Hanson: US Wants Europe To Survive

[Annie]

Yup:

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200601060804.asp

January 06, 2006, 8:04 a.m.
A Letter to the Europeans
Cry the beloved continent.

Despite the bitter recrimination and growing rift between you and us, most Americans have not forgotten that a strong, confident Europe is still critical to the material and spiritual well being of the United States.

It is not just that as Westerners you have withstood — often later at our side — all prior challenges to the shared liberal civilization you created, whether the specter of an Ottoman global suzerainty, Bonapartism, Prussian militarism, Nazism, fascism, Japanese militarism, or Soviet Communism.

Nor is our allegiance a mere matter of history. Europe is the repository of the Western tradition, most manifestly in shrines like the Acropolis, the Pantheon, the Uffizi, or the Vatican. We concede that the Great Books — we as yet have not produced a Homer, Virgil, Dante, Shakespeare, or Locke, much less a Da Vinci, Mozart, or Newton — and the Great Ideas of the West from democracy to capitalism to human rights originated on your continent alone. And if Americans believe our Constitution and the visions of our Founding Fathers were historic improvements on Europe of the 18th-century, then at least we acknowledge in our humility that they were also inconceivable without it.

No, there is a greater oneness between us, an unspoken familiarity even now in the age of global sameness, that makes an American feel at home in Amsterdam, Paris, Rome, or Athens in a way that is not true of Istanbul, Cairo, or Bangkok.

In the multiracial society of the United States, an American black, Asian, or Latino finds natural affinity in London and Brussels in a way not true in Lagos, Ho Chi Min City, or Lima. For millions of Americans "Eurocentric" is no slur — for it is an appellation of shared values and ideas not of race.

Even in this debased era of multiculturalism that misleads our youth into thinking no culture can be worse than the West, we all know in our hearts the truth that we live by and the lie that we profess — that the critic of the West would rather have his heart repaired in Berlin than in Guatemala or be a Muslim in Paris rather than a Christian in Riyadh, or a woman or homosexual in Amsterdam than in Iran, or run a newspaper in Stockholm rather than in Havana, or drink the water in Luxembourg rather than in Uganda, or object to his government in Italy rather than in China or North Korea. Radical Muslims damn Europe and praise Allah — but whenever possible from Europe rather than inside Libya, Syria, or Iran.

Although we Americans think the European Union is a flawed notion and will not survive to fulfill its present aspirations, we hope in some strange way that it does — for both our sakes of having a proud partner in a more dangerous world to come rather than an angry and envious inferior, nursing past glories while blaming others for self-inflicted wounds of the present.

Even in this era of crisis, we cling to the notion that in the eleventh hour you, Europe, will yet reawake, rediscover your heritage, and join with us in defending the idea of the West from this latest illiberal scourge of Islamic fascism. For just once, if only for the purpose of theatrics, we would like to urge calm and restraint to a Europe angry, volatile, and threatening, in the face of blackmail and taunts from a third-rate theocracy in Tehran — or a two-bit fascist thug fomenting hate and violence from a state-subsidized mosque in a European suburb.

Alas, recently, Europeans have been taken hostage on the West Bank, Yemen, and Iraq. All have been released. There are two constants in the stories: Some sort of blackmail was no doubt involved (either cash payments or the release of terrorist killers in European jails?), and the captives often seem to praise the moderation of their captors. Is this an aberration or indicative of a deeper continental malady? Few, in either a private or public fashion, suggested that such bribery only perpetuates the kidnapping of innocents and provides cash infusions to terrorists to further their mayhem.

On the home front, a single, though bloody, attack in Madrid changed an entire Spanish election, and prompted the withdrawal of troops from Iraq — although the terrorists nevertheless continued, despite their promises to the contrary, to plant bombs and plan assassinations of Spanish judicial officials. Cry the beloved continent.

The entire legal system of the Netherlands is under review due to the gruesome murder of Theo van Gogh and politicians there who speak out about the fascistic tendencies of radical Islam often either face threats or go into hiding. Cry the beloved continent.

