0902ISXdX je napisal(a):


Vidva z gregor666 očitno niti tega ne vesta, da nima 3000 strani.
Ampak to vaju ne ovira, da nabijata o tem, kako so vsi norci, samo vidva sta pa briliantneža, kajne?

 
Če bi jih imela 30 bi verjetno podpisal.

Enfrice.

0902ISXdX je napisal(a):

Seveda.
Moj vir (388 strani) je kar lizbonska pogodba.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2008 :115:SOM:SL:HTML

Hvala, opravičilo sprejeto ;-)

no, potem si jo pa se preberi. in bo potem en kmetavz iz kranjske gore naganjal irce iz eu...

gregor666 je napisal(a):


odgovori: kako si lahko ZA nekaj, cesar vsebine ne poznas?

Saj sem ti odgovoril - jaz vsebine lizbonske pogodbe ne poznam, ker je nisem bral.
Verjamem pa recimo dr.Potočniku, ki je plačan politik.
In verjamem, da je članstvo v EU edina stvar, ki nas drži stran od vrnitve na stara pota slavne SFRJ.

0902ISXdX je napisal(a):

In verjamem, da je članstvo v EU edina stvar, ki nas drži stran od vrnitve na stara pota slavne SFRJ.

podpis lizbonske pogodbe nas pelje po poti slavne SZ.

0902ISXdX je napisal(a):

In verjamem, da je članstvo v EU edina stvar, ki nas drži stran od vrnitve na stara pota slavne SFRJ.

in EU ze obstaja z lizbonsko pogodbo ali brez nje.

in slovenija je clanica EU z lizbonsko pogodbo ali brez nje.

zakaj torej kot najbolj gorec vernik podpirati nekaj, cesar sploh ne poznas in s krizem mahati proti tistim, ki so proti?

0902ISXdX je napisal(a):

Saj sem ti odgovoril - jaz vsebine lizbonske pogodbe ne poznam, ker je nisem bral.

vprasanje je bilo "kako si lahko ZA nekaj, cesar vsebine ne poznas?"

"nisem bral" je odgovor na to, zakaj si za? ok, to je razumljivo.

btw- who the fuck is dr.potocnik.

gregor666 je napisal(a):


vprasanje je bilo "kako si lahko ZA nekaj, cesar vsebine ne poznas?"

"nisem bral" je odgovor na to, zakaj si za? ok, to je razumljivo.

btw- who the fuck is dr.potocnik.

Saj lahko vprašam tudi jaz - kako so lahko Irci proti nečemu, česar niso prebrali ;-)

Zakaj sem za, sem ti pojasnil - sem za EU. Če EU ne more funkcionirati brez "pogodbe", potem naj jo spravijo skupaj tisti,ki so za to delo plačani.

Potočnika osebno poznam, zato mu verjamem in mu zaupam bolj kot Ircem, ki jih ne poznam :-)))

0902ISXdX je napisal(a):


Saj lahko vprašam tudi jaz - kako so lahko Irci proti nečemu, česar niso prebrali ;-)

Zakaj sem za, sem ti pojasnil - sem za EU. Če EU ne more funkcionirati brez "pogodbe", potem naj jo spravijo skupaj tisti,ki so za to delo plačani.

Potočnika osebno poznam, zato mu verjamem in mu zaupam bolj kot Ircem, ki jih ne poznam :-)))

kdo pravi, da eu ne more funkcionirati brez lizbonske pogodbe, ce je je DEJSTVO, DA OBSTAJA IN FUNKCIONIRA?

potocnik tudi tebe pozna?

0902ISXdX je napisal(a):

Saj lahko vprašam tudi jaz - kako so lahko Irci proti nečemu, česar niso prebrali ;-)

odgovarjanje na vprasanje z drugim vprasanjem je morda zelo ucinkovito pri tvoji zeni, ampak pri meni ne pali, dementnez.

0902ISXdX je napisal(a):


Saj lahko vprašam tudi jaz - kako so lahko Irci proti nečemu, česar niso prebrali ;-)

Zakaj sem za, sem ti pojasnil - sem za EU. Če EU ne more funkcionirati brez "pogodbe", potem naj jo spravijo skupaj tisti,ki so za to delo plačani.

Potočnika osebno poznam, zato mu verjamem in mu zaupam bolj kot Ircem, ki jih ne poznam :-)))

Ker gre za resne stvari, sem enkrat že dal sem gor RAZLOGE ZAKAJ so Irci pravilno zavrnili to novo evropsko PREVARO.Ker menim, da je vredno poglobiti se in razumeti ZAKAJ gre pri stvari, podajam to še enkrat: 9 Reasons Why a Conscientious Catholic Citizen
Should Reject the Treaty of Lisbon The violation of non-negotiable principles raises a grave question of conscience for Irish Catholics Irish Catholic lay people cannot remain neutral about the Treaty of Lisbon. The texts proposed for our approval violate, among other things, the three non-negotiable values that Pope Benedict XVI underlined in a recent speech to representatives of an important European political party:

“As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable. “Among these the following emerge clearly today: - protection of life in all its stages , from the first moment of conception until natural death;
- recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family - as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage - and its defence from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilisation, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role;
- the protection of the right of parents to educate their children .”1

