Religion and Human Rights

[Norsefire]

Norsefire:

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

Yes, except again, we won't agree on what is moral and what is not.

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

Evidence for my opinion? How does that work, exactly? I can just say "Australia's current government is left, thus Australia is backwards", because I equate the left with stupidity and backwardedness, and that's my basis; just as your only basis is your equating the right with the same.

Saudi Arabia has no idea about human rights.

Yes, it does. It comes from the Koran.

Again, you don't have a monopoly on truth.

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

Self-interest always gets in the way in politics, and really, when it comes to politics, why shouldn't it? Is Australia not YOUR nation? Then why shouldn't AUSTRALIANS get to make whatever damn laws they please?

There's nothing wrong with protecting your culture with government; it's your country first and foremost. If people don't like it, they can leave.

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

Probably not, but my opinion wouldn't matter.

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

I'd like to see people more sensible and more moral, too. Maybe one day they'll get there.

Too bad we disagree on what "more sensible and more moral" means.

I'm not a Marxist.

Yes, you are. You are an egalitarian.

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.

Unsupportable? Just look at prison statistics for the United States. Gang violence is a huge problem in the prisons.

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

The patricians, people you wouldn't like, didn't like him and unfortunately, they had the power.

 

[James R]

Norsefire:

Yes, except again, we won't agree on what is moral and what is not.

How about you list 30 things you think are moral, and 30 things you think are immoral. We'll see how many we agree on. Then I might be able to make my point about rationality clearer, too.

Evidence for my opinion? How does that work, exactly? I can just say "Australia's current government is left, thus Australia is backwards", because I equate the left with stupidity and backwardedness, and that's my basis; just as your only basis is your equating the right with the same.

1. Australia's current government is centre left, not left.
2. If you wish to say the left is stupid, some argument to back up your statement is required, otherwise how will you convince anybody?
3. I do not consider that all people on the Right are stupid. Mostly, they are just self-interested.

Saudi Arabia has no idea about human rights.

Yes, it does. It comes from the Koran.

The Qur'an, in general, has no idea about human rights. For example, it advocates cutting off the hands of thieves, and stoning rape victims.

Self-interest always gets in the way in politics, and really, when it comes to politics, why shouldn't it? Is Australia not YOUR nation? Then why shouldn't AUSTRALIANS get to make whatever damn laws they please?

They do. That doesn't mean all the laws that are made are good or moral. In fact, in recent years there has been a general outcry from the people about immoral laws, and recently we changed our government as a result.

I'm not a Marxist.

Yes, you are. You are an egalitarian.

I think you'll find that there's a bit more to Marxism than that. Wikipedia is your friend. Go look it up.

Unsupportable? Just look at prison statistics for the United States. Gang violence is a huge problem in the prisons.

That does not prove that criminals cannot be reformed, which was your claim.

The patricians, people you wouldn't like, didn't like [Julius Caesar] and unfortunately, they had the power.

No. Caesar had the power. He had declared himself Emperor. Prior to that, Rome was governed by a Senate, and they were the people who didn't like him.

 

[Doreen]

The Qur'an, in general, has no idea about human rights. For example, it advocates cutting off the hands of thieves, and stoning rape victims.

While I hate both those practices this is hardly evidence that the Koran has no idea about human rights. Obviously both the Koran and Saudi Arabia have many ideas about human rights. You simply disagree with them. Obviously one has the right not to get robbed, for example. The rights in relation to women and rape probably relate to men's rights not to be tempted or families rights not to be shamed. I will not defend these ideas, but they are concepts of rights. A country that did not think in terms of human rights would have no legal system and no redress system in place. No police who followed any rules, at least those making a nod at ethical principles. Power would act and justify its acts always based on power. I can so I do.

What you are doing is precisely what that jerk on Fox News does when he says liberal humanists have no values, instead of noticing that of course they have values, he just disagrees with them.

 

[earth]

Originally Posted by James R
The Qur'an, in general, has no idea about human rights. For example, it advocates cutting off the hands of thieves, and stoning rape victims.

