THMMY.gr

Απόλυτη διάψευση της επί χρόνια διηγούμενης (από τον κ. Σημίτη και το ΠΑΣΟΚ) "ιστορίας" ότι δήθεν η Κομισιόν ζήτησε τη διαγραφή του θρησκεύματος από τις ταυτότητες αποτελεί η απάντηση του Αντιπροέδρου της Κομισιόν κ. Φραττίνι σε κοινοβουλευτική ερώτηση του Γ. Καρατζαφέρη, μια εξέλιξη που δημιουργεί νέα δεδομένα αφού πλέον η κυβέρνηση του κ. Καραμανλή θα μπορούσε να προχωρήσει στην προαιρετική - και απόλυτα δημοκρατική - αναγραφή του θρησκεύματος.

Υπενθυμίζεται ότι ο κ. Καρατζαφέρης ρωτούσε την Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή "αν έχει στείλει ποτέ γραπτό αίτημα στην ελληνική κυβέρνηση με το οποίο να της ζητεί την απαλοιφή του θρησκεύματος από τις ταυτότητες που εκδίδει το ελληνικό κράτος", και ο Αντιπρόεδρος της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής κ. Φραττίνι είναι σαφής στην απάντησή του: "Η Επιτροπή θα ήθελε να πληροφορήσει το Αξιότιμο Μέλος του Κοινοβουλίου ότι δεν απέστειλε ποτέ τέτοιο αίτημα στις ελληνικές αρχές"

Πηγή: http://www.e-grammes.gr/article.php?id=1803

Η πλάκα σου έχει καταντήσει spam.
και σπαμ ιδιαίτερα εκνευριστικό.

Προτείνω να τη σταματήσεις.

Το παραπάνω ζήτημα αναφέρθηκε και εχθές στην ολομέλεια της βουλής

Τα υπόλοιπα;

Μ'αρέσει όμως η αντικειμενικότητα των πηγών του terabitos. :P

"Απόλυτα δημοκρατικό" να μην μπορείς να έχεις τα πιστεύω σου προσωπικά και απόρρητα. ;D

Εφόσον δεν επιθυμείς να αναγραφεί το θρήσκευμα στην ταυτότητα σου, θα έχεις αυτήν την δυνατότητα.

Και έτσι απλά όποιος δεν γράφει το θρήσκευμά του θα είναι ο σημαδεμένος! Το θρήσκευμα, που είναι ένα καθαρά προσωπικό θέμα, όπως και οι πολιτικές αντιλήψεις, δεν έχουν καμία δουλειά να αναγράφονται σε ένα επίσημο κρατικό έγγραφο.

Τώρα αν εσύ θες να φαίνεται ότι είσαι χριστιανός βγες και βροντοφώναξέ το ή κρέμασε ταμπέλα, καρφίτσα, αυτοκόλλητο κτλ. Αυτό είναι δικαίωμα σου!

στην ελλαδα εισαι οτι δηλωσεις.οποιαδηποτε συγκριση με καταστασεις ειναι εντελως ακυρη.

Ντρέπεσαι για αυτό που πιστεύεις?
Όποιος ντρέπεται για αυτό που πιστεύει τότε μάλλον κάπου κάνει λαθος και χρειάζεται να το ψάξει.

Identity crisis: Greece, orthodoxy, and the European
Union
Lina Molokotos-Liederman
Online Publication Date: 01 October 2003



