In part eight of Security, Human Rights and Religion I will attempt to condense my thinking, on these specific matters, as I feel that it is vital for members of different religions, and indeed for those who do not have any religion, to have a broad knowledge of the different beliefs held by billions of people throughout the world.
I feel this knowledge and apreciation of the salient points is vital, for the world appears, to me, to be slowly but inexorably building up to what surely would be WW3. This may be brought about by conflict between the major religions; this could be hastened, even disguised, by economic forces, particularly in respect of power supplies both from oil and nuclear sources.
The leaders of the world's religions should, in my opinion, be asked many very important questions regarding, for example, their attitude to suicide "bombers" and other actions that fall under "terrorist" attacks. These attitudes should be stated very clearly and should be given maximum publicity. This authentic information should enable those people, who care and worry about such matters, to better appreciate the true position.
The same leaders of the world's religions should also be asked many questions in regard to their attitude to Human Rights as advocated in the European Union. I know that the EU has deliberated long and hard on their views on Human Rights but profess to being completely in the dark as to whether the United Nations have spelled out the whole "World's" view of these rights. There are, for example, glaring differences in the way women are treated in different countries and cultures, and, as I have previously advanced, some of these ways are deeply reprehensible to some people's consciences but do not bother others at all.
In my opinion, the world's population should have specific and common universal total belief and uniformly clear consciences in regard to instances when an individual may kill or injure, or attempt to kill or injure, any other person or persons. In respect of this vitally important matter all Religions should, in very firm and concise statements, make their position crystal clear.
I have explained why I think Security, Human Rights and Religion are so very closely linked; religion should be a calming force but, regrettably, in many cases that does not seem to pertain, some may argue that the reverse applies. A sustained effort, vigorously prompted and promoted by the acclaimed leaders of all religions, should be mounted to ensure that World peace is maintained.
My next blog will start to deal with "The Press and the Establishment".
Frederick W Gilling Friday 18th September 2009
Friday, 18 September 2009
Thursday, 10 September 2009
Security, Human Rights and Religion. Part seven continued.
Part seven continued of Security, Human Rights and Religion. Sorry about the need to continue Part seven folks, I needed to leave the blog for an hour or so but made a bad mistake and clicked on Post instead of Save. I immediately realised it and went back to Edit. Later I typed in the rest of the blog but for some reason the "machine" did a wheels up and the connection to the server was broken. When, twenty hours later, normal service was resumed there was not a trace of some twenty five lines of script. An indicative straw in the wind may have been that the Spell Check was not working, oh to be an expert on IT and computers. I was not copying from a draft but I will try to continue where I left off.
Getting back to reality I must believe that through the centuries, as suggested previously, great scholars have attempted to clarify or prove how religions developed. Speaking just for myself I believe that Jesus Christ was a man who preached and practised a religion that many people could relate to, he was a leader and an inspiration. However the more that I think about a life hereafter the harder I find it to accept that there will be one, I well may be in a decided minority group. Thinking as I do, it makes it even harder to visualise that, depending on how one is judged, life hereafter will be wonderful or horrific.
Where did the nineteen young men, some off them married with families, think they were going as a result of killing close to 2000 people in the Twin Towers attack. The same can be asked of suicide bombers. Religious leaders should speak out very clearly as to the stance of their religion in relation to suicide attacks. The same leaders should state where the suicide attacker's spirit will go. In a more earthly context it should also be ascertained as to whether the suicide attacker's family benefited financially from his or her actions, and if so, by how much and who provided the money.
In my opinion the whole question regarding suicide attacks should be debated at length in the United Nations so that, as far as is possible, every one knows exactly what the position is.
In Part eight of Security, Human Rights and Religion I will sum up my reasons as to why I think those three subjects are closely linked.
Frederick W Gilling 23:42 hrs Thursday 10th September 2009.
Getting back to reality I must believe that through the centuries, as suggested previously, great scholars have attempted to clarify or prove how religions developed. Speaking just for myself I believe that Jesus Christ was a man who preached and practised a religion that many people could relate to, he was a leader and an inspiration. However the more that I think about a life hereafter the harder I find it to accept that there will be one, I well may be in a decided minority group. Thinking as I do, it makes it even harder to visualise that, depending on how one is judged, life hereafter will be wonderful or horrific.
Where did the nineteen young men, some off them married with families, think they were going as a result of killing close to 2000 people in the Twin Towers attack. The same can be asked of suicide bombers. Religious leaders should speak out very clearly as to the stance of their religion in relation to suicide attacks. The same leaders should state where the suicide attacker's spirit will go. In a more earthly context it should also be ascertained as to whether the suicide attacker's family benefited financially from his or her actions, and if so, by how much and who provided the money.
