Rights and Righteousness
I took part in , organised by the Human Rights Commission and the Irish School of Ecumenics, which explored the relationship between . I understand that the conference proceedings will be published eventually, which is good news because this is an extremely important topic, particularly for the "new" Northern Ireland. The media often reports a presumed "clash" between faith and human rights, and there are many local examples of that apparent collision of worldviews which come to mind. But is a conflict inevitable? Is it possible for the religious and ethical commitments of religious groups to enjoy as much respect as the claims and values of other groups within a pluralist society? And can we find a way to protect religious freedom whilst at the same time protecting the rights of others? Rebecca Dudley has written an excellent background paper, which examines some of the issues at play in the debate about rights and righteousness. It is available .
Comments
thought provoking paper...
When faith and one interpretation of human rights clash this paper suggests "liberalism" as a solution, but how fair is that to both sides?
The obvious case Will would be referring to here would be the SORs.
This paper suggests human rights should be used to challenge "stereotypes" and raise awareness of "diversity" which could be understood as refs to the SORs etc.
But who should decide that human rights should champion these areas ahead of freedom of conscience and religious expression?
Does this bring us back to "liberalism" as the preferred instrument of arbitration between faith and this particular interpretation of human rights?
Regarding global peace and human rights, Israel is pretty much public enemy no is and is implicated in 911 and therefore Iraq etc etc.
Would Israel's enemies really be interested in finding common ground with it? I would wish so but am not optimistic.
Lastly, in a faith/legal conference on human rights abuses should the reality of the impact of sin in the world and the unique claims of Christ to deal with the problem at least be considered?
Perhaps this was mentioned outside this address.
The different cultural/religious perspectives in human rights were interesting, it would have been interesting so see a Christian view also mentioned.
Again, perhaps this was examined later.
The full proceedings will be of interest to read.
sincerely
PB
A clash is inevitable in current practice for a number of reasons. Mainly because the human rights professionals almost all come from a lefty anti-religion background. While they will bend over backwords to accommodate the needs of the disabled and those with different sexual orientations, they regard religion as just a label and show no understanding of how to fit it into a human rights framework, despite a long tradition of respect for religious freedoms in human rights development. Niall Crowley, current head of the Equality Authority in the Republic, publicly attacked the Catholic Church for its teaching on homosexuality. Now each of those is a protected ground - religion and orientation. Yet he regards one as to be protected, defended, promoted, indeed almost imposed, and the other to be castigated and attacked.
And I recall talking to Bryce Dixon who sees human rights as "policy choices we make in a democracy". I pointed out to him that that covers everything the Nazis did since they were democratically elected.
However, if we take the words John Bruton used addressing the Council of Europe - "these rights [human rights] exist prior to the States which we represent". In doing so he was, perhaps unwittingly, quoting direct from Pope John Paul II. With a proper understanding of human rights as based on the natural law, and with religious freedom and respect for life at the core, then there should be no conflict since human rights are based on the inherent dignity of the individual created by God. Problem is that a lot of the rubbish we have now aren't human rights at all.
PC
I tend to agree that human rights are neutral and are only as fair as the people framing or interpreting them.
My one reservation is illustrated in the confucian interpretation in Dudley's document.
They emphasise responsibility to your neighbour first and foremost.
The way we frame the rights questionable people owe NO responsibility to anyone when they claim them and this brings needless scorn on an area that requires respect and attention.
PB
Speaking about righteousness, here's a piece from Yahoo today. Notice the remarkable similarities of the Ten Commandments of the Mafia and those of other religions. All that remained was to have them carved on stone tablets and brought down from Mount Etna by Marlon Brando, their Patron Saint;
鈥淢afia 'commandments' found
ROME - Thou shalt be faithful to the Mafia.
Italian police said Thursday they have found a list of 10 commandments for mobsters in a house near Palermo, where a top Mafia boss was arrested this week.
Salvatore Lo Piccolo, who had been on the run since 1993, was vying to become the next "boss of bosses" of the Sicilian Mafia, according to Italian investigators. He was apprehended Monday by police raiding a house in the countryside outside Palermo, the Sicilian capital.
The list was found among his coded notes about the administration of Cosa Nostra that were delivered by Lo Piccolo's aides.
Police in Palermo said that the list opened with a preamble that said: "I swear to be faithful to Cosa Nostra. Should I betray, my flesh will burn." Under the category "Rights and Duty" were the 10 entries, meant to be a sort of users' manual for the good mobster.
The list was typewritten in uppercase letters, police said.
Italian newspaper La Repubblica published a photo of what it said was the list, under the headline: "The Godfather's Ten Commandments."
The list bars mobsters from hanging out in bars, from befriending police and being late for appointments. It also bars them from "taking possession of money that belong to others or other families."
How to treat women also features in the decalogue.
"You shall not look at wives of our friends," says one entry. "You shall respect your wife," says another. However, the Mafia comes first, as the fifth "commandment" orders a mobster to "be available for Cosa Nostra at any moment, even if your wife is about to give birth."
The last part of the list sets out application rules, saying that those who have a very bad behavior and no moral values cannot join.
Investigators believe that the 65-year-old Lo Piccolo could have eventually emerged from a power struggle as the Mafia's new top boss following the capture of Bernardo Provenzano, the reputed No. 1 of the Cosa Nostra crime syndicate. Provenzano was arrested on a farm near Corleone, Sicily, in April 2006, after more than 40 years on the run.鈥