Unemployment, postcolonial prejudice, and de facto apartheid may have led to the fiery rioting in the French suburbs, but it was also energized by a radical Islamic culture of hate. In response followed de facto French martial law. All that remains certain is that the rioting will return either to grow or to warp liberal French society. Indeed, so far has global culture devolved in caving to Islamism that we fear that only two places in the world are now safe for a Jew to live in safety — and Europe, the graveyard of 20th-century Jewry, is tragically not among them. Cry the beloved continent.

Your idealistic approach to health care, transportation, global warming, and entitlements have won over much of coastal and blue America, who, if given their way, would replicate here what you have there. Yet the worry grows that none of this vision of your anointed is sustainable — given an aging and shrinking population, growing and unassimilated minority populations, flat growth rates, increasing statism, and high unemployment.

If America, the former British commonwealth, India, and China, embraced globalization, while the Arab Middle East rejected it, you sought a third way of insulating yourselves from it — and now are beginning to pay for trying to legislate and control what is well beyond your ability to do either.

Abroad you face even worse challenges. In the post-Cold War you dismantled your armed forces, and chose to enhance entitlements at the expense of military readiness. I fear you counted only on a tried and simple principle: That the United States would continue to subsidize European defense while ignoring your growing secular religion of anti-Americanism.

But in the last 15 years, and especially after 9/11, heaven did not come to earth, that instead became a more dangerous place than ever before. Worse, in the meantime you lost the goodwill of the United States, which you demonized, I think, on the understanding that there would never be real repercussions to your flamboyant venom.

Your courts indict American soldiers, often a few miles from the very military garrisons that alone protect you. Your media and public castigate the country whose fashion, music, entertainment, and popular culture you so slavishly embrace.

The Balkan massacres proved that a mass murderer like Slobodan Milosevic could operate with impunity in Europe until removed by the intervention of the United States. And yet from that gruesome lesson, in retrospect we over here have learned only two things: The Holocaust would have gone on unabated hours from Paris and Berlin without the leadership of United States, and in this era of the Chirac/Schroeder ingratitude the American public would never sanction such help to you again. If you believe that an American-led NATO should not serve larger Western interests outside of Europe, we concede that it cannot even do that inside it.

We wish you well in your faith that war has become obsolete and that outlaw nations will comply with international jurisprudence that was born and is nurtured in Europe. Yet your own intelligence suggests that the Iran theocracy is both acquiring nuclear weaponry and seeking to craft missile technology to put an Islamic bomb within reach of European cities — oblivious to the reasoned appeals of European Union diplomats, who themselves operate as Greek philosophers in the agora only on the condition that Americans will once more play the role of Roman legionaries in the shadows.

Russia may no longer be the mass-murdering Soviet Union, but it remains a proud nationalist and increasingly autocratic power of the 19th-century stripe, nuclear and angry at the loss of its empire, emboldened by the ease that it can starve energy supplies to Western Europe, and tired of humanitarian lectures from Westerners who have no real military to match their condescending sermons. Old Europe has neither the will nor the power to protect the ascending democracies of Eastern Europe, much less the republics of the former Soviet Union from present Russian bullying — and perhaps worse to come.

The European strategy of selling weapons to Arab autocracies, triangulating against the United States for oil and influence, and providing cash to dubious terrorists like Hamas has backfired. Polls in the West Bank suggest Palestinians hate you, the generous and accommodating, as much as they do us, the staunch ally of Israel.

So, terrorists of the Middle East seem to have even less respect for you than for the United States, given they harbor a certain contempt for your weakness as relish to the generic hatred of our shared Western traditions.

You will, of course, answer that in your postwar wisdom you have transcended the internecine killing of the earlier 20th century when nationalism and militarism ruined your continent — and that you have lent your insight to the world at large that should follow your therapeutic creed rather than the tragic vision of the United States.

But the choices are not so starkly bipolar between either chauvinistic saber rattling or studied pacifism. There is a third way, the promise of muscular democratic government that does not apologize for 2,500 years of civilization and is willing to defend it from the enemies of liberalism, who would undo all that we wrought.

