A philosophical approach to find a solution beyond religion adherence (part one): Religion and sexual arousals
February 23rd, 2008I’ve always wondered why people become religious and religion adherent. Sometimes I tried to have conversations to find out and sometimes I was in the middle of religion related or religion philosophy discussions and debates to have my conclusions; in school, with every people I meet, through university and even in blogosphere! But never ever I had convinced them and never have been truly convinced! The best achievements, always is some doubts that I do more than the rivals!
Some days ago I read Esra’s article on bashing Islam and found it helpful to bring out my new viewpoint about religion related subjects!
As many societies tried to learn (but not middle eastern) that religion is some personal achievement of life that one should have his own. Some “live and let live” act! Here comes an example:
Finding a partner and a lover is something related to our tastes! When a man finds a woman fit for him to start a life in association, he may have some factors to pick his lady from bunch of women around. He may concentrate on some traits due to his life, his family ideology (what they appreciate), family and social influences, social and cultural situations and some many more factors; e.g. being nice, beautiful, aware, kind, coy, hot, sexy, having good mothering ability, rich, famous, family position … and every traits that brings out his love and is an arousal to go after her (You can find yours and add them to traits list)!
And that’s the same when a girl wants to find his partner. But she is not into a coy or shy guy 
Then she is going after some confident, strong, famous, rich, kind, sexy, hot and whatever that is an arousal for her. And when she wants marry him, she picks him beyond her premises: Social and cultural influences and limitations, family will and her way of goodness that she has learned in her life (definition of goodness for her).
Then he/she had his/her lady/man and will live his/her life with her/him happily for ever!
But some in the middle of way find out that he/she wasn’t the match. They leave each other and maybe try to find a better one that suits!
First Question: Should we blame each other because of how our partners are? If mine isn’t very nice, should you blame me and say, “hey dude, your chick is an ugly one, then you’re a stupid”? If your husband isn’t rich, should I blame you and say “when you’re husband is poor, then you are a stupid”?
Answer: As we all know, picking our partners depends on what we FEEL and FIND good for ourselves! It depends on what is tastier for us and it also depends on some factors about how our life has been, where we’ve been grown and what we have experienced in our life!
In the case of ideologies that’s the same story!
When you birth in a Jewish family that’s your first premise! When you loose your family and home in Iraq terrorism acts, that’s another big influential premise! When you live in Middle East, that’s another fate! When you are born in a Norwegian rich family, that will lead to another form of experience! Your father was Bahai and you’ve been born in Iran, that’s another experience!
Some may have some great and fine lives, then they are living different paradigm than those haven’t.
I don’t want to count more situations that effect on your ideological life; but they made you to become an adherent in a special ideology! That’s it!
But maybe in the middle of your life you find out that fits you not and you deserve a better one! What you do is to just pick a better one if you FEEL there is a better one! That’s it!
Second Question: Should we blame each other because of how our ideologies are? If mine is Islam, should you blame and bash me and say, “hey dude, your religion is supporter of terrorism (by referring to Jihad or some other fundamentals), then you’re a terrorist”? If you are an atheist, should I blame you? If you are a Christian should I say “why you are Christian when god revealed us the holy book Quran”?
Answer: Again it depends on the factors that have influenced our life and are influencing it right now. I’m adherent to my ideology because I found it useful! Or I changed because I found mine to be useless and found a better one; Just it!
Loading ...
Loading...
Well, I don’t think it’s as I easy as that.
If one is Catholic (use one example common to me), he has to follow the pope (or he will be expelled from the community). Also, he has to follow the bible (but in the way the pope interprets it).
The bible says: “Homosexuals have to be killed”. The pope says: “No, but they can’t become priests and after all, they are ok, but not as good as other humans”.
Can a Catholic say he respects human rights?
I think, no. He can either be Catholic – or respect human rights. If he says he does both, he’s a traitor to one…
And human rights a superior to any religion, as they don’t prefer anybody above someone else. They can be a rule for everybody – religion can’t.
That’s why I think it’s ok to blame people for what they religious leaders say. If they don’t like to be held responsible for it, they should not be part of that religious group.
Excuse the typos – it’s horrible, I know.
Simon:
Dear Simon,
As you see some faults (to be a Catholic and respecting human rights at the same time), then it seems that this ideology doesnt satisfy you; then pick a better one to be satisfied! Out there, you may find some better one!
