Religious Freedom In Europe

[dandy777]

Let's not forget that with every right given there is always a responsibility attached. Issues like abortion, eunthanasia and other deeds that involve killing and such stuff, don't just go against any moral but are against the individual's right to protect himself. Society has the responsibility to protect these people who cannot protect themselves (like embryos, children and the sick) despite their religious beliefs. Human worth and dignity goes beyond one's religion.

When we are dealing with divorce, we are not dealing with the person's human dignity. So this divorce issue appeals only to those who really believe and not to those who don't believe. Capisce?

Let me put this clear: I don't agree with divorce as a concept but that doesn't mean that I blame any non-beliver who wants divorce but cannot attain it because it is illegal, especially if the person has just been married in a civil way and not in Church.

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='dandy777' date='Jan 21 2006, 01:40 PM']Let's not forget that with every right given there is always a responsibility attached. Issues like abortion, eunthanasia and other deeds that involve killing and such stuff, don't just go against any moral but are against the individual's right to protect himself. Society has the responsibility to protect these people who cannot protect themselves (like embryos, children and the sick) despite their religious beliefs. Human worth and dignity goes beyond one's religion.

When we are dealing with divorce, we are not dealing with the person's human dignity.  So this divorce issue appeals only to those who really believe and not to those who don't believe. Capisce? 

Let me put this clear: I don't agree with divorce as a concept but that doesn't mean that I blame any non-beliver who wants divorce but cannot attain it because it is illegal, especially if the person has just been married in a civil way and not in Church.
[right][snapback]862641[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

This answer is philosophically unsatisfactory. You're asserting the dignity of the human individual but not defending it. My name is Freidrich Nietzche, I say morality is a constraint upon my freedom and that the strength of my individual will to power is the only moral compass. Debate with me, show me how I'm wrong. You say everyone has human rights, why is that? I dont agree. I say the only human rights are the ones given by the extraordinary men who by right of being ubermensh have the right to dominate all others as they see fit.

In a toss up its just my opinion against yours is it not? You're saying all humans have rights and I'm saying all humans do not. So who judges between us? According to your frame of mind as humans we're both of equal dignity, right? So if I say one thing and you say another who has the right to arbitrate? Other humans? They're of equal dignity too, no? So they cant decide and even if we were to put it to democratic vote would you be confident in a moral principle that exists based upon the whim of the masses? No. Ultimately the one whose moral view will win out will be the one with the strongest will to enforce it via power. Therefore, I, Mr Friedrich Nietzche win this debate. I say there's no such thing as human rights and since I have the right of arbitration by right of a my greater will to power thats morality: might makes right.

There is a counter to this standpoint but you're not providing it Dandy. You're providing me with your views, which however noble they might be dont get to core of this debate. Prove Nietchze wrong, prove we have human rights.

[dandy777]

[quote name='Myles' date='Jan 21 2006, 03:52 PM']This answer is philosophically unsatisfactory. You're asserting the dignity of the human individual but not defending it. My name is Freidrich Nietzche, I say morality is a constraint upon my freedom and that the strength of my individual will to power is the only moral compass. Debate with me, show me how I'm wrong. You say everyone has human rights, why is that? I dont agree. I say the only human rights are the ones given by the extraordinary men who by right of being ubermensh have the right to dominate all others as they see fit.

In a toss up its just my opinion against yours is it not? You're saying all humans have rights and I'm saying all humans do not. So who judges between us? According to your frame of mind as humans we're both of equal dignity, right? So if I say one thing and you say another who has the right to arbitrate? Other humans? They're of equal dignity too, no? So they cant decide and even if we were to put it to democratic vote would you be confident in a moral principle that exists based upon the whim of the masses? No. Ultimately the one whose moral view will win out will be the one with the strongest will to enforce it via power. Therefore, I, Mr Friedrich Nietzche win this debate. I say there's no such thing as human rights and since I have the right of arbitration by right of a my greater will to power thats morality: might makes right.

