Just like history proves, Bible stories and religion in general were used by politicians (kings, governors etc) to manipulate people. That's what EU is doing now. I don't deny that the purpose might be a good one but I hate seeing religion used as a manipulation instrument.

Islam today is part of Europe. One should not see Islam as outside Europe. We already have an important presence of Islam and Muslims among our citizens," Mr Barroso said, adding that the inter-faith dialogue proved that the "preachers of a clash of civilisations are wrong."

Tolerance of the intolerant isn't a virtue. Islam has no place within a Christian secular society.

What a fool, he and his lefty kumbaya compadres will be the first sniveling easy targets destined for annihilaton in Eurabia.

@ Sagunto

In any political system, it is politicians (or 'dictators') who will ultimately decide on the organisation of the legal framework under which economic activity (including 'finance') will take place.  This is an unavoidable fact of life.  But this 'organisation' will change over time, as politicians come and go and as the popularity of economic beliefs and theories will wax and wane. 

I agree with the view that it is best to keep day-to-day MONETARY POLICY as far removed from the politicians-of-the-day.  This is for instance reflected in the statutes and/or laws that govern the European Central Bank and the US Federal Reserve System, although there are differences between these two institutions.  While these laws were made by politicians, they do provide for some (temporary) autonomy for these central banks.  That autonomy ensures that politicians canNOT directly or IMMEDIATELY control interest rate policies and exchange rate policies, but the central banks have to 'explain' these policies through various means.  Over time, of course, the public (through elections and politicians) can have a delayed impact via changes in the appointment process of senior central bank personnel, and in that specific sense the central bank's autonomy is always "temporary".    

The issues raised by "sharia finances" are not so much a matter of monetary policy (and central banking) as they are matters that concern the REGULATORY SYSTEM governing the organisation of financial markets, financial instruments and the like.  These regulatory functions are usually carried out partly by several other institutions (e.g. like for instance the Securities and Exchange Commission or SEC in the US, stockmarket regulators, accounting authorities, etc...) and these institutions would often be controlled by politicians of both the Executive and the Legislative branches. 

So yes, politicians ultimately make the laws that set the economic and financial framework, but politicians should be kept as far removed as possible from the money spigot.  Let them (dare to) tax their voters if they want more money to bribe the electorate!  

@Mf,

"..It is you, not me, who is here using the word "correction".  Do I detect a whiff of resentment in your remarks?   I did NOT correct HenrikClausen.."

Let me break that down in three:

- no indeed you didn't, I did. Yes, and?

- no you don't; perhaps a knife tip of tease topped with a slice of playful irony.
Nothing fancy.

- no you didn't, allright. 
It's your way of disagreeing  with someone about something he didn't say.
I was wrong. When you write "contrary to what you say.." , that's not a correction.
Duly noted ;-) 

(there's that little wink-wink, irony sign again; didn't you notice the first time?)

So that's sorted out then.

Let me get back to another little bone of contention, because I might disagree with the following:

"..But, in a democracy, it is up to politicians (through the proper bodies of the Legislative and Executive Branches) and civil servants to organise the monetary and financial system.."

Well, that could be a matter of opinion. So here goes.
A lot of experts seem to think that the monetary system (money supply, interest rates) should be as far removed from the influence of politics as possible. Even in most European countries, most national banks were based on the premise that it should at all times operate independent from political influence. I know that in reality, many examples exist of political influence on the monetary system or financial bodies acting like quasi-political ones. Two examples that spring to mind are the enforcement of the Euro and the other is about the unfortunate period of Reaganomics.
Read this Rothbard article: The Myths of Reaganomics

I don't know why you think that political influence on the monetary system has any specific bearings on democracy, and perhaps you don't. Why mention it? Perhaps you'd like to expand a litte on that one. I value your comments, and I also like a little irony now and then. No need for resentment whatsoever. Not even a whiff.

Kind regs. from Amsterdam,

Sag.

@ Sagunto

I would like to make 2 points.

