Ion

This post, showing a contrast between the doctrine from the Bible and the doctrine from the UN Code of Human Rights, is well thought and is on target thread-wise:

dk

I disagree. The OT was written for/by Israel, not for the world but the 12 Tribes. In the OT, Israel was a closed culture that made covenants with God to secure certain benefits, hence bound by God's Law. Like the 12 Tribes of Israel, nations elected to join the UN, but once accepted become morally bound to honor the UN DoHR. When the UN sanctions a nation a lengthily process (negotiation) begins to bring the rogue back into the fold. The process puts more laws on the books to oversee the restoration. The books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy followed the Golden Calf, and Baal Peor. This was not by God’s design, but a mercy to salvage a wrecked ship. For an modern analogy, after Iraq invaded Kuwait, and the UN had to push Iraq out of Kuwait a treaty was signed into Law, to restore Iraq. Iraq never lived up to the treaty, Point in fact, only 2 tribes of Israel lived up to the Bargain with God.

Ion

The Bible doesn't touch me:
religion bounding me to an ill-defined 'God', murders and rapes to serve that 'God', inconsistencies in the text, they should stay valid for the '12 Tribes' of Israel from 2000 years ago, not for me.

What touches me is:
the United Nations chart of Human Rights, across the world with today's knowledge of humanity.

dk

You’re free to worship as you please, or not. I don’t need to be an Orthodox Jew to appreciate Jewish people, history and culture, and quite frankly Jews don’t need our approval. The Jewish people are remarkable precisely because they have endured and prospered for over 4,000 years steeped in a tradition that gives unity, meaning and purpose to their lives, families and communities. Personally I think it rather crude, hypocritical and savage to impose upon others such a haughty judgment, especially after the bloody materialistic 20th Century. Conservatively, NAZI and Communist regimes destroyed the lives of 30 million Jews in an economic, social and political experiment of rational government. I find it scarry that people can so misunderstand how the UN DIoHR serves a diverse world. If educated people use the UN DIoHR to demean Jews, then the declaration fails.

By the way, the failure of the Un DIoHR seems to reflect the institution of the UN becoming the opposite. In 1948 the UN under its charter recognized Isreal into the community of nations, and for the last 25 years terrorists regimes lobby the UN for the destruction of Israel. How do you explain it?

Ion

The United Nations (UN) was created after the second World War.

At the time of nazis, in the late 1930s and early 1940s, it was the Roman Catholic Church with its Pope that was a coward, not the UN which didn't exist until 1945.

As for today's weknesses of UN, I think that the UN chart of Human Rights is sound.
That's the main question brought-up in this thread.

It is the implementation of the UN chart of Human Rights that is weak (like in the case of the Dutch peacekeepers during 1994 in Bosnia, like in the case of the need for stepping effectively and with fairness into the conflict in between Palestinians and Israelis), and is influenced by nationalistic powers.
I am against Israeli settlements outside of the borders that UN recognized for Israel in 1948.
US money, thus the Israeli government, fund religious settlements that I disprove.
Now, US President Bush -under UN pressure from Europeans- recognizes this long-standing mistake, and stands in interviews for a withdrawal of invasionist Israeli settlements towards Israel's 1948 borders, and creation of a sovereign Palestinian state.

On the other hand, the fool Arafat from Palestine, did reject the same deal that he seems to want now from Bush, in the year 2000 from the then-US president, Clinton.
This tells me that many highly-ranked Arabs, are war-mongers against Israel.

The UN needs to assert the UN chart of Human Rights in Jenin and other occupied Palestinian territories by Israel, and needs to do so with a stronger leadership.

The full discussion of the topic on how UN implements the UN chart of Human Rights in Palestine and elsewhere, doesn't belong in this thread.
How UN implements the UN chart of Human Rights in Palestine, was often debated in the 'Politics' forum, in dedicated threads.

dk

Ion: The United Nations (UN) was created after the second World War.
dk: I’d say the UN was created in response to WW II, to replace the League of Nations that was created in response to WWI, but failed.

Ion: At the time of nazis, in the late 1930s and early 1940s, it was the Roman Catholic Church with its Pope that was a coward, not the UN which didn't exist until 1945.
dk: Ad hominem attacks are the last refuge of bigots. So who do you think hates Catholics and Jews more, Ion or the UN?

Ion: As for today's weknesses of UN, I think that the UN chart of Human Rights is sound.
That's the main question brought-up in this thread.
dk: Since the UN DIoHR protects religion in Articles 2, 16, and 18 how do you reconcile it with your hostility towards Catholics and Jews (and probably Moslems).
Ion: It is the implementation of the UN chart of Human Rights that is weak (like in the case of the Dutch peacekeepers during 1994 in Bosnia, like in the case of the need for stepping effectively and with fairness into the conflict in between Palestinians and Israelis), and is influenced by nationalistic powers.
dk: The UN is a body of nations, I’ll take this to mean you think the UN should be controlled by Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), or perhaps aliens. If you don’t want the UN to be influenced by nations, then what?
dk: By the way, the failure of the Un DIoHR seems to reflect the institution of the UN becoming the opposite. In 1948 the UN under its charter recognized Isreal into the community of nations, and for the last 25 years terrorists regimes lobby the UN for the destruction of Israel. How do you explain it?
Ionsnip)
The UN needs to assert the UN chart of Human Rights in Jenin and other occupied Palestinian territories by Israel, and needs to do so with a stronger leadership.
dk: Short of a military occupation by the US the only people that can stop Palestinians and Israelis from killing one another are Palestinians and Israelis. You might not recall but Reagan was the last US President to send troops to bring peace to region, and when it was all said and done a whole bunch of people from every angle , including US military personnel, had been blown to bits. I don’t think anybody wants to send 1/2 million US troops to occupy Israel, and I don’t think it would stop the killing.
Ion:The full discussion of the topic on how UN implements the UN chart of Human Rights in Palestine and elsewhere, doesn't belong in this thread.
How UN implements the UN chart of Human Rights in Palestine, was often debated in the 'Politics' forum, in dedicated threads.
dk: I agree, I’m not sure why you brought it up. I only mentioned Israel on this thread to link the UN with the 10 Commandments. In 1948 the UN didn't have a problem with the 10 Commandments else they wouldn't have recognized the Nation of Israel. Prior to 9/11 the UN had a real problem with Israel, and Arafat had spoken on several occasions before the Assembly.

