Religion and Human Rights

[James R]

Norsefire:

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.

I agree. It is still fair to say that most people support the idea of the UN, and many of its aims.

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

Yes it does. It's democratic. The General Assembly votes on resolutions, and they are carried by majority vote. The same cannot be said of the Security Council, unfortunately.

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.

I stand by my original statement.

Fair enough, though even then, there could be cultural reasons why certain actions would be performed...

"Culture" does not trump basic human rights. Used that way it is just a self-serving excuse.

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.

That's because right-wingers tend to be self-interested and anti-communal.

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.

You have provided no evidence that 49.9% of people do not approve of the UN. Until you do, your statement is empty.

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.

No it isn't. We're talking about a dictator who tortures and commits mass murder against his own people, remember? There's no interpretation in that. Give me your "interpretation" as to when mass murder would be a good thing.

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.

You can have that with democracy.

 

[Norsefire]

Norsefire:

I agree. It is still fair to say that most people support the idea of the UN, and many of its aims.

Maybe in Australia, though Australia doesn't have much to lose, then again.

Yes it does. It's democratic. The General Assembly votes on resolutions, and they are carried by majority vote. The same cannot be said of the Security Council, unfortunately.

So a nation can refuse to comply with a UN vote? Good.

I stand by my original statement.

Your original statement is one-sided; notice how I don't resort to calling you "wrong" or "backwards" when you disagree with me.

"Culture" does not trump basic human rights. Used that way it is just a self-serving excuse.

You miss the point: human rights can be determined based on cultural interest. We have to pick a perspective

That's because right-wingers tend to be self-interested and anti-communal.

Actually, there are plenty of right-wingers that are pro-nation and pro-community and pro-charity.......such as Conservatives. Though that's still irrelevant; you can't go saying that if this or that group says something, it's automatically illegitimate because you don't agree with their political beliefs.

You have provided no evidence that 49.9% of people do not approve of the UN. Until you do, your statement is empty.

My statement is hypothetical to begin with; however, the point is there are alot of people that are not for the UN. What is the point of the UN, anyway? It hasn't solved anything, and it's inefficient.

No it isn't. We're talking about a dictator who tortures and commits mass murder against his own people, remember? There's no interpretation in that. Give me your "interpretation" as to when mass murder would be a good thing.

You already made an error in your statement: mass "murder" would never be a good thing because murder, by definition, is always wrong.

Mass "elimination" could be a good thing depending on the aim, and what you feel is "good"; a dictator could seek to "eliminate instability in the interest of creating a purer and a more manageable society"

Sounds great from that perspective. See?

Now torture...I don't see any use for that, really, except for perhaps as punishment for crimes, though it is really quite unnecessary. You see, I do believe strongly in rehabilitating those that mean to make amends, and giving them every opportunity (like an education) to help them; and I do believe strongly in giving the criminals that waste our time and don't improve the rope.

You can have that with democracy.

So if a dictator is democratically elected, and his policies with the support of the masses, then it is legitimate.

That's what I was saying this whole time.

 

[James R]

Norsefire:

So a nation can refuse to comply with a UN vote?

Yes. It happens all the time. The US is a master at it.

Your original statement is one-sided; notice how I don't resort to calling you "wrong" or "backwards" when you disagree with me.

I haven't called you anything. And yes, my statement is one-sided. It's my opinion. Whose opinion do you want?

You miss the point: human rights can be determined based on cultural interest.

That's proven to be totally unworkable. The only effective way to determine rights is by a process of reason.

What is the point of the UN, anyway? It hasn't solved anything, and it's inefficient.

Yes, it is inefficient. You're wrong to say it hasn't solved anything. I doubt you know much about what the UN and its agencies actually do.

No it isn't. We're talking about a dictator who tortures and commits mass murder against his own people, remember? There's no interpretation in that. Give me your "interpretation" as to when mass murder would be a good thing.

You already made an error in your statement: mass "murder" would never be a good thing because murder, by definition, is always wrong.

So we agree. It seemed for a minute you were arguing that mass murder is justifiable. Wait....

Mass "elimination" could be a good thing depending on the aim...

No it couldn't.

a dictator could seek to "eliminate instability in the interest of creating a purer and a more manageable society"

What's a "purer" society? That sounds like religious nonsense.

As for "more manageable", you're talking self-interest. So again, we're in agreement.

Now torture...I don't see any use for that, really, except for perhaps as punishment for crimes, though it is really quite unnecessary.

You beleive torture is a just punishment for crimes? That's a screwy idea. What do you imagine torture would achieve here?