Its all I wanted to say albeit in next parts: we should try to bring out a freedom communities to get rid of these bigotries!
But as long as there is religion, there will be bigotry. Why? Because a religion must have something which makes it different. It has to attract followers, so it has a set of rules and a set of what you get when you follow these rules.
And then, it has one or a set of Gods and hallows and prophets, which are said make these promises come true.
Why should people believe, if not because they feel it’s better for them? I don’t say they think it, but they feel. So they are “good” – in the way their religion preaches it through its leaders. They are good to fulfill the requirements for going to live a life their god will see as good.
So, it’s all about being “good” – but not for the sake of mankind, but for the sake of god’s will. And this will can’t be a will which pleases everybody – because there must be more than one religion. These religions will always be different from each other at some points. And because of that, there will always be at least two kinds of god’s will on the world.
But because it’s god’s will, you can’t discuss it (hey, that’s what makes it special! it’s god’s will, not some human’s one!). And what you can’t discuss, you can’t change.
Also, there are rules which are made for everybody – all the same which religion he has. And these rules will infect situations, where the religions preach different ways how to handle them. It must, because else religions would be one with the rules – man-made and god-made wouldn’t differ from each other.
So, as long as there is religion, there must be bigotry.
(I hope, what I wrote is all reasonable. I can’t guarantee for my words, only for my mind
)
Dear Simon:
You’re right. But I’ll explain more in next posts and try to answer your questions!
But again I say that we should get rid of bigotry in COMMUNITIES! I believe that we, as human being CANNOT get rid of religions and gods; then we should build our societies and communities not based on what a religous leader may say (as you mentioned pope)!
We should get rid of these communities not religion to feel free!
Thats why I’m trying to find a solution over adherence (some interfaith) not religions conflicts!
@ Lord Kavi:
I understand the point you’re making, but I don’t think it’s possible to change a society for that. The ways it shows changes and the effect it has on people’s lives, but not the influences of believes itself. Maybe religious leaders become unimportant, but there will be someone else to replace them.
My understanding of what you have written is that we should tolerate others and not blame people for the way they are and the ideologies they adhere to, because they have good reasons for it.
Is that so?! it does seem important to understand other people’s point of view, however it does not make their actions right.
If we all follow that way of thinking, then there would be little room for truth, for transcendent secular morality and ethics.
For example, a son of a Shahid (martyr) in Iran may have strong tendencies to support Islamic Republic because of his “situation” or background. This will not justify his action in my opinion, for example if he becomes a Basiji and attack student demonstrators.
Philosophical thinking does promote better understanding of the other persons position but there is a limit. There are transcendent universal values, most importantly of which are human rights, which should not be confused with culture relativism or futile open-mindedness e.g. its ok to torture in Iran because Islam says so.
I hope you understand and agree, if not, I would love to hear your argument.
Kavi writes: “I’m adherent to my ideology because I found it useful! Or I changed because I found mine to be useless and found a better one; Just it!”
That isn’t the way it was for all of us. I was a Christian who left the church to become a Baha’i but not because I found Christianity useless. It was because the Bab’s story sounded just like the story of Christ and I felt I needed to accept both or reject both. But I had no grounds for saying one was true and the other false.
Simon writes:
“The bible says: “Homosexuals have to be killed”. The pope says: “No, but they can’t become priests and after all, they are ok, but not as good as other humans”.
Can a Catholic say he respects human rights?
I think, no. He can either be Catholic – or respect human rights. If he says he does both, he’s a traitor to one…”
I’m not sure what you are saying here, Simon but Christians have never felt they were bound by all the laws of the Old Testament. So just because the Old Testament says homosexuals should be killed does not mean the Christian church is obliged to do so unless there is something in the New Testament that indicates this (and I can assure you there is not.) Upholding the civil rights of homosexuals need not entail seeing their behavior as acceptable within a religious community.
You wrote:
“It has to attract followers, so it has a set of rules and a set of what you get when you follow these rules.”
Do you really think rules are what attract people to a religion? People accept a religion because they believe it is from God, not because it has rules. I was raised a liberal Presbyterian. We had virtually no rules at all. The purpose of ‘rules’ in a religion is because they are supposed to help transform both the individual and the society. So you can have a religion without rules (as I once did) but it won’t have any hope of changing the world for the better. So the question really ought to be “Are the rules of my religion meeting the needs of our age?” ‘
If one determines that they are not, then there are a couple of few solutions:
1) One can re-examine those rules and determine whether in fact they are necessary elements of the religion or just ones that were added on and can be disgarded.
