Return PolishForums LIVE
  PolishForums Archive :
Archives - 2005-2009 / News  % width 30

What do Poles think about the newly elected French president?


miranda  
8 May 2007 /  #1
I am curious if that would have any impact on Poland.
szarlotka 8 | 2,209  
8 May 2007 /  #2
Can't talk about Poland Miranda but I would also be curious to understand how The US has reacted, given that he has made a few concilatory noises in that direction (albeit in a very Gallic way)
horunPoland - | 109  
8 May 2007 /  #3
I am happy that right wing won in France to long socialism politics lead France

it is too earlie to say something more
sparrow 2 | 243  
8 May 2007 /  #4
I am happy that right wing won in France to long socialism politics lead France

Actually the right wing has been in power for 12 years now in France.

I am curious if that would have any impact on Poland.

I don't think so, altough he's a different character than Chirac it's basically the same party & the same direction on the political spectrum. Newly elected presidents tend to do lots of travelling abroad in their first year, maybe we'll see him in Poland soon?
Grzegorz_ 51 | 6,163  
8 May 2007 /  #5
Definately better than that woman.

Actually the right wing has been in power for 12 years now in France.

What kind of "right wing" is that ? They are socialists anyway.
sparrow 2 | 243  
8 May 2007 /  #6
The UMP, hardly socialists really..
daffy 23 | 1,508  
8 May 2007 /  #7
I think it was royal was the socialist candidate and Mr S was the conservative candidate.
sparrow 2 | 243  
8 May 2007 /  #8
Misunderstanding I think Daffy

I think Grzegorz means they right wing UMP (Sarkozy's party) aren't right enough for him & he ironically calls them 'left'

Royal is indeed the socialist candidate & Sarkozy the right-wing one
daffy 23 | 1,508  
8 May 2007 /  #9
aren't right enough for him & he ironically calls them 'left'

phhhf he's 'right' for france if you ask me ;)

cheers for clearing that up
Grzegorz_ 51 | 6,163  
8 May 2007 /  #11
The UMP, hardly socialists really..

It's the same party Chirac was in.

In economy they supported for exampel 35h work a week.

In foreign policy butt kissing with Russia, China and Islamic regimes.

In case of religion the same fanatism about separation of church and the state and so on.

Maybe S. will make a difference, but Chirac aministration was making Blair look like a right-wing extremist.
daffy 23 | 1,508  
8 May 2007 /  #12
In economy they supported for exampel 35h work a week.

which is a minimum now not a maximum

In case of religion the same fanatism about separation of church and the state and so on.

which exists in all EU states and long may it do so (let the church focus on spiritual matters for a change and not power)

Maybe S. will make a difference, but Chirac aministration was making Blair look like a right-wing extremist.

I agree - France lost alot under Chirac in my opinion
sparrow 2 | 243  
8 May 2007 /  #13
In case of religion the same fanatism about separation of church and the state and so on

Can't argue about what you said on other things, that's your opinion... but come on man.. that's a good thing. Seperation of church & state (laicité) is a huge thing in France they fought hard about, they had a whole revolution about it!

Also, religion is a personal thing, it's a good thing those 2 are seperated. Poland is a secular state as well..
daffy 23 | 1,508  
8 May 2007 /  #14
it's a good thing those 2 are seperated.

agreed

Poland is a secular state as well..

It is - but the church still has large influence there - that will change like most other countries once the economy improves. (hey id like to be wrong but its they way its gone and goes)

religion is a personal thing

It is but we still need devoted people in the church to focus on the spiritual matters. Im glad Sarkozy has made his agenda very clear.
sparrow 2 | 243  
8 May 2007 /  #15
It is - but the church still has large influence there - that will change like most other countries once the economy improves. (hey id like to be wrong but its they way its gone and goes)

Certainly does & I'm not going to against that because I know most Poles are strongly catholic, they choose the people to rule their country, not me. But mixing the 2 is never a good thing. Secular states seperate religion, army, the law so they can each independently control each other so nothing goes overboard.

It actually surprises me that Gregorz goes in on that point, since it through the "fanatical" seperation of church & state that it's now forbidden in France to have external signs of belief when executing a public function (crosses, keppels, scarves) Which should give him ammunition for his "Islamic" -rethoric ;-)

It is but we still need devoted people in the church to focus on the spiritual matters. Im glad Sarkozy has made his agenda very clear.

Can't go in on that, I can feel LoneStranger's wrath allready ;-) To each his own
dannyboy 18 | 248  
9 May 2007 /  #16
Daffy is on the ball here, big changes to come in Poland.

