Reading the news, it seems that the voter turn-out for MEP's: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_of_the_European_Parliament is at an all-time low.

Q&A: European elections 2009

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7819889.stm

For TC members residing within the EU (European Union) did you vote in this election?

Please feel free to elaborate on your YES, your NO, or your blank vote.

Interesting. I’d just happened across an article that said that the voter turnout would (if the trend of the first few hours continued) be quite a bit higher than last time, in 2004, at least here in Denmark.

Also interesting that this thread shows (or showed, before my reply) -1 replies.

I haven’t voted yet, but plan to. If some time in the next few hours I actually manage to locate my voting card, which seems to have disappeared off the face of the earth. Now if I were a voting card, where would I hide?

Originally written by Janus Jacquet on June 7, 2009 9:14 AM Now if I were a voting card, where would I hide?

Among tax papers, in different pockets and bags used perhaps once every few years.

Actually, it turned out to be inside a conscientious objector call-up paper. Naturally, having written about it on the Internet, I immediately found the voting card, despite the fact that I’d been searching for it in vain for about two hours before that.

Originally written by Janus Jacquet on June 7, 2009 3:28 PM Actually, it turned out to be inside a conscientious objector call-up paper.

That's hilarious, Janus.

Were you planning to vote on the royal whatsamacallit?

Up to the last moment, I felt like voting no just to spite the DK government that attached this amendment to the Constitution as a rider to the EU election, but then, of course, we must have equal rights for the successor to the throne even though it's not ... sigh.

Nanna

I voted in the last hour which is now. Turnout seems to be higher in Poland too.

I voted this morning. Unfortunately, the person (!) mentioned here: Post #177537 has managed to grab a lot of votes with his racist rhetoric.

Jeg græmmes, as we say when we feel that something is really, really, really rotten in Denmark.

Nanna

Tried to post earlier, but TC went into maintenance mode as I was typing …

I voted very much yes on the succession to the throne referendum; should have been done ages ago.

Seems we’re outdoing ourselves with the voter turnout—they’re saying 59.4 per cent now, which is a new record. Shame DF seem to be doing so well, though at least the proper parties like SF* are doing quite well, too. At least if Morten Messerschmidt goes off to the European Parliament, we’ll be rid of him up here. Perhaps he’ll be less influential and more ignorable down there.

* This is, of course, pure, undisputable fact, not a personal opinion.

Originally written by Janus Jacquet on June 7, 2009 11:21 PM At least if Morten Messerschmidt goes off to the European Parliament, we’ll be rid of him up here. Perhaps he’ll be less influential and more ignorable down there.

To send morons off to Brussels sounds like a good strategy. They will more easily disappear in the inter-cultural ocean there.

Originally written by Nanna Mercer on June 7, 2009 10:01 PM Jeg græmmes, as we say when we feel that something is really, really, really rotten in Denmark.

Isn't it interesting that in all our countries the European elections were not so much animated by a common project Europe ("Hungary for Hungarians!" ) but served as a test for local sentiments? The same in Poland, where it was a check on the popularity of the current government (44%) vs. the Twins (27%).

Well, I'll be honest with you - here in France I did not vote and I'll tell you why: because none of the parties has any real projects or plans for Europe. Basically they were all seeking a) to place some of their members on the gravy train, so they can go and faff around in Brussels spending our money on coming up with compromise solutions or decreeing things best left alone and b) using the poll as a photo opportunity or chance for a popularity check. This is NOT what Europe should be all about.

I am truly sad not to have voted but, frankly, having turned it all this way and that, I realised that there was nobody or no party worth my vote. I'll spare you the details but endorsing Mr Bling Bling would stick in my gullet, the left is in total disarray, the centre idem and least said, soonest mended where the "green" party is concerned (another job-lot of individuals out for a photo opportunity). Don't get me wrong, the whole environment and sustainable development thing is very important but politics are about more than just that ....

I believe in Europe (which for a Brit at heart is unusual) but not the Europe we have today and not the Europe we are going to get with the self-servers in politics that have been elected.

The real question is what to do about it to make it change... and there I have no answer and possibly no hope either !

Yours, disillusioned

Originally written by cd x on June 8, 2009 11:02 AM The real question is what to do about it to make it change...

Create a chance for representatives of all the 27 member states to get together at least once in a while, also informally, under one roof?

Otherwise, I obviously subscribe to your feelings of disillusion, as 3/4 of Poles do. But pragmatism won this time among the 1/4 of us who did vote. It really didn't cost us anything considering that that common forum in Brussels/Strasburg is going to be maintained anyway and representatives of all the 27 member states are going to meet there to talk. Maybe even Hungarians will discover in the process that there is something outside their borders as will those Danes who want Denmark back for themselves, and those xenophobic Austrians, and the nationalist Dutch, and the True Finns, and all the rest of the tribal menagerie.

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 8, 2009 11:37 AM Originally written by cd x on June 8, 2009 11:02 AM The real question is what to do about it to make it change...    Maybe even Hungarians will discover in the process that there is something outside their borders as will those Danes who want Denmark back for themselves, and those xenophobic Austrians, and the nationalist Dutch, and the True Finns, and all the rest of the tribal menagerie.

What I don't understand is why anyone would campaign for 'giving Denmark back to the Danes' in order to get a seat in the European Parliament down in the dark and Daneless Brussels with nothing but mussels and fine chocolate to keep you going.

Nanna

Usually the answer is that if you don't know why, it must be because of money...

But my point was different: even if you are a normal politician of any orientation, i.e., egoist, corrupt and narrow-minded, once you are forced to work with the Other because of your mandate, chances are you may slightly change for the better.

Yeah it's possible. After all, Camre, who is what, 72?, found a special Other - a very young women with whom he has a child.

Nanna

I didn't vote, for so many reasons. Basically, I've never been as much uninterested in a vote as in this one. I live in France but I am Swedish. I received my voting card weeks ago from Sweden. During the same time, I received an assignment from one of my biggest clients in Sweden; to translate the Swedish Social Democrat Party's program into Arabic.

Already here, a feeling of unease got its hand on me. I thought: "Wait a bit; is this where our money goes? On paying a translator 100% more, for an urgent assignment, that probably very few Arabs are going to read? And why?! Arabs who will vote most probably speak Swedish already! Not to mention all the money it's going to cost to print the brochures and distribute them".

Originally written by cd x on June 8, 2009 11:02 AM I believe in Europe (which for a Brit at heart is unusual) but not the Europe we have today and not the Europe we are going to get with the self-servers in politics that have been elected.

This is another, important reason. Which Europe? To serve which cause/s?

A major cause that consumes much of my time beside my family and my work is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I don't feel like discussing politics here, but until now, what I've seen from Europe in this regard, has been very disappointing, to say the least.

Ann-Christine

Originally written by Ann-Christine Nassar-Pateffoz on June 8, 2009 5:47 PM ... I received an assignment from one of my biggest clients in Sweden; to translate the Swedish Social Democrat Party's program into Arabic. ... I thought: "Wait a bit; is this where our money goes? On paying a translator 100% more, for an urgent assignment, that probably very few Arabs are going to read? And why?! Arabs who will vote most probably speak Swedish already!

You are probably right. On the other hand, there could be many naturalised Arabs from say, France, England or Germany, living in Sweden and they would have the right to vote and may need or want to read the party program in Arabic.

Personally, I think it's great that such material is translated into other languages. 

Which Europe? To serve which cause/s?  A major cause that consumes much of my time beside my family and my work is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. ...until now, what I've seen from Europe in this regard, has been very disappointing, to say the least.

Is there more than one Europe within the European Union? * Should the EU countries serve other causes such as the Israeli- Palestinian cause? What do you suggest should be done? Is there any way that the EU can make peace among the various Arab countries or between Israel and Palestine. Permit me to doubt it.

Nanna 

*Edited, since I meant the Eúrope within the European Union

Originally written by John Bunch on June 9, 2009 7:52 AM The EU Parliament now is 12 % fascist

As I mentioned in Post #177775, in the inter-cultural ocean of the European Parliament in Brussels/Strasburg idiocy will get dissolved more easily than in national settings. It's better to make morons disappear in Brussels/Strasburg as MEPs than to keep them in individual countries where they can get really dangerous successfully fomenting hatred. International organizations are more likely to maintain their sanity longer than individual tribes.

As for the Left, you know very well that one day the pendulum will swing the other way, as always in politics. You wouldn't expect the Left to win in times of crisis, would you?

Turnout-wise, unsurprisingly, the lowest was on the ex-Soviet periphery: in Slovakia (19.6%), Lithuania (20.9%) and Poland (24.5%). Within Poland itself, there were, of course huge differences, with the east (closer to the ex-USSR) traditionally voting for the Twins' national Catholic party now in opposition and the west of the country being for the current liberal government. In a city like Warsaw, the average turnout was 43%, and it exceeded 50% in boroughs traditionally inhabited by liberal intelligentsia.

Originally written by John Bunch on June 9, 2009 7:52 AM Am I the only one "one the other side of the Pond" that is going to comment on the EU elections ?

http://www.slate.com/id/2220010/

With a few exceptions, the American center-right's loudest and most articulate voices have been focused almost exclusively on national security for the better part of the last decade. Lip service was paid to "small government" and "reduced spending" while successive Republican Congresses, hand in hand with a Republican White House, enlarged government and spent like crazy. ...

For the record, [Niall] Ferguson is, at least by origin, a British Tory. For the record, there aren't any U.S. Republican polemicists making the same arguments in quite as public a way. ...

 Very crudely, Ferguson and the German government think massive deficits and government borrowing will lead to inflation and ultimately the collapse of the currency. Equally crudely, Krugman and the U.S. administration think he's wrong. ...

Related topics: pia kjaersgaard, denmark, xenofobia

Geert Wilders:

“If there is hope in Europe, it comes from the people, not from the elites."

http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2009/01/19/geert-wilders-speech-on-the-islamization-of-europe/

Boy, am I happy this one is no longer with the people but just became part of the elites...

Flush!

"If it goes on like this, then Europe's elites will destroy their grand project for peace and stability themselves." http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,629447,00.html

Originally written by John Bunch don't you find it a bit disturbing that the people in Europe who speak out against Islam have to live on military bases with armed guards 24/7, and cannot even be in public anymore ? (... or they emigrate ?).

I find it disturbing that people feel a need to "speak out against Islam."  There may indeed be aspects of Islam, like every religion, that legitimately give rise to debate and criticism, but that does not mean one should speak out against Islam per se.  Islam is not synonymous with terrorism or the repression of women, any more than Christianity is synonymous with bombing abortion clinics or the ban on birth control.  Islam is a beautiful religious, philosophical, and cultural tradition whose essential message is one of love and peace.  Europeans owe a great debt to Muslims, as they preserved much of the knowledge of classical Greece that would otherwise have been lost, and made scientific advancements in the middle ages that did much to fuel the Enlightenment.  Europeans really have no reason to speak out against Islam, other than pure xenophobia and ignorance of history.

Originally written by John Bunch on June 9, 2009 7:33 PM One of the reasons I am not a Buddhist is that there are aspects of that religion that I don't like (reincarnation, etc.).

I don't identify with any specific religion simply because I see common roots and archetypes in all of them. Therefore, I also agree with Bill Bryson's scientific take on 'reincarnation' in Post #37926.

Jacek

They do?

I wouldn’t mind putting a few of the politicians who “speak out against Islam” (i.e., Morten Messerschmidt, Mogens Glistrup, Pia Kjærsgaard, Mogens Camre, etc.) in a military base, surrounded by armed guards 24/7. I don’t think that would work, unfortunately. Pesky freedom of speech.

One can dream, though …

For the record, at least up here, there are plenty of people who speak both for and against Islam (sadly, the latter group appears somewhat larger in number than the former), even plenty of people who consider ‘Islam’ almost just a synonym for ‘terrorism’. They don’t have to live on military bases. I’m not sure if I’m just missing some specific news story you’re referring to, or ..?

I’m not sure I see how those two things are at all related.

Firstly, freedom of speech has its limitations and exceptions (in the US, too, no?). Incitement to violence, hate speech, etc., are not covered by freedom of speech, though you’d have to get pretty far out to actually be convicted of it. And even if they are, they’re not usually locked up—certainly not on a military base!

Secondly, there’s a difference between (lack of) freedom of speech and terrorism. Personally, I don’t agree with keeping even “REAL terrorists” in a lawless base with no guarantees that due process be upheld—but I don’t see the relevance of that at all here, or how it relates to whether or not Europe, in general, punishes speech or not (again, I’d argue not).

Refresh my memory here … how did the German press react again?

.... particularly when its founder was a soldier and conqueror ?

Actually he was a merchant and businessman.  Perhaps you were thinking of someone else?

Maxi

f a Christian says, "I think that gay marriage is wrong, wicked, and sinful, because my holy book says so", is that "hate speech" ? Should it be prosecuted ? Next question: If a Muslim says the same exact sentence, is it hate speech ? See where I am going with this ?

Actually, I don't see where you are going with this.  If it's hate speech for the one, then it is so for the other.  If it's not for the one, then it's not for the other. What are you trying to say?

Originally written by John Bunch on June 9, 2009 7:52 AM The EU Parliament now is 12 % fascist, with the fascists from the British National Front, or whatever it is called, in Brussels, for the first time ever. ... Does anyone over there want to mention that 12 % of the EU Parliament is now a "fascist block" (consisting of Hungarians and Brits, etc.) ?

John,

I don't know where you get your numbers. My charts show that the abovementioned fascists (12 far-right and nationalist parties from 12 countries) have 36 out of the total of 785 MEPs, i.e. 4.6%. Numbers may vary slightly but not that much!

I read this to mean that for 4.6% of EU voters, immigrants (true, primarily Muslims) are an important issue. There may be others, considering that less than half of those eligible actually voted, but the issue should not be that important for them considering that they did not vote to strengthen the fascist representation in the European Parliament.

Originally written by John Bunch on June 9, 2009 11:11 PM I think that the point is not what Islam is, per se, but rather, the fact that this EU election has - according to some - resulted in right-wing parties being elected, due to the PERCEPTION among many "average" Europeans, that the political elites favor Islam.

...So let's not demonize the issue. We are talking about 4.6% coming from "only" 12 out of the 27 EU member states. (And to the British BNP you just mentioned and the menagerie I mentioned in Post #177782, let's add Umberto Bossi's North League, Flemish Interest and nationalist Romanians*, among others.)

Interestingly, at the other end of the TC spectrum we had a comment from someone who did not vote because Europe... does not do enough for the Arabs, let alone "favors Islam." So the answer is probably "neither of the above."

Why, for example,  did the Berlusconi's right carry Italy? Because Berslusconi has been their idol for decades, long before he put anti-immigrant military patrols on streets of Italian cities and joined the Coalition of the Willing in Iraq.

 Berlusconi - Laughing all the way to the polls (available in 10 languages)

This must have to do with other values that are cherished in Italy, some of which were graphically illustrated in Post #177884

Berlusconi for Nobel Peace Prize!

P.S. Isn't it remarkable how representative our little poll is at this time? It shows that 45% did vote vs. the actual 43% in real life.

----------

*Romania's two newly elected right-wing extremist MEPs may not take up their seats in the EU assembly, as one has been ordered by court not to leave the country and the other one wants to show "solidarity" with his colleague. http://euobserver.com/9/28277

Leading historians on whether fascism is on the march again

"Fascism with a capital F was a phenomenon of the 20s and 30s. It was a revolutionary movement asserting a violent imperialism and promising a new social order. There is nothing like that now. Far-right parties now are based on fear - fear of immigration, fear of aliens, fear of being Europeanised. They have no vision of a new social order, nor can they legally campaign for the replacement of a democratic government by an authoritarian regime. This is a protest vote by fearful people."

I don't think fascism is what we should worry about now, but euroscepticism: Watching the eurosceptics (available in 10 languages)

Divided We Fall: A Leading British Politician Explains How Europe Can Stem The Rising Power Of Far-Right Parties 
by David Lammy

Originally written by John Bunch on June 10, 2009 2:06 AM Well, I am against the notion of "hate speech" in general. Let's face it, the only type of speech that needs to constitutionally be protected is speech that one does not agree with. If we all agree with something, there is no need to protect it. So by its very definition, speech that needs protection will be unpopular speech. And "hate speech" is just a way of saying "I don't like what you said, and I want you to be banned for saying it", which of course would support any king, or dictator, anywhere around the world. It also criminalizes an emotion, and shows a general wobbliness of semantics. Some things deserve to be hated (for example: racism). To define "hate" as a crime is a lazy and befuddled thing, and deserves to be ridiculed. The people who defend "hate speech" often cannot even defend their position, and cannot define exactly what they mean by "hate". The entire thing is rotten.

There is hate and hate, I think. It is different, I think, to say I hate getting up at 6 in the morning and I hate all the Klingons and they should be killed. So I do not really know what they mean, I think they may get confused themselves, the people who are in charge of censorship. In fact hate is an emotion, like love and I do not think it can become a legal term. I really think they should call these crimes crimes against humanity, crimes against race, etc, instead of hate crimes, because it is often hard to define hate. Some people may confuse dislike of something with hate, and then we will get back to a censorship society where any statement of any opposition is considered a hate statement.

