22 Comments

1. 

   spacedk

   17 April 2008

   Nu stiu in ce masura doreau acele state islamice sa acorde un caracter universalist declaratiei lor. In schimb, pot acuza ONU ca a lasat aceasta portita deschisa. In cele din urma, cineva, cumva, se va strecura prin ea. Heh, deja a facut-o de fapt, Ideea Shariei inclusa in aceste drepturi ale omului nu este neaparat rea, ca principiu. Noi spunem ca toti oamenii au dreptul la viata, dar in acelasi timp ne executam criminalii inraiti. Ceea ce nu e un lucru rau. Vreau doar sa spun ca dreptul la viata nu este absolut in orice conditii. Acelasi lucru il zic si musulmanii, ei doar adaugand explicit acest aspect in declaratie – jurisprudenta lor fiind mai mult o gluma. Ceea ce, repet, principial nu e rau. Dar faptul ca se face apel la legea islamica in atatea randuri, in asemenea fel, distruge ideea universalitatii declaratiei si distruge ideea de „good faith” pe care incearca s-o impuna prin ea. ONU a devenit protectoarea localismului cultural si nu m-ar surprinde ca in cativa ani sa avem nu una, nu doua ci poate zece declaratii „universale”. Este inca un cui in sicriul acestei organizatii.

   Reply

2. 

   emil

   17 April 2008

   spacedk
   „Nu stiu in ce masura doreau acele state islamice sa acorde un caracter universalist declaratiei lor.”

   Din preambulul declaratiei de la Cairo:

   The Member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference,

   Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which God made the best nation that has given mankind a universal and well-balanced civilization in which harmony is established between this life and the hereafter and knowledge is combined with faith; and the role that this Ummah should play to guide a humanity confused by competing trends and ideologies and to provide solutions to the chronic problems of this materialistic civilization.

   Revin.

   Reply

3. 

   Panseluţa

   17 April 2008

   emil
   Jos palaria pentru articol. N-am vazut nicaieri o punere alaturi a celor doua Declaratii, asa de necesara.
   Preambulul Declaratiei de la Cairo e o capodopera care merita o discutie in sine.

   Voi reveni si eu dupa ce ma asez mai bine in fotoliu, dupa o alta zi in care noi membri ai glorioasei Ummah, cea care va lumina omenirea, s-au casapit intre ei cu pofta, si eu si suntem patrupeda mea hranite si cu chef de vorba.

   Ce m-a izbit in relatarea ta e toata liota asta de observatori, raportori, raportori speciali, comisari politici, experti de toate felurile, si masele de tragatori de sfori din culise de la ONU si UE care traiesc, cinic de bine, din banul contribuabilului ale carui nevoi reale n-au nici o semnificatie pentru ei.
   ONU si UE sunt, de fapt, imense escrocherii („rackets”) care asigura sinecuri si trai-neneaca pentru o noua clasa de elita din bani publici si bani proveniti din regimuri corupte.
   Ideea ca o parte din obolul meu anual–fie si 5 centi–se duce la intretinearea mandarinilor de la ONU cu fundul latit de atita stat in sedinte unde dorm pe rupte visind la conturile lor off-shore ma umple de furie.

   Reply

4. 

   Panseluţa

   17 April 2008

   Rectific:
   „si eu si patrupeda mea suntem hranite si cu chef de vorba”.

   Reply

5. 

   emil

   17 April 2008

   spacedk
   Aparenta contradictie dintre dreptul la viata si pedeapsa cu moartea. Declaratia din 48 mai specifica si asta:

   Article 29.
   (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

   E pe limba avocatilor, dar suficient intr-o curte de justitie.

   Personal, sint in favoarea pedepsei capitale. Asta e insa o cu totul alta discutie si nu intru in detalii aici. Inca o remarca pe fuga, la care voi reveni odata. Am rezerve fata de declaratia din 48. O serie de drepturi care sint stipulate drept „fundamentale” nu sint deloc fundamentale. Da, sint dezirabile, dar nu au ce cauta intr-o declaratie care enumereaza drepturi si libertati universale, care ar trebui garantate. Dreptul la timp liber (art 24), la educatie (art 26, para 1 si 2), la viata culturala (art 27, para 1), la o ordine internationala justa (art 28), formularea art 23 lasa mult de dorit (dreptul la munca, la sindicalizare), art 22 e cam aiurea cu drepturi economice, culturale si sociale aruncate de-a valma si mult prea generic. A doua jumatate a declaratiei din 48 seamana mult cu o lista pentru Mos Craciun. Chiar si asa, declaratia din 48 e superioara celei din 90. Dar asta e doar o paranteza. Let’s keep our eyes on the ball. Sharia.