The Critics of Religion on Identity Cards
Those who expressed their disagreement to the mandatory or voluntary
declaration of religion on identity cards were primarily legal experts, journalists,
intellectuals and academics, representatives of the Catholic and Jewish
communities in Greece, politicians representing mostly socialist and left wing
parties, but—as indicated earlier—very few members of the clergy. Some
intellectuals, academics, and left wing politicians used the controversy as an
opportunity to advocate a more radical change in Church–State relations (see
below).
1. Helleno-Orthodoxy as Cultural Heritage
Just like those in favour of including
religion on identity cards, the critics acknowledge that the majority of the Greek
population is Orthodox, but they argue that, precisely because Orthodoxy is a
majority religion, there is no need to indicate religion on state documents
(Rizospastis, 18th May, 2000). They acknowledge the link between Hellenism and
Orthodoxy at a cultural, rather than political or state level (Vima, 10th May,
1998). They also argue that the collective Orthodox identity of the majority of
Greek citizens should not be confused with their individual identities
established in a state document (Nea, 17th May, 2000). They conceive of
Orthodoxy as a faith to live by and not as a belief to declare to government
authorities (Nea, 8th April, 1993; Vima, 17th January, 1993). This group further
argues that Orthodoxy, having survived on its own strength throughout
centuries, does not need a ‘crutch’ in form of a state document and that
including religion on identity cards does not strengthen or weaken the position
of the Church in Greek society (Eleftherotypia, 18th January, 1993; Eleftherotypia,
19th May, 2000; Nea, 15th May, 2000; Nea, 25th May, 2000).
Referring to arguments that are more specific to Greek Church–State relations,
the opponents insist that the release of the Greek Church from State control
will be beneficial to both parties, because the intermingling of Church and
State undermines democracy and the original Christian mission of the Church
(Rizospastis, 16th May, 2000; Kathimerini, 14th May, 2000; Nea, 1st April, 1993;
Vima, 10th May, 1998; Eleftherotypia, 13th May, 2000; Eleftherotypia, 16th May,
2000). They perceive the Church’s insistence on including religion on identity
cards as tainting its ecumenical and spiritual mission, which borders on
nationalism, fanaticism, fundamentalism, and political favouritism
(Eleftherotypia, 18th January, 1993; Eleftherotypia, 6th February, 1998; Vima, 21st
May, 2000; Rizospastis, 16th May, 2000; Nea, 25th May, 2000). In a further critique
of the Church, they argue that it is going through a moral and ethical crisis, that
it does not seem to be concerned about the real problems of Greek society, and
that it attempts to discriminate against non-Orthodox citizens and to maintain
spheres of influence on various facets of public and political life (Eleftherotypia,
18th January, 1993; Eleftherotypia, 6th February, 1998).
Both those in favour and those against religion on identity cards clearly
acknowledge the bond between nation and religion and between Hellenism and
Orthodoxy. However, the former see it as a defence mechanism against external
forces, with government policies being responsible for its survival, thus
justifying the support for religion on identity cards. The latter see the
Helleno-Orthodox heritage of Greece as a component of Greece’s spiritual and
cultural identity and not as an all-embracing outlook whose survival depends on
support from state documents. Their view of Helleno-Orthodoxy is reflected in
Church–State relations, which they do not view as a relationship of mutual
dependency. Although few explicitly advocate the separation of Church and
State,47 most of those against religion on identity cards prefer a looser
relationship between the Greek State and the Church. In their critique of the
Church, they allude to its self-serving mission in fuelling a dangerous form of
nationalism instead of truly promoting the Christian mission.
2. Right to Privacy, Non-Discrimination, and Minority Rights Critics of religion on
identity cards refer to the right of citizens to keep personal beliefs private
(Eleftherotypia, 18th January, 1993). They argue that any coercive declaration of
religion constitutes a violation of human rights, an infringement of freedom of
religion and conscience and of the right to choose whether to disclose religious
belief (Nea, 2nd February, 1993; Eleftherotypia, 18th January, 1993; Eleftherotypia,
9th May, 2000; Eleftherotypia, 25th May, 2000; Kathimerini, 14th May, 2000). Some
even point out that forcing citizens to reveal their religious belief is incompatible
with Christian freedom (Nea, 15th May, 2000). According to this group, the
inclusion of religion on identity cards transforms religious belief from a private
matter to a public declaration of faith, while in a democratic society the State has
to remain neutral by not interfering with the personal beliefs of citizens (Nea,
25th November, 1991; Nea, 25th May, 2000; Eleftherotypia, 18th January, 1993;
Eleftherotypia, 25th May, 2000). This means that the religious, political, and
ideological beliefs of citizens are not essential elements with which to establish
an individual identity in a public document (Nea, 2nd February, 1993;
Eleftherotypia, 19th May, 2000; Eleftherotypia, 25th May, 2000; Vima, 27th April,
1997; Kathimerini, 3rd March, 2000; Kathimerini, 14th May, 2000; Nea, 25th
November, 1991; Nea, 25th May, 2000). They also argue that the decision of what
information is necessary for the proper identification of citizens on a government
document is the sole responsibility of the State and concerns the relationship
between citizens and state authorities (Eleftherotypia, 16th May, 2000;
Eleftherotypia, 19th May, 2000; Nea, 25th May, 2000; Rizospastis, 18th May, 2000;
Kathimerini, 14th May, 2000).
This group also refers to the historical origins of the law that established the
inclusion of religion on identity cards; they see this as a remnant of an
anti-democratic regime with an official religion (Vima, 14th May, 2000). The
policy of recording religion on identity cards differentiates citizens along
religious and/or ethnic lines and they can become victims of direct or indirect
discrimination (Nea, 19th October, 1991; Nea, 25th November, 1991; Nea, 6th
April, 1993; Kathimerini, 14th May, 2000). This is particularly problematic for
those who do not wish to declare their faith and for non-Orthodox or atheist
