BBC 2 Debate - Has Human Rights achieved more than Religion? The Big Questions
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 сен 2024
- BBC Debate: Has Human Rights Law achieved more for Humanity than Religion [The Big Questions]
10th May 2015
Shami Chakrabarti (Liberty)
Peter Tatchell (LGBT and Human Rights campaigner)
Tim Cross
Andrew Copson (Director of British Humanists Association)
Lynda Rose
Jackie Tabick
Lez Henry
Adam Wagner
Michael Mumisa
Maryam Namazie (Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain)
Abdullah al-Andalusi (Muslim Debate Initiative)
It's a no-brainer. Human rights are superior to religious beliefs.
+Mike Enwright Obviously, look at Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.
+peacegod101 I cannot think of one practical moral measure in which religion (any religion) trumps Human Rights.
Mike Enwright Neither can I.
+Mike Enwright Rights presupposes an obligation. Who has the obligation to uphold human rights?
You do.
There is no way I can side with religion over human rights law in terms of protecting human rights.. the human rights law has done far better than religion
secularism does not mean totalitarianism or dictatorship. Abdullah or whatever his name is, he really needs to take up a political science class. People are saying that THEOCRACY does not work, as in when you use religion as the basis of law and government it doesn't work- it will cause discrimination as one dominant ruling religion will undermine and take away the rights of the religious and ethnic minorities. Difference is, human rights don't recognise differences in terms for discrimination, it is that despite of our differences we are all the same and because we are human beings first, such rights will prevail. Religion exceptionalism is disgusting and goes against what egalitarianism stands for, they are allowed to discriminate because "god says so". If it were for the dominant religions ruling today under our laws, religious minorities, gays and women will still be persecuted. Most dominant religions are sexist towards women and openly religious people will say that "men and women are different therefore men get more privileges" and that "being gay is a choice and a sin". People don't come first, the "divine" does. And secondly it leads up to interpretation. I love how the religious folks does not acknowledge that THEOCRACY is faulty and dangerous as history and current events have been recorded.
+jennevieve leigh it did work in spain and ottoman empire, why can't it work now?
+jennevieve leigh
_"People are saying that THEOCRACY does not work, as in when you use religion as the basis of law and government it doesn't work- it will cause discrimination as one dominant ruling religion will undermine and take away the rights of the religious and ethnic minorities."_
But this if of course only a problem if you recognize the possibility that your dominant religion might be false. Otherwise, it's not hard to find examples of all sorts of views in society that are suppressed by the government. Take the belief that the earth is flat for example, or that Aristotelian physics is true. The latter is even a religious idea to a large extent.
_"Difference is, human rights don't recognise differences in terms for discrimination, it is that despite of our differences we are all the same and because we are human beings first, such rights will prevail."_
But that requires the above presupposition, about you nor really knowing whether your religion is true or not. Otherwise, I don't see a major issue with theocracy evaluated strictly on the measure of whether it's able to prevail or not. The Caliphate lasted a long time and was defeated militarily, not because it collapsed due to theocracy not being able to provide stability through indoctrination.
_"Religion exceptionalism is disgusting and goes against what egalitarianism stands for, they are allowed to discriminate because "god says so"."_
Uhm.. yeah, that's right. It's a different value system.You reject it, I reject it, but that doesn't make "egalitarianism" an objectively appropriate value. Secular states clearly don't allow any bullshit view to be regarded as an equal with regards to decision making. There's a connection to empiricism and being able to demonstrate that claims are real that you're missing here.
_" If it were for the dominant religions ruling today under our laws, religious minorities, gays and women will still be persecuted."_
Well, the idea that women are persecuted under theistic systems is of course again pretty subjective and value laden. If women are in fact created to serve certain roles and will be happier in such roles, then it could logically be the case that egalitarianism in this area would just lead to unhappiness and badly functioning societies.(I could, for example, point out the low birth rates in the west, which are far below replacement level, and in the long term therefore resulting in the eradication of all western values)
_"Most dominant religions are sexist towards women and openly religious people will say that "men and women are different therefore men get more privileges" and that "being gay is a choice and a sin"."_
What they will actually say is that men and women are different, and therefore they have different situations. The stuff about "privileges" is feminist language that nobody else uses. That being gay is a sin under the Abrahamic religions is true of course, but this doesn't mean that it's not a choice whether or not to put your penis in someone's butt. In any case, it's obviously true that gay people have a same sex attraction that non-gays don't, in the same way pedophiles have an attraction to children in a way that non-pedophiles don't. This doesn't mean it's not a choice going on in the head of a pedophile before he assfucks a 3 year old. It's just that society doesn't accept this as an appropriate behavior and this is the same justification religious people have to have anti-gay laws.
_"People don't come first, the "divine" does."_
That might be the case, but it's more that the egalitarianism is rejected because of divine decrees. Whether or not this is a bad thing is another question. IMO, the issue of whether or not we have any reason to think religions are true is much more important, and to be able to address this, societies can't adopt the religious egalitarianism of secularism. Rather, it has to adopt a sound rational methodology for determining what's a plausible claim about reality and what is not, and not be afraid of making it difficult for people who make the implausible claims.
_"And secondly it leads up to interpretation."_
That claim could only be accepted by religions that don't claim inerrancy though. Both Catholicism and Islam have their own versions of this. "The Pope is right" and "The Ummah is right".