   Panseluta
   Abia astept ziua cind un stat va iesi din ONU sau UE. Se va intimpla, odata si odata. Fundurile astea grase de birocrati si tehnocrati vor primi un bombeu drept in boase. Mama lor de paraziti aroganti.

   Reply

6. 

   costin

   17 April 2008

   nu-mi vine sa cred…

   Reply

7. 

   spacedk

   17 April 2008

   emil – nu stiu daca ai inteles clar ce vroiam sa zic. nu condamnam pedeapsa capitala ci ziceam doar ca declaratia universala a drepturilor omului nu specifica acest element deoarece este la latitudinea fiecarui stat de a-as apara cetatenii cum considera de cuviinta. De unde si caracterul ei universal. In orice caz, multumesc pentru rectificare. As mai scrie 2-3 idei dar mi s-a colorat ecranul mov pe laptop. O sa continui cand ajung acasa ???? In orice caz, foarte interesant articolul. Genul de stiri care, din pacate, nu prea il vezi in presa.

   Reply

8. 

   emil

   17 April 2008

   spacedk
   Am inteles ca nu condamnai pedeapsa capitala ???? Am lasat o impresie gresita. Scuze.

   Reply

9. 

   andreanum

   17 April 2008

   dupa ce drepturile omului nu mai sunt ale omului, urmeaza ca drepturile animalelor sa fie mai bine aparate si mai importante decit (ce a mai ramas din) drepturile omului si terminam povestea. Iar cind cartele de drepturi vor deveni doar vorbe in vint si obiect de studiu pentru filosofi, atunci s-a dus dracului si omenirea si vom tinji sa devenim animale…

   Reply

10. 

    emil

    17 April 2008

    Andreanum, ai perfecta dreptate. Dar stii, uneori realitatea bate imaginatia. Zic asta deoarece tentativa de a pune animalele pe acelasi plan etic cu oamenii nu „urmeaza”, e in plina desfasurare.
    In 2006, guvernul socialist al Spaniei a dezbatut urmatoarea legislatie:
    Drive to give ‘human’ rights to apes leaves Spanish divided
    In esenta, socialistii spanioli s-au declarat in favoarea unei legi care sa recunoasca extinderea citorva drepturi ale omului catre cimpanzei, gorile si urangutani. Scopul declarat: crearea unei „comunitati de egali” intre oameni si animale. Deocamdata incepem cu maimutele, dar e loc pentru toate speciile. Implicatiile sint foarte serioase. In primul rind, e o incercare de a devaloriza existenta umana. La propriu, animalizindu-l. Initiativa spaniola provine de la Great Apes Project, o organizatie din Seattle care militeaza agresiv pentru introducerea in legislatie a echivalarii intre drepturile omului si „drepturile” maimutelor. Mai multe detalii si o analiza gasesti aici:
    Chimps And Salsa: Spain Joins The Anti-Human Movement

    Reply

11. 

    Grădinariu

    17 April 2008

    Dar drept de vot nu le dau cimpanzeilor? (Mă gândesc că, nefiind capabile de moralitate, raţiune sau discernământ, vor vota cu socialiştii în masă!) De fapt, pe când primul cimpanzeu-senator? Asta ca să nu mă gândesc la un echivalent al lui Obama din rândul maimuţelor…

    Reply

12. 

    spacedk

    17 April 2008

    Pe mine nu ma sperie chiar in halul asta astfel de initiative. Sunt destui oameni care nu-si merita statutul asa ca n-o sa-l apar orbeste, it’s up for grabs, ca sa zic asa. Exagerez, desigur, dar parca un om care nu merita sa fie numit asa ma deranjeaza mai mult decat un animal cu drept de viata.

    Emil, zici de o „incercare de a devaloriza existenta umana”, dar nu inteleg cine ar vrea asa ceva (bine, in afara de socialistii spanioli) si mai ales cu ce scop?

