A BRIEF HISTORY OF HUMAN RIGHTS

The Cyrus Cylinder (539 B.C.)

In 539 B.C., the armies of Cyrus the Great, the first king of ancient Persia, conquered the city of
Babylon. But it was his next actions that marked a major advance for Man. He freed the slaves,
declared that all people had the right to choose their own religion, and established racial
equality. These and other decrees were recorded on a baked-clay cylinder in the Akkadian
language with cuneiform script.
Known today as the Cyrus Cylinder, this ancient record has now been recognized as the worlds
first charter of human rights. It is translated into all six official languages of the United Nations
and its provisions parallel the first four Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Spread of Human Rights
From Babylon, the idea of human rights spread quickly to India, Greece and eventually Rome.
There the concept of natural law arose, in observation of the fact that people tended to follow
certain unwritten laws in the course of life, and Roman law was based on rational ideas derived
from the nature of things.
Documents asserting individual rights, such as the Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Right
(1628), the US Constitution (1787), the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen
(1789), and the US Bill of Rights (1791) are the written precursors to many of todays human
rights documents.
A SHORT HISTORY OF HUMAN RIGHTS
The belief that everyone, by virtue of her or his humanity, is entitled to certain human rights is
fairly new. Its roots, however, lie in earlier tradition and documents of many cultures; it took the
catalyst of World War II to propel human rights onto the global stage and into the global
conscience.
Throughout much of history, people acquired rights and responsibilities through their
membership in a group a family, indigenous nation, religion, class, community, or state. Most
societies have had traditions similar to the "golden rule" of "Do unto others as you would have
them do unto you." The Hindu Vedas, the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi, the Bible, the Quran
(Koran), and the Analects of Confucius are five of the oldest written sources which address
questions of peoples duties, rights, and responsibilities. In addition, the Inca and Aztec codes of
conduct and justice and an Iroquois Constitution were Native American sources that existed well
before the 18th century. In fact, all societies, whether in oral or written tradition, have had
systems of propriety and justice as well as ways of tending to the health and welfare of their
members.
Precursors of 20th Century Human Rights Documents
Documents asserting individual rights, such the Magna Carta (1215), the English Bill of Rights
(1689), the French Declaration on the Rights of Man and Citizen (1789), and the US Constitution
and Bill of Rights (1791) are the written precursors to many of todays human rights documents.
Yet many of these documents, when originally translated into policy, excluded women, people of
color, and members of certain social, religious, economic, and political groups. Nevertheless,
oppressed people throughout the world have drawn on the principles these documents express
to support revolutions that assert the right to self-determination.

Contemporary international human rights law and the establishment of the United Nations (UN)
have important historical antecedents. Efforts in the 19th century to prohibit the slave trade and
to limit the horrors of war are prime examples. In 1919, countries established the International
Labor Organization (ILO) to overseetreaties protecting workers with respect to their rights,
including their health and safety. Concern over the protection of certain minority groups was
raised by the League of Nations at the end of the First World War. However, this organization for
international peace and cooperation, created by the victorious European allies, never achieved
its goals. The League floundered because the United States refused to join and because the
League failed to prevent Japans invasion of China and Manchuria (1931) and Italys attack on
Ethiopia (1935). It finally died with the onset of the Second World War (1939).
The Birth of the United Nations
The idea of human rights emerged stronger after World War II. The extermination by Nazi
Germany of over six million Jews, Sinti and Romani (gypsies), homosexuals, and persons with
disabilities horrified the world. Trials were held in Nuremberg and Tokyo after World War II, and
officials from the defeated countries were punished for committing war crimes, "crimes against
peace," and "crimes against humanity."
Governments then committed themselves to establishing the United Nations, with the primary
goal of bolstering international peace and preventing conflict. People wanted to ensure that
never again would anyone be unjustly denied life, freedom, food, shelter, and nationality. The
essence of these emerging human rights principles was captured in President Franklin Delano
Roosevelts 1941 State of the Union Address when he spoke of a world founded on four essential
freedoms: freedom of speech and religion and freedom from want and fear (See Using Human
Rights Here & Now). The calls came from across the globe for human rights standards to protect
citizens from abuses by their governments, standards against which nations could be held
accountable for the treatment of those living within their borders. These voices played a critical
role in the San Francisco meeting that drafted the United Nations Charterin 1945.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Member states of the United Nations pledged to promote respect for the human rights of all. To
advance this goal, the UN established a Commission on Human Rights and charged it with the
task of drafting a document spelling out the meaning of the fundamental rights and freedoms
proclaimed in the Charter. The Commission, guided by Eleanor Roosevelts forceful leadership,
captured the worlds attention.
On December 10, 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted by
the 56 members of the United Nations. The vote was unanimous, although eight nations chose to
abstain.
The UDHR, commonly referred to as the international Magna Carta, extended the revolution in
international law ushered in by the United Nations Charter namely, that how a government
treats its own citizens is now a matter of legitimate international concern, and not simply a
domestic issue. It claims that all rights are interdependentand indivisible. Its Preamble
eloquently asserts that:

[R]ecognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all
members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the
world.
The influence of the UDHR has been substantial. Its principles have been incorporated into the
constitutions of most of the more than 185 nations now in the UN. Although adeclaration is not
a legally binding document, the Universal Declaration has achieved the status of customary
international law because people regard it "as a common standard of achievement for all
people and all nations."

The Human Rights Covenants

With the goal of establishing mechanisms for enforcing the UDHR, the UN Commission on Human
Rights proceeded to draft two treaties: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR) and its optional Protocol and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Together with the Universal Declaration, they are commonly referred to
as the International Bill of Human Rights. The ICCPR focuses on such issues as the right to
life, freedom of speech, religion, and voting. The ICESCR focuses on such issues as food,
education, health, and shelter. Both covenants trumpet the extension of rights to all persons
and prohibit discrimination.
As of 1997, over 130 nations have ratified these covenants. The United States, however, has
ratified only the ICCPR, and even that with many reservations, or formal exceptions, to its full
compliance. (See From Concept to Convention: How Human Rights Law Evolves).
Subsequent Human Rights Documents
In addition to the covenants in the International Bill of Human Rights, the United Nations has
adopted more than 20 principal treaties further elaborating human rights. These include
conventions to prevent and prohibit specific abuses like torture andgenocide and to protect
especially vulnerable populations, such as refugees (Convention Relating to the Status of
Refugees, 1951), women (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
against Women, 1979), and children (Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989). As of
1997 the United States has ratified only these conventions:
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
The Convention on the Political Rights of Women
The Slavery Convention of 1926
The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment

In Europe, the Americas, and Africa, regional documents for the protection and promotion of
human rights extend the International Bill of Human Rights. For example, African states have
created their own Charter of Human and Peoples Rights (1981), and Muslim states have created
the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (1990). The dramatic changes in Eastern Europe,
Africa, and Latin America since 1989 have powerfully demonstrated a surge in demand for
respect of human rights. Popular movements in China, Korea, and other Asian nations reveal a
similar commitment to these principles.
Source: Adapted from David Shiman, Teaching Human Rights, (Denver: Center for Teaching
International Relations Publications, U of Denver, 1993): 6-7

