May 18, 2004
ROOTS?:
God back in EU debate (Reuters, May 18, 2004)
God is back in the debate on the draft EU constitution as several states renewed demands to make a reference to Europe's Christian roots.Predominantly Roman Catholic Ireland and Poland as well as Italy and Spain have long sided with the Vatican in demanding a reference to God, or at least Christian values, in the charter, against strong opposition from secular France.
France doesn't share Christian values any longer. Posted by Orrin Judd at May 18, 2004 2:38 PM
Actually, all those pretty cathedrals aside, did it ever?
Posted by: M. Murcek at May 18, 2004 3:35 PMYes, Mr. Murcek, it did. St. Martin of Tours, St. Joan of Arc, St. Louis, St. Therese of Liseux, Doctor of the Church -- all French. Thomas Aquinas and St. Francis Xavier were educated in Paris.
But since the Revolution its been pretty grim.
Posted by: Paul Cella at May 18, 2004 3:55 PMSo France is secular. Who cares? The fact that they want to pretend that there is no Christian heritage to Europe is indefensibly stupid. Why are they so afraid of the word "Christian" in the preamble of their several hundred page farce of a document?
Posted by: brian at May 18, 2004 3:59 PMOJ
If the Founding Documents were written today, Would American put the word Christian in them?
Not that I am defending France or anything.
When Republicans are beholden to Indian "lobbyist" would they press for the inclusion of such sentiments?
Posted by: h-man at May 18, 2004 4:12 PMH, OJ:
References to God and religion notwithstanding, do the Constitution or Declartion of Independance have explicit references to Christianity or Christ?
Posted by: mike earl at May 18, 2004 5:11 PMNot at all. H-man asked, "If the Founding Documents were written today, Would American put the word Christian in them?". My recollection - quite possibly wrong, in part why I'm asking - is that neither "Christ" or "Christian" appear in either of what I'd consider the key documents.
There were certainly references to religion and God, particularly in the declaration, where Christianity well have been obviously implicit to the writers, but I honestly don't recall it being explicit in either.
Posted by: mike earl at May 18, 2004 5:28 PMAh, no, you're right, the term "Christianity" is not used in either.
Posted by: oj at May 18, 2004 5:35 PMOJ
I'm not sure you are correct, considering court rulings on school prayer, and the recent uproar on the Pledge of Allegiance. I would think such sentiment (even if not specifically Christian) would be a good foundation for the country.
How you can be so confident is beyond me.
Posted by: h-man at May 18, 2004 5:51 PMThe Courts wouldn't write a Constitution.
Posted by: oj at May 18, 2004 6:00 PMOJ
Granted that is correct, but I assume they are representing a secular inclination of the larger public.
OK I'm not a pollster, but my "feelings" are that Christianity, or any religious philosophy has taken it on the chin in the 20th century. Nock referred to a remnant, I think we may be getting down to that.
Posted by: h-man at May 18, 2004 6:34 PMh-man: I have to assume that you don't live in America. Your last two messages seem to imply that you have a very strange impression of "the recent uproar on the Pledge of Allegiance", which is not exactly caused by a "secular inclination of the larger public" masses rising up to demand God be removed...
Posted by: brian at May 18, 2004 6:48 PMh:
The Judeo-Christian remainder is in the 60% or higher range--plenty to write a Constitution and pass it..
Posted by: oj at May 18, 2004 6:52 PMBrian
Significant masses jump up and demand to see Janet Jackson's tits. Which is why I might feel like I do.
OJ
That 60% might be passive in their beliefs, if we had a massive Muslim led 9/11 slaughter before the theoretical constitutional convention, then yes I would agree with you. (Harry would vote for it then)
h:
It has nothing to do with that--just look at the House of Reps and the GOP's Electoral College advantage.
Posted by: oj at May 18, 2004 7:12 PMFrance's positon has to do with 20th century French politics. The short version is that the catholics were on the wrong side of everything in the first half of the century, most embarasingly, the Dryfuss afair and the Petain Government. It was a set back they never recovered from, not even after Stalin's crimes became public knowledge. Poland is the counter example.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at May 18, 2004 10:19 PMMr. Earl:
There is an explicit reference to Christ in the Constitution. Right before the signatures, it reads, "Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth."
Posted by: Paul Cella at May 19, 2004 11:15 AMIt's really a shame that we've stopped dating things, especially government documents, from Independence.
Posted by: David Cohen at May 19, 2004 12:26 PMDavid: I do not think that is so.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at May 19, 2004 10:11 PMI like the Constitution we have now.
It feels like I'm the only one who does.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at May 19, 2004 10:58 PMThe rest of us like the one that's written and a government of laws, not men.
Posted by: oj at May 19, 2004 11:06 PM