A European Union that facilitates trade, finance, and commerce can enrich and ennoble your continent, but it need not suppress the unique language, character, and customs of European nationhood itself, much less abdicate a heritage that once not merely moralized about, but took action to end, evil.

The world is becoming a more dangerous place, despite your new protocols of childlessness, pacifism, socialism, and hedonism. Islamic radicalism, an ascendant Communist China, a growing new collectivism in Latin America, perhaps a neo-czarist Russia as well, in addition to the famine and savagery in Africa, all that and more threaten the promise of the West.

So criticize us for our sins; lend us your advice; impart to America the wealth of your greater experience — but as a partner and an equal in a war, not as an inferior or envious neutral on the sidelines. History is unforgiving. None of us receives exemption simply by reason of the fumes of past glory.

Either your economy will reform, your populace multiply, and your citizenry defend itself, or not. And if not, then Europe as we have known it will pass away — to the great joy of the Islamists but to the terrible sorrow of America.

 

[Harmageddon]

First of all, thank you Kathianne for posting this article.

I wholeheartedly agree with the notion of Hanson that Europe and the United States have far more in common than is generally acknowledged, in these trying times. The planet seems to be stressed out, and instead of getting our heads around the common ground and start working towards progress from there, nations as well as people start calling everybody names, including their friends.

I have been completely surprised by some members of the board, that have honestly stated that they percieve Europe as the largest threat to the soveirgnty of the United States. Our grandfathers would roll around in their graves if they should witness such a deteriorating stance between once friendly continents.

And yes, I have been agressive in my stance towards American policy in numerous posts, for I sincerely believe that your present administration is wreaking havoc on international relations and has taken on the role of a catalyst in the rush towards the rapture a lot of people believe is coming.
In my view, there is probably no God, thus no rapture. But even if there were a God, I don't believe that we as a race will be rewarded if we speed up the mutual destruction just to get a glimpse of his divine being at judgement day.

On the other hand, things are not all that bleak of course.
Yes, these are difficult times on both a national and an international scale.
But we have been here before, at the brink of global war. The Cuba Crisis is as of yet still the closest we have been to collective suicide. We will cope.

As for the mutual dependence between the European Union (remember, we are all soveirgn nations, not a unified nation called Europe) and the United States, I remain with what I have stated in the very beginning on this board: we need each other, we are very similar people, and I still consider the United States to be a worthy and loving country.

But the War on Terror is dangerous in concept alone.
It is fairly obvious your present administration follows the Project for the New American Century's blueprints. And they call for a strategic positioning of the American forces throughout the world, to establish "full spectrum dominance" in areas of interest to the United States.

And although it may be that some honest people are seriously considering a role for America to police the globe to a western society that is governed by democracy (a major improvement for many countries, no doubt), this can never be established by a single nation.

For if a single nation were to do this, like some modern-day version of ancient Rome, it will only be profitable if the process is speeded up. If it is not profitable, it's not going to happen. We are governed by capitalism.
And leaving countries on their own to figure out democracy will be too slow. Speeding up the process can be accomplished though, in several ways.

By bribery and covert operations, funding local military groups, that can force a military coup that overthrows the local regime. But the speeding is more easy and controllable by using your own military forces to install a local democratic regime.

That is supposedly what is happening today in Iraq.

And instead of a profitable venture, it churns into a very expensive one. For you have been to cheap in your overseas colonial adventure. Nation building requires tremendous recources, over a long period of time. Only then can they become profitable ventures. Most of you undoubtedly feel like Iraq is not being colonized at all, only liberated. Modern day warfare requires cleverly disguised missions as to not provoke international outrage. Liberated in this context would mean freed from the chains of self-governing and welcomed into the American economy, as a client state.

Europe has no clean hands either, of course. That is the sad state of of the current affairs of international politics. Milosovic was a son of a b*tch and the European Union did not show leadership nor resolve. To equate the leading role of America in that war with her role in the second world war goes a bit far though.

Originally posted in article: The Holocaust would have gone on unabated hours from Paris and Berlin without the leadership of United States, and in this era of the Chirac/Schroeder ingratitude the American public would never sanction such help to you again.

