--;...

- --- -- _, _, .

T__;.,-ff ..'-5 _; _-_|

.-.;-:-.:.=-':=;'-__-=- .|=j-:'.-: .--.,:-,-_:-.=.'. ._=;. .-1- . 7 . ...

--

_ -

' - '

- _
.
-'-;1.
- '- ' - _ .
....

_ . .-

'

' -

- -

._..

|-

- - .
. -_- _

.
.

-.

'

'
_ ,

._ _

~
_

. ,__

..

.,

'

.
_

,. -. __ .

..

..,-

r- 3 --L 1,-,1 '-,e.-=-'----;.=;--'r,=#=s:r:'.-_ .-; '-.-'-:--.--*'."-T-:-a=" -'=

' -1: =-.,'!.|_- ,',__ |_'_::q,,__r_-_:,-_._|;::':I|.r_:
.-1.-'
=5=11.-=*"s*".-'4?'l="*'15-T.--5553-5-it,-L.-=;,i:%-"
...L..t
i;_-_*I1I-Z_.:2:-I-3%___-|:||,;f,|.,_-;E:||;L_i_,.h:_E;z

- __ __ ._:;___ ,-5.,

Chapter 5
Q

eg s
g,
E5;

i ie

eerie

gees,

seen

see"

Nazila Ghanea
Lecturer in Human Rights and international Low and MA Convener, University of London,
Institute of Commonwealth Studies.

In recent years the lexicon of human rights has gained Widespread currency
in international affairs. International human rights standards have been put

forward as: the central criteria of political legitimacy ,3 a criterion with

which domestic and foreign policies should be reconciled, a .standard for civilisation an ethical basis for governance, a means of ernpowerment against
1. An earlier version of this chapter has been published as a book chapter by N. GhaneaHercock, Faith in Human Rights, Human Rights in Faith in Thierstien andY.R.
Kalnalipoul" (eds.), Reiigiori, Low and Freedornm-1 Global Perspective [Westport: Praeger

Publishing, 2 ooo).
2. In this chapter the terrn hunian rights is being used in its philosophical sense, rather than
with its specic legal connotations, unless stated otherwise.
3. G Luf Human Ri hts in Christian and Isla1nicTh-ought A Report on the Tubingen Hunian
Rights Projecf in%s. Swidle1' (ed)'.., Reiigioixs Libs:-ty and Human Rights, in Nations and
Religions p. 23 5 (Philadelphia: Ecunienical Press and NewYorl<;: I-Iippocrene Books, 1986).
4* The title ofjaclt Donnellfs article, 1Iurnan rights, a new standard of civilization?,
International AjrairsVo1. 74., No. 1 , pp. I-23 (january 1 998).

."l
|

IF
'.|'
_.~

I08

Nozilo Ghanea

oppression by States, and, the strongest ethical language that exists? With
the parallel increase in the assertion of religion onto the international agenda,
the question emerges of how religion and human rights react to one another.
Will both crusading normative projects collaborate in the provision of a
common grounding For a new mindset, or degenerate in a cold war of words
over their notional normative space in the international arena?

;
_
"_
_
_
E.

Effective Universalism and Human Rights

l
|

Since the end of the cold war and the 1993 Vieiinaworld Conference on
Human Rights, the call For a deepened commitment to ensuring that human
rights standards are ellectively implemented worldwide is becoming increasingly vocal. Such a universal respect calls for more than the enhancement of
international and national human rights monitoring machinery, critical though
that may be. Even with the best will in the world and consistent support
across the board, it is impossible for a centralised international human rights
machinery to oversee all international, national and local situations--especially when, as van Boven notes, this machinery contains within it all the limi~

|
i
F

tations of a preponderantly intengovernrnental organisation? Even if it were

possible For all such abuses to be policed, its cost and bureaucracy would

be phenomenal. Van Boven therefore concludes that the UN needs to, enrol

I-

also other organs of society, national and international, in order to build up

a broad human rights movement with the active and vigilant participation of

people at all levels, notably the grass roots level.-9 Should such a grass roots
commitment to human rights indeed be universal, it could itself act as guardian to the guarantee of such standards.
However, what is assumed in such calls For the universalisation ol human

rights is that the human rights discourse will not face any serious challenges
to becoming adopted by the masses. One serious hindrance, however, is the

, questionable relationship between religion and human rights. Without trying

g. R. Kiinnemann, A Coherent Approach to Human Rights, Human Rights Quartsri,v.A
Comparative and Incarnation-aljournal gftlie Social Sciences, Hunianities, and lawVol. :7, No. 2,

1111- 339-ass (Mar roar).

C.E. Curran, Religious Freedom and Human Rights in the World and the Church, A
Christian Perspective in Swidle1'su,o1'a note 3 p. 1 58.
7. See, For example: Haynes, Raligioii in Global Politics (London: Longinan, 1998}.
8. T.C. van Boven, United Nations and Human Rights, A Critical Appraisal in A. Cassese
(ed.}, UNl.aivrFui1rlainental Ri,gl1ts,liro Topics in International Lair p. I3o (-Alpheli aan den

Rijn,The Netherlands: Sijtliollic Noordhoil, 1979).

9.

_____,'__"

"IT=.-I-Ll 1"-.
=--'
a ---'--.-.
- =-= .=-:- | .
| -' .,,r,._.__,___ - _ _

_ __,.* _:

'
-1

---.
.. :.-1..-r-L-I.

lhitl. 1). I32.

. .
.
-. ._
. - .-1-.
-';-:-T
'___ 1'.t-=.
._
_
_...||__-P-- cw

,, ..|-...-.1...-Q-mm-n

_. _

H,
_ .51-_ I-_.

-. -- -. -. .-- ~ I-' a ';'| -..

- -.>.
. .' :-- '; -.- .-1.1. :s-5.-T-~----.-_===L-.
4.--1.
.- _"".'|Lf-'L"_.r
--.=-----..,*- -- ' '_'-_....-___--___-'.'----_'__'.._w.'--.
. '- =--- .--rs--.-.-=
'
.-_ . --;_ --. .-_ .-.-f
-. -_ _ - .._ |,3;-;-|-q'.;..-,_.|-.J,...-__|___.--.
._
_
_

,|-,,,.___,_.,.._r= --_.._;_,,. -.

-.. _;_.

._..

.- _

. .-

|.r

..

--

.-

-..

'-..'-'1-*1-1~
I "s '-'=-' -'- ' -' .-'-2'-'---1----1.+.-s---'I"
. - -=_.-.--=--.=;- ..==.--.
--.-.-.-'-'.-7-5;"'-gt'.=-2$--13'-F1-L'!-=.-'fij'r*1-97*-1-5}""_%ii?-?,'i'-75
- . _ --_ - _.1.-_'--.1
;',__--...-.'.._-,.-;--_.;
;-,_.
. ;5-\.-;~.-.|-.==: --:1-- . .
_.--...
|_ _
.
.
.
.

In

__

.-_,_

Faith in Human Rights

I09
'5'"

to dichotomously position these two against one another, it is clear that this
is an area needing further exploration. One writer has argued that, Religion
must be seen as a vital dimension of any legal regime of human rights . . .
Religions will not be easy allies to en-gage, but the struggle for human rights
cannot be won without them. Kiing even argues that, there will be no peace
among the peoples of this world without peace among the world religions .
Vs/'l1y this claim for the indispensability of religion to human rights, when some
have actually highlighted religion as a complicating factor in the human rights
debate?
If religion is so complicating, so dillicult, why deal with it? Why not he content with
casual recourse or wilful reversion to non- or anti-religious arguments derived from
Enlightenment era understandings of secular reasoning? If religion brings as much heat
as light,. why not extinguish it, or at least bracket it in polite discourse?"

Even Kiing has to agree that The most fanatical, the cruelest political struggles are those that have been colored, inspired, and legitimized by religion .'3
Why, then, engage with religion whose precepts hold meaning only for those
who share its perspectives and which many feel cannot participate fully in
debates relating to other value structures?
The value of the engagement oi religion becomes evident when the need
for nurturing a culture of human rights i is appreciated.The coming into
existence of such a culture needs the creation of a new mindset. As human
vision can be signicantly informed through visions of faith, religion plays
a signicant role in deepening the vision oi universal human rights. Hurnan
action is often profoundly motivated through deeply held belief. As, without

committed individuals and groups, human rights will become a dead letter ,"
such a rooting of human rights in religions will assist in the widening of both
the enforcement and ellectiveness of human rights.

to.

I
Witte_[r, Law, Religion, and Human Rights, Columbia Human Rights Lavv Revieaol.
18,

No. 1,p.2(Pall1996}.
I1, lrl. Kiing, Christianity and theliiorlcl Religions, Paths ty"Dialo,que with lslam, Hino"uistn,.and
Bucldliisin p. 4.4.3 (Glasgow: Collins, 1985).

1 2. M.E. Marty, Religious Dimensions of Human Rights in ]. Witte ]r and

van der Vyver

(eCls.), Religious Human lliglits in Global Perspective, Religious llerspectives p. 9 (The Hague:

Martinus NijhoElPuhlishe1's, 1996}.

13. Kiing, supra note 1 I p. 4.42.
I4. This has been proposed in many UN circles, for example by the LIN Special Rapporteur
on Religious Intolerance. l~le suggests that such a hum an rights culture should be learned
and absorbed progressively through initiatives and measures over the long term, particularly through education. See: Doc. E1 CN.a,/' 1996-/-95, Commission on I-luman Rights,
gend session, I 5" December I 99 5, report of Mr Abclelfattah Amer, p. 1 g.
I5 I(iinnernann supra note 5' p. 34o.

--._..,"-

-\WT
-.e_,m._,.

J i0

Nozilo Ghoneo

Complexity, Diversity and Human Rights

In our increasingly globalised world, varying cultures races and beliefs h
,
ave
had to adjust to living in much closer proximity. One aspect of dais contrac~
tion in vvorld affairs has be en th e nee d For the emergence of a nevv ethic that
will regulate relations betvveen the multiplicity of groups. International human
rights lavv has been codied in p arallel vv'th
1 th ese iorces, as a response to the
social need For regulation in our increasingly complex societies. janis has delegate d th is task of regulation to international lavv in claimin that the
t
g
,
grea est
task, Weighing on modern international lavvyers is to craft a universal and le al
process capable of ordering relations among diverse people with ditferin reli~
5
gions, histories, cultures, lavvs and languages.This legal process cannotgbe
imposed on a void. It needs pillars to uphold it, genuine links that associate it

with particular groups and a congruous platform which connects it to specic

peop l es. Universality does not imply. blandness , shallovvness or rootle ssness. In
fact, it cannot exist vvithin a vacuum of pretence of universalit As An-Nai
y.

has stated,
if human rights are to be truly universal

in

they must be based on the broadest and

deepest possible consensus among all cultural traditions.This can be done through an
intelligent and purposeful employment of the processes of internal discourse and crosscultural dialogue. '7'

This ambitious role tor the human rights discourse spills over into the need for

a multicultural, multiethnic and multilaith approach that is able to capture the

imagination of the public. At the moment, in Mitras vvords,
The question of human rights is asked and pursued in the "Western context. What the
rights of human beings as humans are is often described in terms ofWestern cate
'
gories.
This runs the d anger o i 1'd eological
'
'
'
'
I"1CrCDlDI"11E1llSlI1 ...There is a need to investigate
the meaning of human rights, of grovvth and progress, not simply from the perspective
of the dominant cultures-but From the perspective of others as vvell. E

16. M.WI janis, preface to M.W janis (ed.), The Inuence ofeiininn on rim rlryglp mam; F
t I). n
-- ' F
Er
international Lew p. ix (Dortlrecht: Martinus Nijhoit, 199
17. A.A.An~Naim,Tle
'
h
1 rig t to reparation for human rights violations and Islamic culture{s)'
in T. van B-oven, C. Flinterman, F. Griinfeld and I.Westendorp (eds), Seminar on the
Right to Restitution, Compensation nnrl Rehobilitotionjor Victims grrosslolotion ofhlumon
Riglits one Fundoinentol Freedoms, ilfoosti"icht, i I -15 iliorth i992 p. I 77 (Llt1*ecl1t:Studie-e11

Ini'ormatiecentrum Mensenrechten, and Maastricht: University oi'Limhurg Human Rights

Project Group, 1992).
I8. K. Mitre, Exploring the Possibilitv of H l M l
I
int u- us im Dialogue in Svvidler supra note 3 p.
I I6.

