Just wondered....

[JenniC]

Does anyone, other than Mr Kane know what or is willing to hazards guess as to what

UDHR - Articles 18 & 19

Stands for in his signature... Just intrigued that's all

[Quizzical Bob]

Does anyone, other than Mr Kane know what or is willing to hazards guess as to what

UDHR - Articles 18 & 19

Stands for in his signature... Just intrigued that's all

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

[Jan Rosser]

Hi Jenni

I googled it because I was intrigued too (well truthfully I'm just nosey ) - it stands for Universal Declaration of Human Rights and 18 and 19 are two of the articles:

Article 18 - Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19 - Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Well if nothing else Derek has broadened my general knowledge - may come in handy one day in a quiz

[Quizzical Bob]

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.


Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

[Quizzical Bob]

If we ever get to the stage of quoting this in discussions then we're in trouble.

[JenniC]

I did not think to google it Jan and I was being nosey What a strange thing to put in your signature IMO of course

[Romig1]

Unfortunately (for Derek it would seem), Article 19 in particular can be at odds with the membership rules of many forums, this one included.

[Romig1]

I wonder if he's disappointed that it took so long for someone to question his new signature?

[david63]

Unfortunately (for Derek it would seem), Article 19 in particular can be at odds with the membership rules of many forums, this one included.

It all depends on how, and in what context, those views are expressed

[Admiral of the Humber]

remind me...this is just a simple little cruise forum..isn't it?

[Mo2013]

Jenni, why didn't you just ask Derek ?

And why are people talking about him as if he wasn't here ?

[Silver_Shiney]

what about my rights to "seek, receive .... information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers" from him?

I've got no problem with him stating his beliefs as beliefs, it's when he states them as though it was hard and fast fact and refuses to justify the comments that I have a problem.

[Not so ancient mariner]

Perhaps you should put in a request under the Freedom of Information Act

[The Monocled Mutineer]

Articles 18 and 19 of the UDHR (as with all the other 28 articles) should be nourished and cherished by all human beings and is especially to be promulgated and enacted by the peoples and governments of the liberal democracies on behalf of the majority of humanity who have some if not all these rights eroded or abolished.

Article 30 reinforces my view that with regard to Articles 18 and 19, freedom of opinion and belief is guaranteed except where it erodes or abolishes these or any other rights through individual, collective or state actions.

This freedom also includes the right not to be answerable to any individual, collective, or state for any opinion or belief other than when it is reasonably suspected that a crime has been committed.

Thus, In my view, I am perfectly at liberty to take the view that all religious belief (as regards the supernatural [from "latte" Christianity to "fire and brimstone" - from mystic Sufism to Jihadist Fundamentalism- from Wicca to Scientology - etc, etc] ) is belief in the non-existent and therefore cannot come under the rubric of 'hard and fast fact' as there is no scientific basis for any such beliefs.

Secularism is perfectly at ease with those who believe in Creationism and Intelligent Design and who preach this as part of their worship and sermons. However, it should NEVER replace in compulsory education science and actual 'hard facts' but only referenced and discussed as part of comparative religious studies, humanities and philosophy. This is why, in my view, many 'religious schools' and most 'home educators' are committing a form of child abuse, if they are teaching children to be intolerant of non-believers or other religions and denying them exposure to a full and free education, including the sciences.

[Boris+]

As far as I am concerned, if Derek wishes to put 'a little something' after his signature then that's up to him. It causes me no bother, no worries (I can't quite frankly see that it would); and if it pleases Derek then I'm content with that situation.

For my own part, I'm just happy to 'keep calm and sail on' .

Em

[Silver_Shiney]

Articles 18 and 19 of the UDHR (as with all the other 28 articles) should be nourished and cherished by all human beings and is especially to be promulgated and enacted by the peoples and governments of the liberal democracies on behalf of the majority of humanity who have some if not all these rights eroded or abolished.

I fully agree.

Article 30 reinforces my view that with regard to Articles 18 and 19, freedom of opinion and belief is guaranteed except where it erodes or abolishes these or any other rights through individual, collective or state actions.

or, except, when it refers to Christians expressing their views....

