Watch the video related to Human Rights
Help answer the question about Human Rights
About Author
Corrina Gordon-Barnes helps women who are frustrated at not fulfilling their potential. Through one-to-one coaching, workshops, talks & writing, she helps them develop inspirational ventures.
Subscribe to her FREE monthly ezine, The World Needs Your Passion and feel motivated and supported as you turn your ideas into reality.
You’re really good man. You’ve got excellent talent.
Nice work, you did pretty good.
:O
:O
:O
how is this not a real photo?
hm i couldn’t tell the difference between photograph and painting comparing the final resault.
This is sick
I like Swizzlesticks answer
give him 10 points
What ARE you babbling about?
The abortion issue, as ruled on by the Supreme Court, is about PRIVACY — and no one has a right to violate someone else's privacy.
And how exactly is a gay couple getting married taking ANYthing away from you?
No one can take your tenant rights away. You can violate the owners policy or they can violate your rights. I believe SF uses an ombudsman system. Contact them via city clerks office.
woww that’s really relax and beatiful soung .good picture of jhony depp !
A lawyer.
Perfect.
Aye ya. It all right with you if I just respond to and hopefully enlighten some of these answerers? In answer to your question, I have heard a few cases in which religious people claimed their rights were being violated, and I agreed with them. I regret that I cannot recall any specific examples, at the moment. We tend to make it more complicated than it needs to be. It’s this simple: If a person, organization, etc. is owned by or representing the general public, no religious affiliation. Individuals speaking on their own behalf should be allowed to express themselves in any way they see fit, provided they do not infringe on the basic rights of anyone else.
AmericanPatriot: Wow. How is it I managed to predict the kind of response you were going to give based on your screenname? One. This section really is used primarily by obnoxious people to shout about their personal beliefs and insist that everyone who disagrees with them is wrong. Two. I am quite certain Moreth asked this question out of genuine interest, and productive intent. I could understand your reaction if he’d said something like “Stupid Christian whiners, your rights aren’t being taken away”. For you to presume that the question was hostile in nature, it says something about you. Which brings me to point number three, you’re way out of line.
Melinda P: God’s name doesn’t belong in almost everything, to begin with. Faith is a personal thing, and should not have influence in a nation’s representation and policies. You say he is the one who created us like it’s a fact. It isn’t. It’s a belief. The whole idea behind freedom of religion is that we accept that that is a belief and not a fact. We are to be a nation in which no religion is enforced or given preferential treatment. That is necessary, to ensure equality. And in order to accomplish this, it is necessary that no religion is officially promoted by the government/nation as a whole. We are (supposed to be) a free nation. Not a Christian nation. I do believe people should be allowed to pray in school, if they want (free expression). However, prayer should never be promoted, practiced, or encouraged by the school itself.
Marysia: There are some issues on which the majority should not have a say. The government of a city, town, what have you, is not to be affiliated with any religion, regardless of what percentage of its population is of that religion, for the reasons I cited in my response to Melinda, above. Personally, I never had a problem with the idea of a Christmas Tree in a public display (actually, I think it’s kind of funny, seeing as how the Christmas Tree was essentially stolen from Pagan customs, and most Christians don’t know enough about their own religion to realize that it is essentially an impurity within said religion.). But technically, no, they are not supposed to. A government exists to serve and protect each of its citizens equally. Moreover, the majority should never be given the power to discriminate against or stigmatize the minority. If this is difficult to understand, consider a similar but more blatant example. What if a town that consisted of 51% white people and 49% black people decided to post a sign that said, “Welcome To (Town Name): A White Community”? Nobody is telling you to quash your Christianity. Decorate your own house and lawn however you want, and talk about Jesus as much as you want. When you are not allowed to do that, your rights are being violated.
amazing! Willy teach me how to paint like you!
History…
" After the French left Vietnam the Catholics managed to hold onto their power in the country. Deim was a devout Catholic and tended to appoint people to positions of authority who shared his religious beliefs. This angered Buddhists, especially when the new government refused to repeal the anti-Buddhist laws passed by the French.
"On May 8, 1963, Buddhists assembled in Hue to celebrate the 2527th birthday of the Buddha. Attempts were made by the police to disperse the crowds by opening fire on them. One woman and eight children were killed in their attempts to flee from the police.