_
.n:-'-r:-.-

-.I------...
...

...

_ _

_ _.

-.

____ - -,;._'.;_ _': -=_

.':::__d.;,:,l_-:_;;-__,-.;_'r':.:.j=._-f,._;
.

-.=---=.
'-."..'-. 1if;;;E1;;__'::{i_:'E%f_L::::E_;.-7E:-EI5.-I-3';1\-,5;-:_:=;.5:":.'-!|,!;=-:1}
.: .. -- L. ; ' .'
- '=i.'--7-;--'-'-="_-es}.-'1'-:==l&-"i=5-I-'*
:.;: '|
:._-';"'__';|II

_I.:.I_ ;.E_:.:._ l,-_._,_:_._- -__= _- F,

1.1
I, .

I _

.5

1--' :- ,. -- .-.. ';-,

.1-=-':..:'_
.-.
-- ~ |'- '
,. L
'"I ,.
,. "- g'--'---.- --P r,.. =.
_-- .
*-H -lI-- '-J=-it? I
----7'.-

..
._

_-.__
I,

-;_ __
_ _

._

- - -

.=_ .. . - - - . . '*
_
-' - _.
'_ ' :
' -_ _
.' _ =- ' ' -," '
.
-= -= .--. . - - '- .
.
.. -

-.
-

-- . .

_
. -

.
_

. .

_
-

. .

.-

.
-.

..

|_

.
. . . ... - . .- . .

_ __

_,

_|_

__ __ __:
__.,

_ _
_ ml
_- __I_
d
:__::...:
.;_.::..__:,%_.._..;=__1_

1?"-' .- ..' - 1- J __-_-""-. - .__..;._.-,-_.---.'-=1,-.

H-'54,T
,;_f'"
,- .; . .- -_ --_- . 1_~, .._..-----._;-__:
' I ll
' -.
. _. -'--. . '- :=" '-' -'5: ,='=' "-r-i"_.'.2'-.-..__F'-.171"-1:;-|'='l';_|*.
,_
-. "'
-.'r4.; ":"-T 1-'..-.--. . . -'-.',- :, -~ -."rH:-"_"-.-- -'-. -L :1
F 3"-I, I. ' . " .
-""5;i.5"":i'l-"-:i"l"_'="=
F
T q_,. UH
.. .. ._
._
__, -,,__,_____.;,,_,

Faith in Human Rights

III

Longstanding human rights activists shy avvay from such projects vvith the
understandable fear of unsettling hard-vvon converts to the cause of human
rights. They are overly suspicious about the prospect of feeding into the hands
of callous dictators vvho rely on feeble excuses of cultural relativism in order
to defend their extreme policies and practices. Such a project, hovvever, has
nothing to do with those vvho vvant to compromise the basic tenets of humanity and core and irreducible values of human rights. Its only concern is the
medium through which such values are disseminated, the expansion of the language through which they are novv being proposed, and the genuine engagement of other cultures, peoples and religions. Such engagement aims to vviden
human rights and make its language, medium and standards accessible to farflung cultures; to village dvvellers vvho may not vv-ant to lcnovv anything of the
achievements of vvestern philosophical debates but vvho may, nevertheless,
have an intuitive respect for the dignity of human life.
Though scepticism may exist about such high levels of optimism regarding
the accessibility of human rights, increasing support has meant that its norms
are emerging as a key means for upholding the dignity of all human beings.
Human rights rest on an account of a life of dignity to which human beings
are by nature suited. "9 As religions are also involved in the provision of universal ethical norms for the dignity of the individual and betterment of society,
it is not surprising that religious leaders and believers have, at times, considered human rights as a threat to the sanctity and uniqueness of their voice in

social relations.With both human rights and religion regulating some of the
same turf in so far as normative loyalties are concerned, competition has
sometimes dominated over collaboration.
In this clash of normative loyalties, proponents of human rights put it
forvvard as a unique language of morality, to he contrasted sharply vvith the
self-referential subj ectivities of specific belief systems.They emphasise that
human rights is a non-ideological moral currency and is therefore singularly
positioned for the moral dialogues necessitated in our times. Within such
readings of human rights one detects a vvidespread rejection of religion and
the overt positioning of human rights vvitliin an ideology of secularism. The
19. Donnelly, international Human Rights, and ed., p. 21 (Boulder: Weststiew Press, 195-8).
to. Bryan Wilson distinguishes betvveen the terms secularisation and secularism by dening
the former as that process by vvhich religious thinking, practice and institutions lose social
significance, and become marginal to the operation of the social system, and the latter
as an ideology . it denotes a negative evaluative attitude tovvards religion, and might
even be appropriately seen as a particular religious position, in the sense that secularism adopts certain premises a priori and canvasses a normative (albeit negative) position
about supernaturalism. B. Wilson, Secularisation: Religion in the Modern World in S.
Sutlierland and P. Clarke (e-::ls.), The Worl(ls Religioi1s,Tlie Study ofeligion, Traditional and New

Reiigiaii, 2nd ed., p. 196 (London: Routledge, I991).

- ---- -_, . , . _ ,.

-. ~. _

i
F

|.
I,l
I
r

I I2

Nozilo Ghoneo

assumptions underlying this perspective seem to be that the onl vva h

uman
rights norms and standards can ever hope to be universalised islthrtlugh
such
secularism. Some have argued that the modern human rights movement itself
was brought into existence as, an attempt to nd a world faith to fill a spiritual void, thus denying the necessary manoeuvrability for the continuing
involvement of religious values in its development (based, as it was, on secularisms negative evaluation of the religious). Another signicant reason for
this rejection of religion has been due to the problematic consequences of religious claims of exclusivity in an increasingly heterogeneous world. As diversity
is the phenomenon of our time, the more neutral setting of the discourse of
human rights is being utilised to channel our response to it. Human rights has
attempted to seek consensus in a complex world of believers and non-believers, and a variety of cultures, religions and races; through replacing God as the

J
-|

l
i
|

foundation of the law with that of the inborn dignity of each and ever huma

y to n
being. Its assets are seen to be its severance from particularities attached
individual belief systems. Nevertheless, th
ere is much controversy about this
suggestion of neutrality for human rights.
A closer focus on the emergence of human rights enables us t
l '
rea ise like
its
historical and socio-political underpinnings more vividly. Humano rights,
individual religions, are not timeless categories in so far as their social manifestation in this world is concerned. The political voices and power structures
lurking behind the emergence of particular human rights discourses can similarly not he underestimated. As Luf has argued, Human rights have not been a
feature of all periods and all cultures. They are a phenomenon of the modern
vvorld, bearing the marl-as of its experience of reality and its normative ethical
notions. *3 In their societal manifestation, rather dian their inner essence, both
rights and religion are historical constructs. This bond of historical relativity
actually unites, rather dian distinguishes between, the social norms of religion and human rights. Both aspire towards universality in their validity and
discourse, w hilst actually beai*'mg the marks of the historical
'
circumstances of
their emergence.

Furthermore whilst a sketch look at the blood conflicts in histor seems

1
l
Y
l
to justify some scepticism about the viability of basing international human

21. Wit'te, supra note to p. 9.

22. This. view is voiced bvJ Kenned
- y, R e ligion is what we had before we had law. Religion
is the domain of irrationality and charismatic authority, law the realm of reason and the
bureaucratic. International law understands its birth as a ooding forth from the darkness
of religious strife, antidote to the passions of faith, on guard against their re-emergence
as ideology. D. Kennedy, Losing Faith in the Secular in hi.W Janis and C. Evans (eds),
Religion and International Lair p. 3 13 (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1999).
23. Luf, supra note 3 p. 236.

.
;

-.
-_' :-';'-"_---'_5--- |.1-- :._ ';:--J --2-"'1 +.' -.- .1 -- -'-= -'- -. '---_
.
- .
.- - ._ _

__ -- _
- _ -_ -'-_-_ ' .. -_
i-.-:
j.- .- = ' ._
'_ _
-'-l =' - -' --"'-'- 1;,-__'=,;. ' -,__5'-=1-_;-_'-_.=;5.-|.- -4:_-;n-.-.jn-1;-T;'T_-.|-.*,..;' '-,'-- T__-_'_' -.-. _-.- __
. ---'._.|!:'I.,'.\--v|
_ -,,.- -._--|--_\|-t.-11" __
_ .?._ _-_-91 -;-~ _.-,- _ .-. .-.
~ |5!'.'f:jiF-;*.-:-_.;,- : -5;_',_-;_-__-;.;-=_+==;--_.;,-.---,_..{'.
-- ' ;,~f'-fr-f. Ev ___ :___L I3: t --1 __,,-j-|,__ H 1*-_,-.__-.u_-3'. __..:',._ ;.-.-'.. . -.-. -:|-:-.-

-_. . --

--1'!-r ' '="=i-15".--eur'-;'-'-"E=-';".+1r-vis--Ha=r-=5:-.1-1:

_

_;|_

H 'r-+_ "53- '|:"li.-\'."

--

,_

.
--

'

'

: .

.-

__ -_

__

_ 7. . .

--..

.'

= ., . .

. -

-_

_
_ _ -

'

_._ - -: --._- _-!. - . _ -.

. _

. - -

'

_ - .
_- 57-,.
'-=,_--_._' ='-_ --_; -_,-= .~,I_-_,' ,- ;. .-1-j-_.1-,1--';:-" .--;','-v--1-1-_.j-_
_-- _. - .- _a_- . _ __ - '--r-- .__-_ I'-.:-;-_.-_,. _=;-*.__;-_n':r~_ =| _ - 1' -;-;, r-'._.,.~_r.-g-_-;.f
- - - ...-...._ . ..-- ....
- -. - - . ~. "--:=i;'-i-F-'
_.,-. -_ _ . 1_.-- - .
-.-.

-. -- - -_-__.---. . -_;-

_=_..
-

-F

_1

fu-

-r.

..- ...... ,_|.|-.||._-_-._-._-.|_i r

.; ,-.. . . -|._-

.. . 5..--. -._. ..-,- |_

_._-, ,_.._|__.-

.._

-_| .- . .

._

.-

,,- _

_ ,_ _.