While I hate both those practices this is hardly evidence that the Koran has no idea about human rights. Obviously both the Koran and Saudi Arabia have many ideas about human rights. You simply disagree with them. Obviously one has the right not to get robbed, for example. The rights in relation to women and rape probably relate to men's rights not to be tempted or families rights not to be shamed. I will not defend these ideas, but they are concepts of rights. A country that did not think in terms of human rights would have no legal system and no redress system in place. No police who followed any rules, at least those making a nod at ethical principles. Power would act and justify its acts always based on power. I can so I do.

What you are doing is precisely what that jerk on Fox News does when he says liberal humanists have no values, instead of noticing that of course they have values, he just disagrees with them.

Doreen, you make a good point. I ask where is the defense for the thief getting his hand chopped off. Human Rights make it clear the punisher must find a different punishment for the thief. So Human Rights disagree with using maiming as a form of punishment. The rigid strict even cruel days of the past are slowly being replaced with a more reasonable justice system.

 

[786]

I wonder what are better corrective tools for a more stable society... Prisons certainly don't seem to be such a great answer in my opinion.

Peace be unto you

 

[spidergoat]

How "stable" do you want society to be?

 

[James R]

While I hate both those practices this is hardly evidence that the Koran has no idea about human rights. Obviously both the Koran and Saudi Arabia have many ideas about human rights. You simply disagree with them.

No. Go and look up the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. You will see that cutting off the hands of thieves and stoning rape victims to death are not listed in the Declaration.

Obviously one has the right not to get robbed, for example.

That in no way justifies infringements on thieves' basic human rights.

The rights in relation to women and rape probably relate to men's rights not to be tempted or families rights not to be shamed.

There are no such rights.

A country that did not think in terms of human rights would have no legal system and no redress system in place.

Wrong. You are confusing "rights" with "human rights".

 

[Norsefire]

Norsefire:
How about you list 30 things you think are moral, and 30 things you think are immoral. We'll see how many we agree on. Then I might be able to make my point about rationality clearer, too.

Okay, I'll list five.

Moral things

1) Integrity
2) Charity
3) Chivalry
4) Defense of one's beliefs
5) Heroism

Immoral things

1) Theft
2) Murder (this does not include killing for self-defense, or state-sanctioned punishment)
3) Forcing people to have sex against their will (rape)
4) Not defending national culture/heritage
5) Cheating

1. Australia's current government is centre left, not left.
2. If you wish to say the left is stupid, some argument to back up your statement is required, otherwise how will you convince anybody?

Okay, I'll use some of your great arguments. The left is bad and stupid because they are immoral and self-interested.

3. I do not consider that all people on the Right are stupid. Mostly, they are just self-interested.

I disagree; and if they are, well, all politics relate back to self-interest. That's why people vote for what they are interested in.

The Qur'an, in general, has no idea about human rights. For example, it advocates cutting off the hands of thieves, and stoning rape victims.

The Qur'an disagrees with you, yes.

They do. That doesn't mean all the laws that are made are good or moral. In fact, in recent years there has been a general outcry from the people about immoral laws, and recently we changed our government as a result.

But what people perceive as moral is a matter of opinion.

I think you'll find that there's a bit more to Marxism than that. Wikipedia is your friend. Go look it up.

Egalitarianism is the base premise and key tenet of Marxism, however; and egalitarianism is absurd. People are not equal, unless you are saying that virtuous and noble people are "equal" to thieves and ill-mannered morons. People are not equal and don't deserve equal treatment.

I am actually offended by the concept of equalizing everyone, and what that suggests.

That does not prove that criminals cannot be reformed, which was your claim.

I doubt, say, BTK or Charles Manson can be 'reformed'.
And we also have to reach a point: we have to think of the victims. In fact, that's a good idea right there: let the victim decide the fate of the offender. Some people are forgiving.

Face it: "An eye for an eye", while harsh, is fair. Heck, it's even egalitarian. Let's follow the golden rule: treat others as you would like to be treated.

