ownership since the Godless Nazis took control of Europe in the late 30's.. An Armed public makes it hard for the Government to be tyrannical against the people. They know this, and this is why their culture forbids private ownership of self defense weapons. The Swiss being the only acceptation, and look at them in WWII... Hitler dared not enter that country with his mighty Army.

However, he was perfectly content to enter that country with huge reserves of stolen gold, in anonymous bank accounts. That, Swiss "neutrality", and geography, *might* have had something to do the situation then - just a hint.

Also, as you so rightly note, we do not own guns because our antiquated, backwards, and narrow mindset MUCH prefers dictatorships to the free and open Church dogma ruling other, non-European powerful Western democracies.

Yes.

No point in trying to tell you otherwise, I gather.

-s*

[undotwa]

Originally posted by UnixMac:
What kind of Catholic church do you belong to?

Catechism of the Catholic Church 2270-2275 is explicit about abortion, there is no ambiguity, sorry.

Read those passages carefully. The catholic church maintains that abortion is wrong in all circumstances, but it does not clearly state when human life begins.

2270 'Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception'.

Conception here does not necessarily refer to when the ova and sperm unite, but simply when life begins (the literal meaning of the term). When human life begins, which is what the Catechism is talking about, the rights of life must be protected. The Church utilizes the best scientific knowledge at the time, so the Church maintains that the fertilization of the egg is conception but only to the best of its knowledge of the current scientific consensus.

Hear me out, I do believe that abortion is gravely wrong and even say it is a form of murder. While the Church believes abortion is wrong regardless, the subtleties of the issue are still being debated as whether a zygote is human life or not hasn't be clearly defined by the Church..

[UnixMac]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Read those passages carefully. The catholic church maintains that abortion is wrong in all circumstances, but it does not clearly state when human life begins.

2270 'Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception'.

Conception here does not necessarily refer to when the ova and sperm unite, but simply when life begins (the literal meaning of the term). .

Rome put out several letters to Bishops on this subject and they're readily available for you to read at www.ewtn.com if you don't believe me, but conception as defined by Rome is egg fertilized. Thus their objection to stem cell research and artificial insemination.

So I don't know what kind of liberal theologian you are reading, but the College of Cardinals has already addressed this issue very clearly and unambiguously. Sorry if it doesn't agree with your views, but religion is not a democracy.

And No, not everyone has a right to speak about Church teaching with authority.... thus the "Teaching Authority" of the church... only it has that right.

We can argue this to the end of time... it's a matter of accepting the authority of the Church, or accepting what you "feel" is the moral answer.

[UnixMac]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
This is off-topic, so I'll keep it brief:
However, he was perfectly content to enter that country with huge reserves of stolen gold, in anonymous bank accounts. That, Swiss "neutrality", and geography, *might* have had something to do the situation then - just a hint.

Also, as you so rightly note, we do not own guns because our antiquated, backwards, and narrow mindset MUCH prefers dictatorships to the free and open Church dogma ruling other, non-European powerful Western democracies.

Yes.

No point in trying to tell you otherwise, I gather.

-s*

My point had nothing to do with Hitler per se, but rather the fact that the Swiss are well armed as a people, and this was a MAJOR deterrence to the Nazis from entering militarily that country.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by UnixMac:
My point had nothing to do with Hitler per se, but rather the fact that the Swiss are well armed as a people, and this was a MAJOR deterrence to the Nazis from entering militarily that country.

That's possible, though debatable, as mentioned above.

However, this was a hell of a moronic way to make what you claim was your point:

Originally posted by UnixMac:
An Armed public makes it hard for the Government to be tyrannical against the people. They know this, and this is why their culture forbids private ownership of self defense weapons.

But as far as that's concerned:

You trolled, I smacked, end of story.

[UnixMac]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
That's possible, though debatable, as mentioned above.

However, this was a hell of a moronic way to make what you claim was your point:But as far as that's concerned:

You trolled, I smacked, end of story.

Debatable is fine, but I accept the words of Fieldmarshall Wilhelm von Leeb who btw was a great Catholic and refused to commit many of the crimes being asked of him by the Nazis on the subject.

As for the gun comment, no trolling intended. it is my studies of a long and well documented European history that leads me to believe it to be true. In Europe, government trumps the individual (socialism, communism are rampant), in the US it's the other way around. Let's see what happens with the EU... time will only tell.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by UnixMac:
Rome put out several letters to Bishops on this subject and they're readily available for you to read at www.ewtn.com if you don't believe me, but conception as defined by Rome is egg fertilized. Thus their objection to stem cell research and artificial insemination.