For example, I hate gay men trying to convert young boys into their culture, would that be a hate statement. I think it might be according to the present state of the hate speech law, but in fact it just means, that somebody dislikes, does not approve of a particular activity of some of them. That somebody is gay, or Black, or White or a nation prejudiced against for a long time cannot guarantee this group the status of a holly cow, under all circumstances. Sometimes opposition has to be voiced, against some activities of a particular group or person, which in some instances can be taken for hate speech.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on June 10, 2009 10:35 AM hate is an emotion, like love and I do not think it can become a legal term. I really think they should call these crimes crimes against humanity, crimes against race, etc,

For other terminological alternatives see Hate crime

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 10, 2009 10:15 AM I don't think fascism is what we should worry about now, but euroscepticism: Watching the eurosceptics (available in 10 languages)

Maybe so, but the eurosceptics with their 'close up the borders, forget about the EURO, we must keep our opt-outs', coupled with their far right fascist rhetoric could just as easily stay home and do their own thing. I think they are dangerous. Do I want a little fat, bleached troll to represent me in the EU? No I don't! Neither do I want a doe-eyed heiler to speak for me.

I am just incensed that these persons (!) will be spending public money on their very own fascist projects.

Nanna

Let's not freak out. Snippets from the common-sense http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,629433,00.html:

European Voters Know What They Don't Want

[snip] The right-wing populist Geert Wilders and his Freedom Party ended up as the second strongest party in the country behind the Christian Democrats. Many were horrified. ... But what looked on Thursday like a one-time lapse on the part of a single journalist had, by Sunday evening, become the mainstream message. The evening news wasn't just talking about a rightward shift in European politics. Rather, one got the impression that right-wing extremists were about to take over power. ... On the German public television station ZDF, anchorman Claus Kleber spoke of the "renewed strength of the extreme right in Holland" as if it represented the reincarnation of the Nationaal Socialistische Beweging, the country's pre-World War II fascist party. Another ARD reporter, speaking of the 15 percent achieved by the anti-Semitic Jobbik party in Hungary, slid effortlessly into a report on Wilders' party in the Netherlands, as if the two results were somehow linked. Indeed, as the coverage focused on those parties that made gains, it was difficult to ignore the subtext of sympathy for the losses suffered by the center-left across the continent. How, the media seemed to be asking, could the social democrats have fallen so far?

Maybe like this. Germany, and a large part of Europe, has in recent decades incorporated vast swaths of social democratic values into their societies. The Social Democrats have lost their unique selling point. With the exception of the business-friendly Free Democrats, Germany's parliament is full of politicians who are, in some shade or another, adherents of the social democratic worldview. The Christian Social Union (the Bavarian sister party to Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union) is to the left of the SPD on some issues. Merkel's CDU is sometimes greener than the Greens and the far-left Left Party continues to cozy up to Germany's mainstream parties.

When almost all the parties on offer are center-left, there is no longer a compelling reason to vote SPD. On the contrary, there is nothing wrong with taking a look at those who offer something a bit different -- not unlike the way loyal Aldi shoppers take an occasional look at what rival supermarket chain Lidl is offering.

The European shift to the right, which is being decried across the continent, isn't one. Rather, it is a signal for a return to reality. The established centrist parties -- in Germany, in the Netherlands, in Sweden, Austria and elsewhere -- are busy with crisis management, with the nationalization of ailing banks and bankrupt companies. They are neither able nor willing to attend to other problems.

They aren't thinking about the consequences of immigration, about the loss of cultural identity that many people with "non-immigrant backgrounds" sense -- people who do not want to be labeled as xenophobes, right-wing extremists or neo-Nazis as a result. This omission benefits so-called "populists" like Geert Wilders, who are not afraid to tackle politically incorrect issues and provide answers to questions that nobody else wants to pose.

In this regard, "xenophobia" is a term which should be used only where it is really appropriate. For example, when the residents of the eastern German state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania campaign against Poles who invest in the economically weak state, open businesses, create jobs and pay taxes. Or when foreigners get chased through the eastern German town of Guben and no locals come to their rescue.

On the other hand, the word "xenophobia" should not be used when immigrants are asked to observe the customs and laws of the country in which they want to live and work. This includes, in addition to the obligation to send children to school, the renunciation of family traditions which end in bloodbaths.

Surprisingly Good Elections

And finally: The "stupid" voters have recognized that they are supporting a parliament whose primary task is not to oversee the EU's executive arm but to take care of politicians who their parties want to reward for their loyal support. Those who, for whatever reasons, have failed at home, or who need to take a time-out from national politics, get sent to Brussels. ...

Seen from this perspective, the European elections went surprisingly well, especially in Germany. There, turnout was slightly higher than last time, the far-right were ignored and the far-left Left Party only received single-digit support. The populace does not always know what it wants. But mostly it knows what it does not want. And that's a good thing.

------------

I just wanted to add that the situation in Poland was similar: extremist parties were totally ignored. Consequently, since the term of the morons from the Giertych's League of Polish Familes is over, they are coming back home where, unfortunately, we will now have to cope with them...

Jacek

Yes, thanks, your point is well taken. I am simply wasting energy that can be put to better use.

I had just finished reading the Danish news with the self-satisfied 'we won', we're the best, we'll veto' XYZ all from DF and that person (!) Pia Kjærsgaard, whom I detest.

Nanna

Originally written by John Bunch on June 9, 2009 7:52 AM EU Parliament  ... now a "fascist block" (consisting of Hungarians and Brits, etc.) ?

The historian Ignac Romsics recently published an anthology about the different traditions and manifestations of the Hungarian right, from the conservatives through to the right-wing extremists ("A magyar jobboldali hagyomany, 1900-1948" Budapest, Osiris 2009). In an interview with Eszter Radai he explains why in Eastern Europe the far right, and not democratic conservatism, is gaining strength. "After World War II the history of West and East Europe followed completely separate paths. Within the right-wing spectrum to the West of the Elbe, the Christian democrats and other conservative directions arose to become significant factors that were accepted by democratic institutions. In Eastern Europe this was never able to happen because, after a brief transition phase, a monolithic dictatorship emerged, which left no room for political pluralism (...) You might have thought that the old structures would have collapsed under Rakosi or Kadar. This is true to a point, but the networks, feelings, attitudes and nostalgias in society remained intact. The right, and to a certain extent the left, must now redefine itself after a forty-year period on ice. Efforts have been made, but there needs to be more discussion. It is not only the border between the right and the far right that is blurred, but also the relationship between the left and the Republic of Councils or the Kadar system." http://www.signandsight.com/features/1882.html
 

To answer your questions: No, and no. Saying, “Gay marriage is wrong, wicked, and sinful” is not hate speech (at least not by the Danish legal definition, which is what I’m going from here). Saying, “Homosexuality is wrong, wicked, and sinful, and all gay people will burn in purgatory for seven eternities when they die and should not be allowed into our churches” is not hate speech.

Saying, “All Jews are sub-people. I want everyone to grab their weapon of choice and go out and kill and mutilate as many Jews as you can” is hate speech (and though I’m paraphrasing from memory, this is a true example of something that has gotten someone [the spokesperson for Hizb-ut-Tahrir] convicted of hate speech here in Denmark).

Hate speech (as I understand it, at least) is not about expressing one’s hate or dislike for something or someone, but about inciting others to commit acts of violence or similar. There’s a vast difference.

Originally written by Janus Jacquet on June 10, 2009 8:03 AM Originally written by John Bunch on June 9, 2009 11:11 PM Regarding prosecuting speech: There is a huge difference between speech that incites an immediate breach of the peace (yelling "fire" in a crowded room), and so-called "hate speech", which basically means: "anything I don't like, that could offend someone". And yes, the Europeans have prosecuted speech: Brigitte Bardot in France, and Oriana Fallaci in Italy. The Canadians tried it with their "human rights courts" on Mark Steyn, but it kind of fell apart. On that last point, for instance, please answer me this question (anyone): If a Christian says, "I think that gay marriage is wrong, wicked, and sinful, because my holy book says so", is that "hate speech" ? Should it be prosecuted ? Next question: If a Muslim says the same exact sentence, is it hate speech ? See where I am going with this ? To answer your questions: No, and no. Saying, “Gay marriage is wrong, wicked, and sinful” is not hate speech (at least not by the Danish legal definition, which is what I’m going from here). Saying, “Homosexuality is wrong, wicked, and sinful, and all gay people will burn in purgatory for seven eternities when they die and should not be allowed into our churches” is not hate speech. Saying, “All Jews are sub-people. I want everyone to grab their weapon of choice and go out and kill and mutilate as many Jews as you can” is hate speech (and though I’m paraphrasing from memory, this is a true example of something that has gotten someone [the spokesperson for Hizb-ut-Tahrir] convicted of hate speech here in Denmark). Hate speech (as I understand it, at least) is not about expressing one’s hate or dislike for something or someone, but about inciting others to commit acts of violence or similar. There’s a vast difference.

In the United States you can get in trouble for saying the N word even without a malicious intent, because this word is totally fobidden, unless you a a rapper, a Black rapper that is, but this is understandable due to the history of this word and the history of persecution of Black people, although sometimes they went a little bit overboard, because you cannot say the word white on many occasions, meaning something positive, without being accused of white supremacy by some language extremists. You cannot say anything about gay people in the recent years because it has become a taboo, even things like that someone does not like gay bars, because a straight person would feel weird in some of them, like a woman would feel strange in some conservative man clubs in England, where women are not even allowed, but you cannot say things of that sort, because everything is considered hateful, rather than just being an expression of a certain truth.  You can say I hate Chinese restaurants but you cannot say I hate gay bars, I think. It is not a personal example, because I usually do not go to any bars, unless  for a concert or  a poetry reading, but this is just an example. I know a lot of people who disapprove of some things the gay communities are doing, but they would not say it anywhere anymore, because they have  been terrorized by the taboo.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on June 10, 2009 2:24 PM you cannot say things of that sort, because everything is considered hateful

US political correctness is well-known, even though the term was not born there, however...

In the 1980s and 1990's, more than 350 public universities adopted "speech codes" regulating discriminatory speech by faculty and students.^[41] These codes have not fared well in the courts, where they are frequently overturned as violations of the First Amendment. See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech . Debate over restriction of "hate speech" in public universities has resurfaced with the adoption of anti-harassment codes covering discriminatory speech.^[42]

Originally written by Janus Jacquet Saying, “Gay marriage is wrong, wicked, and sinful” is not hate speech (at least not by the Danish legal definition, which is what I’m going from here). Saying, “Homosexuality is wrong, wicked, and sinful, and all gay people will burn in purgatory for seven eternities when they die and should not be allowed into our churches” is not hate speech. Saying, “All Jews are sub-people. I want everyone to grab their weapon of choice and go out and kill and mutilate as many Jews as you can” is hate speech (and though I’m paraphrasing from memory, this is a true example of something that has gotten someone [the spokesperson for Hizb-ut-Tahrir] convicted of hate speech here in Denmark). Hate speech (as I understand it, at least) is not about expressing one’s hate or dislike for something or someone, but about inciting others to commit acts of violence or similar. There’s a vast difference.

 

I don't understand why you claim the gay-related statement is not hate speech but the Jewish one is.  Going by your definition, which focuses on whether the speech incites violence, there have been plenty of acts of violence against gays and lesbians based on that sort of speech.  Those sort of statements encouraged the murderers of Matthew Shepard, a young gay man who was brutally beaten to death in Wyoming some years ago.

Any statement of antipathy towards a group can lead to violence against that group.  Even relatively mild expressions of dislike, if repeated often enough and combined with other factors, can push someone over the edge. 

Hate speech is to be discouraged, but it is probably not something that should be criminalized in a democratic state.  Laws against it are far too vague, and virtually every comment could be construed as evincing hatred in one way or another if one looked at it hard enough.  I for one am sick of politicians who say "the children are our future," as I see in it a statement of hatred against the current generation, which is the present.

Whether or not it is the ‘correct’ (pretending for a second that there is such a thing) thing to do, the Danish law focuses very narrowly on speech that directly and overtly incites, exhorts, or even orders people (most commonly a specific group of people) to commit violent acts.

As you say, more or less anything can be construed to be an instigation or condonation of violence; this is exactly why the definition is so narrow.

Personally, I have no real problems with the gay statement—if someone feels that homosexuality is sinful and wrong and it’s their belief that gay people will go to hell when they die and should not be allowed into the churches of their religion, then it’s their prerogative, both legally and in my own personal view, to hold that belief and to voice that belief. It might well be taken by some people to be a condonation of violence against gay people, but you can’t legislate against that, and you can’t really say beyond any reasonable doubt that it was the intent behind the words. When you have someone come out and give direct exhortations or orders for someone to commit violence, however, you can.

Even if the Jewish statement had been a mere belief, I would have defended the speaker’s right to express it. Had he said, “It’s my belief that all Jews are sub-people who deserve no better than death and mutilation” might be a silent or implied condonation of murder and violence, but it’s not a literal instigation to it. That’s where the border lies, for me.

It’s a tricky thing to legislate, to be sure, and the laws are vague. But personally, I think it’s fair enough that people shouldn’t be able to tell people (over whom they may have a strong influence, such as the Hizb-ut-Tahrir leader) to kill other people with impunity.

As a background, that Hate crime article I linked to earlier contains an interesting comparative study between Europe and the US in one of its footnotes.

On Denmark, Wiki says in a nutshell: Although Danish law does not include explicit hate crime provisions, "section 80(1) of the Criminal Code instructs courts to take into account the gravity of the offence and the offender's motive when meting out penalty, and therefore to attach importance to the racist motive of crimes in determining sentence."In recent years judges have used this provision to increase sentences on the basis of racist motives.^[7]

You will find that comparative article I mentioned at ^[7] above.

I think you'll find that, on average, people in Denmark do not see any need to protect gays against hate speech. Homosexuality is not an issue in Denmark, where gay politicians are perfectly open about the fact that they live with a same-sex partner. 

AS opposed to the US, where the gay issue is often one of having to speak up, almost aggressively, in favour because so much controversy surrounds this issue, which as far as I know, isn't one in Denmark.

Nanna

Originally written by Janus Jacquet the Danish law focuses very narrowly on speech that directly and overtly incites, exhorts, or even orders people (most commonly a specific group of people) to commit violent acts. As you say, more or less anything can be construed to be an instigation or condonation of violence; this is exactly why the definition is so narrow.

 

Such a directness requirement is also found in other legal systems.  For example, it has long been criminal to incite violence in the US under the "clear and present danger" doctrine, when one's speech leads to an immediate danger (this is somewhat different from "hate speech," as it doesn't directly concern the content of the speech, but rather the effect on the crowd).

I believe it is dangerous, however, to start splitting hairs and to say that it is OK to say "Jews are monsters who are going to hell" but not OK to say "Jews are monsters who should be killed."  The distinction exists more in theory than in the mind of the hearer.  If a person hears "Jews are monsters who are going to hell" enough times, I believe it will have an equivalent effect as a direct exhortation to kill.  I don't think the answer is to make distinctions and to outlaw some hateful utterances as "hate speech" but to permit others by deeming them not "hate speech," but rather to allow free speech and to combat hate through other means, for example, counter-speech. 

Very little public speech openly calls for the murder of other people.  Such statements are widely recognized as absurd and the people who make them are viewed as crazy.  The bigger concern is statements such as the following:

1.  Women are not as good at math as men are.

2.  Blacks are better athletes than whites.

Such statements are often viewed, on American university campuses anyway, as hate speech, and any discussion of the important issues raised is impeded if not avoided altogether, thus depriving the culture of a potentially useful scientific discourse.

 

Ever since my wife and I emigrated from Holland to France we seem to have fallen completely of the grid as far as votes-grabbing politicians are concerned. The only vote I have been allowed to participate in is for a body of local trade union's representatives. I never liked unions and I see no distinction between a European Union which holds the opinion that the weaker and sloppier countries must always be helped by countries that have their affairs more or less in order (the discussion about how seven countries which have ordered enough medicine to counter a possible H1N1 flu outbreak within their borders should donate part of that medicine to countries that couldn't be arsed doing anything about this so-called Mexican flu is a perfect example of how the EU thinks) and a trade union which totally roadblocks a country when the high and mighty in that union don't agree to what an elected government is doing.

Having said the above, if I had wanted to vote for the European Parliament, I would have to vote for a Dutch head. Fat lot of good that does for me, while I live in France! And look at the outcome of the EU elections in my poor native country: Christian Democrats as the biggest party with the mockery of we must share the load, closely followed by the illustrious xenofobic party founded by the maker of Fitna (yup, there he is again, our stokebrand politician) with the 'No to Turkey' slogan, which is in it's turn followed by a bunch of politicians who seem to think that pacifism, socialism and ecologism is the answer to everything ranging from to the banking crisis to the insane imperfections in legislation around crime and punishment. I am actually very happy to have not voted in The Netherlands.

And now the debate about Turkey joining the EU can start in earnest. Those that are against because of religious reasons are the best example of why religion and government is a dangerous mix at best: with Turkey in the EU there is a bridge between the EU and the Muslem world that is not there at present, and if there ever is a EU wide referendum on that I will certainly register my vote!

Originally written by Nanna Mercer on June 10, 2009 11:14 AM ... Do I want a little fat, bleached troll to represent me in the EU? No, I don't! Neither do I want a doe-eyed heiler to speak for me.

I am not the only one.

European Jewish Congress Alarmed by Extreme Right’s Success in European Elections

Calls Upon New European Parliament and Commission to Immediately and Actively Engage in Issues of Tolerance and Intercultural Dialogue.
Statement by Dr. Moshe Kantor, President
European Jewish Congress

“As we assess the results of this week’s elections, one disturbing trend has already crystallized; the gains made by extreme-right groups is a Europe-wide phenomenon. The success of the far-right and nationalistic parties that won seats in the elections on the basis of racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic platforms points to a clear erosion of tolerance and a clarion call to European officials to immediately engage in intercultural dialogue.