_"I love how the religious folks does not acknowledge that THEOCRACY is faulty and dangerous as history and current events have been recorded."_
The evidence actually just shows that many people have been fighting over religious views. Unfortunately, people have not been willing to debate the claims of religions via rational, evidence based, means. This is the core of all religions, not just of "theocracy" and that's a problem even under secularism due to the lack of valuing truth under secularism, regarding the question of supernatural claims. So under secularism, you get politics that are religiously motivated, just not explicitly so, because it's not allowed to state that you vote for the candidates/laws you do because of your religious convictions, but of course all religious people will do this. Moreover, the moment some religion would gain dominance in a secular society, you can be sure the switch to theocracy would come in short order.
+Hafeez Khan it didn't work in Spain or in ottoman empire. It's only myths that modern day lefty leftists propagate, to boost their vote banks. Christians in Spain lived like second class citizens and had to pay jiyaza tax in their own country.Hagia Sophia the holiest site for the Orthodox ,was first converted to a mosque and then to a museum, an utter insult to orthodoxy.Christians in Greece suffered worst kind of persecution for their religions. So stop fooling around people
Human rights protects religion from itself. Believers aren't aware of that, unfortunately.
Well said.
This debate turns on exactly, and only one, point. Religion brings with it ancient, unacceptable, yet immutable, 'divine' precepts. Secular 'human rights' laws allow for debate, consensus and change as we acquire more information and a better ability to process it to come to a better understanding of morality and ethics. We needn't concern ourselves with who did what in the past other than to learn from it, and only secular law allows for the full use of our modern understanding, learning and change.
Greg Pearcey WHICH religion among the more than 4200 religions worldwide (both organized and unorganized) are you talking about here?!
Andalusian Project What an idiotic comment
@@karim0404 I was not referring to blasphemy laws, but 'blasphemy' is whatever a state sanctioned legal authority, Mullah, Pastor or homicidal zealot says it is.
Why should I give a shit what you think Islam permits or not?
@@karim0404 this is the point, you should be able to say Allah isn’t real and can suck a fat one. No government should have laws taken from scripture
@@karim0404 no, islam not allowing anything in the teaching to be questioned let alone debated. Slander? Me saying there is no god, according to your cult that counts as a slander, so no, stop sugarcoating your cult's flaws.
Secular humanism always trumps the so called, moral values, of religion.
Great work, Nicky was WAY more generous with you this time Abdullah in giving you time to speak and referring back to you. You smashed it! :)
Religion is primarily responsible for violations of these rights. It's been extremely powerful for a very long time and didn't do anything about those rights for a very long time. Only when secular forces found human rights to be important a few religious people joined in on that against their religion, against their church, against their doctrine, against their beliefs, against their faith. And yes real change only came when the religious people joined in, that's because before that the church used it's power to ignore what any non-religious people want.
Even in the time of Abraham people had developed better civilization (laws and morals) than can be found in religious texts. Ever since religion has been destructive to civilization. So without these religions, most of these problems had never existed.
The few positive elements in religious texts are of the level that a five year old can think of it, they are nothing compared to the vast majority of those texts that are horrible and destructive. So now sophisticated theologians have come up with the excuse of 'interpretation' that allows them to ignore most of the texts, which is good, the more you ignore the better. But it's a lie, the problem is that the so called 'extremists' are much more correct with their 'interpretation' of what the text actually says. Moderates apparently use their natural morality to ignore most of the text and then pretend the seemingly positive parts justify that morality.
Let's look at what religion claims versus what they have achieved:
claimed: knowledge, love, peace, effectively everything
achieved: barbarism, hate, ignorance, effectively nothing
imgur.com/u1hWgfr
This claim on religious freedom is bullshit. Religious freedom just means you are allowed to believe anything you want. It does not mean you get to force your religion on others. The problem with religious claims is that anyone can make up any religious claim. I could make up a religious claim and find someones hair to be offensive, there's no way to test the validity of that. So when there's a conflict between freedom and rights, you need real arguments.
Non of the Abrahamic religions would not be peaceful if they were followed in their purest forms. Today, most of them are being interpreted in a peaceful manner, because people have become more open minded, rational thinking, and, have been influenced by human rights. Therefore, it's safe to say that today's religions have been influenced by human rights, not the other way around.
Not Islam though
4:30 It's ironic that the lady brought up Magna Carta as an attempt to prove that religions produced human rights by citing a non-religious figure for a non-religious mandate for which it was later declared invalid...(wait for it) by the Pope.
The "BIG QUESTIONS' has basically become 'DUMB QUESTIONS that wouldn't even be raised if not for islamic presence' in the UK. sad really.
aran9901 you forgot about Christian fundamentalists.
Mark T we all forgot about those, Christianity is dead as a political power in the west...
***** good question, in the united states, the most christian western country, there's complete separation between church and state, England for example is defined as a christian nation. how many of the ten commandments or biblical law is implemented in either of them. that's why muslim build mosques when they immigrate to the west, and the west doesn't builld churches when they have military bases in the muslim countries.
I think this was a good question and there have been some well said answers.
kittykatBflat I sort of see The Big Questions as the Maury of questions.
While these questions seem silly to most people, a lot of people have backwards opinions on them which is good to recognize and hopefully clear up.
Much like on Maury the ppl on the show do not know who the father is. Some people might think that is crazy, but others still need to find out.
P.S. I feel my IQ has dropped by using that analogy so hope it worked.
This is the great thing about Human Rights you dont need an interpretation of a schizophrenic scripture to realize that gay ppl shouldn't be oppressed or that women should be treated as equals, or that slavery is wrong. Its spelled out, you don't have to worry about a prophets slave taking activities, or child marriage activities or the different interpretations of when its OK to take slaves or marry children bc Human Rights tells you as your conscious should (I hope) that its not OK to take slaves under any circumstances, that it is wrong to take children as wives/husbands, that its wrong to kill and oppress gays or religious/racial minorities, that its wrong to treat women unequally. That is the difference and its a great difference.
