Religion and Human Rights

[Bells]

I agree, Bells. But.... let's clear up one nagging little detail ....just who are these "others" who grant those rights? Where do they come from? How did they get the power to grant rights? How do they enforce those rights if someone violates the rights of others?

Well according to earth, it is the people we vote into power. And in some way he is right. Our human rights are our own to the extent that others recognise it.

Didn't do 'em much good, though, did it? Here again is that silly ideal that some people hold ...that to just say something makes it true and real. Just saying that someone has human rights don't mean shit unless there's some power of enforcement.

Bingo.

The point that earth just does not seem to understand.

There was no enforcement of the protection human rights of the Tutsi's who were slaughtered by the hundreds and thousands over a period of a few months.

So if "Western" communities recognized the rights, the Rwandans would not have been killed? What do you mean by "recognized"? If Western nations had given pretty speeches "recognizing" the rights of Rwandans, then everything would have been just hunky-dory?

If Western nations had recognised the human rights of Rwandan's, then they would have been forced to act to stop the genocide. They would have been forced to acknowledge that it was a genocide taking place. They did neither, regardless of those few member nations who were there who pleaded to the UN to send enforcement. Their pleas were ignored and the plight of the Tutsi's were ignored. Their rights were not recognised because it did not suit the interests of the world community to recognise it.

I don't get it, Bells. On one hand in you post, you seem to grasp the reality that rights must be defended by force. Yet on the other hand, you say/imply that if "western" communities would have "recognized" the rights, then no Rwandans would have been killed. You're confused or, at the very least, you're confusing.

Had Western nations recognised their human rights and acted, then there would not have been a genocide. At the start of the unrest, the number of troops that would have been needed would have been approximately 3000-5000. Lack of recognition of what was going to occur and what was occuring once it began.. the result is what we saw on TV. And they still did nothing about it.

Just curious, Bells, but what would you have had the "western" communities to have done in Rwanda? Surely you aren't suggesting that, say, the US Army invade and stopped it all with the force of arms, are you? If not, what should "we" have done?

No invasion would have been necessary. All that was required would have been an armed force of 3-5 thousand troops and jamming the Government radios that encouraged the Hutu's to go out and kill. The US not only refused to pledge any troops, but also refused to provide the two planes required to jam the Government radios. To make matters worse, they prevented other countries from doing something through the use of their veto powers. I would suggest you read Romeo Dallaire's book on the genocide and just how much of a monumental fuck up it actually was in reality and the worst part of it is how little would have been needed to stop it from even taking place.

I don't know, but I just don't see how "human rights" can be anything but flowery words on pieces of paper ....without someone enforcing those rules with the force of arms.

Which is what it is. It is nice, lovely words that mean jack shit unless others recognise and are willing to use force to protect it.

What would you have those western democracies do, Bells? How can they or anyone keep people from violating the UN hunman rights rules?

Act.

And, no, Bells, the UN is not a failure ...it's a place where many of the rich, idealistic people of all nations can get together, drink fine wine, eat luscious meals, and give flowery, idealistic speeches. See? The UN is good for something!

Indeed.

And that is the sad reality of what the UN has become.

Yes, you’re complaining the U.N. didn’t do a good enough job. You’re denying the comments you made. What should have the U.N. done?

Ah geez, I don't know.. Maybe act when they should have acted instead of doing nothing, even as the glaring truth of what was happening was beamed around the world.

Denying it was a genocide when it was blatantly obvious that it was a genocide. They did not even say the word "genocide" until it was over. That was when they acknowledged it. Lovely words and speeches after the horror means nothing to those who were slaughtered like animals.

The U.N. didn’t cause the genocide in Rwanda and certainly didn‘t ignore it. Without the democracies you belittle there wouldn’t be any human rights and there would be more people committing genocide like Idi Amin the butcher of Uganda did.

I would suggest you actually do some research on the genocide in Rwanda and what little they actually did and how it virtually was ignored to the extent that they did nothing. Their own people who were there, who begged their superiors in the UN for help got nothing in return, all of which is well documented.

The democracies that, yes, I am belittling, did nothing to prevent it. In some instances, they aided the killers and allowed it to continue, sometimes in front of their very eyes.