In the second world war America did not join for the first five years, only after Pearl Harbour did the government feel it had the leverage required to convince the American public of the need to get involved. Five years of ongoing war had already raged across the European continent, and into the USSR.

Thanks anyway though. (this is NOT sarcasm)

 

[Annie]

First of all, thank you Kathianne for posting this article.

I wholeheartedly agree with the notion of Hanson that Europe and the United States have far more in common than is generally acknowledged, in these trying times. The planet seems to be stressed out, and instead of getting our heads around the common ground and start working towards progress from there, nations as well as people start calling everybody names, including their friends.

I have been completely surprised by some members of the board, that have honestly stated that they percieve Europe as the largest threat to the soveirgnty of the United States. Our grandfathers would roll around in their graves if they should witness such a deteriorating stance between once friendly continents.

And yes, I have been agressive in my stance towards American policy in numerous posts, for I sincerely believe that your present administration is wreaking havoc on international relations and has taken on the role of a catalyst in the rush towards the rapture a lot of people believe is coming.

Stop right there. In this gap comes the problem of secularism of Europe and religion of US, regardless of form. It is the insistence of Europe that we bow to their ways or go our own way. Reason tells one, which is stronger? In any number of ways?

In my view, there is probably no God, thus no rapture. But even if there were a God, I don't believe that we as a race will be rewarded if we speed up the mutual destruction just to get a glimpse of his divine being at judgement day.

thanks for proving my point. Now, as for speeding up 'mutual destruction', hardly likely considering the power difference, but nevermind...[quote[

On the other hand, things are not all that bleak of course.
Yes, these are difficult times on both a national and an international scale.
But we have been here before, at the brink of global war. The Cuba Crisis is as of yet still the closest we have been to collective suicide. We will cope.

As for the mutual dependence between the European Union (remember, we are all soveirgn nations, not a unified nation called Europe) and the United States, I remain with what I have stated in the very beginning on this board: we need each other, we are very similar people, and I still consider the United States to be a worthy and loving country. [/quote] I'm not trying to be a naysayer here, but WHY do we need you? I mean in 2006, not 1776? You need us, but I will agree that it would be BETTER if we were standing together, but somehow I think as I read further, you disagree...

But the War on Terror is dangerous in concept alone.
It is fairly obvious your present administration follows the Project for the New American Century's blueprints. And they call for a strategic positioning of the American forces throughout the world, to establish "full spectrum dominance" in areas of interest to the United States.

And although it may be that some honest people are seriously considering a role for America to police the globe to a western society that is governed by democracy (a major improvement for many countries, no doubt), this can never be established by a single nation.

Perhaps I'm misreading here. I'm inferring that since the US has not been able to get EU nations 'on board', BECAUSE OF GW!!!!, we should give up? Appeasement by default? My the mighty EU nations have fallen, according to one of the spokesmen from the Netherlands, that once mighty power, when was that?

For if a single nation were to do this, like some modern-day version of ancient Rome, it will only be profitable if the process is speeded up. If it is not profitable, it's not going to happen. We are governed by capitalism.

NO, WE, the US are capitalistic, YOU are socialistic, do not mix the economics.

And leaving countries on their own to figure out democracy will be too slow. Speeding up the process can be accomplished though, in several ways.

By bribery and covert operations, funding local military groups, that can force a military coup that overthrows the local regime. But the speeding is more easy and controllable by using your own military forces to install a local democratic regime.

That is supposedly what is happening today in Iraq.

And instead of a profitable venture, it churns into a very expensive one. For you have been to cheap in your overseas colonial adventure. Nation building requires tremendous recources, over a long period of time. Only then can they become profitable ventures. Most of you undoubtedly feel like Iraq is not being colonized at all, only liberated. Modern day warfare requires cleverly disguised missions as to not provoke international outrage. Liberated in this context would mean freed from the chains of self-governing and welcomed into the American economy, as a client state.

Thank you for emphasizing my earlier point. EU is NOT capitalistic or strong. They want US to throw out their advantages, since that would even the playing field. Sorry, no Mulligans!