The European Jewish Congress is alarmed by the election results pointing to the foothold that the extreme right has gained throughout Europe. Moreover, the election of these candidates through the use of racist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic campaigns belies a disturbing acquiescence of government to this type of incitement and a need for immediate action and education.

Also troubling is the fact that in many cases the extreme right did better in these elections than in 2004 - across Europe - without regard to ‘old guard’ or ‘new member state,’ or large nation or small. The success of such rabid groups as The Freedom Party in the Netherlands, the Freedom Party in Austria (FPO), the Danish People’s Party, the British National Party, and Jobbik in Hungary, among others, will sadly only serve to embolden those who espouse the dangerous concepts of extreme nationalism, racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia....

http://www.eurojewcong.org/ejc/news.php?id_article=4071

Originally written by Theo Bernards with Turkey in the EU there is a bridge between the EU and the Muslem world that is not there at present, and if there ever is a EU wide referendum on that I will certainly register my vote!

Whatever the merits of Turkey joining the EU might be, it is fascinating to note that forming "a bridge between the EU and the Muslim world" would be considered as a goal of the EU; the organization certainly has come a long way from its orgins as a body that did little more than to regulate the coal and steel production in France and Germany!

Originally written by Nanna Mercer on June 7, 2009 1:29 PM For TC members residing within the EU (European Union) did you vote in this election?

I didn't vote for several reasons:

1. I was not eligible to vote - in Germany: because there is a narrow time window for non-Germans to register to vote in European elections and I miss it every time (the date appears in an official notification but is buried in the middle of a very long text and can be picked out only by reading through the text from the beginning, I guess they do this deliberately with malice aforethought) - and in the UK because I fall foul of the 30-year rule: After 30 years absence, I am no longer eligible to vote in UK elections.

2. Because if the principle is that we vote for the party or persons we consider would best represent us then there is nobody I can vote for who shows any interest in representing me. I cannot reasonably expect a German politician to show an interest in representing a non-German* who happens to be living here (and I have asked a few) nor can I expect an English politician to show any interest in representing me* since I haven't been there in the last 36 years.

Of all the candidates who came to my attention, the only one who I might have voted for would have been Daniel Cohn-Bendit but I cannot vote for him, he is on the French Verts list.

What are needed are non-national, EU-wide candidates, to vote for but there still are none. The proposal to have them was made some time ago but nothing has been done about it yet. As things stand, strictly speaking, citizens of EU states who live in a state other than the one in which they have citizenship, are effectively disenfranchized.

Derek

* My interests differ from those of a German living in Germany or an Englishman living in England on such matters as pension, health insurance, citizenship, inheritance, legal representation, documentation, and a number of other related areas.

Originally written by Theo Bernards on June 10, 2009 5:29 PM And now the debate about Turkey joining the EU can start in earnest. Those that are against because of religious reasons are the best example of why religion and government is a dangerous mix at best:

The mix:

Originally written by Nanna Mercer on June 10, 2009 5:34 PM   European Jewish Congress Alarmed by Extreme Right’s Success in European Elections

Has that Dutch debate spilled over to Denmark, Nanna?

In seeking to repeal a law against incitement to hatred and discrimination in the Netherlands, Dutch liberals have triggered a widespread debate in the national press, which wonders what attitude to take towards Holocaust denial. http://www.presseurop.eu/en/content/article/15461-are-there-limits-free-speech (available in 10 languages)

Originally written by Theo Bernards on June 10, 2009 4:29 PM And now the debate about Turkey joining the EU can start in earnest.

Oh, no, it can't! There is not going to be any serious debate. This subject will be dragged out indefinitely until the Turks get tired of the whole idea and decide to join some other organization.

Having Turkey in the EU would mean having an EU outer border that includes frontiers to Iran, Iraq and Syria and no reasonable EU citizen could possibly want that. As things are, Turkey makes the ideal buffer zone! A Turkish entry into the EU will never happen, any German government proposing to agree to it would be wiped out at the next national election, and if that is not enough, you would have to get rid of Sarkozy first. 

I cannot believe that anybody who has spent time in rural Turkey away from the tourist areas can imagine that there is any possibility of harmonizing them with any other part of the EU. There are nearly 80 million of them altogether, 40% under the age of 15. Half the population is rural - Europe needs another 40 million impoverished peasants like it needs another language (or two - or three - Turkic 60 million, Azeri 15 million, Uzbek 14 million, not to mention Kurmanji, I suppose that nobody is allowed to count them!).

Don't we have enough problems as it is?

Derek

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 10, 2009 6:08 PM Originally written by Nanna Mercer on June 10, 2009 5:34 PM  European Jewish Congress Alarmed by Extreme Right’s Success in European Elections     Has that Dutch debate spilled over to Denmark, Nanna?

I suppose you could say that. I will have to do a more involved search, but I first found the article here: 

http://politiken.dk/udland/article729150.ece (Danish) and then surfed to find the EN text.

Nanna

Originally written by Theo Bernards on June 10, 2009 5:29 PM And now the debate about Turkey joining the EU can start in earnest. Those that are against because of religious reasons are the best example of why religion and government is a dangerous mix at best: with Turkey in the EU there is a bridge between the EU and the Muslem world that is not there at present

In light of Derek's grim picture of Turkey, the above comment of yours, Theo, completely contradicts the one in which you explained why you could not vote for:

a European Union which holds the opinion that the weaker and sloppier countries must always be helped by countries that have their affairs more or less in order (the discussion about how seven countries which have ordered enough medicine to counter a possible H1N1 flu outbreak within their borders should donate part of that medicine to countries that couldn't be arsed doing anything about this so-called Mexican flu is a perfect example of how the EU thinks)

Originally written by Derek Thornton Half the population is rural - Europe needs another 40 million impoverished peasants like it needs another language ... Don't we have enough problems as it is?

 

Similar concerns arose when Greece, Spain and Portugal sought EU membership in the 1980s, all of these countries being much poorer and "less modern" than the countries of northern Europe.  More recently, concerns were raised about the countries of eastern Europe that have joined the EU, most notably Bulgaria and Romania.  It is true that Turkey presents many of these concerns on a larger scale, but they are not totally unprecedented.

What is unprecedented is that Turkey is a Muslim country.  The million dollar question is whether Europe, whose very identity was based  on the idea of a shared Christian heritage in opposition to Muslim Turks and Arabs, can grow to include a non-Christian member within the EU.

The EU has stated that it is open to all "European states" (whatever "European" might mean) as long as they meet certain political (e.g. human rights) and economic criteria.  So far, no European state that has satisifed these requirements has been denied membership.  Turkey has done much to improve its human rights situation in recent years, although there is much that remains to be done if it wants EU membership.  It is true, as you say Derek, that Turkey's borders extend to Iran, Syria and Iraq, but Turkey is also geographically and historically as much of a European country as an Asian one.

Originally written by David Kallans on June 10, 2009 7:29 PM The million dollar question is whether Europe, whose very identity was based  on the idea of a shared Christian heritage in opposition to Muslim Turks and Arabs, can grow to include a non-Christian member within the EU.

It is remarkable that a country like Poland, with memories of King John III Sobieski, known for the victory over the Turks in the 1683 Battle of Vienna, has traditionally supported EU talks with Turkey. But that's probably not because of the Polish non-xenophobic open-mindedness ( ) but because of the pressures from the United States which would welcome such an anchoring of the Muslim country, in addition to its NATO membership. 

I did not. Because, some years ago, I voted NO.

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 10, 2009 7:50 PM Originally written by David Kallans on June 10, 2009 7:29 PM The million dollar question is whether Europe, whose very identity was based  on the idea of a shared Christian heritage in opposition to Muslim Turks and Arabs, can grow to include a non-Christian member within the EU.  the United States which would welcome such an anchoring of the Muslim country, in addition to its NATO membership.

When Fogh Rasmussen, who was very friendly with the Bush administration, was Prime Minister that was one of the reasons aired for including Turkey.

In the  big cities, Turkey is apparently very open and cosmopolitan.

Nanna

After posting one comment, I let this one run because I was not easy with the turn it was taking but, on the subject of Turkey, let me simply say that Istanbul is a great place, extremely cosmopolitan, very western etc. The beach and tourist areas are apparently the same though I am not a beach person and have never been there.

By contrast I have been to Izmir and its surrounding area (2), including once for work, and have been to Ankara, also for work (as with Istanbul, which I have visited several times, privately and professionally) and, already, as you move away from the European part, you find yourself feeling more and more in Asia (and I have visited most Asian countries so I know what I am talking about). The one time we did the big trip and went all the way round the country up to the borders with Syria, Iran, Iraq, etc. , well frankly it was a totally different world and nothing like Europe at all. I could describe all this in more detail but it would take a lot of time. Suffice it to say that Turkey is a bit like the proverbial iceberg, one tenth and ninth-tenths....

I do not wish to be drawn into the discussion about PC and the rest, though I think that the only people one can criticise with impunity today is the WASP population and there it is no-holds-barred. What I will say is that according to calculations, given the immigrant populations in European countries and the USA, and given reproduction rates and tendencies from one culture to another, there are those who claim that the world will be dominantly Muslim within the next 30-50 years. Apparently there are also those who say that there is no need for Jihads, since normal evolution will achieve what they have set out to do. I give this information for what it's worth. I do not know how correct it is but the figures I have seen are impressive.

The EU is a twin of the СССР (USSR, if you prefer that), only less efficient and more expensive. Been both places, thank you!

Originally written by Nanna Mercer on June 10, 2009 11:14 AM do I want a doe-eyed heiler to speak for me.

I do not. And neither do the Brits and several non-fringe political parties in Brussels:

By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels
Published: 7:08PM BST 08 Jun 2009

Proposals to change the way EU voting works will be tabled next year to counter the low turnout and big gains for fringe parties.

The elections have fragmented the European Parliament as never before after voters across the continent elected large numbers of non-aligned MEPs outside the traditional pro-EU Christian Democrats, Socialists and Liberals. In Britain, the BNP, UKIP, and the Greens, made gains at the expense of Labour and Lib Dem votes. ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/5479021/European-elections-2009-EU-voting-system-could-axe-political-parties.html

and

Messerschmidt er ikke stueren i EU (Messerschmidt is not house-broken enough for the EU)

DF risikerer at strande på den yderste højrefløj i EU-parlamentet efter en afvisning fra de britiske konservative.

DF risks landing on the extreme right in the EU parliament after a rejection by the British Conservatives.

http://politiken.dk/politik/article729339.ece  (Danish)

Nanna

Originally written by Dodo Kaipdodo on June 10, 2009 9:00 PM The EU is a twin of the СССР (USSR, if you prefer that), only less efficient and more expensive.

Not true. This movie theater, near Litewska St. in Warsaw is playing:

Wstęp: film „Tajemnica szyfru Marabuta” – 5 zł

http://www.teatr.dlawas.com/tdw/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9668&Itemid=59

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 10, 2009 3:59 PM Not true. This movie theater, near Litewska St. in Warsaw is playing: Wstęp: film „Tajemnica szyfru Marabuta” – 5 zł http://www.teatr.dlawas.com/tdw/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9668&Itemid=59

Mmm... I saw the movie way back, stil in the USSR. Anyway, I like the book much better!

Originally written by John Bunch on June 10, 2009 4:09 PM If you can show me the "EU gulag" (prison camps for people who oppose the EU), I will believe that the EU = USSR. Until then, I won't.

I`m sorry (or glad?) I can`t. Yet there are more sophisticated ways to to exert pressure...

Originally written by Dodo Kaipdodo on June 10, 2009 4:19 PM I saw the movie way back

Animation, I mean. More important: I read "Profesor A.Donda" even before that...

Originally written by David Kallans on June 10, 2009 6:29 PM What is unprecedented is that Turkey is a Muslim country.  The million dollar question is whether Europe, whose very identity was based  on the idea of a shared Christian heritage in opposition to Muslim Turks and Arabs, can grow to include a non-Christian member within the EU.

That religious factor is a red herring, David. How "Christian" is the EU? I would say that it is only nominally so. If the current amount of "Christianity" is all that the EU has to set against the influence of Islam then they have no hope. Practically the only Christian ethnic group where I live that attends church regularly on Sundays are the East European immigrants and they keep themselves strictly to themselves.

The EU as a whole is firmly in the grip of Materialism. The small German market town where I live (pop. ca. 100 thousand) has two mosques (there is no way that anybody is going to get all the different kinds of Moslems to attend the same mosque!). There is no Christianity-Islam conflict, everybody lives in harmony. Now, if the conflict was to be between Islam and Materialism then I wouldn't like to bet on the result. But if it is a conflict between Christianity and Islam then Islam will win hands down, the "Christians" would always be able to find something better to do than getting all worked up about religion.

If I could get funding, I would like to make a study of a) the ratio of flat-screen TVs to Bibles in EU "Christian" homes and b)  the ratio of flat-screen TVs to Qurans in EU Moslem homes. My guess is a) 2:1 and b) 1:2.

The sick truth is that it is impossible to distinguish for certain at a glance and close up between urban Germans and urban Turks but there is no problem distinguishing between rural Germans and rural Turks (I mean Turks with a rural Turkish background) at a distance of 100 paces or more and up-wind. I feel sure that the criteria "do they look like me?" and "would I want my daughter to marry one?" are far more significant than any religious or pseudo-religious considerations so far as EU admission is concerned.

Originally written by David Kallans on June 10, 2009 6:29 PM ... Turkey is also geographically and historically as much of a European country as an Asian one.

Geographically, it might appear so to you but that is because Europe tends to be fuzzy at its edges. In fact, the situation was settled once and for all time in 1923 by the Treaty of Lausanne. 3% of Turkey is in Europe and 97% is in Asia. The boundary between the two is clearly and unambiguously defined by the Bosporus. My proposal would be for the EU to buy the 3% from Turkey (they might also need to bribe somebody) and split it between Bulgaria and Greece (the USA could be given a military base there to keep them quiet). That would be the end of any pretentions the Turks might have to being European.

Historically, in my opinion, Turkey has seen Europe more as a place to be plundered than as a community they would like to belong to for sentimental reasons. And a Turkish entry to the EU would be the greatest plundering that part of the world has ever seen!

Derek

Originally written by Derek Thornton on June 10, 2009 10:57 PM "do they look like me?"

Definitely not.

"would I want my daughter to marry one?"

Hmm, a niece of mine living in the US is about to marry a Chinese guy. Would I want my daughter to marry a Chinese rather than the handsome Turkish consultant working on my floor? I have never met that American Chinese guy, but offhand I have nothing against this bright, cultured and sensitive Turk...

Originally written by Derek Thornton on June 10, 2009 4:57 PM How "Christian" is the EU? I would say that it is only nominally so.

I would say not at all. Have you seen any shops stop selling meat beacause it is Advent or Lent time?

The EU as a whole is firmly in the grip of Materialism.

Not really. It`s the American Dream converted, seems to me.

Historically, in my opinion, Turkey has seen Europe more as a place to be plundered than as a community they would like to belong to for sentimental reasons.

That might well be true. And Europe has seen Turkey as... what? Cheap SPAs?

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 10, 2009 5:11 PM Originally written by Derek Thornton on June 10, 2009 10:57 PM "do they look like me?" Definitely not. "would I want my daughter to marry one?" Hmm, a niece of mine living in the US is about to marry a Chinese guy. Would I want my daughter to marry a Chinese rather than the handsome Turkish consultant working on my floor? I have never met that American Chinese guy, but offhand I have nothing against this bright, cultured and sensitive Turk...

I did not think parents still had anything to say whom their children were going to marry. Am I wrong?

Originally written by Derek Thornton on June 10, 2009 10:57 PM The EU as a whole is firmly in the grip of Materialism. ... If I could get funding, I would like to make a study of a) the ratio of flat-screen TVs to Bibles in EU "Christian" homes and b)  the ratio of flat-screen TVs to Qurans in EU Moslem homes. My guess is a) 2:1 and b) 1:2.

Offhand a worthy endeavor. While unable to smooth the way for any funding I can start you off by saying that while I do have a flat TV, I have neither a flat-screen TV nor a Bible in my home.

Nanna

I would like to make a study of a) the ratio of flat-screen TVs to Bibles in EU "Christian" homes and b)  the ratio of flat-screen TVs to Qurans in EU Moslem homes. My guess is a) 2:1 and b) 1:2.

 What is your reasoning?  Is it not Christianity that says the rich man cannot get to heaven in the metaphor of the camel going through a needle's eye?

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on June 10, 2009 10:25 PM I did not think parents still had anything to say whom their children were going to marry. Am I wrong?

You might well be if we were talking about Turkish parents. If we are talking about "Christian" parents then a lot will depend on how much the daughter, if she does what she is told, stands to inherit when the parents finally kick the bucket.

Derek

Similarly, I have neither flatscreen TV nor Bible. Or rather, I do have a copy of the Bible, but I don’t have it ‘as’ the Bible, just for its literary value. I also have a copy of the Qur‘ān, for similar reasons. (They’re also both stored in a box in the basement, ahem.)

Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on June 10, 2009 11:02 PM What is your reasoning?  Is it not Christianity that says the rich man cannot get to heaven in the metaphor of the camel going through a needle's eye?

No, sorry about that, it was not "Christianity". In the Qu'ran (Al-Araf 7:40) it says:

To those who reject Our signs and treat them with arrogance, no opening will there be of the gates of heaven, nor will they enter the garden, until the camel can pass through the eye of the needle: Such is Our reward for those in sin.

