P
phil19034
Guest
The US Constitution might not make direct mention, but the US Declaration of Independence does.
I am a supporter of the movement "pro-life" and at the same time I am a supporter of the EU, but I noticed that most of the pro-life is anti-EU
- Status
P
phil19034
Guest
I think the reason why pro-life gets associated with anti-EU is because many (if not most) pro-life people support (to one degree or another) the concept of subsidiarity.
The EU is continually progressing into becoming a real Federation. There are many who believe one day, the EU might wind up becoming a Federal govt similar to the United States.
European subsidiarity proponents really don’t want to see more of this.
In the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries many European ethnic communities have essentially been lost, as new national governments have emerged and have selected a national language - displacing the local languages that were once used in greater numbers. For example: 150 years ago, many languages were spoken on the Italian Peninsula. But after unification, the language of Florence became what is today known as Italian. Today, few people speak the local languages (often considered correctly & incorrectly as dialects). Point is, many subsidiarity proponents feel that the EU will eventually lead to all of Europe speaking just English, French, Spanish, German and Italian. They fear the other languages and eventually the cultures will disappear if the EU eventually becomes a national Federation made up of “nation-states” as the 2nd level of govt.
Therefore, the pro-EU crowd views this as xenophobia and nationalism, when in reality it’s just subsidiarity.
At least that is my hypothesis.
So again, it’s not that pro-lifers are really xenophobes and nationalists, etc. It’s just that many pro-lifers believe in family values and subsidiarity.
The EU is continually progressing into becoming a real Federation. There are many who believe one day, the EU might wind up becoming a Federal govt similar to the United States.
European subsidiarity proponents really don’t want to see more of this.
In the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries many European ethnic communities have essentially been lost, as new national governments have emerged and have selected a national language - displacing the local languages that were once used in greater numbers. For example: 150 years ago, many languages were spoken on the Italian Peninsula. But after unification, the language of Florence became what is today known as Italian. Today, few people speak the local languages (often considered correctly & incorrectly as dialects). Point is, many subsidiarity proponents feel that the EU will eventually lead to all of Europe speaking just English, French, Spanish, German and Italian. They fear the other languages and eventually the cultures will disappear if the EU eventually becomes a national Federation made up of “nation-states” as the 2nd level of govt.
Therefore, the pro-EU crowd views this as xenophobia and nationalism, when in reality it’s just subsidiarity.
At least that is my hypothesis.
So again, it’s not that pro-lifers are really xenophobes and nationalists, etc. It’s just that many pro-lifers believe in family values and subsidiarity.
V
Vouthon
Guest
It mentions God, in a deistic, naturalistic (non-revealed) sense that was common among enlightenment era philosophers, but nothing about Christianity, religion or churches.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
A majority nevertheless and with a voter percentage turnout larger than any since 1950, I think. I know this is going off-topic, but as a leave voter I get really, really sick of being told that somehow we didn’t really know what we were voting for, or even that somehow the referendum wasn’t valid. We were given the referendum (approved by a large majority in Parliament) and we voted democratically. The fact that we didn’t vote in the way that it seems those who gave us the referendum seemed to think we would is just tough, that’s democracy.
And as this is off-topic, I will say no more about thos issue.
Last edited:
W
Wozza
Guest
I’m afraid that you didn’t know what you were voting for because it wasn’t proposed. Other than ‘do you want out?’. Was it a no deal exit you wanted? I doubt it. But that’s likely what you’ll get and there is a significant majority who do not want that.HeDa:
A majority nevertheless and with a voter percentage turnout larger than any since 1950, I think. I know this is going off-topic, but as a leave voter I get really, really sick of being told that somehow we didn’t really know what we were voting for, or even that somehow the referendum wasn’t valid. We were given the referendum (approved by a large majority in Parliament) and we voted democratically. The fact that we didn’t vote in the way that it seems those who gave us the referendum seemed to think we would is just tough, that’s democracy.
And as this is off-topic, I will say no more about thos issue.
If the referendum was worded similar to…
Stay or
Leave under these conditions
…then no-one could argue that the will of the people was being heard (notwithstanding the blatant lies
told bynthe leave camp). But it wasn’t. It was offered thus…
Stay or
Leave - and don’t worry, we’ll sort out the exact details later.
Is that how you voted? Commiting future generations to a decision the details of which you had no idea?