Europe has no clean hands either, of course. That is the sad state of of the current affairs of international politics. Milosovic was a son of a b*tch and the European Union did not show leadership nor resolve. To equate the leading role of America in that war with her role in the second world war goes a bit far though.

Yes, of course. Why? Never mind...

In the second world war America did not join for the first five years, only after Pearl Harbour did the government feel it had the leverage required to convince the American public of the need to get involved. Five years of ongoing war had already raged across the European continent, and into the USSR.

Yeah, don't bother us about NOW, let's talk about what you did wrong in 1938, nevermind 1941, 42, 43, 44, 45, 50, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, 62, ...80, 81,82, 83, 84, 85, 86,...

Thanks anyway though. (this is NOT sarcasm)

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by Kathianne:
Stop right there. In this gap comes the problem of secularism of Europe and religion of US, regardless of form. It is the insistence of Europe that we bow to their ways or go our own way. Reason tells one, which is stronger? In any number of ways?

If you infer that Europe is solely secular I’d have to disappoint you. Italy and Poland are over 70% catholic nations, and many other countries in Europe, including my own, are full of religious people. It is solely my personal view that even if there is a God, He would not be pleased by the waging of a war in his creation.

Nor is Europe saying our way or the highway, although that is what Bush has told the world in his first war on terror speeches. Europe has a long history of interfering in other nation’s affairs, and although the United States’ list is younger, it is not the less impressive.

Originally posted by Kathianne:
I'm not trying to be a naysayer here, but WHY do we need you? I mean in 2006, not 1776? You need us, but I will agree that it would be BETTER if we were standing together, but somehow I think as I read further, you disagree...

Are you seriously wondering why you might need us? Economics, baby.
That’s the word. And they are way bigger now than they were in 1776.

Originally posted by Kathianneerhaps I'm misreading here. I'm inferring that since the US has not been able to get EU nations 'on board', BECAUSE OF GW!!!!, we should give up? Appeasement by default? My the mighty EU nations have fallen, according to one of the spokesmen from the Netherlands, that once mighty power, when was that?

That Europe did not come on board had nothing to do with GW as a person, but with the fact that he is the president at the time your nation starts this nation building phase. And Europe likes to think the nation building should be over and done with. We should however encourage other nations to advance, through diplomatic means. Whatever, don’t appease to us, just consider your actions as a nation. And if over half the world condemns them, you might want to check your assumptions of greatness.
As for the Netherlands owning you, how’s about we kick your ass at the world championship soccer games this year?

Originally posted by Kathianne:NO, WE, the US are capitalistic, YOU are socialistic, do not mix the economics.

Do not confuse a social system with socialism. We are capitalists, and very greedy ones at that according to legend. We do have a social security system though, based on the idea that a large middle class is good for the economy of our nation.

Originally posted by Kathianne:Thank you for emphasizing my earlier point. EU is NOT capitalistic or strong. They want US to throw out their advantages, since that would even the playing field. Sorry, no Mulligans!

The European Unions economy is on the rise. And judging by the financial markets, the euro is doing fine, it may even be a bit too strong. We do not want you to throw out our advantages; that would be ridiculous. Neither are we interested in throwing out your advantages. We are interested in less aggressive market strategies than the current ones you’re engaged in, in Iraq.

 

[Annie]

If you infer that Europe is solely secular I’d have to disappoint you. Italy and Poland are over 70% catholic nations, and many other countries in Europe, including my own, are full of religious people. It is solely my personal view that even if there is a God, He would not be pleased by the waging of a war in his creation.

Solely, non. Predominately, yes. Italy is secular, not so Poland. Do you understand the difference? Are there 'religious' in every European country, I would assume, yes. Are they few and far between? Yes.

Nor is Europe saying our way or the highway, although that is what Bush has told the world in his first war on terror speeches. Europe has a long history of interfering in other nation’s affairs, and although the United States’ list is younger, it is not the less impressive.

