There's a million dead in Rwanda who disagree.
Religion and Human Rights
- Thread starter (Q)
- Start date
There's a million dead in Rwanda who disagree.
There are people paying because of violating human rights in Rwanda.
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
Timeline: Famous Trials of World Leaders
(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. (published October 18, 2005)
Even though you think you haven't a right, there are laws in place overseeing to the tending of your rights. That doesn't mean your rights can't be violated. When you have no rights then there is no law. This is where determinism breaks down. We interfere.
Last edited:
I don't think you understand my point.
Saying 'rights' is like saying 'a giant teddy bear told us to do something'. I admit that people believe in rights. I admit that they will act like they believe in rights. But rights do not exist. What are they made of?
People will do things because 'God told them to.' This does not mean God exists. It merely means people believe that there is a God and this God told them to do something.
People will do things because they think 'rights exist'. This does not mean rights exist. It merely means that people believe that rights exist and act accordingly.
Where are rights? What are they made of?
At what point in history did rights start existing? Did Cromagnon men have rights? Did the common ancestor of monkeys and humans? If not, how did these rights appear? Were they seen with by someone? What is a test I can use to show me these things exist? Can you see them with infra-red goggles?
Well, we know that some people never come to trial. In those cases, did the victims have rights?
What we have in place is better than not having. Yes, after world war 2 some german nazis escaped before they could be jailed.
I understand your point, however, my rights are in place and I don't have to worry about it. I have a right to vote.
I'm looking in my environment I live in and know my existence includes rights. Without the environment I live in I couldn't recognize any rights.
Last edited:
We make our own rights or we don't have any. Rights are subjective until we decide what they are and exercsie them. Then rights become objective. Democracy isn't something one can pull from a pocket however we experience its affects.
I'm coming into this late, but...
Precisely.
Which is why I don't understand this thread.
Or, perhaps the point of the thread is simply to point out the [blatantly obvious..] fact that organized religions have violated the UN DOHR??
I mean, is that it??
If so; so what?
If not; then I'm still confused...
Precisely.
Which is why I don't understand this thread.
Or, perhaps the point of the thread is simply to point out the [blatantly obvious..] fact that organized religions have violated the UN DOHR??
I mean, is that it??
If so; so what?
If not; then I'm still confused...
Well, the UN DOHR came into existence in 1948. The implementation and abidance of those rights globally is quite an undertaking and may take a century or two to accomplish. Yes, the DOHR isn't respected every place everytime, however the UN is working on rectifying the violations when possible.
So then God exists. Because people will do things in the name of God if, for example, I am killed, they will pray for me and have a ceremony. The fact that people do certain things proves the objective existence of 'things' we cannot test for, sense, etc.
OK.
God hasn't hanged anybody as far as I know.
You can say God exist because humans have made the decision they have rights, however, I care not to argue the point.
From the point of the OP one can imagine, I guess.
Religion through man expressing God's best interest made the decision humans had no rights.
Humans after awhile in spite of religion made the decision we do have rights and have embarked on a journey insisting on those rights.
ooooooooh.
Jeez.
That's just stupid enough that I would never have thought of it.
Thanks for the clarification.
You're welcome, since it isn't my thread, I thought I would vote.
Care to cast your vote by explaining the meaning of the OP?
Bells
Staff member
And yet, when those 800,000+ people were being slaughtered in their homes, the streets, schools, hospitals, churches, etc, and we were watching it all happen on TV, very few countries actually advised those being slaughtered of:
earth said:
Quite the contrary. At one point, the world helped them kill even more during and after the main genocide. The Genocide was not just what we saw on TV. It continued for months afterwards in the refugee camps. I would suggest you read up on the horrors of what went on in camps like in Goma and how the humanitarian aid was given to those who committed the crimes against humanity, so that they could then go on and commit even more crimes against humanity. After all, can't slaughter thousands of people on an empty stomach, can we?
You are telling me that the few, yes, it is a minute few, who have been brought to trial is somehow sufficient for the mass slaughter of over a million people? Does the fact that 20 or so have been found guilty make you sleep better at night? There were thousands, thousands, involved in the planning and the implementation of the final solution against the Tutsi's. From the school teachers who took down the names and ethnicity of their students so that they knew who was to be killed and who was not to be killed, to the doctors who planned and killed their Tutsi patients, to the priests who supposedly sheltered fleeing Tutsi's in their churches and then called in the Hutu's to massacre them in said churches and supposed sanctuary's and safe zones, to the day to day citizens who not only took up what ever weapon they could get to kill their family and neighbours, but sometimes misled their family, friends and neighbours to lead them to their deaths and to the radio announcers and journalists who helped ensure that the 'final solution' was to take place, to the mayors and police and armed forces who set up road blocks and planned the searches and raids into Tutsi houses and villages to massacre them.
You are telling me that 20 or so people being chaged is somehow sufficient? Righteo..
ahhhh, so i think i finally see the point (oh, was that too metaphorical? o.k. i meant: i understand the point--there's nothing to "see" really, silly me.) of the religion subforum: it is the place where all of the "atheists" get to reveal how truly religious they are (do i really need to explain what is meant by this? i mean, i think it's been explained, quite clearly, perhaps a few thousand times by now.). and, of course, for everyone else to simply sit back and enjoy the show!
sorry, get back at it.
sorry, get back at it.
don't we all?
the author of the OP has been asked a very simple and straightforward question innumerable times, and he cannot answer it. in fact, it would seem that he doesn't even understand the question.rather, he responds to the earnest queries in his usual manner--i don't need to spell that one out, i suppose--and it's business as usual.
What is the point? You didn't go to Rwanda yourself and stop the violations of human rights so you feel guilty? Since the slaughter in Rwanda happend nobody has any rights, are you telling me? Who said righteous beside you? Your righteous religious belief hasn't stopped the bigotry and hate or killing.
Make sense.