In my opinion the whole question regarding suicide attacks should be debated at length in the United Nations so that, as far as is possible, every one knows exactly what the position is.
In Part eight of Security, Human Rights and Religion I will sum up my reasons as to why I think those three subjects are closely linked.
Frederick W Gilling 23:42 hrs Thursday 10th September 2009.
Wednesday, 9 September 2009
Security, Human Rights and Religion Part seven.
Part seven of Security, Human Rights and Religion. A great number of very learned persons, from well over a thousand years ago until the the present time, have, in many instances, devoted their lives to researching the history of religion. I think, it can be safely said, that due to many factors, not the least being the complexity and antiquity of the subject that there is often a wide divergence in any conclusions that have been reached.
Let me introduce a hypothetical scenario, with apologies to any person who may have previously written something similar. Imagine that one hundred thousand week old babies, half boys and half girls, are left on a large island in the middle of the Pacific ocean and they are the only humans on earth. They all survive because it is a very well provided for and benign island, and it suits my hypothesis. What, if any, religion will evolve ? How many generations will pass before idols are conjured up ? Assuming that they were not invented by the original babies' generation, would the sun, moon or mountain tops be considered mystical in any way. After how many generations will it be shown, and believed, that idols possess no powers ?
Will the people on the island ever start to kill each other in the name of a religion they believe in ?
Getting back to reality I must believe that through the centuries
Let me introduce a hypothetical scenario, with apologies to any person who may have previously written something similar. Imagine that one hundred thousand week old babies, half boys and half girls, are left on a large island in the middle of the Pacific ocean and they are the only humans on earth. They all survive because it is a very well provided for and benign island, and it suits my hypothesis. What, if any, religion will evolve ? How many generations will pass before idols are conjured up ? Assuming that they were not invented by the original babies' generation, would the sun, moon or mountain tops be considered mystical in any way. After how many generations will it be shown, and believed, that idols possess no powers ?
Will the people on the island ever start to kill each other in the name of a religion they believe in ?
Getting back to reality I must believe that through the centuries
Tuesday, 8 September 2009
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.
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.
Security,Human Rights,Religion. Part five.
Part five of Security, Human Rights and Religion. While on the subject of law making two more spring to my mind, firstly a law should be enacted to protect the dignity and respect for the police.
I was disgusted with the actions of some of the protesters during the G20 summit meeting in London. One tall man,wearing a white shirt, was shown on television for several minutes, practically in eye ball to eye ball contact with the police, arms spread out wide he appeared to be taunting them, later he did seem to have some blood stains on his shirt but it did not seem to reduce his mobility. The scene outside and inside the Bank of Scotland showed the ugly and criminal side of demonstrations that can develop.
The second law should be concerned with the actions of UK citizens while abroad, this should include being a passenger on a plane or ship. Something along the lines of: Any UK citizen who brings the UK into disrespect, while abroad, shall be guilty of an offence, max fine ??, maximum time in prison ??. This to be on top of any penalty imposed by a foreign court. Let our courts decide on how much disrespect for the UK had been generated and what the punishment should be. As I was writing the draft of this blog the thought occurred as to whether, when people are entering a foreign country, they should be required to sign an agreement to observe the laws of that country. Now that really does need thinking about, particularly if we require visitors to the UK to sign to obey our laws.
Part six of Security, Human Rights and Religion will be on religion.
Frederick W Gilling 05:02 AM Wednesday 09 September 2009
I was disgusted with the actions of some of the protesters during the G20 summit meeting in London. One tall man,wearing a white shirt, was shown on television for several minutes, practically in eye ball to eye ball contact with the police, arms spread out wide he appeared to be taunting them, later he did seem to have some blood stains on his shirt but it did not seem to reduce his mobility. The scene outside and inside the Bank of Scotland showed the ugly and criminal side of demonstrations that can develop.
The second law should be concerned with the actions of UK citizens while abroad, this should include being a passenger on a plane or ship. Something along the lines of: Any UK citizen who brings the UK into disrespect, while abroad, shall be guilty of an offence, max fine ??, maximum time in prison ??. This to be on top of any penalty imposed by a foreign court. Let our courts decide on how much disrespect for the UK had been generated and what the punishment should be. As I was writing the draft of this blog the thought occurred as to whether, when people are entering a foreign country, they should be required to sign an agreement to observe the laws of that country. Now that really does need thinking about, particularly if we require visitors to the UK to sign to obey our laws.
Part six of Security, Human Rights and Religion will be on religion.