And in a civilized society, we have rules; if you break the rules, there can be fierce and harsh consequences, but you decided to break the rules so it's not on society being "barbaric", it's on the criminal breaking the rules and suffering the consequences.

No. Caesar had the power. He had declared himself Emperor. Prior to that, Rome was governed by a Senate, and they were the people who didn't like him.

Right. The Senate made up of Patricians, an elite few that held the majority of the wealth and power in Rome. Like I said, people you wouldn't like.

Caesar and the other emperors aided the poor. The senators assassinated him because he was a threat to their power, not because they were these "virtuous" senators; Caesar was smart and noble, and he would've made a good dictator.

No. Go and look up the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. You will see that cutting off the hands of thieves and stoning rape victims to death are not listed in the Declaration.

That declaration is ONE idea of human rights. Like you said, nations aren't obliged to follow it. They can follow their own ideas of human rights.

 

[Doreen]

No. Go and look up the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. You will see that cutting off the hands of thieves and stoning rape victims to death are not listed in the Declaration.

your assertion was that the Koran, in general, has no idea about human rights. Now you are acting as if the only potentially related points in the Koran are these two punishments. That is pretty poor arguing. I believe you also mentioned earlier that Saudi Arabia has no sense of human rights. But I am quite sure they do. I would even guess that at least some of them overlap with your sense of human rights. A man running up and stabbing you at a restaurant has violated your rights in Saudi Arabia. I would guess there are other overlaps. That they have different values, probably a good number I share your distaste for is another issue.

Note that you are using the Uniververal Declation of Human Rights as if it were an objective source of what human rights are.

That in no way justifies infringements on thieves' basic human rights.

I never said it did. In fact I think it does not. In fact from other posts you made I would guess I take your liberal positions on such matters even further away from the Koran and Saudi Arabia. The point is that they TOO are thinking in terms of human rights.

There are no such rights.

Ah, so you are claiming knowledge of objective rights. Are you religious?

Wrong. You are confusing "rights" with "human rights".

I am assuming you mean that the term 'human rights' can only apply to rights developed by humans. I disagree. I think human rights are rights seen as be 'had' by humans or granted to humans - by secular organizations, by religion, by whomever or whatever.

If this is what you meant, then bringing in examples of what you consider a lack of human rights was extremely misleading. It implied very strongly that the issue was not the source of the rights, but the behavior of followers of the Koran or the ideas in the Koran. Which it now seems is not the case. It would not matter if all the laws were just peachy and matched the UN document, in regards to this issue, if they came from God. The Saudis would still ' know nothing about human rights' since their rights would be based on what they think is the word of God.

So you have only your own approach to blame for my misunderstanding of your position. Your position would be that that the Saudi's do have a sense of rights, but given that these purportedly come from God they are not human rights. I disagree with your sense of what human rights could mean, but I see your position as making more sense in this light.

 

[Doreen]

Doreen, you make a good point. I ask where is the defense for the thief getting his hand chopped off. Human Rights make it clear the punisher must find a different punishment for the thief. So Human Rights disagree with using maiming as a form of punishment. The rigid strict even cruel days of the past are slowly being replaced with a more reasonable justice system.

Look, I am probably even more liberal than most people who would agree with what you are saying here. My point is not a defense of their conception of rights and justice, but simply that they have one. It seemed like he was saying they have no sense of human rights. Rather than saying that some of their ideas are repulsive to him and barbaric.

The Christian Right does the same thing with the left in the US. They say they have no morals. Which is just silly.

 

[Norsefire]

The Christian Right does the same thing with the left in the US. They say they have no morals.

Exactly; that actually amuses me, that James does that too.

 

[James R]

Norsefire:

How about you list 30 things you think are moral, and 30 things you think are immoral. We'll see how many we agree on. Then I might be able to make my point about rationality clearer, too.

Okay, I'll list five.

Moral things

1) Integrity
2) Charity
3) Chivalry
4) Defense of one's beliefs
5) Heroism

Immoral things

1) Theft
2) Murder (this does not include killing for self-defense, or state-sanctioned punishment)
3) Forcing people to have sex against their will (rape)
4) Not defending national culture/heritage
5) Cheating

I agree that 4 out of 5 or your "moral" list is moral, and 4 out of 5 of your "immoral" list is immoral.