Yeah, people need to realise that just because a belief system can be called a religion doesn't mean it has any more rights than any other belief system.
alhamdulillah to be muslim.......
me too .
Facepalm. Ancient Egypte women had exactly the same rights as men. Such as vote right. 3700 years ago or 2500 years before Islam.
black dude is so right, surprised no one clapped for him
delusional theists.
Human rights predate monotheism, the ethical & moral discussion where going onway before Jesus & Muhammad (peace not be upon him) the ancient Greeks were quite good on this!...
samsa419 The Greeks had slaves.
Going To Getugly Human rights only applied to the greeks not anybody else lol.
samsa419 No, not really. Human Rights as we know them today are derived from Judeo-Christian culture.
Kozar There were better human rights in ancient egypt and greece then there were in Judeo Christian Europe lol.
TheIslamicAtheist You mean those countries with slavery? Ok. Read a book. Thanks.
I kind of feel that that we should go an entire month without religion though out the world to see if it is really nessary in our species
Honestly, I don't think the world would be too much different without it. We are tribal by nature. We divide ourselves by nationality, by race, by class, and even by gender.
@@justthatgirl-ct4jo it would be somewhat better, religion is the leading ideology
@@thehistory5401 Fair enough
Like the atheist project that was the Soviet Union that saw the genocides of swathes of peoples? Like China, and the catastrophic Great Leap Forward that killed millions? Like the Khmer Rouge, and its Red Terror? Like the French Revolution, that plunged Europe into vicious wars? Like the Marxist Red Terror under Mengistu of Ethiopia?
Human rights will always triumph over religious rights.
The reason is simple - human rights attempt to provide the best society in a particular time and place. They take into consideration contemporary society. They are based on the present and are the result of rational debate and discussion. Often they are the result of oppressed people standing up for themselves and gaining equal rights etc.
Religious rights are cast in stone. They come from an ancient society where they might have made some sense and are then imposed on a very different modern society. There is no rational debate, no attempt to thrash out what is best today, just an imposition of outmoded religious dogma onto the present.
Of course many religious people are actually quite decent. The ignore their religion and actually follow human rights, eg the Christians who support gay marraige.
Not if Islam is the majority ideology in the West.
Maryam Namazie is quite an irrational and uneducated woman on the topics she's discusses or responds to. Abdullah was tracing back the actual constitutional, historically verifiable, factual events of the British and French colonizing the middle east, and putting in blasphemy laws, anti gay laws, etc., that are cited throughout the Muslim world, with those same constitutions. The Ottomans were not a perfect example of Islamic law by any means, but they certainly didn't oppress minorities due to beliefs. Maryam conveniently left out, or was totally ignorant of, the verses in the quran like "there is no complusion in religion", and many others that discuss how to justly treat those that are different from you religiously/philosophically. More people have been killed in the past 2 centuries than in any recorded point in history, in wars and occupations by secular regimes. Human life is quite an important human right.
Carl Carlson They weren't secular. Aggressively promoting atheism and irreligion by destroying churches, executing priests etc. is not secularism.
Carl Carlson The compulsion verse is abrogated by later verses in the Quran. The Ottomans did oppress minorities for their beliefs especially when it came to crime involving muslims. The non-muslims testimoney was worth less than a Muslims and a non-muslims could ride a horse higher alongside or near a Muslim. Not to mention the jizya and dhimmi status for non-muslims. A non-muslims couldnt attain high positions in the ottoman empire either in terms of jobs. This discrimination was one of the reasons that led to the Areminan population to dislike the Ottoman empire and protest against them in which in later set of events they were all massacred, 1.2 million of them. The blashphemy and hudud laws are all part of the Islamic traditions and Islamic schools of thought not the British colonial culture. Marayam Namazie is merely pointing out obvious truths about how Islam exists in the world today and although her knowledge may not be sophisitcated, she does make a lot of good points. On the other hand Abdullah just uses red herrings to escape any objections to Islam. And secularism is not an ideology. Its a principle of the seperation of religion and state. Believing in leprachauns can be a secular ideology is well lol so saying secular regime killed lot of people is just pointless because secularism is not a motivating factor. Regimes killed a lot of people would be a better use.
You can say that. But that's every example of secularism since John Locke invented the idea of secular liberalism.
Carl Carlson But that isn't secularism. Secularism is the separation of church and state. That's it. Promoting religion or promoting non-religion is not secularism.
Carl Carlson If you're trying to say that Stalin and Mao had secular regimes then you're wrong. They weren't secular they were the opposite of being secular
If Universal Law is applicable across the world, then Muslims have every right to impose the Islamic Shariah around the world. The conflict when one system tries to impose their belief on the other. Live and let live.
Hussain Fahmy You're comparing stopping genocide, which the UN wants, to stoning gay people and executing adulterers, which Islamism wants. You have every right to try to subjugate the world like Hitler, but you'll find a coalition of the free standing in your way.
Forcing Google+ Makes Me Feel Better About the Spying You should study your own dark history before judging others. The universal human rights will remain a distant dream until those who are trying to enforce, recognise the rights of others to live in peace. For some, the sickness of being gay and adultery may be acceptable but there are many others see them differently. Islam has it's own set of Divine rules and Muslims have every right to live by them. They do not have to justify to others. UN did not stop genocides in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Burma, Yemen and many other countries. FYI Germany got rid of the Zionist loan sharks who are to this day eating up the economy of the world.
