Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Euros Finally Waking Up?
It's the fault of the Church. Of the Catholic Church but also of the other confessions which followed the mainstream.

On the one hand, the moral rules about sex, stricto sensu, are almost impossible to follow. On top of that Papal decrees went against medical recommandations in the case of AIDS, and in general were completely disconnected from reality.

On the other hand, the Church was guilty of covering pedophilia cases. On the moral ground they were discredited completely. It's their fault.

The protestant, orthodox (Slavian and Greek) and the Jews also failed to promote realistic moral values while failing to apply basic ones themselves, thought it's less documented and less spectacular.

What happens today is that Islam is still viewed as preserving the moral values and at the same time satisfy those in quest of intensive mysticism.

The only reason why I educated my daughter into the Catholic Church was that if one day she needs a mystical experience she knows that she can find it there and doesn't need to look into Islam. (Fortunately she's not interested into religion, but you never know what can happen in the future)
Poeple without christian education at all, doesn't know that it's possible to practice fanaticaly a christian religion and turn to Islam.

Islam also has a moral code radically different, and designed to protect the moral authority of the imams despite despictable behaviors. He can force into marriage an 11 years old girl, rape her, and it's still perfectly hallal. If the girl complains, she is the sinner.
It's very difficult to fry an imam on moral ground. Homosexual pedophilia is not even mentioned in the possible type of immoral behavior.

While the christian faith representatives became stupid, the islamic leader exploited radicalism.
(10-21-2018, 04:35 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: On the other hand, the Church was guilty of covering pedophilia cases. On the moral ground they were discredited completely. It's their fault.

That just shows you how deep the moral decay has been rotting in Europe.  And the real fault is in the citizenry and its leaders, including the very apparatus that represents those values.  

AGAIN, it is the lack of a moral base, of which Christianity is the foundation, that has been allowed to erode.  You are making my point here.
Schist Happens
Yes, I agree.
We are left with the universal moral naturally common to humans.
Laurentiu Rebega, MEP from Romania, says that reform, i.e. change, is not an "If", but a "When"

Quote:The Reform of the European Union: Not If, but When!

Laurențiu Rebega is a Romanian politician and since 2014, a member of the European Parliament (MEP)

In every dynamic system, “change” (you can read it as real “reform”) has a “window of opportunity”.

Let’s imagine a car that speeds down a straight lane. At some point, the lane curves. There is not a fixed, pre-determined moment when the driver has to start turning. He or she can start turning slowly sooner or, can turn suddenly very fast. However, the longer they postpone, the greater the risk. There is a moment after which the turn can no longer be made and an accident is unavoidable.

For almost five years now, since I became a Member of the European Parliament, I have been preoccupied by the deep failures of the European Union.

I will outline the worst ones here.

First, the centralizing bureaucracy which uses an enormous amount of resources and, on the other hand, dramatically delays taking simpler measures.

Second, institutional incapacity: the European institutions are not calibrated to face realities on the ground.

Third, horizontal fragmentation between Member States tends to establish a de facto inequality in which large and/or developed states take discriminatory decisions against the small ones.

Fourth, vertical discrimination: the best prepared work force and development hubs tend to concentrate in already rich countries.

Fifth of all, political sclerosis: the mainstream leaders and parties no longer stand for the citizens’ real problems and are inclined to replace political decisions by managerial decisions.

There is little democracy, so to speak.

I want to be clear: I do not want the abolition of the European Union, altogether.

For decades, the EU has brought prosperity and stability to Western Europe. For ten years, my own country, Romania, has enjoyed important advantages as a member of the EU.

In short, the functioning of the EU has produced beneficial consequences that can no longer be removed from the European citizens’ way of life.

A disappearance of the Union would dramatically affect the income of most Europeans.

Practically, Europeans would become new migrants of an overturned world.

There is an urgent need for reform, foremost in relation to the malfunctions emphasized above.

National states are the safety net of this reform.

They can alone ensure reconciliation with the needs of their citizens and, at the same time, they can revive the European project with the vision and the enthusiasm that characterized the era of the founding fathers in 1957.

Sovereignty and subsidiarity are the principles we need to return to in order to reform the EU.

However, there is one more unanswered question: what is the interest of the United States in all this?

During the Cold War, the US saw Europe as a battlefield and supported the Western side.

Subsequently, the enlargement of the Union has created opportunities for America as well.

Henry Kissinger once said there was no interlocutor if he wanted to talk to “Europe”.

In fact, the Union is a result of this situation. If America wants to be the leader of a better, freer world, it must act in favor of a better European partnership

The EU needs to reform and urgently. The time is now.

If it does not, it will disappear and will trigger a range of negative consequences.

Is the world prepared to manage 500 million Europeans whose prosperity would be shattered? New hostilities and conflicts?

Economic cooperation and prosperity in a peaceful Europe — depend on America.
Schist Happens
He is perfectly right: The EU needs reforms. Period. It doesn't have to disapear or to be rebuild from zero.

He said something very acurate: The EU is more a management body than a governing one listening to their citizens.
The EU manages agricultural subsidies (EU to farmers), infrastructural subsidies (EU to states), the euro currency (via the ECB), industrial products regulation (conformity label), sovereign debt supervision (which failure caused the Greek crisis and sovereign debt excess) and more recently, they improve bank supervision (Stress Test) and measures to avoids a repeat of the Financial Crisis.

Immigration is not managed by the EU. There treaties and agreements between all EU members but the EU doesn't actively manage the flux of immigrations. They attempted to do so with strong reaction from Hungary and other states who disagreed.

There is also an European level organisation to watch the sea: Frontext but it doesn't realy manage neither. Officialy it kust follows the rules. Unofficialy, some pepole at the EU or gravitating around the EU institutions have an influence on how the sea and the borders let or doesn't let migrants in.

About Islam, the EU completely ignores the topic totaly: No debate, no position, no mention of it ever.

All these things don't require, and should even avoid, inputs from the populations. It's management procedure. If you make a referendum toask people what should be done to fix the banks, you will get a financial crisis before the end of next week.
So, what they do looks rather undemocratic (never ask the opinions of the people), cold and distant.

The EU could do something more "what the people wants" way.
Member states are sort of the buffer between the citizenry and the EU thought, within national states there is already a big gap between the man in street and the political leaders. Some regional or more local communication chanels are sometimes needed.

For this reason, it's unthinkable that the EU replaces one day sovereign states.
Czech PM wants to leave global migration pact

Only a few days ago I learned about it.
(11-03-2018, 07:49 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: Czech PM wants to leave global migration pact

Only a few days ago I learned about it.

The Czechs and Poland will make four and five of the present total. And it will not be the end of the "Opt Out" crowd.

Quote:He spoke a day after Austria said it would follow the United States and Hungary in backing out of the UN pact over concerns that it would blur the line between legal and illegal migration. A minister in Poland’s arch-conservative government has also recommended his country quit the agreement.

This is yet one more reason why the UN's lifespan will be shorter than most suspect. Its the Ultimate Bureaucratic Black Hole, where Everything moving into the Event Horizon gets sucked in, and lost forever. Shock
Schist Happens
And the more we go, the more the UN becomes a big joke.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)