purinoli je napisal(a):
Hja, s prvim delom posta se vsekakor strinjam. V drugem delu si pa vseeno vzpostavil elacijo vrednote-uspešna družba. Vrednote že, vendar ne religijske. Te so preprosto povsod cokla.

Irska ni postala uspešna zaradi krščanstva, saj je bila večino časa evropski bolnik, ne dolgo nazaj se je milijone Ircev zaradi lakote izselilo. Njihov uspeh je povezan z vstopom v EU, kjer so dobili zastonj darilo - kapital in zato, ker so enostavno pokopirali anglosaksonski ekonomski sistem in na široko odprli vrata še kapitalu iz ZDA. Krščanstvo s tem nima nobene zveze.

Konfucij je bil državnik/filozof. Ni bil religijska ikona - kapaciteta. Njegov rod se nadaljuje in tam se vsako leto sestanejo ljudje z najdaljšim rodovnikom na planetu, ki gre direktno nazaj do Konfucija. Še komunajzarji, vsaj tile moderni, predvsem Ču en Lai in Deng Xiao Ping, so ga upoštevali in premeteno vgradili v zgodbo o novi Kitajski.

Če bi se npr. mi Slovenci hoteli ravnati po kakih vrednotah, bi bil jaz za moderne, brez vsake primesi velikih religij. Če pa že, potem imamo starejša verstva od krščanskih. Naše prave, originalne stare vrednote in bogove Živo, Morano, Svaruna....so kristjani potolkli z ognjem in mečem. Krščanstvo se je v celi Evropi širilo z vojsko in ne z lepo besedo. Lepe besede so prišle, ko so bili narodi, plemena in dežele že pokorjene. Te lepe besede so pa seveda ena sama hinavščina.


Prehudo povdarjanje "krščanskih korenin EU" me krepko spominja na podobne manire naših kompartajcev, ki so zgodovino obravnavali le od Marxa naprej, ostalo je bilo zanje vse tema. Realnost je pa seveda malce drugačna.

Lep pozdrav, Purinoli

P.S. Pa še malo zgodovine. V 4. stoletju je zadnji skupni Rimski cesar Teodozij, ki je prevzel krščansko vero, pri reki Frigid ( danes potok Hubed pri Vipavi) premagal Evgenija iz Milana, ki je zagovarjal vrednote starega Rima - verski pluralizem. Z zmago Bizantinca, vzhodnjaka, je Evropa padla za kakih 10-15 stoletij v vzhodnjaško temo. Zanimivo je, da je Evropa zopet še enkrat pred podobno "vzhodno" nevarnostjo- islamom. Upam, da ne bo prišlo do nove bitke pri Vipavi, ki nas bo vrgla za stoletja nazaj do nove renesanse.

 
In kdo hoče DANES PODTAKNITI Neevropsko-azijsko-75 milijonsko MUSLIMANSKO Turčijo v EU in s tem UNIČITI EVropo kot Evropo. Si slišal včeraj Busha na Brdu ? njegoiva glavna poanta je bila, da kako MORA Evropa sprejeti Turčijo kot polnppravno članico EU, in priprave na vojaški NAPAD na Iran. Oboje je "judovski projekt", ki ga ta "moron" (bebec) Bush papagajsko ponavlja pod vplivom judoizraelskega - cionističnega lobija, ne d abi se ta "ubogi" Bush tega sploh zavedal. IN ta zmedena, uboga, zgubljena,zmešana, zamnipulirana skopljena brezjajčna Evropa NIMA nekega jasnega izdelanega stališča do tega. Pred tremi leti so Francozi in Nizozemci galsovali PROTI predvsem  zato, da so indirektno PREPREČILI tem JUNCEM v Bruslju in Strasbourgu, da jih ne bi ZAJEBALI in spravili Turčijo v EU. V osnovi gre sedaj isto na Irskem, da se poskuša vendarle obdržati osnovno identiteto Evrope z elementi KRŠČANSKOSTI, ne pa da se jo dokončno RAZJEBA tudi s tem, da se ji PODTAKNE MUSLIMANSKO Turčijo. Ti dragi Purinali pa si s svojo "kemijo + fiziko" v osnovi objektivno, ne da bi se tega sploh zavedal, v tej funkciji. V tem je bistvo tega uničujočega peklenskega proejkta, ki je v osnovi "judovski projekt".
Se opravičujem, M.S.