2) One can consider whether or not there is another religion which meets those needs.
3) One can disgard religion entirely, but mind you, you won’t be disgarding rules. No human society can exist without them. And the secular ideologies which have replaced religion have proven even more brutal and more bigoted than any religion. Consider totalitarian regimes like communist Russia or Hitler’s Germany. Sadam Hussein was not a better man because he was irreligious.
@ Susan:
Yes, another bigotry: The Christians have one holy book, but they don’t fully respect the Old Testament. Why is it part of the bible then? That makes no sense. It’s not like a piece of literature, where I can say: I like the book, but some parts are not as good as the rest. The bible is a sample of rules. How would it be if I said: “Yeah, here’s our law. But, after all, I don’t like the bill which prohibits drunk driving.” and then keep this passage in the book, though nobody accepts in anymore?
No way, the bible would be changed just because it’s out of time. In the Catholic church, only the pope is allowed to decide, how the bible is to be interpreted. Absolutely undemocratic.
When it comes to “secular ideologies”, you say they have proven even more brutal than any religion. That may be true (I doubt that, religious leaders just did never have the power some Stalin or Hitler had), but that does not prove religion to be necessary at all. In fact, fascism or communism replaced religion – they became, through that, religions themselves. But I’d prefer a world without ideologies, if it’s religious or secular ones, only based on common sense instead of dogmatic rules (don’t tell me there is any religion without rules, that’s just not true). With a common set of guidelines (the Human Rights).
Religion and other ideologies should be forgotten, instead, secular law (what is forbidden / allowed) and philosophy (thoughts about what is good, bad, is there something like “good” or “bad” etc…) would allow every single individual to find its place in the world.
“The Christians have one holy book, but they don’t fully respect the Old Testament. Why is it part of the bible then?”
Dear Simon,
I didn’t say they didn’t respect it, I said they don’t feel bound by its laws, but they include in their Bible because it is deemed part of God’s revelation. According to the Apostle Paul, however, Jesus’ coming frees us from works of the law. Paul believed that it was impossible to truly fulfill the laws of the Torah, that their function was simply to lead us to Christ. I’m not sure I agree with that theology. I don’t think God makes laws just to frustrate us. Also, I think it is rather unrealistic to think people can live without rules, but how is it bigotry?
“No way, the bible would be changed just because it’s out of time. In the Catholic church, only the pope is allowed to decide, how the bible is to be interpreted. Absolutely undemocratic.”
That’s not really the way it works, but if it were how would that be undemocratic? The Pope is an elected leader, after all. Of course it is not regular Catholics who elect him, it is the Cardinals, the heads of the priesthood. So yes, the Catholic Church is a hierchical organization, not a democracy. It never claimed to be anything else. But then revelation itself isn’t a democracy, is it? One Person arises claiming to have orders from God. Ultimately religion is based on authority. If that is what you mean by ‘bigotry’ I suppose that’s correct. But I consider those people bigots who refuse to allow each person to investigate and determine for themselves who that authority is.
You wrote:
“In fact, fascism or communism replaced religion – they became, through that, religions themselves.”
Which suggests to me that people need religion and in its absence will create them.
You wrote:
“But I’d prefer a world without ideologies, if it’s religious or secular ones, only based on common sense instead of dogmatic rules (don’t tell me there is any religion without rules, that’s just not true). With a common set of guidelines (the Human Rights).”
The notion of ‘common sense’ is also an ideology, one that grew up during the Enlightenment (remember Thomas Paine’s Common Sense?) Who exactly is going to determine what constitutes ‘common sense’ or a ‘common set of guidelines.’ How do we know what constitutes human rights. In my country we think it is a ‘right’ to possess automatic weapons. I don’t know any other country that thinks this is a ‘right.’
As for philosophy determining what is right or wrong, my understanding is that the Anglo-American tradition of philosophy has largely determined that good, bad, right and wrong are, along with religion, syntactical errors.
We have, in the West, societies which have completely lost their moral compass. Is this really a good thing?
Susan, I completely agree with your points on religious ideology and its implementation especially in regards to Catholicism. Papal infallability has only been invoked something like 3 times in the last hundred years, and only on matters of theology or scripture – never on societal questions like homosexuality. It’s a common misconception of the Catholic church that the Pope as a whole – everything he says and everything he does – is infallable, and that is simply not true.
