YOUR DEMOCRACY IN EUROPE
THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT OF SUPRANATIONAL DEMOCRACY FOR EUROPE BROUGHT LONG-LASTING PEACE TO THE CONTINENT. EU'S FOUNDER ROBERT SCHUMAN DESCRIBED DEMOCRACY AS BEING IN THE SERVICE OF THE PEOPLE AND ACTING IN AGREEMENT WITH THE PEOPLE. WHAT'S GOING ON TODAY? SEE ALSO WWW.SCHUMAN.INFO AND HTTP://DEMOCRACY.BLOGACTIV.EU .
06 JANUARY, 2011
Proliferation5 : 'I will kill anyone who dishonours Islam' says minister of nuclear-armed Pakistan
'If someone dishonors Islam in front of me, I will shoot him dead!' Those are the reported remarks of Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik at a press conference.
He was speaking after the assassination of Punjab Governor Salman Taseer, who had championed the rights of Aasia Bibi and denounced the blasphemy charges against her as 'trumped up'. The Christian convert is facing execution because of what she was alleged to have said during a row over drinking water when her neighbours called her impure. They were not present days later when the charge with its mandatory death penalty was laid. Nor could her alleged words be repeated in court as that would be considered as repeating the blasphemy! She is currently awaiting an appeal court hearing.
The Governor was shot 25 times by his own security guard, whose action has been acclaimed by large, noisy sections of the nation and militant religious leaders. He was showered with rose petals and garlands.
A quasi-majority of the country expressed approval of the murder of Governor Taseer and for anyone else who expressed similar opinions of religious freedom. Are they acting out of ignorance (and wanting to stay ignorant) or out of fear that the basis of the State will be overturned by free discussions, or fear that they too might end up murdered?
What is extraordinary is that Pakistani Interior Minister's remarks -- extreme as they are -- were seen as an attempt to allay the violent wrath and murderous incitement of members of the religious groups. They were upset at the state funeral given to Governor Taseer. This 'moderate' face is extremely dangerous both inside and outside Pakistan.
In 2009 eight Christians were killed in the town of Gojra in Punjab following unsubstantiated allegations that a Christian had desecrated the Koran. Last year more than 80 members of the minority Ahmadi sect of Islam were killed in two mosques in Lahore. The small Hindu population is scared by the abduction, forced marriage and compulsory islamization of its infant daughters.
These events raise the most serious questions for Europe. What is the difference with an individual and the West as a whole that lies 'in front' of the Pakistani government? How does the minister distinguish between an Ahmadi or a Christian who expresses dissent at religious autocracy and wholesale murder?
The murderers were their own judge, jury and executioner. Minister Malik's opinion reinforces this. That is the way of anarchy. It will only be resolved, as history shows, when the strongest sectarian power wins.
Europe has rejected that concept of power politics, the rule of the fist whether religious, political, ideological or racist. It has managed to create the longest peace in the more than two thousand year history of Europe, thanks to the Community method.
In past centuries many parts of Europe were conquered by Islam. They rejected it. They preferred freedom of thought. They did not like forced conversion. They did not want to be considered second-class citizens or dhimmis, if they retained their faith in the God of the Bible.
Supranational democracy is based on Christian principles where everyone is treated equally. That applies to Christian and non-Christians.
Schuman warned about the dangers of confounding the separation of the religious domain with the political.
For the West today, which on the whole still agrees that Islam does not present a way of enlightenment, science and truth, the logical conclusion of the minister's policy is that anyone who stands before his eyes or that of his government and who disagrees with his religious conviction (and maybe does not even know it) may be freely assassinated by that minister or that government.
The remark comes from a nuclear-armed State. The government's policy in the past was to encourage nuclear proliferation to Islamic States. Its bomb-maker, Abdul Qadeer (A Q) Khan, loaded with the nation’s highest honours, actively sought nuclear proliferation for ideological reasons.
A clarification is urgently required. The West should also be clear about its own policy. It needs to establish the proper bases of the supranational system.
Foreign policy should be based on open and publicly debated reciprocity. This need for open debate is especially important in the democracies. How should the West react to Islamic States or those where religious sectarians run rampant and who criticize Christians and who dishonour Christianity, Judaism, deny the Holocaust, the Bible and Western civilization?
