natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Der må skel nes mellem på den ene side religion og den fulde religionsfrihed og på den anden side de vanærende og skændige metoder under dække af religiøse bevægelser eller religiøse organisationer.
A distinction must be made between religion and the inalienable right to religious freedom on the one hand and the degrading and shameful practices adopted under the cloak of religious movements or religious organizations on the other.
Også sir Fred Catherwood har meget tydeligt understreget dette, og hr. Schwencke har givet en lang række eksempler på disse skandaløse metoder.
Sir Fred Catherwood has also emphasized this very strongly, and Mr Schwencke has given numerous examples of these shameful practices. tices.
Jeg er fuldstændig enig i ændringen af titlen.
I fully agree to the change in the title.
Alle religioner varjo i løbet af historien såkaldte nye religiøse bevægelser eller nye religiøse organisationer.
At some time in history every religion was after all a new religious movement or new religious organization.
De var ofte upopulære og i hvert fald kontroversielle i for hold til det bestående system og den almindeligt forekommende religion.
They were often unpopular or at least controversial in the eyes of the dominant system and the religion generally practised.
Den oprindelige anklage, nemlig at nye religiøse organisationer eller bevægelser skulle ødelægge de unge, gentager sig i øvrigt særdeles regel mæssigt i historien.
The original accusation that new religious organizations or movements corrupt the youth has been made throughout history with clockwork regularity.
Lad os blot tænke på Sokrates, Kristus, Catharenne, Frans af Assisi osv.
We need only think of Socrates, Christ, the Cathars, Francis of Assisi and so on.
Scrivener (L). — (FR) Hr. formand, kære kolleger, som vi sagde i går, ville vi have foretrukket, at denne betænkning kunne være blevet behandlet endnu mere dybtgående, men vi vil samtidig takke hr. Cottrell for det umådelige arbejde, han har udført med sagen.
Mrs Scrivener (L). — (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, while we are grateful to Mr Cottrell for the immense amount of work that he has put into this report, we would have been happier, as we said yesterday, if it could have been studied in greater detail.
Men vi ved, at kirkerne har følt sig berørt af denne betænkning, sandsynligvis fordi en række ting ikke var blevet fuldstændig forklaret, og vi kunne navnlig tænke os, at man hørte kirkerne og organiserede høringer.
We are aware that a number of churches have been disturbed at this report, probably because certain things were perhaps not fully explained to them, and it would have been more satisfactory, in our view, if hearings had been held and they had been given an opportunity to put their views.
Det er årsagen til, at vi har ønsket at uddybe denne betænkning.
This is what I mean when I say that we would have been happier if we had been able to study this report in greater detail.
Men da landet nu ligger, som det gør i dag, bør vi atter en gang understrege — jeg tror i øvrigt, at det er en helt generel opfattelse i den ne forsamling — at vi går fuldt ind for religionsfriheden, som er fuldstændig fundamental i vores demokratier, og som det ikke er på tale at gøre indgreb i på nogen som helst måde, og vores engagement er meget dybtgående i denne sag.
However, things being what they are today, we must reaffirm the strength of our commitment — which I am sure every single one of us shares — to religious freedom, which is absolutely fundamental in all our democracies and must not be eroded in any way whatsoever. This is a matter of deep concern to us.
Vi må dog fremhæve, at religionsfriheden ikke kan opdeles i selektive begrænsninger.
And yet we must stress, Mr President, that selective restrictions cannot be imposed on religious freedom.
Hvem skal for øvrigt fastlægge grænsen mellem kirker på den ene side og sekter på den anden side? På hvilket grundlag skal man beskrive religiøse organisationer?
Who is to draw the line between Churches and sects?
I virkelig heden henviser man underforstået til en modsætning mellem sekter eller kulter på den ene side og kirken på den anden side.
In fact, an implicit distinction is made between sects or cults on the one hand and the Church on the other.
Sociologisk er det vanskeligt at skelne, fremfor alt efter indførelsen af begrebet »de nomination«.
Sociologically, it is difficult to make a distinction, especially since the introduction of the term 'denomination'.
Hvilke kriterier anlægges der? Hvem skal opstille dem?
What criteria are applied?
Hvem skal anvende dem?
Who is to apply them?
Fra hvilket stadium er en bevægelse religiøs?
When does a movement start to become religious?
Hvomår kan den kaldes ny?
When can it be called new?
Er det alle bevægelser, som er opstået efter den anden verdenskrig, eller bliver ud trykket »ny« først anvendt fra i dag?
