Human Rights Convention

[neonlyte]

IMO, then, 2 would better read as follows:

2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs--or lack thereof-- shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are demonstrably necessary in a democratic society; specifically this means that there maybe be limitations in the "manifestation" [exercize, practice, profession, proselytizing, etc] of religion, where a government can demonstrate in court--bearing the burden of proof, the onus--that criminal laws are being broken or that there is a serious, direct threat to public order. In general, one's rights in the exercize of religion do not extend past the point where the rights and freedoms of others, including those enumerated above, are substantially affected.

I still have reservations But let others respond.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Penis Envy AV

IMO, then, 2 would better read as follows:

2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs--or lack thereof-- shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are demonstrably necessary in a democratic society; specifically this means that there maybe be limitations in the "manifestation" [exercize, practice, profession, proselytizing, etc] of religion, where a government can demonstrate in court--bearing the burden of proof, the onus--that criminal laws are being broken or that there is a serious, direct threat to public order. In general, one's rights in the exercize of religion do not extend past the point where the rights and freedoms of others, including those enumerated above, are substantially affected.

I wholeheartedly object to this language or to granting of any special legal dispensation (of any kind) under the name of "religion". On the other hand, I am equally opposed to any governmental actions (laws, policies, etc.) which impinge on freedom of speech, other than in the context of fraud, liable, etc..

The practicing of one’s religion should not, in my opinion, have any “protection” under the law beyond that granted everyone, whether in the practice of their religion or not. I do not understand the need for it if it applies to everyone anyway.

The only article in this constitution which is applies to religion should be in precluding the government from establishing, imposing, supporting, or endorsing any religious dogma as it inherently discriminates against other citizens of dissimilar faiths or belief systems. In other words, the government should be silent on matters of faith, and limit itself to objectively derived prohibitions of actions; not words or thought; i.e. “laws”.

-KC



I

 

[neonlyte]

I wholeheartedly object to this language or to granting of any special legal dispensation (of any kind) under the name of "religion". On the other hand, I am equally opposed to any governmental actions (laws, policies, etc.) which impinge on freedom of speech, other than in the context of fraud, liable, etc..

The practicing of one’s religion should not, in my opinion, have any “protection” under the law beyond that granted everyone, whether in the practice of their religion or not. I do not understand the need for it if it applies to everyone anyway.

The only article in this constitution which is applies to religion should be in precluding the government from establishing, imposing, supporting, or endorsing any religious dogma as it inherently discriminates against other citizens of dissimilar faiths or belief systems. In other words, the government should be silent on matters of faith, and limit itself to objectively derived prohibitions of actions; not words or thought; i.e. “laws”.

-KC

I

Nice !

 

[colddiesel]

The only article in this constitution which is applies to religion should be in precluding the government from establishing, imposing, supporting, or endorsing any religious dogma as it inherently discriminates against other citizens of dissimilar faiths or belief systems. In other words, the government should be silent on matters of faith, and limit itself to objectively derived prohibitions of actions; not words or thought; i.e. “laws”.

-KC

I

Maybe it could be tightened up a little:-

No government nor its agencies either individually, or by treaty between governments or by any other means shall establish, impose, endorse or support either financially or otherwise any religion dogma belief or institution, neither shall they penalise oppress or tax any person or religious institution differentially from other persons or institutions.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Rocket Man

Maybe it could be tightened up a little:-

No government nor its agencies either individually, or by treaty between governments or by any other means shall establish, impose, endorse or support either financially or otherwise any religion dogma belief or institution, neither shall they penalise oppress or tax any person or religious institution differentially from other persons or institutions.

Even better.... Let's lock that one that up and move on before some "Under God" type wakes up......

That wasn't so bad... What's next? How about the "Pursuit of Happiness"?

That is one of my favorite things.... pursuing happiness..... And again, as our Founding Fathers tried to do, this is about constraining the GOVERNMENT from passing laws which inhibit ....(fill in the blank) but for this article... my pursuit of happiness absent some compelling need to protect the life and property of others...

We have a nasty, puritanical tradition in the US which causes nothing but guilt, angst and suffering and is generally a huge distraction to the body politic from addressing the real issues of the day. I want this prohibition of the Government interfering in my pursuit of happiness enshrined!!

I am tired of people being able to pass laws because I am doing something they do not like and/or do not choose to do.

-KC

 

[neonlyte]

Even better.... Let's lock that one that up and move on before some "Under God" type wakes up......

That wasn't so bad... What's next? How about the "Pursuit of Happiness"?