Both the European Union and North American States of USA and Canada are founded on the principle of free speech, the right to choose and freedom of religion. Also a main European fundamental right is the ability to freely change one's religion. All that requires an intensive debate on religious values. No incitement to violence can be made to forbid this discussion. It requires an atmosphere of tolerance and open discussion for all its citizens. The Community system allows religious tolerance because it is based on a supranational democratic system.
Certain conditions are necessary if East and West can live together in peace. If the West looks eye to eye with the Islamic East, tolerance must exist on both sides. Mutual respect is required. Reciprocity of tolerance is vital for being interactive parts of a global society.
Today this is even more vital as trade depends on open borders and the prevention of terrorism. A major part of world trade is the information economy, newspapers, books and the Internet. While the web is filled with poisonous Jihadist sites and blogs (especially for those who know Arabic and other languages), it also provides free access to alternative religious views and facts.
Is this what Islamic sectarians fear as much as do all autocratic governments? Information can be more explosive than terrorist bombs. The human soul has an unquenchable thirst for freedom. Sectarians can do nothing against it, whether by mobs, fire or the sword. The problem of conversions and religious tolerance will not go away but only become more prominent in the coming years. The drive of information technology is also an unstoppable force.
Tolerance was declared to be a part of the Pakistani State Constitution by its founder, Mohammad Ali Jinnah in his first speech as president on 11 August 1947 to the Constituent Assembly.
'The first duty of a government is to maintain law and order, so that the life, property and religious beliefs of its subjects are fully protected by the State,' he said. The angularities between different religions and Moslem sects such as Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on will vanish under law. 'You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed -- that has nothing to do with the business of the State.'
Some later leaders tried to make Pakistan a different type of State where death is the penalty for disagreeing with their version of Islam. This change is a vastly more dangerous move in a nuclear-armed State.
In 1947 days after Jinnah's speech, up to a million died in the disputes between Hindus and Moslems during the bloody days of partition and the separate independence of India and Pakistan.
Those people were killed by individuals and mobs. Today, the whole world could be set afire by acts of intolerance and nuclear war.
He was speaking after the assassination of Punjab Governor Salman Taseer, who had championed the rights of Aasia Bibi and denounced the blasphemy charges against her as 'trumped up'. The Christian convert is facing execution because of what she was alleged to have said during a row over drinking water when her neighbours called her impure. They were not present days later when the charge with its mandatory death penalty was laid. Nor could her alleged words be repeated in court as that would be considered as repeating the blasphemy! She is currently awaiting an appeal court hearing.
The Governor was shot 25 times by his own security guard, whose action has been acclaimed by large, noisy sections of the nation and militant religious leaders. He was showered with rose petals and garlands.
A quasi-majority of the country expressed approval of the murder of Governor Taseer and for anyone else who expressed similar opinions of religious freedom. Are they acting out of ignorance (and wanting to stay ignorant) or out of fear that the basis of the State will be overturned by free discussions, or fear that they too might end up murdered?
What is extraordinary is that Pakistani Interior Minister's remarks -- extreme as they are -- were seen as an attempt to allay the violent wrath and murderous incitement of members of the religious groups. They were upset at the state funeral given to Governor Taseer. This 'moderate' face is extremely dangerous both inside and outside Pakistan.
In 2009 eight Christians were killed in the town of Gojra in Punjab following unsubstantiated allegations that a Christian had desecrated the Koran. Last year more than 80 members of the minority Ahmadi sect of Islam were killed in two mosques in Lahore. The small Hindu population is scared by the abduction, forced marriage and compulsory islamization of its infant daughters.
These events raise the most serious questions for Europe. What is the difference with an individual and the West as a whole that lies 'in front' of the Pakistani government? How does the minister distinguish between an Ahmadi or a Christian who expresses dissent at religious autocracy and wholesale murder?
The murderers were their own judge, jury and executioner. Minister Malik's opinion reinforces this. That is the way of anarchy. It will only be resolved, as history shows, when the strongest sectarian power wins.
Europe has rejected that concept of power politics, the rule of the fist whether religious, political, ideological or racist. It has managed to create the longest peace in the more than two thousand year history of Europe, thanks to the Community method.
In past centuries many parts of Europe were conquered by Islam. They rejected it. They preferred freedom of thought. They did not like forced conversion. They did not want to be considered second-class citizens or dhimmis, if they retained their faith in the God of the Bible.
