From: gavrila@imhfhp16.epfl.ch (Spyros Gavrilakis)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek
Subject: Re: Stating relegion on IDs (Re: W/E News)
Date: 24 Dec 92 08:17:58 GMT
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne


>In article <1992Dec22.063804.17896@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gd8f@kelvin.seas.
Virginia.EDU (Gregory  Dandulakis) writes:
>|>
>|>
>|>  I disagree with this statement. Greece is the only EC country
>|>  which neighbors to a non-Christian country. And this creates
>|>  a lot of political friction.
>|>
>
>Could u plz explain the above?  Documenting relegion will probably
>cause friction with other EC countries rather than anything else.


> "Cause friction with other EC countries"? So what?

The essential qualification for being in the EC is high democratic
standards. The rules of membership are obligatory but membership
is optional.

> Didn't Danmark cause friction for the very existence of EC?

No. Everybody in the EC gives Danmark top marks for their compliance
with the Treaty of Rome and the Commission directives. What the
Danes did was to reject the follow-up agreement (Maastricht).

> Didn't everybody bend in their demands?

No, the treaty was not renegotiated. They just got an exemption
from some aspects of the Maastricht treaty. This has been in
recognition of the lukewarm support for the treaty in other
countries like France and Germany. Danmark is also an exemplary
member and its attitude is considered to be typical of all other
Scandinavians all of whom are about become members.

> When EC guarantees the Greek territory against any other state,

This will not happen in the foreseeable future. It is even less
likely since the end of the cold war. But, by allowing Greece
membership (ie veto), the west E. countries have done the next
best thing: they have given Greece diplomatic clout that she
could never attain by herself and generous economic support.

> then Greece can bow to EC demands wrt her security.

The EC was never a defense-orientated organisation. This
demand is out of place within the EC.

> An identity card is a civil document. A document which creates
> differentiation between citizens and not citizens (eg permanent
> residents).

Not so. In every EC country the aliens are required to have an
ID - even when the citizen do not have (e.g. UK).

> Then why not to differentiate between religions.

See below.

> My argument is:

>1. On philosophical grounds, is that the state discriminates
>   based on (eg) place of birth; then why not on crucial importance's
>   for its security philosophical beliefs.

Very obscure, Gregory. What does the above mean?

>2. On legal grounds, the constitution states that Greece is a predominantly
>   Orthodox state.

There are other countries with state relegion which do not oblige
their citizen to have it officialy recorded. Where is the logical
necessity?

> Freedom of religion is an other matter unrelated to
> security concerns (in which case the individual is subjected to state's
> will (as defined by the principle of democratic representation))

>3. On practical grounds, countries have been created based on religious
>   beliefs (eg Israel, Pakistan);

Greece is not one of them. Since you have put so much effort arguing
about history (with A.T. Fear) your point 3 is quite unexpected.

> Turkey IS acting as a "protector" of the Balkan muslims.

Turkey is a powerful country and wants to throw its weight around
whatever the excuse. It is only fear of losing favour with the

West that prevent her from doing so.

> Till all the relevant dangers disappear, then Greek
> state owes to protect itself.

Everybody will agree with this. But what has the above to
do with the stating relegion on the IDs?

>Gr

>PS: The most "strange" appplication form seen so far was that from the
>    "Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center". Not only citizenship and religion
>     were asked, but also nationality...!

Not as odd as you suggest. Cardiac surgery is risky and
if the patient dies all this info will be necessary. As far as
relegion is concerned, this is also essential as some sects
do not allow blood transfusions or organ transplan or have very
unusual rites for their dead.

Here is why stating relegion on IDs is frowned upon :
The priciple is that religious belief is matter of conscience
(even though most of us bother little about it) whose freedom
will be compromised when citizens are required to register
their beliefs. Freedom of conscience is now taken as a basic
human right whose absence would stigmatize any country as
undemocratic. A good analogy would be the  obligation to
state how one voted in previous elections. Can there be
freedom then? Certainly not.

Merry Xmas
sg
Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek