by Andrew M.
From the beginning of human history,
the rights of human beings have often lacked a voice. Early ideas, such as the
Cyrus Cylinder, were concepts in their infancy and were thus limited in scope
and development. It is in the last century that human rights have found a
voice, acceptance, codification, and concern amongst the nations of the world (Donnelly
496).
As human rights have become more
broadly accepted they have also been more broadly discussed. One such discussion
revolves around the relationship between secularism and human rights. Some
argue the idea that human rights (and thus also the lack of human rights abuse)
stem from creating secular governments, free from religious interference and
ideologies (Centre for Secular Space). However, this viewpoint assumes that a
government of a secular nature is friendlier to human rights, and more over
that there is in fact a positive correlation between secularism and human
rights. The question then arises if such assumptions hold up to the test of
reality. Given a survey of countries, governments, and human rights offenders
from recent history, it quickly becomes clear that such a link is, at best, difficult
to establish.
For the sake of clarity, it must be
noted that “human rights” in this paper refers to rights defined and recognized
in the International Bill of Human Rights. This list is not universal by any
means, but in the interests of brevity and a definitive argument it is a
reasonable starting point for a discussion on human rights.
Likewise, the term
“secularism” also demands definition. The Centre for Secular Space argues that
secularism or more specifically “secular space” is defined as, “a separation between religion and the state” (Centre for
Secular Space). Their argument revolves around the idea that the state must not
be controlled by religious influences. While this can lead to further debate
about the nature of influence and religion, for the purposes of this paper the
definition of secularism is thus: a government, theory, or figure known to be
free from religious influence, that is, an entity removed from the impacts of
religion. Such a definition is somewhat of a broad brush to paint with, but
further detail would demand exhaustive research and detailed reckoning with all
aspects of what may be implied by the term, “secularist”.
First, it must be determined what a
few of the key documents are in the earliest history of human rights, and if
those documents are in fact secular documents. United for Human Rights (UHR)
NGO, lists the Cyrus Cylinder, the Magna Carta, and the US Bill of Rights as
foundational to modern human rights (“History…” 1). While this is not a
complete and universal list, it does represent a significant portion of the
foundations for modern human rights. This is notable because each of these
sources is by no means purely secular. The Cyrus Cylinder originated from King
Cyrus the Great in ancient Babylon. The Cylinder is a record of Cyrus’ decrees
for religious and racial rights and equality, and thus one of the earliest
records of codified human rights law (“History…” 1). Cyrus himself was known to
be quite tolerant of other religions (“The Cyrus Cylinder”) and even encouraged
the rebuilding of the Jewish temple and religious system (ibid). While it may
be fruitless to argue which religion Cyrus practiced (Briant 94), it is well
known that Babylon itself was highly religious society and cultural center. This
makes the argument for Cyrus and his Cylinder as purely secular entities very
difficult at best.
The Magna Carta is another example
of early rights documentation. King John enacted (albeit briefly) the document
nearly 800 years ago, which established rights and limits between John and some
of his subjects (Hirsch). In 2010 the UK Minister for State of Justice, Lord
McNally referred to the Magna Carta as the “most influential secular document”
in the world (Hirsch). But the language of the document itself, as well as
those present at the signing creates doubt regarding the extent of its
secularist nature. Those present included not only King John, but also a list
of bishops, archbishops, and “reverend fathers” (“Treasures…"). At the very
least, the company of the creators and signers was anything but purely secular.
Furthermore the language includes phrases such as, “John, by the grace of God,
King of England . . . know that before God . . . to the honour of God . . . the
exaltation of the holy Church”, as well as additional language about the
freedom of the church (“Treasures…”). Whether or not John was a highly
religious man is somewhat irrelevant. What is relevant is that the religious
authority of the day had influence in politics and the creation of the document,
and the language of the Magna Carta reflects this. These origins strongly imply
religious influence, and yet the document would go on to be highly regarded in
the eyes of human rights history.
Likewise, the Bill of Rights was not
constructed in a purely secularist vacuum either. James Madison and George
Mason authored the document, and while the details of their religious views may
not be fully known, what is known leaves much to be desired for the secularist
argument. Madison is thought to have believed in deism, and author James Brieg
says that Madison, “defended belief in God
as a moral necessity to man” (Brieg).
