homosexual assault

[Guest guest]

on religion and God continues in the name of "tolerance."

 

----------------------

Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association (GALHA)

News Release - 2 February 2003

 

 

GAYS DEMAND THAT GOD BE LEFT OUT OF EU CONSTITUTION

KENILWORTH, 2 FEBRUARY 2003 -- The Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association (GALHA) has called on the European Union to resist pressure from religious organisations to have an exhortation to God and an acknowledgement of Europe's "religious heritage" included in the new constitution.

 

An EU committee is currently formulating a new constitution that will cover the soon-to-be-expanded Union. The committee is under pressure from religious organisations - particularly the Vatican - to include in the first article of the new constitution an acknowledgement that "God" is central to Europe and that the Union owes its success to its "religious heritage".

 

In a letter to the committee, GALHA secretary George Broadhead says: "As far as homosexuals are concerned, the 'heritage' of religion in Europe throughout the centuries has been one of persecution. The continued waning in observance of religion in Europe has resulted in increased secularisation of morality and public life. This has been achieved by the will of the people through democratic means, and it is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

 

"Naturally, religious interests regret this loss of their power and are anxious to regain it, but they should not be allowed to do this at the expense of peace and unity in a diverse Europe. Religious references will inevitably lead to division and disagreement and so, in the interests of all citizens, the references to God and religion should be rejected."

 

Mr Broadhead said: "It is essential that the EU remains secular. Within a couple of years many other Catholic countries will gain membership, and this will strengthen the hand of the Vatican, with its grotesquely anti-gay agenda. The Pope is pushing for more influence in the EU's decision making processes. It is important that he does not succeed. Homosexuals throughout Europe have looked to the EU to put right the many discriminations that existed. The last thing we need is for religion to reassert its influence. It would be a retrograde development that would create conflict and retard progress."

 

 

--

 

[Gauracandra]

Time to turn it over to the Muslims. The U.S. should modify its immigration policies to allow refugee status to the last remaining sane people of Europe to emigrate to America.

[Guest guest]

Finished? Not in my life time. Its Islam that will be leaving Europe not Europeans.

[Gauracandra]

Unfortunately, try as you might, Europe is finished. I’d suggest you pick up a book titled “The Death of the West” by Patrick Buchanan. He is a former political speech writer and commentator in the U.S. who is often accused of being racist. But he is not. Xenophobic maybe. But he often speaks the facts that no one else has the guts to say for fear of being labeled a racist.

 

The problem in Europe are the demographic patterns. Europeans are not replacing themselves. To have replacement parity you need on average 2 children per woman. Anything below that and you have a population implosion. European population patterns are way below that average. I don’t have the stats right on hand, but I looked up a few. In Catholic Italy for instance, the average number is 1.2 children per woman. Now based purely on birth and death rate patterns (which are very stable and easy to forecast) Europe will see a native population decline of immense proportions. The population of greater Europe (from Iceland to Russia) is about 728 million. By 2050, this number will drop to 600 million (with some estimates putting it at 556 million). That is just in the next 50 years, you will see 100-150 million few Europeans.

 

But that is not the only problem. Europe is the home of the socialist welfare state. Now the European populations are also aging, and will at this time 2050 have one of the largest elderly populations. In order to maintain a workforce to pay elderly benefits, they are importing more and more foreign workers. In addition, these foreign workers (many of whom are Muslim) tend to have a much higher than average birth rates (far exceeding population parity). So you will find two patterns. Native Europe will age dramatically and shrink in total population. They will then be replaced by Islamic Europe who will be young, dynamic, and growing.

 

Some other stats. By 2050 Germany’s population (based on birth and death rates) will drop from 82 million (today) to 59 million. That is 23 million fewer Germans. Russia’s population will fall from 147 million to 114 million, a loss of more than all those killed in the Hitler-Stalin wars.

 

In the U.S. we see a similar pattern but not as pronounced (we are less socialist). The main difference is that immigration patterns in the U.S. are of South American Catholics, while Europe is seeing a growth in North African Muslims. So America will likely remain Christian, even if the culture changes.

 

Pat Buchanan’s view stems from a fundamental view of culture. That strongly religious cultures are healthy and grow. But with the death of religion comes the death of a people. Europe has abandoned Christianity (this is true if you look at basic, common statistics). Religion is the soul of the people, and as it dies, the body (population) dies as well. Its an interesting argument and I think he is correct in his analysis.

[Guest guest]

I know exactly what you're talking about. The information you cite on ageing popualtions and low birth rates is absolutely correct. Couple this with mass immigration and its hard to say how Europe will stay European. However, that is only the present pattern. And these things have a habit of naturaly rectifying themselves. For instance the further along the road mass immigration goes the more hostile people become to it.

And a fact Americans dont like to admit is that the European Union is going to be a significant world power. Considering the EU is about to admit a dozen or so former iron curtain countries whose populace is demographicaly younger than western europes and also very poor and so has a drive to succeed not often found in the Western European countries.

I think the judgement that Europe is finished is extremely premature. Remember it was us who have just fought the two biggest wars the world has ever seen. It was us who developed the weapons. It was us who created the USA and it was us who paved the way for its success.

To talk of religion, culture and dynamism in Europe is a touchy subject. Whilst i would agree Europe is currently turgid under its present politcal system of democracy do you really think everyone is going to stick robustly to a system which is destroying their very existance? Do you not think if the predictions you are making are becoming apparent in Europe people might look to an alternative political system. One which sees itself as being tied up inextricably with the culture of European people. Lets face facts, if its a choice between an Islamic Europe or a National Socialist Europe my votes for the funny little man with a moustache, and most europeans would feel the same way.