I might have an answer to your question of what defines a human right. The basis for this in activist and legal spheres is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideologies of which are supposed to be implemented into each individual country’s constitution. Therefore, if you are referring to the US with your automatic weapons comment, that is not a “human right” but rather a right afforded to Americans by their constitution.
Personally, I become very frustrated because I have found that people consistently blur the line between what human rights actually are and confusing them with a personal or government responsibility….everything now has become a right, which inevitably makes the actual rights less important. To use a simplistic example, the UNDHR guarantees that everyone should have the right to an education. This does not mean that everyone has the “right” to go to Harvard or Yale or Oxford, nor does it mean those who home-school their children are in violation of the UNDHR.
I would also like to add to the general discussion that every system, political or religious, is going to be flawed simply because it is implemented by the hands of non-perfect humans. This goes back to Lord Kavi’s original point, that after careful consideration, you simply pick the system that seems the least flawed to you and then you try to work within to change it as best as you can to achive ideals like human rights. Respect and tolerance of other’s choices – even if they differ from yours – is the key.
Jessica,
I’m aware that the Pope is only regarded as infallible when he is speaking from the chair of Peter. But there are endless debates among Catholics as to when that is the case. Not all would agree that this has been invoked only three times in the last hundred years. I agree that documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights constitutes are current standards of what constitutes a ‘human right.’ The problem, of course, is that they are not universally accepted. The US, for instance, has not been willing to implement the economic dimensions of these rights. Jeane Kirkpatrick, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, argued that certain economic rights cannot be human rights; Kirkpatrick called the Declaration “a letter to Santa Claus”
While some Islamists have condemned the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as reflecting solely Judeo-Christian values, so far as I know the only religious organization to overtly place its support behind the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been the Baha’i International Community and the Hindu American Foundation. Maybe some of you can up with others. We might ask Philip to give us some evidence of the Catholic Church’s stand on this issue.
Ironically Iran hosted the first International Conference on Human Rights.
Dear Susan,
Can you give a specific example of the failure of the US to implement the economic dimensions of these rights? As you stated, an Ambassador’s statements (look at John Bolton) often do not support the UNDHR or the UN in general. However, I don’t think that can indicate overall US policy but rather just a specific administration’s policy towards increased foreign control.
Plus we need to be careful in interpretating the economic responsibility in the UNDHR, as the UNDHR does not directly spell out ANY economic policies. Many scholars – and especially those who support the principles of the UNDHR – have disagreed on this very subject.
As far as religious organizations who place support behind the UNDHR, what do you constitute as support? For example, Lutherans….the Lutheran church does not have a hierarchy or a head who could make such a statement on behalf of the church itself. However, I find many Lutherans every day that would be fully supportive of the UNDHR principles.
The Catholic church has made general statements in support of the UN’s goals and missions, but not specifically of the UNDHR. If the church/Pope did make such statements, it would become entrenched in a political debate, which (I believe) is not its place. It’s the difference between the Catholic church saying “I support the seperation of church and state” and then saying “I support the American constitution as the only real example of democracy.” Can you imagine what the reaction of Catholics in Germany, for example, would be to such a statement? I realize that the UNDHR is supposed to be universal, but it is still a political document created by a political system and set of ideologies.
I have full respect for the Bahai Community and the Hindu community putting their stated public support behind the UNDHR, and I definitely respect those who follow the Bahai faith or the Hindu faith for their subsequent dedication to the principles laid out in the UNDHR.
However, I believe there is a significant danger in religious figures mixing with politics. I do not think it is the place of the Catholic church to say they support specific political agendas, but rather to show their support through overarching statements and through activities (for example, the many Catholic charities that exist to feed the homeless, ect).
Jessica asks:
“Can you give a specific example of the failure of the US to implement the economic dimensions of these rights?”
Sure can. Article 25 is the one which the US refuses to recognize as a “human right”:
“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”
To give one specific example, we do not provide adequate health care to everyone even though we have the means to do so. Nor do we guarantee everyone adquate food, clothing and housing even when they are employed full time.
Jessica wrote:
“However, I believe there is a significant danger in religious figures mixing with politics. I do not think it is the place of the Catholic church to say they support specific political agendas, but rather to show their support through overarching statements and through activities (for example, the many Catholic charities that exist to feed the homeless, ect).”
