Member quotes September 22th
Araceli Turmo. I think we can encourage a pan-European orientation that would tend to allow euthanasia at least in its passive form...Josep Ortega. While all languages, including minority languages must be protected for the sake of cultural diversity and popular bonding to them, too often they are enforced to promote political nationalism and gain support for nationalistic ideology and parties.
Brigit McCone. I actually don't much like the idea of English as the common language, because it will quickly be stripped of its cultural context and respect (as is already happening). But I have to recognise that English, as the language that most Europeans are statistically familiar with, would probably be less of a strain to switch to than esperanto
2 Comments:
I was interested to discover Europe United today, and your comment above in particular caught my eye.
I share your distaste with the idea of English as a common language for Europe, not only because of the abuse the language would suffer, but also because of the unfairness inherent in such a system. A quick anecdote to illustrate the first point: when teaching English as a foreign language to classes of European businessmen, I have only once been asked to include something "cultural" (a poem, a bit of Shakespeare, or anything similar), and the one person who suggested it was shouted down by the rest of the group. "We want useful stuff," they said, i.e. English divested as much as possible of its history and roots. The "English" that they end up speaking is a reduced code which is for the most part inadequate for actually expressing any original thought.
On the second point, I object to any system that arbitrarily and eternally favours a privileged minority over the majority, and the adoption of English as European lingua franca would do just that. Any foreigner who has ever been in a situation of conflict with a native speaker of English can attest to the power one has when using one's native tongue to beat down an opponent, be it in a political debate, a commercial negotiation, or just an argument over who was next in the check-in queue.
Where I disagree with you, with respect, is the point where you throw up your arms and say, "Well, if that's what the majority currently favours, then I'll just go along with them." You may choose to, and that's a choice you're free to make, but I actively participate in trying to educate the majority and show them that there is a neutral, fair and highly effective alternative, which is of course Esperanto. I don't want to force it on anybody, but most people seem to know so little about it that it's impossible for them to make an informed choice on the matter.
While it's currently true that many more people are acquainted with English than with Esperanto, it's very common to find that people's knowledge and confidence in English are really rather shallow, and both quickly run out once the pleasantries are over. This is the result of thousands of hours and billions of Euros spent teaching English across the continent. Talk to any teacher or student of Esperanto, though, and you'll discover a very common experience: that people reach a level of Esperanto in 6 to 12 months that it took them years and years to reach in any other foreign language. It's startling how much more straightforward it is to learn and use, but pleasantly surprising also in the power of expression that one discovers at one's fingertips. No pre-formed sentences to regurgitate (à la Business English) here!
I've gone on quite long enough, and I'm grateful for the time you've given to reading my message, if you've got this far through it. I'd be pleased to receive a response from you, be it here or on my blog, where I have posted this message.
I am rather concerned at your liberal line on euthanasia. Passive Euthanasia is morally permissible in some circumstances, such as where the death is imminent, irreversible etc, but active euthanasia can never be morally acceptable. It deprives someone of the right to life, and violates their God-given dignity. It seems to suggest that you oppose the Culture of Life. Seeing as you are federalists, would you let each individual state have the power to make decisions on moral issues such as these? Would you force your liberal laws on countries even if the local population were against? As an Irishman, I am very concerned that Eurocrats will force Ireland to legalize abortion(ie murder in the womb, baby butchery etc), would you support forcing Ireland to overturn its ban on abortion? Would you force states to promote homosexuality and legalize homosexual "marriage"? The Lord tells us in His word that homosexuality is an abdomination and that He hates it. To perverse marriage by accomodating this perversion is an act worthy of eternal damnation. These are pressing issues many Europeans have great concern about, and the last thing they want is Euro enforced social liberalism in their country.
Post a Comment
<< Home