The Scotsman
Well-Known Member
Hi mate I hope you are well
Taking the religious construct and human rights, where did these arise from? For example did the church's legitimisation of the Templars or the Hospitalliers advance the cause of "human Rights"? Hugh de Payne would have argued yes whilst Salah ad-Din would have said no. Human rights is a moving feast existing at the "by-your-leave" of the state look at Alan Turing and how the man who basically brought the 3rd Reich to defeat was hounded by the State to the point of suicide. What happened in the 50s in the UK would not happen now not becuase of any gift by a God.
Without wittering on too much, Church and State have sepereted and as an EU resident you will appreciate that the moral compass of human rights is now enstrinred in EU law not the church. In the UK less than 3% of the population attend church thus I would argue that religion or God has nothing more to do with how the UK (or Europe for that matter) percieves or derives its "human rights". However, as I said earlier your faith and what you believe should trump that of Government so long as it is within the law. Therefore going back to Aus and his dilema being given the opportunity to determine his "moral compass" based on the choices he is being given should be based on his belief, not what he is expected to do by the "moral herd". If his faith determines that he does not want gays to be married then he, as a man of faith, should follow his heart just as I am sure you would probably vote yes. Both are a perfectly correct response to the question.
I assume we are still on the topic of Aus and his question of gay marriage? Assuming that... then human rights are a relativily modern construct independent of any "religious" dogma. Human rights were conspicuous by their abscence up until the time of Kant getting rather dubious about the utlitarian position of western dogma and the landed elites who controlled economies. God is dependent upon your point of view i.e. race, creed etc.; human rights are an expression of "modern" aspirations based on Government taking over from the place of the Church as the moral compass. Kant was of the oppinion (in his era) that politics and the role of government (and those in government remember they were not "politicians" but landed gentry etc) “is only a legitimate government that guarantees our natural right to freedom, and from this freedom we derive other rights”. What rights? What rights is a government going to grant you and why?For me, it seems that human rights are God's gift to humanity.
Taking the religious construct and human rights, where did these arise from? For example did the church's legitimisation of the Templars or the Hospitalliers advance the cause of "human Rights"? Hugh de Payne would have argued yes whilst Salah ad-Din would have said no. Human rights is a moving feast existing at the "by-your-leave" of the state look at Alan Turing and how the man who basically brought the 3rd Reich to defeat was hounded by the State to the point of suicide. What happened in the 50s in the UK would not happen now not becuase of any gift by a God.
Without wittering on too much, Church and State have sepereted and as an EU resident you will appreciate that the moral compass of human rights is now enstrinred in EU law not the church. In the UK less than 3% of the population attend church thus I would argue that religion or God has nothing more to do with how the UK (or Europe for that matter) percieves or derives its "human rights". However, as I said earlier your faith and what you believe should trump that of Government so long as it is within the law. Therefore going back to Aus and his dilema being given the opportunity to determine his "moral compass" based on the choices he is being given should be based on his belief, not what he is expected to do by the "moral herd". If his faith determines that he does not want gays to be married then he, as a man of faith, should follow his heart just as I am sure you would probably vote yes. Both are a perfectly correct response to the question.