Religion and Human Rights

[Alexander8]

From the perspective of social evolution Universal rights should be seen as a sophisticated political weapon used by certain powerful human groups to control and dominate weaker ones. They are in many ways identical to the Christian 'civilizing missions' that were used to justify colonialism.

German philosopher Paul Treanor has written an excellent essay on the subject. I can't post the link but if you type his name and the essay title into Google you'll find it (I've pasted the first paragraph below).

Why human rights are wrong

A Serbian or Iraqi child who is shot to enforce human rights, suffers just as much pain, as an American or British child. Yet the US and British governments do not kill or injure their own citizens, to protect their human rights. That fate is reserved for Eastern Europeans, Arabs, Africans, and Asians. The western human rights lobby claims, that it is wrong to deny people human rights. They claim opposition to human rights is based on 'ethical relativism', and that their own 'moral universalism' is superior. Yet they would not bomb their own cities like they bombed Belgrade or Falluja or remote Afghan villages. Clearly, the 'moral universalism' of the human rights lobby is itself relative: it is turned on and off to conform to geopolitical interests. It was never much more than a propaganda slogan anyway.
Paul Treanor, June, 2004.

 

[S.A.M.]

Universal rights should be seen as a sophisticated political weapon used by certain powerful human groups to control and dominate weaker ones. They are in many ways identical to the Christian 'civilizing missions' that were used to justify colonialism.

Thats pretty much how it practically works out.

 

[James R]

CheskiChips:

A precedent is a court ruling which has decided the interpretation of a law.

Yes.

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.

Yes. And so?

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?

The law doesn't work that way. Attempting to comprehensively list every conceivable set of circumstances would be a fool's errand. Instead, general principles apply. In the case of murder, for example, generally there is a requirement that (a) the offender actually committed the act that led to death, and (b) the offender had a particular state of mind at the time.

There's no historical record of judicial history, and no terms have been agreed upon.

You were talking about precedent a moment ago. What is that, if not a historical record of judicial history?

Until there's been cases which have tried these events under international law, there's no precedent.

Which cases?


SAM:

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

Neither set of laws claims to be the sole ultimate authority. Compare God's supposed law.

 

[James R]

Alexander8:

From the perspective of social evolution Universal rights should be seen as a sophisticated political weapon used by certain powerful human groups to control and dominate weaker ones.

Since when did social evolution have a single perspective? Or do you mean that's how you think human rights should be seen?

German philosopher Paul Treanor has written an excellent essay on the subject.

Not judging by the first paragraph. He seems to assume that human rights only come at the point of a gun.

 

[S.A.M.]

Neither set of laws claims to be the sole ultimate authority. Compare God's supposed law.

You mean Australian courts do not consider Australian law as the sole ultimate authority? Which law do they apply then?

Gods laws are also determined by the people who apply them, far as I know.

But I don't think Aboriginal law is applied across Australia even though its got a 40,000 year headstart.

 

[786]

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.

Are you calling the leaders of countries 'enlightened peoples'?-

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.

Who are 'enlightened people'- those who've reached Nirvana, those who are secularist and use every knowledge they have to subjugate others because of it, or those high on drugs? Is this basically a word used to enslave others to your worldview of the world- ironic? :shrug:

And by they way I would like to point out that you are playing with words... Earth said the Human Rights were for 'benefit' and now you're saying they tell us 'interest'- In either case religious law also creates law for both reasons- but the 'benefit' and 'interest' of humans is eternal... Of course these are not enlightened people at all and they must be rejected at all costs?

Peace be unto you

 

[Doreen]

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.

1) I do see that the peoples of the world have agreed on human rights. I am not sure what the subset is you are referring to with 'enlightened people'. I can only assume this is people you agree with. 2) You say that a 'right' is an interest supported by law, but surely you must know that many people mean something else by rights. They think it is something inherent or something they are entitled to in a much more essential way. As opposed to something that is agreed on. Slavey was seen as a morally acceptable for a long time, though many would balk at calling it a human right, despite it being based on human interests supported by law.

