Schools have changed

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well it's more than that too. Human rights don't exactly fit with religion as many religions don't recognise that humans have any rights, just obligations to their particular deity.

Yes - that's true.

Plus few religious concepts have corresponding binding legal obligations, except for the obvious: Murder, Theft etc.

You might get elementary morality from, say, the Bible - but you'll have a rather had time applying that to the legal complexities of a modern society.

Most of the time (and certainly in this case) the problem lies with people who believe that the world is a black and white place, and moreover that they are on the correct side of the line.

Edited February 28, 2008 by Number 6

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Human rights don't exactly fit with religion as many religions don't recognise that humans have any rights, just obligations to their particular deity.

Humans have a right to submit to the Lord

[mawilson 2,133]

The only way someone can be taught right from wrong is through the bible?

No, but it's the only way everyone - not just "someone" - can be taught right from wrong

in an organized manner.

[Peikko 1,575]

The only way someone can be taught right from wrong is through the bible?

No, but it's the only way everyone - not just "someone" - can be taught right from wrong

in an organized manner.

???

[mawilson 2,133]

The only way someone can be taught right from wrong is through the bible?

No, but it's the only way everyone - not just "someone" - can be taught right from wrong

in an organized manner.

???

Religious indoctrination of school children under the guise of education is a very effective

way to teach them right from wrong.

[Peikko 1,575]

Is it? I beg to differ.

[mawilson 2,133]

Is it? I beg to differ.

You don't see many pregnant cheerleaders in Saudi Arabia, do you?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

But you do have lots of terrorists and lots of young men who like to jerk off on paltalk (according to LuckyStrike).

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Is it? I beg to differ.

You don't see many pregnant cheerleaders in Saudi Arabia, do you?

Given the system of law over there - its not surprising that you don't hear about it. It doesn't mean of course that it doesn't happen.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The only way someone can be taught right from wrong is through the bible?

No, but it's the only way everyone - not just "someone" - can be taught right from wrong

in an organized manner.

???

Religious indoctrination of school children under the guise of education is a very effective

way to teach them right from wrong.

George Orwell was of the opinion that reading 19th Century adventure stories would turn children into fascists.

I'd go out on a limb and say that pretty much everyone who read Kipling as a child didn't turn out the way Orwell predicted.

[Peikko 1,575]

On reflection, Mawilson is right.

[Peikko 1,575]

Well, he is and he isn't. Religious indoctrination is good at getting people to follow a set of rules. Whether one interprets these rules as the arbiter of what is right and wrong is another thing entirely.

[mawilson 2,133]

Well, he is and he isn't. Religious indoctrination is good at getting people to follow a set of rules. Whether one interprets these rules as the arbiter of what is right and wrong is another thing entirely.

Exactly. Terrorism is a good example. Terrorists have a warped sense of right and wrong

based entirely on religious beliefs without care or concern for other people.

Edited February 28, 2008 by mawilson

[DeadPoolX 9]

My issue with "right" and "wrong" is that they are merely societal and cultural constructs. Sure, we have them now and they're firmly ingrained in our society, but they are not definitively "right" or "wrong" either. As VJ Troll said, the reason we've decided what fits into those categories is because certain behaviors benefit our society and others don't.

I'm not arguing that the UN has documented certain human rights nor am I questioning the fact that many world governments have signed these very same documents. However, the real issue is... how do we enforce this? How do we tell other countries -- those of which had no say in the UN's decision-making process -- that they must suddenly change their ways and become "more like us" simply because we see such change to be "better" than their way.

If anything, I'd say that our approach in this matter is not only arrogant, but incredibly rude. It's basically one group deciding what's best for another and forcing the second group to comply "or else." Of course, I'd like to know what "or else" entails since most of the time the measures leveled by the UN (such as sanctions) are relatively meaningless -- when they go through. I'd be shocked to see the U.S. approve any negative actions towards Saudi Arabia, considering our heavy reliance on their oil. So our options would be limited to "do nothing" or "wage war," neither of which generally sits well with the "let's make the world a better place by changing them, even if they don't want to, since we know what's better for them than they do" crowd.

To put this into more local terms, let's look at the United States and Western Europe. We're similar in a number of ways, but also quite different in many others. One of the major areas in which we differ is firearms. In the U.S., as we all know here, the Second Amendment protects every American citizen's right to own a firearm; however, there is no such document in the Europe and with the exception of the armed forces and police, they are illegal for private citizens to own (I don't know if you can purchase one for hunting, but even if you can, you're not allowed to have a firearm for "personal defense" or carry one on you, like you can in the United States).

Now let's say that the European Union decided to form their own coalition of sorts and created a charter specifying the ban of all firearms across the globe unless you are in the military or a police officer. The EU then told the United States that it must agree to the charter, since all of the countries in Europe (and maybe even a few in Asia too, who knows?) signed the document, it's therefore become "universal" and any country that defied it would be breaking international law and be looked upon as a "criminal nation."