5 LEGAL RIGHTS WOMEN HAVE THAT MEN DONT

1. Women have the right to genital integrity
Regardless of how you personally feel about the practice of circumcision (I personally find it
barbaric, cruel and completely unjustifiable), the legal fact is that infant girls are protected
against any genital cutting of any kind and infant boys are not. Many feminists will argue that
female genital mutilation (FGM) is a magnitude of brutality beyond male genital mutilation and
while that may be true, I do not find the its only a little bit brutal argument to be very
compelling. Its like saying cutting off a toe is okay because cutting off a foot is much worse.
Ultimately, the argument is immaterial to the fact that women have the legal right to be
protected from having their body parts sliced off. Men do not.
2. Women have the right to vote without agreeing to die
In the US, citizens are free to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right to democratically
choose their own leaders through the process of casting a ballot in an election once they reach
the age of 18. Women achieve this right by the simple act of surviving 18 years. Men may not
actualize their basic rights as a citizen without first signing a Selective Service card, in which
they agree that at the discretion of the democratically elected government, they will take up
arms and die to defend their liberty and way of life. The draft. Men may vote if, and only if, they
agree they will face death if required. Women have no such obligation, but they do get to vote
for the governments that can potentially send men to meet death. Again, regardless of how you
feel about the draft, women have the right to vote without agreeing to be drafted. Men dont.
3. Women have the right to choose parenthood
Ive written about this before, but it is worth repeating. Women have three options to absolve
themselves of all legal, moral, financial and social responsibility for children they did not intend
and do not want. Women may abort the child before it is born, they may surrender the child for
adoption without notifying or identifying the father or they may surrender the infant under Safe
Haven laws and walk away from all responsibility and obligation. Women cannot be forced or
coerced into parenthood, but they are legally allowed to force men into financing their
reproductive choices. In many states, men can be forced into financial responsibility for children
whom they did not biologically father. As long as a particular man is identified as the father, he

will be held accountable. Paternity fraud is legal. In no state is legal paternal surrender permitted
without the express agreement of the mother.
Again, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with legal paternal surrender, the fact
remains that women have the legal right to choose parenthood. Men do not.
4. Women have the right to be assumed caregivers for children
When parental relationships irretrievably break down, current custody laws assume one primary
caregiver (almost always a woman) and one tertiary caregiver (almost always a man). In order to
win equal or shared custody, the tertiary caregiver must litigate to prove they are worthy of
equal parenting, a proposition that is not only very difficult to prove, it is also very expensive.
The legal presumption of shared parenting upon divorce that children have a legal right to an
equal relationship with both their mother and their father following relationship breakdown is
strongly resisted by the National Organization for Women (NOW) and other feminist organizations
who know that women will almost always win custody of children under the default laws. In
actual fact, men who can afford to purse legal remedies and challenge primary custody stand a
good chance of winning, because women do nothave the market cornered on loving or caring for
children. So while the law does not specifically indicate that custody will be awarded to
women, the defacto result of primary/tertiary caregiver custody law is that women have a legal
right to be assumed caregivers for children. Men do not.
5. Women have the right to call unwanted, coerced sex rape
The original FBI definition of rape specifically identified women as the victims, excluding the
possibility of male rape victims. When the FBI updated that, it did so in way that includes a small
minority of male rape victims but excluded most male rape victims by retaining the
penetration clause. Penetration of any orifice must occur for rape to have happened. The FBI
does collect another set of statistics though, under the category of other sexual assault its
the awkwardly named made to penetrate category, which includes men who were coerced,
tricked or bullied into penetrative sex with women they would otherwise not have had sex
with. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey similarly considers the two types
of assault separately, despite the fact that occurrences are virtually identical. 1.27M women
report rape (p.18) and 1.26M men report made to penetrate (p.19). By collecting the
information under separate categories, following the legal definitions, women have the right to
have their rapes called rape. Men do not.
Why does any of this matter? Feminism is under attack in the popular media for failing to
address real problems that have real consequences for real people. Despite insisting that
feminism cares for everyone, and wants equality for everyone, the facts suggest the opposite is
true. Women have more rights than men and those discrepancies need to be addressed. But
more importantly, gender is just one thing that defines who a person is, what advantages and
disadvantages they might have, what opportunities are in front of them, or foreclosed. Class,
wealth, race, ability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion all of these things have a profound
influence on individuals, and the only way to understand how a specific person can be helped or
hindered is to see that person as a human being, first and foremost. Perhaps the reason I dont
need feminism is because what I really need is humanism. And maybe you do, too.
List of Laws Protecting Women and Mothers

RA 6725 (April 27, 1989)