Frederick W Gilling 05:02 AM Wednesday 09 September 2009
Sunday, 6 September 2009
Security, Human Rights and Religion. Part four.
Part four of Security, Human Rights and Religion. I have previously shown that I believe thought needs to be given to the word conscience, and the fact that in several matters there is a wide divergence in what may, or may not, trouble a person's conscience. In offering the following comment I justify it by the thought that it acts as a lead in to what follows. The comment is that, I understand, persons becoming residents of the UK are now required to promise their allegiance to the Queen. I have heard that the ceremony itself can be both meaningful and moving.
I assume that, comparatively, few citizens of the UK have formally undertaken such allegiance. While knowing that ignorance of the law is no defence for breaking it, most of us have not formally declared that we will obey the laws of the country. Perhaps one such law that, I suggest, should be put on top of the list already exists, essentially it should read something like this; "I will not deliberately, directly or indirectly, kill or injure, nor attempt to kill or injure any person or persons whatsoever unless permitted by the UK government under one or more of the following conditions". Here should follow the usual disclaimers regarding a state of war existing, self defence or protection of life or property etc etc.
Every adult resident wishing to become, or remain, a citizen of the UK must sign to acknowledge their agreement to all of the UK's laws.
In part five of Security, Human Rights and Religion I will suggest other laws that, I feel, should be created.
Frederick W Gilling 08 August 2009
I assume that, comparatively, few citizens of the UK have formally undertaken such allegiance. While knowing that ignorance of the law is no defence for breaking it, most of us have not formally declared that we will obey the laws of the country. Perhaps one such law that, I suggest, should be put on top of the list already exists, essentially it should read something like this; "I will not deliberately, directly or indirectly, kill or injure, nor attempt to kill or injure any person or persons whatsoever unless permitted by the UK government under one or more of the following conditions". Here should follow the usual disclaimers regarding a state of war existing, self defence or protection of life or property etc etc.
Every adult resident wishing to become, or remain, a citizen of the UK must sign to acknowledge their agreement to all of the UK's laws.
In part five of Security, Human Rights and Religion I will suggest other laws that, I feel, should be created.
Frederick W Gilling 08 August 2009
Friday, 4 September 2009
Security,Human Rights,Religion. Part three.
Part three of Security,Human Rights and Religion. I think one can safely assume that most adults in the UK are aware of the expression Human Rights, and are broadly aware that most of these rights have been clarified within the European Union and also, more particularly, in the UK.
Article 9 is concerned with "Freedom of thought, conscience and religion". This has been explained as protecting peoples' rights in relation to a broad range of views, beliefs, thoughts and "positions of conscience" as well as to their faith in a particular religion.
However it just so happens that Article 9 is one of four articles in which the rights are qualified, that takes my argument into the domain of lawyers and judges, neither of which I am qualified in but, while wishing that "things" would be better if their meaning was crystal clear I will push on.
"The State is never permitted to interfere with a person's right to hold a particular belief". My comments follow, a person can think anything they like, end of story! However with the advances in the knowledge of genes and brain surgery it could be nice to know that the State cannot interfere with the way a person thinks!
Then along come several qualifications, I quote: "It [the State] can only restrict their right to manifest a belief [for example, worshipping, teaching, practising and observing their belief either in public or in private]". My comment, there is plenty of grist for the mill there as lawyers and judges seek to establish case law in respect of article 9, particularly when the qualifications concerning public safety, public order, health, morals and the rights and freedom of others are thrown into the mix.
To be continued in Part four of "Security, Human Rights and Religion"
Frederick W Gilling 07 September 2009
Article 9 is concerned with "Freedom of thought, conscience and religion". This has been explained as protecting peoples' rights in relation to a broad range of views, beliefs, thoughts and "positions of conscience" as well as to their faith in a particular religion.
However it just so happens that Article 9 is one of four articles in which the rights are qualified, that takes my argument into the domain of lawyers and judges, neither of which I am qualified in but, while wishing that "things" would be better if their meaning was crystal clear I will push on.
"The State is never permitted to interfere with a person's right to hold a particular belief". My comments follow, a person can think anything they like, end of story! However with the advances in the knowledge of genes and brain surgery it could be nice to know that the State cannot interfere with the way a person thinks!
Then along come several qualifications, I quote: "It [the State] can only restrict their right to manifest a belief [for example, worshipping, teaching, practising and observing their belief either in public or in private]". My comment, there is plenty of grist for the mill there as lawyers and judges seek to establish case law in respect of article 9, particularly when the qualifications concerning public safety, public order, health, morals and the rights and freedom of others are thrown into the mix.
To be continued in Part four of "Security, Human Rights and Religion"
Frederick W Gilling 07 September 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)