Some of the reasons that Poland is not secular is because
a) the clergy have not been seen to commit the same abuses in day to day life as they have in other countries - they are essentially allowed to marry and take partners from my experience which prevents a lot of warped abuse

b) reasons from communisim
c) the economic state of the country ( which is emerging)
d) Pope John Paul II
..
..
many more

Regarding Sarkozy, I personally feel it was the right choice.
I hope he doesn't reconcile too much because Bush is out in 2 years anyway, and Tony Blair will be out shortly, this will reset the balance on relations and people will vote differently next time in the US
sparrow 2 | 243  
9 May 2007 /  #17
Some of the reasons that Poland is not secular is because

Poland is a secular country, wether it fits your definition of secular is another thing.

they are essentially allowed to marry and take partners from my experience which prevents a lot of warped abuse

Secular means that church & state are seperated and that there is no state religion. Wether or not priests can have relationships or not isn't something the state decides but the Vatican.
dannyboy 18 | 248  
9 May 2007 /  #18
Quoting: dannyboy
Some of the reasons that Poland is not secular is because

Poland is a secular country, wether it fits your definition of secular is another thing.

Good point & fair comment!

Are reiligous holidays still celebrated in Poland?

[quote]
Quoting: dannyboy
they are essentially allowed to marry and take partners from my experience which prevents a lot of warped abuse

Secular means that church & state are seperated and that there is no state religion. Wether or not priests can have relationships or not isn't something the state decides but the Vatican.

You misunderstood my point.

Factors which contributed to a secular state in other countires not experienced in Poland include widescale pedophilia which was prevented given the restrictions which are not applied in Poland which are applied in other catholic countries, namely the vatican/roman catholic restriction on clergy having partners.

When Bishop Casey had a relationship in Ireland, he had to flee the country, thats only about 15years ago. What the other priests were doing behind closed confession doors was far worse.

In my numerous trips to Poland, I have seen great priests with families, nobody says anything because they're fecking great priests!
Matyjasz 2 | 1,544  
9 May 2007 /  #19
In my numerous trips to Poland, I have seen great priests with families, nobody says anything because they're fecking great priests!

WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????

Secular means that church & state are seperated and that there is no state religion.

Exactly and Poland fulfills this requirement. It looks though as if some people would like to keep religious people out of politics, leaving only atheists in charge, which in my view is an open discrimination, as every citizen has the right to be represented in the parliament.

I am curious if that would have any impact on Poland.

It certainly will, and I think that it's definitely going to be a good one.

First of all, in contrary to Chirac, who openly expressed his views that new members of EU should only be silent and obey, Sarkozy named Poland among 6 most influential countries in Europe. It certainly shows that the relationship is going to be more of a friendly and maybe we are going to be treated as partners? Who knows :)

Secondly, Sarkozy drops with Chiracs pro russian politics, which means that he will support Poland in the struggle to make Europe more independent from the Russian gas, etc...

Basically what we can see now is a very significant shift in the political balance of EU, from the more pro Russian Chirac-Shroder tandem to the more pro American Sarkozy-Merkel one. I'm very optimistic about this pleasant change.
sparrow 2 | 243  
9 May 2007 /  #20
You misunderstood my point.

I'm a feeble mind.

Factors which contributed to a secular state in other countires not experienced in Poland include widescale pedophilia which was prevented given the restrictions which are not applied in Poland which are applied in other catholic countries, namely the vatican/roman catholic restriction on clergy having partners.

What? Pedophilia by priests contributed to the forming of secular states? I hope the state you're experiencing now is only temporary.

Anyway, if you take a modern secular state, what makes is secular is something that is written in the constitution. As far as I know no constitution has been re-written to make a country secular in the past decade or so, these things are 100 or more years old.

States were made secular for political reasons not for the prevention of pedophile priests.

In my numerous trips to Poland, I have seen great priests with families, nobody says anything because they're fecking great priests!

This can be understood on so many levels, it's not funny.. lol..

It certainly will, and I think that it's definitely going to be a good one.

First of all, in contrary to Chirac, who openly expressed his views that new members of EU should only be silent and obey, Sarkozy named Poland among 6 most influential countries in Europe. It certainly shows that the relationship is going to be more of a friendly and maybe we are going to be treated as partners? Who knows :)

Secondly, Sarkozy drops with Chiracs pro russian politics, which means that he will support Poland in the struggle to make Europe more independent from the Russian gas, etc...