P
PickyPicky
Guest
No, not entirely, I agree. But it has contributed, and its contribution has been successful: to so intertwine economies that war starts to become, as Robert Schuman said, not just undesirable but impossible.
I note that wars have continued to break out in parts of Europe beyond the EU’s boundary.
I note that wars have continued to break out in parts of Europe beyond the EU’s boundary.
T
TK421
Guest
I’m pro-life and pro-EU. Plenty of people are.
Central governments are frequently perceived as threats to religious liberties so that tends to make pro-life people intuitively weary of something like the EU. I felt the same way once upon a time, except Balkanized governments can just as easily exploit and trample humans and religious liberties as larger ones, so I stopped caring about that.
The global trend towards nationalism is very alarming but unfortunately not surprising. Most everybody from WW2 is dead and the consequences of “my country first” are largely forgotten.
Central governments are frequently perceived as threats to religious liberties so that tends to make pro-life people intuitively weary of something like the EU. I felt the same way once upon a time, except Balkanized governments can just as easily exploit and trample humans and religious liberties as larger ones, so I stopped caring about that.
The global trend towards nationalism is very alarming but unfortunately not surprising. Most everybody from WW2 is dead and the consequences of “my country first” are largely forgotten.
Last edited:
T
TK421
Guest
God has the power to be present through civil authorities in enacting justice and mercy. A union of nations is superior to a diaspora of nations for sustaining peace and promoting dialogue. And not just a union of nations in Europe but maybe one day a union of nations throughout the world.
As far as abortion: technology will eventually make the issue largely obsolete within this century as human life can be sustained and incubated in an artificial womb at an early stage. When this technology develops (it can already be done with sheep), the pro-choice lobby will rapidly implode and the chapter in human history where people attempted to rationalize slaughtering pre-born babies will become something that future generations blush about as barbaric, the way we blush about our ancestors colonizing Africa or plundering cities after a siege. The secular world usually accepts Christian morality when it becomes convenient and technology will make it convenient
There will be other evils to replace it though. Future generations of Christians will have their hands full, no doubt.
Last edited:
W
Wozza
Guest
If I want the beach cleaned more frequently, I’ll petition the local council. If I object to a stadium being redeveloped then I will petition the state government. If I want the tax system changed I will petition the federal government.
Isn’t this how it works where you live?
P
phil19034
Guest
I think that that contribution is often overstated. Europe may be more peaceful now than it was a century ago (and prior), but I don’t think that that means that the European Union is entirely to thank for that.
Perhaps expanding the United Nations would have been better. I don’t mind the United Nations inherently (although I loathe the fact that the PRoC has so much influence than they have any business having in it [or at least they did a few years ago]).
No union of European countries is going to forever keep peace across the continent. I think that we all know that.
I think that in Europe there is a far too common notion that reminds me of how many of the more diehard Vietnam war protesters in my country act: oh, if we just do this, everything will be all better.
As Catholics, we know that fallen human nature will not be surpassed by a union of countries. There is no panacea for the problem of fallen human nature that is earthly.
(aside)
I haven’t seen you in the threads (at least the ones that I have read) for a while. How have you been?
[/quote]
Agreed.
I think it more had to do with the fact that the continent was destroyed after World War II and no one wanted to repeat that.
Plus, NATO and the Warsaw Pact had a HUGE role in keeping peace.
Perhaps expanding the United Nations would have been better. I don’t mind the United Nations inherently (although I loathe the fact that the PRoC has so much influence than they have any business having in it [or at least they did a few years ago]).
No union of European countries is going to forever keep peace across the continent. I think that we all know that.
I think that in Europe there is a far too common notion that reminds me of how many of the more diehard Vietnam war protesters in my country act: oh, if we just do this, everything will be all better.
As Catholics, we know that fallen human nature will not be surpassed by a union of countries. There is no panacea for the problem of fallen human nature that is earthly.
(aside)
I haven’t seen you in the threads (at least the ones that I have read) for a while. How have you been?
[/quote]
Agreed.
I think it more had to do with the fact that the continent was destroyed after World War II and no one wanted to repeat that.
Plus, NATO and the Warsaw Pact had a HUGE role in keeping peace.
Last edited:
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Which is how the whole thing started.