Hussain Fahmy My own dark history...it's amazing how you can say that while at the same time spouting unveiled anti-semitism.
Are you actually arguing that you want more intervention in Middle-East conflicts? You don't want the world out of your bloody affairs?
Forcing Google+ Makes Me Feel Better About the Spying Zionists will bleed US dry; the only solution, IS peaceful intervention.
I was glad to hear Óscar Romero mentioned. You never hear about him.
This black guy has point. he is the winner of this debate.
the ''black guy'' had a NAME that you could have stated
@@topgurl9313 There's nothing inheritently wrong by identifying a person by their looks if you don't know their name.
35:35 outside my shop, there will be a bucket with plastic coins and those will only be for men, the coins are worth next to nothing and does not so anything.
However, in my shop, only people with the coins will be allowed to shop. I'll denie both genders that are without a coin, so you can't call me sexist, right? Not in this instanc3, I treat both genders without coins equal and everyone with a coin equal.
If gays can't get married and I establish a rule that only married people can use my business, were in the same boat as the first example. I'm treating married couple/coin bearer equal,.but there is an instance of equality before that.
*inequality
I believe "Human Rights" is like lesson learn from our past mistakes. We as "Religion" have done mistakes in past as well as we still don't have perfect structure in place. That's where Human Rights comes into play. It helps human being to get away with glitches present in our religious systems and voice against it. I believe it should not be "vs" instead it should be "together" how we can improvise human lives together through both Religion and Human Rights.
Homophobia and sexism is engrained into these religions, you cant deny that
I love this show. Very intellectual.
+Earth+ Are you serious?
Haha the narrator is a moron, but I like the premise
Human rights have achieved more. Religion just takes the credit.
I've noticed that any time a society or an individual thrives without a religion, a believer gets very upset and angry over this instead of just being happy that people are ok.
the enlightenment is the cause of freedom. the separation of God when making moral Democratic decisions is the final reason we are free from one religious point of view
I love this Jamaican dude, most coolest person ever
Most coolest? 😂 Goon. Most cool or Coolest. Not both 😂
@@user-qk8vq2sm1n he’s so cool he gets both.
@@user-qk8vq2sm1n You need to understand English is not a first language for everyone. Besides, we are on the Internet, not an academic setting. You understood what he meant.
@@justthatgirl-ct4jo Start a group.
@@user-qk8vq2sm1n A group?
It was the utter stupidity of that woman to say that human rights are founded upon the Judo-christian tradition The foundation of human rights is the human empathy. And to say there is no other religion that supports human rights as much, she must not have heard about Buddhism.
21:00. The priest is trying to defend women’s rights in the Bible yet according to her outdated rule book she shouldn’t be allowed to speak in her church, 1 Timothy 2:12.
Mr Abdullah.. Many prayers for u 😇
Let Abdullah speak. why he isn't a chance to make his point generously? No prejudice plz.
This black guy is holding a grudge about slavery which is not what this discussion is about
I always love how the religious try to take credit for anything good that happens especially when they originally opposed it as being against their beliefs. How exactly is Human Rights derived from Christianity? Very first article from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is everyone is born free and equal. Christianity has repeated mention of how a Master should treat and control his Slaves making it blatantly clear that Christianity at the very least tolerates slavery if not outright endorses slavery and therefore is against the first article of rights plus a direct violation of Article 4 which is about slavery as well as Article 23 which is about the right to be paid equally for work. Not to mention the ridiculous story about Eve being made from a piece of Adam's rib, you can't exactly be equal if one gender was made from Adam's ribs for the purpose of giving Adam some company. Article 3 is about the right to life, liberty and security of person and if you look at the Bible it has a long list of people who should be denied that right such as witches, wizards, fortunetellers, homosexuals, those who don't listen to priests, those who strike their fathers or curse their parents (so much for freedom of speech), those who commit adultery, any priest's daughter who fornicates will be burned to death, anyone who follows other religions or is a nonbeliever, any woman who isn't a virgin on their wedding night, anyone who works on the Sabbeth, etc. The right to life is the most basic right and without it al the others are pointless and the Bible very explicitly doesn't support it for the vast majority of the human race. The Christian belief in Hell is a huge violation of Article 5 which is about torture and torture is the specific purpose of Hell. How do you get sent to Hell? You get sent there because Christianity does not believe in freedom of thought or belief as stated by Article 18 according to Christianity if you believe the wrong thing or think the wrong thought or worship in the wrong way then you'll be tortured for eternity. Article 17 is the right of everyone to own property and since women were considered property according to Christianity they couldn't own property. Article 20 is about not being compelled to belong to an association and if you don't consider threatening people with eternal torture if they don't fall in line with the beliefs of your association then I don't know what you count as being compelled. We could toss in a couple of the ones the US considers rights such as the right against unreasonable search and seizure which I can't think of any basis for in Christianity or due process or habeas corpus. Fact is, Christianity is the basis for virtually no human right but because some of the people who we now credit for those rights were Christian they are more than happy to take credit for not only the rights those Christians are credited for but for all rights now that they've given up fighting against them which is ironic since whenever a Christian does anything bad it isn't the fault of Christianity even when the person cites passages from the Bible that explicitly support the bad action they are committing. I'm sure someone will argue that the same could be said of Atheists. Sorry, you guys have entire books worth of claims, values, and morals that you have to accept as true if you are to call yourself a Christian or Jew or Muslim so you can be criticized for anything in those books while to be an Atheist there is only one thing and that is the statement that you don't consider there to be enough evidence to support the belief that a deity exists. That statement has nothing to do with morality or ethics or values so it is ridiculous to claim the actions of Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot were based on that one statement it would be like saying that their lack of belief in astrology was the reason for their actions and therefore all non astrologist have to accept blame for the holocaust.
this is an underrated comment
Wish Hitchens was here to put his input
Walking Foetus I hope you mean Christopher lol
Feminism is not about equal right haha it's equal rights for the good things
Confucius,Plato etc contributed just as much to human rights.
