Religious Freedom!!! Head of Russian Orthodox Church says human rights are heresy.

[DetlefK]

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russias-patriarch-kirill-some-human-rights-are-heresy/563065.html?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=im

Head of the Russian Orthodox Church Patriarch Kirill denounced as "heresy" those human rights that he said contradicted the Bible, and proclaimed fighting them the goal of his church, the Interfax news agency reported Sunday.

"We are seeing how efforts are being made in many prosperous countries to establish by law the person's right to any choice, including the most sinful ones, those that contradict god's word, the concept of holiness, the concept of god," Patriarch Kirill said after a Sunday service at Moscow's Christ the Savior Cathedral, Interfax reported.

He did not specify which human rights he found offensive, but called for Russian Orthodox believers to "defend" their faith, the report said.

[21st Century Poet]

1. What is a human right?

Here's a curve ball for you: what is a human right?

Having had the opportunity to discuss the issue with several legal and cultural experts as well as regular citizens from non-western countries, I can say that what bothers these people most is not so much the existence of human rights as much as how and by who they are defined. 'Human rights' have been created and defined by America and other western countries with little to no input from African, Asian and other countries. They are simply expected to fall in line and accept the concept of 'human rights' as if it were as real and unmovable as a large slab of concrete.

For example, does the right of the individual to own and enjoy land and property infringe on the right of indigenous peoples who don't even think in terms of personal property to think about land and property as being collectively owned? Does the right to freedom of worship by the individual mean that a society does not have a right to draw up rules based on a religious moral code adhered to by the majority, as it has done for countless generations past?

I'm not saying that Patriarch Kirill is moving in the right direction (in my opinion, he isn't) but I'm just throwing this out there to make people think and try to understand why non-westerners get so angry at how the human rights discussion is framed. Very often, it's not because they abhor human rights per se but because they think those rights should be different or discussed in a different manner. To people whose world view is completely different, the human rights discussion as framed by western countries does not even make sense.

Raul Castro touched on this subject when President Obama was in Cuba. He asked Mr Obama why universal healthcare as they have in Cuba is not a human right. If there is such a thing as a right to life (how does the death penalty fit in with that?), why isn't there a right to health to safeguard that life? It's a question worth pondering.

These are complex issues which are rarely discussed because nowadays the term 'human rights' is taken as a given. America is seen as respecting them and non-western countries not so much. The discussion about what human rights are should be blown wide open.

[trotsky]

2. Just "throwing this out there" huh?

Well let me tell you, all human beings should have the right to love whom they want. Every woman should be 100% in control of her own body, including when and IF she wants to have children. And anyone who thinks those are purely "western" values can sod right off. Can you present anything resembling a coherent argument to dispute any of those? (Hint: Any response in the form of "Because my god doesn't like that" isn't a valid argument.)

[21st Century Poet]

4. The discussion is about human rights as found in human rights treaties.

There are nine core human rights treaties and, although I stand to be corrected, I think none of them mention the right to love and the right to be in control of your own body at all times (are you in control of your own body when you are under anaesthetic?).

I agree with you that people should not be stopped from loving anyone they want but, in all fairness, I don't think there have been laws against love anywhere and at any time in human history. There have been, and still are, laws which regulate marriages but equating marriage with love is sloppy thinking because, historically, marriage and love had little to do with each other (marriage was more of a business deal which combined two family's assets and an assurance of continuing the bloodline by producing children, and negotiating peace and prosperity in the case of royal families. Liking each other was generally enough. Love would hopefully develop over time and not necessarily a big deal if it didn't).

And where would that leave married couples who absolutely hate each other's guts, married people who love someone else other than their spouse, unmarried people who are in love and so on? Laws only regulate that which can be calculated, controlled and proven, hence marriage, the assets of married couples, the offspring, whether a marriage has been consummated and so on, without ever mentioning love. The law simply does not care whether two married people love each other or not. And that's before even getting into other types of love such as loving your parents, loving your dog or loving someone you only know through television. Love is too fluid and abstract to even mean anything in legal language.

So to get back to my original point, the discussion is about human rights as recognised by those found in human rights treaties such as the right to enjoy property and the right to life, not abstract rights that people add on in memes and casual conversation.

[trotsky]

5. Oh, I see your game now.

Sorry, not interested in playing or defending the right of religious bigots to be bigoted.

[21st Century Poet]

6. No game. Just clear and logical thinking.

I'm trying to keep the discussion on point. The discussion is about human rights. Human rights have been framed in nine core treaties. Those treaties don't mention love and I explained why. If you think that marriage is a human right, then go ahead and say so. Don't talk about love. Talk about marriage. Why mention love when you mean marriage? That is sloppy thinking which creates confusion because they are two different things.

I did not mention religion or God. You did, I'm an agnostic so whatever you say in that regard really does not bother me. What I am taking into consideration in my discussion are the following three points:

1) what treaties say

2) how courts enforce and react to them

3) how different societies and cultures from around the world, particularly non-western ones, view this language

God does not come into any of it, and unfortunately for you, neither does love.

This is what Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 says. You will notice that love is not mentioned:

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

[trotsky]

7. No, it's a game. You veered off the point from your first post.

Regardless of how you want to define a human right, do anyone's assertions of what their god supposedly wants enter into the equation at all?

You yourself have only pointed to treaties and laws, so your answer to the primary question here appears to be "No."

[21st Century Poet]

8. Understanding what Patriarch Kirill is saying is the point so I was on point.

Patriarch Kirill did not mention any specific human right so I have to assume he is talking about the human rights found in human rights treaties because no others are recognised to exist.

My original point was to make people think about why non-western societies are more averse to the language of human rights. This would help us understand better, although not necessarily agree with, people like Patriarch Kirill. The resistance towards the language of human rights goes beyond 'directions from God', especially in a place like Russia where the Orthodox church seems to be the government's proxy spokesperson. Framing his comments as 'because God says so' is simply too simplistic.

[trotsky]

9. Is Christianity "western" or not? n/t

[skepticscott]

10. Too simplistic?

That's pretty much exactly what he said. He cited "god" and the bible as authorities.

I'm sure you'd like to make things appear more complicated (apologists usually have to), but he certainly doesn't think they are.

[mr blur]

11. Nice attempt at derailment there. Be careful that you don't run over that straw man -

the one you've tried your best to build upthread.

[Igel]

3. We used to have "natural rights."

Those were a bit easier to delimit because mostly they were of the sort that "it means being left alone." If you have it by nature, without it being provided to you by others, it was natural.

Didn't say that it was always clear cut, just easier. And the whole "due process" thing fails this particular test, so the limits were a bit squishy.