The U.N. is not a failure. You fail to recognize the humanitarian efforts of the U.N.

The UN is a massive failure. Yes, they have had some accomplishments. But their inability to act when needed and necessary has made it a failure.

 

[Baron Max]

Had Western nations recognised their human rights and acted, then there would not have been a genocide. At the start of the unrest, the number of troops that would have been needed would have been approximately 3000-5000.

And how long would that force have been required to remain? And what would have happened once they left? Remember Somalia and the US Army?

I would also ask "When is it right to interfere with the rights of another nations affairs?" We must be able to answer that question even as we hold to our grandiose ideals of brotherhood and love and all that shit.

Bells, don't get me wrong ...I agree with the principles of what you're saying. But principles aren't always so easily applied in real life.

No invasion would have been necessary. All that was required would have been an armed force of 3-5 thousand troops and jamming the Government radios...

I believe, Bells, that that's a sure definition of "invasion"! Who has the right to interfere with the internal affairs of another nation? If Aussieland was having some internal problems, would you like it if the US Army invaded the island with 3-5 thousand troops and jammed your radios?

Again, Bells, I agree with you in principle. But those principles just don't work right in real life! If there's a bully at school beating you up all the time, the school can give you a bodyguard to protect you all the time at school. But, whoa, what about after school? What about the walk between school and home? What then? See? You haven't solved the basic problem, you've just prolonged it.

... To make matters worse, they prevented other countries from doing something through the use of their veto powers.

Because they recognized that all they'd be doing is a temporary, forced settlement of the problems. Much like the bully at school, as soon as the bodyguards left, the problem would be right back to where it was ...nothing solved. It was just prolonged.

I would suggest you read Romeo Dallaire's book on the genocide and .....(snip).... the worst part of it is how little would have been needed to stop it from even taking place.

But if we'd interfered, stopped the conflict at that time, would it have all come back as soon as we pulled out? I remind you again of Somalia and the US Army!

Hey, Bells, what would have happened in the early years of America if the UN had stepped in and prevented America from revolting and gaining independence from England? Would that have been good?

And, hey, what if the UN had stepped in a prevented the American Civil War? Would that have solved the problem of states' rights and the issue of slavery? ...and all Americans would have then lived happily everafter?

And again, Bells, I'm not arguing with your ideals and principles. I agree with you in many/most respects on this issue. But it's not so simple as stating the grandiose ideals and principles. Principles, idealisms, dreams, fairy tales, ......all fall apart when reality becomes involved.

Baron Max

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Bells your suggestion that the West should 'act' amounts to what Sam would call 'regime change'. It amounts to 'forcing' ones idea upon another and also creates a situation whereby the West becomes the policeman of the world (not working!!!)

I say if the West truly believes in human rights then ensure them in their own nations and be shining examples of unity, peace, tolerance, prosperity and god only knows what else. Basically we should mind our own business, take care of our own business, create our own world with these ideals and allow others to find their own way...or not.

The UN you might recall also had an official place for the Khmer Rouge during a slaughter that everyone knew was underway and now this same institution wants to hang them out in a tribunal. Well that's all good and well but after-the-fact decisions to PROVE that these 'rights' exist is ineffectual at best. The UN is a front-man to guarantee that the larger powers remain safe and wield their power over other lesser nations. You don't really believe that they believe all that is written in their charter do you? I don't believe you do.

I meet enough of them and most who work for this institution do so for the money, the lifestyle...the POWER!!! And what's worse is that they even admit to this fact all under the guise of doing what is best for humanity. Its all rubbish!!!

I see that you see the problem but I also see that Baron recognizes that the UN is not the answer.

As for religion and UN proposals deeming negative speech towards other religions as untoward I say they can continue to scratch their own assess (yes that includes the nations that prompted such a proposal!!). There is no one to enforce such a suggestion and it amounts to absolute bullshit. If the West truly values 'freedom of speech' then that also includes the right to speak irreverently and critically of religion no matter which religion it may be. If nations don't want to adhere to the universal human rights charter they are free not to attempt to achieve it, or attempt to achieve it in their own way. I think its like putting a noose around your neck to say that not only will you ensure this exists in your own culture but you are willing to pay and place the lives of others at risk to make sure someone else has it. Especially when they haven't exactly earned it for themselves.

