Are Christians prosecuted in Poland (and Europe in general)?

Why Christians shouldn't talk about their views if others do it openly. Atheists spread their views openly, we have different parades. Only Christians should sit quiet ? Why religion is something private and sexuality is not? Who you are to decide about what is private and what is not. If sexuality isn't private so religous believes shouldn't be private as well.

FREEDOM !!! :)

The problem is that sexuality started being discussed because of the lack of freedom. People started talking about it openly to gain that freedom.

And, because it's a thread about politics, in all I wrote, I meant politicians. I don't give a s*it about actors or writers talking about their religion because they can't do anything wrong to anyone by this. But when politicians talk about anything in public, it has something to do with governing other people. E.g. if a politician uses a religious argument in a debate it means he wishes to impose his religions on the ones he rules. That is LIMIT THEIR FREEDOM. If there are enough such politicians - people start taking religious arguments seriously (see: Poland) and limit other people's freedom. So that's why I think we should distrust politicians talking about their religious views - unless asked. State and Church must be completely separated - not to endanger the country.

Not sure wrt the EU, but you are off-base wrt the U.S. If anything it is becoming more difficult to be a Christian here, much as the above. Presidents are ridiculed for giving praises to God (whichever they happen to claim) and courts have ordered crosses removed from war memorials, at the request of (non-veteran) atheist protesters who sue, and teachers lose jobs if they mention God in the class room.

Whether this is right or not I have my own opinions over, but this idea that the US is controlled by "religious fanatics" couldn't be farther from the truth. If anything the government is a bit too "anti" religion here lately.

Sorry for the side trip,
back to our regularly scheduled programming.

You know, Poland is quite fanatic with the concordate and stuff, but even here people don't, for example, teach creationism at schools...

As far as teaching creationism in schools vice some other theory, I think I would be happier if the schools simply said they didn't know. So far no experiments performed by those studying the abiogenesis hypothesis have conclusively demonstrated successful creation of life, nor proof that it wasn't at some point created. So....they really don't know. So while they don't teach creationism at school, I also believe equally unproven hypotheses should also not be taught as "fact", but rather leave the student with the tools he or she needs to make decisions. Which is what I think education should be all about, rather than indoctrination for one theory over another equally unproven one...

Sorry for the ramble, it just is interesting to me at any rate.
It's likely many of the politicians most wishing to be thought "religious" often do so for the effect they believe it will have on some voters, IMHO.

I could be wrong, of course. At any rate I disagree with the idea certain religions (Christianity for instance) should exclude someone from public office, so long as the person's religious beliefs apply to him or her, and aren't imposed on the entire nation. In my view, excluding Christianity (Catholicism, for instance) is persecution, and prejudice in favor of the Atheist religion....

I've been wrong before, but that's how it all seems to me.

Evolution is a provable fact. The idea that there is no deity who could have got it all started is not a provable fact. As far as I know, no-one is taught in school the idea that there is no God. Creationism as it is known is neither exclusively Christian, nor the opinion of many Christians. Certainly not in the UK (or Europe as a whole).

I agree that "religious" politicians are looking for votes. It is, however, possible to be genuinely Christian and a politician at the same time.

I haven't seen anyone being prosecuted for being a Christian around these parts in my lifetime.

I should write lol, but it's quite sad.
All the stuff around evolution comes from the fact the theory of evolution (although corrected in details over time) has been proven in several ways, directly and indirectly. The fact that you live in America and don't know that basic fact proves that religious fanatics do have a big influence in that country.

There are freaks and fanatics everywhere, but in a more civilized country when someone talk things like 'creationism is equally unproven as darwinism', there will always be found a scientist who will explain people that it's a lie and explain how it was proven over the years. But in the US fanatics who talk bulls*it are treated equally to people who base their knowledge on years of research.

That's why I think religion should be kept away from politics. It leads to such absurdity like a big part of society believing that evolution and creation are equal hypotheses.

But other side impose their ideology. I accept fact that there are not religous people in my country. Some people ebery time show their atheism and spread this agenda... ok it is not wrong. Why politician who is in private life Catholic can't be EU commisioner ?

Only atheists can be european officers ?

Why ? It is discrimination. Can't you understand that I can be Catholic in my private life and be good EU expert.

IT IS PERSECUTION.

As I said it is time for Christian parades !