To be “credible and consistent witnesses of these basic truths”, as requested by the Holy Father in the same speech, the Irish Catholic laity should make the necessary Evangelical discernment in order to asses to what extent those non-negotiable values are respected in the international treaties being proposed to Irish citizens for ratification.This task pertains predominantly to the Catholic laity, because “ the laity , by reason of their particular vocation, has the specific role of interpreting the history of the world in the light of Chris t, in as much as they are called to illuminate and organise temporal realities according to the plan of God, Creator and Redeemer”.2 Having prayed to God and having analysed in depth the Treaty of Lisbon from the viewpoint of the magisterial teachings of the Church regarding the socio-political order — and particularly the three non-negotiable values underlined by Pope Benedict XVI, as well as Our Lady of Fatima’s request that Christian nations return to God — Irish Society for Christian Civilisation has reached the firm conclusion that, as Roman Catholics, we cannot approve the proposed reform of the legal structure of the European Union.These are the 9 principal reasons why, from a Catholic viewpoint, we call on our fellow Irish Catholics to vote “NO” in the upcoming referendum:

(click a heading below to read that part of this document)
- The amended Treati...nt culture
- The amended Treati...g of them
- The amended Treati...euthanasia
- The amended Treati...rimination
- The amended Treati... all areas
- The amended Treati...nd a woman
- The amended Treati...ir beliefs
- The amended Treati...pean Union
- The way the Treaty...ice”

The amended Treaties ignore God and the Christian roots of Europe and create a new European identity determined exclusively by the agnostic Enlightenment culture The consolidated texts of the EU Treaties as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon, make not a single reference to God and ignore the Christian roots of Europe , by stating in the very Preamble of the new version of the Treaty on European Union that its inspiration is drawn

“from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe , from which have developed the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law”

Furthermore, article 6 of the new version of the Treaty on the European Union establishes that

“The Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, as adapted at Strasbourg, on 12 December 2007, which shall have the same legal value as the Treaties”

whereas the Preamble of the said Charter goes further in the proclamation of its godless, unchristian, agnostic roots by stating

“Conscious of its spiritual and moral heritage , the Union is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity; it is based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law”.

This most important omission justifies the disappointment expressed by the late Pope John Paul II, when he said, referring to the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights:

“The Church has followed the drafting of this document with keen attention. In this regard, I cannot conceal my disappointment that in the Charter's text there is not a single reference to God. Yet in God lies the supreme source of the human person's dignity and his fundamental rights . It cannot be forgotten that it was the denial of God and his commandments which led in the last century to the tyranny of idols.”3

This attempt to build the human community absolutely without God was also rebuked by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the day before Pope John Paul II died:

“In the debate on the Preamble of the European Constitution, this opposition [between the two cultures that have characterised Europe] was seen in two controversial points: the question of the reference to God in the Constitution and the mention of the Christian roots of Europe . Given that in article 52 of the Constitution [now article 17 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU] the institutional rights of Churches are guaranteed, we can be at peace, it is said.
“But this means that in the life of Europe, the Churches find a place in the realm of the political commitment, while, in the realm of the foundations of Europe, the imprint of their content has no place. (…)
“ To mention the roots implies indicating as well the residual sources of moral orientation, which is a factor of Europe's identity. Who would be offended? Whose identity is threatened? (…)
“The same is true for the reference to God: It is not the mention of God that offends those who belong to other religions, but rather the attempt to build the human community absolutely without God.
“The motivations of this twofold "no" are more profound than one would think from the reasons offered. They presuppose the idea that only the radical Enlightenment culture, which has reached its full development in our time, could be constitutive for European identity . Next to this culture, then, different religious cultures can coexist with their respective rights, on the condition and to the degree to which they respect the criteria of the Enlightenment culture, and are subordinated to it . (…)
“It does not matter, in the end, on what plot of roots this culture of freedom and democracy is implanted.
“And, precisely because of this, it is affirmed, that the roots cannot enter into the definition of the foundations of Europe, it being a question of dead roots that are not part of the present identity. As a consequence, this new identity, determined exclusively by the Enlightenment culture, also implies that God does not come at all into public life and the foundations of the state. (…)
“ The rejection of the reference to God, is not the expression of a tolerance that desires to protect the non-theistic religions and the dignity of atheists and agnostics, but rather the expression of a conscience that would like to see God cancelled definitively from the public life of humanity , and relegated to the subjective realm of residual cultures of the past.”

This ideological secularism was strongly rejected in the note of protest raised, in June 2004, by the representatives of the Polish episcopate against the Constitutional Treaty, today misleadingly re-offered to the European population via the Treaty of Lisbon:

“The text of the constitutional Treaty on Europe, approved yesterday during the Brussels summit, doesn’t include any reference to the Christian roots of our continent.
“ We note this fact with indignation , for being a falsification of the historical truth and a deliberate marginalisation of Christianity, which was during centuries and continues to be now the religion of the great majority of Europeans. The ideological secularism , which expresses itself in the statements of some European governments, inspires our absolute opposition and our concern for the future destiny of Europe. We cannot, in fact, build our common European home by falsifying the history of the old continent and by imposing a secular vision on the whole of Europe . Faced with this situation, we exhort all men of good will to reflect on the future of a Europe constructed with the omission of its fundamental values.”4

As conscientious Irish Catholics, we cannot but reject a Treaty that imposes on our country and on the whole of Europe an atheistic, secularist and un-Christian juridical structure. The amended Treaties impose a relativist, evolving vision of human rights, contrary to the Catholic understanding of them In the Preamble of the Charter of  Fundamental Rights, it is said that, in order to preserve and develop the common values of the European Union,

“it is necessary to strengthen the protection of fundamental rights in the light of changes in society, social progress and scientific and technological developments by making those rights more visible in a Charter.”