Chirac & Sarkozy never got along, Chirac took a while to actually endorse Sarkozy, but pretty much had to at the end.

To add another point, Sarkozy is also a big pro-European. Which could help solve or play someone intermediary on the conflicts that Poland had with the EU lately. (I hope that sentence made sense..)
OP miranda  
9 May 2007 /  #21
First of all, in contrary to Chirac, who openly expressed his views that new members of EU should only be silent and obey, Sarkozy named Poland among 6 most influential countries in Europe. It certainly shows that the relationship is going to be more of a friendly and maybe we are going to be treated as partners? Who knows :) Secondly, Sarkozy drops with Chiracs pro russian politics, which means that he will support Poland in the struggle to make Europe more independent from the Russian gas, etc...Basically what we can see now is a very significant shift in the political balance of EU, from the more pro Russian Chirac-Shroder tandem to the more pro American Sarkozy-Merkel one. I'm very optimistic about this pleasant change.

thanks Matyjasz, I think tha tit answers my question and as for the rest the time will tell:)

Which could help solve or play someone intermediary on the conflicts that Poland had with the EU lately. (I hope that sentence made sense..)

yes it did, as long as he is not so busy withthe internal problems in France:)
daffy 23 | 1,508  
9 May 2007 /  #22
It looks though as if some people would like to keep religious people out of politics, leaving only atheists in charge, which in my view is an open discrimination, as every citizen has the right to be represented in the parliament.

That is not true and not is what is meant bby keeping chuch and state seperate. Most EU and US elected representatives are christians. very, very few are atheists for starters.

The seperation is to allow the state govern without the prejudices, biases, influence of the Church. Ie Divorce, Abortion, Death Penalties, Taxation and so on and on are either NOT the expertise of church officials OR are not representative of all the people. (hence the huge following for secular states.

I agree with this - id rather my church focus on the scriptures and spiritual matters and NOT matters of state like the roads and so on and on
dannyboy 18 | 248  
9 May 2007 /  #23
Factors which contributed to a secular state in other countries not experienced in Poland include widescale pedophilia which was prevented given the restrictions which are not applied in Poland which are applied in other catholic countries, namely the vatican/roman catholic restriction on clergy having partners.

LMAO, I think your just playing naieve now.
BTW, you still didn't understand my point, I was referring to contributory factors not preventative measures, but forget it, it doesn't seem to be that obvious outside of my society I reckon.

Daffy, did you get the point I was making, contributory factors etc.?
sparrow 2 | 243  
10 May 2007 /  #24
BTW, you still didn't understand my point, I was referring to contributory factors not preventative measures, but forget it, it doesn't seem to be that obvious outside of my society I reckon.

Pedophilia by contributed to lots of changes in the church.. and I'm sure you know more of that than me, since I'm not Irish & I don't really know Bishop Casey & all that jazz.. but states were secular allready before all those scandals started.

Perhaps you mean that those scandals made the effort to keep state & church apart stronger? I guess that'd be true yes.. if that's what you mean..

I'm so confused.. :-)))
Peter 3 | 247  
10 May 2007 /  #25
France has serious problems to deal with, especially economically.
Gunman  
12 May 2007 /  #26
The next time those filthy Arab terrorists riot in the streets of Paris, they should send in the army to shoot the smelly bastards!

Let's hope that one day right-wing fascism will rise from the ashes like an angry phoenix!
Frank 23 | 1,183  
12 May 2007 /  #27
France has serious problems to deal with, especially economically.

Pardon...the 7th best economy in the world........70 million tourists, the country with most 2nd homes in it, a public service system second to none.....ok the unions may ba bit disruptive at times...but the state is there to serve them....NOT the other way around as in UK....etc

Sure it has a high unemployment rate.........perhaps a population too centralised....4 million Muslims which is a bit worrying as regards stability in urban areas...they must do more from both sides to integrate.....

my problem with France is that it is so very self serving...........prepared to deals with anyone....not the most reliable state....at times......
Grzegorz_ 51 | 6,163  
12 May 2007 /  #28
Pardon...the 7th best economy in the world

How "best" ?
Frank 23 | 1,183  
12 May 2007 /  #29
GDP=Gross Domestic product, by absolute volume...in monetary terms.
Peter 3 | 247  
13 May 2007 /  #30
my problem with France is that it is so very self serving...........prepared to deals with anyone....not the most reliable state....at times......

Heard the joke at the start of the 1st Gulf War?

As Iraq crossed the Kuwaiti border..........France surrendered!

Archives - 2005-2009 / News / What do Poles think about the newly elected French president?Archived