This freedom also includes the right not to be answerable to any individual, collective, or state for any opinion or belief other than when it is reasonably suspected that a crime has been committed.

But it does not over-ride the tenets of common courtesy, good manners. If you believe in something strongly (as you clearly do), you will be prepared to justify your comments.

Thus, In my view, I am perfectly at liberty to take the view that all religious belief (as regards the supernatural [from "latte" Christianity to "fire and brimstone" - from mystic Sufism to Jihadist Fundamentalism- from Wicca to Scientology - etc, etc] ) is belief in the non-existent and therefore cannot come under the rubric of 'hard and fast fact' as there is no scientific basis for any such beliefs.

Yes, you are perfectly at liberty to "take the view" - you are fully aware that I have never denied that. What you are NOT at liberty to do is mock and sneer at those who do believe (through knowledge, observation and personal experience) - and you are on record as arrogantly sneering and deriding my views, even though you haven't bothered to find exactly what they are.

Secularism is perfectly at ease with those who believe in Creationism and Intelligent Design and who preach this as part of their worship and sermons. However, it should NEVER replace in compulsory education science and actual 'hard facts' but only referenced and discussed as part of comparative religious studies, humanities and philosophy.

Secularism is a sworn enemy of Creationism. As an aside, adherents of Intelligent Design recognise that the claims of the evolutionist do not stand up to scrutiny and understand that there is an order of design - but they do not accept that this came from God. Evolution is, itself, a belief system and a philosophy.

This is why, in my view, many 'religious schools' and most 'home educators' are committing a form of child abuse, if they are teaching children to be intolerant of non-believers or other religions and denying them exposure to a full and free education, including the sciences.

Oh, the hypocrisy of it. You clearly have no idea of what goes on in these situations. We are told by our Lord to be very tolerant of unbelievers - offer to explain our views and if they refuse to listen, love them anyway - and the THEORY of evolution is taught side-by-side with creation. The FACTS are presented and it is up to the individual to decide which explanation makes more sense. When I was at school, evolution was the only thing taught - there was no mention anywhere that creation was an alternative viewpoint. THAT, Mr Kane, is a form of child abuse - denying the child the FULL story.

Despite turning from atheism to Christianity many years ago, I still believed in evolution, because I knew no differently. It wasn't until around 10-15 years back that the evidence was explained to me. I have asked you before if you would set aside your preconceptions and allow me to explain it, but you won't. Neither will you explain, why politely asked, why not. Very sad.

No, sir, the only reason you won't explain, contrary to all the "laws" of good manners and courtesy, why you state your misguided views as "fact" is because you know you haven't got a leg to stand on.

As I said to you last year, when you went off on your vitriolic rant, it is very foolish to present your views as "fact" on a subject you have no knowledge of experience of.

You would do well to remember the old adage - "it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt".

[Mo2013]

Some people just can't 'let it be' can they? Old resentments rearing their head - and not from me ! Arguing about religion is something which could take up all this forum - whatever people believe is the truth or fact, surely one must accept a differing view without rancour? Most people have entrenched views and it is clearly a waste of time trying to change their mind, yet comments descend into personal insult.

Derek, you have always stayed true to your principles and maintained your stand regarding freedom of speech but the trouble with others is that they fail to accept your views and opinions as just that, your views and opinions, and too many people elect to take offence. My husband is of the same mind as you - everyone is entitled to express their opinion, no matter what it is - and it is others who have the problem with accepting something with which they don't agree - every time. Someone doesn't agree? Just move on.

Derek, I am still wondering why people are talking about you as if you were not here. ???? If we were at a dinner table on board and people were speaking thus, whilst you were sitting there - how bad mannered is that ? By the way Alan, I have also asked a question of Jenni, and am still waiting for the answer. So if you are going to criticise Derek for not explaining himself to you, then you must also criticise Jenni for not explaining herself to me.

[The Monocled Mutineer]

Mo2013:

Contrary to the opinions of some, and at least one member in particular, I do not demand, hassle or bully a member(s) into justifying their belief systems.

It could be construed by a fair-minded person that I may indeed be one who is being demanded, hassled and bullied.

