Christianity and Human Rights - how do they fit?
Published Monday, 18 May 2009, by Anglican Media Melbourne
To find out more about Human Rights and Christianity, see our page on Human Rights and review the associated documents.
by Angus McLeay and Fiona McLeay
Abortion, same sex unions, religious vilification, gender
roles, poverty relief, workplace relations and foreign policy. These are but a
few of the vital issues which affect us profoundly and which are discussed
within a framework we often know too little about: human rights. Recently the
Federal Government began a National Human
Rights Consultation, chaired by Father Frank Brennan. So it is worthwhile
asking ourselves how human rights fit with Christian faith. What do you know
about human rights?
Try this quick quiz:
- Only two countries have refused to sign the 1979 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Somalia is one. What is the other country?
- Can you name three human rights found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
- Was the Bible used to draft the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
The answers appear in this article, so read on! Some church leaders, such as Catholic Archbishop George Pell, are outspoken in their opposition to a Federal Human Rights Charter. Some Protestant Christians are also sharply critical of the proposal. Yet consider the way human rights have benefited society in just three areas.
Freedom of worship. This human right (Article 18 of the Universal Declaration) helped resolve decades of religious wars in Europe . It is used to protect Christians from persecution today.
Political freedom. (Articles 19 - 21). In 18th century Europe political power was concentrated in the hands of an elite minority. The French and American revolutions extended the right - in principle - that all people are entitled to freedom of political association and expression. These rights are critical to the modern idea of legitimate government, although it would take a long time for the principles to be fully integrated into Western democracies. The right to vote was allowed first to white men with land; then to all white men; then to men of colour and prisoners, and last but not least, to women.
The right to freedom from torture and a fair trial (Articles 5 - 11). This might seem unbelievable, but not so long ago in civilised Europe it was customary to torture people in secret to ascertain their guilt or innocence. That is, prior to trial. 'Evidence' extracted during torture was then used in court! A famous case which led to changing these practices involved the French Protestant, Jean Calas who was tortured, then tried, convicted and then executed for murdering his son. Calas, who protested innocence to the end, was guilty of nothing more than having a son (tragically) commit suicide.
Examples of the ways human rights emerge as central to a more just, decent and equitable society abound. Yet as mentioned some Christians feel uncertain about them. Earlier the question was asked about which country other than Somalia has refused to sign the 1990 Convention on the Rights on a Child. It is the USA . Why? The campaign against signing (ratification) was opposed for many cultural reasons, but it included strong opposition from conservative Christian groups who feared that the Convention would give the United Nations power to interfere in family life. Similarly, Christian suspicion about human rights (and those involved with them) has issued in skeptical responses to the National Consultation on Human Rights. One of those involved in reviewing submissions for the Consultation told us of his surprise and dismay at the tone of submissions from Christian groups.
Perhaps you wonder if there are not some inherent problems with human rights. For instance, do they foster an excessive appeal to 'individual rights', and neglect responsibilities? Some even equate the modern quest for rights with a sinful expression of human autonomy. These views rest partly on a common misperception that human rights have nothing to do with responsibility. In fact human rights documents, such as the Universal Declaration do contain corresponding responsibilities. Article 29 of the Universal Declaration states that community is essential for the proper development of individuals and that "everyone has duties to [their] community".
For example, take the right to a fair trial. This right could not exist without a corresponding responsibility to provide a fair trial. This in turn implies that citizens responsibly participate in trial procedures, such as juries and in giving evidence. It is important to note that rights are not a mechanism to create communal bonds in society but one means for protecting individuals from the enormous power of the state. If we happen to be part of a minority (like Jean Calas, who was a minority Protestant in a Catholic state) human rights help to curb the excesses of the state (which might also be backed by the majority of the populace). The role of a human rights Charter is as a reference point for Parliament in drafting legislation. A Charter would not have legislative power, which remains entirely with Parliament. But it would help to focus Parliament (and the bureaucracy) on our long held and most cherished values.
