Because religions want to control peoples lives and if they are given full human rights they might do things their religion says is wrong.
I didn't know anyone in their right mind would disagree with it.
it is asked by god in the bible as it promotes community cohesion and providing and following the laws of human rights would support this therefore christians give alot of importance towards the issue of human rights. faiza x
Abolitionists, human rights activists, and those who believe in equality and freedom for all individuals would be most likely to disagree with Calhoun's attempt to justify slavery.
its playing god
Some people may believe that God is a manifestation for man's need to hope for a better place after we're done here. Many Christians would disagree and believe God is a real, living being.
Contributions have been made in the field of human rights by the UN, an organisation which embodies the ideals of internationalism.An example of thiss would be the universal declaration of human rights.
In the broadest sense, it is a human rights violation not to treat a human being like a human being. Racism is the intentional relegation of an ethnic community to a sub-human state, and thus is not, eo ipso, a "violation" of human rights, but it *is* indicative of an attitude which would *want* to violate human rights.
The same as the original.
Christians may disagree with in vitro fertilization (IVF) for several reasons, primarily rooted in theological beliefs about the sanctity of life and the natural process of procreation. Many believe that life begins at conception, and IVF often involves the creation of multiple embryos, leading to potential discarding or freezing of embryos that are not used. Additionally, some Christians view IVF as interfering with God's plan for conception, seeing it as a human attempt to control or manipulate life. This perspective emphasizes the importance of natural conception and the belief that children should be conceived within the context of marriage and divine intention.
A:Most Christians believe that the entire Bible is true, including Mark's Gospel. Since Mark is now known to have been the earliest New Testament gospel and that the other gospels were substantially based on Mark, either directly (Matthew and Luke) or indirectly (John), to disagree with Mark's Gospel on important issues would probably be to disagree with the gospels as a whole, which few Christians would do. Of course, there are minor errors in Mark that the subsequent evangelists recognised and corrected, but these are not substantive.
I would agree with John Locke's belief in the importance of individual rights and the idea that government's primary role is to protect those rights. His concept of the social contract emphasizes that legitimate government derives its authority from the consent of the governed, which is foundational to modern democratic principles. However, I might disagree with his somewhat limited view of property rights, as it can lead to inequalities that undermine social justice.
I would disagree with that last statement.