Religious people did more good thing the Human right people because Human right change everyday and every moment.
At first human right accept slavery other acts like this
The second person to talk was cancer.
Because you have a biased and close minded view
Its about where your faith is taking you - If you’re an atheist, its an antidote to religious nonsense, it is not an antidote to faith.
Hmm.... As an atheist living in the Bible belt I've taken food to homeless people in my town and I've asked each of them why they don't ask the church for help and the resounding answer is that they don't help. The churches and people within them did raise $250k to build a hundred foot cross in the middle of a field yet I pass by abandoned run down houses and businesses each day. Churches here won't even listen to you unless you are there every Sunday and "donate" to the church. They don't donate to its own when they are in hospital, they pray. It's bs and if they wanted to help they'd put that money to feeding and housing people and helping it's own if nothing else.
Can you imagine (for a few seconds) if you were the ONLY person on earth, what would you do especially with religion? Who would you preach to or try to convince that your religion is the best then? Just a question to ponder about?
Quite often the ex is used to demonstrate your success of braking away something controlling and abusive.. such as religion. Ex is held as a proud statement of breaking indoctrination in the religious sence and hopefully encourages others to do the same
I’m a Muslim why Abdullah always there. We prefer those Muslim females or hamza tzortis.
Abdullah is an great speaker.
The lady on 17min made a point....
So why hasn't the United Nations list of human rights been published in full colour for the layman including me and distributed around the world and interpreted in children's story book and generally promoted more . This should be the modern consensus replacing local beliefs.
Islam is a better religion when it is practised outside of islamic countries....Very strange!
It's terrible everywhere.
It’s really silly when you identify yourself as an ex something, means you think without it you’re really nothing. Your life evolves around that ex, lol kind of sad isn’t it. Just live your life without spending time attacking your ex especially if your ex don’t even know you exist, I’m referring to those people that call themselves ex Christian and ex Muslim. The religion doesn’t even know you exist yet you spend your life thinking about it. Also as Jordan said you can’t really expect an ex to talk positively about you.
I never use that terminology, but I am a former Christian hence "ex"
@@thehistory5401 very good, you don’t identify yourself with your former religion, you’re past it or at least that’s what I took from your comment. I’m referring to those that strongly identify themselves with their “ex” like creating YT channel and calling themselves ex this and that this tells me they feel like without having that “ex” then they’re worth-less than what they are. If your current life revolves around your ex then you have unsolved issues and you need to see a therapist. I’ve come across people that left Islam back in 2003 and are still promoting themselves as ex-Muslim lol your teenage and adult life as non-Muslim why still identify with your ex?
@@Mustafa-yw7cl I agree with that! I identify as an Atheist. It's what I am now, not what I was born into.
There are some reasons people left their exes, generally the main reason is abusive, just like what religions did.
It is silly that you believe in Allah despite actually seeing or hearing from them 💀
There is something I don;t understand in all this talk about religion. Religion is a set of practices that are followed by people of the same faith. As much as I understand if you don't have faith, what you actually practice it is not important in God's eyes. At the end all religions say that the human will have an one-on-on meeting with some god and they will have to answer for their faith. This is very very personal and I can't understand how you can imposed this on someone else by force. For example you can force me to wear a veil on my face, you can not force me to believe that Mohammed was sent from god or that Allah exits. So why are religious people looking to make a law out of their practices? Moreover, I don't see one instance in the whole history of humanity where the power did not corrupt religion, What happens in the middle east right now is exactly that people in power used religion to reach their own personal goals and feed their greed. As a Christian or Muslim or whatever, I would fight FOR separation of the state and religion in order to make sure the followers are sincerely motivated by their faith. If an all mighty God would want us to just obey some rules I image he would just sent an army of angels and we would have no choice.
ally
Shami lost that argument for the entire religious group the second she opened her mouth and started describing humanists values as if they were faith-based throughout all religions... I mean, how blind can u be to not recognize it is a default human trait to feel compassion, empathy, solidarity and the like, without the need of any type of rhetoric tot ell you to.
If talking about different ideologies and ethnic groups living together, There is no question. Religion was one of them problem which motivated this vilonce, and didnt want to get detached. People saw their mistakes of the human race history, and tried to make a better future, and its going well-.
when muslim guy start talking all are start yelling 🤣because they know muslim guy will gonna destroy them
Is there not a noticeable trend now from all the debates on The Big Questions that religion is always in the wrong? Just shows clearly that something is wrong with organised religion.
This is what happens when you mix religion and politics and also the speakers are full of sentiments
I love the way the way the religious people in the audience get strongly challenged and shouted down and not allowed the moral high ground. Its progress and let's keep kicking against the pricks.
"Do not cover your neighbor's wife." Was such a complicated and uncomfortable subject, and this is because everyone in the audience, except one man, knows that it's wrong.
I just want to point out that in the Bible, God has created woman and man at the same time in one verse, and in the next verse he created first a man and then a woman from his rib. Genesis 2:22 'And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.'
