Religion and Human Rights

[James R]

786:

Wondering what?

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

I didn't say no.

So why should anyone be forced to follow your rules if you're not subjugating them...

They shouldn't, as long as they don't infringe my rights.

UN threatens sanctions and what is the rucus about Human Rights Abuse?

Abusing human rights is morally wrong.

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

No. I want everybody to accept that these laws are sensible and good for them and that they will promote human happiness. I said nothing about subjugating people.

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.

Some religious laws may do that, but plenty of others do not. Some clearly work to promote patriarchal attitudes and to subjugate women, for example. Which you agree is a bad thing. Right?

 

[786]

786:

I didn't say no.

ok

They shouldn't, as long as they don't infringe my rights.

So you are not supporter of Human Rights Enforcement by UN or any entity.

Abusing human rights is morally wrong.

Morals are subjective...

No. I want everybody to accept that these laws are sensible and good for them and that they will promote human happiness. I said nothing about subjugating people.

But its okay to sanction nations and potentially have wars over them? Judicial system based on Human Rights- what do you call that- seems to be a tool of subjugation?

Some religious laws may do that, but plenty of others do not. Some clearly work to promote patriarchal attitudes and to subjugate women, for example. Which you agree is a bad thing. Right?

Do they? Seems to be differentiation between roles in a society- you may not agree with them but that certainly doesn't mean anything now does it..?

Peace be unto you

 

[Norsefire]

The problem with human rights is defining them.

 

[James R]

So you are not supporter of Human Rights Enforcement by UN or any entity.

I am a supporter of acting for humanitarian reasons, provided that the benefits of such action will clearly outweigh any harms.

Morals are subjective...

Yes, but all enlightened peoples of the world agree about basic human rights, like I said.

But its okay to sanction nations and potentially have wars over them?

Wars over what? Human rights? Perhaps, if the benefits of the war can clearly be shown to outweigh the harms. And wars tend to result in large harms most of the time.

Judicial system based on Human Rights- what do you call that- seems to be a tool of subjugation?

No. People are free to do as they wish unless they impinge on the basic human rights of others. Any sane person would want such protection from harm for himself, so he cannot in good conscience deny it to other people.

[Patriarchal laws] seems to be differentiation between roles in a society- you may not agree with them but that certainly doesn't mean anything now does it..?

Yes it does. It's barbaric and backwards, since it gives privileges to one group of people over another based on a characteristic that an individual has no control over.

 

[James R]

The problem with human rights is defining them.

Try reading the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights.

 

[Norsefire]

Try reading the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights.

That is but one definition from a rather limited group of people.

It is politically slanted and with political motives. There are several factors that it does not take into account. Furthermore, many nations do not recognize any sort of political authority from the UN.

 

[(Q)]

Why should their authority be respected?

They are an international body of representatives. Their authority is of a terrestrial nature and isn't governed by any one minority's god given rights.

Also what is foolish is your inability to understand the reason human rights exist and how they mean differently to different cultures and people.

They exist because we are all one group of humans that distinguishes us from any one minorities "culture"

 

[Norsefire]

They are an international body of representatives. Their authority is of a terrestrial nature and isn't governed by any one minority's god given rights.

I have to disagree with you there; I'm as atheist as you are, but the UN have no legitimate political authority, and I do not recognize their authority. Why should other nations tell your nation what to do?

 

[James R]

That is but one definition from a rather limited group of people.

That group represents most nations of the world, and by proxy their peoples.

It is politically slanted and with political motives.

Explain.

There are several factors that it does not take into account.

What factors?

Furthermore, many nations do not recognize any sort of political authority from the UN.

Yes. So what?

 

[786]

I am a supporter of acting for humanitarian reasons, provided that the benefits of such action will clearly outweigh any harms.

So you're willing to impede upon the systems of law and impose yours- so you're ready to subjugate them? Because to you the laws you hold to be so dear are beneficial while others are harmful....

Yes, but all enlightened peoples of the world agree about basic human rights, like I said.

Enlightened people? You said these were those who held Enlightenment values... Like how Believers are those those Believe in X. So you're going to apply your form of morals even on to others? Apparently 'all believers people of the world agree' on some other sets of morals. At least not the same as yours in some cases....

Wars over what? Human rights? Perhaps, if the benefits of the war can clearly be shown to outweigh the harms. And wars tend to result in large harms most of the time.