There is a counter to this standpoint but you're not providing it Dandy. You're providing me with your views, which however noble they might be dont get to core of this debate. Prove Nietchze wrong, prove we have human rights.
[right][snapback]862644[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


lol.... oh God!!! When I read My name is Friedrich Nietzche, I thought I was taken back into a different century then I realised it was about his philosophy which have taken me back to a worse place .... university benches

Anyway, I don't care what the wacko stated. The truth is that there is no supreme race, no elitist society that has the right to have power over or advantage from any other society regardless of size, origin or beliefs. This racial superiority or the moronic idea of being supermen or a super-race is the fruit of people who are greedy for power. Nothing more, nothing less. No one can declare himself superior and this can be tested biologically or scientifically. So on a natural element this Nietzche was no more better than you and I unless he was a sort of a cyborg, which I seriously doubt. So this idea of his is just an opinion with no scientific foundation.

Secondly, we can take a look at his opinion and find out that the adoption of such opinion have only led to bloodshed and hatred around the world. Just take a look at Germany in mid 30s and 40s, in Kosovo and Montenegro just some decades ago as well as Chechnya and Russia. There you get the result of his ideology which unfortunately still survives and rumbles.

So no, his ideas and mine are not equal as his lead to destruction whereas mine lead to preservasion. And this is what every creature on earth tries to do at the end of the day. That is why many countries felt the urge and need to sit down around a table, discuss such issues and draft a declaration about human rights that states:

[i]Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction. [/i]

[Myles Domini]

Basically then your answer is that we have human rights because the UN say we do and if they say we didnt then we wouldnt? Unwittingly you're admitting exactly what Nietchze stated: those with the power decide what morality is. Your argument appears to be that either a) because the UN have enough power to decide what human rights should be they can or b) because enough people in the world vote for it we have human rights. In both cases that makes human rights depend on the whim of the people with the power.

[Deeds]

Divorce is (sadly) sometimes necessary, for example, when one spouse is abusive. It's not against Church teachings in certain cases and in that respect, it's different to other moral issues.

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='Deeds' date='Jan 21 2006, 03:42 PM']Divorce is (sadly) sometimes necessary, for example, when one spouse is abusive. It's not against Church teachings in certain cases and in that respect, it's different to other moral issues.
[right][snapback]862695[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

This isnt strictly true. Seperation and annulment might be considered in these circumstances but divorce, not so.

Further to my earlier statements I believe I've illustrated the difficulty of making our rights depend entirely on the power of some body of politicians to enforce them. Some of the UN security council members knowingly violate those rights all the time without consequences because for the powerful there often arent any in human terms.

I do not believe in the sanctity of life because other people do nor do I believe it cos the UN tells me to I believe it because I have an obligation to because there is a Creator who has ordered the world towards certain discernable ends: The natural law.

Without a Creator whose ontology gives Him the right to make moral demands of us His creatures Nietchze's philosophy will always be the only consistent moral philosophy. You always need an arbiter to decide whats right and wrong and that person regardless of how well intentioned they are (or not) will only ever get to justify their vision by securing the power e.g. by votes, by force or whatever to make other people obey them because as humans we find it impossible to obey those we deem as being of equal dignity to ourselves (and there is no logical inconsistency in this).

Because there is a natural law there are human rights but without natural law there are no rights whether to life or anything else. Now according to the natural law divorce is wrong, as likewise euthanasia and abortion are. Thus to be consistent I will not condone the legalisation of anything that goes against the natural law.

Now if you're going to support divorce and not the other things that contravene natural law as I said before give me philosophical justification for it. Show me how a) we can know we have human rights b) who has the power to decide what these are and c) how we can determine that divorce is a human right. I guarantee you'll not be able to.

Ultimately any ethical theory you propose is still going to fall down before Nietchze's emotivism. If God is dead as Nietchze said then I, as a human, have no duty to obey you, another human, and the only way you can force me to do so if I disagree with your ethical theory is to force me through exhibiting a greater will to power. However, if God is a really Creator who has ordered the world to certain ends then natural law stands and the unlawfulness of divorce with it and the rest of the natural law.

Edited January 21, 2006 by Myles

[Laudate_Dominum]

Not necessarily true Myles. God may be dead, but there still might be alien scientists out there so we need to figure out the best moral system which will enable us to bring about a race of genetically engineered clone geniuses who will bring us to the point where we can be alien geniuses too.