Are all movements which have begun since the Second World War new, or is the word 'new' only applicable from now on?
Vandemeulebroucke fund og friheden til at have familie, venner og en egen personlighed.
It would have been difficult to include all these thoughts in the original report.
Hvor alt dette mangler, drejer det sig ikke om trosfrihed, men tværtimod om en ekla­tant krænkelse af menneskerettigheder.
But I am sorry that we now have to approve this report, because no more than a provisional report has been drawn up in the Dutch Parliament, for example.
Derfor fortje­ner hr. Cottrells betænkning trods mangt et svagt punkt i formuleringen vor tilslutning.
For that reason, and despite certain weaknesses in the formulation, the report of our colleague Mr Cottrell merits our approval.
Jeg vil også geme opfordre til, at der udarbejdes en fortegnelse over lovgivningen i de forskellige lande, og jeg er også enig i den vigtige nuance, som hr. Nyborg pegede på : vil vor ja­stemme blive fortolket som en begrænsning af religionsfriheden, og vil vor nej­stemme ikke blive betragtet som en sejr for sek­terne?
I would also urge that a careful study be made of the legislation in the various countries, and I also agree with the important nuance to which Mr Nyborg has referred : will a vote in favour here be interpreted as a restriction of religious freedom, and will a vote against not be regarded as a victory for the sects?
I hvert fald er nuancen nu anbragt meget bedre end oprindelig, og jeg tror, at vi er kommet vort mål et skridt nærmere.
At all events, the nuance is now far clearer than it was originally, and I think we have come a step nearer to our objective.
Min mest af­gørende indvending mod det er, at selv med æn­dringsforslagene har beslutningsforslaget og betænk­ningen ikke tilstrækkelig fornemmelse for dybden og kompleksiteten i de problemer, det drejer sig om, og jeg tror ikke, at det vil tjene Parlamentet til ære, hvis det vedtager dem.
My fundamental objection to it is that, even with its amendments, the resolution and the report lack sensitivity to the depth and complexity of the issues which are involved, and I do not think that the European Parliament would do itself credit by adopting it.
Lad os f.eks. tage betænkningens filosofi med hensyn til det grundlæggende spørgsmål om forholdet mel­lem religiøs overbevisning, og hvad ordføreren kalder »de verdslige følger af denne overbevisning«.
Let us take, for instance, the report's philosophy on the fundamental question of the relationship between religious belief and what the rapporteur calls 'the secular consequences of belief'.
Vi bør ikke glemme, at dette har været et af de centrale spørgsmål i menneskehedens historie — og så afgjort i den europæiske kulturs historie — men man finder ikke megen forståelse for dets vanskelighed og flerty­dighed i beslutningsforslaget, i betænkningen eller for den sags skyld i debatten i dag.
We should not forget that this has been one of the central issues in human civilization — certainly in European civilization — but one finds little recognition of its difficulty and ambiguity in the resolution, in the report or, indeed, I must say, in the debate today.
Seeler (S). — (DE) Hr. formand, mine damer og her­rer, i den syndflod af breve, som vi i de seneste uger er blevet oversvømmet af, anråbes vi om at gå i bre­chen for trosfriheden og for religionsfriheden.
Mr Seeler (S). — (DE) Mr President, ladies and gen tlemen, in the flood of letters with which we have been inundated in recent weeks we have been urged to intervene on behalf of freedom of religion and of con science.
Og det skal vi virkelig.
In fact, we must.
Af gode grande har Parlamentet gjort beskyttelsen af menneskerettighederne overalt i ver­den til sin opgave.
For good reasons this Parliament has made the protection of human rights all over the world its task.
Som Europas befolknings stemme har vi atter og atter fordømt krænkelser af menneske­rettighederne, hvor som helst i verden vi er blevet opmærksom på dem, og har anstrengt os for at hjælpe og til dels også med godt resultat kæmptet for ret og retfærd.
As the voice of the peoples of Europe we have condemned violations of human rights, no matter where in the world they occurred, we have tried to help and we have fought, sometimes with success, for justice and right.
Trosfriheden er en menneskeret ligesom ret­ten til personlighedens frie udfoldelse.
Freedom of conscience is a human right, as is the free development of personal ity.
Disse menne­skerettigheder bliver dag ud og dag ind misbragt og krænket af mange af disse såkaldte »nye religiøse bevægelser« og ikke kun af dem.
These human rights are daily abused and violated by many of the so-called new religious movements, and not only by them.
Under dække af en religiøs bevægelse gemmer der sig jo ofte ikke andet en intentionen om personlig økonomisk vinding.
