Human rights: Food for a believers’ and non-believers’ thought ‘HR and religions’ unresolved issues’
[TLDR (too long didn’t read): If you are reading this, chances are you care about HR. This Reader is about what to question as unwavering HR critics when it comes to religion. For a quick overview, just read the bolded text]. Traducir/traduire los/les Readers; usar/utiliser deepl.com
—Extreme politics and religious fanaticism make a fatal combination. The secularity of the state (led by HR principles) is an indispensable requirement of democracy. (Pedro Lopez L.)
To start-with, some (not so) metaphysical tough faith-challenging considerations
1. Does any concept of God have any validity? Is God in fact the supreme being that at least some passages in the Bible (both testaments) tell us is the case? Or did we ourselves invent the idea of the omnipotent, omniscient, irreproachably moral being whose Commandments we claim to be following just to support our own moral preconceptions? Did we begin with our own ideas of right and wrong, and entitlements and prohibitions to, then, arrive at the idea of God by reverse engineering? Like the concept of human rights (HR), should the idea of God be seen as a hypothesis that may not itself be literally true, but as a necessary, temporary postulate that leads us on to a more solid theory –a metaphorical stepping stone; or a scaffold that provides temporary support while work is in progress, but can then be dismantled? Are we really made in God’s image, or is God made in ‘Man’s’ image?
2. Many a scholar has been pointing out for several centuries, and especially since the early 19th century, that the Bible is full of what seem like contradictions. Therefore, which of its many edicts and parables should take priority? And given that the words of the old and new Testament were recorded between about 3500 and 2000 years ago respectively (and were written in different times by many different hands in languages that are no longer current, and have been re-translated and re-edited several times and copied many times before they got to us), they can be and are interpreted in many different ways.
3. In practice, all the formal religions –including the Christian Protestant denominations that aspire to stick as closely as possible to the Biblical text (or whichever translation thereof they favor)– rely on various forms of elder or priest or rabbi, imam or theologian to provide the required interpretation. I am not here banging an atheist drum, Dawkins-style (Richard Dawkins, British evolutionary biologist, born 1941). Far from it.
4. Religion, in general, I take to be of supreme importance, and indeed vital. At the very least all bona–fide religions bring huge and fundamental metaphysical ideas to bear upon everyday life. All religions too, including Buddhism which is generally taken to be non-theistic, acknowledge the idea of transcendence, i.e., the notion that there is, or may be, more going on in the universe than can ever be adequately explained by science. After all, humility is seen in all the great religions to be an essential virtue. In modern, more secular circles is seems more or less to be taken for granted that we human beings have earned our privileged position in the global ecosystem by virtue of our superior intelligence (which may or may not be God-given) and (especially in the Protestant tradition) by hard work; and it is taken to be self-evident that the harder we work the more we deserve. And, of course, it is taken to be self-evident that the reward for our efforts should take material form: money, goods, land, and the influence that goes with them.
5. The good things of life are not a right, but are a privilege, a gift for which we owe undying gratitude. Theologians have commonly agreed that God gave human beings free will, because He intended Man to be His finest and ultimate creation –made in His image. Freedom does not mean carte blanche though. It implies the freedom to make moral (HR?) choices –with the understanding that some moral choices are better than other. (all from Colin Tudge)
To continue-with, then, some more down-to-earth, highly HR-relevant considerations.
A gradual substitution of the Christian ethics by the bourgeois ethics?
6. Religion affirms that God created Man. Anthropology, as a specific social science dedicated to the study of evolution, affirms that Man created the gods as a first attempt to explain the phenomena that affected him, and then became a prisoner of his own first idealistic creation. (José Miguel Neira) [note the gender bias…]. So, if men have invented God, is it because the great majority of them need him mentally and sentimentally? Is this one of the most common characteristics of human weakness? Maybe. If so, that majority works ceaselessly to give meaning to this invention and to give it prestige so as not to be ashamed of it.* (Henry de Monterlant, 1895 – 1972, ‘Les Garcons’)
*: Facetiously, “I never thought that religions’ mission is to save humanity from a threatening and imminent apocalypse. I always thought all people believe apocalypse is inevitable, but what is important is the afterlife. This is where the business is, otherwise religious corporations would not have lasted very long. Religious empires were built (and continue to be financially supported) to sell an eternal Paradise. A very clever insurance business. If you insure your home against fire, if the house burns down, the insurance company has to pay up. I never heard of a dead person claiming their money back because they did not find Paradise”. (Alberto Portugheis)
It is incredible how many wars and genocides have been/are committed in the name of one religion or another (P. Lopez L.)
–The moment a person (or government, religion or organization) is convinced that God is commanding or sanctioning a cause or project, anything goes. The world history of religion-driven hatred, murder and oppression is staggering. (Eugene H. Petterson, 1932-2018, Presbyterian pastor, theologian and poet)
7. One of the reasons given for wars and genocides, if not as the main one but accompanying others, has been religions. More often than not, the contenders claim to rely on the idea that God is on their side. The rulers of the United States, the world’s greatest contemporary promoter of wars, coups d’états, assassinations of political leaders and destabilization of governments that do not dance to their tune, frequently claim, through the mouths of their presidents and ministers, to be inspired by God. (This is how George Bush presented himself to the world to prepare for the Iraq war)**.
**: A few months ago, President Biden said that he will only abandon the electoral race if God asked him to do so. Divine inspiration is clear for these enlightened people –to such an extent that the country is governed by the motto ‘In God We Trust’ printed on dollar bills. The motto is questioned by secular organizations for violating the principle of separation of Church and State. We thus see the fusion between religion and geopolitics in which a divine power supports or punishes warlike or terrorist actions. (One side believes itself to be ‘the chosen people’ and carries out what it understands –and/or sells– as a struggle against Evil because negotiation is not possible and, therefore, it must be destroyed without contemplation). (P. Lopez L.)
The oppression of religious minorities often has gone/goes hand in hand with discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity –clearly a HR violation (Marie Juul Petersen, Dmytro Vovk)
8. Religion, religious morality, or religiously inspired traditional values cannot legitimately be used as grounds for nonviolent discrimination of LGBTQI+ persons. However, around the world, religion (or its conservative interpretations), is frequently invoked to restrict the rights of LGBTQI+ persons. The state’s utilization of religion for these purposes cannot in any way be justified.
9. Yes, religion is often misused as an excuse for violence against people because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Examples includes the use of so-called ‘conversion therapy’, hate crimes and incitement to violence –not to mention parliament-sanctioned related discriminatory LGBTQI+ persons’ laws (think Africa). However, around the world, religion, or its conservative interpretations, are frequently invoked to restrict the rights of LGBTQI+ persons. Furthermore, in different parts of the world, LGBTQI+ persons of faith experience restrictions on their right to worship, teach, or disseminate religious materials, because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.***
***: Questions: Can a religious preacher claim the right to express even strongly homophobic views as part of their religious freedom? Should religious institutions be allowed to fire an employee on the grounds that their sexual orientation or gender identity is incompatible with the organisation’s religious ethos? Can civil registrars be exempted from officiating same-sex marriage on religious grounds? No, no, and no; just invoke human rights. (M. J. Petersen, D. Vovk) Food for thought a-plenty.
Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City
Your comments are welcome at schuftan@gmail.com