Ameri so prebrisani. Šibka EU => močna USA. Turčija je bila pol stoletja odličen zaveznik ZDA in tudi tvoje krščanske EU pred Sovjeti. ZDA samo plačuje uslugo s tujim "denarjem". Turčija seveda ne spada v EU. Še SLO ne, ker je prerevna in še ni razčistila s totalitarizmom. Enako velja za vso novodošlo 12 terico, z izjemo morda Malte in Cipra, ki sta pa itak samo packi na zemljevidu.

Identiteta Evrope sploh ni treba mešati z "elementi krščanskosti", ker so to slabi elementi. EU je pač svobodoljubna od renesanse sem, muslimanski svet pa ne. In to je vsa razlika. Če bi Vatikan danes vladal EU ( "Rimsko cesarstvo"), lahko pozabiš na svobodo. Bilo bi, kot v kakem kalifatu.

Vsi, ki so glasovali proti, so to zaradi tega, ker imajo dovolj že naših EU revežev, kaj šele azijskih in muslimanskih. EU z "elementi krščanskosti" je zame isto, kot EU "z elementi muslimanskosti". Naj odjebejo vsi in raje inštalirajo svobodno družbo, brez davkov za razne pajace v spalnih srajcah ali pa muftije, ko jih šiša. Kdor želi častiti kakega boga, ima na pretek časa in lahko to počne pred spanjem, med kosilom ali kadarkoli. Ampak naj tega ne vsiljuje nikomur. Komaj nekaj stoletij je, ko smose osvobodili enih zločincev v kutah, pa se nam že prikazujejo novi, stari pa dvigajo glavo.

Tokrat pač ne bo šlo več tako naprej. Kdor želi širiti kak evangelij, koran ali podobne neumnosti, naj ustanovi firmo za PR in plačuje davke, kot mi ostali.

Zelo enostavno, ne? Kaj pa porečeš na tisti post zgoraj, da so kristjani podjarmljali Evropo in Amerike z ognjem in mečem? Menda ja ne misliš, da so nam ukradli vero praočetov z lepo besedo?

Lep pozdrav, Purinoli

purinoli je napisal(a):
Ameri so prebrisani. Šibka EU => močna USA. Turčija je bila pol stoletja odličen zaveznik ZDA in tudi tvoje krščanske EU pred Sovjeti. ZDA samo plačuje uslugo s tujim "denarjem". Turčija seveda ne spada v EU. Še SLO ne, ker je prerevna in še ni razčistila s totalitarizmom. Enako velja za vso novodošlo 12 terico, z izjemo morda Malte in Cipra, ki sta pa itak samo packi na zemljevidu.

Identiteta Evrope sploh ni treba mešati z "elementi krščanskosti", ker so to slabi elementi. EU je pač svobodoljubna od renesanse sem, muslimanski svet pa ne. In to je vsa razlika. Če bi Vatikan danes vladal EU ( "Rimsko cesarstvo"), lahko pozabiš na svobodo. Bilo bi, kot v kakem kalifatu.

Vsi, ki so glasovali proti, so to zaradi tega, ker imajo dovolj že naših EU revežev, kaj šele azijskih in muslimanskih. EU z "elementi krščanskosti" je zame isto, kot EU "z elementi muslimanskosti". Naj odjebejo vsi in raje inštalirajo svobodno družbo, brez davkov za razne pajace v spalnih srajcah ali pa muftije, ko jih šiša. Kdor želi častiti kakega boga, ima na pretek časa in lahko to počne pred spanjem, med kosilom ali kadarkoli. Ampak naj tega ne vsiljuje nikomur. Komaj nekaj stoletij je, ko smose osvobodili enih zločincev v kutah, pa se nam že prikazujejo novi, stari pa dvigajo glavo.

Tokrat pač ne bo šlo več tako naprej. Kdor želi širiti kak evangelij, koran ali podobne neumnosti, naj ustanovi firmo za PR in plačuje davke, kot mi ostali.

Zelo enostavno, ne? Kaj pa porečeš na tisti post zgoraj, da so kristjani podjarmljali Evropo in Amerike z ognjem in mečem? Menda ja ne misliš, da so nam ukradli vero praočetov z lepo besedo?