So I don't know what kind of liberal theologian you are reading, but the College of Cardinals has already addressed this issue very clearly and unambiguously. Sorry if it doesn't agree with your views, but religion is not a democracy.

And No, not everyone has a right to speak about Church teaching with authority.... thus the "Teaching Authority" of the church... only it has that right.

We can argue this to the end of time... it's a matter of accepting the authority of the Church, or accepting what you "feel" is the moral answer.

Which one of those letters are infallible? None. On matters of when conception occurs, the Church uses its best judgement depending upon what the general belief is. Science is not the Church's domain, and the Church relies on the judgements of scientists.

I'm definately not a liberal Catholic BTW.

[villalobos]

Originally posted by UnixMac:
Surely your aware that firearms are anathema to the average European. Those people have been banning firearms ownership since the Godless Nazis took control of Europe in the late 30's.. An Armed public makes it hard for the Government to be tyrannical against the people. They know this, and this is why their culture forbids private ownership of self defense weapons. The Swiss being the only acceptation, and look at them in WWII... Hitler dared not enter that country with his mighty Army.

You people amuse me.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by UnixMac:
Debatable is fine, but I accept the words of Fieldmarshall Wilhelm von Leeb who btw was a great Catholic and refused to commit many of the crimes being asked of him by the Nazis on the subject.

As for the gun comment, no trolling intended. it is my studies of a long and well documented European history that leads me to believe it to be true. In Europe, government trumps the individual (socialism, communism are rampant), in the US it's the other way around. Let's see what happens with the EU... time will only tell.

I suggest you augment your studies with an actual visit of Europe, the land of "socialism and communism" ( ), and then start studying the long and well-documented history of the US governments recent trumping of individual rights and compare this to privacy rights in Europe. You may actually learn something.

Which words of von Leeb do you refer to, btw?

[badidea]

I already heard of people in the US who believe that there is still WWII in Germany and Hitler alive....but I wasn't aware that some seem to think that former West Germany is now a part of the GDR (or DDR or East Germany)
OR WHY DO YOU ALWAYS CLAIM THE EXISTENCE OF A SOCIALIST GERMANY???
(or do you mean France, Italy, Spain, England, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, whatever??)

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Lame, old, untrue, and what exactly was your point again?

To the Germans, some things the Americans do are crazy (TETENAL's post).
To the Americans, some things the Germans do are crazy (my reply).

When did it become international policy to have every country conform to the same principles? If the Americans want to have religion intertwined with politics, what's it got to do with anyone but the Americans? If the Germans want to have Big Dave over to sing a few songs while they pull a wall down, what's it got to do with anyone but the Germans and Big Dave?

Europe's moving more towards a Godless society by the minute (let's not deny it - why else are people chastised for holding views like Buttiglione's all the time?). America's moving towards a Godful (is that a word?) society. So what?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Europe's moving more towards a Godless society by the minute (let's not deny it - why else are people chastised for holding views like Buttiglione's all the time?). America's moving towards a Godful (is that a word?) society. So what?

You are confusing "free" with "godless".

A society free from oppression and institutionalized bigotry is not necessarily "godless". I'm surprised you think Buttiglione was chastised for his views because they're representative of Catholicism, rather than that they are irreconcilably NOT representative of government policy.

-s*

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
You are confusing "free" with "godless".

A society free from oppression and institutionalized bigotry is not necessarily "godless". I'm surprised you think Buttiglione was chastised for his views because they're representative of Catholicism, rather than that they are irreconcilably NOT representative of government policy.

Yep. Government policy excludes the representation of viewpoints alternative to the world view it holds: "You must think like we think or you can't be in government". That's not freedom in my book.

Also, I'm pretty sure that the denial of Buttiglione's seat on the government was a breach of his EU human rights, namely:

1) Freedom of expression.
2) Freedom of conscience.
3) Freedom to hold office.

Take those three combined and the EU acted illegally in denying him his position. Corrupt? Yep. Bigoted? Yep. Free? No.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Yep. Government policy excludes the representation of viewpoints alternative to the world view it holds: "You must think like we think or you can't be in government". That's not freedom in my book.

Also, I'm pretty sure that the denial of Buttiglione's seat on the government was a breach of his EU human rights, namely:

1) Freedom of expression.
2) Freedom of conscience.
3) Freedom to hold office.

Take those three combined and the EU acted illegally in denying him his position. Corrupt? Yep. Bigoted? Yep. Free? No.

Not saying you're wrong about the EU Commission but politics is all about being popular. Not even Bush can waltz around saying things as a 'private person' and then say he won't act on them because he's president and has responsibilities.

If Buttiglione had kept his tramp shut he'd already have the darn job. It's that simple.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
"You must think like we think or you can't be in government". That's not freedom in my book.

