Children's right to freedom of religion or belief must be protected, says UN expert

[rug]

23 October 2015 – The United Nations expert on religious freedom is calling on all Governments represented at the UN General Assembly “to respect religious practices by children and their families and support families in fulfilling their role in providing an enabling environment for the realisation of the rights of the child.”

“Every individual child is a rights holder in his or her own capacity as recognised in Article 14 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child,” the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Heiner Bielefeldt, recalled while presenting his new special report on the rights of the child and his or her parents in the area of freedom of religion or belief.

“Violations of freedom of religion or belief often affect the rights of children and their parents,” he said in a press release. “Children, typically girls, from religious minorities for example, are abducted and forcibly converted to another religion through forced early marriage.”

The rights expert also urged religious communities across the world to ensure respect for the freedom of religion or belief of children within their teaching and community practices, bearing in mind the status of the child as a rights holder.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=52359#.VizgdYcvkqQ

[immoderate]

1. Children don't have freedom — they are children.

"Religious freedom" for children, is a particularly rare thing. How many children get to choose their religion?

--imm

[rug]

2. Do you include in that girls forced into marriages they do not agree with?

“While in many situations of violations the rights of the child and the rights of his or her parents may be affected in conjunction, it is not always the case,” Mr. Bielefeldt noted. “The interests of parents and children are not necessarily identical, including in the area of freedom of religion or belief.”

[immoderate]

3. No. But that's another illustration of children not having freedom.

--imm

[rug]

4. They have the right. The fight is for the freedom to freely exercise that right

The rights expert also urged religious communities across the world to ensure respect for the freedom of religion or belief of children within their teaching and community practices, bearing in mind the status of the child as a rights holder.

[cleanhippie]

5. This isn't about childrens' freedom, it's the freedom of the parents to indoctrinate their children

into whatever belief system they follow, which is not always a good thing.

But when the religious shysters and apologists get involved, it's for no reason other than to protect and perpetuate their own personal beliefs, not for the "good of the children."

[rug]

6. Where's your evidence?

Do you think the UN is in the business of indoctrinating children?

When you're done raving about "shysters and apologists" you may want to pause and examine where your imaginings have landed you.

[Yorktown]

7. Indoctrinating kids about religion is an assault on their freedom of choice

Yes, indoctrinating kids before they can make a valid decision on their own works.

That's why religious indoctrination starts at ages where the critical thinking isn't developed yet.

[rug]

9. You shoild compare talking points before posting.

So you also think the UN is in the business of indoctrinating children?

[Yorktown]

15. Some UN agencies are clearly dysfunctional

Do you know who is at the helm of the UN Human Rights nomination panel? A Saudi.

The Islamic Conference tried to pass a binding resolution with a worldwide ban on blasphemy.

Yes, some in the UN are actively trying to find ways to indoctrinate children, proof above.


Proof, my dear rug, it's something that the Roman Catholic Cult can't provide:

who was Moses? When? What year, what Pharaoh, did he live past 100 yo? No proof.

[edhopper]

8. and what is one of the main causes

of these abductions and forced conversions?
What belief systems could be behind this?
Could the UN also address the damaging practices of some religions.

[rug]

10. The causes vary globally but there is a common theme.

In Iran, it's state-conttolled Shia.

In China, it's state control of religion.

In Myanmar, it's state Buddhism.

Do you see the common theme?

Can you point to an instance of repression of belief, nonbelief, or opinion that does not involve a government?

The UN Charter on Human Rights is designed to protect freedom of thought from government actions.

[edhopper]

11. I retract my complaint against the UN

At least they see that often religion is behind this.

“Religious community leaders should support the elimination of harmful practices inflicted on children, including by publicly challenging problematic religious justifications for such practices whenever they occur,” he stressed."

You should read up on this, you'd see that in m0st places, like Egypt and Pakistan, the State is not involved.

[rug]

12. It's a pretty masured report.

And it's an extension of this.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Pages/WelcomePage.aspx

It warrants more than the usual phobic remarks posted in here.

[edhopper]

13. I'll say this

there is a big problem with cultures where this is allowed to happen. Whatever the reasons for the acts.

[rug]

14. And it's prevalent.

[Yorktown]

16. The UN Charter on Human Rights was negated by the Islamic Conference

Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam

with explicit reference to the Shariah as the divine Law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration_on_Human_Rights_in_Islam

[rug]

18. No, it didn't.

In the 25 years since the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation passed it, it has been routinely submitted to the United Nations as an amendment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It has routinely been rejected by the UN and has drawn increasing criticism from Islamic groups that do not believe Sharia should replace civil law.

[Yorktown]

20. Yes, it has. 1/ Please read before answering. 2/ your answer is besides the point.

1/ I wrote the Islamic Conference negated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

For the very simple reason that the Cairo Declaration -supported by the 'Islamic' States which signed it- explicitly states it is grounded in Shariah Law.

And Shariah Law -that's an euphemism- doesn't recohnize gender equality. Or minority rights. Or freedom of speech.

2/ As usual, you set up and answer a strawman off topic from what I wrote.

The fact the Islamic Conference presented its Cairo Declaration to the UN was just an exercice to lend credibility and an air of authoritativeness to this (horrible) document.

It has nothing to do with the fact I stated, which is that the Cairo Declaration in itself negates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in that it negates a great many key points of it (1)

[rug]

22. For one thing, it's the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, not "the Islamic Conference",

that passed the Cairo Declaration a quarter century ago.

