7 ms·

This was a vote that had very little dissent; it easily surpassed the supermajority that was required to amend the constitution. There was only one major group

by jawns 3y ago

This was a vote that had very little dissent; it easily surpassed the supermajority that was required to amend the constitution. There was only one major group that spoke out against the decision: the Catholic Church. Almost half of the French population reported that they were Catholic in a 2020 survey, but it's clear that when it comes to abortion, almost no French Catholics are influenced by the Church's strong opposition to abortion. That's in stark contrast to the US, where opposition to abortion, mostly among Christian denominations, has remained an intractable issue. People predicted that after Roe V. Wade was decided, opposition to abortion would fade away, but it never did. Indeed, for the better part of 50 years, opposition fluctuated only a few percentage points, unlike almost every other major social issue.

oliwarner 3y ago
> Almost half of the French population reported that they were Catholic If you break that down generationally, you see 70% in 70+, scaling down to about 15% in young adults, with atheism mopping up the difference. The older people may have believed, the middle cohort were raised by believers and think of themselves as Catholic by creed, but they haven't passed it on to their kids. The same is generally true in the rest of Europe. The social contract that everyone goes to church on Sunday has broken.
- silent_cal 3y ago
  This is always so interesting to me. Are you European? Or do you have any insight as to why this might be happening?
  - silverquiet 3y ago
    Not a European, but an American lapsed Catholic. I mean... it's pretty obvious that religion is make-believe, right? I'd love to believe it, but I've never seen one iota of evidence for beliefs of the church. Basically there was no reason to keep going once I realized that, other than to make my parents happy.
    - jawns 3y ago
      > it's pretty obvious that religion is make-believe, right? If it were that self-apparent, wouldn't we expect Kant, Kierkegaard, Anselm, Anscombe, Heidegger, Gödel, or the countless other philosophers and heavy thinkers of the past several centuries to have not even wrestled with the question? Heck, even Antony Flew, a contemporary philosopher of religion who was a staunch advocate of atheism for much of his career, later declared himself a theist. Did he simply fail to realize that it's pretty obvious that religion is make-believe? What do you know that they didn't? What did they know that you might not?
      - silverquiet 3y ago
        It's because the implications suck - our consciousness is nothing more than a physical phenomenon; we are the meat in our heads. Once that meat dies, we're gone forever. It's not an easy thing to deal with.
        rimunroe 3y ago
        > It's because the implications suck - our consciousness is nothing more than a physical phenomenon; we are the meat in our heads. Once that meat dies, we're gone forever. It's not an easy thing to deal with. I've heard both theists and atheists express similar feelings about the implications of physicalism (I think that's the term, but I'm not a philosopher), but I've never understood why in anything other than an abstract sense. I can understand why someone would be concerned by things ending so finally, but it's not like you'll be around afterward to feel bad about it. If anything I find it very comforting. I can understand wanting to be around for other people, but afaik there are plenty of religions where people aren't able to intervene after death and I don't hear the same concerns about those.
        rayiner 3y ago
        It goes beyond the fear of death. Much of western society is built on the Christian notion of divinity of man. The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable right[s]." There is an internal logic to this statement. It starts with the premise that God created man, and proceeds to assume that, in doing so, he endowed man with "unalienable rights." Supposedly secular western people invoke the same basic concept. For example, they talk about things like "human dignity": https://www.humanrightscareers.com/issues/definitions-what-is-human-dignity/ https://www.humanrightscareers.com/issues/definitions-what-i... ("At its most basic, the concept of human dignity is the belief that all people hold a special value that’s tied solely to their humanity."). That papers over God as the source of "human dignity" but it's expressing the same basic belief. That assertion makes no logical sense if you abandon the underlying metaphysical notion and posit that humans are actually just meat.
  - sfmz 3y ago
    The Post-Vatican II Church teaches you can be saved in any religion and even in no religion, logically, if that were the case, then why would one bother with Catholicism? Modern clerics like Antipope Francis and Robert Barron don't even think people go to Hell. Vatican II Is A New Religion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX97Qg4DIJU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX97Qg4DIJU The Figures on the post-Vatican II decline https://vaticancatholic.com/29_Figures.pdf https://vaticancatholic.com/29_Figures.pdf
    - holyc 3y ago