That's democracy. There where the government is "free" to think what the majority of the people not think, that's totalitarianism.

I'm pretty sure that the denial of Buttiglione's seat on the government was a breach of his EU human rights.

A seat in the government is a human right? That's news to me.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
"You must think like we think or you can't be in government". That's not freedom in my book.

Isn't that how US Presidents pick their cabinet positions?

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Not saying you're wrong about the EU Commission but politics is all about being popular. Not even Bush can waltz around saying things as a 'private person' and then say he won't act on them because he's president and has responsibilities.

True. However... Nobody asked the voters. There's a lot of people around here saying "I wish I could vote for that Buttiglione bloke. The EU needs a spectrum of people with differing viewpoints". Seriously.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Nobody asked the voters.

How many Americans voted for Gonzales?

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
How many Americans voted for Gonzales?

How many Americans voted for the bloke who employed Gonzales?
How many Europeans voted for the bloke who didn't employ Buttiglione?

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
How many Europeans voted for the bloke who didn't employ Buttiglione?

The "bloke" that didn't employ Buttiglione was the European parliament. 160 million Europeans voted for it.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
The "bloke" that didn't employ Buttiglione was the European parliament. 160 million Europeans voted for it.

We did? Funny that. I remember voting for an MEP but nothing else. Certainly no parliament of any description. Who decided who the top blokes in this parliament are? Not the voters. Heck, I didn't even get a vote on whether or not I wanted my country to be a member of the EU.

...eagerly awaiting the constitutional referendum so I can vote "no" along with the vast majority of my country men - since there was actually nothing wrong with the setup before Maastricht came along.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
We did? Funny that. I remember voting for an MEP but nothing else. Certainly no parliament of any description. Who decided who the top blokes in this parliament are? Not the voters.

Well, in that case, I would run and complain to whoever disenfranchised you.

We had a vote on the EU parliament here. And IIRC, the parliament determines the commissioners.

(what's an "mep", btw?)

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Well, in that case, I would run and complain to whoever disenfranchised you.

We had a vote on the EU parliament here. And IIRC, the parliament determines the commissioners.

(what's an "mep", btw?)

Isn't 'MEP' an indication of anger or consternation, perhaps used here as an epithet?

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/78/78cconeheads.phtml

Regional interpretations of the sound/spelling vary from the original.

[Powerbook]

Originally posted by UnixMac:
Surely your aware that firearms are anathema to the average European. Those people have been banning firearms ownership since the Godless Nazis took control of Europe in the late 30's.. An Armed public makes it hard for the Government to be tyrannical against the people. They know this, and this is why their culture forbids private ownership of self defense weapons. The Swiss being the only acceptation, and look at them in WWII... Hitler dared not enter that country with his mighty Army.

AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! Are you on medication??? I've never read such ********. Hitler didn't invade Switzerland because he didn't need to. He also didn't invade Sweden or Spain. Those countries had their own role as "partners". Got it? For your information, plans were already made in the german Generalstab for a possible invasion in Switzerland and believe me, the cultural and militaric structure in Switzerland would have been even more in favour of it. Stop talking this ridiculous crap, you have no clue about our countries.

PB.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
We did? Funny that. I remember voting for an MEP but nothing else. Certainly no parliament of any description. Who decided who the top blokes in this parliament are? Not the voters. Heck, I didn't even get a vote on whether or not I wanted my country to be a member of the EU.

...eagerly awaiting the constitutional referendum so I can vote "no" along with the vast majority of my country men - since there was actually nothing wrong with the setup before Maastricht came along.

good points.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
good points.

Not really.

The first one isn't actually a point at all, since the parliament IS elected - at least, Germans get to vote, AFAIK.

Sherman must have missed it.

The parliament, in turn, selects the commissioners.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
good points.

Yep, Sherwin always makes good points.

If I lived in the UK I'd agree with him completely. I can appreciate where they're coming from. But that is another story.

His POV doesn't apply in ALL EU countries. Like Germany.

[UnixMac]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Which one of those letters are infallible? None. On matters of when conception occurs, the Church uses its best judgement depending upon what the general belief is. Science is not the Church's domain, and the Church relies on the judgements of scientists.

I'm definately not a liberal Catholic BTW.

That is all and well, but clearly you deny the "teaching authority" of the church to proclaim to be a conservative student of.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by UnixMac:
That is all and well, but clearly you deny the "teaching authority" of the church to proclaim to be a conservative student of.

I wish to make this clear: I do believe abortion is murder, and I do respect the magisterium of the Church.

