Yet it is the responsibility of the State (and in my opinion of every State) to protect its citizens against groups who form a potential danger to their safety or to the State Security. Among such groups are counted some who sell themselves as a “religion”.
Every religion can appeal to get recognition in Belgium and thus financial support by the State. Which by the way is by no means an obligation for any State to provide for, or is it in your opinion?
So considering that, it is in my opinion only normal that a State who has financial support of religions as a part of the States policy is also free to set up the regulations these religions need to furfill in order to be able to profit from this financial support.
(Which religions are supported by the State (= the citizen’s tax money in the USA?)
As for financially non supported religions: They are free to practice as long as their pratices and doctrines don’t form said threats to the citizens or/and the State security.
If the Belgian State considers certain “religions” who promote and have instigated mass suicide as a potential danger, I think they are completely right to put such groups under a form of State surveillance. Or do you think a State has to permit promoting such practices and even support them financially.
Well, Belgians are realistic people. They don’t promote this and they surely don’t want their State to promote and support this with their tax money.
Does the US state support such groups with the US citizens tax money?
Let me put it this way, Aldebaran. In the US, the whole idea of a church recieving state funding would seem bizarre, unconstitutional and unamerican. The common European practice of state religions, state owned religious buildings, and state paid religious leaders would be unacceptable in America.
Any state funding of religious practice is seen as unacceptable to most Americans. However, we are perfectly comfortable having people of deeply held religious beliefs in public office. I suppose in Europe most political figures are explicitly secular and play down any religious feelings they may have, if any. But the US is different. Since religion is a private matter, and no concern of the state, the religion of public figures is also of no great concern.
And I find your dismissal of Hamlet’s post troubling. He points out that Belgium regulates religious matters much more strongly than the US does, and yet you brush it off, saying that any society has the right to prohibit “dangerous” religious groups. What if society deems that–oh, I don’t know, pick one at random–Islam is one of those dangerous groups? The wise philosophers and statesmen of Belgium decide that Islam represents a danger to Belgian society and prohibit it.
Yes, yes, I can imagine your objections. The public spirited moral geniuses who rule Belgium would never do such a thing, since Islam is not, in fact, a dangerous religion. You trust the rulers of Belgium to make the correct determination, that Islam is a permissable religion. The difference is, in the US we are well aware that our politicians are perfectly capable of using their powers for evil, not good. I suppose that would never happen in Belgium, where only good people get elected to public office.
The financial support in Belgium for those recognized and thus financially supported religions have nothing to do with “establishing” them.
They simply are there. If they were not, they could eventually come and ask for recognition and thus financial support.
And they aren’t interfering with the State, nor has any religion any role to play in politics or public service.
There are no judges or politicians in Belgium who thank their appointment or election on any sort of religion. Nor are they permitted to promote any religion. Let be that they are permitted to let interfere any religion in their policies or work as member of the public service.
Can’t say the same of the USA.
As is said here: they have even the word “God” on the money. And every president has the word God every two sentences he speaks in public. It is all “God bless America” and “God this” and “God that” one hears. Bush uses it that frequently that it doesn’t surprize us that he claims to be “inspired by God”.
If you can point me one Belgian politician using the word God in one public speach, you beat me.
I can’t imagine to see the king, prime minister of no matter who in government or public service starting to talk about God on TV. LOL. The whole country would conclude the person in question is ready for the madhouse.
The fact is that in Belgium the whole electing system is quite different then in the USA and excuse me to say it: much more efficient and reflecting democracy.
And by the way: the State doesn’t build churches, temples, mosques or whatever not does the State owns them.
If the Belgian State for any reason would have decided Islam to be a dangerous religion, then that would be it.
In fact: until a few years ago, there was no financial support for Islam since the regulation that there has to be an official body to represent the religion wasn’t furfilled. Which in fact was a serious problem, because first of all there is no official hierarchy within Islam at all. We don’t have the equivalent of Pope, Cardinal Bisshop, Priest, or whatever hierarchy exists in other Christian denominations or other religions.
So what? You’ve ignored all the history I posted to make that response?