Regarding to 10 Commandmend, did you already knowing the breakdown of Tri Kaya Parisudha (Positive Thinking, Positive Action, Positive Speaking in dailly live)? Its break down into 10 command which is by incident or not, is similar with 10 commandements but with clearly command and exists before ten commandement born. How Human Rights can stand without Ahimsa? while killing still an easy solutions. Without Tat Twam Asi, which every living creature is equal in God, woman is equal with a man in ceremony in Balinese hinduism culture. Every human equaly having a same God, but with different path (Bhineka Tunggal Ika). See Pura in Bali, God place concept with many path in it. When you go to Pura, you save and no worry to worship your believe deities while other worship other deities in harmony. How Human Rights can stand without Prakriti concept? worry about extinction, and didnt believe the brahma (creation) concept. Manu said adoption kids is having equal rights. Judge Tritiya Prakrti as a sin, while this nature not againts dharma and not againts the Hinduism Ten Commandment. Hiding the big issue of : free sex before married, corruption (thief), killing, married women under age, polygami, devorce, cheating with other not respect your couple in sacred ceremony, contribute to global warming; which all against dharma. When God punish you, then you blame the Tritya Prakrity for the bigger sin that human has made? Killing their rights is againts dharma (ahimsa). Please learn from the pass, cause your anchestor already through this and make a better world.
Sexuality is a sliding scale!, enough said.
Words of the lord of death: “The Self cannot be known through study of the scriptures, nor through the intellect, nor through hearing learned discourses. The Self can be attained only by those whom the Self chooses. Verily unto them does the Self reveal himself.” :D :D This is so "meta" :D :D
Regarding the point made about the Christian Couple who owned a Guest House who at the time wouldn't let a "Gay" Couple stay at their guest house because they weren't married, for me as a "Gay" man, if they are turning the couple away for being being "Gay" Couple then they are totally out of order and it is wrong weather that is there religious belief or not. They are discriminating on grounds of sexual orientation. But if they turned the gay couple away for not being married the for me there is a different view. If it's a married thing, then as long as the Christian couple who owned the guest house also do the same for straight couples and turn them away when unmarried and it's a policy of that guest house, then that fine. As for me this is offering the same service to all. But it becomes a different story if they are turning gay couple away for not been married but don't do the same to straight couples, or because they are gay then that is wrong and they shouldn't be allowed to do that. If your offering a business or service to the public such as a shop, hotel, B&B, business, etc, then you offer that service to the whole of the public, not who you pick and choose. Because then in that situation they are discriminating on the grounds of something such as sexual orientation.
Daniel 87 But wouldn't they be discriminating on the basis of the martial status of the guests?
4:89 They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.
9:29 Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
I LOVE THIS EPISODE!
WE ALL NEED TO RESPECT EACH OTHER, REGARDLESS IF A PERSONS VIEWPOINT DIFFERS FROM OURS, I BELIEVE DEEPLY IN OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR, I RESPECT GOD AND TRY TO DO GOOD, IV'E HEARD SOME SAY THAT BELIEVING IN GOD MAKES ONE WEAK MNDED, WHICH SIMPLY IS NOT TRUE, IT'S EXTREMELY DIFFICULT STAYING ON THE NARROW PATH OF LIFE AND ALWAYS TRYING TO PLEASE GOD, UNLESS SOMEONE HAS ACTUALLY WALKED IN FAITH AND CONSTANTLY TRIED TO RESIST TEMPTATIONS THEN THEY REALLY CAN'T COMMENT. SWEEPING GENERALISATIONS ARE RIDICULOUS AND VERY IGNORANT AND NOT RESPECTFUL TO HUMANS IN GENERAL. I WILL NOT RESPOND TO ANY COMMENTS THAT ARE ABUSIVE ETC.
the human rights have been fought against the church and religion!
Two of these people are trying to make the point that while you have the right to speak your beliefs you don't have the right to discriminate especially when it comes to offering a service to the public such as when those bed and breakfast owners discriminated against the homosexual couple by refusing to let them share a room. Guess what the response from the religious people was as an attempt to defend the action. No, no, no, the bed and breakfast owners weren't discriminating against homosexuals their policy was to not allow anyone who wasn't married to each other to share a room hence the discrimination was aimed at all unmarried people. Yeah...discriminating against all single people as a whole is sooooo much better than just discriminating against the homosexual single people. I don't think they even realized how absurd it was to argue that it was somehow okay because the basis for the discrimination wasn't what people thought rather it was a different reason they were being discriminated against.
Abdullah continues to inflate his own ego. He panders to ignorant sharia loving muslims, hell bent on demanding the west to respect and implement 7th century customs, yet refuse our 21st century ones. Adbullah needs to grow up, stop whining and be better informed before speaking. How embarrasing.
***** LOL, nice one? Hit a nerve did I? Cry me a river, darling. Go play outside.
***** Aww there there, pegging people you don't agree with as nazi's won't make things better. I suggest talking to a medical professional for your seemingly uncontrollable desire to hate, insult and troll. Good luck with that.
***** Lol, my oh my what a sensitive flower you are! Insults further prove how emotionally immature and inferior your position is here. Go feel sorry for yourself elsewhere, and go cry to someone who cares.
***** Oh David, have you nothing of substance to add? Nope! Doesn't look like it. So far you've advanced the discussion not one iota. Congratulations, you're spiteful. Your insults remind me of a teenager taking out his greasy pubescent angst at a computer screen - sent testosterone fun?! No seriously, how utterly sad, underwhelming and predictable. I suggest two things two thing my little atheist friend; try to find some peace in your life and go find a psychologist - preferably one who enjoys a challenge.