Similarly, in the Talmud (a midrash on the Song of Songs, 5.3):

The Holy One said, open for me a door as big as a needle's eye and I will open for you a door through which may enter tents and camels.

In Matthew 19:23-24, Jesus Christ answers a rich man who wants to know how he can be sure about going to heaven by saying that all he has to do is to go away and obey the Commandments ("You know of the commandments, adhere to them and you will find heaven."). 

It is only when the rich man comes back a second time to assert that he had observed all the Commandments, wasn't there something else he could do? that Jesus points out that his wealth was a sure sign that he coveted possessions and had therefore broken that Commandment at least ("If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me. I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.")  Jesus did not say that it was impossible, only that it was harder.

The usual interpretation is that the richer you are, the more honest you must strive to be. It reinforces Jesus's insistance that "You cannot serve God and Mammon". Jesus recognized that all this was impossible for normal mortals to do alone but was possible with God's help.

The EU would almost certainly be as empty as the Christian churches are if they were to issue a Directive that we were all to serve God and foresake Mammon! And I bet that the Turks would not be so keen to join that kind of arrangement!

You asked for my reasoning, Maxi. In my posting that you quoted, having a high ratio of flat-screen TVs to Bibles and/or Qu'rans in the house is taken by me to be a marker for the worship of Mammon over God. A work colleague once complained about the mental torture he experienced while traveling in Cairo taxis in which the taxi drivers play Islamic religious music on their radios all day long. The probability of finding a German taxi driver who played Christian religious music on his radio even once in 20 years is effectively zero. The Cairo taxi driver is at least doing something for his immortal soul, the German taxi driver does not have one.

Derek

Thanks for the explanation, Derek.  I have heard the camel vs. riches quoted in Christian settings, and I don't think it is that commonly quoted by Muslims.  The main thing, however, is that it seems to me that materialism and riches seem to have been considered amoral or anti-religious in Christianity, or poverty to be valued, but I don't think this is so in Islam.  As I recall, in the latter case the morality tends to rest on the just use of wealth (but wealth itself is not eschewed) --- for the sake of spouse, child, parents, kindsmen, neighbours, and then on to orphans and the disposessed.  I have had the impression of a much different mentality on that account.  Therefore, with your television question, my answer would have been the opposite of yours.  Religiosity and posessions would not be exclusive from what I understand.

Maxi

Originally written by Derek Thornton on June 11, 2009 12:33 AM Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on June 10, 2009 11:02 PM  Is it not Christianity that says the rich man cannot get to heaven in the metaphor of the camel going through a needle's eye? No, sorry about that, it was not "Christianity". In the Qu'ran (Al-Araf 7:40) it says: ...

I am glad that thanks to Turkey we can have this discussion here, but since it is an early Corpus Christi morning for me, I have a hard time waking up and catching up with you, guys. 

I understand that Qu'ran is the literal, untranslated, unaltered and thus timeless, word of God, but since it was revealed hundreds of years after the Christian New Testament camel story, it's not that I suspect plagiarism, but at least I understand Maxi referring to the New Testament as the camel story's primary source. So OK, assuming that Jesus did not say there that it was impossible, only that it was harder for a rich man to get to heaven, what is exactly the difference with the way Qu'ran puts it when it says:

To those who reject Our signs and treat them with arrogance, no opening will there be of the gates of heaven, nor will they enter the garden, until the camel can pass through the eye of the needle: Such is Our reward for those in sin.

The fact that it does not refer to the rich because, as the last Maxi's post says, it does not have with them the kind of problem Christianity has with materialism which it labels amoral?

Other than that, at this early hour in the morning, the Qu'ran camel surah seem to me to be an exact parallel, only expressed hundreds of years later, of the Christian requirement to obey the Commandments as I take the requirement not to sin and to follow "Our signs," quoted above, to mean the same as in Matthew.

Do enlighten me.

For the time being, my conclusion is, when I hear that the "Cairo taxi driver is at least doing something for his immortal soul, while the German taxi driver does not have one," that it would be actually good if Muslims and Christians belonged to the same organization so that they could sort this out somehow peacefully between themselves the way we sort out things here in our discussions, coming from different perspectives. Of course, and this goes without saying, my perspective is completely different from that of a German who already lives surrounded by Turks in his country. Don't they contribute to the German economy being the strongest in Europe?

Jacek

The camel statement, does not have to be a plagiarism but a quotation or simply a proverbial statement common to a few cultures or religions. It was usually interpreted by more sophisticated theologians as the truth about attachment to riches: it is harder for a person attached to material things or riches to achieve heaven or spiritual happiness than it is for a camel to... It is about attachment to things not about actually how much money one has: it is about an attitude towards riches mostly and an attitude towards life. Christianity does not say one has to be poor but to live life a certain way and not get attached to material things, which sometimes results in not being rich or not caring about whether one is rich or not. 

It is a very famous statement made by Jesus Christ, very often quoted. I do not know whether it is a part of any other Book.

Originally written by Derek Thornton That religious factor is a red herring, David. How "Christian" is the EU? I would say that it is only nominally so.

I don't think it is a red herring at all; I think the fact that Turkey is Muslim is the central issue.  I understand that the EU is by and large a secular place, but it is secular within a Christian tradition.  The fact that the EU is even nominally Christian is signficant - names have importance. Most Europeans live and work within a Christian culture even if they are not religious.  The architecture of the buildings, the art they look at, the clothes they wear, the food they eat, and the languages they speak are all part of a Christian heritage. They lack the "otherness" that is associated with Arabic-speaking Muslims, with their mosques and prayers towards Mecca and their women in veils.

Originally written by Derek Thornton Originally written by David Kallans ... Turkey is also geographically and historically as much of a European country as an Asian one. Geographically, it might appear so to you but that is because Europe tends to be fuzzy at its edges. In fact, the situation was settled once and for all time in 1923 by the Treaty of Lausanne. 3% of Turkey is in Europe and 97% is in Asia. The boundary between the two is clearly and unambiguously defined by the Bosporus. My proposal would be for the EU to buy the 3% from Turkey (they might also need to bribe somebody) and split it between Bulgaria and Greece (the USA could be given a military base there to keep them quiet). That would be the end of any pretentions the Turks might have to being European. Historically, in my opinion, Turkey has seen Europe more as a place to be plundered than as a community they would like to belong to for sentimental reasons. And a Turkish entry to the EU would be the greatest plundering that part of the world has ever seen!

 

Treaties seldom settle things "once and for all time," and I hardly think that the Treaty of Lausane of 1923 is any exception.  The most notable thing about that treaty is actually that it shows how uniquely motivated the Turks were, as it was the only treaty that modified the terms of the Treaty of Versailles that ended the First World War. 

The boundaries of the modern Turkish state notwithstanding, the history of Turkey is firmly rooted in Europe.  Throughout most of its history the Ottoman Empire's terrritory was nearly evenly split between European and Asian/North African regions.  Prior to the capture of Constantinople in 1453 the Turks' capital was in Europe, in the city of Edirne (aka Adrianople).  The Turks did not regard Europe as simply a place to be plundered.  Yes, they sought to obtain territory and riches there (but so too did the Romans, French, Germans, Russians, and every other European power over the centuries), but they did not destroy the cultures they conquered.  Indeed, the Ottomans were remarkably tolerant of and repectful of the diverse peoples within their empire.  Many Orthodox Christians were happy to be "conquered" by the Muslim Turks, who allowed them to practice their religion, and liberate them from subjugation by their repressive Catholic Venetian overlords.

It is true that most of the land area of modern Turkey is in Asia, but a significant portion of it, most notably its major city, is in Europe.  The EU has accepted Cyprus, which is even further away from the European mainland, as a member (is Cyprus even part of Europe, one might wonder?)  The vast majority of Denmark's territory is also not in Europe, but rather in North America (i.e. Greenland, which has a unique constitutional status within Denmark and has been explcitly placed outside the EU).  However, the EU does include territory in North America (e.g. Guadalope, Martinique) as well as Africa (e.g. Ceuta) and the Pacific (e.g. New Caledonia).

In reference to the earlier conversation about hate speech, see:

Can right-wing hate talk lead to murder?

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on June 11, 2009 11:59 AM Christianity does not say one has to be poor but to live life a certain way and not get attached to material things,

Maybe that's why the West loves materialism the way Derek described it. Don't immoral things tempt the most? 

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 11, 2009 9:58 AM Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on June 11, 2009 11:59 AM Christianity does not say one has to be poor but to live life a certain way and not get attached to material things, Maybe that's why the West loves materialism the way Derek described it. Don't immoral things tempt the most?

I don't know. It depends what you call immoral.

Right, maybe "unethical' would have been better.

Still, "immoral" means:

Not moral; inconsistent with rectitude, purity, or good morals; contrary to conscience or the divine law
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/immoral

deliberately violating accepted principles of right and wrong
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Then my answer is I do not think so. If something is contrary to one's conscience, I do not think it attracts, unless that person has no consciencce, or very low conscience.

Originally written by John Bunch on a more conservative website, someone pointed out the hypocrisy here

I am not sure who exactly it is that is being accused of hypocrisy.  There are many people who condemn violence regardless of the religion or politics of the perpetrator, and there are many who understand that Islamic institutions as well as right-wing American fora (e.g. talk radio) both contribute to an atmosphere in which some individuals will be spurred towards violence.  I think most intelligent-thinking people understand that it is a minority of either group who would commit violence.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on June 11, 2009 4:29 PM If something is contrary to one's conscience, I do not think it attracts, unless that person has no consciencce, or very low conscience.

I was merely replying to your observation:

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on June 11, 2009 11:59 AM Christianity does not say one has to be poor but to live life a certain way and not get attached to material things,

Now it turns out, in  light of what you added, that we should revise the label "Christian" everybody is wearing, by asking them whether they have conscience and/or whether they are attracted by bad things. Some sort of high commission should vet all Christians and decide, one by one, whether they are real Christians (i.e., following Jesus' teachings with a conscience) or fake Christians (i.e., sold out to materialism, for example, because of no consciencce, or very low conscience).

I don't believe in such a system. To me, all Westerners who claim to be Christians are Christians. If 99% of them are possessed by materialism or have no soul like that German taxi driver, that means that this is exactly what  being Christian means. Not what the Christian dogma says on paper, which is theory. This is similar to communism. On paper, and we are really not interested in it, it said (and still keeps saying in a few places) things completely different from what real life was about. Only the latter, the "real socialism" if you will, can be the object of judgement, not the dogma underlying it on paper, no matter how glossy and attractive looking.

Jacek

Originally written by John Bunch on June 11, 2009 5:55 PM  ... Violence by Christians in the U.S. is always the sign of the "broader hate" in that group, but violence by Muslims is "an isolated event", and "not indicative" of anything.

Now, I haven't lived in the US for the last ten years, and things have changed since 9/11. Still, I don't believe, even for a moment, that violence by Muslims is thought of as an isolated event and not indicative of anything. What I think is that when Muslims are violent the "isolated events" simply do not count in the minds of other people, for Muslims (we all know this, right?) are violent by nature and need not have any events for their violence to be indicative of anything other than being Muslim.

It's simply a form of slow, insidious and not thought-about racism. What else could it be? Fear?Religious intolerance?

Nanna

The Christian teaching is whatever the teaching of Christ is: Christians is too broad a term, because there are different people among so called Christians. There are some who follow the teaching of Christ and some who do not, and still others who think they do, but they really don't,;some who follow some churches which have not that much to do with the original teaching, some who call themselves Christian out of a tradition and many others, but Christianity is a philosophy and religion based on the teaching of Christ not what some people of the so called Christian nations did to it. The same  is true about communism  and everyhing else, in my opinion. It is the ideology that has to be examined not what was done to it. Communism was utopian; this was probably its main weakness and that it did not take into consideration individual needs and the uniqueness of each and every human being. What was done to it, was not communism but a regular totalitarian system, like any other totalitarian system.

Originally written by Nanna Mercer on June 11, 2009 1:01 PM Originally written by John Bunch on June 11, 2009 5:55 PM  ... Violence by Christians in the U.S. is always the sign of the "broader hate" in that group, but violence by Muslims is "an isolated event", and "not indicative" of anything. Now, I haven't lived in the US for the last ten years, and things have changed since 9/11. Still, I don't believe, even for a moment, that violence by Muslims is thought of as an isolated event and not indicative of anything. What I think is that when Muslims are violent the "isolated events" simply do not count in the minds of other people, for Muslims (we all know this, right?) are violent by nature and need not have any events for their violence to be indicative of anything other than being Muslim. It's simply a form of slow, insidious and not thought-about racism. What else could it be? Fear?Religious intolerance? Nanna

I agree with you, Nanna, that violence by Muslims in the US is usually viewed as a part of a broader plan and carefully investigated, but I think this is related more to outside Islamic organizations, not to domestic Muslims, especially Afro-American converts, that have never visited any Al Quida sympathizing countries. Then, maybe it is true that such attacks are viewed as isolated incidents, like this shooting by a Black convert.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on June 11, 2009 7:16 PM It is the ideology that has to be examined not what was done to it.

Only if one has theoretical interests.

Communism was utopian

And so is Christianity, considering that very few, if any, live by its precepts. This doesn't diminish its importance to people, of course. All religions have always been of vital importance.

I am not sure if any religion is Utopian, because it is a religion not a political system that is supposed to work: it is a system of beliefs of a different nature, not one that is supposed to prove itself in the market or guarantee anything. It is a system whose only aim is spiritual development, nothing else.

Originally written by David Kallans on June 11, 2009 1:09 PM I don't think it is a red herring at all; I think the fact that Turkey is Muslim is the central issue.  I understand that the EU is by and large a secular place, but it is secular within a Christian tradition.  The fact that the EU is even nominally Christian is signficant - names have importance. Most Europeans live and work within a Christian culture even if they are not religious.

On the contrary, Turkey is a secular state; most of the EU member states are not. The EU itself is not committed to Christianity. There was an attempt to do so in the ill-fated "EU Constitution" which never did get off the ground. The Treaty of Lisbon which is intended to replace it contains no mention of Christianity but contains the passage:

"The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail."

I cannot detect a great deal of pluralism or tolerance or of equality between men and women in the Roman Catholic church so that rather marginalizes them. I believe it is fair to say that there is nothing particularly "Christian" about the EU.

Originally written by David Kallans on June 11, 2009 1:09 PM The architecture of the buildings, the art they look at, the clothes they wear, the food they eat, and the languages they speak are all part of a Christian heritage.

That baffles me completely. There is nothing particularly "Christian" about modern European buildings, art, clothes, food or languages. You can apparently see something that I can't see.

Originally written by David Kallans on June 11, 2009 1:09 PM They lack the "otherness" that is associated with Arabic-speaking Muslims, with their mosques and prayers towards Mecca and their women in veils.

That is what I meant by the criterion: "Do they look like us?". Once they do look like us (and the majority of urban Turkish men and women do look like us), then the factor Christian or Moslem has no relevance in modern Europe. Opposition to the erection of mosques in Germany is strictly on the level of adherence to the building and zoning ordinances and not on any real or imaginary religious conviction. Religion is not a hot subject in Europe, I believe that there would have been the same opposition to the admission of Turkey even if they had all been nominal Christians. The thought of what those 40 million impoverished peasants are going to cost us is the primary objection.

We currently worship Mammon, not God or Allah, the evidence is overwhelming.

Derek

Originally written by Derek Thornton You can apparently see something that I can't see.

Apparently so.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on June 11, 2009 6:16 PM There are some who follow the teaching of Christ and some who do not, and still others who think they do, but they really don't; some who follow some churches which have not that much to do with the original teaching, some who call themselves Christian out of a tradition and many others, but Christianity is a philosophy and religion based on the teaching of Christ not what some people of the so called Christian nations did to it.

The difficulty there is that following Christ's teachings in spirit and letter would earn you the same fate as his; you would finish up being "crucified" in one form or another, you just would not fit in with the prevailing social order or practices. I presume that the same is true of Judaism and Islam.

I once watched a lecture given by a famous Swami who was deported back to India by the US for a number of serious offences. He had operated a complex somewhere in the US mid-west, had a collection of expensive Rolex watches and several Rolls-Royce cars which he used only for driving around the complex and a number of highly dubious sexual preferences. He reported that once he got back to India there was a message waiting for him telling him that Buddha himself wanted to have a word with him. Quite unexpectedly this turned out to be true and he eventually found himself face to face with Buddha.

Buddha opened his eyes slowly, looked at him and uttered the words: "Where is your begging bowl?". The Swami could not think of a credible answer and that terminated the audience without another word being spoken.

If the EU had been a rigorous Christianity-based organization and the MEPs were given a similar test of their faith and their compliance, I doubt that any would pass. They would never have got that far within their party organizations if they had been true worshippers of God rather than Mammon. That is another good reason for not voting for any of those evil sinners!

We are all worshippers of graven images (a.k.a. TV screens) and none of us would be prepared to sell all he or she has and give the proceeds to the poor so for all practical purposes Christianity is totally irrelevant to our daily lives, we care nothing for our immortal souls. I do not understand why the subject keeps coming up.

Derek

Originally written by Derek Thornton on June 11, 2009 2:29 PM We are all worshippers of graven images (a.k.a. TV screens) and none of us would be prepared to sell all he or she has and give the proceeds to the poor

Speak for yourself, please.

so for all practical purposes Christianity is totally irrelevant to our daily lives

It has nothing to do with Christianity.

I do not understand why the subject keeps coming up.

Neither do I.

Concerning the EU Parliament, this was meant to be?