    Reply

13. 

    emil

    17 April 2008

    spacedk
    Spui:
    „Sunt destui oameni care nu-si merita statutul asa ca n-o sa-l apar orbeste, it’s up for grabs, ca sa zic asa. Exagerez, desigur, dar parca un om care nu merita sa fie numit asa ma deranjeaza mai mult decat un animal cu drept de viata.

    Emil, zici de o “incercare de a devaloriza existenta umana”, dar nu inteleg cine ar vrea asa ceva (bine, in afara de socialistii spanioli) si mai ales cu ce scop?”

    Te plimbi pe un cimp minat si nu cred ca iti dai seama. Acesta va fi un comentariu lung, pentru ca voi cita in extenso din cartea „From Darwin to Hitler” de Richard Weikart. As fi putut sa sumarizez in doua paragrafe ceea ce Weikart discuta in detaliu in fragmentul urmator… insa detaliile pe care Weikart le ofera vizavi de evolutia (ironie involuntara) anumitor idei extrem de influente la sfirsit de secol 19 sint foarte necesare. Aceste detalii reprezinta una din fundatiile pe care s-au dezvoltat in secolul 20 atit fascismul, cit si miscarea progresista contemporana. Am zis una din fundatii, tine minte. De asemenea, aleg sa iti prezint aceasta istorie demult uitata (si din pacate ignorata azi) pentru ca doresc sa iti formezi o opinie nefiltrata prin posibila mea subiectivitate. Si in al treilea si ultimul rind, e si un indemn implicit pentru tine si oricine interesat sa cerceteze pe cont propriu istoria ideilor de la sfirsit de secol 19 si inceput de secol 20. In acea perioada se afla cheia intelegerii a numeroase fenomene din prezent.

    Bun, destul cu introducerea. Primul pas il consta in recitirea acestui articol scurt pe care l-am mentionat in comentariul meu anterior.
    Chimps And Salsa: Spain Joins The Anti-Human Movement
    Te rog sa-l parcurgi daca nu ai facut-o deja, pentru ca analiza intreprinsa sumar acolo este bine iluminata si justificata de ceea ce va urma. Iti propun un traseu in care pornim de la setul de aprecieri din articol si facem o calatorie in trecut pentru a verifica in ce masura aprecierile respective au validitate si mai ales, pe ce se sprijina validitatea lor.

    Fragment din:

    Chapter 4 – The Value of Life and the Value of Death

    Darwinism was a matter of life and death. No one understood this better than Darwin did. Immediately after explaining that each organism „has to struggle for life, and to suffer great destruction,” he closed his chapter on „The Struggle for Existence” on a more comfort­ing note: „When we reflect on this struggle, we may console ourselves with the full belief, that the war of narure is not incessant, that no fear is felt, that death is generally prompt, and that the vigorous, the healthy, and the happy survive and multiply.” This put a rather positive spin on the strug­gle for existence, the „law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” Even while overtly denying any purpose or goal for evolution, Darwin could not resist the mid-Victorian cult of progress, as these passages illustrate with their vision of increasing health, strength, and even happiness.
    One of the alluring features of Darwinism, it seems to me, was that it offered a secular answer to the problem of evil and death. Indeed, it was more than an answer-it gave Darwinists hope and inspiration that suffer­ing and death would ultimately spawn progress. Darwin clearly viewed death and destruction as an engine of evolutionary progress, as we see in the penultimate sentence of The Origin of Species: „Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capa­ble of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows.” Darwin’s jubilation at the power of natural selection to wrest victory from the jaws of death is reminiscent of the biblical promise, „Death is swallowed up in victory.” In one respect, then, Darwin’s theory of natural selection was a secular answer to Judeo-Christian theodicy (the justification of a benevolent God in a world of evil), since it provided an explanation for the existence of evil and promised that evil would ultimately fulfill a good purpose.