,.__ _ ___ ,_ _

_ _

I __ |_

:l__

_:__h_;

F 5

_ l__i_l._____r_ __."__._: __:l__d_JLi_|."._|r_____:|____i=1|__ l_I___:rTdr__:_l_-a___si_t

Faith in Human Rights

l_l,___..-

I I3

rights standards on the foundations of religious belief, basing it on secularism

does not necessarily alleviate the problems either. Though such an approach
may have the potential to unite the atheists, agnostics and some vvestern-educated elites from the various religious groups to a nominal commitment; it
seems to have had the eiiect of alienating still larger sectors of the vvorld
population and whole -civilisations vvhose worldviews are -closely intertvvined
vvith religion. Even of those vvho have not been overtly alienated, association
with a -man-made standard has not inspired the most committed of followings.
International legal norms often inspire little more than tokenism, supercial
governmental statements made only to attract attention to limited and shortterm policy objectives rather than any profound concern for those outside
the orbit of their immediate political agendas. By trading in the foundation of
God for its humanist alternative of human dignity", it could be argued that
depth of commitment has been replaced by an elusive breadth of appeal that
has not been entirely successful. It is not clear that such problematic foundations vvill ever be able to lead to -genuine and vvhole-hearted participation
by the (especially religious) masses, thus putting the vvhole project of bringing about a universal culture of human rights into jeopardy. It is not clear, for
example, hovv it may be able to lead to genuine and Whole-hearted participation by the leaders of the jevvish homeland, Buddhist followers, Southern
Baptists, or the .Shii lnultitudes of Iran. Many believers have felt alienated by
secularisation, and share Mitras sentiment that We, communicate in sharing
our spiritual insights
in order to counteract the dangers of secularisation,
vvhich leads to dehumanisation .14
Whilst acknovvledging the modern day desire for a neutral and universal
standard of norms, one can nevertheless acknovvledge that it is not absolute
neutrality that is implied, or even possible, but that of the identication of, a
set of neutralh/jhrmuia-tad common human rights . 1 Since human rights, too,
represent a specic value system the purpose is to make it non-discriminatory
towards the other , to, reconcile commitments to diverse normative regimes
vvith a commitment to a concept and set of universal human rights .2? It therefore emerges that although many have associated the neutrality of human
rights vvith its separation from religion such absolute neutrality from religious 1
cultural or ideological motivations is altogether illusory and indeed counterproductive. Religions, instead, should be encouraged to pour their visions and
24. Mit1'a,supra note I8 p. 123-.
25. Neutral here means 11'npart1a_ oi unbiased.
26. A, A. An-Naim, Toward an Islamic Hermeneutics for Human Rights in A.A.An-Nai1n,
g

*1

"

].D. Gort, l-l. jansen, l-l'.M. Vroom (eds), Hunmn Riglits and Relig1'o'us lEI'l1I.I.'i-, An Uneasy

Relationship? p. 2 29 -(Michigaiiz William. E. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 199 5).

27. lhid. p. 219..

kw

_,,

I J4

Nozilo Ghoneo

moral resources into the progression of human r h

ts, whilst .23
allowing,
for neutral norms and values independent of suchlgtraditions
If eitherroom
a
human rights ideology or religious commitments are interpreted in a totalising manner they will exclude

one another-to the detriment of both projects

in the long term.

On What Basis to Co-operate?

If we agree on the need for an engagement bet
weenanreligion
and human
the question then arises of the basis on which such
engagement
shouldrights,
proceed. What is the frameworl< under which this dialo
'
gue is to occui"?What is
the collaboration to lool< lil<e?T
o vaguely picture such co-operation is relatively unproblematic, as man dociim t
y
en s and compilations outlining the
commitment of various religious groups to the cause of human rights bear testament to. Indeed, boiling down the essence of both religion and human rights
to that of the upkeep of human dignity and the enrichment of human life and
society puts them in a synonymous light. There is also little doubt that there
are numerous aspects of human r h
ig ts and of various beliefs that are quite separate, and do not impinge on one another. The determination of state reporting obligations at UN treaty monitoring bodies, or decisions on prayers for the
dead, do not require any collaboration between religions and human rights.
However, there are many aspects of overlay between the two worldviews
where both come into focus: the question of limits of the right to evangelise or
proselytise, the status of religious min '1'
ori IES and political involvement on the
basis of religious symbols or loyalties. All these demand some kind of negotiation or prioritisation of norms between human rights and various belief
systems. The question is whether, and in what circumstances, the two will
either clash, enrich, inform or dismiss one another? Although these parallel
forces may often act in harmony, inevitably situations of serious dissension do
and will also arise. Resignation to, a process of osmosis and eventual absorption between the two, leading to the resolution of all l h
c as es may
overly optimistic, sidelining questions about how disagreements
are prove
to be
resolved and which s y ste m is
'* to ti* ump the
' other Wlien th 1:

e wo systems clash,

28. F! de Silva, Human Rights in Buddhist Perspective in A. A. A11-l~iaim, ].D. Gert, H.

jansen, l~l.M. Vroom (etls.), Huiiiriii Rights flfilRE1lgiDlIEVfli5,fl Uneasy Raiririunship? p. r33
{Micliigaiu Williain B. Eerdmans Piiblisliiiig Com an
- ' ~ and
, the pPi * inciple
is 'I995)29.
_ S.A.Fii"'jomand, Reli g ious ll
~- uinaii I lights
of Legal li'luralism in the
Middle East in j.D. van der Vyver and J Wittej
cl
.
' r. (e s.), Religious Huniaii Ri,ght.~: in Global
Perspacrii-a, Legal Pa:-spaciii-as p. 34.6 (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Piiblisliers, 1996).

1
-

. -.- -..'--.
- " -..- =.'. -. \;"L =-.. -'
-- ' 1 _
-':.
I _-1'.-;-'.'
_ '-_
__ _ ._. ."s
' .:;
- '. . '
5;
._~,_,__,____ _. ..\__,:_,_.___?_H__! --_._=_|-r_=,|_l__.:__,.,5:A.,._.,;T_._.h._._T,-,,__..
r __ -_ ".'
.
__,. .-t.r,;,' --" ,
.-._, ""I 4_"'-_ _:-.'; .-_,-1--IT:-_1--r:?1--I-I-_-Iri
.- __--_'_'_~ - __. .7. .' _
1 __ = .-;,---Pa ""73" '- _.H..a_.=!.5."' 7 _"1|_L.T-=,-.-F_i'=."11-'~:f'_E-;_-_L3r,r;:.'.-.=_. I! '. .-'~"- ' _
_
-_

_-M'___._-.t7.,;;';'_;;; ."'-" . -.- 11525..-;='---+1-| +111 . .-1.

... ..._._._ .

-'---'-=
__ _
I_

"-'--"-'-'-"
"_="'
'-'_ ___-".',
- --...===
:-"-ii.-'.=a.'r,".+-.-i-"'
=-:-=.I
,.. . - _. -' ,':'.
;. . _:- ' _ ".; -"'__-' _-_':;
_,:__-,. '-I...
';_ .' -- L-'2.
l .- =- --- -_ -_--:-="*-'-.'.*.-'ii:-4""-"as:-:..--5'---1';'- .'--I-.'=-_;_' _-I'___,_-.:_'_l 'r-1'.
. -'_ =-' 4|-;-___-.._1..|-__._
---'-.'=--.=
__ ._ ._ _
_. .
-. "'
,
_. . _';
__
; 1
|_-i,_,L_._=;__._
.. _ ' . '
,
. . . '- ._- _ - _- --_- _ __- ;,__-'- -___ :-.-. -._ .:-_- - .-. -I-I . 1- - -- -' - -- -. - - "-"' -_
___,
___-;.
-- '-- ..----- '
4' ''3;_|

"TL1:"=ijI-.%'-"T..-'.='-:e:.;'=-;='er.-=-rs: 1 -.=

.. -.

n,3.-',;._.-'~-;;.i'::.--."--+-=-=i'_-.:1|:_'.'.'E-='=.-.;,':-='-.'"-.4.-.:...1'-.'..I-._---__.-..';--1-L3_.,....'I;.f-I.+'-

I-.3"

.- -.

._ ._ -_ .

Foith in -I-lumon Rights

1 I5

which is to act as the corrective against which the other is to be judged? How

are the essential paradoxes between such universalist principles and particularist positions to be reconciled?

1-vi -F.
u1-_ , q.|_ _

I
I
J

Approaches to Religion-Human Rights paradoxes

-I ap - -,1-.

Ii.

A range of o p tions exist , each relying on varying assumptions about the role
I.

of both human rights and religion in human life and society. These are neither

exhaustive nor necessarily mutually exclusive.

A strict demarcation of the public-private divide may sideline religion to
the private domain and assign priority to human rights in the public sphere.
Such a position may wish to leave religious matters to each individual to
decide, occasionally recognising the right of religious representatives to mediate within and on behalf of their own communities. Such a position has the
advantage of clarity. The correlating disadvantage is its simplicity in ignoring
societal complexities and the arbitrary power implications behind its subjective public-private categorisations. Such distinctions also rely on a heavy
I-

demarcation between the sphere of influence of both religion and human

rights. Assumptions are being made about the positivist concepts of law and
the privatist concepts of religion that tend to dominate the modern Western

academy . 3 It is such perceptions that seriously resist the involvement of religion in the human rights debate, and tend to minimise areas of mutual interest
between them. As the world report on Freedom of Religion and Belief sug-

gests, despite the aim of some secularists to wish religion away in the public
s P here > The idea that religion belongs only to the private sphere is meaningless to the vast bulk of believers of all religions in the world.3

Another position is that of making decisions about the role of religion

I-

th

ut-

d epen d e nt on the will of the majority. This makes perspectives on e o

comes of religion-human rights clashes dependent on the democratic will of
the rnajority within the community concerned.Wlulst on the face of it this

seems to resolve the dilemma, the preference attached to the majority clearly
falls short of the whole spirit of the human rights regime. As Donnelly ai gues,
Human rights are fundamentally I1OI'111'1ELjC}I'llIE11'lElI'l. Human rights are con to protect
- cveiy
- " pe rson , a g ainst
cerned with each, rather than all.They aim
30. Witte, supra note 10 p. 3.
31. K. Boyle and

Sheen (ecls.), Freedom cjRaii'gi'on and Bali-:jIAl"I-si'hi Report p. io (London:

Routledge, 1 99]).

32. Wliat is being discussed here is a simple calculation of the preference of the majority. The
' caieful
'
-it'es
ideal of Liberal Democracy, however, is
to protect
ininoi
1 as well.

-mm-n

J is

Nozilo Ghoneo

majorities no less than against minoritiesf In Fact, the project ofhiunan

rights would become meaningless if it did not extend to the protection of the
v u l nera bl e, often minoiity
' " , position
' ' . This' position
' ' is not abl e t o extend its protection to the vulnerable and, in fact, would tend towards the consi te t '
s n rejection of the minority position.
Much of the history of modern human rights has prioritised the legal over
the religious. Whilst a number of the original Fathers of international law,
such as SaintThomas Aquinas, were theologians there has been t
a s Davidson
rong move
away from the theistic strand in some of those natural law roots.
explains how the theistic tone in natural law was challenged by a concerted
effort to secularise the basis of the law and, make it a product of enlightened
secu l ar rational thoughf. Grotius, For example, assisted in natural laws
replacement of the Deity with right reason and the secularit of th l h
e aw
been a lcey feature of its recent development. Historically it isybelieved
thatas
secularisation and positive law was crucial in providing, a denite and s stematic statement of the actual rights which people possessed? Some haveYcontinued this line of argument in suggesting that the foundation of respect for
rights has to be se cu l ar .A's Halliday
'
*
' relation
' to human rights in the
suggests
in
Middle East,
The central issue is not .. . one of nding some more liberal or compatible, interpre~
tation of Islamic thinking, but of removing the discussion of rights from the claims of
religion itself. Unless this step is taken, the multiple levels of limitation
ture, instrumentality and religious hegcm onyvvill prevail. 3?

...

text
1-, cu

However, the disadvantage of this strong stance of prioritising the legal over

the religious in the discussion about human rights is that of the ensuing Frustration and alienation it leads to amongst the religious. ls it not possible to,
instead, remove the discussion of rights from the exclusive control and claims of
one particular religion whilst also nurturing the collaboration of religions and
th-e re l'igious
'
' the
' realisation
' ' of human rights?
'
in
In contrast, religious norms may
. be clearly positioned over h uman rights.
As Mohideenremi n d.s us, th e simple
'
' of religion
' ' Froin the ubl'
exclusion
p ic
sphere is Far from alatable F
'h
'
1" - "
p

iom t e Islamic pci spcctive.

33. Donnelly, supra note i9 p. 155.

3441 See Hilaire McCouhreys chapter;1\Iatura1Law R l
, e igioii and the Development of
International Lav.-' in M . W. Janis and C. Evans (eds.),
Religion and International Lew (The
Hague: Martinus Nijholl, 1999).
3;. S. Davidson, Huiiirin Ri3 hts p . 2;; ( B tic lcingham* Open Llniversitv Pies
36. lbitl. p. 29.

