Rights and Religious Freedom

[RWStanding]

Rights and Religious Freedom
Do the rights that are promoted have priority over the ethics expressed by religion?
Are the rights merely an amalgam of values expressed by religions where they happen to agree?
Does a community of a particular religion have the right to educate for and ensure conformity?
Does every individual have the right to understand all religions and philosophies and choose his own.
Has there never been, and is there not today, any religion that must be proscribed?
Are Rights altruistic [as between people and communities] or merely permissive?
Is there really no conflict between human rights and religion?
Do we live in a world of moral relativism?

[-1-]

Rights and Religious Freedom
Do the rights that are promoted have priority over the ethics expressed by religion?
Are the rights merely an amalgam of values expressed by religions where they happen to agree?
Does a community of a particular religion have the right to educate for and ensure conformity?
Does every individual have the right to understand all religions and philosophies and choose his own.
Has there never been, and is there not today, any religion that must be proscribed?
Are Rights altruistic [as between people and communities] or merely permissive?
Is there really no conflict between human rights and religion?
Do we live in a world of moral relativism?

That's a mighty lot of questions to answer. We need a young and energetic person on the boards to get her teeth sank into this enormous task.

[Dalek Prime]

As long as someone's religious expression does not cross into my yard, I'm okay with it. But I'm unleashing the dogs if I find you in my yard, messing with my non-religious livestock.

How's that for an answer?

[commonsense]

A religion is like a cult; a cult is like a religion. Cults and religions do not promote rights as much as suppress them.

[henry quirk]

"Do the rights that are promoted have priority over the ethics expressed by religion?"

I interpret thusly: do individual secular 'rights' trump collective religious 'ethics'?

Yeah. If Stan goes religious while Lou stays agnostic, Lou ain't obligated to diddly exceptin' he leave Stan be (and vice versa, of course).

#

"Are the rights merely an amalgam of values expressed by religions where they happen to agree?"

No. Seems to me: the culmination of individual secular 'rights' is 'mind your own business and keep your hands to yourself' while the culmination of religious ethics appears to be 'mind your neighbor's business, spread the good word, shun (or kill) the folks who don't convert'.

#

"Does a community of a particular religion have the right to educate for and ensure conformity?"

They may think so...non-believers livin' among them may think otherwise. Believers may have to shun (or kill) the non-believers.

#

"Does every individual have the right to understand all religions and philosophies and choose his own."

An individual has the 'right' to immerse himself in any foolishness that he likes as long as he leaves the other guy be.

#

"Has there never been, and is there not today, any religion that must be proscribed?"

You mean: 'Is there, or has there ever been, a religion that must be abided?'

No, never.

[EDIT: I read 'prescribed' instead of 'proscribed', so: while no religion must be abided, no religion should be denounced (more than a few religionists ought be shot, but that's a mule of a different color).]

#

"Are Rights altruistic [as between people and communities] or merely permissive?"

'Rights' (to one's self, being the most fundamental) are not altruistic or permissive, but are instead (for the) self-interested and disciplined.

#

"Is there really no conflict between human rights and religion?"

There's nuthin' but conflict between the individual and the many.

#

"Do we live in a world of moral relativism?"

It sure seems that way.

[-1-]

Rights and Religious Freedom
Do the rights that are promoted have priority over the ethics expressed by religion?
For a religious person, no. For a secular person, yes.
Are the rights merely an amalgam of values expressed by religions where they happen to agree?
Other way around. Secular and evolution-tested values are copped by religions where religions can use them.
Does a community of a particular religion have the right to educate for and ensure conformity?
In our society, yes. In other societies (Muslim countries, communist countries, etc.) not. In Muslim countries the right applies only to Islam.
Does every individual have the right to understand all religions and philosophies and choose his own.
Maybe has the right, nobody stops them from doing it, but who has the time, energy and know-how? There are 40,000 Christian sex alone, all with different dogmas. Plus there are the defunct religions, each with any number of gods. Sure, if I want my grandkids to be religious, I will force them first to learn about all things in all religions and about atheism, and force them after (when they have a proper knowledge of them) to choose one. With the rate of number of religions, this way I assure my grandkids will never worship any dogmatic faith-system.
Has there never been, and is there not today, any religion that must be proscribed?
What is proscribed.
Are Rights altruistic [as between people and communities] or merely permissive?
Altruistic.
Is there really no conflict between human rights and religion?
There have been several, in the course of history. The most recent one is the antagonism between atheistic government initiatives (no prayer in shcools, no religious garb, no fasting at Lent and Yom Kippur, no washing hands, no using toilet paper, no wild abandon of sex, no tapping girls randomly on the street, no pushing people around, no executions, no Autodafe, no Nyikolay Khrishchev.
Do we live in a world of moral relativism?
I am a simple man, I don't understand what you mean by "moral relitaivism". Does it have a connection to "proscription", or it's just a coincidence that you used two expessions in this post I don't understand.

