Posted on 10/25/2005 9:10:51 AM PDT by lizol
The first visit from the German President to the foreign is more important than the first visit to the foreign from a Chancellor, in my view, because he works through symbolism rather than daily decisions. Mr. Köhler expressed with his trip that Germanys good relations with Poland are independant on who´s sitting in the Chancellery. The President - unlike the Chancellor - represents more than any other politician the entire German people and puts his weight on certain issues. That he did and does what he can to improve the German-Polish is a great thing, especially for Poland. I think this shouldn´t be underestimated, since we are your most important (trading) partner and Washington can´t help you within the EU. Under Merkel, the axis Paris-Berlin(-Moscow) is history, so Poles can relax and set a sign that they want to cooperate with is, too.
Well, my impression was, that Michael81Dus in his post#36 was relating to Polish-German relations, not to death penalty, or gay issues.
That banned GayPride march took place anyway, despite the mayor's disapproval, and Police were guarding it against neofascists who tried to provoke riots.
ban all gays from working with children
I haven't heard anything like that. Maybe he said that gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt children? But that's very reasonable and I would agree with him.
Exactly, lizol.
Oh, and on another note: Poles really have no reason to complain about our bilateral relations. Since the reunification, I´ve always heard Poles whining: Germans want their former territory back, Germans buy off Polish land, Germans want to rewrite history, Germans oppress Poland in the EU, blah blah blah. And what actually happened? Nothing of all that!
Germans gave up claims for their former territory in 1990, Germans didn´t buy off Polish land (or only very few), Germans aren´t rewriting history - in fact, no other nation has made up with its past so well as Germany, or have you seen a monument for the victims of Communism in Moscow, or a museum for the Armenians in Turkey? And Germany isn´t oppressing Poland in the EU. All I heard and hear is unjustified fears. When will you see that we don´t wish you harm?
Does the average Pole know that Germany was one of the biggest supporters for Polands admission to the EU and NATO? Does the average Pole know that German, Polish and Danish soldiers are in a common brigade?
I don´t know what all the fuss is about.
"Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz, nominated by the Law and Justice party to lead the next government as prime minister, told the Polish edition of Newsweek magazine that propagating homosexuality constituted an infringement on the freedom of other people.
``It is unnatural. Family is natural and the state should safeguard the family,'' Marcinkiewicz said, echoing the views of other leaders of his conservative party.
``If such a person tries to infect others with their homosexuality, then the state has to intervene in such an abuse of freedom,'' he said. He did not elaborate.
Marcinkiewicz said he judged people by their actions, not sexual orientation, but stressed that ``promoting homosexuality'' - through parades or campaigns by gay rights groups, for instance- was unacceptable to him."
Since when is homosexuality a transmittable disease O_o?
couldn't find the other article :/
Marcinkiewicz might think so and he has the right to express his views but it is a looong way from any actual persecution of gays.
"``promoting homosexuality'' - through parades or campaigns by gay rights groups, for instance- was unacceptable to him."
Freedom of association (parades)
Freedom of speech (campaigns)
How is that for persecution? And it's not only unnaceptable to him, he's also putting those rhetorics into action (by banning gay parade in Warsaw).
Even neonazis have a right to a protest... although most don't agree with that, but it's one of their rights and freedoms.
Where in the Catechism of the Church does it state that the death penalty is evil? My understanding is that it is permitted, but it was the current pope's (Pope John Paul II was the last one who stated a position on it that I heard) belief that there are no current circumstances where it is necessary. The death penalty is not considered desirable, and better done without if other penalties are available, but it is not evil and forbidden.
Anyway, if act can be necessary under certain circumstances, the circumstances being that it is the only possible way to protect innocent individuals, then the act is not evil when performed under those circumstances by definition.
P.S. I do believe in the it's better not to do it if other options are available, but I can easily think of several cases (Serial Killers for example), where it is sound in our current circumstances.
I couldn't find any actual opinion poll results on death penalty from Europe, many from USA, but none from Europe.