      Brother, I believe you. It seems like you feel deeply betrayed by the Church and I can resonate with where that comes from. Please don't let this harden your heart to knowing Jesus and praying for God's grace.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - silent_cal 3y ago
      Never thought I would meet a sede on Hacker News of all places. You guys are nuts.
  - dauertewigkeit 3y ago
    Being Christian in Europe and the US are two completely different experiences. The two chief differences that I notice: 1. In Europe it is sort of the default state. Everyone belongs to the same Church. It is not really part of one's identity. American Christians are so splintered that being part of a Church means being part of a significantly smaller community and that plays a much bigger role in forming one's identity. The community aspect of Church is similarly more pronounced in the US for this reason. 2. American Jesus is your personal trainer, your protector, your personal cheerleader, your forever companion. European Jesus is technically supposed to also be those things but nobody really buys into it. The fervent belief in the efficacy of prayer is completely lacking. That gives people less incentive to go to Church.
    - Anthony-G 3y ago
      I don’t know about the US but Point 1 definitely resonates with me. I grew up in the Republic of Ireland during the 1980s when the vast majority (more than 90%) of people identified as Roman Catholics. I took it all very seriously (prayed multiple times each day, read the bible, a little theology, lives of saints, etc.) but my fellow Christians didn’t take anywhere near seriously: attending Mass on a Sunday, first communions, confirmations, weddings and funerals. While they might vote against abortion and divorce and send their children to Catholic schools, their beliefs didn’t really impact their daily lives. Some of my parents’ generation believed in the efficacy of prayer:I always had my other and other relations praying for me during exams and if anyone was ever sick or having medical treatment, they would be prayed for. But most of my own generation didn’t share this belief in the efficacy of prayer. They certainly didn’t buy into the concept of Jesus/God being an integral part of their lives. The Catholic church had the dominant position, so other than controlling educational, medical and other institutes, it provide its members with the same sense of community as that of Church of Ireland and other minority religions. On the other hand, with its diversity of Christian churches, north of the border was much more like how you describe the US. The identity with religion was (is) much stronger as it usually corresponds with the individual’s national identity (Irish or British). Note: Support for the Catholic Church in the Republic declined drastically in the nineties when the church lost its moral authority as news came out about how the hierarchy had facilitated child abuse and various other scandals.
  - koonsolo 3y ago
    I'm from Belgium, born in 1979, so I'll give you some insight since you're interested :). My grandparents (farmers) went to church every Sunday. In those days it was kind of like a central meeting place to meet your neighbors. The Church back then also tried to push certain rules on people, that people for obvious reasons didn't like so much. I know my grandma never really believed in god, but my grandpa did. My parents are like half-believers. I guess they believe in something, but that generation already knows Jesus didn't really walk on water etc. They might still believe in an afterlife. They had periods where we went to church every week, and other periods where we didn't go. Then my generation: we were raised in school as rational people. And as you might know, rationality and religion never go well together. None of my male buddies believes in any religion. We might have a good laugh about it, and find the concept overall ludicrous and obviously false. It's 100% clear to us that it's all bullshit and make-believe. For the women, they believe in "something", something "bigger than us". That's all I can say about it. But overall, the Church has lost it's power due to lecturing people what they should and shouldn't do, and also obvious false claims, misconduct, etc. Nobody likes the one who claims to know better than the rest. My wife is from Slovakia, and I would say they are running about 1 generation behind concerning religion. Churches there are now getting less and less people, while in Belgium that already happened a generation ago. We still have certain regions that are more religious than others. And I know in the Netherlands there is a 'bible belt' where people are extremely religious, not taking anti-conception and all those other rules (they end up having 12 kids). If you teach people rationality and learning to be sceptic, it's hard to sell them on something where you can live forever, as long as you follow some rules made up 2000 years ago.
    - silent_cal 3y ago
      But did your grandparents really believe? What was different about the cultural situation that they lived in and yours? Or were they just a different kind of person who found it easier to believe?
      - koonsolo 3y ago