[JenniC]

With respect I absolutely do not need to justify myself to anyone one and I do not knowingly ignore people I have not been online since my last post as I was working late.

It was an question asked in all innocence in an open forum and not behind anyone's back... I was merely intrigued and now I know, although I wish had thought of googling it. Everyone is entitled in their beliefs, whether we agree or not..

I am now off to work again so this is my last word on the topic , now I know what it means

[Mo2013]

Mo2013:

Contrary to the opinions of some, and at least one member in particular, I do not demand, hassle or bully a member(s) into justifying their belief systems.

It could be construed by a fair-minded person that I may indeed be one who is being demanded, hassled and bullied.

Indeed, any fair-minded person could not fail to see that that is the case.

[Mo2013]

With respect I absolutely do not need to justify myself to anyone one and I do not knowingly ignore people I have not been online since my last post as I was working late.

It was an question asked in all innocence in an open forum and not behind anyone's back... I was merely intrigued and now I know, although I wish had thought of googling it. Everyone is entitled in their beliefs, whether we agree or not..

I am now off to work again so this is my last word on the topic , now I know what it means

Jenni, you were talking about Derek as if he wasn't here, and I pointed out that, in my opinion, that was rude, and that your query ought to have been addressed to Derek directly rather than the open forum. You rightly state that you do not need to justify yourself to anyone, so likewise, Derek Kane has no need to justify himself to anyone either. You said, "Everyone is entitled in their beliefs, whether we agree or not.." Thank you Jenni. Perhaps people will heed your words.

[Boris+]

Here's a good idea - let's all concentrate on having a really good weekend, despite the blasted rain which is supposed to be coming shortly; and what about being thankful that we won't have to water the gardens.

Em

[The Monocled Mutineer]

Jenni C

Rest assured your question was entirely reasonable and I was happy for others to explain the meaning of my signature.

Sadly, there is at least one who have taken advantage of your innocent enquiry to 'have a go' at a member, rather, if he so desires (with no compulsion to do so) to explain his issues with aspects of the impact of UDHR eg allegations that Christians are not allowed to express their views in (presumably) the UK.

Personally I am entirely content for people to wear a religious symbol or clothing so long as it conforms to reasonable H&S rules/laws and is applied evenly and fairly and does not incite racial, religious or homophobic hate. Sadly some slogans on say t-shirts from extremist Christians, Moslems and Jews will be in breach of the law as well as common decency and good manners.

I would not for example wear a t-shirt saying 'God is Dead' as this would offend both believers and some non- believers, although I partially subscribe to this view in as much as 'god' is a man-made construct that has never 'lived' or existed other than in the brains of humans as a thought process.

[Dancing Queen]

With respect I absolutely do not need to justify myself to anyone one and I do not knowingly ignore people I have not been online since my last post as I was working late.

It was an question asked in all innocence in an open forum and not behind anyone's back... I was merely intrigued and now I know, although I wish had thought of googling it. Everyone is entitled in their beliefs, whether we agree or not..

I am now off to work again so this is my last word on the topic , now I know what it means

Jenni, you were talking about Derek as if he wasn't here, and I pointed out that, in my opinion, that was rude, and that your query ought to have been addressed to Derek directly rather than the open forum. You rightly state that you do not need to justify yourself to anyone, so likewise, Derek Kane has no need to justify himself to anyone either. You said, "Everyone is entitled in their beliefs, whether we agree or not.." Thank you Jenni. Perhaps people will heed your words.

Hardly talking about someone as if they weren't here, people often ask/question something and that person may not be online to reply, do stop making mountains out of molehills it was a perfectly reasonable question and I don't believe anyone was asking anyone to justify themselves, just a simple question that's all

Oh I see while I was posting this Derek himself has agreed it was a perfectly reasonable question to ask and one he didn't have a problem with

[Mo2013]

DQ said "I don't believe anyone was asking anyone to justify themselves."

Silver Shiney wrote to Derek Kane ..... " Neither will you explain, why politely asked, why not. Very sad. No, sir, the only reason you won't explain, contrary to all the "laws" of good manners and courtesy, why you state your misguided views as "fact" is because you know you haven't got a leg to stand on."

Alan was clearly asking Derek to justify (explain) himself.