You see, I do believe strongly in rehabilitating those that mean to make amends, and giving them every opportunity (like an education) to help them; and I do believe strongly in giving the criminals that waste our time and don't improve the rope.

Capital punishment is barbaric.

So if a dictator is democratically elected, then it's legitimate.

Dictators are, by definition, not democratically elected.

 

[Norsefire]

Norsefire:


haven't called you anything. And yes, my statement is one-sided. It's my opinion. Whose opinion do you want?

It's not so much that as your calling others' opinions "backwards" because they aren't your opinion. You do that all the damn time.

That's proven to be totally unworkable. The only effective way to determine rights is by a process of reason.

It's not at all proven to be unworkable; in Saudi Arabia, the law is largely based on cultural interest.

Furthermore, what the heck is "reason"? You can't define it.

So we agree. It seemed for a minute you were arguing that mass murder is justifiable. Wait....

Of course we agree that mass murder is not justifiable.

No it couldn't.

Sure it could. Mere matter of opinion; like economic policies of control, there could be population control with social policies that may involve strategic elimination. Remember, however, that it is 'for the greater good'.

What's a "purer" society? That sounds like religious nonsense.

That's a matter of interpretation; if it is religious nonsense, then people will go with their beliefs.

However, they don't have to be religious; most Fascists nowadays are atheists (though Fascists are fairly small in number).

As for "more manageable", you're talking self-interest. So again, we're in agreemen

It has to be in someone's interest. So yes, we are in agreement; even liberals doing something is "in self-interest". The same goes for any ideology.

You believe torture is a just punishment for crimes? That's a screwy idea. What do you imagine torture would achieve here?

I don't believe it is a suitable punishment, but my point was that could be the only thing it might be used for. And it would achieve it's goal of being punishment, of course.

Capital punishment is barbaric.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion.

I happen to see no logic in sustaining criminals that show no signs of progress. And FYI, locking people up in cages and brainwashing them isn't exactly the most advanced thing either.

I think CP is neither advanced nor barbaric; it is what it is. Humans have an inborn desire for justice.

Dictators are, by definition, not democratically elected.

Then how can people have a strong central government and social policy if they want it?

 

[786]

Dictators are, by definition, not democratically elected.

Eh. Eh ... Hitler?

Peace be unto you

 

[James R]

Norsefire:

It's not so much that as your calling others' opinions "backwards" because they aren't your opinion.

I only call other people's opinions "backwards" when they are regressive and dogmatic.

It's not at all proven to be unworkable; in Saudi Arabia, the law is largely based on cultural interest.

Saudi Arabia is a good example of a country that does not respect human rights. So, you're just making my point for me.

Furthermore, what the heck is "reason"? You can't define it.

Sure I can.

reason:

1. The capacity for rational thought or inference or discrimination.
2. The state of having good sense and sound judgment.

Mere matter of opinion; like economic policies of control, there could be population control with social policies that may involve strategic elimination. Remember, however, that it is 'for the greater good'.

Extermination of a segment of your country's population is never "for the greater good". It is barbaric and evil. Ever heard of genocide? By the way, there's a UN convention on that, too.

What's a "purer" society? That sounds like religious nonsense.

That's a matter of interpretation; if it is religious nonsense, then people will go with their beliefs.

And your point is .... what?

It has to be in someone's interest. So yes, we are in agreement; even liberals doing something is "in self-interest". The same goes for any ideology.

No. There's this thing called "altruism". Look it up.

I happen to see no logic in sustaining criminals that show no signs of progress.

What opportunities would you give them to progress?

And FYI, locking people up in cages and brainwashing them isn't exactly the most advanced thing either.

Correct. And your point is... what?

I think CP is neither advanced nor barbaric; it is what it is. Humans have an inborn desire for justice.

Capital punishment doesn't lead to justice. Innocent people are killed as a result of such policies. That is unjust.

Then how can people have a strong central government and social policy if they want it?

Elect a government with strong social policy credentials.

Dictators are, by definition, not democratically elected.

Eh. Eh ... Hitler?

Didn't the Nazis effectively stage a coup?

 

[786]

Didn't the Nazis effectively stage a coup?

They utilized the constitutions powers did they not? And they did end up getting the majority in the end in their 'democratic' parliament- through which they 'democratically' basically got rid of the constitution in the end. They were elected officials who gave him the power...

Peace be unto you

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Didn't the Nazis effectively stage a coup?