The Baha’is veer away from partisan politics even more than the Catholic church does, but it seems to me that the question of human rights is ultimately a moral and therefore a religious question. The US Declaration of Indpendence states: “We hold these rights to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights …”
I’m not as persuaded as our Enlightment forefathers that these rights are self-evident, but it seems to me that for human rights to have any moral force they must be recognized as God-given and only religions can attest to this.
It seems to me that if the Papacy could condemn modernism in the 19th century it can certainly stand up for human rights in the 21st century. As for Germany objecting, the Catholic church would have had a lot more credibility today if they had stood up to Germany two generations ago.
Hi Susan,
RE: example of article 25 as US failure to maintain human rights…
A government PROVIDING financially for health care and ensuring ACCESS to health care are two different issues. I do not believe that in reading article 25, the US government should implement universal health care. Article 25 simply states that adequete health care resources need to be available to all people, not that the government should provide for it.
With regards to the food, clothing, and housing issue this is not only a question of what is adequete (are homeless shelters adequete?) but also of who should provide. The UNDHR is not only an affirmation by different governments, but also by individuals as a part of the collective society. Therefore, it places just as much responsibility on us as citizens as it does on governments. The government is only responsbile to the level of providing equal opportunity – to utilize the opportunity is up to the individual.
These questions are the very reasons why the UNDHR was left intentionally vague. There is a great book based on Eleanor Roosevelt’s contributions to the UNDHR (I’m forgetting the name of it at the moment but I can get it if you’re interested) which explains a lot of these decisions.
RE: poltics/church comment….
I completely agree that human rights do have a moral and religious component, but there is also an economic and political component that cannot be ignored. When you say that human rights, in order to have any moral force, should be God-given you run into a problem in including all those people who don’t believe in any God.
A religion embracing the principles of human rights – which I believe that Catholic church does do – is different than a religion stating their support for a document that has other (political and economic) components.
Agreed that the Catholic church should have stood up to Nazi Germany, but that wasn’t the point of my Germany comment. Replace “Germany” in my previous comment with any other democratic country and it still has the same meaning.
I’m by no means saying that the Catholic church is perfect – no religion is “perfect” because it is practiced, ultimately, by sinful people. Same goes true for countries – the US certainly can improve its human rights record in a number of areas, but I still think it is far ahead of many countries in this regard.
Also, I’d like to hear your thoughts on how religious individuals who aren’t part of a church with a head or appointed speaker can express their “support” for the UNDHR.
Thanks for the good debate, it’s certainly making my day more interesting!
Jessica wrote:
“A government PROVIDING financially for health care and ensuring ACCESS to health care are two different issues.”
That’s not the way the framers of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights see the issue and neither has our government. That’s why we have refused to ratify it. The UNDHR is aimed primarily at governments not the Salvation Army. A right is an entitlement, not charity. The UNDHR is about the government’s responsibility to see to the welfare of its citizenry not just egual opportunity. That’s the difference between the UNDHR and our own Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights does not mention anything about economic rights as contained in Article 25.
But you are right that what constitutes adequate food, shelter, education, health care, etc. is going to vary from place to place. And some countries are not going to fulfill this Article simply because they can’t. I think it is interesting that in the Middle East being able to provide these things is what lends legitimacy to governments. But in order to get finanical assistance from the World Bank those governments are under increasing pressure *not* to provide them. So we are in the interesting position of having the World Bank policies which are in direct contradiction to the UNDHR, yet we criticize Muslim countries for failing to uphold the UNDHR. Much of the attraction of organizations like Hamas and the Lebanese Hizbullah has been in their ability to provide these things.
Jessica wrote:
“When you say that human rights, in order to have any moral force, should be God-given you run into a problem in including all those people who don’t believe in any God.”
True enough, but that strikes me as the instinsic problem of both atheism and secularism. They fail to provide an alternative source for morality.
“A religion embracing the principles of human rights – which I believe that Catholic church does do – is different than a religion stating their support for a document that has other (political and economic) components.”
That is, of course, a central issue. As I said, the UNHDR considers social equity a human right. Classical Liberalism does not. But I’m curious as to what principles of human rights you see the Catholic church upholding and where does it do so?
As for the US record in upholding human rights as articulated in the UNHDR, yes it is far ahead of most countries, even those who claim to adhere to the principles of the UNHDR. But it is far behind most European democracies in doing so.
