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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Athanasiy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Since when is nationalism equivalent to racist or xenophobic? It is a nonsensical association.

The difference between nationalists and those who support the EU or the UN is particularism (my own term for it) or localism vs universalism. We prefer small government especially on the national or international level. Authority is more distributed. I would rather have a system where those who are close to me have authority (including those who might actually care about me) than those who are distant (and could care less about me). So as a conservative nationalist I believe that the family has authority, the church has authority, local governments have authority, and that national or international systems have no right to interfere with those communities.

Universalists with their false sense of freedom believe in destroying all communities with their natural hierarchies and loyalties in favor of a huge international government that claims all authority. You are to have no allegiance to your own people or your own family or those near to you. Instead you should love the man in India just as much as your own child or your parents. Their egalitarianism involves the leveling of all structure on the local level in favor of massive government.

The universalist system is one in which no one loves anyone, and no one is loyal to anyone. Our resources including our mental and spiritual resources are limited. We can’t love everyone, so either we will love those who are near us or will love no one.
 
Last edited:
Yes, the legislative changes taking place in the United States are certainly reflected in many countries around the world.
There are discussions on various talk shows.
Naturally on Christian TV channels this topic is more actively discussed.
At least, if they started talking about the problem, these are already positive changes.
Because the problem is that it seems to me that atheism has so distorted the post-Soviet generations that a premature termination of pregnancy is perceived as a fairly common mass harmless phenomenon.
I recently watched a video in Romanian on YouTube, that in Moldova- out of three pregnancies, one ends with an abortion.
(I think that similar statistics in other Eastern European countries.)
There are many reasons why this problem exists, but one of them is when people consider it to be quite normal, especially when it is allowed at the legislative level, and even encouraged.
 
It would appear that the question of a past interaction between a poster here and myself has been raised, in the interests of ‘disclosure of information’ @PickyPicky, @Vouthon and @AuldP will find it all here.
 
Kaninchen said:
It would appear that the question of a past interaction between a poster here and myself has been raised, in the interests of ‘disclosure of information’ @PickyPicky, @Vouthon and @AuldP will find it all here .
Click to expand...
Ah, that certainly makes it all clearer. I had no idea about the past interaction to which @(name removed by moderator) was referring.

Not to take away from the topic at hand or to dredge up this old one which isn’t at all related, but I will say that I have deep reservations about the whole “Messianic Jewish” movement and completely understand why Jews, especially in light of the Christian history of pogroms and anti-Semitism, would find the label distasteful, offensive and potentially threatening to the Jewish religious identity.

The ‘Messianic Jews’ are religiously Protestants, typically Evangelicals, of Jewish ethnic extraction. They are not religiously ‘Jews’ so far as Jews define Judaism (that boat swam after the first century when the two movements split during the Second Temple period), so there is a certain disingenuous angle to the term. Jews are the only people who should have the right to define Judaism. If a Christian regards oneself as Jewish, that’s fine they have every right to self-identify, but I don’t think they have the right to expect the Jewish community to accept them as being religiously Jewish anymore.

If they claim to be experiencing persecution in Israel because of their own beliefs, that’s one thing. But if the issue is that they believe that they have the right to be recognised religiously as Jews by the broader Jewish community, then that is a different matter altogether.

In the Catholic Church, the situation is much better because Jewish converts are known as Hebrew Catholics. The term is respectful to both Catholics and Jews, because it recognises that the persons so described are Hebrew-speakers with a Jewish ethno-cultural heritage but are religiously Catholics and thus don’t attend ‘synagogues’ like the Messianic Jews but attend church, have masses, priests, bishops and are in communion with the Pope i.e. indistinguishable from other Catholics save in heritage.

Their religion is not Judaism but Catholicism. I think Hebrew Catholic is a far better term.

So, that’s my two cents.
 
Last edited:
Thank you. I don’t know much about this subject. I am aware that commenting/postulating on topics like this with limited knowledge is like walking a tightrope above that pool of boiling sewage, which is antisemitism. One slip and you’re in the sh… So I won’t go there. Oh that others had done the same!
 
Thank you, @Kaninchen, I shall read the thread recommended by you, but I wonder what it has to do with the topic we are discussing? 😁
By the way, I don’t even know whether it is possible to formulate the definition of the community of the “Messianic Jews”.
Some elements of the practice of worship are accepted in many charismatic communities, where there are not many Jews.
Some charismatics copy the Messianic Jews, but in reality this is just a charismatic community, in unison with the political, spiritual, and eschatological views of the Messianic Jews,
but how does this all reflect on the discussion about pro-life? about the EU? 😊
 
Athanasiy said:
Thank you, @Kaninchen, I shall read the thread recommended by you, but I wonder what it has to do with the topic we are discussing? 😁
Click to expand...
Oh, it only has to do with a poster having complained about my behaviour on another thread while in conversation with others here, I merely provided a link so that they knew what he was talking about. It had nothing to do with the question of the EU and its ‘moral’ aspects but neither had the complainant’s issues.

By the way -

I would argue that the question of ‘pro-life’ in a European context was settled by the ECHR in the case of ‘Vo v France’ (2004) where the European Court of Human Rights (all EU members are signatories to the Convention of Human Rights as are most non-EU members) determined that the issue of abortion was a matter for the several states - in other words it’s up to the individual countries.

That @Athanasiy is kind of ‘end of story’, if Malta wants no abortions, it’s up to Malta, if Sweden wants to allow abortions, it’s up to Sweden. The equivalent of the US Supreme Court (in terms of ‘rights’ issues in Europe) has spoken.
 
The nationalists, and often radical nationalists, make attempts to legislatively change the situation regarding abortions.
On the one hand, one can agree with them, for statistics show that abortion in some countries is a modern genocide, but on the other hand I often disagree with militaristic, xenophobic, and radical black-and-white ( color-blind) views on the future state and so on, and so forth.
The presence of radical nationalists in some degree is necessary, because they are most worried about the savings of the nation, but sometimes national-egoistic views can turn into much greater losses, and these losses will affect countries incomparably worse (if for example the EU collapses)
 
Last edited:
I was very pro Brexit until I heard that His Eminence Vincent Cardinal Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster signalled his support for the European Union.
 
Do you have the evidence of reflection of his Eminence Vincent Cardinal Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster regarding Brexit?
 
catholic03 said:
I was very pro Brexit until I heard that His Eminence Vincent Cardinal Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster signalled his support for the European Union.
Click to expand...
Which were his own personal views which he is entitled to hold. The faithful have not, as far as I am aware, been instructed by the Church to vote one way or the other.
 
Last edited:
However those who respect the clergy tend to follow their prudential judgement on these matters too. At the very least it is a good indication that there is nothing too awfully terrible about that view.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
At the very least it is a good indication that there is nothing too awfully terrible about that view.
Click to expand...
Or with the other side of the argument either. I also seem to remember reading an interview with another English bishop that although he didn’t explicitly say it, seemed to suggest, to me anyway, that he was probably swayed more towards voting to leave the EU. But then bishops are men and have their own views on such matters, as the rest of us have.

As someone who voted to leave the EU, I would take exception if it was implied that voting this way was not compatible with being a faithful Catholic (I’m not suggesting that Cardinal Nichols is doing this). The Catholic Church in England did not instruct the faithful on which side to vote for, and I think that was right and proper. Bishops, like the rest of us, have their own personal opinions on the matter.
 
Last edited:
That is true. I did not mean to imply that following the personal example of a member of the clergy was mandatory - only that it is understandable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top