The guise of a religious move ment frequently conceals nothing more than intentional personal economic enrichment.
Frem for alt unge mennesker, der leder efter vejled­ning i livet, fællesskab og beskyttelse mod vor hver­dags, vor verdens barske realiteter, bliver ofte skamløst misbrugt.
The search, especially by young people, for personal resources, for a sense of community and protection from the abrasive reality of our everyday lives, of our world, is often shamelessly abused.
Disse menneskers personlige og meget ofte også deres psykiske frihed berøves dem.
Physical freedom, and often psychological freedom as well, is taken away from these people.
De bliver skilt fra deres familier.
They are separated from their families.
Nogle gange bliver de, jeg vil næsten sige som åndelige slaver, udnyttet og udbyttet.
On occasion they are used and exploited, I might almost say like spiritual slaves.
Her retter vor indtrængende appel sig til Fællesska­bernes medlemslande og til alle andre stater i verden om at sætte en stopper for dette ved hjælp af gælden­de strafferetlige bestemmelser.
Here we make an urgent appeal to the Member States of the Community and to other States in the world to use the criminal law to put an end to this activity.
Vi ser, at beslutningsforslaget i punkt Β fastslår, at »der hersker fuldstændig religions­ og meningsfrihed i Fællesskabets medlemsstater«, og at »Fællesskabet derfor ikke har ret til at fælde dom over værdien af religiøs bekendelse i al almindelighed og ej heller det enkelte individs religiøse aktiviteter«.
We see that the resolution states at recital B that 'full freedom of religion and opinion is a principle in the Member States' and that 'the Community institutions therefore have no right to judge the value of either religious beliefs in general or individual religious practices'.
Betænkningen understreger, at »en tro af religiøs natur er et person­ligt anliggende, som intet regeringssystem bør gribe ind i«.
The report emphasizes that 'beliefs of a religious nature are personal and beyond the realm of intervention by systems of government'.
Men lad os samtidig holde os for øje, at hele formålet med Cottrell­betænkningen er at underkaste religionsudøvelsen en regeringskontrol, der er baseret på, hvad der i beslutningsforslaget omtales som »menneske­ og borgerrettighederne«, og muligheden af at disse ting kan have »skadelige virkninger for de impliceredes sociale situation«.
But, at the same time, let us be clear that the whole purpose of the Cottrell report is to subject the practice of beliefs of a religious nature to a system of government based on what the resolution refers to as 'human and civil rights' and the possibility that such practices 'may be detrimental to the position in society of those affected'.
For endnu en gang at sige det helt klart! nye ægte religiøse bevægelser fortjener vor fulde beskyttelse. Jeg siger dette som aktiv evangelisk kristen.
Let it be said quite clearly yet again: new and genuine religious movements deserve our full protection.
Også kristendommen tog sin begyndelse for mere and 2 000 år siden som en ny religiøs berægelse uden den­gang at kunne påberåbe sig tros­ eller religionsfrihed eller skattebegunstigelser eller lignende.
Christianity once started as a new religious movement more than 2 000 years ago, without at that time being able to
Dette rejser ærlig talt et spørgsmål, hr. formand — som jeg ikke håber vil blive anset for blasfemisk — spørgsmålet om hvad der kunne have været mere skadeligt for disciplenes position i samfundet end Jesu befaling til dem om at følge ham ad korsets vej.
Mr President, to be frank, this prompts the question — which I hope will not be thought blasphemous — the question of what could have been more detrimen-
Robert Jackson at forsvare større europæisk enhed, og vi vil få de største vanskeligheder ved at forklare, at europæisk union altså ikke bare omfatter økonomi og forsvar og en lang række vigtige ting.
In a sentence, I believe that the fundamental error of the Cottrell report is that it fails to consider the relevance of our concepts of human and civil rights to those who feel themselves to be living in the immediate presence and the awe and majesty of God, or who feel them selves to be in some sense joined or united to or possessed by the divine essence.
Nej, vi skal til — som hr. Jackson sagde det — at lukke vinduet op til folks sjæleliv.
I do not think that Mr Cottrell has said or done much in this chamber with I have not been 100% in agreement.
Jeg ved ikke nøjagtig, hvad betænkningen har ment, for det fremgår ikke tydeligt; men jeg ved nøjagtig, hvordan den offentlige mening vil opfatte det.
If all the work Mr Cottrell has done here had been used by him in his own country, dealing with a government which has a full majority, it would certainly have achieved greater results.
Man vil i den grad samle tilhængere af dem, der er mod europæisk enhed.