[...] Mideast Youth – Thinking AheadArticle: A philosophical approach to find a solution beyond religion adherence (part one): Religion and sexua…Originaly Posted On: 2008-02-23 [...]
Susan, I respectfully disagree that this is not the way the UNDHR framers thought of this issue. The people who worked on the UNDHR had a number of different perspectives on many issues, and it was a VERY distinct decision by the drafters not to include any specific economic policy in the document.
Also, you are flat out wrong when you say that the US has refused to ratify the UNDHR, because the UNDHR is simply not ratifiable….it is considered automatically adopted by any country belonging to the UN. It’s a declaration, not a treaty or convention. Other treates or conventions – like the ICCPR, CDW, ect – are ratifiable, and you are correct in saying that the US has not ratified many of these types of treaties. The response of many of the US Ambassadors to this – and even those who are supportive of the UN (unlike Bolton or Kirkpatrick) – is that it is because the US already maintains these principles in their own constitution. Also, even once the US rep at the UN signs a treaty or convention, it can take Congress years to get it through because our legislative process (rightfully so) is very exhausting.
As far as your statement that the US is far behind many European democracies in adhering to the principles of human rights, again, I disagree. I think you are inserting specific economic responsibilities into the UNDHR (like Universal Health Care) that are simply not there, and using that as an example of progress when many people – Americans and Europeans – might disagree that universal health care is a sign of progress in economic fronts and in human rights circles.
With regards to the Catholic church upholding principles of human rights, Catholic charities are extremely well known for work they are doing in other countries to combat poverty. Here in the States, it’s hard to find a large city that doesn’t have a Catholic school or a Catholic hospital. Poverty, health care, and education are all instrumental parts of the UNDHR. Of course other religions do this too, it’s certainly not just Catholics – Lutherans and Jesuits are more active in education, Jewish in health care/hospitals.
I’m certainly not stating that Catholicism is unequivocally the best or most perfect religion – what one person feels as the “best” religion for them will obviously be different than what another feels – but I don’t think some of the judgements and stereotypes people hold about the church are fair.
Jessica,
Your right about the fact that the UNDHR was ratified by proclamation of the General Assembly not individual countries. I assumed we did not ratify it on the basis of the Reagan administration’s later repudiation of this document. But at the time, we voted for it. But it was most definitely conceived as a statement of objectives to be pursued by Governments. Therefore Article 25 applies to the responsibilities of governments not charitable organizations.
You wrote:
“Other treates or conventions – like the ICCPR, CDW, ect – are ratifiable, and you are correct in saying that the US has not ratified many of these types of treaties. The response of many of the US Ambassadors to this – and even those who are supportive of the UN (unlike Bolton or Kirkpatrick) – is that it is because the US already maintains these principles in their own constitution.”
How can that possibly be a legitimate reason for not ratifying treaties which contain these principles? Clearly we don’t want to ratify them because this makes us accountable in international courts, and the US has never been willing to place itself under the jurisdiction of international courts.
You wrote:
“With regards to the Catholic church upholding principles of human rights, Catholic charities are extremely well known for work they are doing in other countries to combat poverty.”
But you just asserted that the UNDHR doesn’t include economic responsibilites. Yes, the Catholic church, like Hamas, like the Muslim Brotherhood, like the Lebanese Hizbullah does a lot to combat poverty. But where have they affirmed freedom of conscience, of religion, of free speech, etc.? Where have they spoken up for women’s equal rights?
I agree that this is not a legitimate reason for not ratifying such treaties, and I think it is important for the Congress to take steps in such matters.
However, ratification also doesn’t necessarily makes us accountable in international courts, so you are not entirely correct in saying that is the only reason. International human rights law functions in such a manner that you only go to non-domestic courts if the trial or other domestic procedure is deemed a violation of human rights. That would be a hard case to make for a case that was tried in the US….and there is, in fact, an Inter-American (covers N. and S. America) court of human rights where cases from the US have been brought and most of the time they don’t go all the way through for this very reason.
I said the UNDHR doesn’t contain explicit support for specific economic responsibilities or specific economic theory, obviously with the ensurance of any human rights will cost money. This is why we pay taxes – to have a judicial system, schools, ect. I think you and I simply differ on how much money should be alliocated where, and that is exactly why the UNDHR doesn’t lay this out, because setting such a thing up would be a violation of democratic principles…..and I would hope that we would both agree that it is only in a democracy where human rights principles can truly flourish.