    In a speech honoring Darwin’s hundredth birthday in 1909 Max von Gruber, a famous professor of hygiene at the University of Munich, expressed exactly this point. He opened his speech by countering the common misconception that nature is peaceful, harmonious, and idyllic. Rather it is „filled with pitiless, gruesome struggle, with torment and death … Not only do animals murder animals, but plants murder plants.” Darwin, Gruber exulted, had discovered a rationale behind all this seemingly meaningless misery:

    The never-ceasing struggle is, according to him [Darwin], not useless. It constantly clears away the malformed, the weak, and the inferior among the generations and thus secures the future for the fit. Thus only through the inexorable extermination of the negative variants does it provide living space for the strong and its strong offspring, and it keeps the species healthy, strong, and able to live.

    Suffering and death, then, were not gratuitous, but fulfilled a higher pur­pose-the preservation and advancement of all living beings. Even though Gruber thought human reason and pity could and should mollify the strug­gle among humans, Darwinism helped him find purpose and meaning in the mass destruction of other organisms.
    Perhaps the promise of evolutionary progress gave comfort in the face of death and destruction, but, on the other hand, Darwinism increased the sting of death, at least in a quantitative sense. Darwin formulated his the­ory of natural selection after reading Thomas Robert Malthus’s famous Essay on the Principle of Population. Malthus based his population principle on the biological observation that most organisms produce far more prog­eny than can possibly survive. He argued that, like other organisms, the human population tends to increase faster than the food supply, unless checked by other restraints (disease, war, etc.). Because of this imbalance between reproduction rates and food supply, Malthus believed that the vast majority of people must die without reproducing. Death-indeed mass death-was thus central to the Malthusian vision that Darwin appropriated and then propagated. Adrian Desmond in his biography of T. H. Huxley is not exaggerating when he claims that according to Darwin’s theory, „only from death on a genocidal scale could the few progress.”
    To be sure, the struggle for existence among organisms is more often peaceful competition than bloody combat, but Darwin recognized that killing-even within species-is also a normal part of the struggle:

    It may be difficult, but we ought to admire the savage instinctive hatred of the queen-bee, which urges her instantly to destroy the young queens her daughters as soon as born, or to perish herself in the combat; for undoubt­edly this is for the good of the community; and maternal love and maternal hatred, though the latter fortunately is most rare, is all the same to the inexorable principle of natural selection.

    Darwin may have admired the queen bee’s instinctive hatred and infanti­cide (if I may indulge in anthropomorphizing here), but he certainly did not see it as a model for human conduct, since he thought human instincts tended more toward love and altruism. But what if humans had aggressive intincts that were more powerful than the altruistic ones? Darwin consis­tently denied this possibility, but not all Darwinists would follow suit.
    The Darwinian idea of death as a natural engine of evolutionary progress represented a radical shift from the Christian conception of death as an unnatural, evil foe to be conquered. This shift would bring in its train a whole complex of ideas that would alter ways of thinking about killing and the „right to life.” Before Darwinism burst onto the scene in the mid nineteenth century, the idea of the sanctity of human life was dominant in European thought and law (though, as with all ethical principles, not always followed in practice). Judeo-Christian ethics proscribed the killing of innocent human life, and the Christian churches explicitly forbade murder, infanticide, abortion, and even suicide. The sanctity of human life became enshrined in classical liberal human rights ideology as „the right to life” which according to John Locke and the United States Declaration of Independence, was one of the supreme rights of every individual. Until the second half of the nineteenth century, and to a large extent even in the twentieth century, almost all Christian churches and most anticlerical European liberals upheld the idea of the sanctity of human life, even tough they may not have used that terminology. This was reflected in European legal codes, which strictly forbade assisted suicide, infanticide and abortion. According to the historian Udo Benzenhofer, no one advo­cated assisted suicide in medieval and modern Europe before the second half of the nineteenth century (the only possible exception is Thomas More but Benzenhofer argues that More’s treatment of euthanasia was parody, not advocacy).
    Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide. It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining in influence. Darwinism played an important role in this debate, for it altered many people’s conceptions of the importance and value of human life, as well as the signiflcance of death.
    Some historians writing about euthanasia and eugenics in Germany have commented on this phenomenon, but few have analyzed it in any depth.
    What aspects of Darwinism brought about this transformation in think­ing about the value of human life? First, Darwinism altered some people’s conceptions of the human position in the cosmos and in the organic world. T. H. Huxley had dubbed this the question of „Man’s Place in Nature,” and many German Darwinists, including Ernst Haeckel, considered this one of the most important aspects of Darwinism. The traditional Christian view of the value of human life was one idea Haeckel wanted to revise in the light of evolution. In his 1904 book, The Wonders of Life, he remarked that „the value of our human life appears to us today, on the firm foundation of evolutionary theory, in an entirely different light, than it did fifty years ago.” How did Haeckel think it had changed? Stated succinctly, Haeckel did not think that human life was particularly valuable, nor did he think that all people had the same value. This point comes through in many of his writings, and he expressed it quite clearly already in 1864 to his devout Christian father:

    I share essentially your view of life, dear father, only I value human life and humans themselves much less than you …. The individual with his personal existence appears to me only a temporary member in this large chain, as a rapidly vanishing vapor … Personal individual existence appears to me so horribly miserable, petty, and worthless, that I see it as intended for nothing but for destruction.

    Haeckel and many other German Darwinists fought incessantly against all dualistic views of humans, which endued human life with much greater value than animals. For Haeckel and most German Darwinists, humans were not much different from animals, and they often criticized Christians and other dualists for insisting on significant qualitative distinctions between humans and animals.
    In rejecting mind-body dualism Haeckel explicitly denied the existence of an immaterial human soul. Haeckel contended that all the activities traditionally ascribed to the human soul were nothing more than material processes originating in the central nervous system. He even admitted that his psychology was materialistic, since he believed that psychology could ultimately be reduced to physiology. Despite his slippery use of religious terminology, Haeckel was clearly a reductionist who denied free will and insisted on mechanistic explanations for everything, including the human soul. Though Darwin (at least in his published works) was never as explicit as Haeckel in denying mind-body dualism, Darwin did nonetheless embrace reductionism by providing natural explanations for all human characteristics, including those traditionally considered unique aspects of the human soul or spirit, such as rationality, emotions, conscience, morality, and even religion.
    Forel’s psychiatry-and his eugenics-was based squarely on his rejec­tion of body-soul dualism, which, he claimed, had been undermined by Darwinian theory. Darwinism was, according to him, the greatest achieve­ment of the nineteenth century, since it „gave birth to the germ of the dis­covery of the identity of the human soul with the brain, and therewith dealt the deathstroke to the dualism of body and soul.” According to his own account, when he read Darwin’s Origin of Species, „it was as though scales fell from my eyes” and it converted him to the belief that human psy­chology can be reduced to brain physiology. At his habilitation defense (a second dissertation qualifying one to teach in German universities) Forel defended the Darwinian thesis: „All characteristics of the human soul orig­inate from those of higher animals.” Forel explained to Haeckel that in his view monism is the „scientific proof of the essential identity of the psy­chological activities of humans and animals and their neurophysiological side.” By undercutting tbe Judeo-Christian and Kantian claim tbat humans had unique moral status based on an immaterial soul, Haeckel, Forel, and other Darwinists helped undermine the idea that buman life is intrinsically sacred and inviolable.
    Most leading German psychiatrists adopted views of the human mind similar to Haeckel’s and Forel’s. They rejected body-soul dualism and embraced a deterministic view of the human psycbe. However, it is not always clear what role Darwinism played in the formation of tbese views. Most German psychiatrists did not leave us a detailed autobiography of their inrellectual development. One who did, Kraepelin, revealed in his memoirs that his interest in biological evolution developed already in his childhood. Unfortunately, though, he never explained how or if it influenced the development of his views on psychiatry. What we do know, however, is that Kraepelin embraced a worldview including Darwinian evo­lution and a deterministic view of mind. He criticized the traditional notion of body-soul dualism as an impediment to the scientific investiga­tion of the mind. Many other prominent German psychiatrists upheld similar views, which denied special status to the human mind or soul.
    Whether or not Darwinism entails the rejection of body-soul dualism, as Haeckel and Forel insisted, and whether or not the denial of such dual­ism entails a devaluation of human life I will leave to the philosophers. What is interesting historically is that Haeckel was by no means alone in his sentiments about evolution devaluing human life. In 1880, the zoologist Robby Kossmann (who later became a professor of medicine) explained the implications of Darwinism for the significance of human life to a popular audience in his article, „The Significance of the Life of an Individual in the Darwinian World View.” Like Haeckel, Kossmann argued that Darwinism should revolutionize one’s entire worldview. Evolution had huge impli­cations for the significance of human life, because it „tore down the bound­aries between the animal and human world.” The Darwinian worldview, according to Kossmann, subordinated the individual to the community, since all individuals necessarily perish-indeed myriads die before reproducing-but the species continues. This means that the value of an individual’s life can only be measured by its contribution to the welfare of the community. Kossmann pursued this logic relentlessly, explaining,

