Are laws more important than individual rights?

[Gandelf]

Here is another topical discussion for you to debate.

The question I'd like you to discuss is, "Are the laws created by governments for the good of the people of a particular nation and do individuals have the right to choose a particular way of life, even if it goes against the laws of their countries?"

Here is a quote from today's "Daily Mail":

Behead convert, says 'moderate'
SENIOR Muslim clerics have said an Afghan man facing trial for converting from Islam to Christianity should be executed.
One, Abdul Raoulf - regarded as a moderate after being jailed for criticising the hardline Taliban regime when it was in power - said of Abdul Rahman: 'He is not mad. The government are playing games. The people will not be fooled. This is humiliating for Islam. Cut off his head.'
Rahman, a 41-year-old former medical aid worker, faces the death penalty under Afghanistan's strict Islamic laws for becoming a Christian.
Diplomats say the Afghan government is searching for a way to drop the case.
Rahman is suspected of being mentally ill and is to undergo psychological examinations to see whether he is fit to stand trial.

(Daily Mail, 24th March 2006)

Please keep the thread free from flame and respect the fact that some readers may have religious beliefs of their own. Note also that in creating this thread I am not criticising any particular religion. I am merely quoting one example to help stimulate the discussion.

[Satyn]

When i saw that on the news yesterday (or was it day before? cant remember) it shocked me.
They showed a man that said they shouldnt even put him on trial but just chop his head off without thinking.

It only shows that ppl from certain religions are brainwashed.

[Lieva]

90% of all religions have this sort of commandment in them.
Ive never been 100% sure on them.
Are you a better follower of your religion if you stick to them although you end up breaking the other commandments (i.e dont kill).
OR are you a better person by sticking to what is morally right by not killing although it goes against what you believe.

[stupeh]

When i saw that on the news yesterday (or was it day before? cant remember) it shocked me.
They showed a man that said they shouldnt even put him on trial but just chop his head off without thinking.

It only shows that ppl from certain religions are brainwashed.

Perhaps it is you who is brainwashed for thinking they shouldn't just be beheaded?

[Satyn]

Perhaps it is you who is brainwashed for thinking they shouldn't just be beheaded?

yeah i'm gona start my own cult!

cmon be serious. Why should a person have to die cos he wants to change religion?

[Xest]

An innocent and good person's rights should be above everything, but with those rights comes responsibilities. The problems surrounding defence of human rights often comes from the difficult of determining whether someone is innocent or not.

In a perfect world I quite like the idea of the police and security services being able to monitor people without a warrant but to do so they must forced to be 100% sure that the target is a severe threat to others safety. The problem is that it'd be a dead certain that they'd accidently get people who were innocent, which is why things like this can't realistically be allowed to happen.

Likewise, if a terrorist commits an attrocity involving the killing of lots of innocent people, he doesn't deserve any rights whatsoever. Protecting various rights is extremely important but it does have to have limits and exceptions in the cases where people don't respect other's rights.

In terms of whether someone has the right to lead their life in one direction if it's against the laws of their country again it's entirely circumstancial. In your example his choice wasn't harming anyone else, put this in contrast to say, a paedophile, that's just not acceptable as it effects the lives of others.

[Gandelf]

The other thing that has crossed my mind is that in most Western countries, for example in the UK, there are no laws to prevent a person from choosing to follow a particular religion, or even converting from one religion to another. This is in stark contrast to a number of other countries that outlaw certain religious practices or (as in the case above) converting from the "religion of the land" to another religion.

With the way things are (and are possibly heading), is there any reason for "free" Westerners to fear that maybe one day, those who have more radical and repressive religious (or even non-religious) views, might become powerful enough to change the law of the land and so bring in similar regimes in Western countries?

[Lieva]

no

whilst there IS indeed little freedom of expression in those other countrys - all the other religons/cultures who have come to the west seem to embrace the wests freedom and varity of cultures.
The only way this would change is by a MAJOR civil war but i seriously doubt that would happen at least in our lifetime

[Gandelf]

no

whilst there IS indeed little freedom of expression in those other countrys - all the other religons/cultures who have come to the west seem to embrace the wests freedom and varity of cultures.
The only way this would change is by a MAJOR civil war but i seriously doubt that would happen at least in our lifetime

So, taking it one step further... Does the "West" have any justification for protecting its own way of life, even if it may lead to military action in going to war with repressive regimes?

[Xest]

So, taking it one step further... Does the "West" have any justification for protecting its own way of life, even if it may lead to military action in going to war with repressive regimes?

We don't go to war to protect our way of life. We do it for profit.

http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

It's a long read, but enjoy, you might learn something.