Lep pozdrav, Purinoli

 
"Purinoli"

1. Popolnoma racionalno-razumsko ( NE versko) kot ekonomist-manager-podjetnik menim, da družba  NE more obstajati, funkcionirati, se razvijati BREZ VREDNOT, samo s "kemijo + fiziko".

2. Sleherno človeško bit-je opredeljujeta dve temeljni lastnosti:
 - 2.1. človekov UM - razUM - ZNANJE, na eni starni, ter
 - 2.2. človekova VEST - zaVEST("vera"), na drugi starni, in
OBOJE skupaj tvori človeka kot "človeka", kiot medaljo z dvema licema. Človek ne obstaja samo kot "um-razum-znanje" BREZ "vesti-zaversti(vere)", in obratno človek ne obstaja samo s svojo "vestjo-zaverstjo(vero)" BREZ "uma-razuma-zanja". OBE ti dve temeljni determinati opredeljujeta sleherno človeško bit-je, seveda v nekem komplementarnem - dopolnjujočem medsebojnewm razmerju, ki se uravnoteži tako, da eno drugo NE izključuje.
To je TEMELJNI KAMEN človeka kot posamznika in na teh "temeljnih kamnih" temelječa "skupnost človekov" kot DRUŽBA

3. Zanikati gornje je zanikati obstoj človeka kot "človeka" in s tem obstoj "skupnosti človekov" - družbe.
In SINTEZI gornjih dveh temeljnih determinant "človeka" in "skupnosti človekov" - družbe ( to je sintezi uma-razuma -znaja ter vesti-zavesti(vere)) pravimo z eno besedo tudi KULTURA "človeka" oziroma KULTURA "skupnosti človekov", oziroma z drugo besedo nek SISTEM VREDNOT.

4. Ali rečemo tistim DESETIM BOŽJIM ZAPOVEDIM, ki "naj bi jih" Mojzes pred kakimi 3000-3500 leti "prinesel" dol po nalogu"Boga" iz gore Sinaj, legenda ali pravljica ali izmišljotina ali laž ali karkoli hočeš, ostaja DEJSTVO, da  je bil tisti SISTEM VREDNOT opredelejn s tistimi "desetimi božjimi zapovedmi", še kako POTREBEN in KORISTEN.

5. In da je "naša" evropska civilizacija v osnovi opredeljena tako s tistimi Mojzesovimi "desetimi božjimi zapovedmi" iz Stare (judovske) Zaveze in potem NADgrajena s Kristusovim Evangelijem Nove Zaveze, je pač DEJSTVO. K temu seveda lahko in MORAMO dodati še vse ostale civilizacijske vplive, ki so sooblikovali SISTEM VREDNOT naše "zahodne" civilizacije (od Mezopotamije, stare Perzije, starega Egipta, stare Grčija, starega Rima, raznih poganskih-barbarskih  PREDkrščanskih "evropskih" primesi, ...pozneje tudi islama), VSE skupaj dopolnjevano z razvojem "ZNANOSTI" kot DEL tega SISTEMA VREDNOT vse do današnjih dni.

Evropejci NE moremo in NE smemo enostavno "posrati se" in "poscati se" na vse gornje, na "naš" skozi tisočletja dograjevani SISTEM VREDNOT, saj je to NErazumno-NEracionalno-SAMOmorilsko. In ravno to so poskušali razni evropski "filozofi" zadnjih 200 let in so Evropi rodili: (brezBožnega) Lenina , Mussolinija in Hitlerja, kar se v zadnjih desetletjih nadaljuje s temi BREZvrednotnimi blodnajmi nihilizma, cinizma, relativizma, kar vse vkupaj pelje Evropo "u pičku materinu", pri čemer je najbolj nazorni izraz tega to naravnost "P  A  T  O  L  O  Š  K  O" sovraštvo do kršačnstva kot "krščanstva". IN kaj POTEM ???????????????