According to Mr. Guy Brabant, one of the Vice-Presidents of the body (bizarrely named the Praesidium of the Convention) that oversaw the compilation of the text of the Charter, by this paragraph the Charter blatantly opts

“for an evolving and dynamic conception of fundamental rights.”5

It was for that purpose, he further explains, that it became necessary to replace in the Preamble the expression “ drawing inspiration from the religious heritage” by a mere “ conscious of the spiritual and moral heritage, etc.” This change would make impossible to consider the religious patrimony of Europe

“as a source of inspiration of fundamental rights.”6

Thus, in the Charter’s positivist conception, “the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law” take inspiration only from the relativist, evolving consensus of the majority of citizens.His Grace Dominique Rey, Bishop of Fréjus-Toulon (France) rightly affirmed in his diocesan bulletin that

“This Charter represents on many points an intellectual and moral break with the other great international juridical provisions, by presenting a relativist and evolving idea of human rights which disputes the principles of natural law.”7

Indeed, the Charter’s conception contradicts Catholic doctrine on “natural law” as expressed by Pope Benedict XVI in his message for World Peace Day, 2008:

“The Church has often spoken on the subject of the nature and function of law: the juridical norm , which regulates relationships between individuals, disciplines external conduct and establishes penalties for offenders, has as its criterion the moral norm grounded in nature itself . Human reason is capable of discerning this moral norm, at least in its fundamental requirements, and thus ascending to the creative reason of God which is at the origin of all things. The moral norm must be the rule for decisions of conscience and the guide for all human behaviour ”8 .

Thus, the Charter’s conception deserves the condemnation expressed by Pope Benedict XVI in a recent address:

“Today, a positivist conception of law seems to dominate many thinkers. They claim that humanity or society or indeed the majority of citizens is becoming the ultimate source of civil law . The problem that arises is not, therefore, the search for good but the search for power, or rather, how to balance powers. At the root of this trend is ethical relativism, which some even see as one of the principal conditions for democracy , since relativism is supposed to guarantee tolerance of and reciprocal respect for people. But if this were so, the majority of a moment would become the ultimate source of law. History very clearly shows that most people can err. (…)
“ When the fundamental requirements of human dignity, of human life, of the institution of the family, of a fair social order, in other words, basic human rights, are at stake, no law devised by human beings can subvert the law that the Creator has engraved on the human heart without the indispensable foundations of society itself being dramatically affected.”9

As conscientious Irish Catholics, we cannot but reject a Treaty that imposes on our country and on the whole of Europe an anti-Christian, relativist and evolving conception of human rights, which denies the inspiration of natural law. The amended Treaties considerably restrict the protection of human life and authorise abortion, embryo experimentation, non-reproductive human cloning and euthanasia Article 2 of the Charter succinctly states that “everyone has the right to life”. Msgr. Michel Schooyans10 explains that

“in its present wording, this key article is just unacceptable. Apart from exposing the idea of personhood to the most absurd interpretations, this article should specify that the right to life extends from conception to natural death.”11

In the same vein, Bishop Rey comments that:

“The Charter considerably restricts the scope of protection of human life. While recording that only the human person has the right to life, the protection of the unborn is disputed, since, according to one of the last rulings of the European Court the unborn child is not considered a person.”12

As a matter of fact, article 3, which states that “everyone has the right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity”, specifies in paragraph 2d that “the prohibition of the reproductive cloning of human beings” must be respected.Thus, the Bishop of Fréjus-Toulon rightly concludes that

“Human embryos, particularly in vitro, are no longer protected in criminal law. Thus the Charter only prohibits reproductive cloning, never mentioning therapeutic embryonic cloning. Once again it is clearly a regression compared to previous European documents, particularly the Additional Protocol on the Prohibition of Cloning Human Beings in 1998, by the Council of Europe, which stated that ‘any intervention seeking to create a human being genetically identical to another human being, whether living or dead, is prohibited…’ Embryo research, pre-implantation diagnosis, production of hybrid embryos…, risk no longer being contained at a juridical level.”13

Furthermore, the succinct wording of the Charter does not protect human life at its end. As Mr. Braibant, the Vice-President of the Presidium of the Convention which wrote the Charter explains:

“To exclude (euthanasia), several members of the Convention presented amendments wanting to clarify that ‘every person has a right to life until its natural end.’ This formula was not kept, because some states, like the Netherlands, are headed towards a partial and progressive recognition of ‘the right to death with dignity’.”14

This new orientation in favour of assisted suicide is confirmed by the fact that one important difference between the Charter and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is the disappearance from the Charter of the clause “no one shall be deprived of his life intentionally”.Rightly, Bishop Rey questions:

“Does the disappearance of the prohibition on the intentional taking of a life, as was recognised by the European Convention of Human Rights of 1950, open the door to a decriminalisation of euthanasia and of medically assisted suicide?”15

Even though, regarding abortion, Ireland may remain protected by the Protocol specifying that “nothing in the Treaties (…) shall affect the application in Ireland of Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution of Ireland”, this article 2 of the Charter will not protect the millions of European babies who are murdered in the womb of their mothers in most of the countries of the European Union. As Catholics, we cannot approve a Treaty that corroborates and enlarges the present disrespect for the right to life of the unborn throughout Europe.This omission of protection for the unborn is so grave that, according to article 6 of the new Treaty on the European Union, “the Union shall accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” and that “fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention (…) shall constitute general principles of the Union’s law”. It happens that the European Court of Human Rights has already defined abortion as “preventative healthcare” of women transforming it into a human right.In short, regarding life issues, we can say with Pope John Paul II, speaking on the Charter of Fundamental rights

“it is not enough to emphasise the dignity of the person in grand words, if it is then seriously violated in norms of the juridical order”16