        I think the big difference is information. My grandparents were born around 1920. There was no radio, no TV. It would surprise me if they had any form of newspaper (I need to ask my dad). Their world was very small, situated under the church tower. So all info basically came from what they knew from their parents, the farm, their neighbors, and on Sunday what the priest said. There were school teachers of course, which were regarded the same as a doctor or lawyer. But their own knowledge was probably also very limited science wise. Like I said before, even if they didn't really believe, they would still go to Church on Sunday. One of my granddads had a more religious family, and his brother was a Monk and sister a Nun. My parents know the introduction of radio & TV. People get smarter, know more, probably also start questioning things more. And my generation, well, we had an excellent education. It's very hard to not start questioning things. In the end, I think it starts deteriorating step by step. First it starts out with "Probably Jesus didn't really walk on water, it's just a matter of speech." And then it's other things. People get smarter, in their own lifetime but also over generations. It wouldn't surprise me if my grandparents and parents were more religious when they were younger. Also, I was told there was a cinema where people would go to watch movies (before TV). The priest would go see the new movie first, and then tell everyone if they were allowed to go see that movie or not. People don't like that kind of control, and start rebelling against it. "The priest sees all the dirty things but we're not allowed". At least for me, it feels like I started questioning things. I believed in God up until I was around 12. It also felt rebellious to know that it was all bullshit, while everyone else said it was real. But I guess it wasn't really rebellious since almost all boys of my age thought the same thing, especially at the age of 15.
  - oliwarner 3y ago
    I am English, and spend a fair bit of time in France. In France particularly, the state is aggressively secular. They go out of their way to ensure no religion has any footing in any part of government and this occasionally makes it hard to be religious if you're unable to wear the expected garb or paraphernalia at school or at your government job. The French have a long history of not wanting a single unimpeachable ruler. God just isn't welcome.
    - paulmd 3y ago
      Part of it is that for a lot of Europeans this is still in living memory I think. It’s really interesting to me how recently some “modern, first-world countries” were still dictatorships or still undergoing rapid democratization. France, Spain, and Korea are all dramatic examples, we totally don’t think of it in this context but at the start of the 80s Korea was a backwater under a military dictatorship, in the 50s France was a quasi dictatorship under de Gaulle with internal instability and unrest, Spain was under a fascist dictator until 1975, etc. Plus there is the other factor that the structure of European cities and societies is much more amenable to protests and political action, where the US citizenry is atomized by design.
freedomben 3y ago
[flagged]
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  Abortion "the day before birth" is not a thing come on. No medical professional does that and no mainstream politician advocates for it.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    But it makes for a great talking point and strawman, doesn't it? As soon as someone brings that up, one can savely ignore the rest of what they have to say on the subject.
    - freedomben 3y ago
      > As soon as someone brings that up, one can savely ignore the rest of what they have to say on the subject. Ah yes, the perfect example of our contemporary confirmation bias at work. As soon as someone says something you don't like, dismiss them on that and everything else.
      - hef19898 3y ago
        Oh, don't worry, time permitted I still read through all that gibberish to accoint for the risk of being wrong. Happens once every blue moon. Let's run a test: What's your position on nuclear power vs. solar and wind?
        freedomben 3y ago
        I'm not an expert by any stretch on those topics, so I largely defer to people who are, but I see in them all a set of pros and cons, tradeoffs that we have to make. Nuclear has enormous potential IMHO and I think we've missed opportunities by being so afraid it, though the issue of safety and waste disposal are very real. Nuclear could unlock lots of other potential energy technologies though including desalination and other things that take enormous amounts of power, because they burn 24/7 even when demand is low. We cold use that excess instead of wasting it. Wind largely seems like not worth it, between the disruptions to birds and other wildlife, the huge resources involved to built and maintain it, and the unreliability of it, and general low power output, it doesn't seem to me like the best investment, with maybe a few exceptions like a particularly windy mountain pass or something. Solar is wonderful, particularly the localization that it enables. The con with solar though is that it requires storage (batteries) because it only produces when the sun is shining. There may be some clever ways to work around that, but Lithium is already becoming harder to get and there are concerns about sustainability even just for building EVs. If we have to start putting huge battery banks in homes, that might not be sustainable/scalable. How about you? what are your thoughts on those?