Spet lahko samo upam in si želim, da bo danes "Božja Previdnost" pomagala Ircem, da se bodo PRAVILNO odločili na svojem referendumu, saj Irci danes ODLOČAJO tudi za NAS, kar je bilo tako nam kot preostalim 450 milijonom Evropejcem onemogočeno, da bi se izjasnili, in da bodo tako rešili "našo" Evropo pred NOVO "P  R  E  V  A  R  O"

6. Ja popolnoma pravilno ugotavljava, da imajo Kitajci svojega Konfucija izpred 2600 let (kot izjemenga "misleca", filozofa, državnika, ...) ob tudi Budi, kar vse jim omogoča, da so v zadnjih desetletjih, ko so se jim pojavile prilike, naravnost eksplodirali v  svojem razvoju in se razvijajo s svetlobno hitrostjo.
LP, M.S.

Kolega Starmar, 10 zapovedi, ki jih je bojda Mojzes pritovoril s Sinaja, ni nič novega. Že dolgo pred tem so veljale v raznih oblikah pri raznih kulturah in civilizacijah davno pred Mojzesom.

Ponavljam : Naša evropska civilizacija je utemeljena na protikrščanstvu ( renesansa) in na moralnih vrednotah svobodnega uma. To pač ne gre skupaj ne z muslimani ne z RKC. Contradictorio in adjecto !!!

Dej mi komentar na zgoraj že dvakrat omenjene rabote krščanstva : kraja religij naših prednikov s strani kristjanov s pomočjo ognja in meča in ne z lepo besedo. In komentar o barbarskem uničenju ameriških predkrščanskih cvetočih civilizacij, ki so imele pač svoja družbena pravila. Včasih dobra, včasih slaba. Kdo je dal kristjanom pravico, da so zažgali knjižnico v Aleksandriji ( Teodozij), da so uničili Amerike in pahnili Evropo v 15 stoletij najhujše teme in bede??

Občudujem Angleže. Henrik VIII je bil čuden patron, samopašen in nič kaj usmiljen do svojih priležnic, ampak papežu je pa pokazal sredinec in ga napodil iz Anglije. Žal je obstal na pol poti. Še anglikance bi napodil, pa bi bilo vse OK.

Kitajci so krščanstvo samo povohali tisočletja po tem, ko so že imeli cvetočo civilizacijo. Pametno jih držijo na uzdi, kakor tudi budiste, ki so samo varijanta istega sranja. Konfucij je pa vse kaj drugega, kot religija.

Tule dajem samo eno njegovo, ki je meni najbolj všeč : "Študij brez misli je brezploden, misel brez študija je pa nevarna"

Lep pozdrav, Purinoli

purinoli je napisal(a):
Kolega Starmar, 10 zapovedi, ki jih je bojda Mojzes pritovoril s Sinaja, ni nič novega. Že dolgo pred tem so veljale v raznih oblikah pri raznih kulturah in civilizacijah davno pred Mojzesom.

Ponavljam : Naša evropska civilizacija je utemeljena na protikrščanstvu ( renesansa) in na moralnih vrednotah svobodnega uma. To pač ne gre skupaj ne z muslimani ne z RKC. Contradictorio in adjecto !!!

Dej mi komentar na zgoraj že dvakrat omenjene rabote krščanstva : kraja religij naših prednikov s strani kristjanov s pomočjo ognja in meča in ne z lepo besedo. In komentar o barbarskem uničenju ameriških predkrščanskih cvetočih civilizacij, ki so imele pač svoja družbena pravila. Včasih dobra, včasih slaba. Kdo je dal kristjanom pravico, da so zažgali knjižnico v Aleksandriji ( Teodozij), da so uničili Amerike in pahnili Evropo v 15 stoletij najhujše teme in bede??

Občudujem Angleže. Henrik VIII je bil čuden patron, samopašen in nič kaj usmiljen do svojih priležnic, ampak papežu je pa pokazal sredinec in ga napodil iz Anglije. Žal je obstal na pol poti. Še anglikance bi napodil, pa bi bilo vse OK.

Kitajci so krščanstvo samo povohali tisočletja po tem, ko so že imeli cvetočo civilizacijo. Pametno jih držijo na uzdi, kakor tudi budiste, ki so samo varijanta istega sranja. Konfucij je pa vse kaj drugega, kot religija.

