In the worldwide Anglican debate over gay marriage and same sex relationships, a major issue is the human rights of people who are same sex attracted to contract marriage on the same legal level as heterosexuals.
The UK Justice Ministry is preparing a Bill of Rights and a Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights will hear evidence to address the relationship between human rights in the UK and those determined by the European Commission on Human Rights, which some argue are overly intrusive upon our national sovereignty. Dominic Grieve MP, the former Attorney General, argues that if Britain withdraws from the European Convention (not the EU) then other nations would do the same, with perhaps more egregious consequences for their own citizens.
Human rights universal?
If human rights mean anything, they are universal and apply to all by virtue of being human. But China insists that it has its own understanding of human rights and resists outside influence – for example, until recently, couples were allowed to have only one child, leading to a huge surfeit of unmarried men. Few young Chinese have brothers or sisters.
The governing principle of human rights is the secular faith of universalism, the brotherhood of man. All should be treated identically, regardless of circumstances or behaviour. There can be no hierarchy of values or behaviour.
Human-rights language soon becomes a power game. The rights of individual freedom are pitted against rights of the community and thus of many individuals. The language of individual entitlement dominates.
Power of victim status
Commenting on the Ashers Baking Company case, Melanie Phillips writes (The Times, 5 February) that ‘interest group is set against interest group and power lies with those who claim they have been denied identical status’. Inescapably then, anti-discrimination law becomes a tool against Christians and others who uphold normal moral rules. This means that gay people are turned from those who were discriminated against to those who prevent others from giving effect to their religious beliefs. Peter Tatchell has changed his mind and now asks whether Muslim printers would be obliged to publish cartoons of Mohammed.
Is secularism neutral?
Human rights are often confused with individual autonomy. Vinay Samuel writes: ‘In the non-Western world, many who oppose rights language argue that it is based on Western individualism that neglects and weakens our social relationships and our embeddings in communities.’
Dr Joan O’Donovan identifies the main issue ‘of rights as promoted in contemporary society … subjective rights are understood to be original – inherent to (humans) as persons and not derived from divine or natural law.’ (quoted in Nicholas Wolterstorff Justice, Rights and Wrongs p.31.)
The assumption that the only framework for human rights is a secular, neutral framework that excludes the contribution of religion must be challenged .
The religious viewpoint is that religion is the true foundation of human rights – secu-larists are the bigots because they insist, without listening, that human rights are about the radical pursuit of individual happiness.
Thorough examination needed
The vision at the root of human rights for Christians is not just ‘the image of God’ which means steward and representative. It is filtered through Jesus Christ, who gives an ordering principle of the priority of rights. He differentiated between lesser and more weighty matters of the law, of which the most important was to love God and neighbour.
A thorough examination is needed of the grounding and authority of human rights which were developed to justify intervention in the affairs of countries which infringed the basic tenets of being human, as a powerful tool to promote human flourishing.
Religion has recently come to be seen as a barrier to human rights and been subject to sustained attack. However, religion is needed to provide a robust philosophical foundation for human rights and is a vital component of the human flourishing that human rights aims to achieve.
Religions vary in the basis on which they give support to human rights. Yet all religions have come to support in principle the concept of basic human rights. Christianity has been the main driver for the development of human rights and is the prime guarantor of freedom of religion for all. Britain’s Christian heritage needs to be celebrated as people of all faiths and none draft a British Bill of Rights able to promote human flourishing.
To this end, on 9 March a report will be launched in Parliament on ‘Religious Approaches to Human Rights’, published by the Oxford Centre for Religion and Public Life. This outlines the relationship between religion and human rights today. Representatives of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism were consulted in preparing the report which explores the place of religion in society, differences between religions, models of religion and state, and implications for public policy.