    We see that the Darwinian world view must look upon the present senti­mental conception of the value of the life ofthe human individual as an over­estimate completely hindering the progress of humanity. The human state also, like every animal community of individuals, must reach an even higher state of perfection, if the possibility exists in it, through the destruction of the less well-endowed individual, for the more excellently enclowed to win space for the expansion of its progeny …. The state only has an interest in preserving the more excellent life at the expense of the less excellent.

    Kossmann was thus declaring war on the traditional idea of the sanctity of human life, since he thought only some human lives were worth protect­ing. Later Kossmann wrote an entire book applying the same logic to state politics. In short, he thought politics should be subordinate to Darwinian principles, including eugenics considerations.
    Even though Dodel was far more humane in his ethical views than Haeckel or Kossmann, he, too, believed that Darwinism stripped human­ity of the special status that religion had accorded it. Dodel, like Darwin and most early Darwinists, recognized that in order to persuade his contemporaries that humans had evolved from animals, he would have to reduce the distance between the two. Humans (especially „primitive” people) had to become more animal-like, and animals more human-like. After examining the similarities of humans and animals in anatomy, embry­ology, and other fields, Dodel posed the question, „Is the human something special?” The answer, „founded on the scientific results of the last couple of decades,” he assured us, was „decisively: No!”
    Many Darwinists agreed with Haeckel and Kossmann that humans could be reduced to animals, and quite a few reduced animals to their phys­ical and chemical components. This kind of Darwinian reductionism was strongest among scientists and physicians, to be sure, but it had severe consequences for the value of human life when applied to human affairs. Eugenicists, for example, often compared the selective breeding of animals, which they saw as rational and scientific, with human reproduction, which seemed irrational and arbitrary. The clear implication was that humans would be better off if they would treat each other the way they treat ani­mals, at least in the area of reproduction. Sex was thus reduced to a mere biological function. The jurist and eugenics proponent Hans von Hentig, for example, stated, „The idea, though today it disgusts us, that one could breed humans, like we have bred other animals for the sake of certain use­ful characteristics, will become important, familiar, and fruitful.” Humans are, after all, the most useful creatures around, continued Hentig, so why not act „scientifIcally” and breed them for desired characteristics. Hentig claimed his entire book, Penal Law and Selection, was an attempt to subsume humans under nature and scientific laws.
    Hentig’s approach was rather common among eugenicists, for eugenics was all about breeding better humans. Otto Ammon, a freelance anthro­pologist and early eugenics proponent, compared humans to animals with even more ominous overtones. He explained that „in every herd there are badly developed individuals.” After noting that animal breeders kill these individuals to keep their herd strong and healthy, he wrote in a passage dripping with irony:

    With people a planned selection of this kind is not possible. We practice humanity, in that we chase the unfortunate individual out into the wide world and, pursued from place to place, let them perish gradually, or put them in institutions where they cannot cause any immediate damage. The prevention of their reproduction is an important interest of society, which may be opposed neither by legislation nor administration nor through private charity.

    The irony is even more apparent in the original German, where the words „chase” and „pursued” were words used commonly for hunting game. In this passage and elsewhere in his writings, Ammon portrayed humanitari­anism as misguided and even cruel, a position not at all uncommon among social Darwinists and eugenicists.
    Not only did the general idea of biological evolution impact the way people thought about the value of human life, but Darwin’s particular theory of evolution by natural selection-with the Malthusian population principle embedded in it-contributed to a devaluing of human life, too.