Who you are to decide what should be spoken and what not.

You are atheist fanatic

What is more sexuality isn't part of private life so why religion should be.

This is the point-both of you mention evolution, one even claiming it to be a "proven fact" (it isn't, even though there is evidence to support it) as somehow a counter balance to "creation". The two are not and have never been mutually exclusive.

Evolution seeks to explain the apparent adaptation of various organisms to their environments, not how life began which is an entirely different thing. We could argue about this all day long, but there are many who so want to believe evolution (and on the other end of the spectrum, creation) that they fail to see that evolution has never, once, ever been a theory which seeks to explain the initial beginnings of life (even Charles Darwin...was not an Atheist...)

That hypothesis is called abiogenesis, whose supporters have discovered quite a few interesting things in nature but have so far been unsuccessful at creating life from its components, even intentionally.

For that matter, even evolution has not been observed actually *occurring* although many suppose certain creatures must have derived from others.
Personally, I think the main stream science establishment will support whatever is in their fiscal best interests. My sister is a scientist in the genetics/biology field and this is something even she will quite gladly tell you. That, and that "broken English" is the true language of science ;)

Sorry...rambling there. Until one side is able to create a living organism under natural conditions, from "scratch", and prove that the *first* time this happened could not have had any outside influences, creation will never be disproved. Abiogenesis has made many inroads into the mechanisms of life, DNA, etc. but to prove it is the source of life, rather than simply the mechanism that they are studying, would require proof that not only do the various compounds involved create viable organisms naturally, but viable organisms that also *improve* themselves when faced with adverse conditions, or "adapt", rather than degenerate and die, which has so far been the result of all attempts at observing actual evolution in the laboratory.

So, what all this means, is that while I believe in creation, I also do not see where this conflicts with evolution, either. Abiogenesis supporters like to attach it to the coattails of evolution, but it does not in fact belong there, and is its own hypothesis with ultimately the same evidence behind it as creation.

So....again, the schools could just say "we don't know" and follow with "here is the science we are using to find out...."

Claiming the government (including the school systems) know what happened when in fact they do not....is simple indoctrination, not education. Just because a person who is a Christian (or Muslim, or Jew, or....) believes something, doesn't mean it is completely wrong.

Evolution can be observed in the field and in the laboratory. The origin of life, as far as I'm aware, can't be.

Creationism in a wider sense, simply means that everything we call life is due, in some way, to a greater being which we call God. Creationism in the narrow sense, is a return to some simplistic ideas that people came up with in the middle ages to work out how old the world was by counting birthdays in the Bible, then using that to throw away a good few hundred years of science.

Evolution shows how new species can form, and the science which goes hand in hand with the understanding of evolution shows how life has adapted it's environments and created (haha) the world we know. I could mention uniformitarianism as well.

Do you want me to talk about uniformitarianism? Why bang on about Darwin when there's James Hutton to talk about as well?

You will also notice that I have not said that God and evolutionism can't comfortably exist in the same rational mind. Belief in God may be irrational, but then so are most things in life, and they're not always wrong.

While it is arguable that evolution can be observed in the laboratory (genetic mutation leading to extinction of the test subjects rather than adaptation to their environment is hardly the same as "evolution" IMHO) it is a different discussion. Ultimately, the irony to me is that evolution is so often paraded out as somehow a "counter" against creation, when evolution does not explain the origin of life nor attempt to.

Ultimately the origins of life cannot be proven at this point, whether one believes it to be the result of chemicals (which somehow, were in the right combinations in the right place, etc etc to make an organism with a DNA program complex enough that not only conducts all the processes of life, but just happens to allow it to adapt) or if you believe these were intentionally arranged.

Personally, I don't see fire next to iron ore producing steel as evidence my truck was not built by a factory, either, but of course I understand such is not so simple, and that is a decision we each have to make.

There simply isn't enough evidence to teach that any of these options was or was not the origin of life,
and more importantly (and on topic) teaching one or the other, so long as it is not exclusive of other theories, should be ok, but teaching one unproven theory at the expense of another when neither has a preponderance of evidence to support it or at least disprove the other....well, is not education. Education should be keyed toward those who can think for themselves rather than simply believing whatever the state spoon feeds them this week because it happens to be the current dogma....