Supranational democracy is based on Christian principles where everyone is treated equally. That applies to Christian and non-Christians.
Schuman warned about the dangers of confounding the separation of the religious domain with the political.
A theocracy does not recognise the principle of separation of the two powers. It imposes on religious thought responsibilities which do not belong to it. Under such a regime the political differences risk degenerating into religious fanaticism; holy war is the most frightening expression of a bloody exploitation of religious feeling.
For the West today, which on the whole still agrees that Islam does not present a way of enlightenment, science and truth, the logical conclusion of the minister's policy is that anyone who stands before his eyes or that of his government and who disagrees with his religious conviction (and maybe does not even know it) may be freely assassinated by that minister or that government.
The remark comes from a nuclear-armed State. The government's policy in the past was to encourage nuclear proliferation to Islamic States. Its bomb-maker, Abdul Qadeer (A Q) Khan, loaded with the nation’s highest honours, actively sought nuclear proliferation for ideological reasons.
A clarification is urgently required. The West should also be clear about its own policy. It needs to establish the proper bases of the supranational system.
Foreign policy should be based on open and publicly debated reciprocity. This need for open debate is especially important in the democracies. How should the West react to Islamic States or those where religious sectarians run rampant and who criticize Christians and who dishonour Christianity, Judaism, deny the Holocaust, the Bible and Western civilization?
Both the European Union and North American States of USA and Canada are founded on the principle of free speech, the right to choose and freedom of religion. Also a main European fundamental right is the ability to freely change one's religion. All that requires an intensive debate on religious values. No incitement to violence can be made to forbid this discussion. It requires an atmosphere of tolerance and open discussion for all its citizens. The Community system allows religious tolerance because it is based on a supranational democratic system.
Certain conditions are necessary if East and West can live together in peace. If the West looks eye to eye with the Islamic East, tolerance must exist on both sides. Mutual respect is required. Reciprocity of tolerance is vital for being interactive parts of a global society.
Today this is even more vital as trade depends on open borders and the prevention of terrorism. A major part of world trade is the information economy, newspapers, books and the Internet. While the web is filled with poisonous Jihadist sites and blogs (especially for those who know Arabic and other languages), it also provides free access to alternative religious views and facts.
Is this what Islamic sectarians fear as much as do all autocratic governments? Information can be more explosive than terrorist bombs. The human soul has an unquenchable thirst for freedom. Sectarians can do nothing against it, whether by mobs, fire or the sword. The problem of conversions and religious tolerance will not go away but only become more prominent in the coming years. The drive of information technology is also an unstoppable force.
Tolerance was declared to be a part of the Pakistani State Constitution by its founder, Mohammad Ali Jinnah in his first speech as president on 11 August 1947 to the Constituent Assembly.
'The first duty of a government is to maintain law and order, so that the life, property and religious beliefs of its subjects are fully protected by the State,' he said. The angularities between different religions and Moslem sects such as Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on will vanish under law. 'You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed -- that has nothing to do with the business of the State.'
Some later leaders tried to make Pakistan a different type of State where death is the penalty for disagreeing with their version of Islam. This change is a vastly more dangerous move in a nuclear-armed State.
In 1947 days after Jinnah's speech, up to a million died in the disputes between Hindus and Moslems during the bloody days of partition and the separate independence of India and Pakistan.
Those people were killed by individuals and mobs. Today, the whole world could be set afire by acts of intolerance and nuclear war.
15 DECEMBER, 2010
Proliferation4: The coming Mid-East War to 'cut the Head of the Snake' will paralyze Europe unless it fixes energy independence goals NOW!
Three lessons should be clear to Europe's policy-makers from the WikiLeaks affair.
This shows a resumption of the close relationship of the defence communities that was frozen after the 9/11 attack on Washington and New York by Saudi suicide-jihadis. This huge deal is all the more extraordinary because leaked cables reveal that Saudi donors remain chief financiers of Sunni militant groups like al Qaeda. The Gulf state of Qatar, that has hosted the American military for years, was called the 'worst in the region' in counter-terrorism efforts.