Yes they are. All the pipsqueak voices. They have no migh† unless the UN gives them. But WE can ignore, even the BIG, BAD UN. Shouldn't have to, it should be what it was designed to be, but it isn't. We DO wish the world was different, but do get that it is not. Realpolitik.

Are you seriously wondering why you might need us? Economics, baby.
That’s the word. And they are way bigger now than they were in 1776.

Laugh, really! :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: When we need EU for economic reasons, you better hold onto the closest oak you can find. Asshat.

That Europe did not come on board had nothing to do with GW as a person, but with the fact that he is the president at the time your nation starts this nation building phase.

Wrong, again. It had everything to do with GW, little if anything to do with nation building. More to do with being left out of the loop, since your 'loop' was tied to Oil for Food.

And Europe likes to think the nation building should be over and done with. We should however encourage other nations to advance, through diplomatic means. Whatever, don’t appease to us, just consider your actions as a nation. And if over half the world condemns them, you might want to check your assumptions of greatness.

Over 1/2 the world includes more than a few theocracies, dictatorships, fascist regimes, and communist states. As for the EU, when you can control your own angry immigrants, that have justified reasons for murdering your middle class and upper class, come and lecture us.

As for the Netherlands owning you, how’s about we kick your ass at the world championship soccer games this year?

could be.

Do not confuse a social system with socialism. We are capitalists, and very greedy ones at that according to legend. We do have a social security system though, based on the idea that a large middle class is good for the economy of our nation.



The European Unions economy is on the rise. And judging by the financial markets, the euro is doing fine, it may even be a bit too strong. We do not want you to throw out our advantages; that would be ridiculous. Neither are we interested in throwing out your advantages. We are interested in less aggressive market strategies than the current ones you’re engaged in, in Iraq.

Dreaming, dreaming...

 

[Annie]

One man's freedom fighter...

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/645

Conscience, How Dost Thou Afflict Me!
From the desk of Paul Belien on Sat, 2006-01-07 14:47

Western Europe is no longer Christian and within less than two decades it will be Islamic. The greatest threat to secularists and liberals in Europe today are not the Christians but the Muslims. This is what Theo van Gogh experienced two years ago. This is also the reason why the Swedish jeans manufacturer Bjorn Atldax, who calls religion “a force of evil,” has designed a jeans brand with an anti-Christian logo, but does not plan to make something anti-Islamic. This is why another Christian renegade, the Italian author Luigi Cascioli, has written a book with the title “The Fable of Christ” but would not contemplate writing “The Fable of Muhammad.”

Atldax and Cascioli, two white male Europeans, lack the courage of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a fellow atheist and religion hater. She has the balls that Atldax and Cascioli do not. Attacking someone whose religion teaches him to turn the other cheek is so much safer than hitting someone whose religion tells him to ritually slaughter an offender of the faith. Apart from the fact that he would not dare to write a book insulting Islam, let alone draw a picture of the Muslim prophet, Signor Cascioli would never dare to take an imam to court to prove that Muhammad really existed. He did, however, force a priest into a court of law to prove that Jesus really existed.

According to the Italian Penal Code, both “abuse of popular credulity” (Sec. 661) and “impersonation” (Sec. 494) are offenses. Based on these two articles Luigi Cascioli filed a suit against Father Enrico Righi, ordering him to prove Christ’s historical existence. Last Monday a judge in Viterbo set a preliminary hearing for the end of this month and ordered Father Righi to appear. At first the judge had refused to take up the case but he was overruled by the Court of Appeal, which agreed that Signor Cascioli had a reasonable case for his accusations of abuse of popular credulity and impersonation by Catholic priests, such as Father Righi, who “present invented facts as if true.”

This is not just an Italian anecdote. In the Belgian Senate the government parties (Liberals and Socialists) have proposed a bill, currently under debate, (text in French, text in Dutch) which makes it a penal offense, punishable by up to two years imprisonment, to “abuse credulity in order to persuade [an individual] of the existence of false enterprises, an imaginary power or the occurrence of non-existing events.”