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.

Can you not see the problem of using these two bolded phrases together.

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

They exist then in these situations in a meaningless way for those who have them. In fact one could say they do not exist in the lives of those who are supposed to 'have' them.

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.

Since the US refuses to allow its leaders to ever be called in front of a international court, does this mean that they are not members of enlightened peoples?

 

[scifes]

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.

1-if these laws are agreed upon then i don't know what we're discussing here.
2- people may agree on human rights, but they practice or apply those rights differently.
those differences in applying human rights may come from the different religions those enlightened people adhere to.
then what?

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.

in general terms yes.
we all say children have rights, and should not be abused.
is "hitting" children by their parents abuse? do all enlightened people address the case the same way?
who -of those enlightened people with different views- has the law on his side, supporting his understanding of human rights? which is 786's question.

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

if the people being supported by human rights were fit enough to fight for their own rights they wouldn't need human rights to support them.
the fit don't appeal to judge and jury, they play judge and jury.

 

[Lori_7]

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.

the one who makes the law...who imo IS the law (father/creator). see, it's just like us to want to own god, slap a label on god.

it's not about owning god, or categorizing god. it's not about knowing it all, and being right. it's about living, and experiencing.

from what i know of god, he doesn't want us to follow rules we don't understand, or practice rituals and ceremonies, or be religious. god wants us to live with an open mind and heart, and to know him.

god is capable of this, and so are we.

this isn't a game, or an intellectual endeavor. it's not about us being right. it's about seeking the truth from god himself.

 

[(Q)]

heh. not inclined to agree with you much, but i'm certainly with you on this one.

Well, I was hoping to find some good responses but instead found the usual diversionary tactics that avoid the topic. Typical.

 

[(Q)]

well this is rich. you want to talk about hypocrisy, but when do you act towards others in a spirit of brotherhood? imo, you hold animosity towards, and are judgmental and condemning towards people who have different beliefs than you do. i can testify here because i have been on the receiving end of it for a while.

Human rights and brotherhood have nothing to do with god delusions, Lori, but they do have something to do with the insane. We have asked you seek professional help from a human rights and brotherhood standpoint. You chose otherwise.

 

[(Q)]

Agreed .
I got the same problem .

Yes, you do, seek help.

 

[(Q)]

Can you first answer "Who entitled Human rights?".... otherwise anything that comes from this concept is quite meaningless.

Rather than being completely foolish, take the time to understand the subject matter before responding.

 

[(Q)]

I believe that is not the argument of (Q)....

And, neither is anything you're spouting. The argument is the atrocious passage of a law that sends us back to the Bronze Age.

 

[parmalee]

Rather than being completely foolish, take the time to understand the subject matter before responding.

heh. like you do.

 

[parmalee]

Human rights and brotherhood have nothing to do with god delusions, Lori, but they do have something to do with the insane. We have asked you seek professional help from a human rights and brotherhood standpoint. You chose otherwise.

can you explain what you mean by suggesting that "human rights and brotherhood" "have something to do with the insane"? this is unclear to me. and can you define this term "insane" which you are so fond of?

 

[parmalee]

Well, I was hoping to find some good responses but instead found the usual diversionary tactics that avoid the topic. Typical.

how is this a diversionary tactic? you wrote:

Wikipedia has the following opening paragraph and quote on "Human Rights"


"Human rights are "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled."

"to which humans are entitled?" it is unclear what this means, and 786 was asking for clarification.

 

[(Q)]

"to which humans are entitled?" it is unclear what this means, and 786 was asking for clarification.

And, I answered him. You could do with some homework yourself.

 

[parmalee]

And, I answered him. You could do with some homework yourself.

ahh, i see--this was your response:

Rather than being completely foolish, take the time to understand the subject matter before responding.

another non-response from (Q). you truly are an endless source of amusement.

though to be honest, i'm getting bored. i think i actually need some stimulation.

 

[(Q)]

i think i actually need some stimulation.

Maybe try your left hand instead?