***** Ok so what you're admitting in yet another fantastically mature and comprehensive comment is that all you have to offer is pegging me as a nazi because your sensitive feelings got hurt. Nice job. Here's a cookie.
Im still trying to figure out how the "racial killing in America" as Nicky said relates to this debate.
Because America claims to be a Christian nation. It definitely says a lot.
the human rights cannot be respected under any kind of religion because when we are under laws coming from religion the rights of minorites should not be respected . but on the opposite when there is democracy there is freedom .
why i see every bbc debate atleast have one indian? are indians over populate in UK?
@49:55 Abdullah not clapping.
Lol
To be fair he did 1 clap, it was the guy on the far right that didn’t clap 😂
As many as human rights as human rights, the United States and Israel did not find a dog example in its world
that female rabbi sounds like Wilson Fisk in Daredevil TV show "You see,..."
Well obviously not because the world is still fucked up.
my biggest question is what purpose did everyone else besides those in the first row serve? :/
+Samantha Singh they are like an audience that may jump in at times if asked
I was getting some strong heterosexual feelings at 31:27
LMAOOO
Of course it has.
The reality of the situation is, humans will always find a reasoning to do something fucked up. It doesn't matter if there is a religion or not. We'll always find some reason to do the things that we do. So even as an Atheist, I choose not to blame religion necrosis I know religion is just another justification just as the non-religious leaders often mentioned found their justification.
But to answer the question. I think human rights has done more because it's a concept that's more accurate than religion which can easily be interpreted for anything. But human rights has very little to misinterpret and if it is misinterpreted its less likely to be misinterpreted in a way that's physically harmful. However the only issue with human rights is the tolerance paradox. Which was alluded to with the gay couple and the Christian hotel, because under that paradox both parties are being intolerant. So religion can't be the cause of something and then be the solution. Human rights is not the cause of any negative issue, it's sole purpose is to be the solution. And it's because of that human rights has done more.
teddybruscie The problem is that you cannot combat religion with even the most remote form rationality when it comes to the deplorable acts committed. You can at the very least appeal to rationality when it comes to tribalism, nationalism, imperialism and etc. since they do not presuppose something greater than man. Once you throw fairy tales into the equation all bets are off.
Dan A. Or the problem is anti-religion/atheist or whatever think religion is irrational. Which the act itself is irrational.
***** choosing not to believe something you can not substantiate or rationalize is irrational?
teddybruscie
The atheist belief also cannot be substantiate or rationalize, it is like any religion/beliefs . You cannot call a person who has belief as being irrational,
***** Yes you can. You believe in something you can not substantiate. Atheists do not belief in things that can not be substantiated. Is there a God? Who knows. But I'm not going to say there is and pick some random religion. I don't know. So I will wait until substantial evidence is provided. You're believing in something you have evidence for. I don't.
SCIENTIFIC MIRACLE OF HOLY QUR'AN
TWO SEAS MEAT BUT DO NOT MIX.
Richard Dawkins said that he met Muslims students in a school in London; every one people does not believe in evolutio.
" They said, it is in the Qur'an that if you mix sweet water and salty water, it will not mix.
My comment on him:
A Muslim can't say that sweet water and salty water if mixed, it will not mix.
What Almighty Allah says in Holy Qur'an is as follows:
" It is He Who has let free the two bodies of flowing water : One palatable and sweet, and the other salt and bitter; yet has He made a barrier between them , a partition that is forbidden to be passed."
(Qur'an, 25: 53)
" He hath loosed the two seas. They meet. ( the salt water and the sweet)
There is a barrier between them.
They encroach not (one upon the other) (Qur"an, 55: 19,20)
The Qur'an is clearly talking about the existence of ' two seas of water where salty water and fresh water do not mix.
The Qura'nic referrence of such existence of two seas obviously doesn't presuppose/necessitates nor does it lead to the conclusion that salt water in general doesn't mix with fresh water!
As a scientist, Mr.Dawkins you are expected to be more than an ecodotal when referring to information from other sources.
You should have checked/referenced the exact quote where you claimed that Qur'an says that salty water don't mix with fresh water!
That simply is absolutely untrue Mr.Dawkins.
MOHAMMAD LAEEQUE NADWI M.A. Ph D (Arabic Lit.)
Wow your intellectually dishonest. That's not what Dawkins said. And the fact you denie science In favor of your immoral myth. Your book like all the others is false. Pull your head out of the clouds and join us in the real world.
Big question, simple answer: yes
A muslim talking about human rights is like a catholic priest talking about sex...
What a fucking idiot.....
Once again, the muslim doesn't respect other people. He interrupts all the time.
Trinity is made by Paul. Not real teaching of prophet Jesus. Jesus is a prophet only.
Almighty Allah revealed His book إنجيل and made him His prophet to teach دين الإسلام that worship Almighty Allah only.
Jesus is not begotten son of Allah (Father) and God. It is man (Paul) made. This is conspiracy against
دين الله( Deen of Allah).
Those who love Jesus they should believe that Jesus is a prophet only and prophet Mohammad(pbuh) is
the lastprophet of sent to all people of the workds till the last day.
These are the authentic teachings of
Prophet Jesus(pbuh).The are Muslims in fact but diverted and mislead by some bad and mischievous people.
Hope they will try to understand this fact and will try to save themselves.
HUMAN RIGHTS IN ISLAM
Islam is actual founder of human rights.Islam gave to mankind an idea code of human rights 1450 years ago. These rights aim at conferring honour and dignity on mankind and eliminating exploitation,opperation and injustice.