So, you see - most people agree on most morals. Like I said.

Okay, I'll use some of your great arguments. The left is bad and stupid because they are immoral and self-interested.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never made that kind of argument. You'll have to be much more specific if you want to make it.

The Qur'an, in general, has no idea about human rights. For example, it advocates cutting off the hands of thieves, and stoning rape victims.

The Qur'an disagrees with you, yes.

Yes, and in general it has no idea about human rights. Why do I need to repeat myself?

But what people perceive as moral is a matter of opinion.

We've already agreed on that. Stop repeating yourself.

Egalitarianism is the base premise and key tenet of Marxism, however; and egalitarianism is absurd. People are not equal, unless you are saying that virtuous and noble people are "equal" to thieves and ill-mannered morons. People are not equal and don't deserve equal treatment.

There are many ways that people can be "equal" or "unequal". If you really want to have that conversation, you'd better start by defining the sense in which you're using the term "equal" above.

I doubt, say, BTK or Charles Manson can be 'reformed'.

They are extreme cases, and they do not in themselves justify having a death penalty. You have to look at the big picture, not concentrate on fringe cases.

And we also have to reach a point: we have to think of the victims. In fact, that's a good idea right there: let the victim decide the fate of the offender. Some people are forgiving.

No, it's a very bad idea. Victims tend to be too personally involved to be objective.

And in a civilized society, we have rules; if you break the rules, there can be fierce and harsh consequences, but you decided to break the rules so it's not on society being "barbaric", it's on the criminal breaking the rules and suffering the consequences.

Wrong. When society decides the consequences, the blood is on society's hands.

That declaration is ONE idea of human rights.

Agreed to by the vast majority of the nations of the world.

 

[James R]

Doreen:

your assertion was that the Koran, in general, has no idea about human rights.

Yes. It was written for 7th-century desert goat herders.

I believe you also mentioned earlier that Saudi Arabia has no sense of human rights. But I am quite sure they do. I would even guess that at least some of them overlap with your sense of human rights. A man running up and stabbing you at a restaurant has violated your rights in Saudi Arabia. I would guess there are other overlaps. That they have different values, probably a good number I share your distaste for is another issue.

I admit that there is some overlap between the ideas of human rights that Saudis have with the ideas that many westerners have. I don't think I ever said that there wasn't. In fact, I have been arguing that most people in the world agree about fundamental human rights, and that includes Arabs. It is still fair to say that Saudi Arabia as a nation, with its laws, is backwards in its respect for commonly recognised basic human rights, even if it does recognise the odd one or two.

Note that you are using the Uniververal Declation of Human Rights as if it were an objective source of what human rights are.

It's as objective as you can get. It has been agreed to by most nations of the world.

Ah, so you are claiming knowledge of objective rights.

No. I am claiming knowledge of rights arrived at through a process of reason rather than religious dogma.

 

[Norsefire]

Norsefire:

I agree that 4 out of 5 or your "moral" list is moral, and 4 out of 5 of your "immoral" list is immoral.

What could have possibly disagreed with on my morals list?

So, you see - most people agree on most morals. Like I said.

I didn't say otherwise.

Yes, and in general it has no idea about human rights. Why do I need to repeat myself?

No, it has its own idea about human rights. This is very different from saying it has "no idea", because that assumes there is a correct answer, and there isn't.

There are many ways that people can be "equal" or "unequal". If you really want to have that conversation, you'd better start by defining the sense in which you're using the term "equal" above.

Equal in value and goodness. (I don't mean socio-economic status).

They are extreme cases, and they do not in themselves justify having a death penalty. You have to look at the big picture, not concentrate on fringe cases.

Psychopaths are everywhere. And besides, then have it for the extreme cases, and don't use it otherwise. There are a few states here in the US that have it but haven't used it for a while, as they use it only in extreme situations.

