Human Rights Vs. Religion

[Enigma]

I wanted to post a link to the Human Rights list as made by the UN but I don't know where to find it online, if anyone knows I'd be grateful.

Anyway, in some of my Anthropology classes we discussed how culture often clashed with some of the human rights. For instance (yes I know this is a lame example but its nearly two am and I haven't another example on mind now, so think of it merely as an example) something like 'suttie' (burning the wife at the husband's funeral) which could be a rich part of the Hindu culture would be prohibited by the HR law. Is it fair to take away something essential to a culture because a group of people came up with some laws THEY consider to be right for the whole world?

Culture aside, lets talk about religion. What if a religious rule clashes with a HR point? Which should get the upper hand? Which should we be obliged to follow in that case? Should it differ from country to country (but that would be contradicting the basic laws of the HR!) or from individual to another depending on which issue is at stake (ditto!)???

[amo_l_oman]

UN Link (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)

[IceTea]

First of all it depends on your definition of a religion is it a human made 'religion' or a real religion.

[Shinoda LP]

If I have to discuss religion with Ice Tea, I'm sorry to say that I'm not going to bother. Otherwise, Enigma ... for the nth time, Sati (not suttee) is not a rich part of the Hindu Culture. Sati incidents in South India was always VERY rare, so to speak ... that shows how Sati was always a rural-North-Indian issue, more than anything else.

Secondly, I doubt if any religious rule would clash with a HR point. I mean, only really brutal, humanely insane incidents count as HR points and I really doubt if any religion would condemn a human being, to that sort of torturous depth. Thats taking "rules" into consideration; otherwise, stoning/whipping/chopping-off-hands for REALLY minor faults of a human being could be considered as torture too and hence violate a HR rule.

[Cetacea]

Originally posted by Enigma
Is it fair to take away something essential to a culture because a group of people came up with some laws THEY consider to be right for the whole world?
No. I believe that only the government of the country has the right to outlaw certain cultural practices, although outside world may use economic sanctions or other non-violent methods to apply pressure (e.g. South Africa.)

If I remember it correctly, sati has been outlawed by the Indian government. Cultures change and societies evolve. What was widely practiced 100 years ago might be outlawed or viewed as barbaric today. Example, foot-binding was practiced in China until it was outlawed in the 1930’s. Polygamy had been very much a part of Chinese culture for thousands of years. Men could marry as many wives as they could afford and they didn’t have to treat their wives equally. The Chinese government outlawed polygamy in 1950 and gave women the right to vote (although voting doesn’t mean much in China.)


Originally posted by Enigma
Culture aside, lets talk about religion. What if a religious rule clashes with a HR point?
One example I can think of is Sharia Law vs. Article 10 - Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

How can anyone get a fair trial without a jury system is beyond me. On one hand I hope the Islamic governments will eventually move away from Sharia and implement a more secular system. On the other hand I believe it is an internal affair, thus only the countries involved get to decide which judicial system they want to implement. Outside countries should butt out.


Originally posted by Enigma
Which should get the upper hand? Which should we be obliged to follow in that case?
Depending on if the religious rule is truly barbaric. I think stoning adulterers and chopping off hands or feet should be abolished.


Originally posted by Enigma
Should it differ from country to country (but that would be contradicting the basic laws of the HR!) or from individual to another depending on which issue is at stake (ditto!)???
I don’t think any country truly follows all the articles in the declaration, although some are closer than others. I don’t believe the US or any other country should act like a world police to bully other countries into following laws that they themselves sometimes can’t follow. Let each country solve its internal problems, go to war only if we are invaded or threatened.


Originally posted by Ice Tea
I know nothing,
:D :D Sounds about right.

[IceTea]

Originally posted by Cetacea
On one hand I hope the Islamic governments will eventually move away from Sharia and implement a more secular system.

You are kidding right, so you want muslims to leave the Quran and Hadith. :rolleyes:

[amo_l_oman]

Originally posted by IceTea
so you want muslims to leave the Quran and Hadith. :rolleyes:

but how can a Muslim country for example to be part of the United Nations since the Sharia is against most of the laws of Human Rights declaration posted before and also against some obligations of the UN charter:

http://www.un.org/Overview/brief1.html

Isn't it a contradiction?
Countries like Oman or Sadia, where principles of brotherhood are towards Muslims first, and death penalty is still on, should have not even joined.

[MoonChild]

It's a tough question and I'd be tempted to leave it to a country's government - all the examples posted by Cetacea are good ones (by the way I've got nothing against polygamy in principle, just think it should be balanced by the right to polygyny, with all parties having equal say in their polygymous participation :) )

However an example which springs to mind is the barbaric practice of female circumcision - or should I say MUTILATION- which is systematic mutilation in the most traumatic way, completely in order to oppress and control female behavior - hell, most slaves throughout history have been treated better!

that's a case where I think the world SHOULD step in, no matter if the practitioners insist that's it's a religious right (of WHOM - the men who torture their women like that?!).

Ther are probably others as well...

[Pineapple Thief]

Originally posted by MoonChild
It's a tough question and I'd be tempted to leave it to a country's government - all the examples posted by Cetacea are good ones (by the way I've got nothing against polygamy in principle, just think it should be balanced by the right to polygyny, with all parties having equal say in their polygymous participation :) )

However an example which springs to mind is the barbaric practice of female circumcision - or should I say MUTILATION- which is systematic mutilation in the most traumatic way, completely in order to oppress and control female behavior - hell, most slaves throughout history have been treated better!

that's a case where I think the world SHOULD step in, no matter if the practitioners insist that's it's a religious right (of WHOM - the men who torture their women like that?!).

Ther are probably others as well...

I agree. Although Im against polygamy, because I dont believe it grants equality to the women, regardless of whether they consent or not. And I dont believe its permitted in Islam except in cases where its required (and I cant think of any in every-day situations) but this is off-topic.

Ideally religions and HR should not need to clash, and would not. Its our human interpretation of both what HR should be and religious practices should be that cause such a clash.

[MoonChild]

Good point. I can't fathom why people think God wants us to cause pain to each other in His (Her ;) ) name - so religion SHOULD be set to the highest standards of human rights, not violating them!

Any time there is a conflict between HR and religion, I see Man's hand, not God's.

[Arabian Princess]

I think its all about "humans" opinions which are not a good base
to generalise all over the world.
I mean the UN HR was made because some people think its not fair to treat humans in a certain way, ok I agree we should all treated in a good way but it shouldnt interfer with people's religion laws. Cultures change, but religion are a core system for people's lives (being muslims, we beleive in that)

at the end, even if it clashed and it didnt please the Human Rights org. I dont say why does it have to enforce thier ways! They could try to 'advice" those countries to change thier ways, but at the end the country have its soverign rights and it shouldnt be touched.


Originally posted by Cetacea

One example I can think of is Sharia Law vs. Article 10 - Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.


Personaly I dont understand the existence of a Judge when Juriest are present.
I'd rather be judged by a profissional judge than some juriest who could easily be influnced by emotions ;)

[Scorpio27]

Hope this will help dear Enigma :wave:

http://www.bayefsky.com/tree.php/area/treaties

Issues:

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination


The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights



The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights


The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women



The Convention Against Torture, and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment



The Convention on The Rights of the Child
Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict
Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography



International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families