That is one of my favorite things.... pursuing happiness..... And again, as our Founding Fathers tried to do, this is about constraining the GOVERNMENT from passing laws which inhibit ....(fill in the blank) but for this article... my pursuit of happiness absent some compelling need to protect the life and property of others...

We have a nasty, puritanical tradition in the US which causes nothing but guilt, angst and suffering and is generally a huge distraction to the body politic from addressing the real issues of the day. I want this prohibition of the Government interfering in my pursuit of happiness enshrined!!

I am tired of people being able to pass laws because I am doing something they do not like and/or do not choose to do.

-KC

I quite like that... but in fairness, 24 hours to allow comment.

Isn't 'Pursuit of Happiness' covered by 'Freedom of Expression'... not that I want it discussing just now

 

[keeblercrumb]

Rocket Man

I quite like that... but in fairness, 24 hours to allow comment.

Isn't 'Pursuit of Happiness' covered by 'Freedom of Expression'... not that I want it discussing just now

Oh no.... I don't just want to express everything.. I want to DO IT!

So we have to discuss religion for another 24 hours???? I suppose that is only fair.... but...... have we already passed something about being fair when I wasn't looking?



-KC

 

[neonlyte]

Oh no.... I don't just want to express everything.. I want to DO IT!

So we have to discuss religion for another 24 hours???? I suppose that is only fair.... but...... have we already passed something about being fair when I wasn't looking?



-KC

Sunday... when you were at church

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

This entire thread is bull-shit. Real rights cant be taken from you by action, and that limits rights to a small number. Everything else is a license the herd gives you until it changes its mind.

 

[neonlyte]

JBJ.
I'm sure if you have any constructive contribution, someone will 'quote' it, I'm afraid I've elected not see your posts.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Rocket Man

This entire thread is bull-shit. Real rights cant be taken from you by action, and that limits rights to a small number. Everything else is a license the herd gives you until it changes its mind.

I am unaware of anything that cannot be "taken from you by action".... so obviously we are not discussing that...

So we must be discussing herd licenses here... but thanks for the contribution.

-KC

 

[cantdog]

I can go with the colddiesel version.

The idea of any special rights attaching simply because someone espouses a parcel of life-denying, divisive bullshit is repugnant. What the colddiesel version does is specifically deny and prohibit that.

Withal there must be scope for wisdom; I hope to see it under the headings of expression and speech.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Rocket Man

JBJ.
I'm sure if you have any constructive contribution, someone will 'quote' it, I'm afraid I've elected not see your posts.

You were obviously wrong.... he had nothing to contribute and I quoted him anyway.... but at least your previous opinion has been further validated...



Now... where were we?

Ahh yes.... we are on the 24 hour fair play rule....


-KC

 

[neonlyte]

I can go with the colddiesel version.

The idea of any special rights attaching simply because someone espouses a parcel of life-denying, divisive bullshit is repugnant. What the colddiesel version does is specifically deny and prohibit that.

Withal there must be scope for wisdom; I hope to see it under the headings of expression and speech.

It's good isn't it. It may be easier with certain topics, as you say, to approach from the same direction.

 

[Weird Harold]

With so many people here with opinions on what constitutes Human Rights or a Constitution, we ought have a crack at writing our own... seriously.

The answer to all of your points is best experessed by a Religious maxim:

An it harm no other, do as thou wilt.

I'm not Pagan or Wiccan, but as an expression of natural rights, it about as inclusive as I can think of.

 

[Pure]

Reply to keeb

keeb argued as follows

I wholeheartedly object to this language [pure's revision] or to granting of any special legal dispensation (of any kind) under the name of "religion". On the other hand, I am equally opposed to any governmental actions (laws, policies, etc.) which impinge on freedom of speech, other than in the context of fraud, liable, etc..

The practicing of one’s religion should not, in my opinion, have any “protection” under the law beyond that granted everyone, whether in the practice of their religion or not. I do not understand the need for it if it applies to everyone anyway.

The only article in this constitution which is applies to religion should be in precluding the government from establishing, imposing, supporting, or endorsing any religious dogma as it inherently discriminates against other citizens of dissimilar faiths or belief systems. In other words, the government should be silent on matters of faith, and limit itself to objectively derived prohibitions of actions; not words or thought; i.e. “laws”.

The problem with this, keeb, is shown in the US BR:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I maintain that IV is the superior formulation. The formulation in I, historically contained the obvious loophole that state legislatures could and did pass laws establishing religion. further amendments were required to plug the loophole.