    Reply

14. 

    costin

    17 April 2008

    ma repet! NU IMI VINE SA CRED! Am citit articolul tau Emil si nu am replica. ONU mirosea urit asa cum era el, cu ale lui Drepturi ale Omului, cu O mare, cu O imens.Cu O-urile lui abuzate de „progresives” si folosite inspre secularizare fortata, de-crestinizare. Am citit parte din articolul tau aseara si nu am putut da o replica. ONU, Premiul Nobel, Uniunea Euroepana cu toate guvernele din vestul europei, presa si televiziunea din UE si SUA, elita europeana si americana, „the whole popular culture”, totul a fost deturnat de stinga politica. Pare ca Yuri Bezmenov cu toata tenta apocaliptica a predictiilor lui este doar un copil inocent, ca acea demoralizare de care el vorbea acuma 30 de ani se petrece cu o viteza care nimeni nu ar fi putut sa o prevada. Mai am nevoie de timp sa sap, sa ma conving ca ce am citit mai sus este in intregime adevarat. Aceasta ar fi cea mai importanta stire din ultimele decenii si nu o vad nicaieri…

    Reply

15. 

    spacedk

    17 April 2008

    Multumesc pentru informatiile suplimentare; din punctul asta de vedere, da, inteleg ratiunea dar tot mi se pare putin „distopic”. Nu tentativa in sine, ci mai mult sansele de reusita. Dar cine stie, oamenii au dovedit ca pot inghiti multe chestii fara intrebari. E destul cat sa ma puna pe ganduri dar raman circumspect si astept sa vad cum se mai dezvolta treaba asta, daca nu cumva e doar un exces de zel al animal lovers si nebuni ca Peter Singer.

    Reply

16. 

    costin

    17 April 2008

    emil… dar asta este o stire imensa!! de ce nu o vad pe toate canalele, blogurile, ziarele si pietele din bucuresti? de cind am citit prima oara asticolul ma gindesc ca poate este o gluma de a ta, dar ma uit la linkurile care le dai ca referinte si nu pare gluma…. ce se intampla? nu ar trebui sa fie asta stirea secolului?

    Reply

17. 

    costin

    17 April 2008

    ” One wonders whether His Holiness wishes for more power to such nonpowerful nations as those paragons of human rights that were on the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, mercifully dissolved in March 2006: Burkina Faso, Congo Brazzaville, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, Kenya, Mauritania, Nigeria, Sudan, Togo, Zimbabwe, Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Guatemala, Paraguay, and others.” este aceasta Commision of Human Rights acelasi lucru cu Consiliul Drepturilor Omului?
    (citatul de aici: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3203 )

    Reply

18. 

    adi

    17 April 2008

    Outrageous!
    Cum adica „to report”? …. De acum musulmanii o sa fie informatorii si protectorii drepturilor omului. Aceste clase de oameni iselati si prost informati vor avea de acum o unealta ce o vor folosi impotriva celor ce-si exercita acest drept pentru a ridica la suprafata adevarul despre islam… adica asupra noastra. Islamul este o minciuna si de acum incolo noi nu mai avem voie sa spunem asta.
    Cu toate astea, este naiv sa generalizam ca ONU ar fi controlati sau „jucati pe degete” de catre lumea araba. Daca au cedat la un „freedom of speech” ne-„raportat”, sunt convis ca este o cale lunga si poate infinita pana la a ceda complet celor 29 de articole. Si este de-a dreptul abusrd sa credem de aici mai este un pas pana la toleranta ONU pentru politica Iranului asupra Israelului sau a armelor nucleare. (- nu ca cineva ar fi zis asta, dar stim ca unii din noi gandesc asta).

    Reply

19. 

    Francesco

    17 April 2008

    Bine ai venit adi!

    Parerea mea este ca ONU este o organizatie disfunctionala, controlata in mare parte de tari si grupuri de tari ce reprezinta autoritarisme religioase sau nationaliste (Rusia, China, prin puterea veto) si care nu mai poate aduce nimic pozitiv pe plan mondial.
    Fiind document oficial, cedarea s-a facut! Sharia este document ONU!

    Reply

20. 

    John Galt

    17 April 2008

    Logic is an enemy and Truth is a menace.

    Ca intotdeauna..

    Reply

21. 

    Samuel

    17 April 2008

    Multumim pentru acest articol util. Ne puteti indica o sursa pentru Declaratia Drepturilor Omului in Islam in limba romana, nu engleza? Va multumesc.

    Reply

22. 

    emil b.

    17 April 2008

    Salut. Din pacate, nu cunosc de existenta unei traduceri in romana.

    Reply