As conscientious Irish Catholics, we cannot but reject a Treaty that imposes on our country and on the whole of Europe a restricted understanding of the right to life which does not protect the unborn, favours non-reproductive human cloning and opens the door to euthanasia. The amended Treaties, for the first time in an international juridical document, recognise “sexual orientation” as a basis for non-discrimination Two articles of the new Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which will enter into force if the Treaty of Lisbon is approved, deal with the issue of non-discrimination.Article 10 states that “in defining and implementing its policies and activities, the Union shall aim to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation ”.In its turn, Article 19 declares that, under some determined circumstances, “the Council (…) may take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation ”.In the same vein, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in Article 21, solemnly declares that “any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.In a jubilatory communication, the International Lesbian and Gay Association (Europe) hailed the Charter and urged member states to ratify the Lisbon Treaty saying that the document will advance the rights of so-called LGBT people throughout Europe:

“While welcoming the first ever international treaty containing an explicit ban on sexual orientation discrimination, we are disappointed by the decision of the UK and Polish governments to opt out of their duty to provide their citizens with the same rights as the rest of EU citizens," said Patricia Prendiville, Executive Director of ILGA-Europe.17

On July, 22, 1992, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under the orientation of then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, published a document dealing with the legislative proposals on the non-discrimination of homosexual persons. This document states that

“Recently, legislation has been proposed in various places which would make discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation illegal. (…)
“While it would be impossible to anticipate every eventuality in respect to legislative proposals in this area, these observations will try to identify some principles and distinctions of a general nature which should be taken into consideration by the conscientious legislator, voter , or church authority who is confronted with such issues . (…)
“II. Application
“10. "Sexual orientation" does not constitute a quality comparable to race , ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination . Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. "Letter," No. 3) and evokes moral concern.
“11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account , for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.
“12. Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity (cf. No. 10). Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory .
“13. Including "homosexual orientation" among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights , for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality (cf. No. 10) which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person's homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights.”18

Furthermore, the inclusion of the prohibition of any discrimination based on sexual orientation in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights will limit the freedom of the Church to preach the Gospel and the moral teachings coming from it, as it was denounced by then Cardinal Ratzinger:

“The concept of discrimination is ever more extended, and so the prohibition of discrimination can be increasingly transformed into a limitation of the freedom of opinion and religious liberty. Very soon it will not be possible to state that homosexuality, as the Catholic Church teaches, is an objective disorder in the structuring of human existence ”19

As conscientious Irish Catholics, we cannot but say “No”  to a Treaty that imposes on our country and on the whole of Europe, for the first instance in an international legally binding document, the prohibition of any discrimination based on sexual orientation, which will in its turn impose on us the placement of children for adoption or foster care in the hands of homosexual partners, the employment of teachers or athletic coaches with homosexual lifestyles, the obligation to grant accommodation to homosexual partners in B&B facilities, etc. and will restrict the freedom of the Church to preach the Gospel. The amended Treaties, for the first instance in an international juridical document, impose the parity between men and women in all areas Bending its knee before the radical feminist lobby, very active inside of the Convention which wrote the Charter of Fundamental Rights, its article 23 states that “Equality between women and men must be ensured in all areas , including employment, work and pay”.Explaining this article, the Vice-President of the Presidium, states

“The really important expression of the first paragraph of this article is: ‘in all areas.’ The initial text only refers to the social issues, which still figure at the end of the paragraph: employment, work and pay. These elements are only kept to underline their importance; they no longer have a limited character, opposite to the treaty instituting the European Community of which article 141 on the equality of sexes was inserted under the heading ‘Social Policy.’
“The Charter goes much further with the affirmation of equality ‘in all areas.’ Without doubt this is the first time that this was done in an international document of juridical nature.”20

This abusive extension of equality, which denies the different vocations given by God to men and women, is full of most grave consequences for the proper functioning of communities and society as a whole, as well as for the Church. Just to mention the religious field, it makes unlawful the Catholic Church’s refusal to ordain female priests, because this excludes women from membership of the hierarchy of the Church.As a matter of fact, the Report: Women and Fundamentalism , produced by the Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities Committee — unsuccessfully challenged by Irish Independent MEP Mrs Dana Rosemary Scallon — and finally approved by the European Parliament on March 13, 2003, condemns in its article 4

“the administrations of religious organisations and the leaders of extremist political movements who promote racial discrimination, xenophobia, fanaticism and the exclusion of women from leading positions in the political and religious hierarchy. ”

Showing concern for this abusive extension of the concept of non discrimination of women, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, wrote

“the fact that the Church is convinced of not having the right to confer priestly ordination on women is considered by some up to now as something irreconcilable with the spirit of the European Constitution”21 .

As conscientious Irish Catholics, we cannot but reject a Treaty that imposes on our country and on the whole of Europe an unnatural equality between men and women which opposes God’s plan for society and for His Church. The amended Treaties undermine the concept of family by dissociating it from the marriage between a man and a woman Article 9 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights states that

“The right to marry and the right to found a family shall be guaranteed in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of these rights”.