 

[earth]

The United Nations: A Brief History

The United Nations was officially formed on October 24, 1945. After the unsuccessful attempt to prevent war by the League of Nations, the UN was created so that a war such as World War II would never happen again. It was started by the four nations that had declared war on the Axis Powers: Great Britain, United States, China and the USSR (Russia today). The original charter was written in June of 1945 in San Francisco and by October, fifty nations had signed it. Their aim was to eliminate the problems that cause wars by promoting peace and human dignity. Today these goals have been expanded to include peace and security, economic and social development, human rights, humanitarian affairs, and international law.

Before the actual formation of the United Nations, Franklin Roosevelt had called for the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference to be held at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire in July of 1944. This conference was called to formulate proposals for an international monetary fund, for an international bank for reconstruction, and for general resolutions governing international banking policies. By 1947, twenty-nine nations had signed the articles of Bretton Woods. The institutions established in these articles exist today.

Some of the earliest problems, with which the UN dealt, involved the establishment of an independent state of Israel and the resulting conflicts with Palestine, the Korean War, and the Berlin Blockade. More recently, the UN has had to deal with worldwide terrorism and atrocities in Yugoslavia, Bosnia, and Rwanda. Civil conflicts have erupted in many countries including El Salvador, Guatemala, and Cambodia. Obviously, not only are there disputes between countries but also within countries.

International conferences sponsored by the UN have led to wider recognition of long-term global problems. Conferences have involved thousands of Non-Governmental Organizations, citizens, academics, and business people. They have produced treaties, reaffirmed commitments, made declarations, and generally led to increased international cooperation. Conferences have included those on Environment and Development, Human Rights, Social Development, Women, and Human Settlements. The Millennium Summit held in September of 2000 in New York resulted in a declaration of values and goals for the new century. Goals include eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, achieving universal primary education, promoting gender equality, and reducing child mortality. (www.un.org/milleniumgoals/). The Summit held in New York this September 2005 was intended to evaluate the progress that is being made toward the accomplishment of those millennium goals.

One can knock the U.N. and its humanitarian efforts, however those knocking the U.N. have nothing with which to replace it. The U.N. has not failed. Unless there is a WWIII the U.N. is accomplishing its mandate by preventing such a war from happening.

 

[Doreen]

Okay, God exists in the minds and hearts of people. I can't take that away from anyone. Faith operates using belief, I can't accept belief as infallible the way salvation is supposedly obtained. Salvation obtained through hearsay yet infallible is the reasoning and selling point of a swindler. The intent of the swindler is to gain control over the mind of the converts, establishing a freeloader's heaven. God modeled his methods using a flim flam man's tactics.

To refer to the beating and torture of Jesus as an expression of love characterizes a person afflicted with a psychosis. That type of expression of love is brutal and cruel. One can believe it, however, one practicing that kind of love should be rejected.

You are completely missing the point, again and again. You keep basing the existence of rights on how people behave. They behave AS IF rights existed. An argument you would not allow in relation to God, but it makes sense to you when it comes to these 'rights'. I give up. You successfully ignored my arguments in post after post, refused to answer the questions I posed that would have made it clearer why your position has problems. And in this last post you wander off into some critique of one idea in Christianity as if this had any relevence at all.

 

[earth]

You are completely missing the point, again and again. You keep basing the existence of rights on how people behave.

I'm not missing your point. I'm not basing the existence of rights on how people behave. I base rights on law. Without law no one has any rights. We agree to go along with law so we can have rights. Behavoir is only part of establishing rights. Law is the oversight of rights and law administers and enforces those rights. Not everyone behaves as though other people have rights. If you want to make an arguement pretending God is the rights giver then go ahead, I care not to argue the point. To me your just trolling.

We disagree. You think I must explain your opinion to you before you think I haven't missed your point.

I've made my point and you have made yours, so continue to stress your point but I'm done concerning this subject.

p.s. I'll agree with you on this point, you can tell people they haven't rights, however, people will "behave" exercising those rights.