In addition, if one looks at the Inquisition, the Church maintained, on paper, an arm's length relation with the state. the Church tried the person as heretic, then "relaxed" him to civil authorities for execution. the civil authorities then acted to eliminate the self admitted menace to society. so, saying "government shall not... "is likely inadequate when free- standing churches are involved, with powers of arresting, extracting confessions, and so on.



In any case, I'd argue that [setting aside the problems mentioned above], theoretically, with due attention to wording, "The government(s) shall not interfere with a person's doing of X, in the absence of demonstrable harm to others" is roughly equivalent to "A person has a right to do X."

So I agree with the US framers, and the drafters of the European Convention that "A person has a right to..." is the clearer and better way to go. Further it gives each citizen a possible cause of action, ie, she can say "This and this was done to me by the government, infringing on my specific right of..., as given in Article xx."

cold diesel's attempt does not do well, for similar reasons:

No government nor its agencies

the problem is in identifying an 'agency'. there are a multitude of entities was quasi official and quasi governmental status. specifying them is likely impossible. and in any case, trying to enumerate them is wordy. "a citizen has a right to" is simpler and clearer.
----

as to the general issue of protecting religious practice, seacat indicated some good points, though he agreed with the arguments of gauche, keeb, and others about religion.

pragmatically, we know governments have singled out religious practicers for various sanctions. hence a 'right' as against government is to be affirmed. admittedly one can simply say, "everyone has a right to life, liberty, freedom, and dignity" ** but specifics are useful when one seeks redress.

it's handy to be able to say "my free speech rights were infringed" as opposed to having to argue from scratch "as Mill and others have pointed out, liberty necessarily involves expression, and hence the interference with my speech was an interference with my liberty."

---
** or alternatively "governements shall not in any way, above that required for public order, interfere by legislation, regulation, administrative measures and so on, with an individual's living with libery, freedom and dignity],

 

[keeblercrumb]

Rocket Man

keeb argued as follows
.........;...
The problem with this, keeb, is shown in the US BR:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

........../
cold diesel's attempt does not do well, for similar reasons:

No government nor its agencies

the problem is in identifying an 'agency'. there are a multitude of entities was quasi official and quasi governmental status. specifying them is likely impossible. and in any case, trying to enumerate them is wordy. "a citizen has a right to" is simpler and clearer.
----

as to the general issue of protecting religious practice, another poster already answered the arguments of gauche, keeb, and others.

pragmatically, we know governements have singled out religious practicers for various sanctions. hence a 'right' as against government is to be affirmed. admittedly one can simply say, "everyone has a right to life, liberty, freedom, and dignity" ** but specifics are useful when one seeks redress.

it's handy to be able to say "my free speech rights were infringed" as opposed to having to argue from scratch "as Mill and others have pointed out, liberty necessarily involves expression, and hence the interference with my speech was an interference with my liberty."

---
** or alternatively "governements shall not in any way, above that required for public order, interfere by legislation, regulation, administrative measures and so on, with an individual's living with libery, freedom and dignity],

Can't agree with you..... There are and always will be semantic interpretation conflicts with any wording........ but I happen to think that "No Government" is pretty straight forward given that we are discussing heirarhcial democracies... certainly far less ambiguous then defining the "religious" rights you would have us enshrine....

I will candidly reveal my axe to grind here. I happen to be an atheist who has had to put up with ridiculous debates of whether freedom of religion is freedom from religion in all aspects of our culture. To be truly inclusive as well as fair and impartial, I want the government out of the religion business all together.

The "singling out of religious praticers" is no more or less pernicious than the singling out of "sexual practicers" or "practicers" of any other kind!

By keeping the government out of the business... per the coldiesel article... (I feel like John Adams to his Thomas Jefferson) (you can be Alexander Hamilton, if you like!), we guarantee religious and non-religious freedom (from the government, any government) and its agencies.... to ALL citizens alike whenever and whereever they advocate and practice any behavior not otherwise illegal. Worrying about the definition of "agency" in the context that you present, amounts to little more than sophistry... but you may certainly suggest another, less ambiguous term, if you like...

Why do I have a feeling this is not going to convince you?

When can we talk about the pursuit of happiness?

Having spent my misspent youth writing radio news stories for which the main criteria was re-writing the news each 30 minutes during drive time to make it sound "fresh".... I tumbled onto to why the evil "media" gets the story wrong so often... because it reads better that way!

Which leads me to my next question.... I wonder how many of the great constitutional ambiguities resulted from Tom's desire for it to "read better that way"?