1) It is you, not me, who is here using the word "correction".  Do I detect a whiff of resentment in your remarks?   I did NOT correct HenrikClausen.  I expressed partial agreement and partial disagreement with him.  Am I entitled to have a different opinion from him on this particular article, without you falsely claiming that I am correcting him?  In general, in the past I have only used the word "correction" when I think that (a) someone has manifestly misrepresented my stated viewpoint or (b) when someone is stating a clear falsehood (in my opinion).  I do NOT claim that HenrikClausen is stating falsehoods, but I do reserve the right to disagree with him by having different opinions.  

2) The issue at hand is: when does a forum in Brussels become "strictly political"?  When politicians meet with religious VIPs is that a "political" meeting, or a "public" meeting?  If Barosso and Co meet with US private citizen Al Gore (about global warming or the environment) is that a political meeting, or a public one, etc...?  Why should Gore have a better claim on participating in any public "forum", than religious VIP's, or than anybody else for that matter?

So, in order to forestall any further false claims of yours, let me spell it out clearly:  I disagree with HenrikClausen about the nature of the reported "meeting" in Brussels.  I do not consider it a "strictly political forum", but I remain open to any further information and 'arguments' that might clarify this further.

Of course, almost everything in life can have political implications, and I would certainly oppose the involvement of 'religion' in party politics.  My only claim here was that religious VIP's have as much a right to influence the public debate about values and societal goals (through participation in PUBLIC fora etc...)  as any other VIPs or even lesser beings have. Anything less would be a clear sign of (undemocratic) intolerance and discrimination.

@Henrik,

I couldn't agree more with both of your remarks. When religion and politics become mixed, you get monstrosities like the "Social Gospel Movement" and so on, or the "Deutschen Christen" (1932-1945), another infamous moment in the history of mixing politics and religion. Of course some religious statements of Church leaders can have political implications, like the sensible ones by B-16 about the threat of Islam or the rather less sensible by the head of the Anglican church about the sharia, but that's quite another matter.

@mf,

[quote mf @henrik]

"..And, contrary to what you say, it would be "a violation of all rationality" to exclude major religious VIPs from public fora.."

I have read Henrik's comment another time, just to make sure I understand your umpteenth correction ;-)

But I don't. Seems you're the one mixing things up, i.e. between public and political. H's remarks were about mixing politics and religion, not about denying religion a place in the public domain, if I'm not mistaken.

@ HenrikClausen

1)  While religion should primarily be a personal (private) matter, for those so inclined, it does not follow that it should be banished from the public sphere.  If religious organisations and/or institutions are important constituant parts of a 'living' society, they have as much claim on being represented in public fora as any other organisations or 'groups', such as trade unions, business and 'cultural' organisations, sports organisations, academic 'societies', or whatever.  There is no a priori reason why politicians should listen more to union bosses, famous academics and/or authors, media personalities, movie stars etc...than to religious leaders.

2) When does a forum in Brussels become "strictly political"?  I think that one must make a clear distinction between "political" and "public". And, contrary to what you say, it would be "a violation of all rationality" to exclude major religious VIPs from public fora while engaging all sorts of other (real or presumed) VIPs in such fora. 

3) The problem is not that religious leaders are being heard or listened to, but rather that western political leaders (like Barroso) would even (implicitly) question the principle of freedom of expression - by linking it to "respect for other faiths".  That shows a lack of understanding of what makes (made?) the West different from the Rest.  It is 'defeatist' thinking, because it concedes or abandons what is essential for what is 'desirable', and shows lack of historical knowledge.  

4) I agree with you that "sharia finances" is largely a "monumental deceit".  But, in a democracy, it is up to politicians (through the proper bodies of the Legislative and Executive Branches) and civil servants to organise the monetary and financial system.  In so doing, they should clearly communicate to the public (or at least that part of the public that wants to be informed) what the 'guiding' underlying principles are of the monetary and financial system of the country.  In that respect, the goals of transparency and efficiency are certainly preferable to vague religious or nonreligious (ideological) dogmas.    

While religion is great for personal use, I detest seeing it mixed into politics. It's just a violation of all rationality to mix it in like this. 

Somewhat related, I'm reading Timur Kuran "Islam & Mammon". What a monumental deceit this "Sharia finances" is! Corruptive, too. Should be left to compete openly in markets free of intimidation and government support - then it'll wither away in inefficiency and corruption...