P
phil19034
Guest
I think the poster’s point is that as the EU government grows in power, more and more decisions are being moved from the local communities to the national capitals & from the national capitals to Brussels.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Perhaps the pair of you could go into some depth on the subject, then?
P
phil19034
Guest
Correct, but my point was that it didn’t require the EU to do that.phil19034:
Which is how the whole thing started.
The European Economic Community didn’t become a quasi nation until 1993, with the Treaty of Maastricht - which created the European Union, “European Citizenship” and lead to the Euro.
The EU of today is vastly different than the European Economic Community, founded by the Treaty of Paris in 1951 and amended by the Treaty of Rome in 1957.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
It isn’t a quasi nation - if European countries decide to do certain things on a mutual basis, why on earth is that your problem?
P
phil19034
Guest
It is simply this: When you introduce another level of government, jurisdictions change. Some decisions that used to be made in Paris, Madrid, Rome, etc. are now made in Brussels. Which necessitates that some decisions that used to be made locally must now be made in Paris, Madrid, Rome, etc in order to remain compliant with EU legislation.phil19034:
Perhaps the pair of you could go into some depth on the subject, then?
Some things are not noticeable to the people. But others are.
Federations like the United States and the EU can be great when power is distributed using subsidiary (just as they were both founded), but both the US and EU have been moving in the direction of more centralized power vs distributed power - which is a bad thing long term.
Last edited:
K
Kaninchen
Guest
No, it isn’t simply anything. It’s a selection of mutual agreements between sovereign states on particular issues.
Stop imposing US models/arguments on the rest of the world.
P
phil19034
Guest
It’s not my problem, unless they one day become a world threat.phil19034:
It isn’t a quasi nation - if European countries decide to do certain things on a mutual basis, why on earth is that your problem?
The EU today is essentially very similar to the way the United States was before the signing of the US Constitution & before the US Civil War.
We were 13+ Independent States in union for the betterment of each state.
We didn’t really start to consider ourselves truely one nation until after the Civil War. In other words, before the civil war, ones citizenship, loyalties and local culture was tied to their state and not being an American. But after the Civil War, American identity was stressed more and people stopped viewing their state citizenship as more important than their American citizenship.
To me, Europe is following the same path, but will most likely do so with a civil war because in many regards, they already has one.
I’m 42 years old. My money is that within my life time or at least within the life time of my kids (who are 8 & 4), the EU will officially become one nation.
M
Mary888
Guest
EU is interested in offering all the civil opportunities to all its citizens. The organization is by default center-left or socialist. EU considers that pro-life campaigns are diminishing and offensive to women’s right to abortion or campaigns who oppose gay marriage disparage the rights of gay people to live equally as straight people. These are the guiding lines of EU based on complete equality and ethics of all its members.
Why do people call each other names in their arguments is a different story.
Considering the guiding lines of EU it is impossible to ran by a traditional coalition of parties because EU is not just an organization that unites Europe but has a certain mission statement that has never been hidden. I don’t agree with their ideas but many traditional values defenders passionately accuse EU of being a conspiracy who kept their pro-left agenda hidden which is simply not true.
Every country about to enter has always been asked to pass laws that decriminalize abortion, gay relationships etc. EU has always been transparent about it and the traditionalist side has to find more honest ways of fighting certain EU agendas rather than go around and accuse EU of conspiracy theories and fake allegations against the Union.
The agenda is left-sided because it is the socialists who founded this organization. Expecting a socialist to pass right-centered rules is absurd, it will never happen.
Why do people call each other names in their arguments is a different story.
Considering the guiding lines of EU it is impossible to ran by a traditional coalition of parties because EU is not just an organization that unites Europe but has a certain mission statement that has never been hidden. I don’t agree with their ideas but many traditional values defenders passionately accuse EU of being a conspiracy who kept their pro-left agenda hidden which is simply not true.
Every country about to enter has always been asked to pass laws that decriminalize abortion, gay relationships etc. EU has always been transparent about it and the traditionalist side has to find more honest ways of fighting certain EU agendas rather than go around and accuse EU of conspiracy theories and fake allegations against the Union.
The agenda is left-sided because it is the socialists who founded this organization. Expecting a socialist to pass right-centered rules is absurd, it will never happen.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
No, it isn’t, it’s the imposition of American interpretations on the rest of the world while ignoring anything else.
- Status