The Jordanians call Iran an octopus. Why? 'Iran is of an octopus whose tentacles reach out insidiously to manipulate, foment, and undermine the best laid plans of the West and regional moderates. Iran’s tentacles include its allies Qatar and Syria, Hizballah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Palestinian territories, an Iraqi government sometimes seen as supplicant to Tehran, and Shia communities throughout the region.' explains a US diplomat.
Zaid Rifai, then-president of the Jordanian Senate and former prime minister and foreign minister, is quoted as saying to US diplomat, 'Bomb Iran, or live with an Iranian bomb. Sanctions, carrots, incentives won't matter.' The diplomatic cable continues, 'while Rifai judged a military strike would have "catastrophic impact on the region," he nonetheless thought preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons would pay enough dividends to make it worth the risks.'
Are the Saudis preparing for war or is the arms deal merely a token encouragement for others to do so? Will the holders of Mecca attack the followers of the Twelfth Imam? They would prefer other people's blood is spilt first. The Saudis told the Americans that the USA should go to war to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons.
The Israelis are curiously mute about the Saudi arms deal. They see the immediate threat of a holocaust-denying, nuclear-armed regime that would like to wipe the Jewish State off the map as more urgent than the corrosive but persistent diplomacy of the Saudis to undermine it. The Saudis let it be known that for a considerable period they have been in talks with the Israelis. They have held meetings in Jordan between the highest security officials. Compared with the real danger they see with Iran, clearly the fear of being seen talking to the Israelis, Zionists and Jews is of little consequence.
Iran with its skilled media manipulation has made the Palestinian issue the hottest emotional issue, regardless of facts on the ground. It is the means to distract world attention from its own plans. The emir of Qatar is reported as saying that, based on his over 30 years of experience with the Iranians, we shouldn’t believe but one word in a hundred that the Iranians say.
Next year with the continuing hard winter in Europe may be an even greater danger for Europe. For the first time in 36 years, Iran will assume the chairmanship of the oil cartel, OPEC. The cartel controls the price of oil by determining the supply rate and shutting the oil spigot. That is another element to factor in as the world passing into peak oil is now facing accelerating demand from oil and gas from booming China.
Disclosures from European politicians in the released cables show that the danger is widespread -- but secret. There is little public debate. Some leaders like Germany's Angela Merkel, have, however, spoken out in public. Iran with a bomb 'threatens the entire free world,' she told the US Congress. Are other leaders being as frank with their public AT HOME?
There is one stark exception. Israel has consistently spoken out to its public and abroad about the danger to all. Iran is still a far-away country for Israel but it experiences the effects of Iranian support to terrorist organisations in Gaza, Lebanon, its own heartland and Jordan. Tens of thousands of rockets and missiles have been launched from Gaza, many of them Iranian imports. Gaza has a stockpile of 5000 and Hizbollah in Lebanon many more, some 50,000 to 80,000 due to ineffective UN 'peace-keepers'.
Israel has shown that it has valued world safety and ethics more highly than any other country in the region. When Saddam Hussein of Iraq was building an atomic programme with the aim of launching a nuclear bomb on Israel, Israel acted although it seems the world said 'Don't do it!'
That courageous action gave the world a breathing space from a nuclear Mid-East war. Only after the act and after a little more reflection did the world's diplomats agree that Israel had saved their own hides.
Much expertise and equipment from Saddam's Iraq was secreted into Syria, say the cables. Israel bombed that plant which potentially threatened its own existence and that of much of the West. Europe looked dumbly on.
Why are Arab states so anxious about Iran, nominally a fellow-Islamic nation? Three reasons spring to mind, religion (shi'ites versus sunnis), race (Persians versus Arabs) and politics (control of the Gulf with its choke point on oil, and the expanding terrorist network to Hizbollah in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza with increasing interference in Egypt). At the core of this is the revolutionary, expansionist ideology of the twelfth imam of Ayotollah Khomeini who wanted world religious revolution. For thirty years the crowds have been yelling Death to the Great Satan, meaning the West, USA and Europe. The success of the industrialized West puts to shame the barren outcome of Islamic development. So extremists feel the only way to show Islamic society as superior is to destroy or undermine the West. 'We will export our revolution throughout the world ... until {Islam} is echoed all over the world,' exclaimed Ayatollah R Khomeini. Osama bin Laden said the same thing as the founder of his faction: 'I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah and his prophet Mohammad.' Hamas leader Khaled Mash'al warned Europeans on the Danish cartoon affair: 'Tomorrow our nation will sit on the throne of the world. This is not a figment of the imagination but a fact. Tomorrow we will lead the world, Allah willing.'