This has gotten so off-topic, but mostly I feel one theory should not be taught as "correct" and another not, when neither has been proven. To do so, is to give credence to that which has not earned it.

It is what I was talking about Atheist bring their sience when they met religous person we see it on this forum and they tell for religous person about "superstitions" but they cant explain that :

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia

You can't change world. people speak in foreign (not known before) laguages durring prayings. Find sientefic prove of this fenomen.

We face stories about modern atheists but when sombody tries to show his argument he is fanatic. Atheists are fanatic with their agenda.

I have the right to answer when somebody questions my religion.

Get out ! ;)

I have nothing against atheist members of parliament but Catholics have the right to be EU commisioners.

They certainly were in Serbia.

What you are saying here is tainted with fanatism as well. You say that JohnP doesn't know the basic fact referring to the theory of evolution which is not a law or a fact, but a theory - so it is not 100% correct or sure, therefore, it can't be a fact. You accepted this theory as such and try to throw it out at somebody as religious fanatics do, whom you are criticizing. Remember that a stick has two ends. You can't simply follow one path without respecting the other possibilities. Unsupported scientific fanatism has no more value that a religious one.

yeah well said, there's holes in evolution as a theory as well. I've also never heard it can be "observed in a laboratory". You can't really rule aspects of creationism out.

It does if the science produces more answers than the religion.

Evolution is not a scientific theory, the only measure of its success can be the results it produces. Creationism has not produced anything near the number of results/answers that Evolution has produced so in one sense there is a clear winner in this horse race.

There will never be a winner - religious or scientific, because in both cases it is a human who defines both of them. Throughout our history we were looking to profit from everything we saw on our way. Look at Christian or Muslim religion, even though their founders were talking about love and respect to others, tolerance - turning your other cheek etc., we managed to create Inquisition, Crusades, Witch-hunt, war blessings, bullas, religous fanatism with all its ramifications, suicide bombers...and at the same time we found, somehow, support in the original teachings.What can you say, we are "geniuses"! Science serves well only as long as we let it. Science is indispensable, no doubt whatsoever. But I think there are some results, about which you are talking, that can lead to dire consequences later. Creationism was able to keep people in some paternal grip for quite a while, whereas Evolution taken out of the Creation context and believed in, will, in my opinion, bring more intolerance, disrespect to a human being as a creature. A human will become more like a material, something like coal or oil in that new world. You might say: "But look at all the wars and BS humanity lived through its history - where is your creationism or respect?" My answer would be this. There is nothing that can hold humanity from bestiality except reason and there is nothing capable of turning a human into a beast, but his brain. The more we know, the more we understand that each one of us is of value and at the same time the brain works to put "I" at the front and destroy everything on the way of self-glorification. There should be a balance and both science and religion have to play role in it. If one of them succeeds completely, humanity as such will be a history.

As does religion.

When shifting from one belief system to another the catalyst is always social need, be that the generation of wealth, better medical practice or any other improvement you care to name.

Contrary to popular perceptions religion has been the driving force behind many scientific achievements. The unforeseen consequence is that mankind has been moving away from an absolute obedience to the deity of regional choice. This shift is due to tangible results in the temporal world.

Where the modern world has failed to produce results, people tend to adopt the system that serves their needs most, which is usually based upon some form of religion. This is not to say that both cannot coexist, they can and do in many unlikely places around the globe.

Edit: I just read something on another thread that made me ask this question. Did Polish people flock to the church due to Stalinism failing or had the church always been that popular in public manifestation?

Freemasons and Jews run Europe, and dictate policy both financially and politically...Both are anti-Christianity and anti-Christ...Very simple...Muslim immigration and 'mammonism/consumerism' are being used as the wedges to destroy the last vestiges of Christianity in Europe...But this will fail...

I am not Polish, so I can't answer that question, but it is difficult to understand what you mean by public manifestation. Regarding Stalinism failing I can tell you of Ukraine: no matter how hard they tried to kill people's belief, deporting millions to Siberia, torturing in prisons, famishing them as in Holodomor where 10 million Ukrainians were starved to death in 1932-33, they still weren't able to take away the faith. These f*cking pigs did whatever that dirty scum could and you say "failing"? What is the hell then?

So the answer is no, religious feeling has been and will always be the same, irrespective of other happenings.

Collective Subconscious. Carl Jung :-)