Analysing the content of this article, Bishop Dominique Rey explains,

“First of all, the Charter correctly stipulates that ‘the right to marry and the right to found a family shall be guaranteed.’ But it avoids specifying the sex of the conjugal partners. It explicitly dissociates the concept of marriage with that of family. This constitutes a rupture with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UNO in 1948, which defined the family as the union of a man and a woman, and considers it as the human foundation of society.
“At the same time, the project, which consecrates the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, opens the door for European jurisprudence to recognise the equal value of all forms of marriage, concerning both the adoption of children and artificial fertilisation (see the recent condemnation of France by the European Court of Human Rights, because it had refused the adoption of a child by an unmarried lesbian woman). Progressively, the right to have a child prevails over the right of the child, particularly those rights of being born and of having a father and a mother.”22 The glaring contrast of this dissociation between marriage and family with the moral history of mankind was already underlined by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:“I am not prepared to delve into a detailed discussion on the future Constitution of Europe. I would just like to indicate the constituent moral elements which, in my opinion, should be included. (…)
“A second important point revealing the identity of Europe concerns marriage and the family. Monogamist marriage as the fundamental structure between man and women, as well as the basic cell in the formation of the state community, was forged on the basis of the Biblical faith. This is what bestowed upon both Western and Eastern Europe its particular countenance and humanness, also and precisely because the form of fidelity and sacrifice projected therein always had to be gained anew with great hardship and suffering. Europe would not be Europe if that basic cell of its social edifice were to disappear or be altered in any essential way. The Charter of Fundamental Rights stipulates the right to marriage, but fails to express any juridical and moral protection for it and doesn't even define it in more precise terms. And we all know the extent to which marriage and the family are threatened — on the one hand by the emptiness inflicted upon their indissolubility through increasingly easier forms of divorce and, on the other, by an increasingly widespread form of behaviour involving domestic partnerships between men and women without any legal form of marriage.
“In glaring contrast with all that is the request for the life communion of homosexuals , who, rather paradoxically, are now asking for a legal form which should be tantamount to marriage. Such a trend or propensity takes us completely outside the confines of the moral history of humankind, which, despite all kinds of juridical forms of matrimony, always knew that marriage in its essence is the special communion of man and woman open to offspring and hence to the family .”23

As conscientious Irish Catholics, we cannot but reject a Treaty that imposes on our country and on the whole of Europe a mockery of family not founded on marriage, thrown down to the level of a simple civil union between partners of any sex, even open to single homosexuals who wish to adopt or to procreate through IVF. This is absolutely contrary to God’s plan for the healthy raising of our children! The amended Treaties impose excessive limits to the right of parents to educate their children according to their beliefs Article 14 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, consecrating the right to education, recognises in its third paragraph

“the freedom to found educational establishments with due respect for democratic principles and the right of parents to ensure the education and teaching of their children in conformity with their religious, philosophical and pedagogical convictions shall be respected, in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of such freedom and right”.

When explaining the scope of this article, Mr. Braibant writes the following:

“The expression: ‘democratic principles,’ that should be respected within the scope of freedom to found educational establishments, needs to be interpreted; this expression, which comes from an amendment of the representative of the Spanish government, was approved by the representative of the Portuguese government and by myself as having to include, if not secularism, at least the neutrality of the teaching, which the majority of the Convention didn’t want to explicitly inscribe in the Charter.”24

Thus, because of the ambiguity of the expression “democratic principles”, the obligation of religious neutrality might become in the future, through the interpretation of the Courts, a sword of Damocles hanging over the curricula of all Catholic schools. Furthermore, the Vice-President of the Presidium explains that:

“the liberties granted to parents by this article must reconcile themselves with the rights for children that are recognised by article 24, particularly that of expressing their views freely, which shall be ‘taken into consideration on matters which concern them in accordance with their age and maturity.’ This addition of rights of children to the rights of parents shows the evolution of ideas and of social customs which have characterised the last half-century of family relations.”25

This addition of the rights of the child doesn’t seem to create difficulty when it comes to pre-adolescent children. But when applied to teenagers, it may excessively limit the right of parents to educate their children and may favour family conflicts. At that period of their growing, children tend to follow rebel models offered by the modern counter-culture and thus to contest the rules of discipline and the values presiding family life. The Charter might then be invoked by youngsters to compel the parents to accept their claims and preferences or risk that their children be placed in foster homes.In short, in this respect the Charter represents the victory of the principles of the Sorbonne Revolution of May 1968 against the traditional idea of family.As conscientious Irish Catholics, we cannot but reject a Treaty that undermines the authority of parents and limits their right to educate their children according to their beliefs, and the ambiguity of which threatens the liberty to found schools that are not “religiously neutral”. The amended Treaties ignore the very identity of Europe and of the peoples that make up the European Union The Charter of Fundamental Rights will bind the European Union's own institutions and all its Member States when implementing Union law, which amounts to more than 80% of new legislation, imposed on European citizens.Indeed, Mr. Roman Herzog, former German President and former President of the German Federal Constitutional Court denounced that

"The German Ministry of Justice has compared the legal acts adopted by the Federal Republic of Germany between 1998 and 2004 with those adopted by the European Union in the same period. Result: 84 percent come from Brussels , with only 16 percent coming originally from Berlin ... The figures stated by the German Ministry of Justice make it quite clear. By far the large majority of legislation valid in Germany is adopted by the German Government in the Council of Ministers [of the EU] , and not by the German Parliament”26

Furthermore, the limitation of the binding character of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to EU law and to the EU institutions is unrealistic, because

“ (a) the principles of primacy and uniformity of Union law mean that Member States will not only be bound by the Fundamental Rights Charter when implementing EU law, but also through the " interpretation and application of their national laws in conformity with Union laws " (v. ECJ judgements in the Factortame , Simmenthal and other law cases); and because
“ (b) the Charter sets out fundamental rights in areas in which the Union has currently no competence, e.g. outlawing the death penalty, asserting citizens' rights in criminal proceedings and various other areas.”
“ All this gives a new and extensive human and civil rights jurisdiction to the EU Court of Justice and makes that Court the final body to decide what people's rights are in the vast area covered by European law.27

Thus, the acceptance of the Charter of Fundamental Rights as a binding juridical document would impose on Ireland, and on all other Members of the EU, uniform standards regarding most sensitive areas where, presently, there are significant national differences.Moreover, this uniformity would be imposed on values which are opposed to the historical identity of Europe, and would be tantamount to an apostasy from its own identity. Pope Benedict XVI warned against this evolution saying that