Would we meekly obey? Of course not! We'd tell the EU to "shove it up their rear!" This wouldn't be because of "patriotic fervor" or whatever, but because the right to own firearms is built into the U.S. Constitution and above all, we guide ourselves -- not anyone else. If we were to allow another nation to overrule those documents and dictate our laws to us, we would slowly lose the ability to call ourselves a "sovereign nation." We'd become no better than a colony and as I recall, many brave men (and some women too) died over two-hundred years ago to end our days as a colony. I'd hate to see that all go to waste.

Now tell me... looking beyond whatever your stance may be on gun control, would the EU ordering us to sign a document they created be right? Does one foreign country (or a group of them) have the right to tell another foreign country how to live and behave, in respect to its own laws? Personally, I don't believe they do. The U.S. has no right to do this and no other country has the right to do this, either.

I know what you'll say: the UN isn't a single, solitary foreign country, but a collection of many countries together to solve the world's problems, right? Yes, that's true; but the point is that many of the countries in which the UN (and therefore, indirectly Western nations and principles) is aiming policies at never had a say in the UN nor recognized it and the documents the UN created in the first place. That's not an illegal move on their part at all. If you want someone to abide by your rules, they need to have at least some say in the process. If they don't, I wouldn't expect them to follow your lead without putting up a struggle, since they'll see your efforts -- no matter who good the intentions may be -- as a direct assault on their country and people.

Edited February 28, 2008 by DeadPoolX

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

My issue with "right" and "wrong" is that they are merely societal and cultural constructs. Sure, we have them now and they're firmly ingrained in our society, but they are not definitively "right" or "wrong" either. As VJ Troll said, the reason we've decided what fits into those categories is because certain behaviors benefit our society and others don't.

I'm not arguing that the UN has documented certain human rights nor am I questioning the fact that many world governments have signed these very same documents. However, the real issue is... how do we enforce this? How do we tell other countries -- those of which had no say in the UN's decision-making process -- that they must suddenly change their ways and become "more like us" simply because we see such change to be "better" than their way.

If anything, I'd say that our approach in this matter is not only arrogant, but incredibly rude. It's basically one group deciding what's best for another and forcing the second group to comply "or else." Of course, I'd like to know what "or else" entails since most of the time the measures leveled by the UN (such as sanctions) are relatively meaningless -- when they go through. I'd be shocked to see the U.S. approve any negative actions towards Saudi Arabia, considering our heavy reliance on their oil. So our options would be limited to "do nothing" or "wage war," neither of which generally sits well with the "let's make the world a better place by changing them, even if they don't want to, since we know what's better for them than they do" crowd.

To put this into more local terms, let's look at the United States and Western Europe. We're similar in a number of ways, but also quite different in many others. One of the major areas in which we differ is firearms. In the U.S., as we all know here, the Second Amendment protects every American citizen's right to own a firearm; however, there is no such document in the Europe and with the exception of the armed forces and police, they are illegal for private citizens to own (I don't know if you can purchase one for hunting, but even if you can, you're not allowed to have a firearm for "personal defense" or carry one on you, like you can in the United States).

Now let's say that the European Union decided to form their own coalition of sorts and created a charter specifying the ban of all firearms across the globe unless you are in the military or a police officer. The EU then told the United States that it must agree to the charter, since all of the countries in Europe (and maybe even a few in Asia too, who knows?) signed the document, it's therefore become "universal" and any country that defied it would be breaking international law and be looked upon as a "criminal nation."

Would we meekly obey? Of course not! We'd tell the EU to "shove it up their rear!" This wouldn't be because of "patriotic fervor" or whatever, but because the right to own firearms is built into the U.S. Constitution and above all, we guide ourselves -- not anyone else. If we were to allow another nation to overrule those documents and dictate our laws to us, we would slowly lose the ability to call ourselves a "sovereign nation." We'd become no better than a colony and as I recall, many brave men (and some women too) died over two-hundred years ago to end our days as a colony. I'd hate to see that all go to waste.

Now tell me... looking beyond whatever your stance may be on gun control, would the EU ordering us to sign a document they created be right? Does one foreign country (or a group of them) have the right to tell another foreign country how to live and behave, in respect to its own laws? Personally, I don't believe they do. The U.S. has no right to do this and no other country has the right to do this, either.

I know what you'll say: the UN isn't a single, solitary foreign country, but a collection of many countries together to solve the world's problems, right? Yes, that's true; but the point is that many of the countries in which the UN (and therefore, indirectly Western nations and principles) is aiming policies at never had a say in the UN nor recognized it and the documents the UN created in the first place. That's not an illegal move on their part at all. If you want someone to abide by your rules, they need to have at least some say in the process. If they don't, I wouldn't expect them to follow your lead without putting up a struggle, since they'll see your efforts -- no matter who good the intentions may be -- as a direct assault on their country and people.

I heard that Cobra Commander is considering running for president.