FASCINATING....

Frank, in spite of clear evidence says "You have no evidence"

CJ.. in spite of the clear mention that by asserting one persons 'rights' we are in fact often trampling on anothers says "you who oppose human rights"

Then..to cap it all...they couch there posts (like Vanilla did) in a 'we are smarter than you" tone :)

There is only one problem... the readers of these posts can actually 'think'.......

You see.. when I say

"by what criteria do we resolve conflicting supposed rights" (words to that effect)

I get:

-We are smarter than you.
-You have no evidence.
-Your speaking out ur rear (to Philo)

NOT A SHREAD of actual engagement with the issue.. so I'll re-state it.

BY WHAT.. criteria.. do we resolve conflicting supposed rights?

I suggest...that when it comes to 'rights' that those of a host culture must ALways prevail over the supposed rights of a newcomer.

Its called 'queing'...'peck order'...'respect'.....

So to all you critics out there.. do you actually know anything about those words ? :)

In the face of such basic playschool logic, to find alledgedly (by their own estimation) intelligent people who actually deny this.. rather demonstrates their deluded condition.. sadly, Morgan uses his real name here..and his peers and family will look at what he writes and soon be recommending serious therapy :) (unless they also share his delusions)

AGAIN.. (just in case you 4got) should we make a determination of who's rights prevail based on the existing culture or a country?

IF... the'rights to practice my religion' are in conflict with either the established culture of a place and/or its laws.. surely you don't need anything more than primary 6 education (or less) to appreciate the obvious answer to this serious question?

OK BOAZ

Let's apply YOUR rules of engagement: "I suggest...that when it comes to 'rights' that those of a host culture must ALways prevail over the supposed rights of a newcomer. Its called 'queing'...'peck order'...'respect'....."

That's what you said.

So let's hear what you have to say about the rights of Indigenous Australians relative to the rights of the British and subsequent 'alien' cultures. As you said: the first people's rights "must ALways prevail over the supposed rights of a newcomer".

Let's have your comments on such episodes of Australian history as the Eumerella War or the massacres at Murdering Gully, Myall Creek or the Convincing Ground.

Please apply some of your "basic playschool logic". As you so frankly say, "surely you don't need anything more than primary 6 education (or less) to appreciate the obvious answer" to this serious question about the queue of rights.

BOAZ. The only reason you can comment on this thread is that you have human rights. Otherwise I would have chopped off your head years ago.

Boazy,

I apologise if I sounded like I was making this into a cleverclogs competition. I'm *not* suggesting you're not smart. I do, however, dislike your tone, which appears to suggest that these matters are not ones of disagreement but of the other posters simply not *getting it*. We get your points. We just disagree. I'm not suggesting I or anyone else here is cleverer than you (they may be, but that's irrelevant), I'm suggesting you're wrong, and that you're motivated by Christian jihad.

As to the evidence, where is it? I had a look at the Muslim call to prayer stuff. Obviously a hotly contended local issue. I note, however, a Mosque representative says: "Building work will take another nine months to a year, it is then that we plan to make an application to the council.. if [three times a day] is not accepted, then we would like to have it at least on Fridays. We do not need the volume to be loud but we want to have the call in some form because it's our tradition."

So, the answer to your question about rights seems to be that the Council - and therefore the rights of the community - will prevail. The Muslim community clearly accepts this.

In the case of the COG, as I said earlier, Australia's laws on the age of consent trump COG tradition.

The riots in Wales were terrible. But I don't think the Kurds ever felt it was their "right" to create a violent incident. They were fed up, they were a community in crisis, they lashed out unfairly and unlawfully.

I don't see that you've provided any evidence to back up your original premise. Your only point seems to be that there is religious and cultural conflict in Western countries. No shi!t, Sherlock.

How we deal with that is a fascinating, ongoing discussion that IMHO needs to be tackled from both a global and national perspective, and with compassion, creativity, intelligence, empathy and courage.

I cannot believe that so many people subscribe to a new religion whatever we call it UN or human rights. This does not have sense.
Perhaps I do not know what you mean, but the nonsense in my logic is that you putting a cart before the horse.

I've seen all of you loughing of boaz, but have not seen any sensible explanation. You have not explained him, you used some examples which I cannot see that have any logical connection with the subject.

Are you trying to say that Hitler did what he did just because human rights were not invented, or that he disobeyed them?

Are you trying to say that if something is labelled human rights it does mean that it is right and good?

Than I will tell you that I can and will give you examples that you are very wrong.

I will simply my example/argument and see what you have to say. Hypothetical example. A child is neglected but everything happen according to human rights. The child commits suicide or dies from negligence. Where is sense of human rights here?
Now same child and according to "nonsense" christianity, there is sensible (to me guys) rule of duty, care and love. Love is a big bag containing other good things. Let me consolidate the two philosophies (sounds more balanced than fanatical religion of UN or fanatical Christianity). You have a child who has "the rights" and no one to love and care.
Now you have same child but the parents have duty and privilege to care and love one.
You tell me in which family/situation you want to be raised if you were this child?
Don't be shy, you can change your mind. I have changed mine many times and continue to do so.

Please do not ask me to give you examples of human rights in practice, because it may dwarf your Hitler.

Let me ask you, what in your opinion is highest human achievement? What is most important ingredient of human life deciding about our health, and well being?

Yipeeee some support :) Thanx Mzz..

Vanilla.. at least now I can see you looking at discussing the issues.

Yes.. we 'disagree' and thats the point where we need to start grappling with the evidence..and see where it takes us.. much like a jury must do.

May I suggest that you view this video..and give your opinion on it ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqn-9_FUBUc

1/ Fox news beat up..as usual.
2/ Symptomatic of much bigger problems to come.
3/ Outrageous that blind and alchohol carrying Americans are refused public transport (Taxi) because of Islamic law.

I'm very much on the last one.

The cycle is like this.

-Migrants gather with their ethnic/religious kin.
-As numbers increase they seek to CHANGE the laws to suit them.

Do you at least see that much ? if you do, then don't you see a trend there ? can you not predict the future based on this very noticable trend?
Do you feel comfortable having your culture undermined by outsiders?

Don't you see that if this 'trend' is repeated in a number of places, it adds up to a MOVEMENT...and so on.

I'll await your feedback.

FRANK.. Good point(White Australians/Indigenous) and if you don't learn a very valuable LESSON from that..... we are in big trouble.
Are you not able to look at the impact of what WE (via our ancestors) did to Indigenous Australia and from that.. extrapolate to what others may do to us?