[Gauracandra]

Remember also, that those population declines I cited included the whole of Europe, including the Eastern block. If Eastern Europe declines less, as you say, that just means Western Europe will decline even more so (to balance out to the figures cited).

 

I won't argue with you about the coming power of the EU, or that Europe made America (nonsense as far as I'm concerned, but that is another topic). Whatever else it will be, the EU will still be socialist. And socialism will never beat capitalism one on one. No way, no how.

 

The main point I think, in respect to the original article, is the end of European religion. Christianity is dead in Europe, perhaps reviving in the Eastern block due to being virtually dead for 70 years. Pat Buchanan's key point is that religion is the soul of the people. If a people do not have a strong religion, they die off. The body of the people (population) withers and ages.

 

I just don't see a religious revival in Europe. Maybe its coming. One good point is that there is a correlation between being liberal or conservative politically and population. In the U.S. for instance, Mormon Utah (about as conservative as you will find) has a population boom, with the average woman having 2.7 children. Compare this to the most left leaning state in the U.S. Vermont (the only state to have elected a self-declared socialist), which is experiencing a population decline with having like 1.5 children per woman.

 

But lets look on the bright side - one good point of this is there will be fewer French, and I'm sure we can all agree that is one benefit to Europe /images/graemlins/smile.gif Nay, the world /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Guest guest]

Well i cant agree that Christianity was responsible for a vigorous Europe. I would say it united Europe and allowed it too expand around the globe however the average person has dropped it as soon as the opportunity has arsien. Europeans just arent particularly interested in institutionalised religion.

As for the low European birth count I would blame a capitalist materialistic lifestyle where by people would rather have a new car than a child. Also the lack of basic human respect within a capitalist society has led to abortion being used a form of contraception as opposed to an emergency measure ( British statistics are 1 in 3 i think?). Capitalism is responsible for the decadence of modern Europe. And also remeber theres so many chemicals in foodstuffs and liquids the sperm count of the modern Western man barely matches that of a fieldmouse.

As for Pat Buchanan how does he explain the fact that COMMUNIST China, where relligion is non-existant, will soon become the worlds most powerful player.

[Gauracandra]

Allow me to expand on some of these ideas. I think an interesting place to start would be to note a main difference between religion and atheism within society. A key difference to me is what I would call the “organizational principle” or perhaps “motivating principle” for want of a better word. Within atheism there is no organizing principle behind which atheists get together to build and grow. Atheism is fundamentally individualistic. They are all alone in this world. They do not build atheistic schools, or gather once per week with other atheists. When an atheist gets sick, there aren’t fellow atheists who gather around and comfort them, or help them through the hard times.

 

Now religion has always had a fundamental component that organized people of similar values to build and grow. Individuals, when given freedom (unlike forced atheism of communism), naturally form religious affiliations. Religious affiliation is a natural organizational institution. But what happens when government policies crowd out this organizing function?

 

Try this experiment. Within Western Civilization (I’ll explain why in a moment) list in your own mind those countries which are the most socialistic towards those that are the most capitalistic. Next, list which countries are the most religious to the least religious. And by religious I don’t mean “I’m spiritual” or “I like to follow my own path to The One”. I mean something that is objective. Like what percent believe in God, or what percent are sitting in the pews of a church every week. Something you can measure.

 

I’ve seen statistics like these and what you will always find is that there is an inverse relationship between socialistic countries and church attendance. The more socialistic a country is the less church attendance. On the one extreme we can take communism, which understood that religion was a threat to their central organizational goals. So communism had to eliminate religion. Then you have countries like the socialist Scandinavian countries. One statistic I posted in these forums a little while back, showed that about 1.5% of Swedes attend the Lutheran church on a fairly regular basis. After Sweden, you have a France, followed by a Germany, then England, then the most religious country the United States (and the least socialistic). Again, when I say religious, I mean your butts in the pew on Sundays. Objectively measuring are you there or not. By this objective measurement, the United States is the most religious country among western civilization.

 

In a similar vein, you will find a link between the level of socialism and the birth rate of a country. The most socialistic countries have the lowest birth rates. And the most religious countries have the highest birth rates. There is an intricate connection between the two. To dissect the exact reasoning may be a little more difficult. I’m inclined to believe it has to do with religion fostering a positive worldview of wanting to invest in the world, and to grow and build families and communities. On the other hand, secularism (which is almost a natural product of socialism) becomes more self-centered. “I want my happiness, for me, in this life, in this world.” Its not about investing for the world to come (through your children) but rather personally living well in this life. Fewer children are less of a burden. You personally can enjoy your life more with fewer children. Children are a lot of work, and require a tremendous amount of energy.

 

Now Pat Buchanan is really only concerned with Western Civilization. When I gave my thought experiment above, I also said western civilization. The reason is we don’t have a laboratory to isolate different variables. Western Europe and the United States have similar standards of living, and a similar culture. Certainly German, French, Swedish, and American cultures are very different, but they are more similar than in comparison to a China. So one needs to try to hold as many variables constant, which is impossible but some accommodations can be made.

 

Now to test this theory about religion and birth rates in China, one could look at religious Chinese versus secular/atheistic Chinese. I would not be surprised at all if the same pattern showed up. Look at Israel as one example. You have secular Jews and religious Jews. The orthodox Jewish community is growing extremely quickly in Israel, entirely outpacing the secular Jews. Why is it that Mormon Utah has such a fast growth rate? They are very religious. They want to build and grow their community. If you don’t have religion, where is that organizing principle? If you are a secularist, you are alone in the world.

 

These are some interesting things to consider. I personally have always found it somewhat fascinating. How does government policy affect the natural development of culture? With religion being a cornerstone of culture.