The Pros of Human Rights

            I believe that the generally accepted belief in natural human rights has allowed our society to remain organized and moral. I would argue that because the idea of inalienable human rights is so deeply rooted in our laws and societal structures, our nation would live in chaos if the belief were not universally shared.

            The idea of natural human rights keeps our nation morally in check. Inalienable rights prevent unfair persecution.  They create a boundary that prohibits people from impinging on other peoples’ rights. They draw a bright line between what behavior is acceptable and what behavior defies the shared moral code.

I would argue that in a world where people do not share a belief in natural human rights, our system of law and order would not be effective. Some citizens might feel that they have the right to break laws and to treat others inhumanely because they are superior. Leaders may attempt to govern with absolute power because they would not have to respect the rights of the governed. Lawmakers could pass laws that deny a certain group access to basic services and the ability to provide for their needs. Without a system of law based on natural rights that everyone must follow, I believe our nation would be barbaric.

            Not only does this idea enforce a moral code and maintain order in our society, but it gives countries around the world a reason to connect.  The worldwide belief in human rights allows nations around the globe to work together to end human rights violations and to enforce a global moral code. For example, the genocide in Darfur brought countries together to collectively fight for the inalienable rights of the victims.  The belief in human rights creates a basis for countries to share common morals and standards for the treatment of humans.  

The Inevitability of Natural Rights

This past week in class, we were asked to discuss where and why we believe the idea of natural human rights started and whether human rights actually exist. As we circled the room, sharing our opinions and views on the topic, I began to realize that the development and spread of the idea of natural human rights was inevitable, regardless of whether or not they are real.  In other words, it doesn’t matter how many people throughout history believed that humans had natural rights such as the right to freedom and to pursue happiness, because there would always be someone to support this belief and there would always be people to follow it.  

Why would there always be someone to support the idea of natural human rights? I believe that as soon as social hierarchies were established and individuals were cast to the lower social classes, the members of lower classes were motivated to gain equality. The less powerful in society needed a way to prove that they deserved the same rights and treatment as anyone else. Armed with the belief that all humans possess natural rights, these groups challenged the leadership that seemed unfair and demanded the same rights as those who sat on higher rungs of the hierarchy. The belief in natural rights even influenced some to establish new communities and nations that would pride themselves on giving citizens equal rights and opportunities to achieve their goals.

One example of a nation that used and uses the belief in inalienable rights as the basis of its government and system of laws is The United States of America. Originally, the colonies were a haven for people who wanted to escape religious persecution and find a home where their religious freedoms would be accepted and encouraged. With The Declaration of Independence written in 1776, the founding fathers came up with the argument that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The earliest leaders of America society used the premise of natural rights to defend their break from Britain. The result was to create the possibility of a nation based on certain undeniable right for all.  To this day, the United States takes pride in being a country that respects each citizen’s “unalienable” human rights.

In today’s society, the belief in natural human rights has taken a new face and has become a near universally accepted idea.  The belief in human rights is now not only embraced by the people in varies societies who are attempting to gain equality, but this idea has become the norm for how modern and developed societies should function. It is almost taboo for one not to believe in these rights.

I believe that the idea of natural rights that all humans are entitled to was a means for the powerless to justifying their desire for more representation and equality.  Because the idea is attractive to those who want to gain equality, the concept of unalienable human rights has become a near universally cherished and accepted view.  Most countries today function with the ideals of fundamental rights for all humans.

Forgiveness Vs. Justice

This past week, we watched Cry Freedom, a film that shed light on the work of black activists during the Apartheid.  What intrigued me about this movie was not only the actions that these leaders took to help the black population gain equality, but also their non-violent approach to reaching an egalitarian society.  Throughout the course of the movie, I attempted to put myself in the position of the leaders who tried to represent and advocate for the black population.  I tried to imagine both their bravery and their anger as activists and friends were arrested, tortured, and killed. 

The film ended without an explanation of how the Apartheid dissolved or how power shifted to the black majority.  So, I decided to look for more information on how the new leaders of the country chose to punish the white population after the Apartheid.  What I found completely contradicted how I would have dealt with the situation.  Rather than trying, convicting, and punishing the politicians and the police, the new leaders in South Africa established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The Commission was a court-like body that was created to uncover the truth about human rights violations that had occurred during the Apartheid.  Rather than prosecuting individuals for past crimes, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission focused on gathering evidence and uncovering information from both victims and perpetrators.  The entire objective of the Commission was to uncover the truth.

