Religious Freedom In Europe

[Myles Domini]

Yes, as I said before; Its nice that you think that but if I disagree who is to say that I am wrong and you are right? What if I am a utilitarian. There are several very intelligent people who are utilitarians. One of them Peter Singer is a proffessor of philosophy at Princeton and he believes in infanticide. Why are we wrong and why are you right? Who decides who is wrong and who is right in this instance? You're making statements and assertions but what are they backed by. Your system only stands if your premises are correct and who is it to say that your premises are correct (and that moreover the utilitarian or the nihilist etc.etc is mistaken?)

Surely if we exclude the ontology of the Creator and the responsibilities people have to the natural law according to the truth of their being order to the creation we have no sure rule for deciding which ethical system is correct apart from pure emotivism? In which case anything goes potentially and there is no certainty about anything. You may assert all intillgent people believe in human rights but thats simply not true and for all your assertions and what you view as the negative consequences of certain philosophers ideas that doesnt mean your ideas are correct. You cant prove it, your stance is indefensible.

Without the natural law there is no philosophically justifiable morality just conflicting opinions between human beings.

Edited January 21, 2006 by Myles

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='Deeds' date='Jan 21 2006, 04:42 PM']Divorce is (sadly) sometimes necessary, for example, when one spouse is abusive. [right][snapback]862695[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Personally I think jail would be more appropriate.

[dandy777]

[quote name='Myles' date='Jan 21 2006, 10:22 PM']Yes, as I said before; Its nice that you think that but if I disagree who is to say that I am wrong and you are right?[/quote]

Logic and common sense. Man has based most of its knowledge throughout centuries based on facts and logical reasoning. If you discard that there there is no scope in humanity.

[quote name='Myles' date='Jan 21 2006, 10:22 PM'] What if I am a utilitarian. There are several very intelligent people who are utilitarians. One of them Peter Singer is a proffessor of philosophy at Princeton and he believes in infanticide.[/quote]

I don't know who this person is but if he really thinks so, he isn't [i]that[/i] very intelligent after all.

[quote name='Myles' date='Jan 21 2006, 10:22 PM']Why are we wrong and why are you right? Who decides who is wrong and who is right in this instance? You're making statements and assertions but what are they backed by. Your system only stands if your premises are correct and who is it to say that your premises are correct (and that moreover the utilitarian or the nihilist etc.etc is mistaken?)[/quote]

I'm sorry you are trying to press hard on an argument that doesn't exist. You decided not to see my point even though you describe it as being a noble one.

[quote name='Myles' date='Jan 21 2006, 10:22 PM']Surely if we exclude the ontology of the Creator and the responsibilities people have to the natural law according to the truth of their being order to the creation we have no sure rule for deciding which ethical system is correct apart from pure emotivism? In which case anything goes potentially and there is no certainty about anything. You may assert all intillgent people believe in human rights but thats simply not true and for all your assertions and what you view as the negative consequences of certain philosophers ideas that doesnt mean your ideas are correct. You cant prove it, your stance is indefensible.[/quote]

What about those philosophers who deny the existence of God or a creator? Wouldn't that make your arguments defenseless too? Do you realise that you are saying exactly what I am saying? The only difference is this: you are founding your arguments on a God (who not every person acknowledges) whereas I and telling you that there is a higher order of thoughts and principles of freedom, fraternity and respect that are inherent in every person. Now if you want a proof of this, put a group of people who detest each other on a deserted island and see for yourself if they get united for survival or not. Same thing happened in several revolutions and battles where human rights were threatened. That is the natural call within every person. If anyone rejects that, then he is doomed to die.

[quote name='Myles' date='Jan 21 2006, 10:22 PM']Without the natural law there is no philosophically justifiable morality just conflicting opinions between human beings.
[right][snapback]862826[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That's too. That's why we have to find a common denominator that is accepted by all, like the one I described and then build on it a higher perspective which is the Christian one.

[dandy777]

[quote name='RandomProddy' date='Jan 22 2006, 03:18 PM']Personally I think jail would be more appropriate.
[right][snapback]863190[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

What happens when that person comes out of jail?

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='dandy777' date='Jan 22 2006, 02:47 PM']What happens when that person comes out of jail?
[right][snapback]863209[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

If they can rehabilitate, good. If not, permanent seperation.

[Deeds]

[quote name='RandomProddy' date='Jan 22 2006, 01:18 PM']Personally I think jail would be more appropriate.
[right][snapback]863190[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Jail and divorce. What, in effect, is the difference between divorce and permanent separation? It's a purely legal matter.

[son_of_angels]

"Divorce" as an issue really what would be at stake here...It's the politics which would support such a move.

The only problem I have with divorce as a legal definition is that it is a legal declaration that the marriage no longer exists, contrary to Catholic teaching, and, if you buy the whole teaching of Genesis (which I do) then it is also contrary to natural moral law.