Others worry that human rights are based on secular humanism. In fact the Bible, as well as the scriptures of other major faiths, was a key resource for the Universal Declaration. The Declaration upholds human dignity as Jesus taught and exemplefied, and as implied in the creation of humanity in God's image. The Declaration seeks to promote peaceful, just government, in accord with God's providential care. It especially seeks to protect the vulnerable from exploitation, a central theme throughout Scripture. Across the millenia, ethics in societies have been formulated in different ways. The Old Testament classically gave prohibitions (eg. in many of the laws in Leviticus, Deuteronomy); the New Testament enjoined duties (eg. in Paul's letters); and the modern era enshrines many of those ethical precepts through rights. The developments are related to the modern concept of personhood, medieval 'natural rights' and the Reformation's appeal to conscience. Human rights not only owe much to Christian traditions, they reflect many biblical ideals. For these reasons it would be a shame for the church not to be fully engaged and informed about their role in society.
Nonetheless it would be simplistic to ignore the challenges of changing contexts for Christian views. We are not alone in struggling to come to terms with the quite recent application of the inherent rights of women, for instance. These struggles will continue as we strive to hear afresh God's eternal word in new contexts and cultures. Human rights remain a central way in which the relationship between citizen and the state can be managed and have been pivotal in the development of many of the best aspects of our society. But they are not a substitute for religion or a comprehensive solution to the spiritual needs of humanity. So we need not feel threatened by human rights per se. Instead we should invest ourselves more deeply in their interpretation and application from a Christian perspective.
The Revd
Angus McLeay is an Anglican minister on staff at St Hilary's, Kew and St
Silas' North
Balwyn .
Fiona McLeay works at World Vision where she was the first General Legal Counsel. She has two Masters Degrees in International and Human Rights Law.
More information on Human Rights
Comments (17)
Post a comment
Your comment will not be visible until it has been approved.
Posted by: Alan Nichols on Saturday 5 May 2009 at 09:10pm
We belong to a Sunday discussion group, which has just started looking at human rights, the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and the Frank Brennan consultation. This article by the McLeays is very helpful.
Posted by: Tim on Saturday 6 June 2009 at 11:05am
"this human right (Article 18 of the Universal Declaration) helped resolve decades of religious wars in Europe."
what do you mean 'religious wars'? Do you care to name a few?
Posted by: Angus McLeay on Wednesday 6 June 2009 at 12:50pm
Hi Tim, I'm referring to the major conflicts in Europe following the Reformation, such as the French civil wars (1562-98); the Dutch revolution (1567-79); the Scottish rebellion against Mary Stuart (1565-68); the Thirty Years' War (mostly in Germany, 1618-48); the Puritan Revolution in England (1642-48), among others. The Treaty of Westphalia (1648) helped end the major strife by giving states (ie. Princes / Kings) the right to select or keep a religion; John Locke in 'Letter Concerning Toleration' extended this principle to individuals - one of the class of 'absolute' ("non-derogable") human rights. I hope this helps.
Posted by: Andrew on Thursday 7 July 2009 at 02:01pm
We should be wary and fearful of the current trend towards legislating so-called rights. We should regard this as more an ideological push from the left to create a mechanism to push the rights of certain minorities over and above those of others. Christians have and will continue to see visible examples of compassion and love as the best way to shape society and influence values rather than legislation upon legislation which gives an inappropriate and undemocratic power shift to unelected judges. The ideological drive behind the charter of rights movement is clear in the absence of any reference to a right to life - an inalienable 'right' Christians have fought for over many years and, further enshrined in a number of international convntions to which we are signatories.
Posted by: Stephen Brown on Thursday 7 July 2009 at 06:48pm
Hi Angus, good to make contact again.
Maybe I'm slow mate, but did a Charter/Bill/Declaration of Human Rights exist before and was the basis for the resolution of these conflicts that you list?
It seems you are applying the principle for a bill of human rights backwards onto conflicts that were resolved through simple diplomacy. Diplomacy led to rights being established...A bit like what happens in our current Australian parliament, you know, debating and making laws that uphold basic human rights.