citizens who can be treated as different or ‘less Greek’ (Vima, 27th April, 1997;
Rizospastis, 18th May, 2000). Even if the mention of religion were to become
voluntary, there is still the risk that citizens would be differentiated and then
discriminated against, according to their choice of whether or not to declare their
faith (Eleftherotypia, 18th January, 1993; Eleftherotypia, 16th May, 2000;
Eleftherotypia, 18th May, 2000; Vima, 17th January, 1993). This risk is even greater,
if a citizen does not indicate a religious affiliation, which in Greece can be
interpreted as suspicious or as a sign of being an outsider. Thus the mere
presence or absence of religion on identity cards can be used as a criterion by
itself with which to discriminate against citizens (Eleftherotypia, 18th January,
1993; Eleftherotypia, 16th May, 2000; Vima, 17th January, 1993). Therefore,
eliminating religion from identity cards rightfully fulfils the State’s obligation to
protect citizens from any potential discrimination (Eleftherotypia, 18th January,
1993; Eleftherotypia, 6th February, 1998).
Finally, critics point out that the Greek nation is represented primarily by
parliament and the elected government (Vima, 21st May, 2000; Kathimerini, 14th
May, 2000). In their view, the Church’s proposal for a national referendum
exceeds the limits of representational democracy and gives power to the
majority while ignoring the rights of the minority by imposing the will of those
who wish to declare their religion on those who do not (Eleftherotypia, 18th May,
2000; Eleftherotypia, 20th May, 2000; Kathimerini, 14th May, 2000).
The underlying line of reasoning is primarily the concern that, given the
strong identification of national identity and citizenship with religious affiliation,
non-Orthodox citizens are at greater risk of being discriminated against or at
best differentiated from the Orthodox, the latter being implicitly seen as the only
‘true Greeks’. According to the critics, the right to privacy, non-discrimination,
and the protection of religious minorities take precedence over the right to
choose or the rights of the majority.
3. Non-Conformity to National and International Legislation Those against religion
on identity cards point out that no other European country records religion on
public documents. As a member state of the European Union and a signatory of
the Schengen Treaty, it is Greece’s obligation to respect both national and
international law and to conform to the European norm (Nea, 2nd February,
1993; Eleftherotypia, 18th January, 1993; Kathimerini, 3rd March, 2000). They refer
in particular to the European Convention of Human Rights (Eleftherotypia, 18th
January, 1993). This group insists that recording religion on identity cards is
contrary to the Greek privacy law of 1997, which eliminated religion from
identity cards (Eleftherotypia, 7th January 1992; Eleftherotypia, 18th January, 1993;
Eleftherotypia, 13th May, 2000; Eleftherotypia, 9th May, 2000; Nea, 25th November,
1991). They point out that it is unconstitutional and contrary to articles 5 and 13
of the Greek Constitution, which pertain to the protection of citizens by the state
and to the inviolability of personal liberty, the freedom of religious conscience,
and the enjoyment of civil rights and liberties regardless of religious beliefs
(Eleftherotypia, 18th January, 1993; Eleftherotypia, 9th May, 2000; Eleftherotypia,
25th May, 2000; Vima, 17th January, 1993; Vima, 27th April, 1997; Nea, 12th May,
2000; Nea, 15th May, 2000).
The underlying legal argument is that, contrary to the advocates who maintain
that the mention of religion on identity cards is not in violation of Greek law, the
inclusion of religion on identity cards is unconstitutional and violates both
national and international legislation. Differentiating citizens according to
religious criteria puts some at greater risk of being discriminated against because
of their faith.
4. A Practical Line of Reasoning
Unlike those in favour of including religion on
identity cards, who use arguments that are primarily based on social, cultural,
and historical factors to support their case, those against include more practical
arguments. For example, they point out that address, occupation, marital status,
and religious affiliation (through conversion) can change at any time; because
identity cards have to include current information that establishes the
permanent identity of an individual religion, religion does not belong on such
documents (Eleftherotypia, 18th January, 1993; Nea, 22nd May, 2000). In some
cases, this group even suggests that citizens wishing to record their religion on
identity cards could request a special identity card issued specifically by the
Church (Eleftherotypia, 16th May, 2000; Eleftherotypia, 18th May, 2000). Finally,
they point out that the practice of recording religion on identity cards is being
misused and does not accurately reflect the religious beliefs of the Greek
population: authorities automatically fill in the space provided on the identity
card with an Orthodox affiliation, because many citizens declare that they are
Christian Orthodox to avoid administrative hassles or to ensure that they are not
seen as outsiders (Nea, 8th April, 1993).
The reasoning is that the mere declaration of religious affiliation to state
authorities does not necessarily constitute an accurate reflection of the religious
beliefs of the population. This may also suggest that an Orthodox majority
among the Greek people claimed by many advocating the inclusion of religion
on identity cards may be a constructed representation and thus not necessarily
a true reflection of Greek society.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title%7Econtent=t713429468
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content?content=10.1080/13537900310001601677

ps και όλο το υπόλοιπο άρθρο αξίζει να διαβαστεί γιατί παρουσιάζει και τις 2 απόψεις
ps 2 ας μπορούσαμε μία φορά να δούμε τα πράγματα με την λογική τους διάσταση μακριά από φανατισμούς και παραμορφωτικούς φακούς
ps 3 Αν και συμφωνώ με ανώνυμο για το σπάμ, τουλάχιστον αφού γεμίζει που γεμίζει το φόρουμ με τέτοια ηλίθια τόπικ, και επειδή με αφορμή αυτά κάποιοι συζητούν σοβαρά, ας βοηθήσουμε τους όσους θέλουν να συζητήσουν σοβαρά - με αφορμή τα πόστ κάποιων άλλων που απλά θέλουν να κάνουν μπάχαλο

δεν με απασχολει πολυ το ζητημα απλα χαρηκα που δεν αναγραφεται το υψος πλεον στις ταυτοτητες..
επισης στην παλια μου εγραφε ΧΟ χωρις να με ρωτησει κανεις και οταν τους ειπα να γραψουν παναθηναικος γελουσαν..