Human vs. Religious Rights

Should human rights always outweigh religious rights?

This is the title of a recent debate produced by the BBC that aired as part of ‘The Big Question’ last sunday, January 12, 2014.

I was stunned that the question had to be asked at all, and it’s a sign for rational thinkers that there is lot to be done. For one, religious rights do not, or should not, exist. Modern rights have nothing to with religion, and everything to do with justice. But let’s assume they do. Obviously, the underlying question is really

‘if human rights and religious rights are at odds, which one should take precedence’?

If the two agree, there is nothing to discuss.

Voice for Justice UK“, is a christian belief organization that focuses on maintaining “the original Articles of the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights”. Yes, you’re right – that’s a deceptively benign name for an organization whose main purpose is to fight certain human rights like freedom of sexuality or children’s rights (these were ratified after 1948). But anyway, VFJUK sent Lynda Rose to act as Voice in the debate. In a comment posted before the broadcast, she wrote:

But now, apparently, the newly claimed sexual rights of a minority are being prioritised over all other traditional rights, to the extent that ‘religious’ rights are now being assigned a separate, and seemingly subsidiary, category

First of all, it doesn’t matter if rights are new or old – they are only ‘new’ in a sense that they have been written down recently. They should have been universal from day one. Like the laws of Physics, they existed before their discovery. Unlike natural laws, they can be broken. But the human right to live didn’t just exist since 1948 – it existed before; it merely wasn’t enforced. What’s more, all rights apply to everyone, not just some minority. It’s impossible for Lynda to not know that. Claiming that a minority has ‘special rights’ is skirting dangerously close to fear mongering.

I should also point out that ‘Traditional Rights’ in the context of her comment include rights that have been discarded, like the right to own slaves, or the right to discipline your wife if she disobeys. Just because traditionally some people had them does not mean that they were well-conceived. ‘Traditional’ does not trump ‘just’, Lynda, and it troubles me greatly that I must point this out.

Not surprisingly, the ‘newly claimed’ rights that Lynda rails against are the rights of homosexuals to not being discriminated against. It really puzzles me when someone calls the human right not to be discriminated against ‘new’. It’s not new, it has been the right of every human from the dawn of time. It’s only been recognized in 1948, and somewhat later been amended to extend to sexual discrimination. Homosexuals don’t have more rights than anyone else; they have exactly the same rights, and the amendment was necessary because the civilized world recognized that some were being withheld from them.

More disappointingly, though, Lynda seemingly argues that there are universally acceptable ‘religious rights’. This is emphasized by her introduction:

what really astonished me was the easy assumption that human and ‘religious’ rights are different.

They are not.

Yes they are! There is no such thing as a ‘religious right’ – there are merely privileges that many believers feel they are entitled to – and they react violently when they are denied. There simply are no religious rights – which shows the extend of irrationality that this debate is based upon. Rights based on religion or divinity are thankfully a part of our dark past. Today’s laws are mostly built upon humanism. The right of religious freedom is not a religious right. It allows you to do to yourself, and only to yourself, whatever religious thing you want. It includes the freedom to not being religious, and therefore cannot be called a religious right. It’s called a ‘human’ right for a reason.

Most disappointingly of all, though, Lynda closes her comment with this:

On the programme I was reviled for saying we are approaching a time in this country when we may well see active persecution against Christians. I am forced to admit I was wrong – it has already begun.

It’s incredibly selfish and revealing at the same time that Rose tries to make victims out of perpetrators. New legislation was formed to stem the tide of injustice committed by believers. These people seem to think that since it is their ‘tradition’ to mistreat some people it should be kept as a ‘traditional right’. They assert that the new legislation ‘persecutes’ them. Christians in the UK don’t know what persecution is. All they are experiencing here is that some of their self-asserted privileges are being curtailed in the interest of a more ethical community. That’s not persecution. That’s merely called ‘justice’.

There are human rights, which are universal and unalienable. There are no religious rights, only religious privileges.

So, should fundamental human rights always outweigh religious privileges?

Hell yes.

My Religious Freedom – at the cost of yours?

Tomorrow, a group of muslims are planning to march through London’s Brick Lane, protesting the sale of alcohol. They are against it because they say it is un-islamic and causes social problems (presumably the drinking, not selling of booze – but with religious people you are never sure). While alcohol consumption can (and does) cause social problems, you can bet your last cent that the real reason for their protest is that it’s not allowed for a muslim to drink alcohol. So it’s a religious thing, not a social concern.