Tule dajem samo eno njegovo, ki je meni najbolj všeč : "Študij brez misli je brezploden, misel brez študija je pa nevarna"

Lep pozdrav, Purinoli

 
"Purinoli"
kot verjetno že veš, je "Božja Previdnst" in "Sveti Duh nad vodami" poskrbel za to, da so Irci ZAVRNILI to prevarantsko skrpucalo Lizbonsko Pogodbo in so s  tem REŠILI Evropo.
Zaenkrat je prevarantski projekt v režiji "judo-prostozidarskega lobija" s katerim so hoteli IZBRISALI vse elemente krščanskosti Evropske civilizacije, BLOKIRAN.
Čeprav si si tudi TI sam želel takega izzida, Ti nisi kaj dosti pripomogel k temu izzidu samo s tvopjo "kemijo + fiziko".
Potrebno je bilo nekaj VEČ kot to !!!!!

Preminuli Papež Janez Pavel II je v svoji zadnji knjigi med drugim napisal, ob tem ko je moledoval nad brezupnimi sodobnimi Evropejci:
"Mogoče pa je BOG v 20.stoletju Evropejcem dopustil, da so si okusili komunizem, fašizem in nacizem in ga konkretno spoznajo, ob ko so se razburjali ob grozotah komunizma, fašizma in nacizma: "kje pa je BOG, da te strahote dopušča ?"

Pri sedanjem poskusu  PREVARE z Lisbonsko Pogodbo s katero so hoteli judje-prostozidarji PREVARATI Evropejce imam vtis, da je dobri stari BOG v zadnejm momentu "uporabil srednji NAVZGOR dvignjeni prst".
LP, M.S.

starmar6 je napisal(a):


"Purinoli"
kot verjetno že veš, je "Božja Previdnst" in "Sveti Duh nad vodami" poskrbel za to, da so Irci ZAVRNILI to prevarantsko skrpucalo Lizbonsko Pogodbo in so s tem REŠILI Evropo.
Zaenkrat je prevarantski projekt v režiji "judo-prostozidarskega lobija" s katerim so hoteli IZBRISALI vse elemente krščanskosti Evropske civilizacije, BLOKIRAN.
Čeprav si si tudi TI sam želel takega izzida, Ti nisi kaj dosti pripomogel k temu izzidu samo s tvopjo "kemijo + fiziko".
Potrebno je bilo nekaj VEČ kot to !!!!!

Preminuli Papež Janez Pavel II je v svoji zadnji knjigi med drugim napisal, ob tem ko je moledoval nad brezupnimi sodobnimi Evropejci:
"Mogoče pa je BOG v 20.stoletju Evropejcem dopustil, da so si okusili komunizem, fašizem in nacizem in ga konkretno spoznajo, ob ko so se razburjali ob grozotah komunizma, fašizma in nacizma: "kje pa je BOG, da te strahote dopušča ?"

Pri sedanjem poskusu PREVARE z Lisbonsko Pogodbo s katero so hoteli judje-prostozidarji PREVARATI Evropejce imam vtis, da je dobri stari BOG v zadnejm momentu "uporabil srednji NAVZGOR dvignjeni prst".
LP, M.S.

Irci so rekli ne iz preprostih in sebičnih razlogov, ki se samo slučajno pokrivajo s tvojimi in mojimi željami. Ne mešaj v to božjo previdnosti in svetega duha, ker sta oba nedokazljiva. Če bi bil jaz slučajno veren (GEM ne daj) in pristaš pogodbe, bi pa rekel : Sveti Lucifer in Presveti Duh Hudiča je obnorel Irce.....

Raje govorimo o dokazljivih stvareh, se bo lažje pogovarjat. Če ti meni serviraš dogmo, lahko jaz naredim samo troje :

1. Se strinjam s tvojo dogmo
2. Se ne strinjam in ti vržem kontra dogmo ( oboje nedokazljivo in debata, vsaj racionalna, ni možna)
3. Se ne strinjam, ker preziram dogme in rečem, Game Over

Še vedno nisi komentiral nekaj vprašanj zgoraj ( krščanski genocidi ameriških civilizacij, širjenje krščanstva z ognjem in mečem, moralna načela civilizacij, ki so 3x starejše od krščanstva......).