There is also a real danger that the European Union will be abused as a vehicle for promoting an intolerant secular and anti-Christian agenda. Last month, the EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights issued a 40-page opinion [pdf] denouncing a draft treaty between the Vatican and Slovakia that would allow medical professionals to refuse to participate in abortions and other procedures that may violate their religious beliefs and conscientious objections. According to the EU experts the legal right of an individual to an abortion overrules the right of others to refuse to participate in it whenever a refusal would entail that the abortion cannot take place.

In addition, the experts’ opinion holds that this applies not only to abortion. It adds that assisted suicide, same-sex marriage and access to contraception are also among the basic human rights guaranteed to citizens of the EU. On euthanasia the experts write:

“For instance, although neither euthanasia nor assisted suicide are protected as such under the European Convention on Human Rights or any other international human rights instrument, in a State where euthanasia or assisted suicide are partially decriminalized, the right to religious conscientious objection, while it should be recognized to the medical doctors asked to perform euthanasia or to assist a person in committing suicide, should not be exercised in a way which leads to depriving any person from the possibility of exercising effectively his or her rights as guaranteed under the applicable legislation.”

The “right” of individuals to a same-sex marriage also has consequences for civil servants and, according to the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) in its latest Friday Fax could possibly even require that clergy perform ceremonies which directly contradict their faith. In their text the EU experts say that:

“the right to religious conscientious objection may be invoked by an officer refusing to celebrate a marriage between two persons of the same sex or where one of the prospective spouses is a transsexual. It would be unacceptable to allow this to result in marriage being unavailable to the couple concerned: any form of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (as would result from the refusal to celebrate a marriage between two persons of the same sex where this institution is recognized) and any violation of the right to marry of transsexuals should not be tolerated, and the public authorities should ensure in such circumstances that other officers will be available and willing to celebrate those unions.”

The conflict arises when the state cannot guarantee that other officers are available. In such cases the right to conscientious objection has to give way to the right of the individuals to the abortion, assisted suicide or same-sex marriage they can legally claim. Indeed, as the experts say, the right to conscientious objection is not “unlimited.” In this respect the text of the EU experts refers to pharmacists who are unwilling to dispense drugs to which they are morally opposed, such as contraceptives, abortifacient pills or euthanasia kits:

“The case-law of the European Court of Human Rights suggests that, where access to contraceptives is legal, women should not be deprived of such access because of the exercise, by health practitioners or pharmacologists, of their right to religious conscientious objection: under this case-law, a State may oblige pharmacologists to sell contraceptives, at least where women would otherwise not have access to contraceptives.”

In 2001 Nynke Eringa, a civil servant in the Dutch town of Leeuwarden was fired because she refused to perform gay marriages, recently legalized in the Netherlands. Though the civil servant had made her conscientious objection public, gay couples explicitly demanded to be married by her and not by other civil servants. When she continued to refuse the COC, a gay rights organisation, demanded – and obtained – her dismissal, although the town spokesman conceded that he “got the impression that COC had intentionally sent the homosexual couples to a civil servant whom they knew was a conscientious objector.”

In 2004 Eringa’s dismissal was annulled because the town had made procedural errors when she was sacked. The authorities have since decided that conscientious objection can only be claimed by civil servants who were already in office before 2001, while those employed after the legalization of gay marriages do not have a right to refuse to marry gays. This means that access to jobs in the civil service which involve performing registry office marriages is effectively denied to religious people who refuse to participate in same-sex marriages. Similarly, in some Western European countries today the tendency is to effectively exclude Christians from medical professions by introducing requirements that force students to participate in abortions during their studies.

Last October, Xavier Desmet, a notary from Antwerp, was threatened with a court case by the Belgian government’s Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism (CEOOR) because he had conscientious objections to validating a marriage contract for a gay couple. The CEOOR warned the Federation of Notaries that it can ask the court to impose a penalty for every gay couple the notary turns down. There are dozens of Antwerp notaries willing to assist gay couples. However, if Desmet ever gets convicted, homosexuals can intentionally ruin him by choosing him to validate their marriage contract. Has Europe again reached the point where it is forbidden to have a conscience? Under the Nazis having a conscience was not allowed either.