"Rocco Butiglione said that homosexuality is a sin and was devastated by the EU"
His own country recalled him, and it wasn't just homosexuality, he also commented on the rights of women...
"Besides, hatred toward Christians in the EU has reached the bottom!"
Bottom was reached in the times of Nero, after that it became better :)
"I just want to have my Christian rights guaranteed"
Your WHAT? I never knew there was a special assortment of rights called the christian rights...
Civil rights, political rights - sure, but christian rights? Like what? Bringing back Malleus Maleficarum?
"I am a Christian and the Bible says that pederasty is a sin"
The bible also says that you can sell your daughter into slavery, that you're not allowed to mix different materials in clothings,... (yes... I'm talking Leviticus).
"see the Notre Damme in Paris whixch has already become a museum, not a Temple of Christ"
You really should go there on sunday, or any other time when they have a mass. I see no problem about people looking at the architecture of churches while there's no mass inside. I know I've been to hundreds of slovenian churches (I was there for either the mass, or the architecture - both gave me some pleasure).
"and Mr Kaczynski guarantee them against psychopathic anti-Christs from the EU, mostly from Germany"
anti-Christs ^_^
That line actually made me laugh :))
ok, bedtime now :) uni in the morning... after that I'll check this thread some more :)
You are right: it is not evil in itself. But it is stated in CCC as follows:
2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."
So it may be necassary in rare circumstances like war or state of social anarchy, but as a means of state policy it is forbidden. That's how I understand it at least.
Religious rights are also part of CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION:
Article 10
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes freedom to change religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or in private, to manifest religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
To manifest religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance - that's what Vox_pl had in mind I think. But he is exaggerating of course because he believes that EU is an atheistic hell ;). I would add that this freedom seemed to in danger in certain places in EU (like France for example), although not especially with reference to Christianity.
Yes, but I do not agree with the OPINION that the cases are non-existent. Besides, thankfully, serial killers and the like are rare compared to all the crimes committed in the U.S. currently. However, what do we do with the D.C. snipers? They have already claimed that they consider it their sacred duty to kill any non-muslim, which means the guards are always in constant extreme danger. To ameliorate this risk, considerable expense must be put forth, which is easily greater than the entire gross product of the lifetime of several people. The other alternative would be to chop his arms and legs off.
I agree with the syllogism that IF the state has means that renders one who has committed a crime that ... then the death penalty should not be used. I disagree strongly with the Church that we are at that point for all prisoners. This is, therefore, not a doctrinal disagreement, but a disagreement of the applicability of a mutually recognized doctrine. I additionally believe that many (a large fraction who probably are a majority, but not necessarily) who support the death penalty have a similar opinion.
Therefore, it is completely reasonable to believe in the death penalty in some circumstances and be in accord with Church teaching, correctly understood as accepting the Church in its Doctrinal capacity and not it's capacity as a interested observer of criminal justice systems.
I do agree, though, that to hold this opinion in good faith, you must thoughtfully come to the conclusion based on a serious evaluation of the risk analysis and not just use it as an excuse.
In addition, thank you for looking up the quote. My hat is off to you for doing that. The Church's position is extremely precise, and, unfortunately, can be easily misunderstood.
" What rights of women??? To murder the unborn humans?"
No, actually butglione attacked the equality of women and men, saying that women were inferior.
"but you are in favor of murdering innocent children"
I'm in favor of human rights, I'm in favor of freedom of choice... most of the wars fought in the last 100 years were over that particular reason. Personally I'm against abortion, but I don't think that I should impose my will on others, ergo I am pro choice.
" However, in Poland I don't know any parents who are ready to give their beloved kids into the hands of perverts."
Of couse the priests in poland are never guilty of anything (male or female rape of children especially)?
"Do the rights of parents still exist in that communist EU?"
Not like they were a 100 years ago, parents don't have 100% choice, because sanity prevailed, and if you think that parents should have the right to do anything they want you should look at some of the newer threads in the forum; you should look at the thread where father relocated his 14 year old son into the basement,...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.