That group once had a slogan, which it has evidently now set aside: harmonization yes, but not for the sake of harmonization.
Det vil være resultatet, hvis Parlamentet i dag vedtager dette.
Now they are going in for the harmonization of countries and conditions which are vastly different.
dømmer former for religionsudøvelse, som er centrale for hele den kristne klostertradition, for slet ikke at tale om andre kulturers religiøse traditioner.
It is only the fact that this question has not been properly addressed which can explain, I think, the insensitivity with which the report condemns, with reference to so-called new religious movements, practices which are central to the whole of the Christian monastic tradition, let alone the religious traditions of other civilizations.
Jeg hen viser i særdeleshed til punkt 2.6 og 2.7 i begrundelsen, som fordømmer forsagelse af ejendom, påtagelse af livsvarige forpligtelser, den personlige viljes under kastelse under en absolut ydre autoritet og udøvelse af, hvad betænkningen omtaler som »sjælelig afhængighedsbehandling, såsom for lidt søvn og kostkontrol... og sublimering af personligheden«.
I refer in particular to paragraphs 2.6 and 2.7 of the explanatory statement which condemn the renunciation of possessions, the undertaking of life long commitments, the submission of the personal will to an absolute external authority, and the practice of what the report calls 'mind dependence' behaviour such as lack of sleep, control of diet. . . and sublimation of personality'.
Når jeg læser disse ord fra det 20. århundredes pop-psykologi, forekommer det mig, at ordføreren ville have haft godt af en kort gennemlæsning af Set. Benedicts regler eller et ophold i et trappist-kloster.
As I read these words, drawn from the 'pop' psychology of the twentieth century, it occurs to me that the rapporteur might have benefited from a brief reading of the Rule of St Benedict or a sojourn in a Trappist house.
En lykkelig ting: mit parti har fire medlemmer af den danske regering.
It is fortunate that my party has four members in the Danish government.
Vi skal gøre alt, hvad vi kan, for at denne regering i Ministerrådet taler imod, at man foretager sig videre i denne sag.
We shall have to do all we can to ensure that that government opposes any further act ion on this matter in the Council of Ministers.
Hr. formand, jeg er lige så forvirret og foruroliget som alle andre over disse nyreligiøse bevægelsers op komst i vore samfund.
Mr President, I am as puzzled and disturbed as any body by the rise in our societies of these so-called new religious movements.
Men jeg er bange for, at jeg ikke kan følge ordføreren eller andre deltagere i den ne debat i deres sikre tro på at vide, hvordan vi skal forholde os til dem.
But I am afraid that I cannot fol low the rapporteur, or other speakers in this debate, in their confidence as to the way in which we should deal with them.
Disse former for religiøs tro og praksis er lige så fremmede for mig som for andre ærede medlemmer.
These beliefs, these practices, are as alien to me as they are to other honourable Members.
Men vi bør altid huske den mulige relevans for denne situation af Pauli beskrivelse af kristendommen som »dårskab for grækerne«.
But we should always remember the possible application to this situation of St Paul's description of Christianity as 'foolishness to the Greeks'.
Hr. formand, jeg tilhører den engelske folkekirke.
Mr President, I am an adherent of the Church of England.
Nu hvor Parlamentet står over for en afstemning om denne vanskelige sag, tror jeg, det vil gøre vel i at holde sig til de ord, som den egentlige grundlægger af den engelske folkekirke, den store dronning Elizabeth I, sagde.
As this House approaches a vote on this difficult matter, I think it would do well to abide by the words of that great lady who was the real founder of the English church.
Hun sagde: »Vi skal ikke gøre os vinduer, så vi kan skue ind i menneskenes sjæle.« Det ville være godt, om vi fulgte det råd i dag.
Queen Elizabeth I said, 'We should not make windows into men's souls'. We would do well to follow that advice today.
Turner (ED). — (EN) Hr. formand, må jeg først svare hr. Robert Jackson, der har rettet al sin kritik mod begrundelsen for dette beslutningsforslag.
Mr Turner (ED). — Mr President, may I first answer Mr Robert Jackson who directed all his criticisms to the explanatory statement of this resolution.
Men vi er slet ikke ved at behandle begrundelsen.
Now, we are not debating the explanatory statements at all.
Vi behandler selve beslutningen, og jeg er enig i, at det oprindelige forslag til beslutning og uden tvivl også selve betænkningen er klodset og uacceptabelt på mange punkter.
We are debating the resolutions themselves, and I agree that the original resolutions, and, no doubt, the report itself, are inept in many places and unacceptable.