An Act Strengthening the Prohibition on Discrimination Against Women with Respect to Terms and
Conditions of Employment, Amending for the Purpose Article One Hundred Thirty-Five of the
Labor Code, As Amended
RA 6972 (November 23, 1990)
An Act Establishing a Day Care Center in Every Barangay Instituting Therein a Total Development
and Protection of Children Program, Appropriating Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes
RA 7192 (December 11, 1991)
An Act Promoting the Integration of Women as Full and Equal Partners of Men in Development
and Nation Building and for Other Purposes
RA 7322 (March 30, 1992)
An Act Increasing Maternity Benefits in Favor of Women Workers in the Private Sector, Amending
for the Purpose Section 14-A of Republic Act No. 1161, as Amended and for Other Purposes
RA 7600 (June 17, 1992)
An Act Requiring All Government and Private Health Institutions with Obstetrical Services to
Adopt Rooming-in and Breastfeeding Practices and for Other Purposes
RA 7688 (March 3, 1994)
An Act Giving Representation to Women in Social Security Commission Amending for the Purpose
Section 3(A) of Republic Act 1161, as Amended
RA 7822 (February 20, 1995)
An Act Providing Assistance to Women Engaging in Micro and Cottage Business Enterprises, and
for Other Purposes
RA 8353 (September 30, 1997) this includes marital rape
An Act Expanding the Definition of the Crime of Rape, Reclassifying the Same as a Crime Against
Persons, Amending for the Purpose Act No. 3815, as Amended, Otherwise Known as the Revised
Penal Code, and for Other Purposes
RA 8369 (October 28, 1997)
An Act Establishing Family Courts, granting Them Exclusive Original Jurisdiction Over Child and
Family Cases, Amending Batas Pambansa No. 192, as Amended, Otherwise Known as the
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, Appropriating Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes
RA 9262 (March 8, 2004)
An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing Protective Measures for
Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor and for Other Purposes

PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN DIGNITY

(1) The Common Good

When interdependence becomes recognized , the correlative response as a moral and social
attitude, as a virtue, is solidarity. This then is not a feeling of vague compassion or shallow
distress at the misfortunes of so many people, both near and far. On the contrary, it is a firm and
persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good; that is to say to the good of
all and of each individual, because we are all really responsible for all.
(Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, para. 38)
The common good as a foundational principle is closely intertwined with Human dignity and
leads to solidarity as described by John Paul II above. Because we are created as social beings,
individual rights need to be experienced within the context of promotion of the common good.
Contrary to the cultural bias of our time, there is a long-standing, Christian conviction, rooted in
biblical, patristic and medieval thought that what one deserves can only be properly determined
within a framework that takes the common good and the needs of the poor into account. Pope
John Paul II has updated the traditional conviction in a way that addresses the realities of todays
high-tech, knowledge based economy. The common good is the good that comes into existence
in a community of solidarity among active, equal agents.
The virtue of solidarity that John Paul II speaks of in the quotation above is a solidarity that is
not only a virtue to be enacted by individual persons one at a time. It must also be expressed in
the economic, cultural, political, and religious institutions that shape society. The participation of
all in society is the grounds for the common good. As human interdependence grows throughout
the world, the common good today takes on an increasingly universal complexion and
consequently involves rights and duties with respect to the whole human race. Individual rights
need to be experienced within the context of promotion of the common good.
The duty of all is to make the sacrifices necessary so that those who are marginalized can also
become active participants. It is not enough to draw on the surplus goods which in fact our
world abundantly produces; it requires above all a change of lifestyles, of modes of production
and consumption, and of established structures of power which today govern societies.
In terms of international relationships, interdependence must be transformed into solidarity,
based upon the principle that the goods of creation are meant for all. That which human industry
produces through the processing of raw materials, with the contribution of work, must serve
equally for the good of all. Accordingly, we must strive to craft an international order that
reflects true biblical justicea society marked by the fullness of love, compassion and peace.
Essential to the common good is participation by all in all spheres of society. The social nature of
the person requires that structures of both the civil society and the state allow full human growth
and development. All of society is responsible for the common good, but only the state is
responsible for public order (that part of the common good which involves public peace,
minimum standards of justice and public morality).
All people have a right and a duty to participate in society, seeking together the common good
and well-being of all, especially the poor and vulnerable. Without participation in the full range of
social spheres the benefits available to an individual through any social institution cannot be
realized, such as in a dictatorship when the state squeezes out all voluntary associations. The
human person has a right not to be shut out from participating in those institutions that are
necessary for human fulfillment.
The family is a central social institution that must be supported and strengthened, not
undermined. While our society often exalts individualism, the Catholic tradition teaches that in
association with othersin families and in other social institutions that foster growth, protect
dignity and promote the common goodhuman beings grow and come to their fulfillment. The
most appropriate and fundamental solutions to poverty will be those that enable persons to
take control of their own lives.