Lep pozdrav, Purinoli

P.S. Wojtila je bil čuden patron. Delno je rehabilitiral Gallilea (!!?) pred nekaj leti, hkrati pa ni pozabil zažugat, da Gallileo ni imel prav, ko se je uprl cerkvenemu nauku. Pa se znajdi. Zemlja je končno okrogla, ampak če cerkev pravi, da ni, potem se o tem ne spodobi.....In taki naj bi nas peljali v 30. stoletje????

purinoli je napisal(a):


Irci so rekli ne iz preprostih in sebičnih razlogov, ki se samo slučajno pokrivajo s tvojimi in mojimi željami. Ne mešaj v to božjo previdnosti in svetega duha, ker sta oba nedokazljiva. Če bi bil jaz slučajno veren (GEM ne daj) in pristaš pogodbe, bi pa rekel : Sveti Lucifer in Presveti Duh Hudiča je obnorel Irce.....

Raje govorimo o dokazljivih stvareh, se bo lažje pogovarjat. Če ti meni serviraš dogmo, lahko jaz naredim samo troje :

1. Se strinjam s tvojo dogmo
2. Se ne strinjam in ti vržem kontra dogmo ( oboje nedokazljivo in debata, vsaj racionalna, ni možna)
3. Se ne strinjam, ker preziram dogme in rečem, Game Over

Še vedno nisi komentiral nekaj vprašanj zgoraj ( krščanski genocidi ameriških civilizacij, širjenje krščanstva z ognjem in mečem, moralna načela civilizacij, ki so 3x starejše od krščanstva......).

Lep pozdrav, Purinoli

P.S. Wojtila je bil čuden patron. Delno je rehabilitiral Gallilea (!!?) pred nekaj leti, hkrati pa ni pozabil zažugat, da Gallileo ni imel prav, ko se je uprl cerkvenemu nauku. Pa se znajdi. Zemlja je končno okrogla, ampak če cerkev pravi, da ni, potem se o tem ne spodobi.....In taki naj bi nas peljali v 30. stoletje????

 
"Purinoli",
gre za "NAČIN RAZMIŠLJANJA"
kaj vse je "človek" delal "v imenu krščanstva" v teh 2000 letih (čedenega in manj čednega) se lahko pogovarjamo v nedogled. Tako kot kaj je tisti človek delal, ki ni vedel ničesar o "krščanstvu".
Zakaj (KDO ga je sprožil) je nastal "veliki pok" pred kakimi 14 milijardami let kot nam danes izračunavajo "znastveniki" in zakaj se vse to vleče tako dolgo, namesto, da bi bil ta proces  že zdavnaj končan, (recimo v 7 dneh) je eno od vprašanj-prispodob.
Ali je življenje v "našem" svetu (vesolju) nastalo slučajno-samodejno recimo iz "kozmičnega prahu", ali ga je ON ustvaril kako drugače je tudi bolj stvar "prispodob".
V vsakem primeru imam danes lep-prijeten popoldan zaradi razvoja dogodka na Irskem, ker me to ČVRSTI v "mojem" NAČINU RAZMIŠLJANJA. In ker si tudi TI vesel tega izzida, to samo potrjuje da imava veliko bolj skupnega kot si misliva.
Gre samo za različen "način razmišljanja"
Lp, M.S.

starmar6 je napisal(a):

 
Ker je UČENJE in SPOZNAVANJE stvari na osnovi DEJSTEV najbolj efikasno, vabim Forumovce, da se malo poglobijo v razloge zakaj so Irci popolnoma PRAVILNO zavrnili to Lizbonsko SINISTER-levičarsko evropsko PREVARO. Slovenci-Evropejaci plujemo na isti barki in velja se nekoliko bolj poglobiti v bistvo zadeve, saj v naših mediejv ne bo nihče prebral dejanskih razlogov zavrnitve. Zato ponavljam moj poseg od 8-6-08:


Ker je ta nova verzija EU Pogodbe samo nov poskus preoblečene PREVARE Evrope in pomeni njeno sprejetje zgodovinski samomor za Evropo, bo "Božja Previdnost" poskrbela za to, da se to NE bo zgodilo, in Irska kot resnična "zgodba o uspehu" Evrope zadnjih 30 let bo REŠILA Evropo z zavrnitvijo tega poskusa usodne prevare Evrope:

A Day of Infamy or Glory?
June 12 could go down in history as the date when Europe officially lost the Faith.

