The Relationship Between Secularism and Human Rights: Solid Lineage or Frayed Thread?

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>.