The principle of the common good challenges us to rise above the socioeconomic barriers
between Notre Dame and the many parts of the Northeast Neighborhood in order to strengthen
our human family and work together. The administration and student leaders of a Catholic
university such as Notre Dame have an obligation to help its students meet these
challenges.Students are the next-door neighbors of many of the Northeast Neighborhood
residents; they present an immediate and prominent face of the university to the Northeast
Neighborhood residents on a daily basis. If the university is committed to the promotion of the
common good, it needs also to be committed to solidarity between the students and the
surrounding neighborhoods.--Julie Davis, Jesse Flores and Brian Moscona; Christian Leadership,
THEO 273, April 2002
The Life and Dignity of the Human Person
We believe that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is a "Gospel of life." It invites all persons and societies
to a new life lived abundantly in respect for human dignity. (Living the Gospel of Life, para. 20)
Central to the principle of human dignity is the understanding that, every human being is created
in the image of God, redeemed by Jesus Christ, destined for union with God, and therefore
worthy of respect as a member of the human family.
We are called to respect all persons with the sense of awe that arises in the presence of all that
is sacred and holy. Our tradition teaches that every human person is sacred from conception to
death. We believe that those who are weak, vulnerable, or marginalized deserve special respect,
especially those who are unborn, disabled, elderly or dying. A key measure of every institution is
whether it threatens or enhances the life and dignity of the human person. One factor that
denies the inherent dignity of each person is discrimination in its many forms, such as that based
on race, gender or economic status.
This principle is not merely a prohibition against killing or harming life; rather, it calls us to
proclaim a new culture of life by revering life, loving life and fostering life at all stages. Drawing
our strength from Christ and following the example of Mary, we say yes to life in word and
deed. We say yes in gratitude and joy at the incomparable dignity of each human being that
impels us to share this message with everyone.
Stewardship and Care for Creation
Christian love forbids choosing between people and the planet. It urges us to work for an
equitable and sustainable future in which all peoples can share in the bounty of the earth and in
which the earth itself is protected from predatory use. The common good invites regions of the
country to share burdens equitablyIt also invites us to explore alternatives in which our poor
brothers and sisters will share with the rest of us in the banquet of life, at the same time that we
preserve and restore the earth, which sustains us. (Renew the Earth, Section 4, para.C)
There is a solidarity among all creatures arising from the fact that all have the same Creator and
are ordered to glory and worship of the Creator. Humanitys dominion over inanimate and other
living beings is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his or her neighbor,
including generations to come. As such, the steward is a manager, not an owner. Accordingly,
use of the mineral, vegetable and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from our
moral responsibilities. Our stewardship of the earth enables us to be participants in Gods act of
creating and sustaining the world.
Studies on the state of environmental justice in this country cite race as a predictor of who bears
a disproportionate burden of environmental degradation in the U.S. These studies state that,
African Americans, Native Americans, Latinos, Asians and Pacific Islanders are among the highly
vulnerable populations most susceptible to the injustices of racism, poverty, and environmental
degradation.