No, it's a very bad idea. Victims tend to be too personally involved to be objective.

I agree, but that's why the state will carry out the investigation and prosecution (and deal with the evidence, etc); the victim can just decide the punishment.

Wrong. When society decides the consequences, the blood is on society's hands.

'Kay. So the point is: society can decide the consequences, and the criminal broke the law. The law is the law; break it, and there are consequences.

Agreed to by the vast majority of the nations of the world.

Some are agreed to by the vast majority of the world. But even then, let that 'vast majority' have their system if they wish.

 

[shichimenshyo]

So if one country has an idea on human rights that says that a certain ethnic group is less than human and therefore has no rights and can be killed or imprisoned by others..that country should have the right to do so within their own borders?

 

[Norsefire]

So if one country has an idea on human rights that says that a certain ethnic group is less than human and therefore has no rights and can be killed or imprisoned by others..that country should have the right to do so within their own borders?

This is an interesting scenario, and I must say, I don't know. For one thing, it sounds horrible, but what gives another nation the right to override the government of that state?

If the policy is with the backing of the majority, then that's democracy, so yes, they ought to have that right simply because there is no alternative except war.

 

[shichimenshyo]

This is an interesting scenario, and I must say, I don't know. For one thing, it sounds horrible, but what gives another nation the right to override the government of that state?

If the policy is with the backing of the majority, then that's democracy, so yes, they ought to have that right simply because there is no alternative except war.

So we must sacrifice what we as a majority believe to be morally right to satisfy the rights of a state that does not respect human rights?

 

[James R]

Norsefire:

What could have possibly disagreed with on my morals list?

Defending your beliefs. Obviously, if the beliefs you are defending are immoral then defending them is also immoral.

There are many ways that people can be "equal" or "unequal". If you really want to have that conversation, you'd better start by defining the sense in which you're using the term "equal" above.

Equal in value and goodness. (I don't mean socio-economic status).

What's "value"? Are you talking about [enc]intrinsic value[/i]? If you are, then certainly all people are equal in value. But knowing you, you're probably thinking of some kind of economic value instead.

I'm not sure what you mean by "goodness". If you're saying that some people are more moral than others, then I agree with you. They are not "equal" in terms of morality.

So now you see how important it is to be specific about what kind of "equality" you're talking about.

Psychopaths are everywhere.

No they aren't.

I agree, but that's why the state will carry out the investigation and prosecution (and deal with the evidence, etc); the victim can just decide the punishment.

That would still lead to unjust outcomes.

So the point is: society can decide the consequences, and the criminal broke the law. The law is the law; break it, and there are consequences.

Yes, but the law should be fair and just. Since the death penalty is manifestly unfair and unjust, it shouldn't be part of the law.

 

[(Q)]

Yes, it does. It comes from the Koran.

Again, you don't have a monopoly on truth.

Ah, I see. Considering that lying and violence are promoted in the Quran, does that make lying and violence a human right?

 

[Doreen]

Yes. It was written for 7th-century desert goat herders.

That is a really classist, ignorant attitude you have right there.

It is also incorrect that goat herders cannot develop texts that indicate rights.
http://muslim-canada.org/emory.htm

I admit that there is some overlap between the ideas of human rights that Saudis have with the ideas that many westerners have. I don't think I ever said that there wasn't.

Saudi Arabia has no idea about human rights.

This is the quote I was thinking of. And notice that you have now said that there is overlap between the ideas of human rights the saudis have and that many westerners have. This is a different position than before, where the difference was seen as indicating they had none.

It's as objective as you can get. It has been agreed to by most nations of the world.

Honestly, this seems like a fantasy. Even if they have signed documents - IOW if some leaders saw fit to do this - I see little agreement in practice and one would think if there was agreement, we would have less problems. I see widespread criticism, for example, of the USA's ideas of human rights. I am sorry I see no consensus, or even consensus aside from those who follow the ideas of goat herders.

No. I am claiming knowledge of rights arrived at through a process of reason rather than religious dogma.

This is a creative activity as ethics must be at least in part.