After learning about this, I could not understand how people who were treated so poorly under the Apartheid regime could have continued with their non-violent approach to gaining equality. Why did the black majority in South Africa not rise up and take revenge on the white population? Why didn’t they put every policeman that enforced the racist laws on trial?

I believe that Nelson Mandela and his government’s ability to forgive in South Africa reflected a characteristic of a great leader and thinker.  I believe that the leaders of the black population in South Africa realized that punishing all of the white individuals who may have committed atrocities against the blacks would not be beneficial to the country and the South African population.  These leaders realized that a bloody revenge against their previously harsh oppressors would not lead the country in the direction of peace and equality that they had dreamed of. Nelson Mandela, the president of South Africa, explained that “I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve.” His vision of what South Africa should be was a peaceful and equal society. I believe that the leaders of the country after the Apartheid such as Nelson Mandela understood the distinction between what was just and what was needed for their country. The intelligent decision was not to pursue justice, but rather to forgive and move on. These leaders helped reshape the country of South Africa.

I would argue that this is not always the right response to dealing with the aftermath of crimes and injustices.  I believe that sometimes, pursuing justice is a better course of action. Sometimes serving justice to wrongdoers is what countries, people, and the world needs.  Justice (and revenge) can be used not only to equal the playing field, but also to prove that some actions cannot go unpunished. For example, if a murderer were to be caught and then forgiven and let go, there would be no clear punishment to stop future murderers from killing.  There would be no punishment to be afraid of.  The decision to bring a murderer to trial and to pursue justice for his/her actions is the right decision because it keeps society in order.

I also think that pursuing justice is important because often times justice brings a sense of comfort, closure, and relief that can help a victimized nation or a population recover and grow.  For example, I believe that the decision to prosecute the leaders of the Nazi government and deliver justice to those who had committed crimes against humanity in the Nuremburg Trials was in the best interest of the victims of World War II.  After years of unfathomable suffering, forgiving the Nazis would not have helped anyone or any society.  The Nuremburg Trials brought a sense of revenge and closure to those who had lost everything in the war.

But as the post-Apartheid period showed, sometimes the most beneficial decision for a country is not to pursue justice and fairness, but rather to forgive and move on.  Black leaders in South Africa such as Nelson Mandela decided not to take revenge on their white oppressors, but rather to uncover, acknowledge, and forgive their crimes for the good of their country.  The decision of whether to forgive or to pursue justice is not always clear-cut.  I believe that the validity of these decisions is circumstantial.  It depends on what is best for the future of a nation, a population, or the world. 

Internalizing Second Class Citizenship

Throughout history, leaders have used different methods for holding onto their power and keeping others from challenging their rules.  For instance, leaders have used religious justification to maintain power.  Monarchs called upon the Divine Right of Kings to legitimize their absolute power. The Divine Right of Kings stated that the one deserved his or her power because he was chosen by god to lead.

The Caste System in India was a system of social hierarchy that separated the haves and have-nots.  The people in lower castes were promised rewards in the after life as long as they respected their positions in society.

The Apartheid government did not use religion as a means to keep the minority in power, but was still able to effectively subjugate the majority black population.  How was this possible? 

The movie that our class watched, Cry Freedom, suggested that suppression was possible because members of the black community ultimately internalized a sense of inferiority that was a byproduct of the government’s brutal treatment.  We watched scenes depicting deadly crackdowns on peaceful protests in the homelands.  We saw black leaders being arrested and tortured for speaking out against the government. This brutality served two purposes.  One was to physically subjugate, intimidate, and isolate the black population.  The second was to corrupt the psyche of the black population into accepting the notion that they were second-class citizens.  As a result, many members of the black community lost the motivation to rebel against the government because they started to believe that they did not deserve to be treated equally.