[Dalek Prime]

"Do the rights that are promoted have priority over the ethics expressed by religion?"

I interpret thusly: do individual secular 'rights' trump collective religious 'ethics'?

Yeah. If Stan goes religious while Lou stays agnostic, Lou ain't obligated to diddly exceptin' he leave Stan be (and vice versa, of course).

#

"Are the rights merely an amalgam of values expressed by religions where they happen to agree?"

No. Seems to me: the culmination of individual secular 'rights' is 'mind your own business and keep your hands to yourself' while the culmination of religious ethics appears to be 'mind your neighbor's business, spread the good word, shun (or kill) the folks who don't convert'.

#

"Does a community of a particular religion have the right to educate for and ensure conformity?"

They may think so...non-believers livin' among them may think otherwise. Believers may have to shun (or kill) the non-believers.

#

"Does every individual have the right to understand all religions and philosophies and choose his own."

An individual has the 'right' to immerse himself in any foolishness that he likes as long as he leaves the other guy be.

#

"Has there never been, and is there not today, any religion that must be proscribed?"

You mean: 'Is there, or has there ever been, a religion that must be abided?'

No, never.

[EDIT: I read 'prescribed' instead of 'proscribed', so: while no religion must be abided, no religion should be denounced (more than a few religionists ought be shot, but that's a mule of a different color).]

#

"Are Rights altruistic [as between people and communities] or merely permissive?"

'Rights' (to one's self, being the most fundamental) are not altruistic or permissive, but are instead (for the) self-interested and disciplined.

#

"Is there really no conflict between human rights and religion?"

There's nuthin' but conflict between the individual and the many.

#

"Do we live in a world of moral relativism?"

It sure seems that way.

Heck henry. I was trying to give an answer I thought you'd give, then you went and gave something completely different.

[henry quirk]

HA!

[Veritas Aequitas]

Rights and Religious Freedom
Do the rights that are promoted have priority over the ethics expressed by religion?
Are the rights merely an amalgam of values expressed by religions where they happen to agree?
Does a community of a particular religion have the right to educate for and ensure conformity?
Does every individual have the right to understand all religions and philosophies and choose his own.
Has there never been, and is there not today, any religion that must be proscribed?
Are Rights altruistic [as between people and communities] or merely permissive?
Is there really no conflict between human rights and religion?
Do we live in a world of moral relativism?

That's a mighty lot of questions to answer. We need a young and energetic person on the boards to get her teeth sank into this enormous task.

First we need to define what is religion.
Then it should be noted there are two main class of religions, i.e.;

• 1. theistic and
  2. non-theistic religion.

All rights from theistic religions are from a God which is illusory.
Since God is an illusion thus false there are no absolute right for religious freedom.
The only consolation why religions are to be accepted at the present only [not the future] is an empathy for the terrible psychological existential pains that theists are suffering at present.

Human rights are ultimate for human beings.
However humanity must strive toward getting the right universals human-rights that is absolutely moral and fool proof.

No! moral relativism is not the only way, but to be effective Moral Absolutism must be complemented with relative ethics [ethics relativism].
The question is how can we establish Moral Absolutes and how can we translate these Absolutes to ethical practices which are relative.
To implement the above effectively I have argued elsewhere for a Kantian-liked Framework and System of Morality and Ethics - note the System Approach in this case.