Originally written by Derek Thornton on June 11, 2009 2:29 PM We are all worshippers of graven images (a.k.a. TV screens) and none of us would be prepared to sell all he or she has and give the proceeds to the poor so for all practical purposes Christianity is totally irrelevant to our daily lives, we care nothing for our immortal souls. I do not understand why the subject keeps coming up. Derek

I do not think it is that tragic in the United States. No religion, I think, has ever  reguired  from anybody to sell all of his belongings and give it to the poor and then lay down in mud asking for forgiveness, unless misunderstood, manipulated religion has. It is more about the attitude than about material giving only.  Even if somebody gave 50 billion dollars to charity but  regretted it in his secret mind, it would mean nothing at all in the sense of spiritual progress. I think it is really more about the attitude, reacting to things at a proper time, giving when it is necessary and not giving when it is not, helping but not being stupid and taken advantage of, although sometimes it is hard to figure out.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on June 11, 2009 7:39 PM ....religion.... It is a system whose only aim is spiritual development, nothing else.

Except that in real life religions lost this power a long time ago.

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 11, 2009 10:45 PM Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on June 11, 2009 7:39 PM ....religion.... It is a system whose only aim is spiritual development, nothing else. Except that in real life religions lost this power a long time ago.

Did religion ever have such power, and if, what has replaced it?

Nanna

Originally written by Nanna Mercer on June 11, 2009 10:58 PM Did religion ever have such power....?

When it was fresh, it may have had. But centuries of scandals and more and more visible hypocrisy of the Church made a dent in it. Unless you consider Church unrelated to religion... I would certainly agree with that.

Here is how Dante, a religious man, depicted the head of the Catholic Church of his times, 700 years ago:

Pope Boniface VIII is here in flames among other simonists. (http://danteworlds.laits.utexas.edu/textpopup/inf1901.html)

And here is a novella by Boccaccio written some 50 years later: Post #2425.

Have things changed much about this and other religions? Sometimes you don't even need to open the newspaper. It's on the front page.

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 11, 2009 11:21 PM [Here is how Dante, a religious man, depicted the head of the Catholic Church of his times, 700 years ago: Pope Boniface VIII is here in flames among other simonists. (http://danteworlds.laits.utexas.edu/textpopup/inf1901.html) And here is a novella by Boccaccio written some 50 years later: Post #2425.

"...if a man desire to see luxury, avarice, gluttony, and such wicked things, yea, worse, if worse may be, and held in generall estimation of all men; let him but goe to Rome, Brussels, which...

Let's not demonize Brussels. It's no different from any other government. (Except for the communist ones, of course, which were more efficient and cheaper.)

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 12, 2009 12:03 AM Let's not demonize Brussels. It's no different from any other government. (Except for the communist ones, of course, which were more efficient and cheaper.)

Yeah, that was a regular Slaraffenland a land of Cockaigne

Originally written by Derek Thornton I once watched a lecture given by a famous Swami who was deported back to India by the US for a number of serious offences. He had operated a complex somewhere in the US mid-west, had a collection of expensive Rolex watches and several Rolls-Royce cars which he used only for driving around the complex and a number of highly dubious sexual preferences. He reported that once he got back to India there was a message waiting for him telling him that Buddha himself wanted to have a word with him. Quite unexpectedly this turned out to be true and he eventually found himself face to face with Buddha. ... We are all worshippers of graven images (a.k.a. TV screens) and none of us would be prepared to sell all he or she has and give the proceeds to the poor so for all practical purposes Christianity is totally irrelevant to our daily lives, we care nothing for our immortal souls. I do not understand why the subject keeps coming up.

 

I believe you are likely referring to the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, who had a compound not in the mid-west (which is generally a conservative area, with the exception of some large cities), but rather in Oregon, which has long been open to alterative lifestyles of all sorts.

I think Derek you are using too narrow of an interpretation of "Christianity."  When I was speaking of the Christian culture of Europe I did not mean this primarily in a religious sense, because most modern Europeans are rather secular.  Nonetheless, the culture is firmly rooted in a Christian heritage, and even atheists in Europe live in a culture that is quite inter-twined with the Christian tradition. The weekend (Saturday-Sunday) derives from Christian notions of the sabbath.  A European child who goes to school, or a young adult at a university, is part of an educational system that was formed, and still follows in the tradition in some ways, of medieval institutions founded for ecclesiastical purposes.  The fact that European men don't have multiple wives is because of the Christian tradition.  The fact that Europeans can't legally beat their wives or children is part of a Christian tradition.  Laws and social practices regarding homosexuality and incest are part of the Christian tradition.  Europeans who eat pork are part of a culinary tradition founded on Christian notions.  Any one in Europe who gets a loan gets one in a regulatory setting that is based on the Christian concepts of usury (shifting though they may be).  Virtually everything a European does is done in a context that has been shaped by centuries of Christianity.  To say that Europe is a Christian society is to say that it is a culture which has been shaped by the Christian tradition, in contrast to, for example, the Mulsim world, which has been shaped by a different tradition.

Originally written by Nanna Mercer on June 12, 2009 12:24 AM ....Cockaigne

Isn't this were they had a good cusine? One more reason why this can have nothing to do with Brussels, form what I was told.

As for

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 12, 2009 12:03 AM It's no different from any other government. (Except for the communist ones, of course, which were more efficient and cheaper.)

for those who have not followed our recent exchanges, that was an ironic reference to Post #177999 with which I obviously disagree.

Jacek

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 12, 2009 8:50 AM Originally written by Nanna Mercer on June 12, 2009 12:24 AM ....Cockaigne Isn't this were they had a good cusine?

I think so, yes...that'd be it.

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 12, 2009 12:03 AM It's no different from any other government. (Except for the communist ones, of course, which were more efficient and cheaper.) for those who have not followed our recent exchanges, that was an ironic reference to Post #177999 with which I obviously disagree.

Were you to check my reference in Post #178108, you'd see that Slaraffenland refers to the land of milk and honey, so obviously we are not discussing countries where strong communist tendencies hold sway.

Nanna

Originally written by David Kallans on June 12, 2009 12:10 AM I believe you are likely referring to the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, who ...

Yes, that is the guy! A total phony but he had some interesting ideas about religion and life in general. The Buddhist begging bowl notion matches Christ's "sell everything and give all the proceeds to the poor" admonition exactly.

Originally written by David Kallans on June 12, 2009 12:10 AM I think Derek you are using too narrow of an interpretation of "Christianity."

That certainly could account for some of our differences.

Originally written by David Kallans on June 12, 2009 12:10 AM Virtually everything a European does is done in a context that has been shaped by centuries of Christianity.  To say that Europe is a Christian society is to say that it is a culture which has been shaped by the Christian tradition, in contrast to, for example, the Muslim world, which has been shaped by a different tradition.

I do not agree with any of that. You have a view of European history that is vastly different from mine and does not match my daily experience of European culture. In my view, European culture is based on the Mediterranean (Greco-Roman) cultures and the pagan cultures that preceded them thus dating at least a thousand years before the birth of Jesus Christ. That incudes the very concept of democracy, Christmas trees and Easter eggs. Nothing that I do or with which I come into daily contact has been influenced or shaped by Christianity so far as I can tell. In my opinion, the effect of Christianity on modern European culture has been superficial at best and, unless I happen to pass near a church, is invisible for all practical purposes. Religion cannot be the bar to Turkish entry to the EU, Islam would find only a religious vacuum here.

Whatever claims are put forward, I feel sure that fear of the economic consequences (those peasants) and the political consequences (all Turkey's problems would then become the EUs problems) are the overriding considerations.

Derek

Originally written by Derek Thornton on June 12, 2009 12:35 PM European culture is based on the Mediterranean (Greco-Roman) cultures and the pagan cultures that preceded them thus dating at least a thousand years before the birth of Jesus Christ. That incudes the very concept of democracy, Christmas trees and Easter eggs.

For all those believing in evolution, pagan roots of everything and everybody come as no surprise, however details may be debatable.

Francis Weisler, in his book Handbook of Christian Feasts and Customs, argues that “[Christmas tree] is completely Christian in origin. Historians have never been able to connect it with ancient Germanic or Asiatic mythology. ... Two popular observances belonging to Christmas are more especially derived from the worship of our pagan ancestors—the hanging up of the mistletoe and the burning of the Yule log." Regarding the Christmas tree itself, Chambers assumes that it "seems to be a very ancient custom in Germany, and is probably a remnant of the splendid and fanciful pageants of the Middle Ages." However, Weisler also dismantles the hypothesis of the pagan origin of the Yule log as well, saying, "The Yule tree had no direct pagan connotation, and never acquired any Christian religious meaning in later times."  He then goes on to reveal its true origin, devoid of any connection with the Yule tree.

Other traditions relating to Christmas that may derive from Germanic pagan practices include the Christmas ham, Yule Goat, stuffing stockings, elements of Santa Claus and his nocturnal ride through the sky, and elements of Alpine folklore.^{(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_tree)}

The fact is, it seems, that the custom of erecting and decorating a Christmas tree can be traced to 16th century Germany rather than to pagan times.

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 12, 2009 12:16 PM The fact is, it seems, that the custom of erecting and decorating a Christmas tree can be traced to 16th century Germany rather than to pagan times.

That looks like a challenge to argue the contrary. You do realize, I presume, that you are opening yourself to a charge of inciting to drift a thread? Any response will clearly have to contain some reference to MEPs. They probably receive a Christmas bonus and attend the EP Christmas party and are allowed to bill their Christmas cards as official expenses. Some link of that kind would do, I suppose?

Derek

Another possible justification: the largest EP group is Christian democrats, isn't it? (Which does not belie your claim that democracy existed long before Christ was born so, it seems, it should be possible to be a democrat without insisting, in politics, on being Christian.)

Originally written by Derek Thornton on June 12, 2009 1:34 PM  Some link of that kind would do, I suppose?

I just read that Declan Ganley (Libertas) is in hot water, so any link, placed discretly at the bottom of the post, to that interesting controversy would suffice.

Nanna

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

Originally written by David Kallans on June 11, 2009 8:09 AM The fact that the EU is even nominally Christian is signficant - names have importance.

That they do! Still, the EU is not Christian; like America and pretty much all the rest, it`s Moneytheist (that`s not the same as materialist, BTW). And like the USA, the EU is extremely intolerant in its tolerance.

I find the quotation at the top of this page very true:

Originally written by Dodo Kaipdodo I find the quotation at the top of this page very true: If voting changed anything they'd make it illegal.

 

I do too.  Most elections are essentially shams, giving people the illusion of choice when they are actually chosing between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.  Barack Obama is more like John McCain than either side cares to acknowledge.  Change we can believe in, indeed.  Like what, exactly?

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 12, 2009 12:16 PM The fact is, it seems, that the custom of erecting and decorating a Christmas tree can be traced to 16th century Germany rather than to pagan times.

You get a different account if you refer to a German Wikipedia! There it is stated that the frequently found claim that the first recorded instance of a Christmas tree was in 1419 cannot be traced to any source (it could be an "invented" fact).

You will also find statements that there is no clear origin for the use of a tree as Christmas decoration but rather that it is a combination of customs taken from a number of different cultures.

The feast of the Son of Isis (Goddess of Nature) was celebrated on December 25th in ancient Babylon (accompanied by partying, heavy eating and drinking, and the traditional giving of gifts so what else is new?).

There is evidence of a belief that coniferous plants contained "Lebenskraft" (vital energy) and that decorating the house with them brought health into the house. The Romans decorated their houses with laurel (bay-tree) branches at year's end (winter solstice - "Saturnalia" plus "January Kalends", the whole season being called Dies Natalis Invicti Solis or the Birthday of the Unconquered Sun). The Roman Mithras (sun god) cult decorated a tree for the winter solstice (December 22nd).

The Druids used the tree as a religious symbol, holding their sacred ceremonies while surrounding and worshipping huge trees. The Norsemen (so well before Christianization) decorated their houses in winter with fir tree branches to keep away the evil spirits and encourage the onset of springtime. The shortest day of the year was celebrated as the birthday of the Sun god and special candles were lit to encourage the return of Mithras and the sun in the next year.

The custom in Germany in the beginning seems to have been with a deciduous tree which was decorated with figures of Adam and Eve and apples because in the cisalpine custom, the 24th December was dedicated to the memory of Adam and Eve. This continued into the 19th century in Northern Germany where the tree was decorated with Adam and Eve figures, apples and a wooden or a baked snake.

One reason given by some for the move to a fir tree was that the Roman Catholic church was opposed to the use of a tree at Christmas (because of its pagan origins?), believing that the crib was enough symbolism. It so happened that the Roman Catholic church owned most of the fir-tree forests so the general population felt justified in going through them and stealing the trees (still done to this very day!).

The first use of an evergreen tree at Christmas time in Alsace (1521) was condemned by the Lutheran church at the time as a blasphemy.

That is enough for me to suggest that there is a high probability that the Christmas tree was pagan in origin. Final evidence that Christmas has pagan origins would be provided if we could show that the European Parliament *** (you can't get much more pagan than that) has a decorated tree at Christmas time and that Daniel Cohn-Bendit (the arch pagan) dances around it naked grunting primitive chants.

Derek
*** on-thread again.

Another off topic take on the Christmas Tree. An excerpt from the translation of H.C. Andersen's Fairy Tale, Fyrretræet

Out in the woods stood such a pretty little fir tree. It grew in a good place, where it had plenty of sun and plenty of fresh air. Around it stood many tall comrades, both fir trees and pines.

The little fir tree was in a headlong hurry to grow up. It didn't care a thing for the warm sunshine, or the fresh air, and it took no interest in the peasant children who ran about chattering when they came to pick strawberries or raspberries. Often when the children had picked their pails full, or had gathered long strings of berries threaded on straws, they would sit down to rest near the little fir. "Oh, isn't it a nice little tree?" they would say. "It's the baby of the woods." The little tree didn't like their remarks at all.

Next year it shot up a long joint of new growth, and the following year another joint, still longer. You can always tell how old a fir tree is by counting the number of joints it has.

"I wish I were a grown-up tree, like my comrades," the little tree sighed. "Then I could stretch out my branches and see from my top what the world is like. The birds would make me their nesting place, and when the wind blew I could bow back and forth with all the great trees."

It took no pleasure in the sunshine, nor in the birds. The glowing clouds, that sailed overhead at sunrise and sunset, meant nothing to it.

In winter, when the snow lay sparkling on the ground, a hare would often come hopping along and jump right over the little tree. Oh, how irritating that was! That happened for two winters, but when the third winter came the tree was so tall that the hare had to turn aside and hop around it.

"Oh, to grow, grow! To get older and taller," the little tree thought. "That is the most wonderful thing in this world."

In the autumn, woodcutters came and cut down a few of the largest trees. This happened every year. The young fir was no longer a baby tree, and it trembled to see how those stately great trees crashed to the ground, how their limbs were lopped off, and how lean they looked as the naked trunks were loaded into carts. It could hardly recognize the trees it had known, when the horses pulled them out of the woods.

Where were they going? What would become of them?

In the springtime, when swallows and storks came back, the tree asked them, "Do you know where the other trees went? Have you met them?"

The swallows knew nothing about it, but the stork looked thoughtful and nodded his head. "Yes, I think I met them," he said. "On my way from Egypt I met many new ships, and some had tall, stately masts. They may well have been the trees you mean, for I remember the smell of fir. They wanted to be remembered to you."

"Oh, I wish I were old enough to travel on the sea. Please tell me what it really is, and how it looks."

"That would take too long to tell," said the stork, and off he strode.

"Rejoice in your youth," said the sunbeams. "Take pride in your growing strength and in the stir of life within you."

And the wind kissed the tree, and the dew wept over it, for the tree was young and without understanding.

When Christmas came near, many young trees were cut down. Some were not even as old or as tall as this fir tree of ours, who was in such a hurry and fret to go traveling. These young trees, which were always the handsomest ones, had their branches left on them when they were loaded on carts and the horses drew them out of the woods.

"Where can they be going?" the fir tree wondered. "They are no taller than I am. One was really much smaller than I am. And why are they allowed to keep all their branches? "Where can they be going?"

"We know! We know!" the sparrows chirped. "We have been to town and peeped in the windows. We know where they are going. The greatest splendor and glory you can imagine awaits them. We've peeped through windows. We've seen them planted right in the middle of a warm room, and decked out with the most splendid things-gold apples, good gingerbread, gay toys, and many hundreds of candles." ...

http://www.andersen.sdu.dk/vaerk/hersholt/TheFirTree.html

Other historic examples of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_life show the tree as a universal symbol found in many spiritual traditions predating Christianity, just as the egg was a symbol of the rebirth of the earth in Pagan celebrations of spring and was adopted by early Christians as a symbol of the rebirth. I have seen myself a park full of trees near the European Parliament in Brussels and eggs are routinely used in their cafeterias, so that should be enough of a link to the topic of this thread.

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 12, 2009 12:41 PM Another possible justification: the largest EP group is Christian democrats, isn't it? (Which does not belie your claim that democracy existed long before Christ was born so, it seems, it should be possible to be a democrat without insisting, in politics, on being Christian.)

The German party (CDU) has "christlich-demokratisch" in its name only because it emerged after WW2 from its predecessor (the Centrist party) which was strictly for Roman Catholics. The only way they could think of for marking the change to being non-denominational was to include the generic "christlich" in the name. Non-Christians (and presumably also Moslems) can be members. There is nothing noticeably Christian about the party or most of its members, in fact you can be pretty confident that they are all wicked sinners. This is comparable with the legal definition of "lemonade" as being that it contains no real lemon.