You seem to be arguing for the system we currently enjoy.
I have a few other questions too...
Are there human rights that are being denied people in our country today? If so...are they not protected by current law or could be by amendment?
What do we lack if we don't have a Federal Bill of Rights?
In your article you failed to define what a human right is. What I mean is this; what is the difference between common rights and desires as opposed to inalienable human rights?
I think that distinction helps clear the wood from the trees in this discussion.
Could we be confusing human desire with inalienable human rights?
God bless,
Stephen
Posted by: Angus McLeay on Monday 7 July 2009 at 01:58pm
Hi Steve – thanks for your post and you ask really good, important questions. They are also BIG questions so ‘ll do my best to reduce issues worthy of books to a few brief points!
Starting with the last one, What are ‘human rights’? When government, human rights activists or UN documents refer to human rights they mean rights / responsibilities in a legal sense, NOT in a moral or philosophical sense. That is because human rights developed as a legal apparatus to manage the relationship between citizens and government. They are civic tools (primarily) and ethical / philosophical ideas in a more secondary sense. However, many focus on the ethics encapsulated in human rights, such as human dignity. Rights DO NOT have legal power except where a government writes them into their local law. Ie. the UN doesn’t have any legal jurisdiction over countries / individuals (the one exception being the International Court of Justice), and has NO ‘hard’ (ie. coercive) power to enforce anything (member countries may enforce action agreed to by the Security Council).
Posted by: Angus McLeay on Monday 7 July 2009 at 01:58pm
What is the difference between ‘common rights / desires’ and “inalienable” human rights? What we call “human rights” are in effect statements of ‘common rights’ which the world has agreed are valuable as explicit statements in Declarations, Covenants & Treaties. Clearly articulated statements may help avoid horrors such as the Holocaust (the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was partly a response to the Holocaust). You might ask, but what use are they when we’ve seen similar tragedies in Rwanda, Bosnia, Uganda and so on? Usually rights are only enforceable – legally and practically – by the local government. The government concerned must apply them into their own domestic law. But the existence of ‘instruments’ (as they’re called) such as the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) influences governments because it represents majority world opinion. In a few international situations the UN can intervene, such as putting in election observers, peace corps, etc, such as in Darfur. In even fewer cases UN resolutions which represent majority international opinion may be enforced by a group of countries. This happened in the first Gulf War.
Posted by: Angus McLeay on Monday 7 July 2009 at 01:59pm
Are human rights denied to people in Australia today? The National Consultation on Human Rights is exploring this very question. However there is lots of evidence already available from reviews in WA, the ACT, Victoria and Queensland that some people are not being looked after by the current (common law) system. There are also high profile examples, such as detaining children in harsh refugee centres, the handling of Doctor Haneef by the former government, the way immigration handled cases like Vivian Solon, etc.
If these (rights) are not protected, couldn’t they by an amendment of our law? As mentioned above, rights are only enforceable by law so that has to happen to address the issue. Why many believe a Charter will help is that the current system will be less liable to failing if we have a Charter as a reference point for politicians. For example we could have a government which is strong on managing the economy and poor at looking after people’s rights. We, as voters, only get a Yes / No vote on the government as a whole, not on specific issues. We might decide the economy is more important for choosing the government than its policy on disabled or homeless people (who are vulnerable groups). A Charter of Rights should help accountability because the government would be required to formally evaluate legislation (and its implementation by public servants) according to internationally accepted norms. Parliament is still free to decide what to do, they are not legally bound to a court’s decision. But at least conflicts between longstanding norms (‘human rights’) and government policy / actions will be highlighted under the proposed Charter.