If you don’t want to drink alcohol, that’s your prerogative. But here is the problem: The goal of the protesters is to strong-arm shop owners into not selling alcohol. The protesters don’t just want people to stop drinking by their own volition: just like the gang of muslim thugs a few weeks earlier that tried to enforce homophobic sharia law in the streets of London, the protesters want to outlaw the sale and consumption of alcohol for all. If you don’t want me to sell or drink alcohol, well, go and get stuffed. That’s my decision, not yours. Citing religious freedom to impose your views on me means not understanding what the word freedom actually means.

Homophobic Homilies against Human Rights

Tomorrow is International Human Rights Day. In other words, another perfect opportunity for the Catholic Church to publicly disgrace itself, this time with yet another homophobic homily.

Chur Bishop Vitus Huonders published (warning: in german) his official letter for Human Rights Day. In it, he denounces what he calls ‘Genderism’ – his thinly veiled ersatz for homosexuality. True to christian form, he calls homosexual behavior immoral, and demands that gay people must not marry nor be allowed to adopt children. He complains that the rights these gays ‘allegedly’ have would corrupt our impressionable young, and will invariably lead to the downfall of civilization. In short, he went full-on Goebbels. Denying essential rights on International Human Rights day is an interesting way to assert moral superiority.

In a somewhat confused middle segment Huonders also seems to cite scientific ‘evidence’ that homosexuality isn’t natural. Since he is a scientific ignoramus (a.k.a. ‘deeply religious’), we can forgive him that stupidity, although I fear the irony of that is lost on this cleric.

Exorcise this!

Oh, boy. Bishops and Stupid surely seem to go together like Nitro and Glycerine. The result is an equally explosive mix of hate and bigotry. After the Bishops of Limburg and the Twin Cities, Springfield Bishop Thomas John Paprocki has gone off the deep end.

In his frothing-at-the-mouth homily he exorcises the evils of same-sex marriage.

What is it with religious dimwits that keeps them up at night worrying about what other people are doing between the sheets?

What kind of neurosis compels someone to write the following dreck:

“I’m not saying that anyone involved in the redefinition of marriage is possessed by the devil”

Indeed – and I’m not saying Paprocki is a professional liar and child molester.

On his way to orbit, already high as a kite, he mentions in an aside that, anyway, his homily is just a minor exorcism, not a major one. But just what’s the difference between a major and minor exorcism? It’s like differentiating between Bigfoot and and the Bogeyman. Seriously. What’s wrong with you, Bishop?

Paprocki grouses on:

“Another major deception or distortion of marriage is the view that it is not ultimately about generating life, but rather is mainly about a romantic relationship designed for individual (not even mutual) fulfillment.”

Of course a catholic priest who can’t have sex nor marry would say something as stupid as that. Bishop: Sex is ultimately about generating life. Marriage is exclusively about social life.

But let’s be honest. Paprocki begins his homily by showing his hate credentials, trying in advance to shift the blame:

“It is not hateful to say that an immoral action is sinful.”

No. But it is hate to say that homosexuality is immoral. Nobody gives a rat’s ass about your concept of sin. Stop being a homophobic hate monger and start being a decent human.

Paging Dr. Mengele

Proving that ultra-orthodox Jews won’t be outdone by fanatical Moslems or fundamental Christians, Beit Shemesh (city of 75’000) Mayor Moshe Abutbul took to the airwaves and asserted that his belief was just as homophobic as the rest:

In a Friday interview on Channel 10, Abutbul, when asked about the presence of homosexuals in the city, said that “we have no such things…Thank God this city is holy and pure.” The mayor said that […] it was up to the Health Ministry and the police to “take care of them.”

Rabbi Yitzhak Hagar, a Beit Shemesh resident, agrees: as far as homosexuals are concerned,

“the central problem is a psychological problem, which needs treatment”

So, Moshe, Yitzhak — have you already contacted Dr. Mengele?

Archbishop proves he’s never had good sex

Ah, bishops. The unending wellspring of good examples. Good examples of what not to do. Today’s exhibit comes from the Twin Cities, where Catholic Archbishop John Nienstedt makes an archass out of himself.

During a meeting with Catholic leaders last August, the perhaps most revered, but definitely not very bright Archbishop thundered righteously:

“Sodomy, abortion, contraception, pornography, the redefinition of marriage and the denial of objective truth are just some of the forces threatening the stability of our civilization. The source of these machinations is none other than the Father of Lies.”

Wow. Sodomy, abortion, contraception, pornography, and homosexuality all in one sentence!