"The Buddhists were furious and began a series of demonstrations against the Diem government. In an attempt to let the world know how strongly they felt about the South Vietnamese government, it was decided to ask for volunteers to commit suicide.
"On June 11, 1963, Thich Quang Due, a sixty-six year old monk, sat down in the middle of a busy Saigon road. He was then surrounded by a group of Buddhist monks and nuns who poured petrol over his head and then set fire to him. One eyewitness later commented: "As he burned he never moved a muscle, never uttered a sound, his outward composure in sharp contrast to the wailing people around him." While Thich Quang Due was burning to death, the monks and nuns gave out leaflets calling for Diem's government to show "charity and compassion " to all religions.
"The government's response to this suicide was to arrest thousands of Buddhist monks. Many disappeared and were never seen again. By August another five monks had committed suicide by setting fire to themselves. One member of the South Vietnamese government responded to these self-immolations by telling a newspaper reporter: "Let them burn, and we shall clap our hands." Another offered to supply Buddhists who wanted to commit suicide with the necessary petrol.
"These events convinced President John F. Kennedy that Diem would never be able to unite the South Vietnamese against communism. Several attempts had already been made to overthrow Diem but Kennedy had always instructed the CIA and the US military forces in Vietnam to protect him. In order to obtain a more popular leader of South Vietnam, Kennedy agreed that the role of the CIA should change. Lucien Conein, a CIA operative, provided a group of South Vietnamese generals with $40,000 to carry out the coup with the promise that US forces would make no attempt to protect Diem.
"At the beginning of November, 1963, President Diem was overthrown by a military coup. After the generals had promised Diem that he would be allowed to leave the country they changed their mind and killed him. He was replaced by Nguyen Van Thieu, the chief of staff of the Armed Forces of South Vietnam."
First and foremost, smoking is not a right. That answers your first question.
Secondly, you are making false comparisons when trying to make your case against anti-smoking laws. These laws are intended not with the smokers' health in mind but rather out of concern for others who are exposed to second-hand smoke, which numerous studies have concluded to be a bigger hazard than filtered cigarette smoke. One's right to breathe clean air freely supercedes another's smoking privileges.
"What about all of the people who don't maintain their vehicles and we have to smell that disgusting exhaust?"
That's what emission laws are put in place for. Then again, vehicle exhaust has fewer carcinogens than a single cigarette. Do you know of anyone dumb enough to stick their mouths over an exhaust pipe several times a day?
"The same people who are against cigs, eat steroid infested meat and veggies … isn't that HAZARDOUS???"
I've never heard of steroids in vegetables, unless you mean pesticides that are meant to protect the crops. Yes, certain chemicals can be potentially hazardous, but they have to be consumed in such overwhelming quantities in order to have a serious impact on one's health. The practice of injecting hormones into processed meat is another discussion. (This is a concern shared by a lot of interested parties, including the anti-smoking camp.) Even so, food is a necessity. There is absolutely NO nutrional value whatsoever to be found from tobacco. (At least alcohol has SOME health benefits.)
"Women who overload their perfume and walk into public places gives me a headache, and so does noisy out of control kids .. should we pass a bill to ban?"
As far as I know, perfume does not cause cancer. Unless you have severe allergies, perfume is certainly not cause for alarm. (If such fragrances really give you a headache, why would expose your own lungs to something far more hazardous to your health?)
"What about the radiation from cell phones and other electronics? Do I see a ban in order for them???"
The amount of radiation emitted from such devices is so microscopic that it cannot have any long-term adverse effects. You'd have to keep your laptop powered on in your lap for several hours per day continuously and every day for the next several years to even worry about decreasing sperm count or becoming impotent. Even still, the cancer risk is extremely low. As for cell phones, only those with pacemakers are at a significant risk.
Now, I have thoroughly demonstrated how silly and illogical your overall argument and comparisons are. No one is taking away anything that was never there to begin with. Rather, people have simply decided their health is just more important than someone else's "recreation."
Very nice!!
Brilliant Willy, Just Brilliant =D
The problem is far wider than even your question. The issue is not just large companies but ALL special interest groups. If a representative government, such as ours, we should all have equal access to our elected officials. Currently this is not the case PACs and special interest ( both liberal and conservative)groups are setting policy.
because you generalize,you also lack personal responsibility and accountability. i'm tired of my tax dollars supporting you when you get too fat to work.
Hello! Please e-mail me your contacts. I have a question