George Mason, was also a religious man, who wrote that, “Duty which we owe to
our divine and omnipotent Creator . . . And that it is the mutual Duty of all,
to practice Christian forbearance, Love and Charity towards Each other”
(Dreisbach). As it is, both men held their belief in God as a serious conviction.
It is reasonable to assume that these beliefs were of some influence as they
crafted the Bill of Rights (a codified law of human rights), and it would be
very difficult to prove otherwise.
The presence and likely influence of
religious beliefs in the creation of each of these documents or belief systems
is problematic to wholly disprove. Each of these influential sources shows evidence
of religious influence and a lack of evidence for a secularist argument. They
contain either religious language, or was written by such a person or in such a
way that it is impossible to purge religious influence from them. Thus, from a
beginning it is impossible to declare human rights as an entirely secularist
entity. Modern human rights as seen by the United Nations and Declaration of
Human Rights may be somewhat secularist in nature, but the origins of such
concepts are far less one-sided.
This is an important theme as the
issue of human rights violations and abuses are also considered in light of
secularism. One the one hand, religions have historically been notorious for
their abuse of those who did not join their cause, and this is seen even in
modern human rights history. The 2013 U.S. Commission on International
Religious Freedom (USCIRF) report names the top 15 worst human rights offending
countries—ten of which are governed by Islamic totalitarian regimes (Blankely).
While the report does focus on religious freedom, it is important to note that
the top 15 countries on the report are regarded as Tier 1 countries, that is
that they routinely engage in acts that violate basic human rights such as
“torture, prolonged detention without charges, [and] disappearances” to name a
few (Liben 3). The report also suggests that an additional number of countries
be added to the Tier 1 list, as “CPCs” or “countries of particular concern”
(ibid). The majority of these countries are also Islamic totalitarian regimes.
Issues such as women’s rights, and the rights of religious, ethnic, or sexual
minorities are often endangered at best, and all-out persecuted at worst. Additionally other historical events such as
the Crusades have brought wholesale torture, threats, and death to the general
populace in the name of religion. The history of religion reveals that some
religious movements have thoroughly trampled on human rights.
On the other hand, however, this is
not a wholesale endorsement of the secularist viewpoint. The Centre for Secular
Space argues that, “human rights cannot
thrive in an atmosphere of religious intimidation” (“Frequently…), and argues
also that the State should not have abusive power over religious institutions
(ibid). Yet it is clear from a survey of history that human rights have been
abused in a secularist vacuum—and perhaps worse than their religious counterparts.
University of Hawaii Professor R.J. Rummel conducted research suggesting that Soviet
Russia saw the death of 61 million people during its tenure as communist regime
(Rummel). The official stance of the Soviet government was decidedly
secularist: atheism was the only acceptable belief for citizens (Kowalewski).
Many of those killed, tortured, or oppressed were so abused because of their
own religious beliefs by a secularist authoritarian government. Likewise, many
of the top countries of concern for human rights abuses are also secularist
regimes: China, Burma, Laos, Cuba, North Korea, Belarus, Equatorial Guinea and
so on (Liben 3,4). In these countries religion is not the aggressor—secularist
regimes are. Some are merely oppressive, others are vehemently anti-religious
in nature, such as North Korea which is arguably one of the most repressive
regimes of the modern world. As the CSS argues, human rights cannot thrive
under religious intimidation. But neither do they flourish de facto under secular rule, and the secularist leadership of Josef
Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot made this point with tens of millions of
secular state murders (Rummel).
Each of these factors reveals a few
simple truths. First, secularism has no corner on the market of the creation of
human rights. Arguably the involvement, and codification of human rights at the
UN is somewhat secularist, but by no
means is secularism the overwhelming force behind the initial concepts of human
rights. Many of the concepts were espoused or theorized by religiously
practicing peoples, and possibly with religious basis or intent. Separating the
religion from these theoreticians is a challenge grossly lacking in hard
evidence, and instead, evidence may actually suggest the opposite (Freeman
399).
Secondly, while secularism has no
monopoly on the origins of human rights, neither has religion a monopoly on the
abuse of human rights. While radical Islam is the most current and oppressive
religious factor regarding human rights there are other oppressive forces in
the world. There are multiple countries guilty of egregious crimes against
humanity not in the name of religious beliefs, but in the name of secular
control. It could be argued that secularist religiophobia has proven every bit
as deadly as religion itself.