.' 5.1993)-

37. F. Hallida*y, lslo in 1 ii cl t h e MIfli ofCoi3fi*oiitetioii p. 157 (London: l. B.Tauris, 1:995).

i
-4;-.---;i-..-;_.==_,
,-.-;-;~;=_*r;-_.t-"--..=_ . f
. .-__-:-_...__.__;_:.,.-,_-_:--,.s
.-__:_-.-l.-.,,_]_
|.:| __;=,r_.__\-_._._,,,|.,:,;.____|_,!
..-g--|-_':.
'1-Y
. -.'-Lj
=":-- . .-_-,-..=-|~..=~".I-'"_
'_' -."1--111'-F-nu:-T-i-!-'-*1 --ll.'
..'.--:
--'-i- -'.-=i ...-*'$.r."I*t.==-1
d_
\|
"-.-._
."*I"-:1-'._ ='--s.:-<i.i"I'-s=-'-P?-:-IF:
='.-.'="-t-.
....
":'f-'.'.T.-C+-=-'--1I15'?--51--1.:15.?--|-_.'=-'I..
" -.--.""..--|_.,--_~='1'?
-

--.-' .--- --"-2 |';:'_- ..-I-'

1:1;.-J_5.T+"_5r-;._:."'. '-_-1-- <1-'.

I = .|-

-.

,. .-...-

..t--:i"'-.1?-_.-;
.,-;-;,-r='- -_, .-'
_.i_*=_-.-=-_l=;--__;-,i-...-.=..,...-.-e ..-.-_..-...-;=-,.-_-.,;i
._,.__ _

T
"'__'_~j__..__ _.;] -. ,; ___.-r . - _'_- ,' -' -_-.-_
:.{__,*_'L-:-|i5:.:'...":"_1_._':____1_-'

-.

..

.-

-.-=-,_. .-'
' _
._ ._ .

-._ _
.

.
-

.- . --

.
, . __

- _

-_

1 '

- -

--

.
.
.
_.-.._t.-

- .. ._ ..---, .._. -* ..
__
'I'IP
- _ .-_._:,',. .' - "-';j.- :-r_-_,'____:-|_.}:I_s.,_.:._-:.
_.'-_:_?,=;__-I;-,._I -.;-,::-f;-::_-:_|_j'1-Ii'--|1-- '- _,;;'_.
.r+-"
_ E;
In """'u"\"""
,-."......-:-.-.2--r'I-J-=:.'.-.-.-=1Ii..-'.'r=:-:=-=3.-.1--;:.r.'-H;--53..Z=.-1-s.'.5.?.ia:-'-_=.-Fr"
-J?

Fuith in Human Rights

I I?

The Quran makes it clear that religion cannot confine itself to one segment of human
life, nor can it choose to abstain from exercising any decisive inuence over everyday life. Religion is not a private matter for each individual.The moral dimension of
human activity . . . is the concern of religion . . . Islam is a total and integral code and
way of life and is concerned with every aspect of human well-being. is

Another writer has complained of religious apartheid in the United States

and other Western states. He denes this as, the systematic exclusion of religious persons from public" life and the resulting exclusion of religious belief
as a signicant factor in governmental policymaking or legislation .39Whilst

proponents of such positions are often condemned with derogatory terms

such as fundamentalist the position is no different, if a lot less popular, than
the previous one. (Interestingly, Pallc does also use the term secular fundamentalism , which he recognises as potentially being just as repressive as the
religious variety.) Dialogue is necessary to challenge the assumptions and bar-

riers that exist with regard to the role of religion or belief in the human rights
debate. Whilst there is much scope for the role of inter-religious dialogue,
there is also the need for dialogue between religious and secular communities.

This need goes beyond the discussion of human rights, but is critical to it nevertheless. The world report on Freedom of Religion or Belief suggests,
just as there is a need for inter-religious dialogue, so there is also a need for the secular
and the religious to meet on common ground and learn to articulate a respect for each
other. Frequently secular groups have fashioned themselves through the rejection of
religion and this constitutes an obstacle to dialogue which needs to be overcome without threatening the underlying nature of secular belief . . . there is a need to encourage
.. . people to examine the nature of their own secular beliefs, and to articulate them
in positive terms, notjust as a rejection of the beliefs of others

Respect for the

concept of belief itself is a prerequisite for acceptance of a plural society in which all
beliefs are held to be inherently worthy of resp eetfl

This inherent respect for other beliefs, whether stemming from religious or
secular thought, needs also to permeate any underlying assumptions with
regard to the fotmdations of human rights, in order to ensure it does not
inherently appear alienating to religious believers.
38. M. Maaaahiin Mohideen, Islam, Nonviolence and Interfaith Relations in G.D. Paige,
C. Satha-Anand (Qadar Muheideen) and S. Gilliatt (eds.), lslurn rind Noiiviuleure p. 136

(lr-lonolulu: Center for Global Nonviolence Planning Project, I 99 3).

39. PC. Moreno (ed), Hunclbeela on Religious Liberg Around the Ii-hrid p. i (Charlottesville: The
Rutherford Institute, I 996).
4.0. R. Falk, Cultural Foundations for the International Protection of Human Rights in
FLA. Ptri-l\lairri (ed), Human Riglits in Cross- Cultural Perspectivesg-1 Qtiestjor Conseiisus p. g3

(Philadelphia; University of Pennsylvania Press, 1 99 2).

4.1. Boyle and Sheen, supru note 31 p. 14..

I I8

Nuzilu Ghooet

However, distinctions may indeed need to be made between those that have
a genuine desire to engage in the hum
h
an rig
fundamentals, and others who are tryin
to thts debate whilst maintaining its
g
wart and undermine its very
purpose. Though the line between the two
cannot
be easily drawn, the distinction is necessary for religion-human rights reconciliations not to obliterate the very contribution provided by human rights. The problem, however, is
that human rights (in its popular rather than legal usage) has come to mean all
things to all people. Nevertheless, perhaps the distillation of a most basic tenet
of human rights~that of non-discrimination-could l
tial guiding principle. Howard, for example stron l c at d east serve as an ini, l'1L11<lg1-'ylI1 rights
on emns
fundamentalists and traditionalists who try to engage in the
dialogue
whilst
attempting to hide that they are actually, against human rights; that they disagree with the ideals of equality, autonomy, and respect for all , and that they
prefer societies in which certain categories of people are considered imequal
and undeserving of respect, in which the assertion of human rights would be
punished? It is certainl l d ' '
'
"
y iar to imagine that accommodating those holding
such attitudes could possibl
f
y prove "ruitful to the long-term enhan
tli e ica lisati-on
'
'
of human rights.
cement of
Others may sideline the problem by arguing that any clashes between
religion and human rights need to be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. The

assumption is that genuine and open negotiation will always be possible

between co-existing and parallel systems of religion and human rights. With
priorities not being determined this dual
,
system has the strength of maintai

in g thebredthf
a
o univcisal human ri' hts and th d
h
g
e ept of rooting it in indi-

n_

vidual belief s stems. However the uestion of which trum s the other and
Y
=
fl
P
in which circumstances remains unanswered In the dee l h ld
p y e passions that
questionssuch as blas he
' ' '.
p mymay give rise to, does this position not just

attempt to make the subjective basis of

h
' "
'
'
suc negotiations appear objective?

Another factor that needs to be l<e t in ' d

p
min is that negotiations about

the agenda and content of human rig.hts, in the legal sense, are largely deter-

mined by, and dependent on, states. Are states really in the best position to
make such normative. decision s lJetween religion and human rights? Can
such state-centred processes really lead to the community engagement that
such issues deserve?The systemic realities of human rights negotiations at

the international level, unfortunately, often perpetuate conspiracy theories

of great power monopolisation and continued imperialism. Such impressions
also aggravate East-West tensions between states on the religion versus human
rights question. If one takes the * bl
' ~
pio em of the state-centred nature of cur4.2. R.E. I-Ioward, Huinun Riglits unrl the Sect" ll

it jlir Cuniuuiiiity p. 98 (Botildei*;Westv'ievv Press,

I995)

=,:"._.|___ ._ _ _- I ___ 1 : I. -_;,_.H-=--_;1.=,=;.- -- .'_,_

._;_]_
_r,|:-.j:_: __:,-- I
_;_1-._.__-E;:_;::_:1_E_'.I'-:5;

1:,

:__'.-__.; '_,..E'.|,='-:;:__,: '. _--; '; H

_
.'_ ._
|- -- I - _
ll

'

__:__:._ __

...-._.=
=E _
7 I:' - . _. ' . .-'.I -- .- :
- . - :_.

_____ :___ ,,_,.,.. ,s

..

..

I '__ I _1__l_-'_.-I:--id-:'_. :_- -_'-,_'-1-I;-_-.;,'=_'

.__.
_: '*:' I:
':".; ' 1- _-I .'__I-' 1": "__"=.
"= - , L,-|:;11|:.:,2?-;:E.F-.:1_?_=_-_I_h?;_J,-.11
-.- -' ".:I ll -'-'
"ii.-P-. '=s'l'"li.: "-

..
'.F

'i_.".f,I'-L-ii-'.,_-r.5-i}_'I|'iv:-E-F23--r57
l;- '.
1- _' - .
-.
. .
_-;;.---r=_--_-;___.-_ __
-. Hf.
_ 1-|-.-;._
_ _,__ .- -. -__, _ .
_-,q,...- ,- |,-=_-_;-_<+;;-F-1------I-7,
;_. __ ._
.~ _-_-,
. _.
I-=_'
-. .l I|||'I'V"---ll"-l|--'-'I- -. _ 'r-=- -..... .,-_-..
. -r- ,
- .-.
- . . - -. .
_ ._ .1-i.-|-...-.--.-Li -1-||J.
-.--... .. -. .. -.- .- .-

Foith in Humor: Rights

..'

'- ___
._
. ._
: -- - -- -' . - - - - - -:r.-.. -..- -- - .. - |---

.
.-__. ., _ _ _
-._ .-_-- '|-'-r. 71 1;-.-.-___ .. -_,,_-..-_--.--_
,. _., '--=4
__. ,__ r.-,;
..
- -:1?--\.n r.._.,__-.
-|,_-_-.-=-1-;;_~.
-- I |. . .- .- .--. -- . -." i-----I-I1
--- -.-Ir:.!-._*- -- -'|-.'~ -'=-.ii-..'F.:-I.-'-''~-"91"" l--11-'-i-'1~~1'.I-l'-"|-.==-.1
'~ '." --'-1" =--=-L~-=
it-= -"'es-.1-:'..---*-.114.
.h$Tai|'E-|.-. r. "1--,, ,,_,_

I I9

rent human rights decision-malting to its logical -conclusion, however, what

scenario does one envisage as replacing it? Whilst the benets of community
engagement on such questions are clear, what kind of structure would replace
or complement current human rights decision-malcing and enforcement processes?These are certainly complex questions that need thorough examination, but they cannot be entered into here. What is suggested here, however, is
that whilst international human rights law assigns primary responsibility for
the realisation of human rights to states, the role of non-state actors is critical
as the eyes and ears on the groimd and as the scaffolding that can prop up the

primary responsibilities assigned to states. Religious communities are a crucial

part of this.
Some writers propose the determining factor in cases of debate between
religion and human rights as being the issue of suffering. Talting suffering seriously is 'lIl'1E .fL1'Cl1l1TlClS point for intermediation between the universal claim

and the particular practice when it comes to resolving antagonisms between

widely endorsed human rights norms and culturally ordained patterns of
behavior Iii The logic of this position, however, is problematised when one is
faced with circumstances where suffering exists on both sides. Does one then
resort to utilitarian interpretations of greater versus lesser suffering, once
again sidelining the minority position?