Men teksten bliver helt ændret af de ændringsforlag, der er blevet stillet, og som jeg håber vil blive vedtaget.
But they have been totally redrafted by the amendments which have been tabled and which, I hope, will be accepted.
Der er ingen tvivl om, at vi her har et alvorligt internationalt problem med hensyn til misbrug fra nogle af de såkaldte nye religioners side, og jeg nærer ikke selv tvivl om, at Fællesskabets myndigheder og de nationale regeringer må tage sig af disse ting på den måde, som anvises i ændringsforslagene til be slutningsforslaget.
There is no doubt that there is a serious international problem here concerning abuses by some of the so-called new religions, and I have no doubt myself that they must be dealt with by the authorities in the EEC and the national governments in the way called for in the amendments to the resolution.
To af de oprindelige punkter er uacceptable.
Two of the original paragraphs are unacceptable.
Det ene er 2A, som faktisk har til formål at forhindre dåb og konfirmation i en ny kirke, og som således ville have forhindret den urkristne kirkes start for 2 000 år siden. den.
One is 2A, which actually seeks to prevent baptism and confirmation in a new church and thus would have prevented the start up of the early Christian church 2 000 years ago.
Jakobsen (PPE). — Hr. formand, i de 11 år, jeg har været medlem af Parlamentet, ved jeg, at jeg kan rose mig af, at jeg ikke har overbebyrdet Parlamentet med lange taler om mange forskellige ting; så meget stærkere føler jeg mig kaldet til i dag at fremkomme med en alvorlig indsigelse og advarsel til Parlamentet mod det, man her er i gang med at gøre.
Mr Jakobsen (PPE). — (DA) Mr President, in the 11 years I have been a Member of this Parliament, I can safely say that I have not burdened Parliament with long speeches on all kinds of things; I therefore feel called upon all the more strongly to make a protest and give a warning in all seriousness against what we are doing here.
Punkt 5 er også alt for løst formuleret.
Paragraph 5 is also far too loose.
Men som jeg har sagt : af alle de stillede ændringsforslag — og der er 26 i alt — kan jeg acceptere de 24, og jeg tror, at hvis de fleste af dem bliver vedtaget, så vil selve beslutningen blive helt acceptabel.
But as I say, of all the amendments put in — and there are 26 in all — 24 of them are acceptable to me, and I believe that if the majority were adopted the resolutions themselves would be wholly acceptable.
Turner sant, at af alle de stillede ændringsforslag stemmer de 24 helt overens med hinanden, og det tyder på, at Parlamentet efter at have set det oprindelige forslag er nået frem til en fornuftig konklusion, hvis det da vedtager disse ændringsforslag.
It is interesting that of all the amendments tabled, 24 of them are all wholly in accord with each other and indicate that the Parliament as a whole, having seen the original draft, has come to a reasonable conclusion, if, indeed, it accepts these amendments.
— mænd, kvinder og bøm — engang selvmord sammen som resultat af en selvbestaltet gurus fikse idé.
In the South American jungles 900 people, men, women and children, once committed suicide together, at the whim of a self-appointed guru.
Vi vil have gjort meget for Europas befolkning, hvis vi kan undgå, at det nogen sinde skulle ske her.
Now we would be doing much for the people of Europe if we prevented that ever happening here.
Vi taler meget her i Parlamentet om menneskerettighedsproblemer, og som jeg kort sagde i går, så drejer det te sig om menneskerettigheder.
We talk much in this House about issues of human rights and as I said briefly yes terday, this is human rights.
Det gælder menneskerettighederne for vor egen befolkning her i Fælles skaberne, som har ret til at forvente, at Parlamentet skal virke som det europæiske forum, der afstikker retningslinjerne for, hvorledes anstændighed og de mokrati kan sikres i fremtiden.
It is the human rights of our own people in this Community who have a right to look to this Parliament as the European forum lay ing down the guidelines by which decency and democracy can be conducted in the future.
Hvis man skulle prøve på at gennemføre det, som hr. Cottrell foreslår det kompetente Ministerråd, vil det jo i realiteten betyde, at man er nødt til at registrere alle religiøse bevægelser, og dermed vil man begynde at røre ved det afgørende for os som danske konservative — religionsfriheden.
If we tried to implement what Mr Cottrell is proposing to the Council of Ministers competent in the matter, it would in reality mean that we would be forced to register all religious movements, and in so doing we should be starting to meddle in what for us Danish conservatives is a vital principle: religious free dom.