by jawns 3y ago

oliwarner 3y ago

> Almost half of the French population reported that they were Catholic If you break that down generationally, you see 70% in 70+, scaling down to about 15% in young adults, with atheism mopping up the difference. The older people may have believed, the middle cohort were raised by believers and think of themselves as Catholic by creed, but they haven't passed it on to their kids. The same is generally true in the rest of Europe. The social contract that everyone goes to church on Sunday has broken.

silent_cal 3y ago
This is always so interesting to me. Are you European? Or do you have any insight as to why this might be happening?
- silverquiet 3y ago
  Not a European, but an American lapsed Catholic. I mean... it's pretty obvious that religion is make-believe, right? I'd love to believe it, but I've never seen one iota of evidence for beliefs of the church. Basically there was no reason to keep going once I realized that, other than to make my parents happy.
  - jawns 3y ago
    > it's pretty obvious that religion is make-believe, right? If it were that self-apparent, wouldn't we expect Kant, Kierkegaard, Anselm, Anscombe, Heidegger, Gödel, or the countless other philosophers and heavy thinkers of the past several centuries to have not even wrestled with the question? Heck, even Antony Flew, a contemporary philosopher of religion who was a staunch advocate of atheism for much of his career, later declared himself a theist. Did he simply fail to realize that it's pretty obvious that religion is make-believe? What do you know that they didn't? What did they know that you might not?
    - silverquiet 3y ago
      It's because the implications suck - our consciousness is nothing more than a physical phenomenon; we are the meat in our heads. Once that meat dies, we're gone forever. It's not an easy thing to deal with.
      - rimunroe 3y ago
        > It's because the implications suck - our consciousness is nothing more than a physical phenomenon; we are the meat in our heads. Once that meat dies, we're gone forever. It's not an easy thing to deal with. I've heard both theists and atheists express similar feelings about the implications of physicalism (I think that's the term, but I'm not a philosopher), but I've never understood why in anything other than an abstract sense. I can understand why someone would be concerned by things ending so finally, but it's not like you'll be around afterward to feel bad about it. If anything I find it very comforting. I can understand wanting to be around for other people, but afaik there are plenty of religions where people aren't able to intervene after death and I don't hear the same concerns about those.
        rayiner 3y ago
        It goes beyond the fear of death. Much of western society is built on the Christian notion of divinity of man. The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable right[s]." There is an internal logic to this statement. It starts with the premise that God created man, and proceeds to assume that, in doing so, he endowed man with "unalienable rights." Supposedly secular western people invoke the same basic concept. For example, they talk about things like "human dignity": https://www.humanrightscareers.com/issues/definitions-what-is-human-dignity/ https://www.humanrightscareers.com/issues/definitions-what-i... ("At its most basic, the concept of human dignity is the belief that all people hold a special value that’s tied solely to their humanity."). That papers over God as the source of "human dignity" but it's expressing the same basic belief. That assertion makes no logical sense if you abandon the underlying metaphysical notion and posit that humans are actually just meat.
- sfmz 3y ago
  The Post-Vatican II Church teaches you can be saved in any religion and even in no religion, logically, if that were the case, then why would one bother with Catholicism? Modern clerics like Antipope Francis and Robert Barron don't even think people go to Hell. Vatican II Is A New Religion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX97Qg4DIJU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX97Qg4DIJU The Figures on the post-Vatican II decline https://vaticancatholic.com/29_Figures.pdf https://vaticancatholic.com/29_Figures.pdf
  - holyc 3y ago
    Brother, I believe you. It seems like you feel deeply betrayed by the Church and I can resonate with where that comes from. Please don't let this harden your heart to knowing Jesus and praying for God's grace.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - silent_cal 3y ago
    Never thought I would meet a sede on Hacker News of all places. You guys are nuts.
- dauertewigkeit 3y ago
  Being Christian in Europe and the US are two completely different experiences. The two chief differences that I notice: 1. In Europe it is sort of the default state. Everyone belongs to the same Church. It is not really part of one's identity. American Christians are so splintered that being part of a Church means being part of a significantly smaller community and that plays a much bigger role in forming one's identity. The community aspect of Church is similarly more pronounced in the US for this reason. 2. American Jesus is your personal trainer, your protector, your personal cheerleader, your forever companion. European Jesus is technically supposed to also be those things but nobody really buys into it. The fervent belief in the efficacy of prayer is completely lacking. That gives people less incentive to go to Church.
  - Anthony-G 3y ago