“ An authentic European "common home" cannot be built without considering the identity of the people of this Continent of ours . It is a question of a historical, cultural, and moral identity before being a geographic, economic, or political one; an identity comprised of a set of universal values that Christianity helped forge, thus giving Christianity not only a historical but a foundational role vis-à-vis Europe. These values, which make up the soul of the Continent, must remain in the Europe of the third millennium as a "ferment" of civilisation. If these values were to disappear, how could the "old" Continent continue to function as a "leaven" for the entire world? If, for the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, the Governments of the Union wish to "get nearer" to their citizens, how can they exclude an element essential to European identity such as Christianity, with which a vast majority of citizens continue to identify? Is it not surprising that today's Europe, while aspiring to be regarded as a community of values, seems ever more often to deny the very existence of universal and absolute values? Does not this unique form of "apostasy" from itself, even more than its apostasy from God, lead Europe to doubt its own identity? 28

As conscientious Irish Catholics, we cannot but reject a Treaty that denies the identity of Ireland and of Europe and which represents a form of apostasy from this identity. The way the Treaty of Lisbon is being ratified on the back of most of the European citizens imposes on us the duty to be “the voice of those who have no voice” The Treaty of Lisbon which amends the existing treaties ruling the European Union incorporates at least 90% of the already rejected Constitution. Mr Bertie Ahern was reported as saying:

“90 per cent of it is still there... these changes haven't made any dramatic change to the substance of what was agreed back in 2004”29 .

Because the projected Constitution was rejected by the citizens of France and the Netherlands, the Treaty of Lisbon will not be submitted for ratification by referendum to the population of any EU country other than Ireland. And here the consultation will take place only because of the explicit constraint impose by our Constitution.As Pope Benedict XVI pointed out,

“The process of European unification itself is evidently not shared by all, due to the prevailing impression that various "chapters" in the European project have been "written" without taking into account the aspirations of its citizens ”30 .

By saying “No” to the Treaty of Lisbon, we will force the architects of European unification to return to the drawing board and renegotiate the main issues at stake taking into account the real aspirations of the European citizens.By saying “No” to the Treaty of Lisbon we will be giving to our brothers and sisters in the Faith and to all Christians in Europe the opportunity to express themselves on issues they consider non-negotiable.Let us be the voice of the almost 500 million Europeans who were undemocratically deprived of their voice!Let us heed the requests for conversion made by Our Lady at Fatima to avoid the chastisement She predicted would come if our nations refused to return to the Law of God. Thus may we see the fulfilment of Her glorious promise: “In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph.” AS CATHOLICS, LET US REJECT THE TREATY OF LISBON! _______________________________ 1. Benedict XVI, Address to the Members of the European People's Party on the Occasion of the Study Days on Europe, March 30 2006. 2. John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio , n° 5. 3. John Paull II, Message to Cardinal Antonio Maria Javierre Ortas on the occasion of the 1200th anniversary of the imperial coronation of Charlemagne by Leo III, http://www.vatican.v...as_en.html< /a> 4. Declaration of the Polish Conference of Bishops regarding the adoption of the Constitution of the European Union last 18th June, Warsaw, 19-06-04. 5. Guy Brabant, La Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne, Ed. du Seuil, 2001, p. 81. 6. Id. ibid. p. 76. See also p. 75. 7. Cfr. http://www.diocese-f...ar-la.html< /a> 8. Benedict XVI, Message of His Holiness Benedict XVI for the Celebration of the World Peace Day, Vatican, 01-01-08. 9. Benedict XVI, Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI to Members of the International Theological Commission, Vatican City, 05-10-2007. 10. Priest of the archdiocese of Malines-Bruxelles, doctor in philosophy et theology, professor at Louvain and the Pontifical University of São Paulo, member of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences of the Vatican, of the Royal Institute of International Relations in Bruxelles, of the Institut de démographie politique in Paris and of the Population Research Institute in Washington. 11. Michel Schooyans, "La face cachée de l’O.N.U." , p.120. 12. Cfr. http://www.diocese-f...ar-la.html< /a> 13. Ibid. 14. Ibid. p. 91-92. 15. Ibid. 16. John Paull II, Message to Cardinal Antonio Maria Javierre Ortas on the occasion of the 1200th anniversary of the imperial coronation of Charlemagneby Leo III, http://www.vatican.v...as_en.html< /a> 17. Cfr. http://www.365gay.co...1207eu.htm< /a> 18. Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on the Non-discrimination of Homosexual Persons, Vatican, July 22, 1992. 19. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, lecture given upon reception of the St. Benedict Award for the promotion of life and the family in Europe on April 1, 2005. 20. Id. ibid. p. 163. 21. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, lecture given upon reception of the St. Benedict Award for the promotion of life and the family in Europe on April 1, 2005.I 22. Ibid. 23. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Address to the Italian Senate on May 13, 2004, http://www.catholicc...ecnum=6317< /a> 24. Id. ibid. p. 132 25. Id. ibid. p. 132-133. 26. Welt Am Sonntag , 14 January 2007. 27. Prof. Anthony Coughlan , Senior Lecturer Emeritus in Social Policy at Trinity College Dublin, in http://www.brusselsj.../node/2773< /a> 28. Benedict XVI, Address to the Participants in the Convention organized by the COMECE, in http://www.vatican.v...ce_en.html< /a> 29. Irish Independent, June 24, 2007. 30. Benedict XVI, Address to the Participants in the Convention organized by the COMECE.

0902ISXdX je napisal(a):

Potočnika osebno poznam

ehm... je morda Pia tvoja zena?

gregor666 je napisal(a):


in EU ze obstaja z lizbonsko pogodbo ali brez nje.

in slovenija je clanica EU z lizbonsko pogodbo ali brez nje.

zakaj torej kot najbolj gorec vernik podpirati nekaj, cesar sploh ne poznas in s krizem mahati proti tistim, ki so proti?

