Religion and Human Rights

[Lori_7]

can you explain what you mean by suggesting that "human rights and brotherhood" "have something to do with the insane"? this is unclear to me. and can you define this term "insane" which you are so fond of?

Q believes that anyone who believes in god and/or testifies to having spiritual experiences is insane, and therefore subject to his armchair diagnoses and insults.

you know...in the spirit of brotherhood.

 

[786]

Rather than being completely foolish, take the time to understand the subject matter before responding.

You had the opportunity to answer the question but it seems you would rather insult someone then justify your argument. This is common tactic for those who don't know 'the subject matter'.

Typical (Q) crap.

Peace be unto you

 

[(Q)]

You had the opportunity to answer the question but it seems you would rather insult someone then justify your argument. This is common tactic for those who don't know 'the subject matter'.

Clearly, you don't know the subject matter for if you did, you wouldn't ask that question, which in fact, has nothing to do with the OP. And, it would appear that question was answered for you already on this thread.

 

[(Q)]

Q believes that anyone who believes in god and/or testifies to having spiritual experiences is insane, and therefore subject to his armchair diagnoses and insults.

you know...in the spirit of brotherhood.

Lori, do you have anything to add in regards to the OP as opposed to your own condition?

 

[786]

Clearly, you don't know the subject matter for if you did, you wouldn't ask that question, which in fact, has nothing to do with the OP. And, it would appear that question was answered for you already on this thread.

Clearly all responses were refuted... and yes it does have 'anything' to do with the OP. Your suggestion was that laws that conflict with your supposed Human Rights give you an argument against those laws.. My question was about the authority of such laws- which you can't establish quite clearly given by the fact there is no good answer- yielding the whole argument of holding "human Rights" on top of every other law as if Human Rights was something of a certain entity which has intrinsic authority- which it doesn't.

I don't expect you to understand anything..... you belong to a cult after-all. :shrug:

Peace be unto you

 

[(Q)]

Clearly all responses were refuted...

Uh, no they weren't.

Your suggestion was that laws that conflict with your supposed Human Rights give you an argument against those laws.. My question was about the authority of such laws- which you can't establish quite clearly given by the fact there is no good answer

Oh, I see now, you ignore the answers. Big difference.

yielding the whole argument of holding "human Rights" on top of every other law as if Human Rights was something of a certain entity which has intrinsic authority- which it doesn't.

International human rights is the authority. Islam is not the authority. That's why Muslim countries voted.

Now, see how foolish you look by not doing your homework?

 

[Lori_7]

Lori, do you have anything to add in regards to the OP as opposed to your own condition?

yeah, you're a hypocrite.

 

[(Q)]

yeah, you're a hypocrite.

That's it? Explain.

 

[786]

Uh, no they weren't.

Then you don't know how to read?

Oh, I see now, you ignore the answers. Big difference.

Actually all of you seem to be ignoring the answers- Big difference indeed.

International human rights is the authority.

Why should their authority be respected? So if they declared dictatorships around the world we should all respect it? Also human rights are non-binding- I wonder how much 'authority' that gives.

Now, see how foolish you look by not doing your homework?

What is foolish is that you're a government dog. Also what is foolish is your inability to understand the reason human rights exist and how they mean differently to different cultures and people.

Peace be unto you

 

[Lori_7]

That's it? Explain.

imo, and from our interactions on this forum, it seems to me that you have the same sentiment and mentality towards people who believe in god, as the religious people that you're complaining about do towards those of other religions or non-believers.

 

[earth]

Send them to Rwanda

Timeline: Famous Trials of World Leaders

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
(1994-present) Since 1997, twenty-two out of eighty-three people have been convicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, including former prime minister of Rwanda, Jean Kambanda. Kambanda pled guilty to six counts—including genocide—and was sentenced to life imprisonment for crimes against humanity committed in 1994, when an estimated 800,000 Rwandans were massacred and more than two million fled the country. This past August, the tribunal announced seven new indictments, and it is currently prosecuting seven different cases.


Human Rights do get their day in court.

 

[Michael]

You really don't know much about this stuff do you?

http://www.alanmacfarlane.com/global/simon1609.htm

It's such a short clip I can't tell where it sits in context. African Slavery may have been an integral historical component of the English Industrial revolution but I don't think he's saying Slavery is necessary to achieve an Industrial revolution.

If that were the case the Romans, Greeks, or Arabs would have undergone Industrial revolutions.

While we can't go back into history it just may as well have worked out that peasantry, when offered such mass amounts of bounty as what the New World had to offer, would have worked as well. Or it may have been the Citizenry would have worked even better.

There two points here and I'm not sure if you can see them? It's almost as if you are defending Slavery as an Institution?

Are you? Are you suggesting that Slavery is an acceptable practice? :bugeye:


Many Historians think that that only reason Roman's didn't undergo an Industrial Revolution is because they had such vast numbers of Slaves - so there was no incentive.

 

[James R]

SAM:

You mean Australian courts do not consider Australian law as the sole ultimate authority?

