Security, Human Rights and Religion. Part six.

Part six of Security, Human Rights and Religion. Before venturing into the often contentious subject of religion I will recall, as accurately as possible, some recent comment regarding the regular support for Christian religions in large "Western" areas. For a selection of West European countries it was in the 30 to 40 percent range. For America it was over 70 percent.

How do the majority of people born in the UK, around about 80 years of age, account for their religious identity, the initials they put on a form that asks for that information. I would suggest that they are more likely to have followed the religion of at least one of their parents, in my case that gave me the initials RC. This no doubt due to my mother's parents having come to England from Ireland. I cannot recall in detail and with any certainty any religious education apart from attending Sunday school and, subsequently, the church parades while in the army.

It can, I think, be surmised that an ever increasing number of UK children are not getting introduced, on a regular basis, to attending a Christian church on Sunday, and religion is playing an ever smaller part in their lives or thinking.

In a book that I self published entitled "Fred's Rules" on page 83 I wrote "Another wish is that I could pick up one small book and in it read an accurate and authorised explanation of the world's major religions because, at the moment, I do not know how many major religions there are and how numerically they are supported.

One question that, I feel, needs to be clearly answered is, "Does any religion impose an obligation on its followers to, for any specific reason, or reasons, kill or attempt to kill a person"? If there is such a religion the temptation to bar anyone who follows that religion from becoming, or being, a citizen of the UK, even residing here or being allowed into the UK is an obvious thought. However, how would such a temptation fit in with a person's human rights ? Particularly with
"The State is never permitted to interfere with a person's right to hold a particular belief". But then comes the qualification " ----- can only restrict their right to manifest their belief by practising their belief in public or in private". The end result could be that a great many people will have to be watched more or less on a full time basis!

A few months ago a friend emailed me some photographs of parts of the universe taken from Hubble, I replied something like this: Photographs absolutely amazing, but so is the technology by which, in virtually a flash, she transmitted them to me, and so was the technology, and skill, that was displayed when my wife had a cataract operation recently. I then went on "Human beings have displayed their truly fantastic technical abilities in scores of different ways, so why are we still,willy nilly, killing each other"?
To be continued in Part seven of Security, Human Rights and Religion.

Frederick W Gilling 17:05 Wednesday 09 September 2009.