Proof of the End of Religious Rights; Don't Kill, Be Kind

(I would look at this first for clarity* https://youtube.com/shorts/kUh9dq6keKg?si=uwDUN5Q_JyTWpDeR https://youtube.com/shorts/kUh9dq6keKg?si=uwDUN5Q_JyTWpDeR(it is referenced later in this document) Religious Rights vs. Human Rights: A Legal Analysis 

Introduction

The interplay between religious rights and human rights is a complex and often contentious area of legal discourse. This document explores this interplay, particularly in light of the Rome Statute and the concept of crimes against humanity. It delves into questions surrounding the limits of religious freedom, the legal implications of actions committed in the name of religion, and the potential conflict between religious claims and established legal and scientific norms.

Human Rights vs. Religious Rights

Human Rights: These are fundamental rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, race, religion, language, or other status. They are typically enshrined in international law and national constitutions.

Religious Rights: These are rights related to the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. They include the freedom to manifest one's religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice, and observance. (indoctrination- allowance of ignorance of other philosophies and proven paths that create success and happiness in individuation vs. collectivism under RED^ as PURPLE^-BEIGE^ ideation; lol)

While both human rights and religious rights are fundamental, they are not absolute. They can be limited in certain circumstances, particularly when they conflict with other rights or with public safety, order, or health.

Religious Rights and Criminal Law

The principle of religious freedom does not exempt individuals from complying with generally applicable laws. If a person commits a crime, they cannot claim immunity simply because their actions were motivated by religious beliefs.

For instance, if a person claims to be a "pop can" based on religious beliefs and commits crimes based on this belief, they would still be held accountable under the law. Their religious claims would not be a valid legal defense.

Scientific Evidence and Religious Claims

In cases where religious claims conflict with established scientific facts, the law generally relies on scientific evidence. For example, a DNA and ancestry test could be used to disprove a person's claim of being a "pop can."

While religious beliefs are respected, they cannot override scientific evidence or legal norms. A person's rights cannot be revoked simply because their religious beliefs are false or unconventional, but they can be held accountable if their actions based on those beliefs violate the law.

Crimes Against Humanity and Religious Justification

Crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute, are particularly heinous offenses that are universally condemned. They include acts such as murder, torture, sexual violence, enslavement, and persecution.

Religious beliefs cannot justify crimes against humanity. Any individual, regardless of their religious affiliation or beliefs, can be held accountable for committing such crimes.

Perjury and False Speech

Making false statements under oath is a crime known as perjury. If a person lies about their identity or other material facts in a legal proceeding, they can be charged with perjury.

Similarly, false speech that incites violence or hatred can be considered a crime in certain jurisdictions. While freedom of speech is a fundamental right, it is not absolute and can be limited when it harms others. (if a religious president were to free criminals from lifelong sentences based on criminal evidence of behavior (criminology, psychology) and keep them as proof of religious rights- it is irrefutably illegal, no matter what.)

Harassment and Evidence

Harassment is a crime that involves unwanted and repeated behavior that causes distress or fear. Even if there is no physical evidence of harassment, a victim's testimony and other circumstantial evidence can be used to prove the crime.

In cases where harassment is motivated by religious bias-(*youtube short about wrongness): https://youtube.com/shorts/kUh9dq6keKg?si=uwDUN5Q_JyTWpDeR)-double bind in wrongness by proof of perceptual evidence of another* despite what factual vocabulary or title is imprinted on that objective person), it can be considered a hate crime, which carries more severe penalties.

Conclusion

While religious freedom is a fundamental right, it does not supersede human rights or justify criminal behavior. Religious beliefs cannot be used as a shield against legal accountability. In cases where religious claims conflict with established legal and scientific norms, the law prioritizes evidence-based reasoning and the protection of human rights.