Ion

This thread gets further side tracked (including "Ad hominem attacks are the last refuge of bigots. So who do you think hates..."), and I want to streamline it back:

Nightshade's post I quoted above, contrasts views on beliefs, from the Bible and from the UN chart of Human Rights.

It seems that the Bible was written for '12 Tribes' of Israel, 2000 years ago, with contradictions, and it seems that the UN chart of Human Rights is being written for today's world, with the modern knowledge of humanity.

So the UN chart of Human Rights applies to people like me across the globe, and the obsolete, inconsistent Bible doesn't.

dk

Ion: Nightshade's post I quoted above, contrasts views on beliefs, from the Bible and from the UN chart of Human Rights.
dk: In an earlier post we went through the Ten Commandments. C1, C2, and C3 pertain to the practice of religion, not government, but the UN DoIHR protects people’s right to the reasonable practice of religion. C9 and C10 are preventive commands that prohibit the faithful from envy, but there’s no penalty prescribed. Children should honor their parents. People should not kill, steal, lie or commit adultery, and theses prohibitions form the basis of a person’s right to life, property rights, jurisprudence, and family rights. I don’t see any contradiction between the UN Charter and the Ten Commandments.

Ion: It seems that the Bible was written for '12 Tribes' of Israel, 2000 years ago, with contradictions, and it seems that the UN chart of Human Rights is being written for today's world, with the modern knowledge of humanity.
dk: Since there’s no basis for comparison, I have no idea what you’re talking about. Obviously the UN is not a religion, and it was never intended to be hostile to religion, or become a religion.

Ion: So the UN chart of Human Rights applies to people like me across the globe, and the obsolete, inconsistent Bible doesn't.
dk: The Bible is about religion. The UN is a community of nations. If you try to turn the UN into a religion, or the Bible into a league of nations, they both become nonsense. If we are to discuss the linkage between the concept of Universal Human Rights and the Ten Commandments then it follows from the Justinian Code as it pertains to the development of Western Civilization through the Magna Carte (13 Century), constitutional republics (18th Century) and the development of the Bill of Rights (19th Century). For starters King David in the OT was held accountable to the Law, King John of England under the Magna Carte was held accountable, and the States off the Union held accountable to the Constitution in the 19th Century (Civil War). Something new happened in the 20 Century, and I’ll let you name it, if you can.

lpetrich

I notice that dk has refused to look at any of pre-Justinian Roman law, much of which had gone into Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis. And he has refused to look at the rest of the Bible's numerous laws.

Let's consider Rome's Twelve Tables, which had been composed completely independent of the Bible, and about which Cicero says (De oratore, L44),
They have nothing related to religion in it, nothing about how to worship the Republic's recognized deities.

Perjury (giving false witness) is to be punished by being shoved off of the Tarpeian Rock.

It's OK to kill a thief at night, but not in the daytime, unless one really has to.

Causing injury and malicious destruction of property have specified penalties; that is lacking from the 10C's.

One must not remove a log that is part of some structure, presumably because that removal is counted as destruction of that structure.

One is supposed to maintain whatever roads one's property might have; if one does not, one has no right to complain about where people choose to travel on it.

Fruit from your trees is still yours, even if it falls on someone else's property.

There is a law of making property claims or usucapio; one owns movable property claimed for one year, and buildings and land claimed for two years.

A marriage lasting more than a year is essentially the man owning his wife; the woman can avoid that fate by staying away 3 nights in a row per year.

And a rather sexist provision: females will always have a male guardian, meaning that they cannot be legally independent.

Ion

It is only a "...it follows from..." that you try to communicate, dk.

Regarding what rights to believe in and to respect with today's knowledge of life, there are plenty of backward rights in the 'divine' Bible that are antagonist with the secular UN Chart of Human Rights.

On top of the Nightshade's post that I mentioned before, I am pointing out now these human rights contrasts in between the 'divine' barbaric Bible and the more enlightened secular UN Chart of Human Rights:

1) from the UN Chart of Human Rights, Article 4:
"No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms."

from the Exodus 21:4:
"If his master has given him (i.e.: 'him' being here in the Bible a slave) a wife, and she has borne him sons and daughters, the wife and her children shall be his master's (i.e.: remaining slaves), and he shall go out by himself (i.e.: becoming free)."

Gee, there is some slavery business perpetrated in the 'divine' Bible, Justinian Code or whatever, dk.

Have you noticed this?

2) from the UN Chart of Human Rights, Article 5:
"No one shall be subject to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatement or punishment."

from Exodus 21:6:
"...He shall also bring him to the door, or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl;" when the slave declares in Exodus 21:5 that he loves his wife who is a slave too, and that he doesn't want to be set free when she remains a slave.

Gee, there is some barbaric torture perpetrated in the 'divine' Bible, Justinian Code or whatever, dk.

Have you noticed that?

Because, when you notice these contrasts dk, then you start addressing the topic of this thread.

The 'divine' Bible shouldn't need the Justinian Code or whatever, in order to be morally valid.

The UN Chart of Human Rights, however, sure doesn't need the 'divine' Bible to be more morally valid.

Are you understanding now the topic?