What you must understand, is that the Church considers science to be outside of its domain. Determining when conception occurs is a matter for scientists to confirm. To the best of the Church's knowledge, conception occurs when the sperm and the egg unite. So to the best of the Church's knowledge, you are human from that precise moment and so to the best of the Church's knowledge accordingly you have all the rights associated with being human, primarily the right to life, which are inalienable as they are granted to us from God, not from any secular authority.

The epistles of the Church are made in light of this scientific
consensus of that we are from the moment of the union of sperm and egg, a separate being from the mother, with separate DNA etc., like a parasite actually . The Church therefore should (and has actually) accept these revelations of 20th century science and incorporate it into its already existing teachings that abortion is wrong.

The church considers that I have human rights because to the best of her knowledge I am human (hopefully no one denies that...!). Likewise, the church considers the embryo has human rights because to the best of her knowledge, the zygote is human.

[UnixMac]

Originally posted by Powerbook:
AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! Are you on medication??? I've never read such ********. Hitler didn't invade Switzerland because he didn't need to. He also didn't invade Sweden or Spain. Those countries had their own role as "partners". Got it? For your information, plans were already made in the german Generalstab for a possible invasion in Switzerland and believe me, the cultural and militaric structure in Switzerland would have been even more in favour of it. Stop talking this ridiculous crap, you have no clue about our countries.

PB.

Sir, calm down and read what I'm about to say carefully...

Actually, I probably know more about your countries military history than most of your citizens(which is a whole other story). Quite frankly, the disgraceful treatment of your countries military veterans (post war) by it's citizens and the politically correct atmosphere around the subject has made it quite hard to have an honest discussion on the subject with in Germany's borders, so you are probably quite misinformed about your own countries history. Sweden and Spain were not of any strategic use to the 3rd Rich at that time, and they were actually useful buffers to an allied invasion. Your comments make it sound like those countries were friendly to Hitler (Which is the politically correct teaching), when they were true neutrals.

On the other hand Switzerland was of strategic use in the war in the East, but occupation was shelved due to the advice of CinC Europe at that time v. Rundstedt who didn't think the effort and cost to lives justified the strategic advantage. Additionally, by this time in the war, he and many other senior officers were quite fed-up with Hitler and the war and would have been just as happy to surrender under terms favorable to the German people. Tannenbaum was the name of the operation and here is some info on it (that will show that I am correct in stating the ownership of weapons was a major factor in canceling the operation):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tannenbaum

There were many plans (great example is. Seal Lion) that were assigned to the various Armee Groupes by OKW and that were no more than exercises (either in deception, or training). The fact is that the Swiss were both a demographical and geographical problem for the Wehrmact and as such any discussion of occupation never got past OKH but for tactical planning exercises.

I have studied WWII, it's causes, battles, Hitler(who was a stupendous failure as a strategist), Stalin and other related matters very thoroughly and while I don't like to give out my name on a public message board, I'll just close this comment by saying that I've been cited by many authors who have written on WWII for the US Army War College.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by UnixMac:
Sir, calm down and read what I'm about to say carefully...

Actually, I probably know more about your countries military history than most of your citizens(which is a whole other story). Quite frankly, the disgraceful treatment of your countries military veterans (post war) by it's citizens and the politically correct atmosphere around the subject has made it quite hard to have an honest discussion on the subject with in Germany's borders, so you are probably quite misinformed about your own countries history. Sweden and Spain were not of any strategic use to the 3rd Rich at that time, and they were actually useful buffers to an allied invasion. Your comments make it sound like those countries were friendly to Hitler (Which is the politically correct teaching), when they were true neutrals.

On the other hand Switzerland was of strategic use in the war in the East, but occupation was shelved due to the advice of CinC Europe at that time v. Rundstedt who didn't think the effort and cost to lives justified the strategic advantage. Additionally, by this time in the war, he and many other senior officers were quite fed-up with Hitler and the war and would have been just as happy to surrender under terms favorable to the German people. Tannenbaum was the name of the operation and here is some info on it (that will show that I am correct in stating the ownership of weapons was a major factor in canceling the operation):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tannenbaum

There were many plans (great example is. Seal Lion) that were assigned to the various Armee Groupes by OKW and that were no more than exercises (either in deception, or training). The fact is that the Swiss were both a demographical and geographical problem for the Wehrmact and as such any discussion of occupation never got past OKH but for tactical planning exercises.

I have studied WWII, it's causes, battles, Hitler(who was a stupendous failure as a strategist), Stalin and other related matters very thoroughly and while I don't like to give out my name on a public message board, I'll just close this comment by saying that I've been cited by many authors who have written on WWII for the US Army War College.

Arrogance? Pride?