The racism and prejudice that the government of South Africa demonstrated against the blacks amounted to a strategic political plan.  The Apartheid leaders in South Africa wanted to keep their power and positions by subjugating the black population.  This included leading some to believe that they were indeed less deserving of equality.  This was a particularly effective strategy for the government to maintain its power.[1]

---

[1] Here is a clip that shows how easy it is for people to lose their identity when they are repeatedly told that they are something which they are not, The Bear That Wasn’t (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq0a5JTSGvU).  In this video, a bear is told repeatedly that he is just a silly man wearing a fur coat and needs a shave, until he finds himself believing that he actually is man.  The bear internalizes the idea that he is not a bear but a human. The moral of the clip is to show how difficult it is to maintain an identity when one is repeatedly told that he or she is something else.

The Balance of the "Do" vs. "Do Not" Philosophies

For thousands of years, religion was primarily used as a set of codes that instructed people on what not to do.  Religion guided the lives of followers, by setting limits and boundaries, with the intention of keeping people from behaving immorally. For example, the Ten Commandments, a code of laws followed by Jews, Christians, and Muslims, are mostly made up of what not to do. Followers cannot murder, steal, or be jealous of a neighbor.   This is an example of a “do not” philosophy of religion.  For most of history, religion told followers what not to do, rather than what they should do. 

It was not until the late 1800’s and early 1900’s that individuals began to believe in a “do” philosophy of religion.   The new idea was revolutionary.  Rather than be subjected to a structure defined by limits, followers were encouraged to look to religion for guidance on the actions they should take in their lives. This new perspective was based on the idea that religious followers should live their lives abiding by their religions’ rules and by making changes in their world. These changes were to reflect their religious values and strengthen their religion. Every religious follower had the responsibility to promote and affirm their religion in their society. 

This perspective inspired a range of religious people to throw themselves into working for change in society. Mahatma Gandhi was one of them. He felt that it was his religious responsibility to reform the social and political systems in India.  He believed that as a follower of Hinduism, it was his purpose to help the less powerful and less represented people in his society.

However, not all believers of the “do” philosophy have taken such noble action. Violent jihadist groups like Al Qaeda also follow a “do” philosophy of religion. They too have decided that it is their religious responsibility to support less represented and less powerful groups, although they do so in a violent way. They carry out fatal terrorist attacks on “western cultures” because they believe that they must fight for their religion.  This is an example of a group of individuals who are influenced by this “do” philosophy to take radical action that they believe is for the better of their religion and for the world. 

This leaves the question, if the “do not” philosophy does not encourage social justice, but the “do” philosophy can lead to mass violence, what is the most advantageous philosophy for people to live their lives by? I believe that people need to live a life where these two philosophies are balanced.  It is important to have a moral code that restricts certain behavior including murder, but it is also important to have the motivation to make a positive change for the world and for one’s religion. 

The Role of Religion in Violent and Non-Violent Reform

In the course of history, individuals have often used religion to justify violent action in order to accomplish their goals and interests.  In other cases, individuals have used religion to justify non-violent methods for pursuing their goals and interests.  I believe that it is important to examine the effects of these two conflicting means of achieving goals in order to understand whether violent or non-violent action is more effective in accomplishing a goal. In the larger scheme of things, which of the two philosophies is a more effective way for religiously-motivated people to achieve their purposes.

For thousands of years, leaders and powerful individuals have called on interpretations of religious teachings to provide an excuse for violence. One example of this kind of leader was Pope Urban. In 1095, Pope Urban declared that it was every Christian’s responsibility to participate in the Crusades against Islam for the good of the religion and its followers.  Urban “made it mandatory for all Christians to fight for this as if their lives’ depended upon it.” He used his religion to justify violent action against the people that he believed to be the enemy of Christianity and to justify sending thousands of people to a war that many would die in. He waged war on Islam, promising that the crusaders would be rewarded for all eternity (based on his claim to know how god would reward).

Though the Christian zeal to conquer Muslims thrived during Pope Urban’s lifetime, the fury that Christians had had towards Islam eventually abated.  Crusaders realized that their attempts to conquer the Holy Land would not be successful.  By around the 13^th century, there was no longer a desire to fight in these wars. Pope Urban’s hope of conquering the Muslim religion and strengthening Christianity ultimately failed and all of the violent wars had accomplished almost nothing.  Jerusalem remained in Muslim control and thousands of Christian Crusaders had died.

