Nigeria imposes State enforced religion

http://mg.co.za/article/2011-11-29-nigeria-approves-bill-criminalising-gay-marriage/

...... and who says the separation of church and state is a bad thing?

 

Nigeria only produces 1.6 million bpd.. and every time fighting breaks out.. production falls by half.

 

Nigeria is half Christian (South) and half Muslim (North).

There are also strong AFRICAN traditions (being tribal) against homosexuality.

Guess what? Nigeria makes laws based on what its citizens view, and not upon pent up Americans - it represents the consensus of its people.

Indeed, they are doing nothing to hmosexuals that you are not doing to religious poeple, having ONCE AGAIN, dumped every religious person in Nigeria into one lump, and then accussed the government of having enforced a religious code that no one wants because ... allegedly a mullah and a preist went in and twisted the arm of ... someone.

Once again, I suggest you take a look at the effect of homosexuality in tribal societies in which the son inherents the property and birth right and what happens to the family lineage when the line is stopped ... because a son wants to screw men rather than women. That has some effects.

In a society where only YOU matter, not as much. In a society where family is paramount?

Well, that would require atheists to be committed multi-culturalists. Clearly, they are not.

One trick ponies.

 

Christ you are just beyond words.

If you do not see the issue with criminalizing homosexuality, you are truly a lost soul without morals, nor ethics, nor compassion for another persons well being.

 

Or are you judging other people based on your moral code, rather than with consideration for their position, situation and values?

 

Has the play book changed again when i wasn't looking. DOesn't the left always tell us that we cannot judge another culture because it is a value judgement?

 

That would be moral relativism, which I do not subscribe to.

 

What position, situation, or values would justify the violation of human rights on religious codes?

 

Now, what part of this article attributed this law and punishment to Christian influence?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Now, what part of the 1st Amendment declares that public property is not available for the religious free exercise of speech, press, or the right to peaceably assemble?

As a matter of fact does "respecting" mean creating an establishment of religion or does it mean just not endorsing or favoring one religion over the other.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/respecting

Keep the Government out of my religion. I hold to my rights to speak, write and assemble on public property, something I've been doing for years and I don't plan on stopping now unless they repeal this 1st Amendment.

Now, when the Federal Government creates a national religion or portends favoritism toward one particular religion then I'll side with the secularists. There does seem to be a movement respecting Islam. I don't know if this is out of fear or the leanings of our current President, but it is wrong.

 

Right, because as an atheist - he has a set of standards and objective judgement criteria - similiar to the ten commandments - that he will spell out for us .... one of these days.

Do we see how atheism manipulates things? Has standards to denounce your moral relativism, but has no standards when you press them about their failings ... that is just what some atheists do - always some other atheist though.

 

So, you subscribe to absolute morality?

 

Tribes. Read up.

Or do you think you hav ethe right to violate theire culture and rights based on sex?

 

It's good to see that you call out to Christ. Perhaps there is still hope for you.

 

Second paragraph.

That is irrelevant. I am not talking about religious groups protesting, I am referring to the use of the government to enforce religious views. Case in point, the denial of civil rights on religious grounds.

I don't see an issue what you posted here.

 

wrong. I said value judgement and i mean value judgement. Moral relativism is something else again.

 

Not absolute, but the betterment of the human well being.

Some conditions and states of being are better and worse than others. There are multiple peaks in this moral landscape, so no particular one is absolutely better than the rest.

Please see The Moral Landscape.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTKf5cCm-9g"]Sam Harris: The Moral Landscape - YouTube[/ame]

 

Um, no. What I just posted is correct.

I do not subscribe to a belief that a cultures values are free from analysis or criticism. Forcing women to reside in cloth bags or beating them for dishonoring the man are obviously wrong and detrimental to the well being of the human being. Just because an independent culture believes in X does not make X right or untouchable.

I do not subscribe to moral relativism, so to invoke the "liberal ideal" of moral relativism is a futile attempt to contribute to the discussion.

 

So, you see no legal reason for Christians to use public resources to freely assemble, speak and write of their beliefs and sharing the Good News? So there can be 'denial of civil rights' on other than religious grounds?

 

Homosexuals are common in tribal societies.. sometimes ritualized... not at all uncommon in pervasively homoerotic societies.

 

Lets assume for a moment that there is a tribe who's holy book states ".... for every third child shall walk the world blind. Their eye shall be removed by thy blade of the father...".

So parents remove the eyes of every third child so that they may walk the world blind as the holy book described.

It is their culture. It is their religion. It is their way of life.

Is it right or wrong?

 

No, that is not what I said. I said to use the government to enforce religious values is an issue.

That is far removed from the freedom of assembly and speech.

 

What human right is being violated?

 

Equal protection under the law and treatment by the law.

Imprisoning homosexuals for attempting to marry each other is a gross human rights violation.

 

It would seem that this is more of a cultural thing. I believe in most cultures of africa homosexuality is taboo, thus wrong. Unfortionatly that has translated into this unjust law. It is unfortionate but I do not believe you can blame religion. Sexual taboos exist with or without the guidence of a faith.

 

So if a straight man marries another straight man, he won't be imprisoned?

Or if a homosexual man marries a homosexual woman, will they be arrested?

They are treated the same under this law.

Even so, who is to say that human rights are important? Do the rights of one individual outweigh the needs of society? Perhaps another culture might actually believe that the needs of the community should outweigh the rights of the individual. Who are you to say that is wrong?