We better take this apart because it seems impossible to pack more misses into a single line:

  • denouncing sodomy merely proves that he’s never had good sex
  • railing against contraception is medically dangerous and highly misogynic
  • denying abortions is even more misogynic
  • attacking homosexuals is pure, unadulterated hate mongering (here disguised as ‘redefinition of marriage’)
  • vilifying porn is just plain silly – what is it with these uptight old men who think sex and morals are somehow linked?

Yet, his ‘denial of objective truth’ takes the cake. Objectively, gods don’t exist – they only do in this priest’s subjective imagination. More to the point, it’s his priestly job to deny objective truth. Taken in the context of his own speech, that means he’s either denouncing himself, or admitting that he’s working for his ‘Prince of Lies’.

Sometimes I feel there’s an unofficial contest between men of the cloth to find out who can pack the greatest amount of stupid into a single sentence.

It’s difficult being a priest

A discussion about religious morals made me look at the actions of priests who recently exhibited somewhat questionable behavior: fire someone for converting to a different belief, lie to their flock, preach hate, or discriminate against women and homosexuals.

In all these cases we can objectively say that their behavior was ethically wrong. So why did they do it? Are they bad people? Their actions certainly indicate so.
Well, not always. When you look more closely, a pattern emerges: In general, priests try to avoid unethical behavior. They usually know when they are doing something unethical – and don’t like it very much. Sometimes they just have to do it – it’s expected of them.

Similar to firemen rushing into a burning building, priests sometimes have to do dangerous things. Like bodily harm to a fireman, a priest has to shoulder the risk of destroying his integrity.

For a priest, lying, hate-mongering and spreading homophobia are occupational hazards.

It’s part of their job.

A golden standard

After making headlines around the world for literally discovering new medical territories (developing a medical test to detect homosexuality, and discovering previously unknown dangers that driving a car poses to women), the Saudis are in the spotlight again for yet another discovery: ‘Put up or shut up’ is really hard.

After being offered a seat on the UN security council, the Saudi Foreign Minister turned it down, citing ‘double standards’ and past ‘UN failures’.

It seems the Saudis are disappointed over the fact that the UN did not manage to find a solution to the Palestinian cause nor remove weapons of mass destruction from the Middle East.

It should be noted that, when it comes to double standards, the Saudis are the experts, so we should trust their judgement should they detect one outside their own country.

So, agreed. There are lots of things that can be improved in the UN. This time around, though, the Saudis seem to prefer to take a step back, and focus on other, more pressing things.

Because everyone knows that the best way to change things is to not accept responsibility.

It seems the Saudi Golden Standard – the one that the UN didn’t live up to – currently is ‘Those who can, do; those who can’t, criticize’.

Everyone who’s ever watched a soccer game is familiar with that one.

‘Science’ in the hands of homophobes

A recent article reported that Gulf States are working on a medical test to ‘detect’ homosexuality in humans.

A medical test being developed by Kuwait will be used to ‘detect’ homosexuals and prevent them from entering the country – or any of the Gulf Cooperation Countries (GCC), according to a Kuwaiti government official.

First, the consensus among real scientists is that this will be as likely to succeed as trying to find a medical test that detects if you like collecting stamps: Zero. The Gulf states are rich, and can afford some of the best scientific minds money can buy (those aren’t necessarily the best scientific minds, but close enough). It is safe to say that they know that this is a hare-brained idea. So why are they doing it?

Now, it is important to remember that the Gulf States (Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia and the UAE) are deeply islamic countries. Like all deeply islamic countries, they are also deeply homophobic (unfortunately, the same can be said about deeply christian countries). Being a homosexual is a crime in the GCC, in Saudi Arabia it’s even a capital offense.

But I don’t think that they are trying to actually produce a working test. Here, the message is more important than the facts. What The GCC are really trying is to

  • publicly associate homosexuality with a disease. If something can be detected ‘medically’, it must be an illness, right?
  • create the illusion of an ‘impartial’ test. Much like the historic tests that determined if you were a witch Number Search , this test can be used against anyone the state deems unsavory. There is no appeal against a ‘scientific’ positive. This will be just another way to suppress people. The GCC are not democracies – pretty much the opposite.
  • establish the opinion that homosexuality is a growing problem that is invading from the outside (hence airport screening), and that they are trying to stop it at the border. People should think that homosexuality is carried into their pure country by foreigners, and that perhaps, as a medical condition, it may be even be an infectious disease.

In short, this is little more than trying to shoehorn science into providing justification for their repulsive beliefs. Something like this has been done before, and resulted in one of the greatest sufferings the world ever endured: the ‘scientific’ racism of the aryan race theory.