Religion and Human Rights

[scifes]

heeeey wait a second, answers and 768 were both right all along..you see, this is how it goes:

Evolution entitled human rights.

through the introduction of religion...

so you take away religion you strip people of the human rights given to them by evolution....

:blbl:

 

[Michael]

Of course. It gets shit done.

haha... except the Pyramids were not made by Slaves. And while you're being trite, the opposite is actually true, Slavery gets less done! Banning Slavery may have led to the Industrial revolution. It's a wonder Allah never let Mohammad in on that little bit of advice :shrug:

 

[S.A.M.]

Pyramids were not made by Slaves...Banning Slavery may have led to the Industrial revolution

You really don't know much about this stuff do you?

http://www.alanmacfarlane.com/global/simon1609.htm

 

[James R]

Clearing up a few misconceptions about human rights:

If Human Rights are somehow 'entitled' to everyone then the source of this entitlement must be explained...

The enlightened peoples of the world have agreed on them and they are a recognised part of International Law. Any right is the recognition of an interest, supported by law. Humans recognise rights.

For more, see earth's post and links: [post=2432518]here[/post]

and the truth of the matter is, the only explanation is that human rights are created by humans to serve their purpose- if this is true then any system of law created by humans is just as a supporter of 'human right' as is any- the difference being that these 'rights' are different.

No. Human rights are universally recognised by the enlightened peoples of the world. Those same people universally recognise certain laws and practices to be a breach of human rights.

"Survival of the fittest"

Is evolution compatible with human rights?

Yes, as long as recognising human rights doesn't decrease fitness. Which it doesn't appear to. In fact, it may well increase fitness.

Also isn't it speciest to claim humans have some extra special rights?

Yes.

So you have to sign up for human rights? Who enforces them?

Rights need not be enforced to exist. A right is a legal recognition of an interest.

Right so there are no human rights under dictators.

False. Dictators may abuse human rights, but don't make the mistake of thinking that therefore they don't exist. Why are abusive dictators so afraid of the International Criminal Court? Answer: they know they are committing human rights violations.

 

[S.A.M.]

A right is a legal recognition of an interest.

Does this mean it can be legally recognised only for particular groups?

Rights need not be enforced to exist

Does any legality exist if not enforced?

 

[Lori_7]

As far as the Church teaching is concerned I'm aware that Jesus already done away with sin at the Cross. You say no. So I would like you to reference it from the Bible perhaps?

I don't believe anything about Jesus dying for anyone's sin that would explain everything- but really I don't want to involve the Islamic belief- I would like reference from the Bible to substantiate your claim so that I can know what the Bible reallysays about the issue.

Peace be unto you

i'm sorry, i don't really have much scripture memorized for any particular reason, but i'm very aware of the synopsis, and i can post a link to some scripture here...

when jesus returns, he will rule the earth. this will be the kingdom of god/christ, that is referred to all over the bible. at that time, christ will be united with the church, his bride, which are all who want to be with him in this kingdom. as christ was born without sin, the church will also be born again, in new bodies that are without sin as his is. without sin, communion will be restored with god and with each other as it was in the garden before the fall, and we will live in complete freedom, peace, and love, and forever.

"thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven"

that's what the prayer means.

here is some scripture about the kingdom...

www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=kingdom of christ&version1=31&searchtype=all

 

[James R]

Does this mean it can be legally recognised only for particular groups?

Yes. Universal human rights are recognised for all human beings, however.

Does any legality exist if not enforced?

Yes.

Non-enforcement happens all the time. Take jay-walking, for instance. It is against the law in many places, but seldom if ever enforced.

 

[CheskiChips]

No. Human rights are universally recognised by the enlightened peoples of the world. Those same people universally recognise certain laws and practices to be a breach of human rights.

So all of which disagree with the comprehensiveness of the state of 'universal law' are what...confounded, foolish?

 

[S.A.M.]

Yes. Universal human rights are recognised for all human beings, however.

By whom?

Yes.

Non-enforcement happens all the time. Take jay-walking, for instance. It is against the law in many places, but seldom if ever enforced.

Then why have law enforcement agencies?

 

[James R]

So all of which disagree with the comprehensiveness of the state of 'universal law' are what...confounded, foolish?

I didn't mention the comprehensiveness of universal law. What's universal law, and why do you think it is comprehensive?

Yes. Universal human rights are recognised for all human beings, however.

By whom?