Sanctions are harmless indeed. But you're ready to effectively subjugate others for these rights as it seems you're ready for war as long as the cost-benefit analysis pans out... you sure can tinker with numbers... think about how the future generation will saved

No. People are free to do as they wish unless they impinge on the basic human rights of others. Any sane person would want such protection from harm for himself, so he cannot in good conscience deny it to other people.

Point well taken... but I was saying that you are imposing your judicial system on people who do not agree with your sets of morals/human rights - in essence its a law that subjugates people... of course they can leave... but seems like that doesn't stop you as you're ready to go to war and subjugate them in some other place as well and set up a judicial system based on this.

Yes it does. It's barbaric and backwards, since it gives privileges to one group of people over another based on a characteristic that an individual has no control over.

Economic specialization? Backwards? Who are you to decide that.... are you going to impose that on others as well?

Peace be unto you

 

[James R]

I have to disagree with you there; I'm as atheist as you are, but the UN have no legitimate political authority, and I do not recognize their authority.

Most nations disagree with you.

 

[Norsefire]

That group represents most nations of the world, and by proxy their peoples.

Not all nations have equal say in matters, and nations often collaborate with each other for political purposes during times of crisis. The UN is slanted and not legitimate.

Furthermore, it is nonsensical that, say, the people of the UK can govern the people of Australia if their cultures are not the same; it is rather unfair, you see.

Explain.

People will disagree on what human rights are depending on their political beliefs and cultural customs.

What factors?

The need for efficiency, for instance, even when it requires certain sacrifices.

Yes. So what?

So it's not legitimate.
National governments are more legitimate, as laws can be passed according to a culture.

Most nations disagree with you.

I disagree. Most nations agree with me.

It is no secret that there are plenty of Europeans against the EU and the UN. And even more Americans.

 

[James R]

786:

I am a supporter of acting for humanitarian reasons, provided that the benefits of such action will clearly outweigh any harms.

So you're willing to impede upon the systems of law and impose yours- so you're ready to subjugate them?

I said nothing about subjugation. An example might be to remove a dictator who was torturing and mass murdering his own people. This might be followed by democratic elections in which the people could choose new leaders. They could then make their own laws.

Because to you the laws you hold to be so dear are beneficial while others are harmful....

Some others are clearly harmful. And I never said the laws I hold dear are perfect.

Enlightened people? You said these were those who held Enlightenment values...

Go to wikipedia and learn what we're talking about here. Look up "Enlightenment". Then get back to me. At the moment it seems you have no idea what I'm talking about.

Like how Believers are those those Believe in X. So you're going to apply your form of morals even on to others?

Yes. Of course. Who else's morals would I apply? You're going to apply your form of morals to others, so why shouldn't I?

Apparently 'all believes people of the world agree' on some other sets of morals. At least not the same as yours in some cases....

Correct. And some of them are wildly misguided - uneducated, intolerant, bigoted, foolish.

Sanctions are harmless indeed. But you're ready to effectively subjugate others for these rights as it seems you're ready for war all long as the cost-benefit analysis pans out...

Sure. Why not? Note: we're NOT talking about economic cost-benefit there, though. Be careful.

Point well taken... but I was saying that you are imposing your judicial system on people who do not agree with your sets of morals/human rights

No I'm not.

- in essence its a law that subjugates people... of course they can leave... but seems like that doesn't stop you as you're ready to go to war and subjugate them in some other place as well and set up a judicial system based on this.

You're very keen on subjugation, even though I haven't mentioned the word. Is that how your version of Islam works?

Economic specialization?

You're being disingenuous. Remember we were talking about the subjugation of women by men. That is not "economic specialization". It is the preventing of women taking an equal place in society.

You're not a women are you? Of course you aren't.

 

[Norsefire]

786:



I said nothing about subjugation. An example might be to remove a dictator who was torturing and mass murdering his own people. This might be followed by democratic elections in which the people could choose new leaders. They could then make their own laws.

There's even a problem with that; what if that dictator thought he was simply "purifying" his society and was "making sacrifices for the greater good"?

You're not taking authoritarians into account, and you really do need to because otherwise you aren't thinking about the people that don't believe in democracy.

 

[(Q)]

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.

As per the OP, Lori, a law was past that does not allow one to "defame" religion. Of course, the interpretation of such a law will most definitely be taken to the extreme and beyond, fueled by riots and protesting in the streets. You should be concerned, Lori, your own little god delusion is threatened by this as we both move one step closer to an Islamic state.