Posted by: Angus McLeay on Monday 7 July 2009 at 01:59pm
Now, your first question: how did a Charter / Bill / Declaration of Rights affect the religious wars a few centuries back? Wasn’t it just diplomacy? It was diplomacy, but diplomacy using the principles we now call human rights. For instance, one fundamental human right is the individual’s right to religious freedom (Article 18 of the UDHR). The absence of this ‘human right’ was the chief reason why religious wars kept raging. In Western Christendom the Catholic Church asserted that it was the only true church and anyone who disagreed could either convert or be killed! The Protestants often responded in kind. (Of course power and wealth, not just religious belief, were at stake in these wars.) Martin Luther famously got the principle of individual religious freedom going when he told the Pope, “here I stand - I can do no other!” That is, Luther asserted his individual conscience, or reading of Scripture. (After which he fled into hiding to escape execution.) So the right to an individual’s freedom of religion is a human right which was stated and applied in the 17th and 18th centuries in a political world where it was previously unthinkable, and which is now written into human rights treaties. It was actually only applied to Rulers (eg. Princes or Kings) at first, who could decide for their subjects what to believe; but it became inescapably clear that their subjects should have the same choice. It took centuries for the principle to work its way through all aspects of society to people of different faiths. Today it is unacceptable that anyone should be treated as inferior, let alone persecuted, because of a different faith. As a final point, when the Australian Constitution, s. 116, only preserves a limited right to religious freedom because the Commonwealth has no power over States in regard to laws limiting religious freedom. State Charters of Rights (such as Victoria’s) could be used to challenge any legislation posed by State Parliament which might curtail freedom of religion.
Posted by: Angus McLeay on Monday 7 July 2009 at 02:15pm
Hi Andrew. The Proposed Charter of Rights would not have legislative force (as the Victorian one doesn't). Judges and politicians are equally important to democracy. Speculation on imbalance of the powers is beyond my constitutional knowledge but if correct, we must conclude that every other advanced democracy in the world is imbalanced as they all have rights in Charter / legislative / Constitutional form. The church is quite free to put a case forward for a Charter to define right to life as including the unborn. Most charters appear to leave this type of definition with Parliaments because it's so contested at present. I hope this helps Andrew.
Posted by: Dr. Jereth Kok on Sunday 7 July 2009 at 06:11pm
Australia already has an exemplary human "rights" record, compared with most other countries. Our "rights" are already well protected by our Constitution, by our Westminster system of Government, by our Parliamentary Democracy, and by the current balance of power between the legislature and judiciary. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
I believe that the Charter of Rights is being pushed by a minority within our community with a vested interest, and is not in the interests of the majority.
A Charter of Rights will give unprecedented (and in my view dangerous) power to un-elected and unaccountable judges with pet-interests and fringe ideologies. It will turn Australia into a litigious society like America where "me and my rights" becomes an unhealthy and socially destructive pursuit. Judge Judy will become not just reality TV, but reality. Is that what we really want?
Most importantly for Christian believers, a Charter of Rights will inevitably erode our religious freedom. All across the Western world, and already in Victoria, "rights legislation" has led to Christians being forced to silence on matters of belief, conscience and morality. As a medical practitioner my freedom to practise according to my conscience has already been laid up on the altar of abortion "rights". What next?
The Church is undeniably an intended victim of "rights legislation", because it preaches an exclusive message of salvation in Jesus only, and prescribes one rule for human sexuality. Those who cannot tolerate our teaching intend to use "rights legislation" to bludgeon us into submission to their social and ethical vision which is every bit as intolerant as they assert ours to be.
Jesus never commanded us to pursue "rights". Instead, his moral platform was "love your neighbour as yourself". The difference between these two visions is that a culture of "rights" is fundamentally self-seeking, whereas a culture of "love" is self sacrificial and other person centred.