Human rights in Islam are firmly rooted in the belief that Al.ighty Allah and He is alone the Law Giver and the source of all human rights.Due to their divine origin, no ruler, government,assembly or authority can curtail or violate inany way the human rights conferred by Almighty Allah, or can they surrended.
Human rights in Islam are an integral part of the overall Islamic order and it is obligatory on all Muslim governments and organs of society to implement them in spirit within the framework of the order.
It is unfortunate that human rights are being trampled upon with impunity in all countries of the world. Such violations are a matter of serious concern and arousing the concence of more and more people throughout the world.
The Declaration of Human Rights is the second fundamental document proclaimed by Islamic Council to mark the beginning of the 15th century of the Islamic era,
the first being the Universal Islamic Declaration announced at the International Conference on the Prophet Mohammed(pbuh)and his Message,held in London in 1980.
The Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights is based on the Qur'an and Sunnah and has been compiled by eminent Muslim scholars,Jurists and representatives of Islamic monuments and thoughts.
DR.MOHAMMAD LAEEQUE NADVI
Back then sure you believed In science. Your morally corrupted myth is moving f to backwards. Join the real world.
@@arkatheistcc2353
The Holy Qur'an shows the right path. Pray Almighty Allah to show you the right path:
اهدنا الصراط المستقيم
( Qur'an,1:5 )
Always pray Almighty Allah. He nearest to you.
look into the stars, think about how to get to andromeda.
that's even more realistic than praying to a GOD knows what it is for the future
Make a call to BBC: Hi BBC Chinese Human rights activist here. For the HUMAN RIGHTS! I support the independence of scotland . I support the independence of Ireland . I support .... Halo? Halo????!
Islam has a lot of tenants, just like christianity, however the more extreme forms of the tenants of islam is practice today in comparison to the extreme forms of christianity and judaism not being practice as much. You can't say the islam is not a problem right now in the world because clearly islam is a problem in the world right now.
Nicky is fucking good at his job.
'I'm not talking at all' lol
Chacrabarti needs to use her two ears over opening her one mouth. If she did so she might actually learn something.
a non question.
lets all worship the merciful gods, who would burn our children, FOREVER, if they choose not to believe
Children don’t go to hell lol
@@almostafa4725 no one does
All religions are not the same
Re title: humankind.
if muslim women are happy, why is it impossible to see one smile?
Western women have the highest rates of depression and suicide.
very nice
I love this video
"throw gays from the highest building" its in the Hadith, this narrator is very dishonest or ignorant "its not in the quaran" that's semantics
Doesn’t say that either
@@almostafa4725 yes, it does
Almighty Allah says:
" We shall show them Our Signs on the horizons( feilds of vision) and within their ownselves,untill it becomes clear to them that He(Allah) is Truth.
Is it not enough that thy Lord
doth witness all things."
(Qur'an,41:53)
EXPANDING UNIVERSE.
IN HOLY QUR'AN IS A SIGN OF ALLAH
Who can tell 1450 years ago that
the universe is expanding?
والسماء بنينها بايد و انا لموسعون o
" And the heaven We built it with power, and indeed, We are the expander "
(And We it is Who make the vast extent, thereof )
(Qur'an, 51:47)
Until 1931, physicist Albert Einstein believed that the universe was static. An urban legend attributes this change of perspective to when American astronomer Edwin Hubble showed Einstein his observations of redshift in the light emitted by far away nebulae - today known as galaxies.
After Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding, Einstein called the cosmological constant his "greatest blunder."
At around the same time, larger telescopes were being built that were able to accurately measure the spectra, or the intensity of light as a function of wavelength, of faint objects.
Almighty Allah is the Master Creator of the whole universe.He says:
Should He not know what He created? And He is the Subtile, the Aware.
The knowledge of scientists is very limited to understand the universe.
Rejection of Almighty Allah relying on this limited knowledge is not justified.
DR.MOHAMMAD LAEEQUE NADVI
Ph.D. (Arabic Lit.) M.A. Arabic Lit.+Islamic Studies)
Director
Amena Institute of Islamic Studies
& Analysis
A Global & Universal Institute,
Donate to promote this Institute
SBI A/C30029616117
Kolkata,Park Circus Branch
nadvilaeeque@gmail.com
Thankk
No one cares what you say your god myth says. Just myth just like all abrahamic your god is immoral, and reprehensible. Mohamed married a 13 year old. Your myth is unworthy of worship.
@@arkatheistcc2353
You should think about yourself and your life after death.It is in broader interests. Try to understanding otherwise you are looser.
I have a question, if Islam brought rights to women who had no rights before, as they constantly say, how Mohammed's first wife was rich and powerfull woman, as they also admit, did not she live there too? Women before Islam not only had money, they also could marry a few men, and Mohammed himself had wifes like that, though he forbad it to others. Maybe Mohammed was right, and was a prophet, I do not want to go in these arguments, I do not know and honestly do not care even if he was. Let peace be upon Him! But what I do care is logic and common sense. And even if Mohammed was right all around, it does not change the contradictions and sometimes even untruth in Islamists claims about many things.
a brief history of life style of the tribes in the middle east before islam might help you genius , stop making claims about things you don't know anything about aside from TV shows and new articles .
Actually, what I know about Islam and how people lived there I know from scientific studies written by real historians without judging and criticizing. In Russia we still read real books, and, my father being an archeologist, I have no shortage of them. And, considering that You did not answer my question, which is quite simple, You just showed off, right now I have no reason to bilieve that You are an expert.