Europe is in great danger. Firstly such threats attempt to undermine the supranational or universal values on which Europe is built. Forcing religious belief by the sword, bomb and blackmail is a power given to no man. It is illegitimate. Freedom to choose, and especially freedom of religious choice, is a fundamental value written into Europe's greatCharter of Interdependence. The freedom to hold a religion or not and to change one's religious belief freely is written into the Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, initiated by Robert Schuman and other Founding Fathers. That should make it abundantly clear that Europe is a zone of peace where all debate, political and religious, is open. All views may be analyzed. Violence and the threat of violence is excluded.
What are Europeans leaders doing about the physical danger of a Mid-East war? What would happen if the Persian Gulf is blocked in this seemingly inevitable war between Islamic factions? Despite decades of warnings dating back to the times of the Founding Fathers of the European Community, European leaders have made little progress to the goal of energy independence. Only by saving energy and providing the maximum amount of its own native energy can Europe have an independent foreign policy, rather than being on the hook of its energy suppliers.
We must learn as Schuman said that Europe's salvation must come from itself and those resources given to its citizens, material and spiritual.
- War is coming in the Mid-East and it is mainly about religio-political ideologies among Islamic states. Sectarians of both the Shi'ite and Sunni persuasion, both arming with nuclear bombs, are also involved in extensive terrorist activities to destroy the West. Policy-leaders must decide whether they wish to open a public debate to analyze this and secure the European Community's future. That requires a real debate to debunk terrorist and imperialist religious ideologies.
- Secondly, any war there will cut off supplies because the Persian Gulf will be deep in the war zone and is likely to be blocked. This will have disastrous effects on the European economy which drinks oil like an unreformed alcoholic. Iran's last war with Iraq lasted nine years from 1980-88. Can Europe survive on sharply reduced petroleum for a decade? It needs immediately to set a goal of energy efficiency and energy independence by 2020. It needs an Energy Community based onsupranational principles of democracy.
- Thirdly, Europeans have the most powerful instrument to eliminate Iranian and other nuclear proliferation that threatens the region and the world. It is time that theEuratom treaty, Europe's non-proliferation treaty, is put into action. In the past and present, European leaders continue to show great incompetence in banning a democratic opposition by putting them on the terrorist list, while talking and talking to the terrorist ringleaders.
This shows a resumption of the close relationship of the defence communities that was frozen after the 9/11 attack on Washington and New York by Saudi suicide-jihadis. This huge deal is all the more extraordinary because leaked cables reveal that Saudi donors remain chief financiers of Sunni militant groups like al Qaeda. The Gulf state of Qatar, that has hosted the American military for years, was called the 'worst in the region' in counter-terrorism efforts.
The Jordanians call Iran an octopus. Why? 'Iran is of an octopus whose tentacles reach out insidiously to manipulate, foment, and undermine the best laid plans of the West and regional moderates. Iran’s tentacles include its allies Qatar and Syria, Hizballah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Palestinian territories, an Iraqi government sometimes seen as supplicant to Tehran, and Shia communities throughout the region.' explains a US diplomat.
Zaid Rifai, then-president of the Jordanian Senate and former prime minister and foreign minister, is quoted as saying to US diplomat, 'Bomb Iran, or live with an Iranian bomb. Sanctions, carrots, incentives won't matter.' The diplomatic cable continues, 'while Rifai judged a military strike would have "catastrophic impact on the region," he nonetheless thought preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons would pay enough dividends to make it worth the risks.'
Are the Saudis preparing for war or is the arms deal merely a token encouragement for others to do so? Will the holders of Mecca attack the followers of the Twelfth Imam? They would prefer other people's blood is spilt first. The Saudis told the Americans that the USA should go to war to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons.
The Israelis are curiously mute about the Saudi arms deal. They see the immediate threat of a holocaust-denying, nuclear-armed regime that would like to wipe the Jewish State off the map as more urgent than the corrosive but persistent diplomacy of the Saudis to undermine it. The Saudis let it be known that for a considerable period they have been in talks with the Israelis. They have held meetings in Jordan between the highest security officials. Compared with the real danger they see with Iran, clearly the fear of being seen talking to the Israelis, Zionists and Jews is of little consequence.
