the Vatican to the Hague ? (applies to others too)

[tocqueville]

Vatican worried about positions on family

By MARIA SANMINIATELLI, Associated Press Writer
Wed Jun 28, 8:04 PM ET

VATICAN CITY - The Vatican is worried its opposition to abortion, embryonic stem cell research and gay marriage could one day land it before an international court of justice, a senior Vatican official said in an interview published Wednesday.

Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, who heads the Pontifical Council for the Family, reiterated traditional Roman Catholic Church positions and criticized some European countries, including Belgium, the Netherlands and France, for giving legal recognition to civil unions.

......

"The church is at risk of being brought before some international court if the debate becomes any tenser, if the more radical requests get heard," the cardinal said, speaking ahead of the Roman Catholic Church's World Meeting of Families in Valencia, Spain from July 1-9.

Lopez Trujillo did not comment further about any legal problems the Vatican could face, but his words touched upon a concern among religious organizations everywhere: the right of religious freedom versus countries' anti-discrimination laws.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060629/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_family;_ylt=AtuD4lC.B2xHXotHxsETqcVWbBAF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

[NMMNG]

1. Hmmm

So they're worried they'll no longer be able to get away with cloaking their bigotries under the guise of "deeply held religious beliefs". I can't say my heart bleeds for them.

[tocqueville]

3. this is a basic debate : democracy against theocracy

read further down in the article

"He also criticized what he described as a movement to impose new human rights.

"It's happening for abortion, which is a crime, and instead it's becoming a right," the cardinal said."

sorry father, it's not to you to LEGALLY decide what's an human right or not, it's for the majority of the nationals of a country. You have the right to manifest your disagreement, but if you actively attack and HARASS members of a community that you disagree with (like gays, researchers or women having an abortion) you are commmitting a hate crime. If you put that into a system, even if you live in another country you can be prosecuted at an international court.

some haven't obviously got the basics of democracy and separation of Church and State. A little reminder now and then doesn't hurt.

[NMMNG]

8. Exactly

There is a big difference between stating an opinion and directly harassing people or inciting others to harass/harm people with your opinions. That is the difference some religious people cannot seem to understand. Saying, "we oppose homosexuality" is not a problem. Saying, "gays are perverts who should be put to death" is a big problem.

[Sherman A1]

2. Not that I have any respect for

"The Church", but I fail to see how stating a point of view is criminal. Objectionable to some, perhaps many, perhaps even all. I just think it fails the test needed before a court. I really, really don't like Dobson, but he has a right to express his views no matter how twisted and bizarre I think he is being. This is much ado about nothing/

[tocqueville]

4. stating a point of view isn't criminal

but organized campaigns to ostracize members of a certain community is a crime by many Western countries standards. As long as the Vatican claims his disagreement with for example abortion, it's perfectly OK. But if you start calling women having an abortion a bunch of whores, you are liable by several European judicial standards.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. Are you sure?

I don't *know* of any European country where calling women who have abortions whores is illegal, and I certainly hope there aren't any - it would be a flagrant violation of freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech *doesn't* only mean "freedom to say nice or sensible or responsible things". Provided Catholics, or anyone else, aren't actively advocating the breaking of serious laws, they should be permitted to say what they choose.

[tanyev]

7. I think where the church is going off the tracks is their inability to

distinguish between "a sin" and "a crime". I have no problem with a religious body thinking abortion or gay marriage is wrong, but when they insert themselves into the legal process and try to prevent everybody from doing something that is against their beliefs, then they are establishing a de facto theocracy.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. What needs to be done is place boundaries

religious freedoms end at the door of the church and at the doors of the homes of believers, I would say. What I mean by this is that if a church or other religious institution has a doctrine that is discriminatory against a group, that church has the right to bar members of that group from going to their church (which is, after all, a private institution), and their members have the right to stay away from that group as well. What the church and its members do not have is the right to dictate what people do who don't belong to their church. And if a church is involved in a program that accepts money from a government, they must abide by that government's rules about non discrimination when it comes to hiring, accepting clients, etc. If the church doesn't want to do this, they don't need to accept the government money.

[NMMNG]

9. Good points

religious freedoms end at the door of the church and at the doors of the homes of believers, I would say. What I mean by this is that if a church or other religious institution has a doctrine that is discriminatory against a group, that church has the right to bar members of that group from going to their church (which is, after all, a private institution), and their members have the right to stay away from that group as well.

Interesting concept. However, if churches are going to discriminate against people on the principle that they are "private institutions" they really don't deserve to have tax-exempt status. I say revoke the tax exempt status and churches can then play favorites all they want.

What the church and its members do not have is the right to dictate what people do who don't belong to their church.

Indeed. Why should people of other faiths or no faith have to follow the dictates of somebody else's religion?


And if a church is involved in a program that accepts money from a government, they must abide by that government's rules about non discrimination when it comes to hiring, accepting clients, etc. If the church doesn't want to do this, they don't need to accept the government money.


If these standards were strictly applied and monitored, I wonder how many "faith based charities" would actually qualify for government money.

[Sam1]

10. following the dictates of someone else's religion

I have found this to be one of the most effective arguments against prayer in public schools. Once you get past "Christian Prayer" and move on to, for example, Lutheran prayer, or Catholic prayer, or HORROR, Muslim prayer Those in favor usually get the point.

Do you really trust public schools to do it right, after all "You say they get everything else wrong."

Then point out that prayer, when personal and private, has never been outlawed and the formation of religious clubs is protected, see "Good News Clubs". I usually use that old one liner; "As long as there is Algebra, there will be prayer in Public School.

By the way, my wife and I wanted our child to participate in organized prayer in school so he attended the Lutheran School System where we live. That way we did not have to worry about Baptist, Catholic, or humanist contamination

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. Up to a point.

Although remember that churchgoers have votes too, and it's perfectly reasonable for a religion to try and influence the votes of its members, provided it's not accepting state funding.

But apart from that, I agree with most of what you're saying.

[HereSince1628]

6. Vatican using pre-emptive fear to support its rw social program?

It works for Bush so I suppose everyone will try it. Support us because those damned secular liberal nations of Europe are against us!