By all the enlightened peoples of the world.

Non-enforcement happens all the time. Take jay-walking, for instance. It is against the law in many places, but seldom if ever enforced.

Then why have law enforcement agencies?

Police provide a community service by sanctioning law-breakers. This process has several aims, such as deterrence, punishment, compensation, justice, etc.

 

[S.A.M.]

By all the enlightened peoples of the world.

Do these enlightened peoples who recognise universal human rights practise this ideal?

Police provide a community service by sanctioning law-breakers. This process has several aims, such as deterrence, punishment, compensation, justice, etc.

Why do they need to sanction "law breakers"? Doesn't enlightenment work better?

 

[James R]

Do these enlightened people who recognise universal human rights practise this ideal?

One would hope so. To do otherwise would be hypocritical.

Why do they need to sanction "law breakers"? Doesn't enlightenment work better?

Yes. One of those "etceteras" that I didn't mention explicitly above - a rather important one - is rehabilitation.

 

[S.A.M.]

One would hope so. To do otherwise would be hypocritical.



Yes. One of those "etceteras" that I didn't mention explicitly above - a rather important one - is rehabilitation.

So these enlightened peoples, a select group, impose universal human rights on other humans by using institutionalised corrective measures.

Does it work?

 

[CheskiChips]

I didn't mention the comprehensiveness of universal law. What's universal law, and why do you think it is comprehensive?

Well..if it's not comprehensive...it's incomplete. Which means there's tons of unestablished precedent - when will these ominous "Enlightened of the world" establish precedent. Until their law has near comprehensive approach there is no law - or any infraction has millions of mitigating circumstances which have no clear consensus and therefore no accountability can be assumed by its followers. Is "murder" wrong? Well...what's murder? The US has established precedent, every country does, the world doesn't.

 

[James R]

So these enlightened peoples, a select group, impose universal human rights on other humans by using institutionalised corrective measures.

No. Where did you get that idea? Please explain what you mean.

I didn't mention the comprehensiveness of universal law. What's universal law, and why do you think it is comprehensive?

Well..if it's not comprehensive...it's incomplete.

What is? Law in general? Well, yes. I don't disagree with that. What would "complete" law look like?

Which means there's tons of unestablished precedent - when will these ominous "Enlightened of the world" establish precedent.

Precedent for what?

Until their law has near comprehensive approach there is no law...

Huh? You're not making much sense here. Explain what you mean by a "comprehensive approach".

Is "murder" wrong? Well...what's murder? The US has established precedent, every country does, the world doesn't.

I can't really tell what you're saying here.

There are generally-accepted definitions of the word "murder". Go grab a dictionary and you'll find a few.

 

[Lori_7]

Well..if it's not comprehensive...it's incomplete. Which means there's tons of unestablished precedent - when will these ominous "Enlightened of the world" establish precedent. Until their law has near comprehensive approach there is no law - or any infraction has millions of mitigating circumstances which have no clear consensus and therefore no accountability can be assumed by its followers. Is "murder" wrong? Well...what's murder? The US has established precedent, every country does, the world doesn't.

god does. universal law is god's law, and judgment is according to it, regardless of what we say about it.

 

[James R]

Which God has the right law, Lori_7? The God of Islam? The God of Christianity? Zeus? Because their commandments seem to differ from one another.

 

[S.A.M.]

No. Where did you get that idea? Please explain what you mean.

Give me an example of a universal human right that an enlightened peoples would recognise and I'll make it more specific.

 

[CheskiChips]

Precedent for what?

A precedent is a court ruling which has decided the interpretation of a law. Most court cases that make it to high level circuits are arguing precedent cases and applicability to the specific case - very few are ground breaking, in America that's the Supreme Court's job.

Huh? You're not making much sense here. Explain what you mean by a "comprehensive approach".

There are generally-accepted definitions of the word "murder". Go grab a dictionary and you'll find a few.

But there are billions of mitigating circumstances. What specific set of circumstances make an individual guilty of murder, and which make them guilty of man slaughter, and which make them acting in self defense?

There's no historical record of judicial history, and no terms have been agreed upon. Until there's been cases which have tried these events under international law, there's no precedent.

Does Law not work like this in Australia?

 

[S.A.M.]

Which God has the right law, Lori_7? The God of Islam? The God of Christianity? Zeus? Because their commandments seem to differ from one another.

Like the law systems differ among Australians and Aboriginals. Which one is the right law?