The word is misused colloquially, but by definition a coup must be staged by unconstitutional methods. The Nazis abided by the German constitution so there was no discontinuity in authority. (The Hitlerputsch was indeed an attempt at a revolution, but it failed.)

The Nazis took advantage of a new information/communication technology to distribute propaganda and win the support of the populace: radio. It's been suggested that another new information/communication technology could be used similarly: the internet.

 

[scifes]

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

in order to fulfill your statement, enlightened people who don't agree are scraped out as not-enlightned people, eh?

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

why would we do that?
to have an agreement on human rights?
why not scrap everything BUT one religion, that way we can also have a total agreement?
what is the difference between the two scraps?

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.

i know, and i wonder if all of your "enlightned people" will say in one voice: "yes" or "no"..otherwise where's the agreement?
whose say will the laws enforce?
what about the others?

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?

you mean who should say what the law is?

Read this:

[enc]Equal consideration[/enc]

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

evolution shouldnt care about that, if their fit the stay, babies should not have rights if they or their mothers couldn't sustain them to themelves(the babies).

if a species gets it's babys born very weak and vaulnerbale, shouldn't that species naturally be rmoved from the gene pool?
isn't human rights screwing that up?

 

[James R]

scifes:

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

why would we do that?

Well, it won't happen in a hurry, I agree.

why not scrap everything BUT one religion, that way we can also have a total agreement?

That won't get you total agreement, unless you scrap all religions except for one. Let's keep Zoroastrianism. What do you say?

i know, and i wonder if all of your "enlightned people" will say in one voice: "yes" or "no"..otherwise where's the agreement?

Spanking your child is not among the generally agreed fundamental human rights.

whose say will the laws enforce?

The majority's, perhaps. The government's, certainly.

what about the others?

They'll have to grin and bear it, march in protest, or change the government.

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?

you mean who should say what the law is?

No. I mean what I wrote.

evolution shouldnt care about that, if their fit the stay, babies should not have rights if they or their mothers couldn't sustain them to themelves(the babies).

if a species gets it's babys born very weak and vaulnerbale, shouldn't that species naturally be rmoved from the gene pool?
isn't human rights screwing that up?

Dog eat dog has very little to do with ethics.

 

[(Q)]

It certainly appears that the theists here want nothing to do with human rights, at least not the rights humans would decide. Of course, the god given rights theists would prefer are as different as their scriptures, so its not likely any time soon they'll be agreeing on that either.

 

[Doreen]

It certainly appears that the theists here want nothing to do with human rights, at least not the rights humans would decide. Of course, the god given rights theists would prefer are as different as their scriptures, so its not likely any time soon they'll be agreeing on that either.

I see agreement far away from all groups.

 

[Lori_7]

It certainly appears that the theists here want nothing to do with human rights, at least not the rights humans would decide. Of course, the god given rights theists would prefer are as different as their scriptures, so its not likely any time soon they'll be agreeing on that either.

complete freedom and an eternal life of abundance, peace, love, and joy.

that is what our lives should entitle us to. and who wouldn't want that?

 

[Lori_7]

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.

i don't give a fuck about religion or politics Q. i'm not threatened by either. i just don't care.

do you think that labeling a person as "insane" has human rights implications?

 

[shichimenshyo]

Eternal life? I dont know about that. =p

 

[Lori_7]

Eternal life? I dont know about that. =p

i know it doesn't sound all that attractive with the world and society headed in the direction it seems to be now.

BUT, if sin is removed from our condition, the world would be a very different place. *happy dance*

 

[(Q)]

complete freedom and an eternal life of abundance, peace, love, and joy.

that is what our lives should entitle us to. and who wouldn't want that?

People who worship gods don't want that.

 

[Lori_7]

People who worship gods don't want that.

i do.

and that is exactly what christ is about.

 

[Norsefire]

Norsefire:

I only call other people's opinions "backwards" when they are regressive and dogmatic.

However, these are judgments that not everyone will agree upon. Therefore, it is best to not make such judgments and have your opinion and let others have theirs.

I could, for instance, talk about the barbarism and stupidity of Australia, but that would be insulting to you, and so I don't.

Saudi Arabia is a good example of a country that does not respect human rights. So, you're just making my point for me.

Saudi Arabia has its own ideas on human rights.

Sure I can.

reason:

1. The capacity for rational thought or inference or discrimination.
2. The state of having good sense and sound judgment.

That isn't what I meant; I meant that a definition of reason is still not helpful. Reason why: words like "good sense" and "sound judgment". What is "sound" is, in itself, a judgment, and though no doubt people will have tendencies to believe in certain ways, there are still big divisions among different populations.