That is not to say that the continent is currently a paladin of Catholic virtue. However, on that date Ireland will vote on whether or not to accept the European Union’s (EU) new version of a constitution, called the Treaty of Lisbon. This document refuses to recognize Europe’s Catholic roots and would finish with whatever governmental vestiges of Christian civilization still remain.

EU officials are eager to push the plan ahead. In 2005, France and the Netherlands rejected a constitution that was at least 90% the same as the “treaty” now proposed. Since even little children catch on quickly to parents trying to present the same Brussels Sprouts in different ways, officials cannot hope to force feed the same constitution to the people of Europe a third time.

However, EU guidelines still require unanimity among member states to ratify the treaty-constitution. Since only Ireland requires a public referendum before signing on, the constitution’s ratification will be decided by how the Irish vote on June 12. Ireland will be the voice of those who have no voice.

But what is it that makes the Treaty of Lisbon so bad and why is it so necessary that the Irish defeat it? The American TFP’s Irish sister organization, Irish Society for Christian Civilization, has compiled the answer to this question in a 14-page document titled: “Nine Reasons Why a Conscientious Catholic Citizen Should Reject the Treaty of Lisbon in the Upcoming Referendum.”[1]

Nine Reasons…
The document succinctly presents some of the horrors contained in the new constitution and gives sufficient reason for any practicing Catholic to vote no on June 12.

Below is a summary of the document’s nine points:

1. Betraying Its Christian Past
Similar to the former defeated constitution, the Treaty of Lisbon has no mention of God or the Christian roots of Europe. The very preamble states: 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.
However, even a grade school student knows that European values were developed from the Catholic Church, which built Christian civilization out of the barbarian tribes that inhabited Europe.

This omission has further-reaching consequences than the denial of historic truth. As John Paul II expressed on the occasion of the 1200th anniversary of the coronation of Charlemagne, while discussing the Charter of Fundamental 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.[2]
The then Cardinal Ratzinger echoed these sentiments on the day before John Paul II’s death:The rejection of the reference to God, is not the expression of a tolerance…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.Furthermore, the Polish episcopate noted the absence of God in the former constitution with “indignation,” calling it a “falsification of the historical truth and a deliberate marginalization of Christianity.”

2. Imposition of Relativism
In the preamble of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the document from which the Treaty of Lisbon defines society’s rights, freedoms and principles, states: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.The Vice-president of the body that oversaw the compilation of the text of the Charter, Guy Brabant, explained that this opens the way “for an evolving and dynamic conception of fundamental rights.” A draft of the Charter including the phrase “drawing inspiration from its religious heritage.” According to Mr. Brabant, this had to be excluded, thus preventing the consideration of Europe’s religious patrimony “as a source of inspiration of fundamental rights.”[3]

Once again, Church hierarchy has weighed heavily against the document. Bishop Dominique Rey, of Fréjus-Toulon (France) said: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.[4]
The following words, taken from a recent address of the Holy Father are apropos, indeed: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. …When the fundamental requirements…of 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.[5] 3. Restricted Protection for Human Life
The same Charter of Fundamental Rights states simply: “everyone has the right to life.” However, by its very simplicity, this phrase is insufficient to confront the many attacks on human life rampant in modern society such as euthanasia, abortion and human cloning.

The renown professor, Msgr. Michel Schooyans explained: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.[6] One of the last rulings of the European Court shows that these “absurd interpretations” are more than a theory. This ruling stated that unborn children do not possess personhood and thus, would not be protected in any way under the new constitution.

Shockingly, the right to life of unborn children is denied while the European Court of Human Rights has defined abortion as “preventative healthcare,” which makes this sin a human right!

Furthermore, the Charter illegalizes human cloning for reproductive purposes, but opens the door to it for therapeutic or other reasons.

Under the new Constitutions, the sick and elderly would also be threatened. This was clearly expressed by Mr. Brabant:
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.”[7] 4. Official Recognition of Discrimination for “Sexual Orientation,” Limiting the Rights of the Church
If ratified, the Treaty of Lisbon would become history’s first international document to prohibit discrimination on grounds of “sexual orientation.” This is stated in two articles of the constitution. First, Article 10 declares: “the Union shall aim to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.”