Likewise, the conditions of the poor are often closely connected to environmental issues. In
Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, Pope John Paul II argues that the direct or indirect result of
industrialization is frequently the pollution of the environment, which often has serious
consequences to the health and well-being of the poorest members of society. Moreover, the
overuse of natural resources by the West endangers their long and short-term availability,
especially for the poor. Authentic development seeks to make a preferential option for the poor in
the same way that it aims to care for creation.
Subsidiarity
One should not withdraw from individuals and commit to the community what they can
accomplish by their own enterprise and industry. So, too, it is an injustice and at the same time a
grave evil and a disturbance of right order to transfer to the larger and higher collectivity
functions which can be performed and provided for by lesser and subordinate bodies. For every
social activity should, by its very nature, prove a help to the members of the body social, it
should never destroy or absorb them.
(Quadragesimo anno, para. 79)
Regulating the movement from marginalization to participation for the sake of the common good
is the principle of subsidiarity. This principle warns about the tendency of the state and other
large scale institutions to usurp authority to control persons, thereby destroying individual liberty
and initiative. The notion of subsidiarity is that activities or functions ought to be accomplished
by the most local of smallest grouping possible, rather than be assumed by the larger groups or
collectivity. In Quadragesimo Anno, Pius XI explicitly makes the principle of subsidiarity the
guiding norm upon which the social order is to be restored. Just as it is gravely wrong to take
from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the
community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of the
right order to assign to a greater or higher association what a lesser and subordinate
organizations can do.
The main effect of this principle is to limit the role of the state and other large scale institutions
while empowering local efforts. But those needs which cannot be effectively addressed at a local
level should be referred to at the next highest level of organization. This principle was initially
used to protect individuals and groups, but more recently it has been employed to define the
relationship between particular nation-states and worldwide public authorities.
The Correlation of Rights and Responsibilities
The attainment of the workers rights cannot be doomed to be merely a result of economic
systems which on a larger or smaller scale are guided chiefly by the criterion of maximization of
profit. On the contrary, it is respect of the objective rights of the worker every kind of worker:
manual or intellectual, industrial or agricultural, etc. that must constitute the adequate and
fundamental criterion for shaping the whole economy. (Laborem Exercens, para. 17) Human
dignity grounds and is protected by a spectrum of human rights and corresponding duties.
Society facilitates participation in all spheres of the social order through inter-related rights and
duties. Every person has the right to means that are necessary for the development of life: food,
clothing, shelter, rest, medical care and the necessary social services. Likewise, all citizens have
a duty to respect human rights and to fulfill their responsibilities to each other and to the larger
society. The primary duty is to live in solidarity, that is, a firm and persevering determination to
commit oneself to the common good.
It is important to see that all rights have a corresponding responsibility. Those, therefore, who
claim their own rights, yet altogether forget of neglect to carry out their respective duties, are
people who build with one hand and destroy with the other.

The political rights of all persons set limits on the state, such as the freedom of association and
freedom of speech. All persons have economic rights, as well, which set limits on market logic,
such as the right to work, a just wage, humane working conditions, and health care.
Related to rights and responsibilities is the dignity of work and the rights of workers. In an
economy where too often profits take precedence over the rights of workers, a moral analysis is
necessary. The economy must serve people, not the other way around. Work not only helps
people make a living, it is a continuing participation in Gods creation (Gen. 1:28, Matt. 6:25-34).
The basis for determining the value of human work is not primarily on the kind of work being
done but on the fact that the one doing it is a person.
The dignity of work is Three issues related to work are distinguishable: the dignity of work;
workers unions and cooperatives; and workers sharing the ownership of the means of
production. The dignity of work is safeguarded when workers rights are respected. Workers have
the strong support of the Church in forming and joining unions and worker associations of their
choosing in the exercise of their dignity and rights. The many proposals put forward by experts
in Catholic social teaching take on special significance: proposals for joint ownership of the
means of work, sharing by the workers in the management and/or profits of business. It is
clear that recognition of the proper positions of labor and the worker in the production process
demands various adaptations in the sphere of the right to ownership of the means of
production.
The Catholic social teachings provide a powerful argument for assisting Cambodians with AIDS in
this globalized, capitalistic society. Perhaps the vision statement for the Maryknoll Mission
Association of the Faithful best encapsulates the theological reflection presented here: We strive
with (the poor, marginalized and oppressed peoples of the earth) for justice, peace and fullness
of life. We celebrate the holiness of everyday life and even amidst sin, suffering, and death, we
proclaim the hope of resurrection. Our status as human beings and creatures of God gives each
individual an inherent dignity that must be preserved. AIDS is not a moral punishment by God,
but another example of suffering on earth in which God and Christians can find solidarity in
brokenness.-- Amy Braun, The Cambodian AIDS Epidemic and the Global Community, THEO 274,
2001.