 

[parmalee]

I'm not missing your point. I'm not basing the existence of rights on how people behave. I base rights on law. Without law no one has any rights. We agree to go along with law so we can have rights. Behavoir is only part of establishing rights. Law is the oversight of rights and law administers and enforces those rights. Not everyone behaves as though other people have rights. If you want to make an arguement pretending God is the rights giver then go ahead, I care not to argue the point. To me your just trolling.

actually, it is you who is trolling. when anyone bothers to point out that you are clearly misunderstanding the notion of rights, you attack them and "accuse" them of being "religious" (and i'm pretty certain that you also cannot define that one). but first let us address this:

earth
I guess its a matter of definition and philosophy.

objective:
being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective ).

Subjective:
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).

uhh, sorry--that is not even remotely the definition of objective in philosophy. please review this:

"Objectivity is both a central and elusive concept in philosophy. While there is no universally accepted articulation of objectivity, a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity. Objective truths are those which are discovered rather than created."

a few more:

earth
You speak as though reality is an entity and has the presence of mind to grant rights. All I can say is that is your philosophy.

sorry, but reality is an entity. please review this:

"An entity is something that has a distinct, separate existence, though it need not be a material existence. In particular, abstractions and legal fictions are usually regarded as entities."

and then there's this:

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.

wrong again. no, rights do NOT become objective.

then this:

earth
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.

wow. don't even know how to respond to that.


as to your responses to people who point out the errors in your thinking, here are but two:

You can't get your head out of your religious ass long enough to understand anything. Religion is ignorance chow down.

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.

and finally:

We disagree. You think I must explain your opinion to you before you think I haven't missed your point.

sorry, but you have missed Doreen's point, and mine, and Bells'. repeatedly.

I've made my point and you have made yours, so continue to stress your point but I'm done concerning this subject.

the only point which you have made is that clearly do not understand what rights are, what objectivity is, or what is intended by "religious thinking" for that matter.

 

[Doreen]

I'm not missing your point. I'm not basing the existence of rights on how people behave. I base rights on law.

Law is rules made by those with power. They are agreements to behave a certain ways. But these are not rights, nor do they support the existence of rights. But there is no scientific way to determine what a right is. The players in a hockey game get to act as if they have rights people walking past each other on a sidewalk do not have. It is a just agreements - or proclamations in dictatorships - about what will happen in this or that situation. Rights have no existence. A right is supposed to be something inherent in a person or creature or thing. But there is no such 'thing'. Pointing to law shows a misunderstand of what a claim to the existence of rights is.

Without law no one has any rights. We agree to go along with law so we can have rights. Behavoir is only part of establishing rights. Law is the oversight of rights and law administers and enforces those rights. Not everyone behaves as though other people have rights.

I never suggested they did.

If you want to make an arguement pretending God is the rights giver then go ahead, I care not to argue the point.

I never made such an argument. You clearly cannot follow my arguments.

I was pointing out that atheists' appropriate response to certain arguments by theists for the existence of God apply equally well to your arguments for the existence of rights.

You keep responding to this AS IF I have made some suggestion that God is the source of rights. I have never made this assertion.

And then in one post you go off on Jesus' crucifixion as if this had anything remotely to do with my arguments. When I point this out, you say nothing in reponse. Oddly, instead you say.....

To me your just trolling.

I have been very flexible in the ways I approached the issue with you, coming at it from a number of angles. Your answers, for the most part, show that you do not understand my posts, despite my efforts. Sometimes it seems willfully so. You repeatedly avoid responding to certain point and further make up positions which I have not take and respond to these.

We disagree. You think I must explain your opinion to you before you think I haven't missed your point.

No, or I would have said that. You have repeatedly asserted I said or meant things I did not. This is yet another example.

I did however as you a number of questions which you chose not to answer. Questions that would have made it clear that rights have no existence.

I've made my point

yes, you have, but you have failed to respond to my position again and again. Your choice or your ability level. I honestly cannot tell.

 

[earth]

actually, it is you who is trolling. when anyone bothers to point out that you are clearly misunderstanding the notion of rights, you attack them and "accuse" them of being "religious" (and i'm pretty certain that you also cannot define that one).

Nonsense, Doreen is expressing her point injecting God into her arguement. Doreen doesn't ascribe to the religious God theory, now thats trolling just to continue on aimlessly.