:

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jan 21 2006, 05:03 PM']Not necessarily true Myles. God may be dead, but there still might be alien scientists out there so we need to figure out the best moral system which will enable us to bring about a race of genetically engineered clone geniuses who will bring us to the point where we can be alien geniuses too.

:
[right][snapback]862737[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]



Come now leave the new agers alone L_D...

Edited January 21, 2006 by Myles

[Deeds]

[quote name='Myles' date='Jan 21 2006, 04:57 PM']This isnt strictly true. Seperation and annulment might be considered in these circumstances but divorce, not so.
[right][snapback]862735[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
You're saying that divorce can never be acceptable? That's completely wrong.

Furthermore, divorce is a legal process, annulment is a Church one (I presume you're talking about it in the Catholic sense.) It's sometimes necessary to sever legal ties with a spouse.

[dandy777]

[quote name='Myles' date='Jan 21 2006, 04:45 PM']Basically then your answer is that we have human rights because the UN say we do and if they say we didnt then we wouldnt? Unwittingly you're admitting exactly what Nietchze stated: those with the power decide what morality is. Your argument appears to be that either a) because the UN have enough power to decide what human rights should be they can or b) because enough people in the world vote for it we have human rights. In both cases that makes human rights depend on the whim of the people with the power.
[right][snapback]862663[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'm sorry Myles that is what [b]you[/b] are saying and not what I am saying Myles. You are interpreting wrongly what I am saying.

As I said earlier on and I am going to insist on this, I don't agree with divorce because I believe that marriage is a sacred union. However, I cannot apply or impose what I believe onto other people who don't believe unless they want to. I am trying to separate state affairs from religious once. One must be very careful how to deal with laws as it is going to effect every citizen and not just a section of the population. [b]So laws have to be balanced and just.[/b] Now, if we take divorce as an example, one has to be aware that there are two types of marriages, the civil one and the religious one. Everyone gets married civilly but not everyone marries in a church/synagogue/mosque whatever. Now according to Catholicism, divorce can never be acceptable since no man can break what God has united. But that applies to Catholics. What right do I have to tell an atheist who doesn't care about religion and who has only got married by civil rite that he cannot divorce his wife, just because for me and most other Catholics marriage is sacred? Do you get my point? It is ridiculous that divorce is illegal. The state has to be just with everyone.

You know, this is exactly what we grumble about Islam, that most of the state religions try to force down the people's throats their beliefs and traditions whether they like it or not, and then that is exactly what you are talking about. [b]Our God is a God who respects freewill[/b] whether it leads to good or evil. And He is that God who uses every evil situation for the individual's good.

Now you [b]wrongfully[/b] thought that I associated human rights with the people in power and even worse thought that I agreed with Nietzche's thought. I really think you should read my answer again. What I said is that every human being is intelligent enough (and if he isn't there is scientific/biological/phsychological proof) that the human race is superior to any other form of life on earth. Apart from that, there is an internal awareness within every human being (which I call conscience and believe that it is the voice of God in each of us; while others think it is something else) that tells us what is right and what is wrong. We are able to see the difference between the two and choose.

Now, as I said before, one can look at the outcomes of the ideology of Nietzche and logically understand that it is wrong. Whether Hitler, Pinochet or Milosevic used it, I don't care. What is important is the outcome and our natural reaction against such horrors (whether taken by the UN, the Pope or whoever). This reaction is exactly what I called preservation of the species (as many non-believers say) and/or a declaraion about our human dignity (what believers say). Whatever the motives, if they are right and evoke peace and unity, they are God sent. Remember that in many occassions God used even non-believers to reveal His glory and act on His plan in human history. What produces destruction and hatred certainly is not God-sent.

So that is exactly the answer.

Nietzche = hatred + destruction = evil =not God-sent
Human rights = peace + preservation of culture/identity + inclusion = good = God-sent

A non-believer would stop at the good/evil part, a believer would go a step further yet there is no discussing about the logic in the argument.