The point is not what specific momentos any given judge by use to decorate the building. I think he’s wrong, but you are trying to declare a “truth” about the U.S. from one incident (which is the sort of thing that you get upset about when people do the same regarding Islam or Middle East nations). The point is whether a personally religious judge can make personal comments and still be able to act impartially when considering the law.
I do not know whether or not this particular U.S. judge is capable of separating his religious belief and his actions in carrying out his duties. You are claiming that he cannot, but have provided no evidence that he has, in the past, actually abused his powers.
I think he is wrong.
However, while his action may be prejudicial to some hypothetical future case in law, your claim that he cannot be fair (with your implied statement that such a thing would not happen outside the U.S.) has not been shown, yet you are still using your own leap to a conclusion as a basis to criticize the whole country.
And if you believe that that law simply sprang from the Begian parliament as some magnanimous gesture, unconnected to the Catholicism that permeated the country at the time the law was written, you are extremely naive.
Aldebaran: You have successfully demostrated that Belgians and Americans, on the whole, have different views towards mixing politics and religion. Any other fascinating tidbits you want to dazzle us with?:rolleyes:
What I can I say. This is Alabama we’re talking about. The South, which includes Alabama, has a collective history of dragging its feet on social issues compared to the rest of the country. Slavery, Segregation, “Sodomy” laws, etc.
Well, and if I recall correctly, that’s true now in the US, as well. A case went to the Supreme Court, if I’m remembering my facts correctly, where an Orthodox Jewish shopkeeper who lived in a community that had laws saying that stores had to be closed on Sunday, instead closed his store on Saturday and was open on Sunday.
The Court ruled that the law requiring stores to close on Sunday served the secular purpose of guaranteeing that employees had at least one day off of work a week, and ruled that it was legal for him to open his store on Sunday as long as it was closed on Saturday.
The Belgian constitution dates from 7 february 1831. In that perios of the the liberal democracy was considered the ideal political model. In that model principles like lawstate, democracy, separation of powers form the central points.
The Belgian constitution of 1830 was at the time considered as the most succesful and most consequent example of this liberal-democratic model.
Not of Catholicism or any other religion.
Belgian laws aren’t reflecting any religion. They are the result of a democratic federal state.
Salaam. A.
The Belgian constitution dates from 7 february 1831. In that period the liberal democracy was considered the ideal political model. In that model principles like lawstate, democracy, separation of powers form the central points.
The Belgian constitution of 1830 was at the time considered as the most succesful and most consequent example of this liberal-democratic model.
Not of Catholicism or any other religion.
Belgian laws aren’t reflecting any religion. They are the result of a democratic federal state.
Salaam. A.
Forgot to add: You simply overlook the fact that this particular person was installed in his position because he wanted to have “the law God gave to Moses” implemented.
And read further in the article on what that measn to that person.
I don’t know what that means to you about his intentions, but to me it means that he is a religious fanatic placed in a position to act
Forgot to add: You overlook simply the fact that this particular judge was installed because of his claims that right should be done according “the laws given by God to Moses”.
If you read the article you get further information about his intentions to work that idea out in his daily practices.
I don’t know what that means to you, but to me that means this person is placed in a position where he is able to bring in practice what he claims is to become the basics for his judgements and what he intends to be brought in practice.
If you think such a person has any other intentions then being a fanatical Christian having the power to harm people’s rights, that is your call.
And what my question here was and still is:
How come such a person can get such a position in a state that claims to be completely secular.
A lot of Americans strongly oppose Roy Moore’s actions; we agree that he’s a demogogue, that his monument should be removed, and that he’s not fit to serve as a judge.
On the other hand, a lot of Americans would also be strongly opposed to the idea that the State could simply decide that Islam is a “dangerous religion”. Even for those of us who aren’t Muslims, that would most certainly not be that.
(And it is to prevent any idea from taking hold that the State gets to decide what religions it will allow that we don’t have state funding of religious denominations in the United States. We also believe that it’s wrong to make Muslims pay for Christian ministries who preach that Muhammad was not a prophet of God, or to make Christians pay for Muslim ministries who preach that Jesus is not the Son of God.)