Extermination of a segment of your country's population is never "for the greater good". It is barbaric and evil. Ever heard of genocide? By the way, there's a UN convention on that, too.

It could be for the greater good depending on your aims; if your aims are a) decreasing population size b) population control c) ethnic management or d) social re-structuring, then mass elimination could be an important tool for the government to exploit.

And your point is .... what?

My point is, whether or not you think it is "religious nonsense" is irrelevant; people will vote and people will decide. Isn't that democracy?

I could dismiss your ideas as "Marxist nonsense", and you could do the same to me with my ideology. It gets us no where.

No. There's this thing called "altruism". Look it up.

Altruism is great, but it is not a factor in politics.

What opportunities would you give them to progress?

First and foremost, an education. Many criminals get to their state because of their [lack of] proper upbringing; therefore, while incarcerated, it would be wise to help rehabilitate the criminals by helping them receive an education. Furthermore, we could help them receive counseling if they have issues they need to work out, or a drug problem.

I'm not against rehabilitating criminals; my point, however, is that there are some criminals that do not feel remorse and simply don't care. For instance, gang-related criminals. They continue to operate even within the prisons, causing riots, raping others, recruiting, and managing their criminal enterprise from behind bars.

These people ought to be promptly executed; it is logical and it is justice. The victims deserve it, and human beings have a natural need to see wrongdoers receive their proper punishment. Don't confuse being civilized with being soft.

Correct. And your point is... what?

The point is, no matter what we do, we can call it "barbaric".

Capital punishment doesn't lead to justice. Innocent people are killed as a result of such policies. That is unjust.

Firstly, innocent people can be harmed as the result of any policies.

More importantly, however: are we to cease the administration of justice because of such a fear? The solution is to improve our prosecution system, not to go soft on criminals and give them an easy ticket out.

Elect a government with strong social policy credentials.

Fair enough, but what if the people desperately want to make someone a king? Then it is legitimate.

Like with Julius Caesar; and Caesar was a very bold, courageous, intelligent, and virtuous individual.

Didn't the Nazis effectively stage a coup?

No, Hitler was elected into office, and his party into congress.

 

[James R]

Norsefire:

Therefore, it is best to not make such judgments and have your opinion and let others have theirs.

Nonsense. It is a moral duty to point out and confront wrongs where you see them.

I could, for instance, talk about the barbarism and stupidity of Australia, but that would be insulting to you, and so I don't.

Go right ahead if you like. Make sure you back up your claims with suitable evidence or argument, though.

Saudi Arabia has its own ideas on human rights.

Saudi Arabia has no idea about human rights.

I meant that a definition of reason is still not helpful. Reason why: words like "good sense" and "sound judgment". What is "sound" is, in itself, a judgment, and though no doubt people will have tendencies to believe in certain ways, there are still big divisions among different populations.

Reason is based on logic. Anybody can see what is logical and what is not - unless self-interest gets in the way.

Extermination of a segment of your country's population is never "for the greater good".

It could be for the greater good depending on your aims; if your aims are a) decreasing population size b) population control c) ethnic management or d) social re-structuring, then mass elimination could be an important tool for the government to exploit.

You are wrong. Would you agree to be exterminated for the "greater good"?

My point is, whether or not you think it is "religious nonsense" is irrelevant; people will vote and people will decide. Isn't that democracy?

Yes. I'd just like people to be more sensible and moral, that's all. Maybe one day they'll get there.

I could dismiss your ideas as "Marxist nonsense", and you could do the same to me with my ideology. It gets us no where.

I'm not a Marxist.

I'm not against rehabilitating criminals; my point, however, is that there are some criminals that do not feel remorse and simply don't care. For instance, gang-related criminals. They continue to operate even within the prisons, causing riots, raping others, recruiting, and managing their criminal enterprise from behind bars.

You're making unsupportable assumptions. Unfortunately, this is too big a topic to go into. I just don't have the time to educate you on this topic.

The point is, no matter what we do, we can call it "barbaric".

Huh? Are you serious? Just think for a moment.

Firstly, innocent people can be harmed as the result of any policies.

More thinking time for you.

Fair enough, but what if the people desperately want to make someone a king? Then it is legitimate.

Yes. It happened in Britain when the monarchy was restored in the 1600s. But Parliament eventually won out.

Like with Julius Caesar; and Caesar was a very bold, courageous, intelligent, and virtuous individual.

What a pity such a great guy was assassinated. It seems not everybody liked him.