No Lori, I don't deal out any where near the sentiment and mentality as harshly as the cults that rule our world have over time. And, that's the probably the major difference, I don't work with violence.

 

[James R]

Norsefire:

Not all nations have equal say in matters, and nations often collaborate with each other for political purposes during times of crisis. The UN is slanted and not legitimate.

Slanted, yes. Not legitimate, wrong. Its legitimacy is recognised by the vast majority of the nations of the world.

Furthermore, it is nonsensical that, say, the people of the UK can govern the people of Australia if their cultures are not the same; it is rather unfair, you see.

The UN doesn't govern anybody.

Besides, the UN exists by agreement of its member nations. A correct parallel would be if Australia agreed to let the UK govern it, and that would be just fine from a moral point of view.

People will disagree on what human rights are depending on their political beliefs and cultural customs.

Some people will deny or ignore certain human rights for their own convenience and advancement, certainly. But they generally are aware of the human rights they are flouting.

The need for efficiency, for instance, even when it requires certain sacrifices.

People are not a machine. When are you going to learn that?

National governments are more legitimate, as laws can be passed according to a culture.

You should be happy then, because national governments already exist! Yay!

I disagree. Most nations agree with me.

Meh. Lying doesn't help your case.

It is no secret that there are plenty of Europeans against the EU and the UN. And even more Americans.

Then they ought to elect people to government who agree with them. The fact that they have not done so proves they are in the minority.

 

[James R]

786:

I said nothing about subjugation. An example might be to remove a dictator who was torturing and mass murdering his own people. This might be followed by democratic elections in which the people could choose new leaders. They could then make their own laws.

There's even a problem with that; what if that dictator thought he was simply "purifying" his society and was "making sacrifices for the greater good"?

That wouldn't make his actions right, would it?

He should be removed for the good of his people.

You're not taking authoritarians into account, and you really do need to because otherwise you aren't thinking about the people that don't believe in democracy.

I think you'll find that most dictators are authoritarians.

Oh, and everybody believes in democracy except dictators and those who want to subjugate others.

 

[Norsefire]

Norsefire:

Slanted, yes. Not legitimate, wrong. Its legitimacy is recognized by the vast majority of the nations of the world.

I don't think so; it's recognized by the vast majority of national governments in the world, but these governments don't necessarily represent all the people; secondly, these governments are often enticed to join these globalist organizations simply for political and economic reasons.

The UN doesn't govern anybody.

Besides, the UN exists by agreement of its member nations. A correct parallel would be if Australia agreed to let the UK govern it, and that would be just fine from a moral point of view.

Okay, but the UN doesn't always ask for permission before doing something.

Some people will deny or ignore certain human rights for their own convenience and advancement, certainly. But they generally are aware of the human rights they are flouting.

Or, they just disagree and have different values and place an emphasis on different things.

Human rights have to be according to a certain emphasis, whether that be freedom or culture or something else (though generally moral differences tend to be due to people placing an emphasis on freedom or culture)

People are not a machine. When are you going to learn that?

Fair enough, though even then, there could be cultural reasons why certain actions would be performed...and don't you dare say that because that culture isn't yours, it is backwards.

You should be happy then, because national governments already exist! Yay!

Certainly, and that's why I don't like the UN.

Meh. Lying doesn't help your case.

Lying?

Most right-wing and centrist parties are against the UN and EU in Europe, and in the US, there are even several leftists that are against the UN. That's not secret.

Then they ought to elect people to government who agree with them. The fact that they have not done so proves they are in the minority.

Clearly, though you have to remember that even 49.9% is a minority; and yet, that is too big a portion of the people to ignore. So you have a problem.

786:



That wouldn't make his actions right, would it?

He should be removed for the good of his people.

Whether his actions are right is a matter of interpretation. Removing him for the good of his people is no better than him removing you for the good of your people, without your consent.

I think you'll find that most dictators are authoritarians.

Obviously, that is what I was saying. I wasn't saying authoritarianism was bad.

Oh, and everybody believes in democracy except dictators and those who want to subjugate others.

I don't think so. As I said, it has to do with priorities. Some people believe in strong central authority.

If you say, "except dictators", then what you mean is except authoritarians - and that ought to be obviously understood. So as I said, authoritarians aren't taken into account.

 

[786]

^ You mean Norsefire ?

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

Most nations disagree with you.

I call BS.... Most Nations in the UN don't like super-power nations in it- So what 5 nations have the right to decide for the rest of the world?

Peace be unto you