Posted by: Angus McLeay on Wednesday 7 July 2009 at 09:36am
Hi Jereth, you’ve raised a number of worthwhile issues, thanks. 1) Our system already protects rights and can’t be improved with a Charter? Not according to a series of reviews in WA, Queensland, ACT and Victoria which demonstrate with numerous examples that needy, marginalised people are being dealt with poorly by government. We’ve also seen high profile cases in recent years: Dr Mohammed Haneef; Vivian Solon; and children in detention (who are still held in places of detention, unaccompanied by parents). The Constitution only protects 6 key human rights, the Victorian Charter protects 19. While section 116 of the Constitution protects freedom of religion it isn't positively protected by the States. 2) A Charter is being pushed by an activist minority? Not according to a February 2009 AC Nielsen poll in which 81% of Australians favoured new laws protecting human rights. The National Consultation also received an astonishing 40,000 public submissions. 3) A Charter of Rights erodes religious freedom? (eg. the Victorian Abortion law reforms.) In fact the reverse is true: please see my paper on the website “What’s Not So Wrong About Rights” for detail. Briefly, the Charter played NO role in regard to the new Abortion laws – you can thank our elected representatives for them. 4) Jesus never commanded us to pursue “rights”? The point is anachronistic, historically. He didn’t talk about ivf either. “Rights” is a modern framework arising from the modern nation state and the development of individual identity. Like any aspect of culture it is liable to the effects of sin. I would agree that we need to be wary of how self-interest is at work here. Yet it would be naive and unbiblical to imagine that it’s only a problem for rights and not the present regime.
Posted by: Stephen Brown on Wednesday 7 July 2009 at 04:36pm
Hi Angus,
Thanks for your reasoned replies to our genuine concerns.
I'm still not quite able to grasp your balance when you say on the one hand that a Charter of Rights if adopted would not impinge on our law making, but on the other hand you say, "A Charter of Rights should help accountability because the government would be required to formally evaluate legislation (and its implementation by public servants) according to internationally accepted norms."
In my mind this at the very least has huge potential for riding rough shod over our law making system of government.
Also you say, "Parliament is still free to decide what to do, they are not legally bound to a court’s decision. But at least conflicts between longstanding norms (‘human rights’) and government policy / actions will be highlighted under the proposed Charter."
Wouldn't that result in a dogs-breakfast with government fighting (or stuck in a standoff) against legal decisions. i.e. we'd have two almost equally powerful power-brokers (elected politicians & judges). And from what you say about this system helping us to see a government's departure from 'norms' (ie Rights), it seems in your mind that the Judiciary are automatically on the legal & moral high ground. Sure, the government may ignore their judgments but they'd probably receive untold condemnation for refusal to adhere to the decision of the Judiciary.
No matter how I look at it this system seems to set up a Government against it own Judiciary. At worst it may even enslave the Government to the Judiciary. Is that a possibility or valid fear?
Also, why do you think both Christians & many Non-Christian politicians and bureaucrats are opposed to this idea?
It seems a lot of people are quite afraid of this proposal. Is all our fear & concern unfounded?
Thanks for the food for thought, you've got me thinking harder.
Steve
PS - I couldn't find your other paper on the site...I'll give it another go.
PPS - Just read Peter Costello's article on legislation threatening Christian liberty today in the Sydney Morning Herald. Are his contentions valid? Seems like some minority groups with an anti-Christian chip on their shoulder are waiting in the wings if his information is correct. I'd appreciate your thoughts.
Posted by: Angus McLeay on Wednesday 7 July 2009 at 05:55pm
Hi Steve, Thanks for your further questions. On the relationship between Parliament and a Human Rights Charter have a read of my “What’s Not So Wrong About Rights” which you’ll find as downloadable pdf if you click on “More information about human rights” at the top of the comments section on this page.
I’m not sure how it’s feasible that courts or judges could ride rough-shod over Parliament under a “dialogue” Charter where final decision-making power rests with Parliament. Perhaps you are thinking of a US-style Constitutional arrangement by envisaging a bitter stalemate between the judiciary and Parliament. The US system is very different to ours in regard to the role of the courts. They have a tradition of the Constitution being owned by the people (most Australians wouldn’t know our Constitution if we fell over it). As the self-proclaimed world’s greatest democracy Americans believe it’s essential that courts can challenge Congress (hence George W Bush couldn’t have simply over-ridden [by new laws] the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade abortion decision). We have, from the British, a tradition of Parliamentary sovereignty, which means that when in doubt our High Court defers to Parliament, it doesn’t ‘challenge’ it to the extent that the US Supreme Court might or can. Australian courts while seperate, aren’t equal to Parliament in practice. So I don’t think there is any basis for worrying that the Parliament would or could be ‘enslaved’ by the Judiciary – it’s just not the Australian way!