For another thing, you should not be talking about strawmen until you can accurately describe the object of your hatred.

[Yorktown]

24. Congratu;ations on the nitpicking. And I do not hate anything.

I do not 'hate' religions, I simply worry about their negative influences.

Since you bring the discussion to one of motives, what is your point here?

You repeatedly refused my challenge to justify the Roman Catholic myths.
You apparently defend 'religion' in the abstract, which is something that doesn't exist.

What exists are individual religions.

Notice I do not criticise Buddhism much; because its harmful effects are far less.
While Hinduism, Islam and Roman Catholicism have demonstrably horrible consequences.

No hate involved. What is involved on your part in defending that etheral 'religion'?

And feel free to answer my oft repeated question: under which Pharaoh did Moses live?
Because you enjoy playing rhetorical games, but you seem to shy from factchecking.

[rug]

26. For someone who routinely wields a broad brush, I hesitate to consider what you call a nit.

[Yorktown]

17. Yes, I can

Can you point to an instance of repression of belief, nonbelief, or opinion that does not involve a government?

Try wearing a yarmulke in the predominantly muslim neighborhoods of Europe

(Bradford in Britain, Sarcelles in France, Malmo in Sweden, etc)

Good luck in checking by yourself if you will feel your assumed belief repressed.

Don't forget to check on the validity of your personal insurance before.

[rug]

19. No, you can't.

What you are describing is likely a hate crime (assuming something happened beyond simply wearing a yarmulke) committed by individuals, which is what would be prosecuted by the government.

Crimes, per se, are crimes, not repression. For that you need a government. The de facto racism that prevailed in the South for as long as it did did so because of the de jure racism that was embodied in the Jim Crow laws. Which were enforced by the government.

I'll ignore your continued ad hominems for the moment. I don't mind correcting your confusion but not while you're making asinine personal remarks. You're not really helping your persona as a proponent of reason.

[Yorktown]

21. Your answer is really funny: you dictate the sense of words according to your fancy.

Repression is not defined by a governmental authority: look at a dictionary of your choice.

When I point to disingenuous debating techniques you use, it's not an ad hominem:

it's an element of evaluation of your speech.

Ex: when you repeatedly set up off topic strawmen, pointing it out is not an ad hominem


While when you call my reasoning or premises garbage, as you did, it is insulting arrogance.

And that is another fact.

[rug]

23. I hate to to be the one to tell you this, but the product of your synapses is not fact.

[Yorktown]

25. Which is why I used an independent yardstick, the dictionary

While your yardstick seems to be your high opinion of your own ideas.

I offer facts, you offer judgement, who is debating based on the product of his synapses?

I suggest you reevaluate your position.

(I'm joking, I do not think you reevaluate your opinions often)

[rug]

27. Sometimes I think I'm trapped on an elevator with a middle school debate team.

[Yorktown]

28. Something I said about you less than 20 posts ago. Nice parroting.

Please, do elevate us above middle school debate team, and soar to factual heights:

I asked you repeatedly if Moses existed and when.

I am not interested in discussing a theoretical generic 'religion' that does not exist.

You speak from a viewpoint (abrahamic/mosaic); can you defend it?

[rug]

29. Given the caliber of the attacks you mount, they need no defense.

[Yorktown]

30. I do not mount 'attacks', That is a malicious claim you make

I stick to issues and facts. While you do ad hominems, calling my ideas garbage.
You are attributing to me your unwarranted personalisation of the discussions.

I can and do point out disingenuous debating techniques when you use them, nothing personal.

Meanwhile, you stubbornly refuse to defend your religion, while claiming moral high ground.
Your debating position has no grounding other than the fact you claim to be right.

Anyway, it is clear you enjoy making it personal and acrimonious.
Because you flee factual discussions like clockwork: who was Moses? In what year?

[rug]

31. I do not mount "defenses". That is a malicious claim you make

Last edited Mon Oct 26, 2015, 10:13 PM - Edit history (1)

[Yorktown]

32. spiraling downward in that fantasy world of personal attacks?

I think I preferred when you called my arguments garbage.

At least it was clearer. If not nicer and more christian-like.

[rug]

33. If you consider quoting you to be a personal attack, so be it.

[Yorktown]

34. A modified sentence is not a quote, it's an answer

So much for Christain fortitude.

[rug]

35. So mch for coherence.

[Yorktown]

36. Perfectly coherent

But thanks for checking for consistency.

When did Moses live?

[rug]

37. Perfect non sequitur.

When did Darwin's tortoise die?

[Yorktown]

38. Moses has more implications than Darwin's tortoise (which lived in the XIXth century)

I asked you repeatedly when Moses lived and you know why.

Why are you running away from a simple question?

[rug]

39. And much less relevance to this thread.

I'll give you a hint. Her name was Harriet. When did she die?

[Yorktown]

40. This thread is about religion. Show me children should be exposed to such woo woo.

Unless Moses is demonstrable, kids should be left alone from such crap.

I am addressing the issue of the thread. You're not.

When did Moses live?

[rug]

41. "woo woo" . . . . lol!

The thread is about all religion and opinions.

Do you think children shold not be exposed to Hinduism unless Ganesh is demonstrable. Should Buddism be silenced until a reincarnation is demonstrated and replicated?

Should human thought be corralled until an anonymos person called Yorktoen deem it not woo woo?

Sophomoric posing.