    I don’t know about the US but Point 1 definitely resonates with me. I grew up in the Republic of Ireland during the 1980s when the vast majority (more than 90%) of people identified as Roman Catholics. I took it all very seriously (prayed multiple times each day, read the bible, a little theology, lives of saints, etc.) but my fellow Christians didn’t take anywhere near seriously: attending Mass on a Sunday, first communions, confirmations, weddings and funerals. While they might vote against abortion and divorce and send their children to Catholic schools, their beliefs didn’t really impact their daily lives. Some of my parents’ generation believed in the efficacy of prayer:I always had my other and other relations praying for me during exams and if anyone was ever sick or having medical treatment, they would be prayed for. But most of my own generation didn’t share this belief in the efficacy of prayer. They certainly didn’t buy into the concept of Jesus/God being an integral part of their lives. The Catholic church had the dominant position, so other than controlling educational, medical and other institutes, it provide its members with the same sense of community as that of Church of Ireland and other minority religions. On the other hand, with its diversity of Christian churches, north of the border was much more like how you describe the US. The identity with religion was (is) much stronger as it usually corresponds with the individual’s national identity (Irish or British). Note: Support for the Catholic Church in the Republic declined drastically in the nineties when the church lost its moral authority as news came out about how the hierarchy had facilitated child abuse and various other scandals.
- koonsolo 3y ago
  I'm from Belgium, born in 1979, so I'll give you some insight since you're interested :). My grandparents (farmers) went to church every Sunday. In those days it was kind of like a central meeting place to meet your neighbors. The Church back then also tried to push certain rules on people, that people for obvious reasons didn't like so much. I know my grandma never really believed in god, but my grandpa did. My parents are like half-believers. I guess they believe in something, but that generation already knows Jesus didn't really walk on water etc. They might still believe in an afterlife. They had periods where we went to church every week, and other periods where we didn't go. Then my generation: we were raised in school as rational people. And as you might know, rationality and religion never go well together. None of my male buddies believes in any religion. We might have a good laugh about it, and find the concept overall ludicrous and obviously false. It's 100% clear to us that it's all bullshit and make-believe. For the women, they believe in "something", something "bigger than us". That's all I can say about it. But overall, the Church has lost it's power due to lecturing people what they should and shouldn't do, and also obvious false claims, misconduct, etc. Nobody likes the one who claims to know better than the rest. My wife is from Slovakia, and I would say they are running about 1 generation behind concerning religion. Churches there are now getting less and less people, while in Belgium that already happened a generation ago. We still have certain regions that are more religious than others. And I know in the Netherlands there is a 'bible belt' where people are extremely religious, not taking anti-conception and all those other rules (they end up having 12 kids). If you teach people rationality and learning to be sceptic, it's hard to sell them on something where you can live forever, as long as you follow some rules made up 2000 years ago.
  - silent_cal 3y ago
    But did your grandparents really believe? What was different about the cultural situation that they lived in and yours? Or were they just a different kind of person who found it easier to believe?
    - koonsolo 3y ago
      I think the big difference is information. My grandparents were born around 1920. There was no radio, no TV. It would surprise me if they had any form of newspaper (I need to ask my dad). Their world was very small, situated under the church tower. So all info basically came from what they knew from their parents, the farm, their neighbors, and on Sunday what the priest said. There were school teachers of course, which were regarded the same as a doctor or lawyer. But their own knowledge was probably also very limited science wise. Like I said before, even if they didn't really believe, they would still go to Church on Sunday. One of my granddads had a more religious family, and his brother was a Monk and sister a Nun. My parents know the introduction of radio & TV. People get smarter, know more, probably also start questioning things more. And my generation, well, we had an excellent education. It's very hard to not start questioning things. In the end, I think it starts deteriorating step by step. First it starts out with "Probably Jesus didn't really walk on water, it's just a matter of speech." And then it's other things. People get smarter, in their own lifetime but also over generations. It wouldn't surprise me if my grandparents and parents were more religious when they were younger. Also, I was told there was a cinema where people would go to watch movies (before TV). The priest would go see the new movie first, and then tell everyone if they were allowed to go see that movie or not. People don't like that kind of control, and start rebelling against it. "The priest sees all the dirty things but we're not allowed". At least for me, it feels like I started questioning things. I believed in God up until I was around 12. It also felt rebellious to know that it was all bullshit, while everyone else said it was real. But I guess it wasn't really rebellious since almost all boys of my age thought the same thing, especially at the age of 15.
- oliwarner 3y ago
  I am English, and spend a fair bit of time in France. In France particularly, the state is aggressively secular. They go out of their way to ensure no religion has any footing in any part of government and this occasionally makes it hard to be religious if you're unable to wear the expected garb or paraphernalia at school or at your government job. The French have a long history of not wanting a single unimpeachable ruler. God just isn't welcome.
  - paulmd 3y ago
    Part of it is that for a lot of Europeans this is still in living memory I think. It’s really interesting to me how recently some “modern, first-world countries” were still dictatorships or still undergoing rapid democratization. France, Spain, and Korea are all dramatic examples, we totally don’t think of it in this context but at the start of the 80s Korea was a backwater under a military dictatorship, in the 50s France was a quasi dictatorship under de Gaulle with internal instability and unrest, Spain was under a fascist dictator until 1975, etc. Plus there is the other factor that the structure of European cities and societies is much more amenable to protests and political action, where the US citizenry is atomized by design.