Derek

Originally written by Nanna Mercer on June 12, 2009 2:10 PM "We know! We know!" the sparrows chirped. "We have been to town and peeped in the windows. We know where they are going. The greatest splendor and glory you can imagine awaits them. We've peeped through windows. We've seen them planted right in the middle of a warm room, and decked out with the most splendid things-gold apples, good gingerbread, gay toys, and many hundreds of candles." ... http://www.andersen.sdu.dk/vaerk/hersholt/TheFirTree.html

 

And Denmark is the world's largest exporter of Christmas trees, some 20 million a year?

Derek

When you look up the website http://www.eppgroup.eu/home/en/default.asp of the EPP Group - the Group of the European People's Party in the European Parliament, the largest political group in the now 736-strong European Parliament - you will notice that it was founded in June 1953 as the Christian Democrat Group in the embryonic Common Assembly of the European Coal and Steel Community and is still commonly referred to as Christian Democrats, even though for some 20 years it has been accepting other centre-right but non-Christian Democrat parties (like the current Polish ruling party, for example).

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 12, 2009 3:13 PM ... I have seen myself a park full of trees near the European Parliament in Brussels and eggs are routinely used in their cafeterias, so that should be enough of a link to the topic of this thread.

I too have walked through the Royal Park which used to belong to the Duke of Brabant. In fact, you can walk almost in a straight line from the Parliament and up to the park, which is lovely. Isn't it a bit much, though, mentioning a Royal Park as a reference to and in the same breath as the EU Parliament?

Nanna

Originally written by David Kallans on June 12, 2009 8:40 AM Like what, exactly?

Like trying to use our own brain instead of zealoting the media? ...

Originally written by Derek Thornton on June 10, 2009 5:43 PM Of all the candidates who came to my attention, the only one who I might have voted for would have been Daniel Cohn-Bendit but I cannot vote for him, he is on the French Verts list. What are needed are non-national, EU-wide candidates, to vote for but there still are none. The proposal to have them was made some time ago but nothing has been done about it yet. As things stand, strictly speaking, citizens of EU states who live in a state other than the one in which they have citizenship, are effectively disenfranchized.

Cohn-Bendit: I am certain that, in five years, the top people in the European Parliament will be elected Europe-wide on transnational candidate lists. It's just a shame that I won't be there to be a part of it. I've spent my life campaigning for it. When it finally happens, I will likely be too old and no longer there to experience it. http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,629741,00.html

Should Non-Voters Be Fined?

With voter turnout in the European elections lower than ever, some German politicians are throwing out ideas to up interest in the future. Why not fine the apathetic?

For those in Europe who are convinced of the efficacy and irreplaceability of the European Union, the statistics on voter turnout in the European parliamentary elections which finished on Sunday made depressing reading.

Across the 27-member bloc, just 42.9 percent of eligible voters cast their ballots. That marks the lowest turnout since direct voting began in 1979 In a number of Eastern European countries, the total was well below even that. In Romania, just over a quarter of voters voted. In Lithuania, it was just 20.9 percent. And Slovakia solidified its status as the champions of apathy with just 19.6 percent finding their way to the polling stations, though that was an improvement on the 17.4 percent who voted in 2004. In Germany, too, turnout was low, at 43.3 percent -- a fact which has now kicked off a discussion in Europe's largest country as to how to encourage more citizens to exercise their right to vote.

[…]

… After their election day debacle, Social Democrats (SPD) have zeroed in on low voter turnout as the least painful explanation for the party's 20.8 percent showing. Germany's SPD parliamentarian Jörn Thiessen has an idea of his own to confront the problem: Fine voters who don't cast their ballots. "We politicians are required to vote in parliament," he told Bild. "One can require the same of voters in an election. Those who don't cast their ballots should be fined €50. A democracy without democrats doesn't work." …

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,629503,00.html

Originally written by Nanna Mercer on June 12, 2009 3:41 PM Originally written by Jacek K. on June 12, 2009 3:13 PM ... I have seen myself a park full of trees near the European Parliament in Brussels .... I too have walked through the Royal Park which used to belong to the Duke of Brabant. In fact, you can walk almost in a straight line from the Parliament and up to the park, which is lovely. Isn't it a bit much, though, mentioning a Royal Park as a reference to and in the same breath as the EU Parliament?

I had to look up my little map and you know what? I think I never got that far. Shame on me! Chateau Royal and the Royal Park you are talking about are in northern Brussels, while the two parks in the E.U. section are Parc du Cinquantenaire (with the Arc de Triomphe) and Parc Leopold which is the one I mentioned. Parc Leopold is adjacent to the European Parliament main building which they refer to as Caprice des Dieux...

You can see part of Parc Leopold here:

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 12, 2009 8:55 PM  Chateau Royal and the Royal Park you are talking about are in northern Brussels, You can see part of Parc Leopold here:

Yes, thank you, and you see can the Royal Park here, top right on the map.

http://www.worldtravelguide.net/city/20/street_map_blank/Europe/Brussels.html

I was there several years ago in May and it was unseasonably hot. I could not bear to stay in the little hotel room, so I walked all over Brussels and had lunch on a bench in the park. I played tourist too and took a bus tour - sitting on the top floor of an open double-decker bus. Cool and refreshing. I like the city. The people, too, are very friendly.

Nanna

Originally written by Nanna Mercer on June 12, 2009 2:37 PM Why not fine the apathetic?

I`d like that! It might prove refreshing.

In Lithuania, it was just 20.9 percent.

As many as that? Surprise, surprise...

"One can require the same of voters in an election. Those who don't cast their ballots should be fined €50. A democracy without democrats doesn't work."

Long live democracy and tolereance!

Originally written by Derek Thornton on June 11, 2009 12:33 AM   In Matthew 19:23-24, Jesus Christ answers a rich man who wants to know how he can be sure about going to heaven by saying that all he has to do is to go away and obey the Commandments ("You know of the commandments, adhere to them and you will find heaven.").  It is only when the rich man comes back a second time to assert that he had observed all the Commandments, wasn't there something else he could do? that Jesus points out that his wealth was a sure sign that he coveted possessions and had therefore broken that Commandment at least ("If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me. I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.")  Jesus did not say that it was impossible, only that it was harder.

And I don't recall Jesus saying that it was any easier for the poor to enter the kingdom of God either... For Jesus the essential condition is always the one I highlighted in yellow above (more: What must you do to be saved?).

Is wealth a sign of righteousness or of wickedness?

Wealth is a sign of righteousness.

Wealth is a sign of wickedness.

Psalm 37:25 I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken nor his seed begging bread.   Psalm 12:1, 3 Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord .... Wealth and riches shall be in his house.   Proverbs 15:6 In the house of the righteous is much treasure.

Matthew 19:23-24 Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.   Luke 6:24 Woe to you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.   James 5:1 Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/rich.html; and What the Bible says about rich people

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 10, 2009 4:53 PM As a background, that Hate crime article I linked to earlier contains an interesting comparative study between Europe and the US in one of its footnotes. ... at [7]

Here is another comparative study: http://www.nigdywiecej.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=302&Itemid=76

Hate crime is a problem in both countries, more efforts are needed to monitor it and help the victims – says the Polish-German study published jointly by the Polish ‘NEVER AGAIN’ Association and the renowned German organization Opferperspektive. ...

- ‘There are instruments to deal with racism and right-wing extremism in both German and Polish law, but the actual implementation is missing in Poland. Ethnic and religious minorities, migrants, gays and lesbians, as well as anti-fascists are among victims of extreme-right violence’ – said Dr. Rafal Pankowski, the Polish project coordinator, a social scientist at Collegium Civitas. – ‘Hate crime monitoring and victim assistance is left to non-governmental organizations and informal support groups’.

From The full text of the report in PDF format :

              Note on Terminology

Any criminal offence, including offences against persons or property, where the victim, premises, or target of the offence are selected because of their real or perceived connection, attachment, affiliation, support, or membership with a group as defined in Part B.

Sometimes the legislature regarding hate crimes, and especially hate speech, is not as important as the general consciousness of a particular society regardinng those things. There are maybe some hate crimes in America, but you cannot really feel that much hate here.

Re: righteousness v. wickedness.

In the Old Testament wealth is a sign of righteousness: in the New One of wickedness, mostly, or not really wickedness but an obstacle to spirituality.

Also the wealth the Bible talks about is the one given to somebody by God or life as a reward for righteousness and obeying God's code: it is not one gained by swindling or taking advantage of other people. It is usually portrayed as abundant crops, animals etc., not a $50000 watch.  

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on June 17, 2009 11:14 AM ...There are maybe some hate crimes in America, but you cannot really feel that much hate here.

Well, I am forced to ask you, Liliana, if you never leave your house?

It's either that or our definitions of 'hate' are so different that discussion is neigh impossible.

I can remember Scott Peck having to defend his book, People of the Lie : http://www.amazon.com/People-Lie-Hope-Healing-Human/dp/0684848597

because his definition of evil (and hate) differed from that of his many readers.

While I lived in the States, I saw, heard and personally felt hate from neighbours and others who seemed damn certain that their version of life, reality and Christianity was the only one worth entertaining. Hate or evil is not, I grant you, uniquely American...

Nanna

I have never felt any kind, even the slightest hate in America, but I have never lived in small town America either:  I visited some places where everybody was nice to me. But I am also not a representative of any of the groups that hate in America has been  traditionally  directed towards. Regardless of that, you simply cannot feel too much hate in New York directed towards any one. One would just feel it in the air.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on June 17, 2009 6:18 AM  But I am also not a representative of any of the groups that hate in America has been  traditionally  directed towards. Regardless of that, you simply cannot feel too much hate in New York directed towards any one. One would just feel it in the air.

Aren't you a Slav, and a Catholic?  Both are among groupos that have historically been discriminated against in the US, and still are, although not so much in New York, which has large populations of both.

Have you been to South Carolina, Liliana?  Or West Virginia?  Or Montana?  Or Wyoming?  There are many places in the US that are not at all like NY.  You seem to infer far too much about the US based on your experience in NY.

I am a white European woman, David, the identity of whom cannot be determined off hand. People usually cannot tell right away from which country I come from. Ethically, if we go further down I am Slavic-Baltic-Germanic, if this is of any importance at all. No, I am not Catholic, but this is beyond the point. I think the hate thing is strongly exaggerated in relation to American people: they have some prejudices of course, but not to such an extent as people in some other countries do. I have been to Virginia, Carolina, Florida, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Brunswick, New Jersey, Connecticut, Upstate New York, Maryland, I worked in Massachusetts and I have never experienced any, not even the slightest hate towards me, neither did I see any in relation to other people, a little bit of prejudice against Black people in Virginia, many years ago.

Your Slavic roots are revealed in your name, Liliana.  I am pleased to hear that you have never encountered hate.  I will also note that your travels in the US have been extremely limited, limited in fact to the northeast and portions of the south that are similar to it.  I don't know where in Florida you went, but southern Florida (Miami - Tampa) is essentially a New York suburb.  Northern Virginia and parts of North Carolina (Research Triange Area) are also very northern in their culutre due to people moving there.  Such places are not at all indiciative of the "true South."  New Brunswick is in Canada, not the US (unless you were referring to New Brunswick, NJ, but your sentence seemed to indicate a string of states, not cities).

I tried to bring up some comparative studies because our personal experience is never representative of the whole of a foreign country. I would once again caution everybody against trying to extrapolate the hate we are all familiar with in our own backyard to make generalizations about any country. As I recently said, I am unable, for example, to quantify the racism that Polish media report on to make any comparisons with other countries.

One thing is sure and as a white US immigrant myself I have to agree with Liliana: The US felt unique in welcoming me as a citizen. I have lived on both Coasts and in the Midwest and I felt always, everywhere, very comfortable. As an EU citizen, I may feel equally comfortable in (a few) other member states, but they will not, any time soon, feel comfortable about me the way Americans did. That the US is an immigrant country means just that. Liliana clearly spoke for herself as I did in this paragraph...

Jacek

David, I think, your view about the attitude towards Slavic people is totally wrong. Secondly, Liliana is absolutely not a Slavic name, they did not even want to put it in my papers when I was born. It is a totally Romance name, vey popular in Mexico, these days. I also think the WASPy dominance in America is just a myth in the 21st century.

You are right, David, about the New Brunswick, I just counted all the states on the way to Canada, somehow I put New Brunswick there. Rhode Island would be another one.

I felt good in Sweden too, but I think the reason was that when I did not speak too much, they just thought I was from the North, strangers, I mean. Plus, I also met many very nice people.

Of course, once you mix race and culture in any living arrangement, your surroundings will see you as essentially different. I moved to the States from Canada where my experience of multiethnicity was very positive. Everyone I met was warm, open and welcoming. Lovely.

Nanna

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 17, 2009 1:20 PM One thing is sure and as a white US immigrant myself I have to agree with Liliana: The US felt unique in welcoming me as a citizen. I have lived on both Coasts and in the Midwest and I felt always, everywhere, very comfortable.

From my own experience, I would say that you have just been very lucky, that is all. I have also lived on both coasts and in the Midwest and on occasions have felt decidedly uncomfortable. I cannot recall having felt "very comfortable" anywhere in the US. A lot depends on special circumstances, you don't just step out of your door and see "hate" everywhere, the circumstances have to be right.

For a start, if you are looking for manifest "hate" you need to mix with that US phenomenon "rednecks". I have worked with "rednecks" in New Jersey and found that latent "hate" can always be sensed with them and it does not need much of a trigger for it to become manifest. They made racial jokes at every opportunity. For example, one day we received delivery of an industrial grade bolt cropper. You wouldn't think that there was a racial joke to be found in that situation. One of the "rednecks" picked up the bolt cropper, smiled and called out "Let's go castrate us a couple of niggers!" and all the other rednecks laughed. I couldn't say anything because they "hated" me for my accent too, they "hated" a British accent and they told me so straight out.

My wife comes from the Caribbean. I could walk about alone in Los Angeles and never see any sign of racial discrimination. Take a few steps outside with my wife together and we saw it almost immediately. One day we felt hungry and came across a pretty mock Colonial pie shop decorated like a log cabin with blue and white chintz curtains and table cloths, it looked very cosy and welcoming. The first thing I noticed was that all the customers and all the personnel were white, even the boy sweeping the floor was white! As soon as he saw us sit down, he disappeared into the back and re-emerged after a few minutes with a can of insect spray and started to spray between our feet. I asked him what he thought he was doing and he replied that the boss had just seen a couple of cockroaches in the restaurant and told him to give this corner a spray. We left without saying a word. God knows what they would have put into the food if we had stuck it out!

Generally speaking, in US white-oriented restaurants, when I and my wife were together and when they had hostess seating, she would lead us straight to a table next to the door into the toilets or the kitchen even if the restaurant was half empty. We soon found that the best tactic was simply to sit down at the first reasonable table and play dumb when the hostess came back to say that she had been taking us to that nice little table over there, did we prefer it here then?

We also spent time in South Africa at the height of Apartheid and that was quite different. We saw no signs of "hate" there. Open discrimination, yes, but not "hate". Once we knew the rules and followed them, there was no problem and no sign of "hatred", quite the contrary. Fancy restaurants, "slegs blankes" on one side of a red rope and all the others on the other side. Sometimes we could sit side-by-side but with only the red rope between us. Complete strangers would give us tips on how we could circumvent the rules. The US is different, it is a deceitful, covert type of discrimination, a hatred that is almost ashamed of itself. We spent time moving about in North and South Carolina and had to change hotels frequently. Nothing unusual happened as long as my wife stayed in the car while I checked in but if she stood with me at the reception desk then it always amused us to see the frozen (white) faces at the reception desk, we could see the muscles in their cheeks tighten, as if they would have liked to set the dogs on us but dared not offend paying customers. Sometimes I had to laugh at the spectacle but that only made matters worse, of course. But if looks could kill ...

We had 100% WASP friends living in Newport Beach and one day they came to visit us where we were staying in Santa Monica. We all went into a tea shop and ordered tea and cakes from the Latino waitress. Her English was not very good and we had to help out a little. My friend said after the waitress had left: "I hate that! It makes us feel like foreigners in our own country! I wish they would all go back where they came from! " That was one of the few times that I heard the word "hate" used openly in the US, and from his tone and his facial expression, I was sure that he meant "hate", too.

That was all a few years back but I have difficulty believing that things have changed very much, driven further into the darkness perhaps, but I would bet that it is still there below the surface, people don't change that quickly, but you won't see it unless you happen to hit a raw nerve somehow, or you mix with people who "hate".

Derek 

CAVEAT:

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 17, 2009 2:20 PM Liliana clearly spoke for herself as I did in this paragraph...

Originally written by Derek Thornton on June 17, 2009 4:28 PM I have worked with "rednecks" in New Jersey and found that latent "hate" can always be sensed with them and it does not need much of a trigger for it to become manifest.

I believe you, Derek, and would never support Liliana's generalization that there is hardly any hate in the US. The only people I worked with in NJ were Rutgers and Princeton students, so, as you said, a lot depends on circumstances.

Rather, I was trying to be careful about prasing, for example, Poland for how little racism you will find here as opposed to the wicked United States. The truth is, of course, that Poland has several times fewer immigrants, so its antibodies are also limited. Increase the dose and you will get results much worse, IMO, than in the States where the level of relevant laws, public awareness and public discourse has been higher for decades than here.

Do you find the level of the German equivalent of rednecks (along with all the skinheads, neo-Nazis, etc.) higher than in the States? If not, I don't think we should focus on bashing just Americans here, especially in this European thread.