Whether Parliament would receive “untold condemnation” for disregarding a statement of incompatibility on rights would probably depend on the circumstances. It can hardly be said that courts are always supported by the public, as this human rights debate shows. In a time of national crisis – and we can look at the aftermath of the terrorism attacks in Britain, or 9/11 in the US – Parliament tends to have a huge popular mandate to act as it wishes.
Why are people who aren’t Christian opposed to a Charter? There are many reasons, political, social, etc. It’s perfectly valid for Christians to form their own views on a Charter. My concern is that we reflect on the issues using key Christian principles rather than just political views, and that our conduct reflects the values of Mark 10:35-45; 2 Cor 4:2 and 1 Peter 3:13-15.
I’ll have to pass on Peter Costello’s article as I think this post is long enough!!
Posted by: Andrew Stagg on Monday 8 August 2009 at 12:15pm
Hi Angus
Peter Costello's article needs to be better addressed by christians who are strongly in support of a charter of human rights because he raises a number of very serious problems that seem to have been entirely swept under the carpet by those who would promote this substantial change to our political system.
Many of the problems that Peter identifies have also been raised by numerous respected figures on both sides of politics. He is not alone in his concerns.
Of course people are welcome to disregard Peters warnings, but published in today’s Age is an opinion piece by Hugh de Kretser (executive officer Federation Community Legal Centres Victoria) – who promotes many of the very things Peter has warned us about!! The article is titled Religions should not have the right to discriminate against those who disagree with their doctrines. The context of the article, what Hugh is arguing for, is frightening.
If what Hugh has argued today is correct – and it may or may not be – but if it is correct then we desperately need to stop and rethink the negative implications that this charter will inflict on us all.
The full article can be found here.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/equality-loses-out-to-freedom-20090802-e5sm.html?page=-1
Cheers
ANDREW
Posted by: Angus McLeay on Friday 8 August 2009 at 01:41pm
Hi Andrew, Let me make a few points in response:
1) the problems you raise are hypothetical views of the future. The ACT and Victoria have had Charters for about 3 years. We’ve not seen anything terrible happen to religious freedoms as a result of these Charters. We have seen many good things happen for the least protected in society.
2) the actual, ‘real’ problems Christians have faced (eg. on religious vilification and abortion) haven’t come from Charters but from elected representatives. This point has been studiously avoided by all the Charter critics who argue that the existing system is preferable.
3) cases overseas where religious rights are found in conflict with other rights demonstrate that human rights are highly protective of religious freedoms, yes, even in courts (see the website, www.hrlrc.org.au for cases). Again these cases are being ignored by critics who tend to speak in vague generalities, or give examples which are incorrect (our own Charter, for instance, has NO applicability to churches, pastors or even Christian schools)
4) what about the Courts? I agree with Peter that we don’t want courts deciding these great moral issues. But do we only want politicians involved? (what if you live in Queensland where graft is apparently rife?) We know politicians can be led by pure majoritarianism (rather than principle), by powerful lobby groups and their own wilful desires (the examples are too numerous to list). That’s why democracies balance Parliaments with Judiciaries. Charters don’t tie one arm of government up, they give both roles in working on our ‘great moral issues’, whilst preserving Parliamentary sovereignty.
Posted by: Ray Cleary on Sunday 4 April 2010 at 09:06pm
Thans Andrew and Fiona for your thoughtful and well researched article. WE cat the melbourne SRC have expressed similiar views as has the Primate of our Church and the Bishop Of Gippsland. I have tried to advise our politicians that Cardinal George Pell and the ACL do not represent the spread of christian views on the matter. I also agree with you that the views of some christian leadres are confused about the issue and fail to know the role Human Rights have palyed in protecting religion and how biblically based they are and how they have influenced the secular world