 

[parmalee]

I never made such an argument. You clearly cannot follow my arguments.

earth cannot follow anyone's argument apparently, and when he (?) is called on this, he resorts to attacking them by "accusing" them of being "religious."

 

[parmalee]

Nonsense, Doreen is expressing her point injecting God into her arguement. Doreen doesn't ascribe to the religious God theory, now thats trolling just to continue on aimlessly.

how exactly is Doreen injecting god into the argument?

rather, it is simply that YOU cannot follow Doreen's, Crunchy Cat's, Bells', or my argument.

YOU are the troll.

 

[earth]

earth cannot follow anyone's argument apparently, and when he (?) is called on this, he resorts to attacking them by "accusing" them of being "religious."

Nonsense, I and many other people exercise our right to vote. You can't take that away without a fact to do it. You are calling on God to help you and I am accusing you of being biased and religious.

 

[Doreen]

Nonsense, I and many other people exercise our right to vote. You can't take that away without a fact to do it. You are calling on God to help you and I am accusing you of being biased and religious.

And that accusation shows again and again that you completely misunderstand the arguments you are facing. If it were just me, despite all my efforts to come at the issue in a variety of ways, I would seriously consider it was at least partially my fault for communicating poorly in some way. But when I watch highly intelligent posters like Bells and Parmalee also get rebuffed and projected upon, I know it is a failing on your part.

 

[Doreen]

Nonsense, Doreen is expressing her point injecting God into her arguement. Doreen doesn't ascribe to the religious God theory, now thats trolling just to continue on aimlessly.

AGain. I was showing that your defense of the existence of 'rights' is the same poor argument used by some theists to prove the existence of God.

 

[earth]

how exactly is Doreen injecting god into the argument?

rather, it is simply that YOU cannot follow Doreen's, Crunchy Cat's, Bells', or my argument.

YOU are the troll.

Okay, your arguement presents a hypothetical sitution where no rights exist. You must be at the beginning of existence for a starting point. That is not the fact because we as humans are farther along then the beginning of existence. The facts are people determine their rights and then establish those rights in law. My rights are not applicable in a forest of trees. Why can't you people recognize humans rights anymore then then a no thinking skilled tree can.

 

[Doreen]

earth cannot follow anyone's argument apparently, and when he (?) is called on this, he resorts to attacking them by "accusing" them of being "religious."

I did mention God at one point, but for the reason I mentioned in the post above this one. Perhaps he skims our posts so fast, assumes he understands the arguments and this explains why his reponses are to arguments we have not made and are not responses to the points we are making. Whatever it is he's doing, it is rude in the extreme.

 

[parmalee]

Nonsense, I and many other people exercise our right to vote. You can't take that away without a fact to do it. You are calling on God to help you and I am accusing you of being biased and religious.

i am calling on god? really? oh, i see--atheists cannot disagree with one another (according to your beliefs); rather an atheist must simply accept the inane and ludicrous assertions of a fellow atheist, in spite of the fact that the other clearly does not know what the hell he is talking about.

i've reported you for idiocy and trolling, and shall put you ignore. buh-bye!

 

[earth]

I did mention God at one point, but for the reason I mentioned in the post above this one. Perhaps he skims our posts so fast, assumes he understands the arguments and this explains why his reponses are to arguments we have not made and are not responses to the points we are making. Whatever it is he's doing, it is rude in the extreme.

Continue to present yourself as if you were a tree lacking a reasoning thought process and I may get even more rude. A tree has no knowledge to understand humanity much less be a part of it.

 

[parmalee]

Okay, your arguement presents a hypothetical sitution where no rights exist. You must be at the beginning of existence for a starting point. That is not the fact because we as humans are farther along then the beginning of existence. The facts are people determine their rights and then establish those rights in law. My rights are not applicable in a forest of trees. Why can't you people recognize humans rights anymore then then a no thinking skilled tree can.

did you review the definition of objective? entity? do you understand what is intended by the adjective, "religious"? rhetorical questions--get back to us after you've cracked a text or two.

 

[Doreen]

Continue to present yourself as if you were a tree lacking a reasoning thought process and I may get even more rude. A tree has no knowledge to understand humanity much less be a part of it.

This is just ad hom. Completely empty of argument. And it makes little sense even as ad hom. Thank you for acknowledging that you have been rude.