Your comparison of the Catholic church to Hamas, MB, and Hisbullah is extremely offensive, biased, and unfounded. You are speaking of groups that SOME call terrorist organizations, and while the Church certainly has a marked past, I know very few intelligent people who would currently classify it as a terrorist organization. Also, Hamas, MB, and Hisbullah are also all POLITICAL religious organizations. This goes back to my previous argument of why church leadership should stay out of politics.
However, before I can answer your question about when they affirm freedom of conscience, women’s rights, ect first I need to know what you define as those things. If you are speaking of things like abortion, that’s not in the UNDHR. If you are speaking of things like women as priests, that’s not about competence but rather about symbolism.
After the 2nd Vatican Council, many things in the RC church changed – including an increased importance of lay leadership in the church, therefore increasing what many would say are “women’s” rights. As far as freedom of religion goes, it’s very clear in the Catchechism that the RC church accepts those who are of other religions and clearly advocates tolerance. I don’t have the Catechism with me right now but I can get page numbers. Now, certainly as with any religion, many people who call themselves Catholic may be extremely intolerant of other’s beliefs or practices. However, again, I say this is why it is important for church leadership to stay OUT of politics.
Jessica wrote:
“Your comparison of the Catholic church to Hamas, MB, and Hisbullah is extremely offensive, biased, and unfounded. You are speaking of groups that SOME call terrorist organizations, and while the Church certainly has a marked past, I know very few intelligent people who would currently classify it as a terrorist organization.”
I think you are missing my point. These organizations named may have terrorist wings associated with them but in the case of Hamas at least, they started out and continue to have as their major focus social equity and charitable activities. Their popularity rests with the fact that they *deliver.* My point is that even though Article 25 is part of the UNDHR, charitable activities do not equate with a respect or committment to human rights, because there are plenty of organizations which engage in such activities which have no such committment whatsoever. I am not suggesting that the church engages in terrorist activities, only that charity and respect for human rights are not the same thing.
You wrote:
“However, before I can answer your question about when they affirm freedom of conscience, women’s rights, ect first I need to know what you define as those things.”
For the time being I’m willing to let the church itself define them, if it has done so anywhere. But I didn’t just speak of women’s rights, I spoke of *egual rights* for women. Abortion is an entirely different question. When I say egual rights, I mean egual to men. Men don’t have abortions.
“If you are speaking of things like women as priests, that’s not about competence but rather about symbolism.”
Interesting. But what does it symbolize, then? Still, I’m willing to grant that religions may make certain exceptions when it comes to things like equality. Baha’is, for instance, do not allow women to sit on the Universal House of Justice, though every other administrative post is open to them. We have no real explanation for this, just that Abdu’l-Baha said it should be this way and we would know the wisdom of it in the future. We also don’t encourage women to serve in the military, because we do think women have a unique role in bringing life into the world and they should not take it away. Still, the equality of the rights of women and men is a principle which the Baha’i Faith explicitly upholds. We just have to admit we have a few exceptions.
As for Catholicism, granted Vatican II accomplished a good deal, but don’t you see the present Pope as undoing much of that?
You wrote:
“As far as freedom of religion goes, it’s very clear in the Catchechism that the RC church accepts those who are of other religions and clearly advocates tolerance. I don’t have the Catechism with me right now but I can get page numbers.”
I’d definitely like to see that. You can probably find it on the internet. What exactly would you mean by “accepts those who are of other religions”? I think Pope John XXIII had one thing in mind but judging by the statement made by Ratzinger before he became Pope, DOMINUS IESUS , he seems to believe something else.
Have you read that statement? It can be found here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
Dear CityBoy:
I know what you mean; then I’ll have your question in mind and try to answer you in next part! check that out some hours later! (I think I’m gonna post it tonight)
Dear Susan:
You’ve found Baha’i great (useful) because it was similar with christianity to you; then you find it much enjoying when you believe in both. You’re a bi-religion and you’ve picked this way of point of view to life to have a better feeling. It spiritually is useful for you! maybe one day you picked one of them, maybe not!
[...] religion adherence (part two): Preaching or Blaming Author: Lord Kavi (Iran) – March 2, 2008 In part one, we came to figuring out that if we are adherent to a specific ideology or religion, then it’s [...]
[...] to choose his/hers, stick to it and NO One should blame him/her for that ideology and selection. (Part One) 2. Since our ideologies are personal, then positive and negative (preaching and blaming) [...]