--- On Sun, 6/21/09, Chris Humphry <humphry.ch...@yahoo.com> wrote: > My only 'issue' is human rights and to me politics > plays no roll in that.
Well, unfortunately that just isn't the case. Many people have different (political) opinions on just what exactly human rights means. It is not so simple as you would think (I wish it were). For example, this declaration (which is used by the UN) is full of political (and even contradictory) ideas, and "rights". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights Again, I am not trying to start a debate about what human rights should be (this is the wrong place for that), but just to point out that unfortunately it is pretty hard to make the "non-political" claim you probably wish were true. To be more illustrative of my "political point", the following "rights" would be considered by most to be socialist ideas: * Article 22 * Article 23 - 1 * Article 25 - 1,2 * Article 26 - 1 * Article 29 - 1 The following are pro democracy: * Article 21 - 3 Articles which are pro-property rights (and sound very contradictory to the socialist articles above): * Article 17 - 2 Pro intellectual property "rights": * Article 27 - 2 And this is just to me the obvious political ones, but someone biased differently than me could probably point out very different "political" articles than the ones I did. > Human rights are not the concern of any one group > or Nation, it should be the concern of every Homo > sapien. Agreed, and I wish we could all agree, but I certainly don't agree with several of the articles mentioned above (and I am often disgusted when asked to support some of them when starting a new job). :( Cheers, -Martin