I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. I mean what I write, not your fantasy version.

Gods laws are also determined by the people who apply them, far as I know.

Interesting perspective. Mainstream religion stridently disagrees with you.

 

[786]

Interesting perspective. Mainstream religion stridently disagrees with you.

Actually they agree that it is their best interpretation of laws- application of law is actually dependent on the judge...

Peace be unto you

 

[James R]

Are you calling the leaders of countries 'enlightened peoples'?

I didn't mention leaders of countries.

Who are 'enlightened people'- those who've reached Nirvana, those who are secularist and use every knowledge they have to subjugate others because of it, or those high on drugs? Is this basically a word used to enslave others to your worldview of the world- ironic?

Enlightened people are those who have adopted the values of the Enlightenment.

And by they way I would like to point out that you are playing with words... Earth said the Human Rights were for 'benefit' and now you're saying they tell us 'interest'- In either case religious law also creates law for both reasons- but the 'benefit' and 'interest' of humans is eternal... Of course these are not enlightened people at all and they must be rejected at all costs?

I don't understand what you're saying. You seem to be splitting hairs.

 

[James R]

Doreen:

1) I do see that the peoples of the world have agreed on human rights. I am not sure what the subset is you are referring to with 'enlightened people'.

See above.

2) You say that a 'right' is an interest supported by law, but surely you must know that many people mean something else by rights. They think it is something inherent or something they are entitled to in a much more essential way.

Argue that one out with SAM.

No. Human rights are universally recognised by the enlightened peoples of the world. Those same people universally recognise certain laws and practices to be a breach of human rights.

Can you not see the problem of using these two bolded phrases together.

No. There can be subsets of enlightened people, but all of them recognise fundamental human rights. See?

Since the US refuses to allow its leaders to ever be called in front of a international court, does this mean that they are not members of enlightened peoples?

The US is not a monolithic entity consisting of drones who all think with one mind. That's another confusion that plagues SAM, in particular.

 

[786]

I didn't mention leaders of countries.

They seem to be the one who made the Human Rights declaration in the UN... so I was wondering

Enlightened people are those who have adopted the values of the Enlightenment.

So that is like a religion? Believers are those who believe? Everyone else can 'go to hell' (figuratively) and we will subjugate you with our laws? :bugeye:

I don't understand what you're saying. You seem to be splitting hairs.

What are 'human rights'- they were created for a purpose- what was that purpose?

Peace be unto you

 

[James R]

1-if these laws are agreed upon then i don't know what we're discussing here.

They are agreed on by enlightened peoples, like I said.

2- people may agree on human rights, but they practice or apply those rights differently.

Yes. They apply them to differing extents, or in some cases do not apply them at all.

those differences in applying human rights may come from the different religions those enlightened people adhere to.
then what?

Time to scrap the religions and move into the 21st century.

we all say children have rights, and should not be abused.
is "hitting" children by their parents abuse? do all enlightened people address the case the same way?

You'd have to ask all enlightened people. Also, there's a whole can of worms in your term "hitting". We've had other threads on the topic.

who -of those enlightened people with different views- has the law on his side, supporting his understanding of human rights? which is 786's question.

That's a VERY easy question to answer. Just go and look at the statutes and case law wherever you happen to be. The hard question is: what should the law say?

if the people being supported by human rights were fit enough to fight for their own rights they wouldn't need human rights to support them.
the fit don't appeal to judge and jury, they play judge and jury.

Read this:

[enc]Equal consideration[/enc]

In particular, scroll down to the section titled "Claiming their rights".

 

[James R]

786:

They seem to be the one who made the Human Rights declaration in the UN... so I was wondering

Wondering what?

Enlightened people are those who have adopted the values of the Enlightenment.

So that is like a religion? Believers are those who believe? Everyone else can 'go to hell' (figuratively) and we will subjugate you with our laws?

No. It is entirely unlike a religion, since religion is based on dogma, whereas Enlightenment values are based on reason. Also, there's no mention of subjugating non-believers, again in clear contradistinction to religion, which is the thing that threatens people with going to hell if they do not conform.

What are 'human rights'- they were created for a purpose- what was that purpose?

To recognise and preserve the dignity of human beings.

 

[786]

786:

Wondering what?

If 'enlightened people' were country leaders... but you already said no so its all good.

No. It is entirely unlike a religion, since religion is based on dogma, whereas Enlightenment values are based on reason. Also, there's no mention of subjugating non-believers, again in clear contradistinction to religion, which is the thing that threatens people with going to hell if they do not conform.

So why should anyone be forced to follow your rules if you're not subjugating them... UN threatens sanctions and what is the rucus about Human Rights Abuse? Seems to me that you want everyone to be subjugated to these laws or be punished for it- which is equivalent to going to hell-

To recognize and preserve the dignity of human beings.

Seems to me that religious laws are for a similar reason- make humans dignified by what humans should be like and be exalted in the sight of God. Of course a disagreement between you and them but still....

Peace be unto you