In contrast, leaders and activists throughout history have also utilized religion to motivate their non-violent methods of achieving goals. In other words, religion has served as a guideline for how leaders should go about pursuing their objectives.  In particular, members of society who have experienced exclusion or injustice have called upon religiously-based non-violent methods of achieving social equality and political representation.  For example, in the 1930’s, Mahatma Gandhi promoted non-violent protests and opposition to leadership, first in South Africa and later in India, because he felt that the poor were not treated fairly in society and were not represented well by the governing body. His philosophy of non-violence derived from his interpretation of Hinduism.  He understood that social-activism was his responsibility as a Hindu and as a member of Indian society. Gandhi led hunger strikes and peaceful protests, which resulted in multiple arrests.  However, his efforts to bring the poor and unrepresented Indians a more equal society succeeded in the end.  One of Gandhi’s most significant accomplishments was his role in freeing India from British colonization.  Gandhi was able to use non-violence to bring social equality to the powerless in India.

So, I pose the question, can non-violent action can be as revolutionary as violent action? In other words, can people accomplish the same or more for their cause by using non-violent action as they can by using violence? 

Clearly, the answer is not black or white. Neither violent action nor non-violent action can guarantee that an individual will achieve his or her goal.  Non-violent methods of accomplishing goals may have worked for some leaders during a certain era, but did not work for other leaders in a different time period.  Even after Mahatma Gandhi used peaceful protests against the British and demonstrated the need for peaceful coexistence between Muslims and Hindus, there was and is still violence in the Indian subcontinent. Even after Martin Luther King Jr. peacefully worked to help African Americans overcome racism and inequality that they had faced for centuries, there was and is still racism in America.  But the track record for leaders who used violent methods of accomplishing their goals is not perfect either.  Pope Urban sent out armies of Christians to capture Jerusalem and to destroy the Muslim religion, but after thousands of deaths, neither of these objectives was reached.  Perhaps what is most interesting is that religion can be called in to justify either method of action.  When people want to change the world, religion can be used as a justification for both violent and non-violent methods of action.

Threats to Religion

At the height of its expansion, Christianity faced multiple political and theological threats.  For example, the spread of Islam from the 7^th to 11^th centuries not only impeded on the ability for Christians to conquer land south of Europe, but also threatened Christian ideology.  By the same token, heretical “witches” were a threat to Christian theology because satanic manifestations on earth were the enemy of god.  In order for Christianity to maintain its political power and its existence, Christians needed to develop ways to combat these challenges to their authority.

            As Islam quickly spread west through North Africa, east to India and north to France, Pope Urban II realized that he had to find a way to reestablish Christianity’s dominance by conquering land and slowing the spread of Islam.  “In 1095, Pope Urban II declared the need for a ‘Crusade’ against the advancing Muslims.”  It was every Christian’s duty to take up arms against Islam and fight for Christianity.  This decision was very much a political strategy that the Pope chose in order to combat the rising threat of Islam.  The Pope felt that this act of aggression was justified to stop Islam from conquering more land and spreading its ideology.

            Centuries later, Pope Innocent the VIII felt that Christianity was faced with more of a theological than political threat.  In the late 15^th century, the fear of witchcraft began to spread among Christians.  Manifestations of the devil were thought to be living on earth, and they had to be exterminated if the idea that God was the most powerful force universe was to persist. In 1486, Pope Innocent encouraged members of the church to compile the Malleus Maleficarum, a guide to finding and exterminating witches. The Malleus Maleficarum laid out a systematic approach to holding trials for “witches” by torturing them into confessing that they worshiped the devil. The steps that needed to be taken were described as gruesome and inhumane, but were religiously justifiable.  In the end, Christians had to do whatever necessary to rid the world of Christianity’s enemies.

            What I find most interesting is that in both cases, the powerful and educated members of Christianity were the ones in position to declare which actions would be beneficial to Christianity. They gave the responsibility of carrying out these highly violent and seemingly unreligious acts to the less powerful because these people were not able to argue otherwise.  These are examples of decisions that individuals made in order for them to maintain power, even if these decisions seemed to contradict the values of the religions they represented.

            Throughout history, Christianity has faced political and theological threats and has found ways to combat them.  For example, the leaders of Christianity declared the need for Crusades and the implementation of “witch” trials to fight these threats. The overarching theme between these two instances is the absolute authority of the religious leadership that allowed them to make destructive and fatal decisions in order to maintain power.