In the United States, we have this thing called politics. People sometimes espouse different, conflicting, even contradictory points of view: “The government ought to be secular!” “No, the government ought to reflect our Judeo-Christian religious heritage and values!” People over here argue for these different points of view and different agendas, try to persuade other people of the rightness of our own views and the wrongness of the other guy’s, and vie with one another over what laws will be passed and what policies will be put in place.
Actually, I believe they have this politics in Belgium as well.
This is exactly why the Bill of Rights forbids this. Who can tell what is dangerous? If the adherents of one religion are in power, couldn’t they find reasons why all the others (or many of the others) are unacceptable in some way. Even if not, if the religions begin to depend on government money, could the government influence that religion by threatening to withhold money unless some of the religions beliefs are changed? At least some people think Mormons no longer practice polygamy because of pressure from the Federal Government (and I know some don’t.)
There is also no religious test for holding public office. That means a fundamentalist is as qualified to hold office as a mainstream Catholic as is an atheist. However, once in office, especially if you are a judge, you are supposed to follow the law, not your religious belief. Moore’s problem is that he is establishing his religion in his courtroom, not that he is a devout believer.
For another example, a deeply religious teacher is fine, but the teacher cannot lead prayers in class, no matter how important he or she feels it to be. People acting in an official capacity must be religiously neutral.
John Mace: I’d consider abortion clinic bombings to be acts of religious terrorism, on the level of the examples you mentioned. It does happen here.
There is no interaction between religions and state in Belgium and it can never be possible since religions have no political power and never will have political power.
Of course there are political parties linked to Christianity (Christian democrats) in Europe and thus also in Belgium. Yet there are also political parties linked to socialism, linked to communism, linked to liberals linked to themselves… whatever. In addition you don’t need to be Christian or socialist or whatever to becvome member of the party that carries th
YOu are missing both my point and the point: the overwhelming majority of the people writing and ratifying the Constitution were Catholic and the rest were Protestant at a time when it was assumed that everyone would go to church on Sunday. That is the pervasive nature of the culture. I have made no claim that they were carrying out the will of Rome, only that they acted in the way in which they were raised.
No, he was not. And unless you can show where his opponent ran on a platform of getting religion out of the courthouse, you are trying to paint a common expression among people of that region as though it were a campaign promise. I would be very surprised, in fact, to discover that his principal opponent(s) in that election had an opinion in any way different than his. You are confusing standard “mom, flag, and apple pie” sentiments of “I’m a good guy to vote for” with and actual campaign promise.
(I need to control my keyboard a bit better, sorry)
… that carries that particular name.
The mere fact of the multi-party system leading to the need to form a government together with one or more parties who represent the clear opposite of eachother, guarantees democracy and thus guarantees that laws voted and implemented by the government remain completely secular and represent a majority. Which an sich represents always a mix of ideologies.
The system in the USA is on every levell that much different that events like the one we are talking about here are completely beyond our imagination.
The mere fact that a judge gets elected is something as weird as something can be weird for a Belgian.
The fact that he gets elected on religious grounds is as I said beyond imagination.
The fact that he installs the Ten Commandments in the courthouse is good enough for him to be declared an incurable lunatic.
I don’t think you understand the society where I speak from enough to feel what I try to bring across here.
Well, I don’t know how to say it otherwise then like this
a judge gets elected is weird.
no matter which public servant, let be a State leader like the US president or members of the government or like in this case someone responsible for the jurisdiction, who speaks openly about his religion as if God stands besides him must be completely mad
a judge who installs the Ten commandments in his courthouse is a complete lunatic.
a judge who claims that this what the law should be is an incurable lunatic
conclusion: in the USA everything seems to be possible that is as abnormal and extreme as might be possible.
this is not the first and shall not be the last time the USA brings across such impression on non US’ers.
how come the US’ers themselves don’t find all of this extremely weird while it is as weird as can be.
These are not only my questions you know… These are things that are looked at with great unbelieving eyes everywhere I come. And I travel a lot.