From this then there is an answer
for the correlation between human rights and secularism: it is a theory
stretched thin by the lattice of history. Human rights concepts and milestones
such as the Cyrus Cylinder, Magna Carta, and Bill of Rights have been crafted
in something less than a secularist vacuum. Yet human rights have been violated
on the steps of cathedrals and in atheists’ gulags, showing that the case for
pointing fingers at one side or the other is a difficult one to make at best. Religions
and the non-religious have oppressed themselves and each other in every
possible permutation throughout human history. In the secularist union of the
United Nations human rights has found a stage by which to make a plea for
reasonable treatment for people around the world. This setting modern era is
fertile soil for the ideas of human rights to be promoted abroad. This is the
best reasonable correlation; even so the secularism of the U.N. may not be the
cause of such fertile soil, but merely a bystander in the right place at the
right time.
Works Cited
Blankley, Bethany. "Report: Two-Thirds of 'Worst
Violators of Religious Freedom' Are Muslim Countries." CPWorld.
Christian Post, 07 May 2013. Web. 24 Nov. 2013.
<http://www.christianpost.com/news/report-two-thirds-of-worst-violators-of-religious-freedom-are-muslim-countries-95381/>.
Briant, Pierre, and Peter Daniels. From Cyrus to
Alexander: History of the Persian Empire. N.p.: Eisenbrauns, n.d. Google
Books. Google. Web. 25 Nov. 2013.
<http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lxQ9W6F1oSYC>.
Brieg, James. "History.org: The Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation's Official History and Citizenship Website." Deism
: The Colonial Williamsburg Official History & Citizenship Site.
History.org / Colonial Williamsburg, Apr.-May 2009. Web. 25 Nov. 2013.
<http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring09/deism.cfm>.
"The Cyrus Cylinder and Ancient Persia: A New
Beginning." The Cyrus Cylinder and Ancient Persia: A New Beginning |
Exhibitions | Freer and Sackler Galleries. Smithsonian Institution, 09 Mar.
2013. Web. 27 Nov. 2013.
<http://www.asia.si.edu/exhibitions/current/cyrus-cylinder.asp>.
Donnelly, Jack. "Human Rights." The
Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations.
By John Baylis, Steve Smith, and Patricia Owens. New York: Oxford UP, 2011. N.
pag. Print.
Dreisbach, Daniel L. "GEORGE MASON: LIFE &
TIMES ESSAYS." GEORGE MASON: LIFE & TIMES ESSAYS.
GunstonHall.org, 1997. Web. 27 Nov. 2013.
<http://www.gunstonhall.org/georgemason/essays/dreisbach_essay.html>.
Freeman, Michael. "Project MUSE - The Problem of
Secularism in Human Rights Theory." Project MUSE - The Problem of
Secularism in Human Rights Theory. Human Rights Watch, 2004. Web. 27 Nov.
2013.
<http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/human_rights_quarterly/v026/26.2freeman.html>.
"Frequently Asked Questions." Centre for
Secular Space. Centre for Secular Space, 2013. Web. 27 Nov. 2013.
<http://www.centreforsecularspace.org/about-us/faqs/>.
Hirsch, Afua. "Magna Carta: Honouring the
World's 'most Influential Secular Document'" The Guardian. The Guardian,
12 Nov. 2010. Web. 27 Nov. 2013.
<http://www.theguardian.com/law/afua-hirsch-law-blog/2010/nov/12/magna-carta-800>.
"History of Natural Law & Basic Freedoms,
Cyrus the Great: United for Human Rights." History of Natural Law &
Basic Freedoms, Cyrus the Great: United for Human Rights. United for Human
Rights, 2012. Web. 24 Nov. 2013.
<http://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/brief-history/cyrus-cylinder.html>.
Kowalewski, David. "Protest for Religious Rights
in the USSR: Characteristics and Consequences." JSTOR. N.p., Oct.
1980. Web. 26 Nov. 2013.
<http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/128810?uid=3739552>.
Liben, Paul. Annual Report of the U.S. Commission
on International Religious Freedom. Rep. United States Commission on
International Religious Freedom, Apr. 2013. Web. 23 Nov. 2013.
Rummel, R. J. "How Many Did Communist Regimes
Murder?" Www.hawaii.edu. University of Hawaii, 1993. Web. 23 Nov.
2013. <http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM>.
"Treasures in Full: Magna Carta." Treasures
in Full: Magna Carta. British Library, n.d. Web. 27 Nov. 2013.
<http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/translation/mc_trans.html>.