- seveda obstaja, vendar pa je lizbonska pogodba bojda nujna za nadaljnji razvoj.
- hvala bogu, da smo.
- pretiravaš v svojem slogu. Kje si videl mahanje s križem in mojo gorečnost? Meni se zdi logično, da v kolikor se v neki skupnosti ne moreš prilagoditi in uskladiti, potem tisto skupnost pač zapustiš. To zelo načelno in preprosto mnenje sem napisal in nikogar nikamor preganjal. Le ti si se v svojem slogu ponovno spravil name.
Kaj bi rad s tem dosegel mi res ni jasno, zato najbolje, da kar poveš, kaj bi rad, pa ti bom ustregel, da me boš potem pustil pri miru. Bi to šlo?

0902ISXdX je napisal(a):


Kaj bi rad s tem dosegel mi res ni jasno, zato najbolje, da kar poveš, kaj bi rad, pa ti bom ustregel, da me boš potem pustil pri miru. Bi to šlo?

si ze vse povedal, ko si rekel, da nimas pojma in sem ti jaz odgovoril z: "lepo". greva zdaj se en krog?

0902ISXdX je napisal(a):

bojda

lepo.

starmar6 je napisal(a):

bla,bla,bla ... 9 strani dolga kača ... bla,bla,bla

Daj drugič za kače linke, prosim. Mi je kolešček na miški odpadel.

enfrice je napisal(a):


Če bi jih imela 30 bi verjetno podpisal.

Enfrice.

Mar bi uporabljali drobnejši font, pa bi bilo, ts, ts..

0902ISXdX je napisal(a):


Aha. Torej priznaš da o lizbonski pogodbi tudi ti nimaš pojma ;-)

 
o lizbonski pogodbi skoraj nihče nima pojma, ker je dolg in duhamoren dokument, kar pa naših vrlih poslancev ni ustavilo, da je ne bi ratificirali.

irci so pošten, iskren in (vsaj zadnje čase) samozavesten narod, zato so nepismene evrokrate poslali v q. edino pravilno.

gregor666 je napisal(a):


kdo pravi, da eu ne more funkcionirati brez lizbonske pogodbe, ce je je DEJSTVO, DA OBSTAJA IN FUNKCIONIRA?

potocnik tudi tebe pozna?

Poglej mladi prenapetež: jaz ne vem zakaj je potrebna ratifikacija te pogodbe za nadaljnji razvoj EU. Nekako po logiki stvari, pa nekako ne verjamem, da je miljon Ircev pogodbo prebralo in skontalo, da ni dobra.... vsi ostali pa smo blentavi.
Kakšni so bili razlogi, da so irski politiki spropagandirali padec referenduma tudi ne vem, grem zdaj brati tiste starmanove navedbe.

PS: Pia ni moja žena, moja zna pravilno izračunati dohodnino in se tudi ne pretepa na davčnem uradu :-)))))
PS2: Dokazati ti tega ne morem: da, tudi Janez me pozna.

gregor666 je napisal(a):


odgovarjanje na vprasanje z drugim vprasanjem je morda zelo ucinkovito pri tvoji zeni, ampak pri meni ne pali, dementnez.

Ali res ne gre brez žaljivk?
Sploh pa ti nisem odgovoril samo z vprašanjem, ampak sem tudi pojasnil stališče.

lukav je napisal(a):


o lizbonski pogodbi skoraj nihče nima pojma, ker je dolg in duhamoren dokument, kar pa naših vrlih poslancev ni ustavilo, da je ne bi ratificirali.

irci so pošten, iskren in (vsaj zadnje čase) samozavesten narod, zato so nepismene evrokrate poslali v q. edino pravilno.

Ts, ts, dokaj prevzetno povedano. Vsaj za pravnika bi se spodobilo, da predno pošlje kakšno pogodbo v koš, je pred tem prebere.

Irci so poslali evrokrate v q. ne zaradi pogodbe, ki je velika večina ne pozna, temveč zato, ker je lažje pri takih rečeh biti proti in ohraniti status quo, kot biti za in tvegati spremembe. Nekaj evroskeptikov jim je pognalo strah v kosti in to je to..

0219K21 je napisal(a):


Ts, ts, dokaj prevzetno povedano. Vsaj za pravnika bi se spodobilo, da predno pošlje kakšno pogodbo v koš, je pred tem prebere.

Irci so poslali evrokrate v q. ne zaradi pogodbe, ki je velika večina ne pozna, temveč zato, ker je lažje pri takih rečeh biti proti in ohraniti status quo, kot biti za in tvegati spremembe. Nekaj evroskeptikov jim je pognalo strah v kosti in to je to..

Torej je bolje dokument, ki ga ne prebereš podpisati, samo da ti ne rečejo skeptik?

dani14 je napisal(a):


Torej je bolje dokument, ki ga ne prebereš podpisati, samo da ti ne rečejo skeptik?

Brez skrbi, da so tisti, ki dokument podpišejo še kako seznanjeni s njegovo vsebino.

dani14 je napisal(a):

Daj drugič za kače linke, prosim. Mi je kolešček na miški odpadel.

Sem nehal brati pri prvem citatu - ko se pojavi RKC, ki jo kao skrbi zame, se mi vključi shit-alarm.
Ostalih 8 irskih razlogov za zavrnitev lizbonske pogodbe torej ne poznam, ampak če je cerkev proti, potem sem jaz za ;-)

0219K21 je napisal(a):


Ts, ts, dokaj prevzetno povedano. Vsaj za pravnika bi se spodobilo, da predno pošlje kakšno pogodbo v koš, je pred tem prebere.