-KC

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

NEOLYTE

Youre a big boy and can decide what you want to read. For myself I simply dont read what dolt's post. Besides, I dont post to entertain dolts; I post to confirm what many smart people already suspect. I mean, if a dolt has me on ignore, that's good!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

KEEBLER

There are remote analogies in many of the posts that ruin the argument. When you run in circles, screaming about the sky falling, it's only natural that someone will examine your claim and conclude that youre full of seagull shit or raindrops.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Rocket Man

KEEBLER

There are remote analogies in many of the posts that ruin the argument. When you run in circles, screaming about the sky falling, it's only natural that someone will examine your claim and conclude that youre full of seagull shit or raindrops.

I make it to be raindrops.... but again, thanks for the insight.

-KC

 

[Pure]

note to keeb,

KCWhy do I have a feeling this is not going to convince you?

Pure: Perhaps because, aside from the historical points, you ignored the core arguement i made:

In any case, I'd argue that [setting aside the problems mentioned above], theoretically, with due attention to wording, "The government(s) shall not interfere with a person's doing of X, in the absence of demonstrable harm to others" is roughly equivalent to "A person has a right to do X."

So I agree with the US framers, and the drafters of the European Convention that "A person has a right to..." is the clearer and better way to go. Further it gives each citizen a possible cause of action, ie, she can say "This and this was done to me by the government, infringing on my specific right of..., as given in Article xx."

---
i am, in fact, rather sympathetic to the 'atheist rights' issues, as you might have noted in my several postings to this thread; i have specified 'lack of belief'. in fact, let's consider your proposal:

The only article in this constitution which is applies to religion should be in precluding the government from establishing, imposing, supporting, or endorsing any religious dogma as it inherently discriminates against other citizens of dissimilar faiths or belief systems. In other words, the government should be silent on matters of faith, and limit itself to objectively derived prohibitions of actions; not words or thought; i.e. “laws”.

it arguably does not preclude a government from officially establishing atheism, and giving disadvantages to all "believers". for i doubt that you or other atheist advocates would classify your position as 'religious dogma.'

 

[gauchecritic]

it arguably does not preclude a government from officially establishing atheism, and giving disadvantages to all "believers". for i doubt that you or other atheist advocates would classify your position as 'religious dogma.'

That's only if you take the word religious as pertaining to god etc. Many people attend football, bingo or theatre 'religiously'. Which can by definition be: "scrupulously faithful" without reference to theology of any kind.

As a matter of etymology atheism is in fact a dogma. A disbelief or ignorance of theism, and so is covered by Colddiesel's article.

 

[cantdog]

That's only if you take the word religious as pertaining to god etc. Many people attend football, bingo or theatre 'religiously'. Which can by definition be: "scrupulously faithful" without reference to theology of any kind.

As a matter of etymology atheism is in fact a dogma. A disbelief or ignorance of theism, and so is covered by Colddiesel's article.

The coolest would be if atheism was deemed NOT to be covered by colddiesel's prohibition. An established church of Atheism!

In fact, though, being one, I can testify. Atheism is indeed a faith, something that agnosticism is not. I took that leap of faith, and have had no accasion afterward to doubt.

 

[neonlyte]

I think the colddiesel version is the least problematical and is largely accepted by most contributors - the questions Pure raises are relevant but framing the Clause from that direction opens the door to legal challenge i.e. an individual on the margin of sanity may proclaim a form of religion as his/her right, the test is about the the individuals right to religion rather than their sanity. Clearer, to my thinking, to accept unchallenged an individuals right to 'belief' and use the legal framework to define acceptable behaviour (individual v's society).


Religion: No government nor its agencies either individually, or by treaty between governments or by any other means shall establish, impose, endorse or support either financially or otherwise any religion dogma belief or institution, neither shall they penalise oppress or tax any person or religious institution differentially from other persons or institutions.
Equality: Live Topic
Health:
Democracy:
Self Defense:
Privacy:
Education:
Freedom of Expression:
National Defense:
Abortion:
Children's Rights:
Animal Rights: Disputed for inclusion
Right to Own Property: Disputed for inclusion

I'm intrigued that this appears to be largely a single sex thread - good job Equality is next on the list

 

[colddiesel]

I know this is a little off route but since Og posted the European convention I have been asking myself to what extent could or should any government or governments' organisations (eg the EU)be allowed to impose rights on its people(s) without consent. This has happened in the EU where governments have on occasion agreed to sacrifice the sovereignty of their peoples (residing in their national parliaments) in order to achieve governmental agreement their people may not want.

In other words should the people not the government(s) have the final say and how?

Perhaps something to ponder awhile.