Several variants of the essential unity thesis exist claiming that with free
and open dialogue within and between religious and human rights cultures
one would arrive at cultural reconstruction"t' and the emergence of a unity of
understanding. It relies on its emphasis that both, ultimately, aim for the inherent dignity of human beings. This chapter conceives of religion and human
rights as parallel universes: evolving and being reinterpreted in relation to
themselves and to each other. Whilst this dignity may be assigned either to the
inner spiritual nature, or just the vision for the creation of a good life, both
would agree on the end of dignity if not the basis of such dignity. This position certainly presents a way out of the position on the inevitability of conflict
between the two, though it may be based more on the hope for a self-fulfilling
prophecy than a description of present realities. Witte endorses this essential
unity thesis in creating a vivid picture of the compatibility between religion
and human rights law. Law -and religion stand not in monistic unity, nor in
dualistic antimony, but in dialectical harmony
Law and religion are distinct spheres and sciences of human life, but they exist in dialectical interaction, constantly crossing-over and cross-fertilizing each other."*5 They are
4.3. Fallc, supra note 40 p. 49.
.14. Ibid. p. 57.
-drg. Witte, supra note io p. g.

120

Nuziiu Ghuneu

distinct, but Witte suggests that they are related conce tuall m th d l
.
p
y, e o o ogically, institutionally and professionally. The two are seen as seamless universes
o meaning, existing in a cross-fertilising, harmonising relationship ebbing in
and out of each others realms. Thus, while Religions and ideologies are . . .
called upon to make explicit how human rights commitment ows from the
very spirit of their teachings," presumably human rights on its part would
also be obligated to effectively uphold freedom of religion or belief? This picture, however, does not respond directly to the question of ho t
w o empirically
resolve conicts and questions of hierarchy.
f

Interim Understandings
It seems that no ultimate solution can be found to this question of on what
basis to resolve all conflict s th at are to evei* emerge between human ri hts

g -'n.an
the endless wealth and diversity of religious or other beliefs The underl
Y1 5
problem in determining a final solution to this question is in' the monolithic

assumptions it would have to make about both human rights and religions and
beliefs. Furthermore, it would have to risl<: treating the two and the whole
variety of traditions and cultures they carry, as static entities not capable of
c h ange, thus rejecting the natural process of cross-cultural penetration leading to new understandings. The problematic aspect of freezing worldviews
is that it has the tendency of polarising positions and exaggerating difference.
F

After all, both human rights and reli '

'

"

"

gions ai e subject to evolution and change.

Religious truth has been described as an ever-revolvin l<ale'd
,
g
i oscope of

rneanings composed of a multitude of infinite perceptions *3 and even a c

sory glance at the history of human rights will demonstrate, its ever-chan urin
g
(perhaps ever-expanding) concerns and interpretations. A further dimensiong
of the debate is the political context. The politicisation of the hum
' h
.
. an rig ts

-debate by states has invested strong power connotations to the question of

whether religion, tradition, culture (e.g. Asian/' African values) win out or
universal human rights.

Wlulst the ultimate answers to this complex debate cannot be given

without indefensible simplification, and perhaps should not be attempted

in the highly charged political and social climate of our times, the empirical strengthening of co-operation between religions and human ' l

_
rig its s h ould
not be put on hold. We may have to satisfy ourselves with less. conclusive and
46. I{iii"ii1emann, supru note g p. 340.
4.7. D.Ft. Hart, One Fuith? Non-reu l ism unu 1Tfll'.?l'lEiI'lLil tyflihiths p. I63 (London: Movvbray, I99 5).

%nn@

-\- --.r-_ -- 'J||||_ ..;-,. =1 _ -. r-_. . _,_...-_-_ - .., ,.

. - .
- .__
. _
.
._;.;,:_|$-_.,,-_.g?_.E,_I.;
1" L "'-'- '-'..: i-'*'i=-=_.:.,,,,.._:.,?
"--.-"'_-'-"'-Z
4:}, ::_."-' 'f.Y I,|7
r' -'-'---l"
__.__,:_- _:.-1:...-:';
- I If _,;__1;
". _:-:.-_-:I_..' '.I=-'-":"-'-"._-._..
"'". ,, ,_T __,_,_ . .." '--I I _- '
_ .
.-:,- . r .---'1.-1-.-.-: .1 -.--..'-.---=: --"I1.-'--n--.--I-r-.-.' r|~- -..-- |-..-. --.. s-.-..-.-_-. ,- ;_-_|,- .. -_.- .. . .1
. . _. ...

_
- . .
. 'I
I I
., _ - _ . .- _.
.._. _ , _. - . ._

,__

'
_ _ _,

: .. _
_ ._

_.

- -_-.' - , ,;-_| -.';'I

__ _"__ _,,:_._:F.__.___.-.__:___:l',T:,,
.: - -'- - ----.-*.._;l.___1_._.;_r,_i::__
..~-- - -. -L:;.:_g_:;_f;:,;E5.-;ij.;_f_i|:y_-.t_!_:.:Ek..||.;5
-- --.. -.-. ._- . .
__i;'"-Fl
.-, __ _.__ ___, _.= _.__,_;_r_-__-,_|._,,_,__,| ,_ _, _|____: lT,E_____._ .._,,._,.,._,.|.___,_,,r __.,r:_ __-|.dT_,_'-|,_,_.:___;,.__ in ,5

Fuith in I-lumen Rights

|2|

deterministic conclusions, submitting to Fall<s observation that, There are no

-H''"' _...
li_QiL|-_"u.-_" Lri1_-i"_\-Il

fixed points of normative reference .iWe may thus concede to the ongoing
search for integrity on this topic within and between individuals and communities, for generations to come. Nevertheless, two interim understandings may

be proposed.
l
I

I
|

The first is that believers too may appreciate that human rights can act as
an interface between the system of ethics imparted to a particular faith at
a specic historical period through divine revelation (in the case of theistic
beliefs, or realised in the case of non-theistic beliefs), and the more fluid,

more immediate, more inclusive, political and legal role of minimum standards for human dignity, as supported through the system of human rights. As
Kiinnemann reminds us, human rights can form an important function as a
.
.
. >
common ground for a pluralism of ideologies .""i
Though religions play a primary role in highlighting the moral values which

i
I

followers attempt to translate into daily living, given the fact of pluralism they
too will be judged by what is considered to be morally acceptable. Within
the pluralism of our times ull traditions and practices have to pass the test
of some sort of universal moral code ,5 and religions cannot expect immunity from this process. Within social and political circles, such decisions are
often judged through the lens of human rights. 1-ts Mitra has stated, Modernity
generates self-reflection and can be an antidote to the dogmatic adherence
.to the beliefs of the forebears and mechanical repetition of what they did.
llncritical adherence to traditions can stagnate any religion .5 The question
is whether religious traditions will allow human rights to play this role of
injecting modernity (here being dened as our response to the diversity of
our times) into religious thinking. Willing support for such a process rests
on the expectation that religious traditions concede that the pursuit of their
moral code necessitates prior belief in the validity of the grotmds on which
that code has been built, and an acluiowledgeinent that human rights needs
48. Palk, supra note 4.o p. 6o.
49. Kiinneinanii, supra note 5 p. 34_o.

go. Preface to A.Ft.An-Nai1n,j.D. Gort, H. jansen, I-].M."~.i'ooi"ri (eds.), Human Rights and
lleiigioiislihlues,An Uneasy Relationship? p. viii (Michigantwilliain ll. Eerdmans Publishing

Company, 19.9 5).

51. An interesting aside in this debate is that of the public accountability of churches, a discussion which arose out of the adoption of the Human Rights Act by the UK parliament in November 1998. This was explored in detail in a paper contributed by Canon
Martyn Percy, Inclusion and Exemption of the Churches from the HRH. at a conference
held at Imperial College on Taking Religious Convictions Seriously: The Impact of the
Incorporation oft-he European Convention on Human Rights, (London, 6-7 january I999,
unpublished paper). It was also discussed in L. Wai'd, People power threatens church freedom, The G-uurcliun, 1;; Pebruary 1998, p. io.
52. Mitra, supiu note i8 p. 116.

-1-w|+|..- ---_|-1-...-i.-_.i__

_ -_-__.-_ _ _, i_

122

Nozilo Ghoneo

to bypass such particularities. However, if the subject matter of human ri hts

is the universal quest for what it means to be human then every human bein
E
should be able to have a say in the answer to this question. The discussion g
about human rights, therefore, needs to be larger and wider than the choice
0 F re l igion, belief or commitment of each individual, and yet not totally alien
from it. Th e question
' iemains,
*
'
Can human rights
'
'
be intei
ieted and ' t
p "
jus i-111
ed from within religious traditions, such that they are supported
rather
,
an
undermined, as the common core of a universal morality among these traditions? Ti As the UN Special Representative on the human rights situation in
Iran reiterated (in relation to traditional culture, but equally relevant to religion), Traditional culture is not a substitute for human rights; it is a cultural
context in
' wh1c h h uman rights
'
'
'
must be established
inte
iated
d
,
g"
, promote and
protected. Human rights must be approached in a way that is meanin ful and
relevant in diverse cultural contexts. The project for a culture of hLTman
rights requires both cultures to rest on the basis of human rights values and
for human rights values to be embedded into various cultures-thus giving
realisation to the new amalgam of a culture of human rights. Only time will
be able to tell how far such projects for the support of human ri hts t'l'
u 1 is-t
ing a variety of cultural and religious symbols and commitmentsg are, able
,
collaborate towards the realisation and pursuit of a universal code of humano
F

.5

rights.

The second interim understanding is the acceptance of the utility of human

rights in relation to statecraft. As human rig.hts is a manmade code its ultim a t e c l aims
'
1'1e no higher
'
i iepiesentmg
* *
' the latest re ister of a r d d
than

g
ee an
negotiated standards for a decent human existence (ironically
this ghumbl
.
e
claim is its strength). As social conditions and circumstances alter, its nuances
can be adjusted to register more appropriate measures for changed circum-

stances. Human rights allow an in-built elasticity and exibility in interpretation that allows them to move beyond their historical bounds. Human rights

are d e ii ned and concretised at certain points in history as key international

le g al doc uments" such
'
' * sal Declaration
'
'
as the Univei
of Human Ri hts and tl

.
g
1e
two International Covenants bear witness to However the pur ose of such
'
:|
texts is not to nalise concepts of human rights
For eternity,
norP limit Future
progress; the purpose is to chart, in a precise manner, historical developments

53. Supra note go p. xiii.

1.[.. Doc.ErCN..:tx i99.6:59, Commission on Human Rights, rand session, 2 I March I996,
Report on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, prepared by the
Special Representative oF the Commission on Human Rights, Mr. iviaurice Copitliorne
(Canada), Introduction, section Ft.
gg. Note here, For exa mp l e, t"l ie- notion
'
T
of' the Luropean
Convention of human rights as a
living instrument .

...

--_ J-='
41-_1_
. ;--L -'

_,

. ;,;_=_:t%-;',;'_:#:..a;;,__=-=1?
.. ':.-'=.'
1=.-- - ---- -'"-E-$1-....
--=-'='. .-1. ---.-'-;.-_-.-'='-.--,--'-r=':-7-*-__-;= -.'
-' "'-'--. ' . . _
.
_-; - ;-_
_. 1'="'
1-".1
=-'-E-is-:=
I. - -'r--i-'--.'-'r'-!--E-"=-'
_.-. _!1_1f'_'L'j;;' _
= ;_. ..- _'-_-2*-='.
. ;
- --"=n".-----."tft, - .r1- __._'_1\.-.-u=_,_._..*.p
'1-_-1E'.'_*
- .- _ '- - ='". _'-- .-;
_ - - ' .- - -_'
- -' _ . .', . .-:
'

'- "'

. "|.." '._.-"'

'.--;-.-F '1, " I- .:I=";_-_5- "'|-'-.- .-.2--' ,I '-J.1-.'-R5:.:JlEi'Ir3.I'..\|"~-:.I"l-;.i'F-!- -!r:+I'1-.--

'-'-T..=":"_" _ .-1. '- -|--1'1""-.... T-E

-i'.2-:vt*.-'='t1'=.a.=1.:
'1
'1

...- .._
=-' _ _|_ '-_-> __I_. - _,;.|
.' ;,? __
._.. .-_-.-__..- .-_- ..-- . .
- -- -

. _

._-.'_:-..'-.-.