freedomben 3y ago

[flagged]

giraffe_lady 3y ago
Abortion "the day before birth" is not a thing come on. No medical professional does that and no mainstream politician advocates for it.
- hef19898 3y ago
  But it makes for a great talking point and strawman, doesn't it? As soon as someone brings that up, one can savely ignore the rest of what they have to say on the subject.
  - freedomben 3y ago
    > As soon as someone brings that up, one can savely ignore the rest of what they have to say on the subject. Ah yes, the perfect example of our contemporary confirmation bias at work. As soon as someone says something you don't like, dismiss them on that and everything else.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      Oh, don't worry, time permitted I still read through all that gibberish to accoint for the risk of being wrong. Happens once every blue moon. Let's run a test: What's your position on nuclear power vs. solar and wind?
      - freedomben 3y ago
        I'm not an expert by any stretch on those topics, so I largely defer to people who are, but I see in them all a set of pros and cons, tradeoffs that we have to make. Nuclear has enormous potential IMHO and I think we've missed opportunities by being so afraid it, though the issue of safety and waste disposal are very real. Nuclear could unlock lots of other potential energy technologies though including desalination and other things that take enormous amounts of power, because they burn 24/7 even when demand is low. We cold use that excess instead of wasting it. Wind largely seems like not worth it, between the disruptions to birds and other wildlife, the huge resources involved to built and maintain it, and the unreliability of it, and general low power output, it doesn't seem to me like the best investment, with maybe a few exceptions like a particularly windy mountain pass or something. Solar is wonderful, particularly the localization that it enables. The con with solar though is that it requires storage (batteries) because it only produces when the sun is shining. There may be some clever ways to work around that, but Lithium is already becoming harder to get and there are concerns about sustainability even just for building EVs. If we have to start putting huge battery banks in homes, that might not be sustainable/scalable. How about you? what are your thoughts on those?