I don't know what kind of people you met; I do not get involved with strictly WASP people, if there are any of them as a separate group somewhere. In New York, we have a lot of Jewish people, Italian,  Black, Chinese, Indian, Anglo-Saxon and various types of immigrants. I do not think this would have happened in New York. I must admit that certain white people feel a little bit of resentment towards mixed couples, as some Black people feel a little bit of resentment towards interracial relationships, and certain Oriental people feel for sure. Such people sometimes feel much friendlier towards a Black couple, or Chinese couple that a mixed couple. I do not know why this is the case, but some people are like that.

With the spraying, I must admit, that some people get totally crazy with spraying things. I had this problem with one cleaning lady in one office: she even sprayed something, like an Endust on my boss, who was a white New York born American.  

Originally written by Derek Thornton on June 17, 2009 4:28 PM  you don't just step out of your door and see "hate" everywhere, the circumstances have to be right.

Yes!

During Operation Desert Storm when the Japanese did not, because they didn't have an army, send soldiers to Kuwait, I lived in NJ., where many new Japanese cars where burned right on the car lot. My neighbours became very agitated when my Japanese partner and I refused to have a Buy American sticker and flag in our front window. One of my neighbours was a hard drinking wife-beating man who once, late at night, chased his elderly wife all the way down the street with a baseball bat. 

My partner and I were sufficiently cowed by him and his two sons to lie low. We were always, you guessed it, incredibly polite.

Nanna

You just met somebody very nasty, Nanna, who would find any reason to get at somebody. If not you, it would have been another woman, or another white couple, just to do something nasty. It is also true that some so called patriotic Americans, do not like the Japanese after Wold War II, and all the atrocities of the Batan march etc.  I think there is a certain kind of prejudice almost everywhere, even within one country. For example in the old times,  even the times when my mother was young it was almost unconceivable for a Silesian woman to marry a Pole. It was somehow more appropriate to marry a foreigner, even than a Polish person from another region. This was not due to hatred but the fear to lose the tradition. My father was always considered a foreigner, so it was ok, at least more ok that my mother married him, or maybe it was such a disaster to my grandmother that she did not even talk about it. She was very nice to him, but I think it was only due to his personal charm, or maybe my grandmother's realization about the helplessness of a human being against the forces of God and Nature.

I know the prejudice was very serious, at least mythological prejudice, in Silesia, because one of my close family members wanted to marry a Polish woman from Eastern Poland: he was lying for a while that she was Silesian, and finally told his parents that he will commit a suicide if they don't let him marry her. They were of course not that prejudiced to risk their son's life, and probably scared, so they got married, but his mother would always complain that the woman could not do anything at all, especially cook, in a region where  Borscht  was not a soup. Did it matter though? I don't think so.

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 17, 2009 3:51 PM Do you find the level of the German equivalent of rednecks (along with all the skinheads, neo-Nazis, etc.) higher than in the States?

No, skinheads, even neo-nazis and punks, are marginalized here in Germany, but "rednecks" form a major portion of the US population. However, I don't see them as being equivalents. I have been trying to identify a German "redneck", "blue-collar worker", "Joe Six-Pack" type but although there are plenty of them about, they do not seem to me to be organized as an identifiable social group like the US "rednecks" are.

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 17, 2009 3:51 PM If not, I don't think we should focus on bashing just Americans here, especially in this European thread.

I am not focussed on it, I merely responded to another turn that this thread took. I also do not consider it to be "bashing" but a fact of life. There is probably something deep-psychological behind it, something to do with slavery and its after-effects, something to do with having a large and easily identifiable "poor white" population and a large ex-slave and non-integrated immigrant population, all competing for the lower-paid jobs plus a pseudo-culture of "political correctness" that does not appear to have been fully thought through. I never met anything like it anywhere else in the world so unless I learn something to the contrary, I have to assume that it is a peculiarily US American phenomenon.

I do not believe that "hate" is the right word anyway, more like a mixture between xenophobia, lack of national self-confidence that requires a diet of symbols (US flag badge on the lapel, etc) to keep it fed, having a mere 200 or so years of national history, and a fear of precariousness, a fear of slipping to the bottom of the social ladder which only the notion of having another social group even lower down the ladder can suppress.

But there might be a clear lesson for the EU here. Keep the individual member states strong and stress their distinguishing cultures and stop trying to homogenize the whole shoot. Do not ratify the Treaty of Lisbon which would give more power to the EU Parliament - given half a chance, the MEPs are sure to abuse their "federal" power just as they currently abuse their allowances.

In the same way, the USA might be better off the more they strengthen the individual States and the more they reduce Federal powers.

Derek 

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on June 17, 2009 4:31 PM I think there is a certain kind of prejudice almost everywhere, even within one country. For example in the old times,  even the times when my mother was young it was almost unconceivable for a Silesian woman to marry a Pole. It was somehow more appropriate to marry a foreigner, even than a Polish person from another region. This was not due to hatred but the fear to lose the tradition.

OK, so what is the sociological name for that kind of behaviour? There must be a great deal of that in the EU. In my family, it was taboo for anybody to marry or even go with, a Roman Catholic. That was considered to be worse than being in league with the Devil. I can remember my aunts peeping out between the curtains and whispering when a known Roman Catholic was seen walking down the street. I wonder if the EU has studied that kind of behaviour or possibly even has plans to harmonize it out?

Derek

Sounds like a different planet to me, Liliana and Derek... Was this in a different millennium?

I think, the United States, Derek, should only be compared to such countries as Australia and Canada, because the way the country originated and the way it functions is totally different from the European Union.

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 17, 2009 3:00 PM Sounds like a different planet to me, Liliana and Derek... Was this in a different millennium?

Last century, Jacek, unfortunatelly. But it could have been partially mythological, although young people did not know about it and took it seriously.

I think it was also done out of fear, not out of hatred at all.The older people in Silesia were simply afraid to be ridiculed, not to be accepted by the Polish culture which is in a sense was close, yet totally different. They were afraid that somebody will laugh at their language, which is a simple language, kind of fanny, even to me. I like it, but it is mostly good for jokes and some warm homely conversations. A person from a totally different culture would not understand Silesian culture at all, and might have just accepted it the way it was, whereas to a Polish person it might have seemed totally strange and funny. I think more serious things were written and done in German before the war, but after the war some people were reluctant to speak German, because it reminded them about the horrors of war. What I meant is that a very distant culture was less dangerous because it did not understand Silesian culture at all, but did not ridicule it either. Like my father would not eat my grandmother's food, almost at all, but he would not criticize it either that it was supposed to be prepared a different way. He would just go to the only Russian restaurant in town, when he got really nostalgic.

Originally written by Derek Thornton on June 17, 2009 4:28 PM I cannot recall having felt "very comfortable" anywhere in the US.

Originally written by Derek Thornton on June 17, 2009 8:02 PM Originally written by Jacek K. on June 17, 2009 3:51 PM Do you find the level of the German equivalent of rednecks (along with all the skinheads, neo-Nazis, etc.) higher than in the States? No, skinheads, even neo-nazis and punks, are marginalized here in Germany, but "rednecks" form a major portion of the US population. However, I don't see them as being equivalents. I have been trying to identify a German "redneck", "blue-collar worker", "Joe Six-Pack" type but although there are plenty of them about, they do not seem to me to be organized as an identifiable social group like the US "rednecks" are.

I wonder whether those feelings are shared by refugees. The Economist has an interesting chart showing that in the US, refugees account for 0.09% of the population while in Germany 0.70%, i.e., eight times more.

AT THE end of 2008 10.5m refugees were in the direct care of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, down slightly from 11.4m a year earlier. The conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq again caused the largest numbers of refugees to flee to, or remain in, neighbouring countries. Some 2.8m of the world's refugees are from Afghanistan, most of whom are in Pakistan and Iran. Pakistan hosted almost 1.8m people last year, nearly all from Afghanistan, with Syria and Iran each receiving around 1m people. Germany was the most popular destination among rich countries. But as a share of its population Jordan has by far the highest concentration of refugees. http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13854694&fsrc=nwl

Do you know, Derek, whether that German generosity is economy-driven, or is it that the German government is more charitable than the US administartion which, after all, did not invade Iraq and Afhganistan to now accept refugees from there? Their right hand, however, the UK, has refugees that account for 0.50% of its population. That's 5.5 times more (per capita) than in the US. Among the 15 countries ranked, only India and China have a lower percentage of refugees: 0.02%.

I think the German government might be more charitable with the social sytstem they have, plus probably very low birth rate. The American government usually does not have that much money to spend on social things for the people who are already in the US, or who were born here. If they developed a good welfare system for refugees, they would probably be afraid that half of the world would come to America.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on June 18, 2009 11:27 AM If they developed a good welfare system for refugees, they would probably be afraid that half of the world would come to America.

One immediate remedy in the meantime would be to invade fewer countries and thus not to aggravate the problem this way...

But what is ten million in the world of trillions? Just a meaningless drop in the ocean.

I am against the war in Iraq, Jacek, you know. It was president Bush's and his people crazy idea. Most of the people were against the war from the beginning. If not refugees there would have been millions of other people if the welfare system was designed this way. I think that everybody is welcome to the United States, but they have to pay their way through by working, like everybody else, not counting on the government to babysit them for years.

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 18, 2009 10:54 AM the UK has refugees that account for 0.50% of its population.

The following piece is about immigrants in general, not refugees:

Town halls and Whitehall spend £50 million a year on translation and interpretation for the benefit of people who cannot speak English.

It is a well-intended initiative which is meant to offer immigrants a helping hand.

Yet now an investigation has found that many of the expensively-produced foreign-language leaflets have never been read.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/5523716/Councils-spend-50m-a-year-translating-documents-no-one-reads.html

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on June 17, 2009 11:14 AM Sometimes the legislature regarding hate crimes, and especially hate speech, is not as important as the general consciousness of a particular society regardinng those things. There are maybe some hate crimes in America, but you cannot really feel that much hate here.

I think that legislation stems from facts of life. On the situation in the US:

http://www.progressive.org/mpgilmore061709.html

In 2007, there were more than 7,000 hate crime incidents, as reported by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the Southern Poverty Law Center. In 2006, and 2005, there were also more than 7,000 incidents of hate crimes reported.

And the number of new hate groups formed is going up. Since 2000, the number of hate groups has increased by 54 percent, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The federal government must address hate crimes in a meaningful way. A major hate crimes bill, The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes/ Matthew Shephard Act, quietly vetoed in 2007 during Christmas break by President Bush, has passed the House of Representatives, and is up for a vote by the Senate. The bill strengthens the nation's hate crime laws. President Obama has expressed support for the bill.

Originally written by Derek Thornton on June 11, 2009 7:48 PM Originally written by David Kallans on June 11, 2009 1:09 PM They lack the "otherness" that is associated with Arabic-speaking Muslims, with their mosques and prayers towards Mecca and their women in veils. That is what I meant by the criterion: "Do they look like us?". Once they do look like us (and the majority of urban Turkish men and women do look like us), then the factor Christian or Moslem has no relevance in modern Europe.

"The Sun features an interview with psychologist Barbara Fredrickson (article not available online), a pioneer in the field of positive psychology, director of the University of North Carolina’s Positive Emotions and Psychophysiology Lab and author of the upcoming book Positivity.

While humans pay more attention to negative experiences—an evolutionary result of having to constantly scan for threats—positive moments are far more abundant.

Positive emotions can also affect how we perceive people of other races. Scientists had found that when looking at people of a different race, we often look at individual facial features. People “use the same process they use to recognize objects, which suggests there’s some dehumanization going on,” Fredrickson says. “But what we’re finding is that, under the influence of positive emotions, people use the same holistic process for cross-race faces that they use for faces of their own race. It’s as if people, when they’re feeling good, are better able to see the full humanity of people of a different race.” "

Originally written by Derek Thornton on June 17, 2009 8:02 PM Keep the individual member states strong and stress their distinguishing cultures and stop trying to homogenize the whole shoot. Do not ratify the Treaty of Lisbon which would give more power to the EU Parliament - given half a chance, the MEPs are sure to abuse their "federal" power just as they currently abuse their allowances.

Not only that. The Lisbon Treaty is a no-no also for other reasons. A glimpse: http://wyborcza.pl/1,86871,6735193,Why_KUL_Won_t_Award_an_Honorary_Degree_to_Mr_Barroso.html

On the 440th anniversary of the Union of Lublin, the KUL was to honour Mr Barroso as well as leaders of the countries that once made part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - the presidents of Ukraine, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, and an ex-chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the Republic of Belarus. 

Gazeta was the first to report about the plans back in March. KUL spokesperson Barbara Górka confirmed them for Gazeta: 'The award for Mr Barroso is related to the official slogan of the celebrations, "From the [1569] Union of Lublin to the European Union."' ...

A special Senate meeting during which the decisions were made took place on 4 June. The guests are to receive their honorary degrees on 1 July. But not Mr Barroso. Why? ...

A KUL professor said, 'I think it was behind-the-scenes discussions among the academy's top brass. It was probably about the Lisbon Treaty and certain issues related thereto.'

What issues? Political scientist Prof Marek Pietraś notes that the Polish Episcopate has criticised certain provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, an integral part of the Lisbon Treaty, which Mr Barroso deems his personal success.

'The Church, just like President Lech Kaczyński, criticised the fact that the Charter, a collection of man's fundamental rights, lacks a reference to God,' says Mr Pietraś. 'Other controversial issues included the lack of a clear-cut ban on human cloning and of a precise provision that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. This could have opened the way to same-sex marriages.'

A year ago, the alleged prospect of Poland being potentially forced to accept same-sex marriages was mentioned by President Kaczyński in his famous address on the Treaty of Lisbon. 

translated by Marcin Wawrzyńczak

That seems to be to be rather a broad generalisation based on the, rather extreme, case of Germany. There are many places in Europe where flags do not have negative associations. Just north of the German border, in Denmark, we use our flag for all kinds of things (though not generally, I’d say, for sticking on our cars), and most of them aren’t even particularly patriotic: we wave flags at kids’ birthdays and use Dannebrog (the Danish flag) as a symbol for birthdays in general; football (=soccer) fans wave both club flags and Dannebrogs at matches; people have flagpoles for purely decorative purposes in their gardens; etc.

The flag is used for more ‘proper’ purposes (monarchal/political events or for use on boats and cars, for example), but there are very, very few negative associations to the flag, unlike in Germany.

Originally written by Janus Jacquet on June 19, 2009 11:56 AM in Denmark, we use our flag for all kinds of things (though not generally, I’d say, for sticking on our cars), and most of them aren’t even particularly patriotic: we wave flags at kids’ birthdays and use Dannebrog (the Danish flag) as a symbol for birthdays in general; football (=soccer) fans wave both club flags and Dannebrogs at matches; people have flagpoles for purely decorative purposes in their gardens; etc.

Interesting how relaxed other nations can be. Polish national flag is reserved for patriotic occasions. Polish law says that treating the national symbols, including the flag, "with reverence and respect" is the "right and obligation" of every Polish citizen. I would be careful with birthdays in public places because public disrespect, destruction or intentional removal of the flag is considered a crime punishable by a fine, penal servitude or up to one year of imprisonment... (Wikipedia)

This has all historical reasons, of course. Poles have their Flag Day which was first observed on the accession to the EU 5 years ago. "It was established in order to educate the Polish people about the history and significance of national symbols. The date was chosen to coincide with the Polonia Day traditionally observed by Polish diaspora outside Poland and the Polish Senate on May 2. There was also a historical reason: under the Communist regime, May 2 was a day when national flags, hoisted for Labor Day on May 1 were being quickly removed before Polish Constitution Day (May 3), which was banned by the authorities.Since the re-introduction of the Constitution Day in 1990 and establishment of the Polish Flag Day, the flag is flown continuously during the first three days of May." (Ibid.) 

They put the flag on the top of Chistmas tree in Sweden, I am not sure if they do the same in Denmark?

Originally written by John Bunch There is a difference between nationalism and patriotism.

Perhaps, perhaps not.  Both terms have rather elastic meanings and encompass a variety of sentiments, which are not consistent within a culture, let alone across cultures.  Linguistically both refer to love that arises by virtue of one's birth ("nation" is from Latin and refers to one's birth group, "patriotism" is the love of one's father (from both Greek and Latin) who made birth possible).  The US is an unusal state in that it is not a nation-state, i.e. it is not, like most countries, based on a common national (i.e. ethnic/linguistic/cultural) identity.  Most European states are nation states, even though there is seldom a complete one-to-one matchup between populations and states (not all French people live in France, for example, but they also live in Belgium and Switzerland, which, not coincidentally, are not nation-states and are characterized by relatively weak central governments and strong local governments).

The main confusion for Americans is that people confuse both patriotism and nationalism (whatever that term might mean in the context of the US) with support for the government, either in general or in its current form.  A true patriot, it has been said, must always be ready to protect his country from its government.  Robert E. Lee was a patriot in this sense - his father (pater) was Virginia, not the US, and he stood ready to defend Virginia from the US.  This is also the same thinking that radial separtists like Timothy McVeigh used to justify their attacks against the US government.  As abhorent as their actions may be, they are based in a long tradition of anti-governmentalism in America.

The American flag is a rich symbol with many meanings to many different people.  It may represent the US and its ideals such as freedom, justice, equality and democracy.  It may also represent - and many people do think of it this way - intolerance, right-wing positions, and the US's unjustified meddling in the affairs of other countries as well as the private lives of its own citizens.  The Confederate "stars and bars" flag also has a multi-layered meaning, which is evident in the recurring debate over its appropriateness in contemporary society.  It represents both the courage and nobility of men who fought and died for everything that was good in the South, as well as a system of slavery and racial hatred.  It represents both things, although usually not to the same person.