:'I _. ;----1__
-- -~75
-' '.' _--" . -':=..
|. 1
._ ' -"' ' "-'- ' '
- ---1-'

- -= ' -'
.- . .
' '

"' '

T5;'i"J|"'..',
-=-'--E-'-i
--.-=- " - -r;.:-.-:e-a-:.--..
.'T.i= " --;
--- -I-.__;;-' 'j1-;--.-1..-=-22-s:::-1.
.'-_=*-::.1=.=i--"-.-=--.1:--~.=;.:.I:.
.-- _'_'.-_,_ '- ....
-__ .--1:-:-' ._--l,"'..
.-'.: -.,.:=_:._--.._-:'.-."i;i-; .'r1"-T;-""2-'-'-."'-T
_____,-._--1;_.,._,__,;,,_,...._..._-.r.-.- . _-:.';:!j=,
.
___,_=.,.,,~,.->-.1; __.
:,,1__-..1 .:-. an
I ,_..|
,.,.,:II-__|..
"
\_$_.__...
J"-'P'*'_._.

7=-':='
'-"-_'.-"-I.1'.".-I.="
-'-r---==.
-'1
. '- -'
- .
'. '-F: .."- "- ...-_.__
' .
,.- '.'.== . --. -J- . :-i.1.' .--.2 . I _ :_..' . ." .. -'.'.'- . - -'_- . ;- .
-.: '-"'1--'-'-I1-"';'
' - I: 1 ,.-=-~_-r.;..
.=.;-;__;..'_
I 1;-.
.-j .., ' I: .., __. .3.- !'-...J __
1 . .l
__. I I .
_ ._
__., I

-Ir-..
F

-.=--

-.e'-'_-=.'-:;.-=-?_'=':---"-?'-:-.r-

-. -

*.=-1."."v=~r-=-*- E. :--'--" 53.-1.:+::.'..-+:--'.---.~.-.

'" 2 . "

==f .=- -' _

-.

.r" . -

. - . -

_'

.. _
_., _ -

.-

~-

-. _. _.

- -

--

. - ..

--

.- .
_

'

... ~
.

"

'

- - - - -.
'_

.-- '. 1 - '-_ -:, __.

.- :

..

- -=.
- .. .
._ _____.-.- _- - .'-_.. s:_-I_'|;-__ . .=';---;;..'
__-- -":-|'_-...: 1_ --;
.-;:Lr,_|_|-t-.;-1_-'_
- "f;_--|-!"._
-,-,. _,_._ ,- __. ;_=_'-.-*'-;,-.=:-='|
||l':-_r
- " C*_--.='=-"- __..-;_ -,,.-.1'.-.
|;|_;_-|: -J.:____F,,
;--= .'1'
1-_ _____I_|L_ ._...___:_.|_:____l =_--|._
1,: r-ll-El:-L-_l.1_:__:i:1:-,:_-;_&i':':;:;_.E-_:'_'
___. __

:_.: .=_.-- :=.:-+1 +=s1.= -. .".. I

' .-;;.-;=--.-.- -

. = .- .

+..-.--- .-.+=1.-.1

.:-I-e -"+-r-'-'ii-- . -' .-

'-'-f-__-;._'_"';-E1.-',_:--1-J. <.=.-;-_-j:.;.1..=.-=s.-;;s"- 1-.

'

-;=..;~ -.-.;. =..--.._-:.*;n-;.-1-.1.-"H-.v,*_'! -"i".~

--

-""5 .

_ -

I
l

Forth in I-lumen Rights

|
|
r
I
|-

I23

made thus far. This can be seen in the way that the. Universal Declaration of
Human Rights has been stretched, pulled and infused with new meanings
and interpretations since I 948. As Clayton explains, Testing and being con-

testedby this means the discourse of rights creates itself afresh and the hier-

archy of rights is subjected to public scrutiny.5 All of this can be achieved on

a platform that has the potential of being recognised as being more dispassionate, bypassing particular belief systems which, are perceived
as parochial
or local in scope and as being grounded in context-specific co1rnnit.rnents.
However, human rights is not a secular religion nor does it perform its functions, Human rights simply regulate state power versus vulnerable groups
and individuals, without recourse to ideological statements in justifying their
.standards."8 The fact that ideological statements are not necessary (though, it
needs to be emphasised, not alien either) to human rights standards, is important to its ensuing exibility. In this manner, Human rights are designed to be
transformed into legal or other procedures as quickly as possible .59
The problem does not lie in the notional benets that members of a particular belief may feel they have been divinely graced with, but the fear that
with time this may, easily degenerate into hostility and antagonism towards
the them and solidarity with the us".6 Many religious groups have put
their weight behind the campaign for strengthening human rigl1ts precisely
because they have come to realise that the only means of ensuring non-di'scrimination, for example on the basis of belief, is through strengthening
shared standards of human rights. In their search for particular protection,
therefore, they have come to appreciate the need for its general application
and protection. However, this only has a lasting impact when human rights is
justified and declared to be congruent with the religious norms of the group
concerned, hence highlighting the indispensability of religion to the mass
absorption of human rights standards. After all,
the human rights movement itself entails struggles that must be carried on in many
parts of the world in response to particular problems and conditions, with the energy
and courage for such struggles coming from individuals who, while ultimately sharing

56.

Clayton, Religions and Rights, Local Values and Universal Declarations in AA. Anl\laim, ].D. Gort, H. Jansen, l~l.lvl.Vroom (eds), Human Riglits untl Religious lhlues,i/In

Uneasy Relationship? p. 166 (Michigaiiiwilliaiii B. Eerdnians Publishing Company, I 99 5).

g7. fluid. p. 26o.
58. Killineinaliii, supra. note 5 p. 340.

59. lbid. pp. 339-34.0.

50. A. A. A11-l\lai1tn, supm note 26 p. 231.

-51. For examples, see: Swidler stipro note 3.

-I

..--_-_

JZ4

Nozilo Ghoneo
seine common goals and aspirations, often draw on religious resources th t
a remain
richly and irreducibly diverse. 6

What is required , therefore , is this p artn ers h ip o f human rights with an endless richne ss an d d'iversity
' of religious
' '
and other b l' f '

e ie s in support of the
human rights enterprise.

Prerequisites for Reconciliation

between Religion
and Human Rights
The religious engagement in the human rights discourse
presupposes a prioi
mutual commitment to the t '
'
win requirements of an acce tance t
f
p
o con ront
the past and respond to the h ll
'
'
c a enges of the present.

importance of confronting history

A major prerequisite to a mutually benecial discourse between religion

and human ri hts is the abilit to confront the ast. It is clear that reli . ious
g
Y
P
g

engagement in the human rights disco

urse not only requires the abilit to see
when one h as liecn
~ wronged but also of when o
h
Y
ne may ave wronged anothei
Such encount ers wit h the ast not onl fuel a ieat
. g " er commitment to preventP "
Y
ing a reoccurrence of co ll ective
' '
'
prejudices
. in the futur
" e, b ut a l so allow fresh

starts to be made and j31 evious

'
'

inter-communal
tensions
to be laid to rest.
Many such tensions exist between religious communities aroiuid the world,

and much can be done by reli ions t h

g
o s ow a commitment to a foundation of
res p ect foi"h tunan rights
'
' future
*
'
in
relationshi
A
ps. s one writer has stated in

relation to Muslim/' Hindu history in India Kno '

h
.
wing w at we did or did not
do does not alter th h
'
'

e istory of the
. past
. , but this lcnovvl* e d geif accepted with
courage and honest ycan l ead to a different

'
l{1I1Cl
oll future t O
'
.
n the part of
human rights , .a coiitem p t foi* th e role of religion
' '
and a resolute reliance on

secularisation as the only approach will forbid religious engagement and ultimately wealten the foundations of human rights w.ithin communities and by
62. I. Bloom, Introduction in I. Bloom, R Martin and W1. Proudfoot (eds.), iieiigiaiis
Divaimy and Hurnan Rights p. ia (NewYorl<: Columbia University Press, i996).
63. Examples included thepensive wait for the Vatican apology for the holocaust, which were
largely disappointed. Seeij Hooper, Vat'
l
. .
ican tisappoints jews, The Giiardiaa, I 7 March
I998, p. 1 I .

64. R. Hassan, The Basis for a Hindu-Musliin D' l

ia ogue and Steps in that Direction from a
Muslim Perspective in Swidl
er supra note 3 p. i 3 i. More necessary, in more recent times,
may be the taclding of the Hindu-Christian community relationship in India.

.
._ _ _ ;
_ ,- . _,;
- .-|--. - =... =-:-.._ - - - .-'- ;.|_-. -_. 1;;
-'- -.'; 3-'2-:-*_-_-I-.-_? -. -.:,E- .2 -*1 1-"-'-'- '1' "
""
.. "" -' -"'.
' - ' -,-.-_
"-'_,_-:; I;--I"-"_'-'-Is. .T'.'.'_j-'_-:-:;l,'-T_I-"-'T:R'i?--.r'__:',=I=-E . f_!:',|!1-5";-"_
1;.-.--1 I-.-;:
: _'-_:_-_f.-,|;'. .-:-7="-.'.'l;'T:.'L-T-i=.-'-'--:
" -"7_'7i.;;i-_',,-"
-=L-.
;l~._____.
- 5- - -. -_,. .- .__-' -' _ . _ . ; ' _ -- -.
4 _ - _- - .'__--. - I
I- ' .
_; - ._ --- -=_ 5';s_--.r-\__
;_-'-."*
---F
--- -_.-- _,_ I11
- a----'
~I--4a-_-ev::.--141-.-p-.--.4.
i-_';-1 -__.'.__-- 1' .- .-_'-_--.----_-. ".L-_,7 .F47----"-"--_'
1* -1-,
--..-.'
.- :-;-1, ._-.
- 1'-.
---7-'_."--L,r.-:._;
I _---'.-__
_-.1
'-.|-I. ., -..-.-11,- \'-'5-'r'1_.:= H -----=-.-_-..--..
,:- ---{II-._-;
.--'.-:- .'-' -'
- . ' . _ .'.. - - _
_. ... _
. -.. -_
--|--_"._.---.- -'r..-=..:
--. - . -'_.'. _._-.-'1-g_-.:-1-g'.....-1.-1',-;__
"._'.'-'1:-"5
ll T":
1"-|?.J.E:1l'.!_*-"*7;-'-'1i_j
5':-=
-.T'1-'.
:'
- _
_' ' _' ' . ' - _
~.
'
'
' ' . -..- -.
.' i-Er P-= -"': '|:.=- -. .-'.',-I
,|;=_-TI '1_=.'|_;a
Q-_': '9 #11271}-':-_'7.'-. J *-\1'___
- '. "l":TlI::"
-' --: "1-"\-.'._..-'.?-' --.".:'
-- " " ""TTT'-"lJ'Tl=.T""$
l.-'5'-:5?--.il
'1-'-I:-'-'1'
' '-..'=.:.:'-t.- -'2 1 1' . '. ' -- ..|' ._..
."=
. ' .. -: "
-- .
- -. - -T. T -|- ------' - " -"" "- "
_
--.t--J .- .
-" F-ital!-lif|,1:5-'1-l':=-'.
;_- -'- r'r"t;
-. :?-E._'-F
. >- ,3;--;
=4
|-;:;--Q-I1;-._-|:.~;-.
.-- .-==+.-..
..
. .. - '
1-
-c
1.\
" Jr:_.-1*-|l_T\:":;R
"|'\"'i
_
___ |.r"";
:.

at.-1.--___
l\ L

_.|._;. _.
""12.
1-'il""*l-Tl-R

_ , __,_n._-

.-.."""'

