Boaz,

Just hold for a second you misunderstood my quote.
I was answering your quote in a secular sense that people should be free to change religions as they do everyday without any form of discrimination.

PS: If you are still hot on comparative religion, watch Gary Miller lectures on youtube titled 'history of religions'. it will be a topic for our next Maccas lunch.

Peace,

Hi mate....

well..I did have a listen to some of his stuff.. not really impressed :) but sure.. we can have a "Big Gary" next time 0_-

cheers.

Many years ago I remember reading a piece about the cold war, it argued that, whether we are, "Australian individualists, or British laborists, conservatives, or progressives, socializing democrats or democratic socialists, white, black or yellow, we can all accept that human dignity and respect for the individual must be the focus of everything. I believe that, too.

Yet the question arises: how can we hope to unite people around a principle - respect for the individual - that is such a uniquely western concept? The answer, of course, is that it is not.

Hinduism demands that "no man do to another that which would be repugnant to himself." The Torah instructs us, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Zoroaster observed, "What I hold good for myself, I should for all." Confucius said, "What you do not want done to yourself, do not do unto others." Buddha taught us to consider others as ourselves. The Stoics of ancient Greece argued that all men are "equal persons in the great court of liberty." The Christian gospel demands, "Do unto others as you would have done unto you." The Quran warns that a true believer must love for his brother what he loves for himself.

Finally, the world's first known legal code had as its announced purpose,"to cause justice to prevail and to ensure that the strong do not oppress the weak."

This is, we might think, the kind of legal system the world should develop now as a gift to the people of Iraq. In fact, it is the law code of Hammurabi, a gift civilisation received four thousand years ago from ancient Babylon, now known as Iraq. What are we doing wrong?

There is a growing world wide inter-faith movement respecting each faith’s basic tenets while maintaining each individual’s right to practice their own faith; it is recognised by the main religions as a way to peace – in the name of God.

Unfortunately, there are fundamentalist extremists and self-righteous bigots on all sides who haven’t got the capacity to think outside the square, let alone engage in rational and reasoned discourse.

What are we doing wrong? We have lost respect for peace and understanding.

Quite fascinating how the thread has kind of veeered off into the direction of

"we can all accept that human dignity and respect for the individual must be the focus of everything."

...as foxy related.

It's an interesting reaction to the speech of a Palestinian woman.

The nice platitudes listed by Foxy certainly reach to our hearts, and sound a warm note, but then as Q&A points out 'fundamentalists' cause the problem.

But the deeper root core problem is that certain belief systems are mutually exclusive and absolutely incompatable. So.. according to one belief system, the over-riding requirement of mankind is to 'follow that belief system' and after that.... all the 'be nice' stuff is then in appropriate context. (according to them)

In regard to the Judaistic and Christian position, the simple fact is, there are moral absolutes.

We have 2 basic choices in life.

1/ There are NO absolutes. Thus we are free to make up our own truths and morality.

2/ There ARE absolutes... God has revealed His standards and morality, and we have to define all our behavior in terms of how that behavior relates to Gods standards.

Now..point 1 above will lead us in to anarchy. Yep..it will. Person A believes he has the right to exploit and subordinate other persons for his own reasons.. to enhance his power, his lifestyle and wealth.
Who is to criticize him ? By what standard can he be attacked ?
Foxy might say to him "But Hinduism says, and Confucious says"..and so on... to which he replies "I don't believe those things" and simply gets back to his business of world domination.

Which of course, leads us to point "2"... "God has spoken" aah..now this also leads us down a difficult pathway, which is.. If there are TWO or more versions of "God has spoken" and those two versions are not only incompatible, but hostile to each other.. we have strife and violence possibly as one idea seeks to assert itself over the other.

.....continued/

PART 2

So,...... herein lies the problem and dilemna of the human condition.

NO there are no absolutes.. we are free.. PROBLEMS. (different versions of how things ought to be)

YES there are absolutes... we are free withIN those constraints. PROBLEMS (Different versions of what those absolutes are)

Does it surprise anyone that Jesus said "My kingdom....is NOT 'of' this world" :)

If we look around, we can clearly see that the ideal of 'respect for human dignity' is an extremely subjective concept. It also fails to recognize that one mans 'dignity' is another man's 'debauchery' and there aint no dignity in debauchery.

If we say "debauchery" is a subjective idea, then.. we could not have government...it would be impossible. Too many people would be at each others throats about what 'ought' to be.

If we look at the roots of the Palestinian problem, honestly, they began with Abraham.. from the moment that God said "I will give you (Abraham) this land" it created an 'us/them' mentality. This is unavoidable given human nature not matter how true the situation is.

From then on.... poeple simply choose the point in history which most suits their case and cause.. and argue on that basis.

God to Abraham: >>"To you and your desecendants I give this land as an inheritance forever"<< (Genesis)

Hamas Charter Part 3 Article 11

>>This is the status [of the land] in Islamic Shari’a, and it is similar to all lands conquered by Islam by force, and made thereby Waqf lands upon their conquest, for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection.<<

Now.. if anyone can see how the ideas Foxy espoused "respect for the dignity of man" can work under this polarization.. I'd be interested in hearing