Originally written by John Bunch  Lee's version of patriotism was a narrow and limited one, and one which did not see the big picture. Houston saw the big picture. I won't even comment on McVeigh, except to say he was a terrorist. McVeigh was a "patriot" to the USA in the same manner that Hitler was a "patriot" to Germany.

 

All versions of patriotism are more or less narrow and limited, for they posit an allegiance to a small group (however construed) in opposition to a larger group.  To be a patriot is to consider some group -local, national, or whatever, to be superior to humanity in general.  It's just a matter of degree.

As for your comments about McVeigh, I notice you say you will not comment, and then you explicitly make one exception, but then acutally make two comments.  Why say you will not comment if you then proceed to make two?  You can't simultaneously comment and maintain that you are not commenting.  That is pure Orwell.

I don't have any reason to think that McVeigh was not a patriot.  I don't think its useful to call people terrorists, but that point aside, I see no reason why he could not be both a terrorist and a patriot.  The two have nothing to do with each other.  He certainly made choices that I would probably not have made myself - but then again, I have no way of knowing for sure what choices I would have made had I been in his situation with his life experiences.

Originally written by John Bunch There is no excuse for what he did. McVeigh was a coward (planting a bomb takes no guts at all, and he did not place himself in harm's way) and a terrorist.

I didn't say there was an excuse for what he did.  I do, however, refrain from making judgments about the morality of other people.  That is God's job, not mine.  I can't know all the circumstances that led him to do what he did.  I don't have all necessary information to sit in judgment on him, and therefore decline to cast any stones.

Being a "patriot" is neither a positive nor a negative thing, it just is.  A murderer can be a patirot, so can a saint.  One can be a coward, a "terrorist," or anything else and also be a patriot.  Patriotism is defined as love of (some sort of) land and the people natively associated with it.  Terrorism and cowardice have no semantic elements in common with it, and all possible combinations of "terrorist," "coward" and "patriot" are possible (one may be a cowardly terrorist patriot).

I absolutely don't think McVeigh acted appropriately (although I would refrain from making a judgment as to the absolute morality of his actions), but I don't think he was a coward at all.  He was very gutsy.  Detonating a bomb from a distance, without being in harm's way, oneself, is what US fighter pilots and other military personnel often do.  Would you therefore call them cowards?  I wouldn't.  The (mis)use of the term "coward" as a way to denigrate people with poltical leanings you disagree with is an Orwellian distortion of language.

Originally written by John Bunch Read the Old Testament sometime, and see what a moral relativist the God of the Old Testament is. One moment he is saying he loves everyone, and then next, he is ordering the Jews to go into some rival province and kill everyone. You can find almost any moral stance in the Bible, including statements that God approves of infanticide. So I do not consider the Bible to be a good source for moral information. That is one reason I always find it amusing when the Christian Right in America rails against "moral relativism". If you want moral absolutes, read Kant.

Well I of course have read the Old Testament.  I believe there is much wisdom encoded in it, but it largely reflects the ideology and fears of a relatively primative people.  The god of the New Testament (aka Jesus), as well as the god of the Koran, reflect an evolution in theology towards a view of a more complex god.  I believe that God is infinite and transcends the limitations of human language.  No single description, or any holy book, or even any single theological system, can adequately describe God.  At best, they can merely describe a given person's incomplete understanding (or misunderstanding) of God.

Timothy McVeigh is, in my imperfect way of seeing things, an unfortunate individual who made a number of decisions that seem misguided.  He certainly brought, at least in the most obvious and immediate of senses, a great deal of unhappiness and pain to many, many people.  I am sure that he also brought an infinite amount of good that we cannot see; perhaps it has yet to come to fruition.  Perhaps, for example, the bombing in Oklahoma City enabled two people to meet (perhaps the suriving spouses of two victims), who will marry and have children, who in turn will have children, and so forth for several generations, until a child is born that discovers the cure for cancer.  It could then be said that Timothy McVeigh's actions led to the cure of cancer.  Every action sets off an infinite chain reaction of events, some of which will seem good and some bad to various observers.  Goodness and badness are thus nothing other than figments of the imagination.

This is, in large part I believe, why Christ enjoined us all to love our brother as we do ourselves.  There were no exceptions to this command.  The rule was not "love everyone but Timothy McVeigh," or "love everyone except those who blow up buildings."  One ot he many things that astounds me about fundamentalist Christians is how willing they are to overlook this particular fundamental, and literal, command of Christ.

Originally written by John Bunch on June 21, 2009 1:43 AM "If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and withers, and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned". - John 15:6. That does not sound like eternal love and tolerance to me. To me it sounds like: follow me, or be burned forever. Not a very "liberal" message, as Sam Harris has pointed out...

I think, John this should be taken metaphorically: if somebody does not abide by the divine law he eventually goes to waste, in any sense, not necessarily damnation. Plus the love thing and the absolute forgiveness are the attributes of further developed religion, meaning the views of Jesus Christ.

Seems Voter turn-out for the EU Parliament turns out to be America, America... plus Religious Divide?

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on June 21, 2009 5:50 AM Originally written by John Bunch on June 21, 2009 1:43 AM "If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and withers, and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned". - John 15:6. That does not sound like eternal love and tolerance to me. To me it sounds like: follow me, or be burned forever. Not a very "liberal" message, as Sam Harris has pointed out... I think, John this should be taken metaphorically: if somebody does not abide by the divine law he eventually goes to waste, in any sense, not necessarily damnation.

I agree with Liliana.  This is a metaphorical description of the consequences of ignoring the laws of the universe.  It is devoid of hatred or ill will, just states what happens if one ignores the laws (i.e. "does not abide in me").  You can ignore gravity if you like, but you will suffer the consequences if you step over a cliff.  The difficulty, of course, arises in determining what law is meant here.  Metahporical reading is quite complex and takes considerable study to do effectively.  Mere knowledge of the literal text is not helpful, and can in fact be counter-productive.  It is for this very reason that the Catholic Church fought literacy on the part of the laity for so long, and resisted masses in vulgar tongues.  People who think they understand the bible seldom do.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on June 21, 2009 11:50 AM Originally written by John Bunch on June 21, 2009 1:43 AM "If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and withers, and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned". - John 15:6. That does not sound like eternal love and tolerance to me. To me it sounds like: follow me, or be burned forever. Not a very "liberal" message, as Sam Harris has pointed out... I think, John this should be taken metaphorically: if somebody does not abide by the divine law he eventually goes to waste, in any sense, not necessarily damnation. Plus the love thing and the absolute forgiveness are the attributes of further developed religion, meaning the views of Jesus Christ.

The whole 15th chapter of John's gospel uses the symbol of the vine and its branches. Grapes, along with the wine and raisins that are made from them, are also mentioned throughout the Bible, all the way from Genesis to Revelation. There, along with the olive tree and the fig tree, grape vines were often used as symbols of the fertility of the Promised Land of Israel.

In John's 15, (forgive me for adapting this from the Web) Jesus had said at first:

"I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. You are already made clean by the word which I have spoken to you." {John 15:1-3 RSV}

Jesus would often say in his parables "The kingdom of God is like a vine and its branches." "I am the vine," he says here, 'the true one." "My Father," he adds, "is the gardener."

What is the role of the gardener? At a certain time of the year vinekeepers cut off "sucker shoots" from the vines. It is because they will never bear fruit. They will grow leaves abundantly, but they will never produce fruit. If allowed to remain, these shoots will actually sap the life of the vine and greatly reduce the quantity of fruit it will bear. The first work of the vinekeeper is to totally remove fruitless branches. It had recently happened to one of the disciples. The Father had removed Judas, the fruitless branch from the disciples' band.

The second work of the Father, is to cleanse the fruitbearing branches. The word here, "prunes," is chosen as meaning "cut back." This is also what vinedressers do. They not only go through a vineyard and cut off shoots, but they cut back others so that they will bear more fruit.

"Pruning is a drastic process. Jesus is clearly teaching here that this is what the Father will do in our lives to make us bear more fruit. He will drastically cut back our lives in a cleansing process. In a vineyard, pruning also removes dirt, cobwebs, dried leaves, and fungus that has collected. According to our Lord, in the believer, this is done by the "word which I have spoken unto you."  (http://www.pbc.org/files/messages/4309/3870.html)

Right before the verse 15:6 with which we started, Jesus goes on to tell us the part that we play in this:

"Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing." {John 15:4-5 RSV}

Stay with me, then, and I will lead you. I am your only salvation...

Liliana says that "the love thing and the absolute forgiveness are the attributes of further developed religion, meaning the views of Jesus Christ." Too bad that in the Christian Europe (to link back to our topic) or the world in general not everyone abides in that...

I think it might be hard, or undesirable to some people to abide by any orders.

Originally written by John Bunch on June 22, 2009 7:17 AM You guys, as westerners, in the year 2009, are free to interpret Jesus's statements, relativizing them.

In fact, I tried to express serious doubts about the effectiveness of the Leader-disciples model... It doesn't work in the long run even if today's preachers or commentators make an effort to revitalize old parables the way it was done in what looked like an online sermon from which I drew my exegesis of John's chapter 15. In the beginning was the Word, sure, but that Word has been long dead and disconnected from people's lives. There are many, many exceptions but they seem to confirm the rule.

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 21, 2009 6:08 PM "Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing." {John 15:4-5 RSV}

Something to think about...

Europe," [Karen Armstrong] says, "is about the only place where religion does not matter much. People in Europe might need to rinse their minds of all their bad and lazy theology. People in Europe have not yet asked the big questions about religion; they have tried get rid of primitive forms of religion, but very often what we see in the churches today is exactly the kind of religion that these people are trying to get rid of... Jesus would be horrified by the practices of the church today. I would love to show him around the Vatican, when Christians cannot even share a church together. He would be appalled, much as Mohamed would be appalled if he knew that September 11th was done in the name of Islam." 

AND below - From another interview with Karen Armstrong 

[snip]The traditions all insist that it is not enough simply to show compassion to your own group. You must have what the Chinese call jian ai, concern for everybody. Or as Jewish law puts it: “Honour the stranger.” “Love your enemies,” said Jesus: if you simply love your own kind, this is purely self-interest and a form of group egotism. The traditions also insist that it is the daily, hourly practice of compassion -not the adoption of the correct “beliefs” or the correct sexuality- that will bring us into the presence of what is called God, Nirvana, Brahman or the Dao. Religion is thus inseparable from altruism.

So why aren’t religious people compassionate? What does that say about them? Compassion is not a popular virtue. Many religious people prefer to be right rather than compassionate. They don’t want to give up their egos. They want religion to give them a little mild uplift once a week so that they can return to their ordinary selfish lives, unscathed by the demands of their tradition. Religion is hard work; not many people do it well. But are secularists any better? Many secularists would subscribe to the compassionate ideal but are just as selfish as religious people. The failure of religious people to be compassionate doesn’t tell us something about religion, but about human nature. Religion is a method: you have to put it into practice to discover its truth. But, unfortunately, not many people do. …

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/mediaculture/287/interview_with_karen_armstrong?page=3

This is absolutely true, Nanna, most of the above. Sometimes the more devoted people to their church are the less compassionate. This is some kind of a paradox, but I think it is true in many cases.

To better illustrate my point, one devoted woman in the Unites States, a school bus driver left a handicapped child in the bus for the night in freezing temperatures, because she was in a hurry to her church meeting and could not deal with the problem of getting him out of the bus and taking him home.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on June 22, 2009 12:23 PM  one devoted woman in the Unites States, a school bus driver left a handicapped child in the bus for the night in freezing temperatures, because she was in a hurry to her church meeting and could not deal with the problem of getting him out of the bus and taking him home.

I find it interesting how, once we engage in any practice that is likely to help us grow and become more aware, we often end up being very aware not only of the beams but also the motes ... Most of us would not leave a child in a bus overnight (where was his parents, I wonder?), but a host of lesser crimes does not necessarily make for a more compassionate state of being.

Nanna

Originally written by John Bunch You guys, as westerners, in the year 2009, are free to interpret Jesus's statements, relativizing them. But I think that in the time and place that he spoke them, people did not take a "metaphorical" view of that. When he said that those not abiding in him would be "cast into the fire", people believed that not metaphorically, but literally, for about 1500 years. Read the history of the Catholic Church. They burned "witches" in America in 1650, based on such quotes. The Catholic Church burned people at the stake - literally "casting them into the fire", until about 1650. The Church, from 400 AD to about 1650 AD, took a very, very literal view of that.

There have always been people who have understood Christ's teachings metaphorically.  His teachings are essentially one parable after another, and he is constantly making explicit use of metaphors.  It is true that soem have taken him "literally" (or that is, they have taken a translation "literally," for few fundamentalistis who claim to put so much stock in the words of Christ bother to worry about the difficulties of how modern or King James English might reflect a 2,000 year old Greek text that purports to record words which were likely uttered in Aramaic), but there has always been a divergence of views as to how to interpret him, be it the year 2009 or the "Year One."  The unfortunate deeds of mainstream Catholic and protestant churches over the past two millenia are rather beside the point.

All language is relativistic, John.  It is relative to a speaker, audience, and point in time.

Originally written by Nanna Mercer on June 10, 2009 11:14 AM Originally written by Jacek K. on June 10, 2009 10:15 AM I don't think fascism is what we should worry about now, but euroscepticism: Watching the eurosceptics (available in 10 languages)  Maybe so, but the eurosceptics with their 'close up the borders, forget about the EURO, we must keep our opt-outs', coupled with their far right fascist rhetoric could just as easily stay home and do their own thing. I think they are dangerous. Do I want a little fat, bleached troll to represent me in the EU? No I don't! Neither do I want a doe-eyed heiler to speak for me.

Back to the future

Apparently, there are limits to the folly, even for MEPs...

According to this: http://politiken.dk/politik/article737561.ece (Danish)

DF er ikke 'mainstream' »Vi har aldrig haft formelle forhandlinger med Dansk Folkeparti, og vi har ingen intentioner om at begynde dem«, siger James Holtum,.

(DF) The Danish Peoples' Party is not mainstream. We have never initiated formal discussions with the Danish People's Party and we have no intentions of starting any … "says James Holtum,

Morten Messerschmidt has not been invited to this group: The European Conservatives and Reformists Group includes 55 MEPs from across eight member states. … 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4665818.stm

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 10, 2009 10:15 AM   I don't think fascism is what we should worry about now, but euroscepticism: Watching the eurosceptics (available in 10 languages)

Conservatives unveil anti-federalist European alliance

By Jean Eaglesham in London and Joshua Chaffin in,Brussels

Published: June 23 2009 03:00 | Last updated: June 23 2009 03:00

David Cameron yesterday unveiled the Tories' anti-federalist European parliament alliance, prompting rivals' accusations he was trading influence for ideological isolation.

The European Conservatives and Reformists Group has been formed as a result of Mr Cameron's promise when he stood for the Conservative leadership to pull his party out of the mainstream centre-right European People's party.

The new alliance is set to be the fourth largest grouping when the parliament convenes next month. It will have 55 MEPs from eight countries.

The membership is heavily skewed towards three parties - the Conservatives, the Polish Law & Justice party (PiS) and the Czech Republic's Civic Democratic party (ODS) - with the other five countries having only one MEP each.

The Tories expressed optimism yesterday that more MEPs would join the grouping before the parliament, elected earlier this month, meets for the first time on July 14. Mr Cameron's nervousness about the move was reflected by the decision to launch the alliance without a press conference on a day when the British political agenda was dominated by the election of a new Commons speaker.

But the Tories said they were confident the alliance could withstand scrutiny. Despite Labour accusations they were throwing in their lot with "racists, fascists and climate change deniers", the Tories insisted members had been vetted. The Italian Liga Nord and the Danish People's party are both understood to have been rejected because their far-right views would cause political embarrassment for Mr Cameron.

In Brussels, the alliance's debut drew mixed reviews. Rival political groups sought to highlight its members' allegedly extreme views - from the Poles' hostility to homosexuals to the Czechs' disregard for global warming. …

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b294fa82-5f8d-11de-93d1-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

Originally written by David Kallans on June 11, 2009 2:28 PM The vast majority of Denmark's territory is also not in Europe, but rather in North America (i.e. Greenland, which has a unique constitutional status within Denmark and has been explcitly placed outside the EU).

Greenland, ruled by Denmark since 1721, replaced the national language, Danish, with the Inuit dialect of Kalaallisut and began to use the island's Inuit name, Naalakkersuisut, in government documents. “It's a new relationship based on equality,” said prime minister Kuupik Kleist, who compared Greenland and Denmark to partners in a marriage. “From today, the man in the house has as much say as the wife.” (Harper's Weekly Review) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/world/europe/22greenland.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

Originally written by Jacek K. on June 9, 2009 9:34 AM Turnout-wise, unsurprisingly, the lowest was on the ex-Soviet periphery: in Slovakia (19.6%), Lithuania (20.9%) and Poland (24.5%).

Another possible partial answer why the turnout in Poland was one of the lowest in Europe.

Only 50% of Poles say that to live in a democratic country is "very important" for them. That's still much better than in Ukraine (36%) and Russia (...16%).

See the following graph for several other countries. The five answers from left to right were: very important, rather important, rather unimportant, completely unimportant, don't know.

http://wyborcza.pl/1,76842,7158144,Demokracja__Inni_cenia_ja_bardziej.html