Similarly, Article 19 states: “the Council…may take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.”

The inclusion of so-called “sexual orientation” in matters of discrimination would be tantamount to equating differences in race, age and origin with homosexual vice, a contention not likely to sit well with minorities.

Furthermore, it could be used to force homosexuals into jobs and functions that morality and common sense dictate they have no place, such as the: priesthood, athletic instruction, school teaching and even foster or adoptive parenthood.

The inclusion of homosexuality as a basis of non-discrimination also frontally challenges Catholic teaching as expressed by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. On July 22, 1992 it published a document stating:Recently, legislation has been proposed in various places which would make discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation illegal…

“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.

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.

…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.
The document also expressed concern that: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.Furthermore, prohibiting any discrimination based on sexual orientation will limit the freedom of the Church to preach the Gospel and the moral teachings coming from it, as it was denounced by the 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.[8] 5. Dissolving the Differences Between Men and Women
Article 23 of the Charter on Human Rights states:Equality between women and men must be ensured in all areas, including employment, work and pay.Vice-president Guy Brabant explains: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.[9] Denial of the God-given differences of sex “in all areas” would undermine the proper functioning of society. For example, in the religious field this would illegalize the Church’s prohibition on women priests.

In fact, the report: Women and Fundamentalism, produced by the Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities Committee, later approved by the European Parliament condemns: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. 6. Undermining the Concepts of Marriage and the Family
Concerning the rights of marriage, the Charter states: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.
The failure of the document to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman would open the door to same-sex “couples” having the same rights as married couples, including the right to adoption and artificial fertilization. Bishop Dominique Rey argues that this is tantamount to dissociating marriage with the family and is symptomatic of times in which: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.The then-Cardinal Ratzinger further showed that this faulty definition of marriage undermines the family, which is the fundamental cell of society itself. He then predicted the consequences of such undermining: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.
Regarding the legal acceptance of same-sex “marriages,” he added: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.[10] 7. Denying Parents the Right to Give Their Children Religious Instruction
The Charter also denies parents their fundamental right to educate their children. It gives the EU authority to mandate that students are educated from a secular perspective. The Charter states: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.Vice-president Guy Brabant explains the full extent of this article:The expression: ‘democratic principles,’ that should be respected within the scope of freedom to found educational establishments, needs to be interpreted… 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.He further explains: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.[11] Such a provision could endanger the curricula of Catholic schools and throw the divinely established familial hierarchy on its head. It would give freedom to rebellious teenagers to transgress the limits of the order established in their families, greatly increasing the chances that their adolescent delinquency will carry over into their adult lives.

It would represent, to a large extent, the victory of the rebellious students who demonstrated at Paris’ Sorbonne University in 1968.

8. Forcing the Acceptance of Foreign Law
The Charter would also bind all its member states to accept EU law that originated in other countries. Currently more than 80% of new legislation imposed on Europe’s citizens fits into this category.

Former German President, Roman Herzog explained how this has played out in his country: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.[12] 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.[13] Thus, the acceptance of the Charter of Fundamental Rights as a binding juridical document would impose on all EU member states, uniform standards regarding most sensitive areas where, presently, there are significant national differences.

Given this situation, Pope Benedict XVI rightly asks:
how can they [the EU] exclude an element essential to European identity such as Christianity, with which a vast majority of citizens continue to identify? … Does not this unique form of "apostasy" from itself, even more than its apostasy from God, lead Europe to doubt its own identity?[14]
9. Ireland Must Become the Voice of Those Who Have No Voice
Although the treaty of Lisbon is being presented as a new constitution, it contains at least 90% of the formerly proposed constitution that was rejected by the citizens of France and the Netherlands. Since the Irish will be the only people before whom this constitution will be put to the vote, circumstances have placed the country in the historic position of being the voice of all Europe that has undemocratically been denied their voice.

Therefore, it is incumbent upon everyone to firmly support the rejection of the Treaty of Lisbon in the Irish referendum scheduled for June 12. Above all it behoves Catholics to pray for this intention. The very Faith of Europe is at stake.

--------------------
Še enkrat, velaj se potruditi predvsem če koga res zanima "Evropa in MI v nje" ter naša bodočnost.
LP, M.S.