[Myles Domini]

Yes, as I said before; Its nice that you think that but if I disagree who is to say that I am wrong and you are right? What if I am a utilitarian. There are several very intelligent people who are utilitarians. One of them Peter Singer is a proffessor of philosophy at Princeton and he believes in infanticide. Why are we wrong and why are you right? Who decides who is wrong and who is right in this instance? You're making statements and assertions but what are they backed by. Your system only stands if your premises are correct and who is it to say that your premises are correct (and that moreover the utilitarian or the nihilist etc.etc is mistaken?)

Surely if we exclude the ontology of the Creator and the responsibilities people have to the natural law according to the truth of their being order to the creation we have no sure rule for deciding which ethical system is correct apart from pure emotivism? In which case anything goes potentially and there is no certainty about anything. You may assert all intillgent people believe in human rights but thats simply not true and for all your assertions and what you view as the negative consequences of certain philosophers ideas that doesnt mean your ideas are correct. You cant prove it, your stance is indefensible.

Without the natural law there is no philosophically justifiable morality just conflicting opinions between human beings.

Edited January 21, 2006 by Myles

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='Deeds' date='Jan 21 2006, 04:42 PM']Divorce is (sadly) sometimes necessary, for example, when one spouse is abusive. [right][snapback]862695[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Personally I think jail would be more appropriate.

[dandy777]

[quote name='Myles' date='Jan 21 2006, 10:22 PM']Yes, as I said before; Its nice that you think that but if I disagree who is to say that I am wrong and you are right?[/quote]

Logic and common sense. Man has based most of its knowledge throughout centuries based on facts and logical reasoning. If you discard that there there is no scope in humanity.

[quote name='Myles' date='Jan 21 2006, 10:22 PM'] What if I am a utilitarian. There are several very intelligent people who are utilitarians. One of them Peter Singer is a proffessor of philosophy at Princeton and he believes in infanticide.[/quote]

I don't know who this person is but if he really thinks so, he isn't [i]that[/i] very intelligent after all.

[quote name='Myles' date='Jan 21 2006, 10:22 PM']Why are we wrong and why are you right? Who decides who is wrong and who is right in this instance? You're making statements and assertions but what are they backed by. Your system only stands if your premises are correct and who is it to say that your premises are correct (and that moreover the utilitarian or the nihilist etc.etc is mistaken?)[/quote]

I'm sorry you are trying to press hard on an argument that doesn't exist. You decided not to see my point even though you describe it as being a noble one.

[quote name='Myles' date='Jan 21 2006, 10:22 PM']Surely if we exclude the ontology of the Creator and the responsibilities people have to the natural law according to the truth of their being order to the creation we have no sure rule for deciding which ethical system is correct apart from pure emotivism? In which case anything goes potentially and there is no certainty about anything. You may assert all intillgent people believe in human rights but thats simply not true and for all your assertions and what you view as the negative consequences of certain philosophers ideas that doesnt mean your ideas are correct. You cant prove it, your stance is indefensible.[/quote]

What about those philosophers who deny the existence of God or a creator? Wouldn't that make your arguments defenseless too? Do you realise that you are saying exactly what I am saying? The only difference is this: you are founding your arguments on a God (who not every person acknowledges) whereas I and telling you that there is a higher order of thoughts and principles of freedom, fraternity and respect that are inherent in every person. Now if you want a proof of this, put a group of people who detest each other on a deserted island and see for yourself if they get united for survival or not. Same thing happened in several revolutions and battles where human rights were threatened. That is the natural call within every person. If anyone rejects that, then he is doomed to die.

[quote name='Myles' date='Jan 21 2006, 10:22 PM']Without the natural law there is no philosophically justifiable morality just conflicting opinions between human beings.
[right][snapback]862826[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That's too. That's why we have to find a common denominator that is accepted by all, like the one I described and then build on it a higher perspective which is the Christian one.

[dandy777]

[quote name='RandomProddy' date='Jan 22 2006, 03:18 PM']Personally I think jail would be more appropriate.
[right][snapback]863190[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

What happens when that person comes out of jail?

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='dandy777' date='Jan 22 2006, 02:47 PM']What happens when that person comes out of jail?
[right][snapback]863209[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

If they can rehabilitate, good. If not, permanent seperation.