Irci so poslali evrokrate v q. ne zaradi pogodbe, ki je velika večina ne pozna, temveč zato, ker je lažje pri takih rečeh biti proti in ohraniti status quo, kot biti za in tvegati spremembe. Nekaj evroskeptikov jim je pognalo strah v kosti in to je to..

Glede na starmanov link (vsaj po prvem odtavku sodeč), jim je pognala strah v kosti predvsem cerkev.
Očitno tudi tam iz prižnic priporočajo kako je treba glasovati na volišču ;-)

0219K21 je napisal(a):


Ts, ts, dokaj prevzetno povedano. Vsaj za pravnika bi se spodobilo, da predno pošlje kakšno pogodbo v koš, je pred tem prebere.

Irci so poslali evrokrate v q. ne zaradi pogodbe, ki je velika večina ne pozna, temveč zato, ker je lažje pri takih rečeh biti proti in ohraniti status quo, kot biti za in tvegati spremembe. Nekaj evroskeptikov jim je pognalo strah v kosti in to je to..

 
saj sem bral to sranje, ne skrbi. čeprav mi ne bi bilo treba, ker janševa (ali katerakoli druga slovenska) vlada česa takega ne bi dala nikoli na referendum.  le zakaj bi o pomembnih stvareh odločali državljani, če lahko o tem odloča obramboslovec in ekipa retardirancev v parlamentu.  

0219K21 je napisal(a):


Brez skrbi, da so tisti, ki dokument podpišejo še kako seznanjeni s njegovo vsebino.

 
to po tvojem velja tudi za polpismene slovenske poslance, ki so v tvojem imenu pogodbo ratificirali? jaz trdim, da o vsebini in posledicah nimajo pojma.

0219K21 je napisal(a):


Brez skrbi, da so tisti, ki dokument podpišejo še kako seznanjeni s njegovo vsebino.

Kaj pa volilci po EU, vemo kaj so naši politiki podpisali ali na primeru Irske, so Irci vedeli, za kaj glasujejo? Če niso (najbolj verjetno), potem je najbolj logično, da stvar zavrneš.

Zakaj pa je stvar preobsežna, da bi jo lahko obrazložil na referendumskem lističu, pa vedo pisci pogodbe. Tudi o tem so predhodniki pisali.

lukav je napisal(a):


saj sem bral to sranje, ne skrbi. čeprav mi ne bi bilo treba, ker janševa (ali katerakoli druga slovenska) vlada česa takega ne bi dala nikoli na referendum. le zakaj bi o pomembnih stvareh odločali državljani, če lahko o tem odloča obramboslovec in ekipa retardirancev v parlamentu.

Parlament je bil izvoljen na demokratičnih volitvah. Kar smo izvolili, to imamo ;-)
Prepričan pa sem, da tudi parlament prejšnjega sklica ne bi glasoval enako. (in da tudi oni ne bi prebrali pogodbe)

Narod pa - odločati o pogodbi na referendumu bi pomenilo glasovati za ali proti aktualni vladi, oziroma predlagatelju.
Če bi lizbonsko pogodbo požegnal Kučan, bi referendum zagotovo uspel.

0219K21 je napisal(a):


Brez skrbi, da so tisti, ki dokument podpišejo še kako seznanjeni s njegovo vsebino.

zares?

"Večina poslanskih skupin je v razpravi pred glasovanjem opozorila, da poslanci o vsebini reformne pogodbe unije niso bili dobro obveščeni, da razprava v parlamentu o tej temi ni bila zadostna in da sta vlada in DZ z ratifikacijo preveč hitela."

https://www.finance.si/203234


drzava ritoliznikov? YU anybody?

"Slovenija je tako druga članica EU, ki je ratificirala naslednico zavrnjene evropske ustavne pogodbe"

0902ISXdX je napisal(a):


Glede na starmanov link (vsaj po prvem odtavku sodeč), jim je pognala strah v kosti predvsem cerkev.
Očitno tudi tam iz prižnic priporočajo kako je treba glasovati na volišču ;-)

Nebi ugibal, vse skupaj je pač učinkovalo tako, da so zavrnili. Vsakdo, ki je obkrožil "proti" je to storil zaradi le njemu znanih razlogov. In prav gotovo ta oseba ni prebrala te pogodbe o kateri ji je bila dana možnost odločanja.

Če si kdo predstavlja, je situacija podobna npr. situaciji v večstanovanjski stavbi, ki se dogovarja o vsebini pogodbe o skupnem upravljanju stavbe. In po vrsti sestankov, sej in neprespanih noči se pač predstavniki lastnikov le dogovorijo o tekstu pogodbe, ki jo je potem, ko je sam tekst dogovorjen potrebno še podpisat.

Nakar v enem stanovanju pri enem lastniku "demokratično" gre cela družina odločat, četudi je pri izdelavi pogodbe sodeloval le en član družine. Tega preostali člani družine odjebejo in "referendumsko" zavrnejo usklajeni tekst, ne da bi ga z enim očesom pogledali.

Ne zato, ker bi bil sam tekst slab ali dober, ne. Temveč zato, ker je nekdo iz sosednjega bloka napolnil nekom ušesa, da je pogodba "slaba", da bo joj, da je itak upravnik korumpiran, in vse v tem stilu..

V tem primeru bi cela hiša upravičeno planila po tej eni družini. In zakaj se kdo obotavlja Ircem povedat kaj jim gre?! Da so, kratkomalo, legitimne irske interese zastopali legalni in legitimni irski predstavniki. In da to tako v vseh normalnih sistemih poteka. In da notranje irske razmere ne pomenijo, da bi sedaj morala EU pasati na hrbet in se obrniti za 180 stopinj. Ne. Prava pot je, da se Irska prešteje in odšteje in preveri kje so njeni dejanski interesi. V EU ali zunaj nje.