--

..

"

Qt -,.[

_,_-ma"-'

_,|_

_
_
. _ -=- , _
_-'.1_;_-'=--=1-.__jI.-*.- ..'-1H-_|_-'-:_-;.'1V1-_-'.'_-__,;'._-;-J,

.. _ =\;;I"-'_. .. _ - .11 _
-, !f.'.-_

T!-..-'-"'-E--=r~'-:\-'-4-T-F---'1'-=-.*?==1Ifu:;----5s'-=zI..'-=-=:----;:.'=.!-mi-..5-L-.===-=.r-.-11.1-=.-.-I-. -..=.-..

-'

'_

.,

_ .

_I

. _

,1

- . .

__ .

-1.-

_--

' . - I-i. - ,

-_

'

_-

.,: .

_,. __. ._-, _ =:-_.- _.-._-- .7,--. q-_I..._.,=:"=-,;L'-:r,'-r|-}i-_*,--:_:-_:_-.-.-_~_s=.__-- .73"-_ _n1 .--3-,;_|\-,_;._-q.
'_ -' - -1- Q: _.. _l;--'-_
.I',;'_i-I-_'l-;-:='--,2;--"3__1,:;"
._;-:.-E?.- '- I 11? ,_

-.

..-.!,=;.: =-

E:'._'5_.;_-;F5,..,_L'E'="J:lF,1T,.'}',-T.;i:F =.,-._.-,1!-.-.-':,:*:'r-'-'*;=,=;~:'_E-E

Faith in Human Rights

many individuals. Whilst human rights may have traversed periods of stringent
secularisation and resistance of religion, the time has novv have come to vveave
a more mature and constructive encounter betvveen the tvvo.

Religion and human rights as hermeneutical processes

Traclitionalist conceptions oi religious truth see such truth to be self-evident
explicit and not subject to any interpretation. Due to the recent nature of the
modern human rights discourse and its fty or so year old history, it is evident

that no religion was historically able to comment on human rights or, if it did
that the implications of the concept may be diflerent to current thoughts surrounding it. The religious response to human rights is therefore interpretative
and imaginative in nature demanding a reconsideration of religious norms in
response to a recent innovation. A religious response to such a development
requires a particular attitude vvhich is able to accept the assumption that,
Religious traditions are hermeneutical processes: they do develop, change and--some
timesimprove in response to circumstances and in dialogue vvith their context.
Critical dialogue does not mean a ight from xed, unchanging positions but rather
a mutual search for a better understanding of human life, a just and merciful society,
nature, and ultimate realityl

This process of interpretation involves an approach From vvithin the tradi-

tions concerned vvhich encourages a positive approach to responding to nevv

social realities. A commitment to the herrneneutical role of religion is vvhat
distinguishes it distinctly from self-complacency, self-delusion and fanati-

cism. As-Van der Vyver states, This mode of human experience carries with
it the responsibility to continuously and critically reappraise one s perceptions of that truth in vievv of nevv l<novvledge and experiencethat is, if one

vvishes to avoid the stagnation of intransigent 0ll'.l"lOClO3{y.lB It is by this means

that human rights and religion can prove to be complernentar and mutuall
Y
Y
enriching.

65. There are many current initiatives to bridge such a reconciliation, for example the holding of the August 1998 Oslo Conference on Freedom of Religion or Belief and the May
1999 conference on Iluman Rights and our responsibilities tovvards future generations,
An inter-religious perspective, organisedby the I-luture Generations Programme of
the Fotuidation For International Studies, University of Malta, in collaboration vvith the
Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies and LINESCO.
66. The modern expression of the human rights discourse stretches back ve decades to the
post second vvorld vvar period.
6;-=. Supra note go p. vii.

I 26

Nozilo Ghoneo

On its part, human rights activists should also avoid becoming dogmatic
about, and xated upon, the present achievements of human rights. The whole

utility of human rights relies not on it being fixed in stone and resistant to any
future reconsideration. Through dialogue and negotiation reinterpretation and
enrichment are made possible, as is greater commitment tovvards the realisation of its ideals. Indeed, vvithout such commitment human rights can never

become anything other than a dead letter and benchmark of failed dreams only
ever activated through political and politicised channels.

Human Rights Contribution to Religion

Such approaches could lead to tvvo inter~related possibilities, one being
freedomjbr religions, the other freedom within religions. Developments for
human rights have already been discussed and those vvithin human rights vvill
be approached in the next section.

Importance of freedom for religions

As has been stated earlier, due to the peculiarly modern? concept of human
rights, the concept per se does not exist in the scripture of any religion. Despite
many religions trying to claim fatherhood to the concept of human rights, its
modern constructlinl<ed as it is to the role of the sovereign state for examplevvas not created by any religion, though many of its early proponents
vvere undoubtedly inspired by their beliefs. An initial manner in vvhich religions
have come to be interested in human rights has been due to their experience
of engagement in the cause of religious liberty for their fellovv believers. Such
rights have been pursued from a legal position, as Denial of legal recognition
and entity status is denial of religious liherty.i Hence, legal personality is vvhat
most religions seel.<: in order to be able to express their beliefs effectively.
International legal personality facilitates the protection of diversity in the
functioning of religious communities and ultimately the ability to pursue
perceived injustices vvithin a legal frarnevvorl~:.The realisation that equality of
68. ].D. van der Vyver, Religious Fundamentalism and IIurnan Rights, journal offT]l;I'I1Ei{?I]I'il
z_1j]im*sVol. 5, No. r , p. 38" (Summer 1996_).
69. Clayton, supra note go p. 259.
yo. WC. Durham, Perspectives on Religious Liberty, A Comparative Frarnevvork in ].D. van
derVyver and

Witte lr. (eds), Religiotis Human Rights in Global Perspective, Legal Perspectives

p. 39 (The Hague: lvlartinus Nijlioff Publishers, 1996).

;._,,_

__

__

in

_ ,

,1

__ .. _.

,,. ,

,: ..==._ _., ._. . .1-__-II-.--__'_.__, ..I.= .-.. .-.L|._.,.I,.__,,;.__ _ _i __,[;. _-__,,,-:..,

_-,.__ |_,_-_ ...
__-,1;-_ __1-__,__._!_+
.-._-. _.fh~_-:._____ ___|:_|._ I __.:;___ ,_;_-::__ _: ...=;; |,_,._ ___!. ; H:-___:-I, _.___|__:
_-.-:____,__-.1--,_.-1---,__..,__.,__--__.--.';._i-_'_.._-'_"'.r'

-:._"-|: |,-

_-.- .| 5., _:_.

_-__. -1_=_ --_'.-'.-_.__-_-_ .-_

L.-.,_.

--5' -,'*..'."":I'.'l.' .'f" l-='=,..".-'11..--, ?\'!5.-I-1'51] ':'.1"-'_'-'|_=_'*.'_i__-

._ ,. _--

.-.

_' I-T--' -'_'-'-"'1';

r-==-i-"'-'=-&'-'11'-t?+-1-;--Ir-'='1::-1'-.:tr-=r-'-.-'.=:-r-t:--=-1.7-'.--.;-I--.---;:.- --.-:_':_

. . ,_

-_

'

'|' ".

-.

,1,-.''5." __..!..-

' -

'

..

'

'.

._

_ |

. I '

_,___

' '1

,. ..

_.

'

_ ' -

. I -' '--."-'

-_-a-_- __;, _. -_ . __.

.___ 1 _ .-,4-;__, :,_;-_ U1-.-,.;-,__

-T-__. ,_,._

'

!_'.l'_-|'\|

l!_.i:;:,2-j,__,',,.3;;__1-L_].1,-f,_'_',,j1_-hffffq'.j_
,|u;i_,;,,-u.;_'5+_,-;-,,',l__-_ ;,_

4:,
-. --,
r N_||

Faith in Human Rights

indigenous cultures around the world.This principle also applies to religious

communities, which explains why legal personality and human rights needs to
lead to a much fuller, ongoing and more dynamic relationship between states
and their religious communities.

The implications of human rights for internal discourse

within a religion
The religion-human rights discourse has both an internal and an external
dimension: externally with other believers and "communities and internally

with regards to the respect guaranteed to every one of its own believers. The
two are not necessarily correspondent within each belief systemperhaps
in the same way that countries that are most vigorous in paying lip service

to human rights on the world stage are rarely those that translate this most
-keenly into a true commitment at home.
A wide chasm often remains between how religions expect to be treated
and how they treat others. It also emerges in relation to how religions treat
members within or outside their religious community. The most interesting
dilemma that emerges is that of new religions that emerge from the midst
of previous religions. The reason these groups often suffer the worst fate is
that they span the divide between internal schism and an independent body
of belief. Such groups perceive themselves as having established a new belief
community whereas the parent community sees them as a distortion and

blasphemous offshoot of their group. I-Iuman rights are thus often critically
denied them as they epitornise the most threatening and dangerous form of
the other F It is such circumstances that deepen the complexity of free-dom
of religion and belief still further. It is not just the toleration by believers of
secularists, atheists, agnostics or followers of particular religions or belie.fs
that is at stake. The task facing believers amongst themselves is itself immense.
Generally, The challenge remains considerable to establish an ethic of tolerance towards those who differ on religious grounds.ii Kiing proposes the idea
of an ecumenical theology towards this end, ecumenical theology can help

71. A vivid example is that of the Balr.-ii Faith as perceived by many members of the Shii
clergy and by the Iranian Government.

I27

provision under the law does not necessarily lead to equality of treatment has
been established through a number of examples such as the civil rights movement, the study of women s human rights and the continued threats against

72. Boyle and Slieen, supra note 31 p. 13.

-;-

. 1-.' --"='--:-I:.':'-Li -=":I-1"-':-'-I-'*."i'-!1!"-I-5-f.'-'-;-:ii i_i:,";'_l"?;'-'-ll*I,5'l.;.'-"-l.;lil?;:"ll-.*j=i1v .~-|;|'u':-'-T-,1

I28

Nazila Ghanea

to discover and work throu h the conflicts caused b the reli ions confession
5
Y
g
=
and denominations themselves . it
Tensions between the rights and responsibilities of religious believers could
also give
' rise
' to tensions
'
' the day-to-day running
'
in
of a religious communit
y.
Curran states Most of the internal )IOlJlE1Tl5 ex erienced in the church stem
>
l
P
om the tension between authority and freedom. What is the proper use of
authority, and what are proper roles of freedom? Human rights provide an
i d eal means of engaging in dialogue about such issues.
5'

just as freedom in th e c h urch can be a way of dealing with most of the

major problems facing the internal life ofthe church, so the langua e of ri ht
5 5
can be used as an instrument to deal with the major tensions facingEthe contemporary church. Rights language is the strongest ethical language that exists
precisely because it makes a claim on other people to do something. Value language, for example, is not nearly as strong. if
The utilisation of human rights in communicating about how to resolve
internal tensions is one example of how the religion-human rights enga eg
ment may be of benefit to religions.

Religions Contribution to Human Rights

Most of our consideration thus far has considered
the contribution of human
rights to religion, but what of the potential impact of religion on human
ri ght'?W'
' vision
"
' this
' wa Human 1' ht
s
itte- creates the backdrop to this
in
ls
are,b y desi g n , abstr ac t statements oi"individual
' '
'Y '
' ' lg that
and associationallivin
depend upon the relig ious visions o f pei ~ sons and communities
' ' to give
' " Ethem

content and coherence? He has furth '

d th
ei argue
at, The deprecation of the
special role and rights ofreligions
has impoverished the general theory of
uman iig ts . The case that religion may lead to the enrichment of a
L

...

h _ I}

3,?

specs
ofthe human rig ht s d''
'
'
iscourse now requires
analysis.The
most likely
benets
are likely to be four in numbe r : tl1c- wi"d ening of the cultural base of human

rights, promoting an understandin g o f th e concept of duties, challenging the

state-centric and individualistic basis of huma "' h " d d
n iig ts an eepening the concept and commiunent towards third generation rights.
..