Iran with its skilled media manipulation has made the Palestinian issue the hottest emotional issue, regardless of facts on the ground. It is the means to distract world attention from its own plans. The emir of Qatar is reported as saying that, based on his over 30 years of experience with the Iranians, we shouldn’t believe but one word in a hundred that the Iranians say.
Next year with the continuing hard winter in Europe may be an even greater danger for Europe. For the first time in 36 years, Iran will assume the chairmanship of the oil cartel, OPEC. The cartel controls the price of oil by determining the supply rate and shutting the oil spigot. That is another element to factor in as the world passing into peak oil is now facing accelerating demand from oil and gas from booming China.
Disclosures from European politicians in the released cables show that the danger is widespread -- but secret. There is little public debate. Some leaders like Germany's Angela Merkel, have, however, spoken out in public. Iran with a bomb 'threatens the entire free world,' she told the US Congress. Are other leaders being as frank with their public AT HOME?
There is one stark exception. Israel has consistently spoken out to its public and abroad about the danger to all. Iran is still a far-away country for Israel but it experiences the effects of Iranian support to terrorist organisations in Gaza, Lebanon, its own heartland and Jordan. Tens of thousands of rockets and missiles have been launched from Gaza, many of them Iranian imports. Gaza has a stockpile of 5000 and Hizbollah in Lebanon many more, some 50,000 to 80,000 due to ineffective UN 'peace-keepers'.
Israel has shown that it has valued world safety and ethics more highly than any other country in the region. When Saddam Hussein of Iraq was building an atomic programme with the aim of launching a nuclear bomb on Israel, Israel acted although it seems the world said 'Don't do it!'
That courageous action gave the world a breathing space from a nuclear Mid-East war. Only after the act and after a little more reflection did the world's diplomats agree that Israel had saved their own hides.
Much expertise and equipment from Saddam's Iraq was secreted into Syria, say the cables. Israel bombed that plant which potentially threatened its own existence and that of much of the West. Europe looked dumbly on.
Why are Arab states so anxious about Iran, nominally a fellow-Islamic nation? Three reasons spring to mind, religion (shi'ites versus sunnis), race (Persians versus Arabs) and politics (control of the Gulf with its choke point on oil, and the expanding terrorist network to Hizbollah in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza with increasing interference in Egypt). At the core of this is the revolutionary, expansionist ideology of the twelfth imam of Ayotollah Khomeini who wanted world religious revolution. For thirty years the crowds have been yelling Death to the Great Satan, meaning the West, USA and Europe. The success of the industrialized West puts to shame the barren outcome of Islamic development. So extremists feel the only way to show Islamic society as superior is to destroy or undermine the West. 'We will export our revolution throughout the world ... until {Islam} is echoed all over the world,' exclaimed Ayatollah R Khomeini. Osama bin Laden said the same thing as the founder of his faction: 'I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah and his prophet Mohammad.' Hamas leader Khaled Mash'al warned Europeans on the Danish cartoon affair: 'Tomorrow our nation will sit on the throne of the world. This is not a figment of the imagination but a fact. Tomorrow we will lead the world, Allah willing.'
Europe is in great danger. Firstly such threats attempt to undermine the supranational or universal values on which Europe is built. Forcing religious belief by the sword, bomb and blackmail is a power given to no man. It is illegitimate. Freedom to choose, and especially freedom of religious choice, is a fundamental value written into Europe's greatCharter of Interdependence. The freedom to hold a religion or not and to change one's religious belief freely is written into the Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, initiated by Robert Schuman and other Founding Fathers. That should make it abundantly clear that Europe is a zone of peace where all debate, political and religious, is open. All views may be analyzed. Violence and the threat of violence is excluded.
What are Europeans leaders doing about the physical danger of a Mid-East war? What would happen if the Persian Gulf is blocked in this seemingly inevitable war between Islamic factions? Despite decades of warnings dating back to the times of the Founding Fathers of the European Community, European leaders have made little progress to the goal of energy independence. Only by saving energy and providing the maximum amount of its own native energy can Europe have an independent foreign policy, rather than being on the hook of its energy suppliers.
We must learn as Schuman said that Europe's salvation must come from itself and those resources given to its citizens, material and spiritual.
Posts