But you see the politics that such a move would make. It would make your country willing, on nearly every issue, willing to depart from Catholic teaching as a guide for the formation of law, and drive a wedge between the patriotism of people to the State, and their beliefs as Catholics. This would make your Churches less Catholic, and your State less Maltese, since both feed on a certain spiritual and cultural heritage, until, a generation or two from now, you might as well call your nation a province of Europe or a serf to the UN.

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Jan 22 2006, 10:25 PM']"Divorce" as an issue really what would be at stake here...It's the politics which would support such a move. 

The only problem I have with divorce as a legal definition is that it is a legal declaration that the marriage no longer exists, contrary to Catholic teaching, and, if you buy the whole teaching of Genesis (which I do) then it is also contrary to natural moral law.

But you see the politics that such a move would make.  It would make your country willing, on nearly every issue, willing to depart from Catholic teaching as a guide for the formation of law, and drive a wedge between the patriotism of people to the State, and their beliefs as Catholics.  This would make your Churches less Catholic, and your State less Maltese, since both feed on a certain spiritual and cultural heritage, until, a generation or two from now, you might as well call your nation a province of Europe or a serf to the UN.
[right][snapback]863467[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Part of what you're saying relates directly to what I've been arguing with Dandy. If, as she says, we're both on the same page and we both believe in natural law as perceptible in the order of creation then there's no way you can use the 'human rights' argument to justify divorce. The only human rights we have are those that we derive from the natural law. Unless it can be proved that divorce doesn't transgress natural law then there is no human right of divorce.

As for a Catholic Union of Europe. I'd be a little more hesistant about that. What I want is for the EU to go back to being what it was in the 50's when the Treaty of Rome was signed: a nice free trade area for the benefit of all member states. Keep it simple, why dont they? Why try to establish European laws and European policies? As far as I'm concerned only a country needs a constitution and the EU is not a country so it should honour that fact.

Britain has no intention of becoming a province of the EU

Edited January 23, 2006 by Myles

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='Myles' date='Jan 23 2006, 12:11 AM']Britain has no intention of becoming a province of the EU 
[right][snapback]863480[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Britain doesn't even have it's own written constitution, but has it's own currency. Unique position in Europe I think....

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='RandomProddy' date='Jan 23 2006, 03:06 AM']Britain doesn't even have it's own written constitution, but has it's own currency. Unique position in Europe I think....
[right][snapback]863614[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Parliamentary Sovreignty my friend. Allows laws to be made very easily without a troublesome constitution getting in the way. So long as the statues are signed by the reigning monarch its all good : .

God save the Queen :

Edited January 23, 2006 by Myles

[Didacus]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Jan 19 2006, 10:37 PM']A bit of the ends justifying the means, eh?
[right][snapback]861592[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Of copurse not... just showing the benefits of a differetn way of doing things and explaining why I have more respect for Islam than I do Atheists.

Vive ma mere patrie! La France! Dont les mulsulmans vont seourir de sa miseres!
Long life life to our MotherNation! France! Which the Muslims will rescue from her misery!

HA!!!

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Jan 23 2006, 11:56 AM']Of copurse not... just showing the benefits of a differetn way of doing things and explaining why I have more respect for Islam than I do Atheists.

Vive ma mere patrie!  La France!  Dont les mulsulmans vont seourir de sa miseres!
Long life life to our MotherNation!  France!  Which the Muslims will rescue from her misery!

HA!!!
[right][snapback]863801[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That or turn into a Caliphate if the Franks dont start having some babies :

[dandy777]

[quote name='Myles' date='Jan 23 2006, 01:11 AM']Part of what you're saying relates directly to what I've been arguing with Dandy. If, as she says, we're both on the same page and we both believe in natural law as perceptible in the order of creation then there's no way you can use the 'human rights' argument to justify divorce.[/quote]



I didn't try to justify divorce by using human rights. I mentioned human rights when you mentioned that according to some philosophers abortion and infanticides are right things to be done.

[quote name='Myles' date='Jan 23 2006, 01:11 AM']The only human rights we have are those that we derive from the natural law. Unless it can be proved that divorce doesn't transgress natural law then there is no human right of divorce.[/quote]

In fact I never said so! What I said is that I don't agree with prohibiting divorce to non-believers when they don't actually believe in the sanctity of marriage. The rest was an answer to your Nietzche comment.

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='dandy777' date='Jan 23 2006, 03:55 PM']   

I didn't try to justify divorce by using human rights. I mentioned human rights when you mentioned that according to some philosophers abortion and infanticides are right things to be done.
In fact I never said so! What I said is that I don't agree with prohibiting divorce to non-believers when they don't actually believe in the sanctity of marriage. The rest was an answer to your Nietzche comment.
[right][snapback]863940[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Uh huh to which I replied what basis for an argument is that? Because they dont believe they dont need to obey? Then you said they dont have to cos divorce doesn't violate anyones human right? To which I replied there are no human rights that do not fall under natural law and under natural law divorce is prohibited thus the legalisation of divorce is unjustifiable.