'3 . Kung, supra note I I p. an-.|.r.

_?.c|_. Curran, supra note 6 p. I 55.
Ff .ibirl.

p. 158.
. Witte, supra note to p. 3o.
lbid. p. II.

. '- . -:-;;+.l

"- --..

..1-.-i

-+.

. _

. '

- -:_. .- '-:_:-

-..= .;.--... . ,-..,_. P-_.

-_.---.;-1;,'..-'1,-:=~_='--_,.:,.-.-' --;.=.~_=_=_='a-:_1-L-;,-.5-'=_=
- - -

- -

--. _ .-. .- .;- , _

_: ---- :-=--:" ,4; -' --_'_----.' ' ,. .' "F _- - __L','*.--.-'- .- '_
_'_. ' _ - ' _ ' .'
E -.;.I_"':_- ~;___-_.,_. ;,:,:-"-_s_'_-_-. --_.|. ;5_;,I;__3.-=___-_ _, F-'\I_
39-_ ._:-_ --._.. ; ""._-._- __ I; t.-.1 11iE-'.-a- -.1," ~ . ;-j--.; '=';1I'.:_.,-_--.-;_;",-;
:.;'
- 5;
. _ . -'
. _ .
5" _' .;==_:-_-=-:- ,-;'.7LL_;_:__.-..._:.:-_._::;7.15L.__.:
1 rt}-I;"_-.--.'-:;-,-.'..'I-,
_, '_,,:.;_--._;-.:_t_-="- '-,,-='~
_- 3: ._I_-_ . -' - .|;i__|'. ::L' " I __" r- 1._ . _.- . -- _ _ . - -,3, 5!_-I-':';_I; ._?;;=;.;.-_=_'f;_':;_=;.;;,,,c -1;;-3;; glib;-;
_; ,_,
;: ,'_ ,3;
.1-_.=,_, _T_._,
__ _ -,._

. L
- I
_ -.

- -

,_ ._

I
-_,.' _' '
' ..
_

_.
I
'_
_
. I _- _ ,.

'I I
-..'
.,

,.
-

. _
:_.:.: '!'
I__.L_,_,|:-;;_:.E
I I
-_ _ ' rill-I'_:_-1;_.l
-I_'__-E__.:._,5;.:-ii__._;,:.;r-|__,%T%.:._,=11_.1-2:5:
,--.;_-:1j"v:'-1.'_";5.=-'.';_.;" " 1-.-{-._}; -"
"|-.-. .gg,;|:|-__;_
"' --
- .
,
.|
: . '__ -.-_ --__-,_-- ,";_.';--_-=|,. .',-_.,-- -:_. |-|-._-"4!-L ..__.':'E;'_a_-;7-.r.E"-lq;"'l'.9.""i-I-4
|_.,:;;.--r"'\_
'
- '
' - -.' . .-- '__;g = "L;._'-:._: _!-.-=-_'-'-___.-,5:-,1, :.':'17-"'1'-;-..! n_1-.-=-}v,-,E,;1,j"-::.;-;_:-|'.-,.-1! '=.,I,-17 '. I . .- _ _
':_..-; -1J ___-;_'__:1_,!,
r. =. 11;-I-_
'-='.=:~:;.=--.;,.;.'.-- -3;?-.'-.32."-'-_ "1:
--;' ---.;==-- _,,_.- -; :1 -:9-:~-,_
_ I-_\___ J:"_::-_.:,i?'_._.,_F_.:_1it__:E=L_--,?ga:;E;g:;;_i-\:-$l'E_=:._ :3?
, ,
.. _ ,- -_ .. .-._,_-.;._..
-I: ;r
__--; _--+.-._.-r_ .=--5-.
. -_-:.=1----.|.-\..- .- ;,.,;I;,;,,,_,_,__

_- =, -. _ -

Faith in Human Rights

J29

The widened base

One oil the major contributions that religious thought can ocer the human
rights movement is to allow a widening of the (perceived and actual) cultural

base of human rights. The rigidly secular reading of human rights has caused
much alienation amongst faith-based communities. Human rights is thus made
culturally inaccessible to millions of people across the world, and the perception is compounded "that it merely constitutes a means of perpetuating the
political power hierarchies existing in the world today-that of the supremacy

of Western secularism. A reassessment of this presentation of human rights

will go a long way towards allowing the engagement of non-western societies
and concepts into human rights.

Duties
Another reason why many religious writers reject the fundamental thrust of

the human rights movement is due to its Focus on rights and near silence on
the issue of responsibilities or duties. Examples can be given of a number of
Christian writers and their dislike of the concept of rights. One such writer
explains,
the Bible contains no irrefutable evidence of the id ea that man, by the mere fact of his
existence, is entitled to make a number of Fundamental demands or claims on other
members oi society .. . rather than rights or demands written into man s nature as
such, what is involved is an attitude towards ones neighbour, not of inherent 1i hts
'" ' g
but of responsibility and service due to liin"1.79

As with a signicant number of other believers, this perspective seems to misconstrue the term rights as being indicative of individualistic or egotistical
tendencies. Such a deconstruction of the concept sidelines the terms political
and legalistic terminology and its primary application to state-person guarantees rather than person-to-person eztpectations. Nevertheless, whilst upholding the political responsibility assumed by the term rights by national and

international legal and political bodies it may be possible to also envisage the
contribution that a -corresponding concept of duties may allow to the deepening 1 ole of human rights between individuals and groups. This is where the
3'8. Notable exceptions to this include Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human
R.lg l"its, the
* Intel
- * -American
~'
" * '
'
' of Man a11d Article 2; oi
Declaiation
on the Rights
and Duties
the African Charter on Human and Peo ales Ri hts
'
I ' is "jr9. ].W. Montgornery, Human Rights &Hunmn Dignity p. to (Michigan :. Probe Ministries
International, Zondervan Publishing House, 1986).

I 30

Nozilo Ghoneo

contribution of religion may come in. Could such a duties dimension prove
advantageous to the individual or collective enjoyment of human rights, especially considering its increased aclmowledgeinent of the role of non-state
actors in abuses of rights worldwide? Is it also possible to enhance the concept of the duty of the state towards the preservation of human rights and of
ensuring the appropriate conditions for the realisation of human rights, perhaps through a more cennal emphasis on the due diligence principle?Widi the
clear caveat that individuals or groups should not sacrice the rights that the

are entitled to in order to serve the state (otherwise human rights will proveY
meaningless), much room may yet remain For a role for duties to respect
human rights. Indeed, the emergence of a culture of human rights and third
generation rights cannot be won without a more integrated realisation of the
interconnectedness between rights and dutiesbetween individuals, groups,
communities, families, and with the world environment in general.

Group rights
Another lriiit of the religion-human rights engagement may include challenging the very individualistic reading of human rights. Group rights have lon

epitomised this weakness of the human rights dialogue. The resistance iaceg in
the recognition of minority rights, the rights of indigenous peoples, social and

economic rights, third generation rights in general, and even the collective
dimension of religious rights as mainstream human rights exemplies this tension between individual and group human rights. ln such a dialogue [between
religion and human rights] Western individualism will be subject to correction,
and hierarchical social--religious philosophies will be questioned on the matter
oi the rights of individuals. So

Conceptual developments
Further contributions of religion to closer collaboration with human rights
could be of a conceptual nature. It is signicant to note that, to date, reli-

gious views have not overtly been sought as contributions to the human rights
debate. Although a number of religions have ensured that their voice be heard

in the process oi the codication of international human rig-hts texts, their

involvement has often been reluctantly and randomly accepted as l\lGOs
rather than positively welcomed by the international community. It is for this
Bo. Siipii.-i note go p. vii.

I--||-|
-

'- - -

.-.-..-.*""-' F

-:

.1 1--Fur 4.==';,=,f;4*_'.Z= .'5'jj-=1;-{f

vis-:5-soeinc:asa#+5I'-"as"--a

1-.+;2.:'~;r

Faith in l-lumen Rights

|3|

reason that van derl/yver notes, no attempts were made, at least during the

infancy of human rights thinking, to accommodate religious tenets in the circumscription of basic rights and fundamental Freedoms to be protected by the
repositories of political power . * Such approaches have failed to recognise
religion as, a povverful tool in the struggle against discrimination and repression in the social, economic, legal and political structures oi a CU1'i'11"[".Il'1llly.
This includes its potentially positive role in terms of concepts, commitment,
grass roots activism and role in developing a human rights culture. It is this
recognition of the active community implications and attainments of religion
that particularly implicate it in the emergence of third generation rights.

Witte has even argued that, Religious institutions offer some of the deepest
insights into norms of creation, stewardship, and servanthood that lie at the
heart oi third generation rights . it

Conclusion
The challenge is therefore an intricate one: that of allowing human rights
to transcend all diiierences in the subjectivities and practices of peoples ,3
whilst also mediating international human rights through the web oi cultural
circumstances .3"""ln the nal analysis, the acknowledgement and implementation of universal human rights should be seen as a co-operative process as
well as . .. a common objectivea global joint venture and not an attempt to
universalize a particular cultural or religious model .8? Through such a rapprochement, religions and human rights will be able to collaborate, allowing
religions to give human rights law their spirit-the sanctity and authority
they need to command -obedience and respect
its structural fairness, its
. ,,,
.
.
Iii .
inner morality .33 This can lend a notable impetus to an appreciation of a wid-

Bi. Van dei'Vyver, supra note 68 p. 3e.

82. lbicl. p. 35.
83. Under this hierarchy, rst generation rights contain civil and political rights, second generation rights contain economic, social and cultural rights and third generation rights
include solidarity rights such as the rights to peace and development. Fora discussion oi
this hierarchy see: T. Mero1i,. Hiiinrin Rights ltlli-'II]?.liH5l in the United Nations, A Ci'itiqiie of

lnstitimenrs and Processes, pp. I j.:i_I jg (Oxlbrd: Clarendon Press, I986).

314. Witte, supra note I01). 13.
35. Falk, supra note 40 p. 4.4..
86. Ibicl. p. 4.g.
37. An-l\laim, supra note 26 p. 24.].
33. Witte, siiprci note I o p. 8.

I32

Nazila Ghaneo

ened foundation on which human rights rest. As obedience to a norm because

of legal compulsion and not by virtue oi personal Persuasion loses it moral
signicance? enhanced religious foundations for human rights could greatly
strengthen its moral appeal. If one goes so far as to recognise the translation of
human rights into a universal culture as a necessary prerequisite for its effective survival into the next century, one may even conclude that, The regime
oi law, democracy, and human rights needs religion to survived?

39. van dcrVyver, supra note 68 p. 4.o.

go. Witte, supra note Io p. 3 i .

"- ' ' ' ' ' I ' - . .

.

.- -

' . -

_ '

.. .. ..

. '

'

-. --

- "=i-. - '
_

'

L __ I. .'-_
- _ -

.. .

'

- . .',- -.-' __
-_

.' -.':;.

'4 -"I.--"-.:.-=21-~15-=-.=-er-1-'-iii-ai.'i:-.=.-Jr:-5i.1'n"=-if

..- 7."-i-_'.'-_'1'--- .-._.___=,'.;:.~_

-_!-'-.35-.-1--_:r-j_
_~,En_'---=--i-_,:_:-_, -"=.-_=1____- _|___-I _ -.-'--=
-_-,-,- ,.' -1:1
.\__,_-.1-,.
4', ,_ _.-l_._~__-.-_.;__-I-.--1___.-..--f5__,F_;,