"Universal? Human Rights"

Rev. Bruce Russell-Jayne
March 29, 2009

Reading- William F. Schulz

Our reading this morning is from the Rev. Dr. William F. Schulz, former president of the Unitarian Universalist Association.  After 8 years as our leader, he served as director of Amnesty International, USA, and as such became one of the world’s leading advocates for human rights.

“Robert Frost said that poems begin with a lump in the throat. Well, human rights do too. And they have done so for almost 4,000 years, back at least to 1740 BCE, when King Hammurabi codified his laws against unfair trials, torture, and slavery. At the end of the day, the reason any one of us cares about human rights is because we feel sick at heart at the sight of misery.

But whose misery? You see, King Hammurabi's strictures against torture and slavery applied only to his own people, the Babylonians. As for the Assyrians, his archenemies, why, you could torture and enslave Assyrians as much you wanted to. And the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the U. S. Bill of Rights – well, these, too, only helped out the French and the Americans; they didn't do too much for the Thai or the Congolese.
It took a very long time for human beings to feel sick at heart at the sight of everybody's misery – not just at the misery of their own clan or tribe or nation, not just at the misery of the nobles or the ruling class or the wealthy.
Indeed, it was not until 1948 — 3,688 years after Hammurabi — that the people of the world managed to agree that everybody's misery mattered. One reason the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is such a revolutionary document, even sixty years after its adoption, is because it is universal and thereby trumps every political ideology, every cultural practice, every parochial claim.

And the other reason it is revolutionary is because it is a declaration. It is a declaration rather than a revelation. Because, you see, before the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the grounds on which people had argued for the protection of human dignity had been either religious or naturalistic, either because God wanted it or Nature's law required it.

Fortunately the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a declaration, not a revelation of either God or Nature's predilections – a declaration of thirty rights that every single one of us can claim, merely for being born human, from the right to a fair trial to the right to marry and receive an education. It is a declaration by the world community of a promise it has made to itself, a covenant it has entered into with itself, all the nations of the world with one another, to order their common life in a certain fashion. Indeed, that is what rights are: promises to which we can appeal in the face of misery.”

Sermon- Universal? Human Rights    Rev. Bruce Russell-Jayne

I believe that we, the congregation of Northern Hills Fellowship, can change the world!  Each spring since the first Justice Sunday in 2004, Unitarian Universalist congregations across the country have focused on one of our world’s most pressing human rights issues.  In 2004 we learned about the UU Service Committee’s efforts to defend human rights in Burma, calling for justice in the wake of Unocal's pipeline project.  Subsequent Justice Sundays have raised our awareness about the human right to water, the cost of the Iraq war, and last year, our Justice Sunday motivated our teens and other members to advocate for change in the situation in Darfur.  Since last year, more effective actions have been taken to assist the refugees and reduce the conflict in the region.  Unfortunately, as you can see on the insert in today’s Order of Service, much is still needed to end the horrible conditions in Darfur.  This morning, our Justice Sunday celebrates the 60th anniversary of the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  Instead of focusing on one issue, we’ll look at the framework underlying all human rights concerns.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or the Declaration for short, contains language so resonant with Unitarian Universalist Principles, one might think Eleanor Roosevelt, one of the prime movers behind the creation of it, must have been a UU and didn’t know it.  To save paper, I didn’t put the Declaration in your Order of Service, but I’ll read you the preamble because it is, after 60 years, still awesome.  A few copies of the complete Declaration are available in the Quimby Room, and a laminated version is mounted on my office door.
UDHR Preamble

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, 
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, 
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, 
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations, 
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, 
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, 
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge, 

Now, therefore the General Assembly proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

The Declaration’s Preamble contains lofty ideals written at time when the world was struggling to place itself on higher ground after the devastations of a global depression, the Nazi Holocaust, and World War II.  I’m not sure where their belief in a brighter future came from, but as hopeful as they might have been, they could not have known how instrumental the Declaration would be in revolutionizing human rights around the world.  Its influence has been undeniably positive, and continues to change lives around the world.  Larry Cox, Executive Director of Amnesty International, USA, says: “With this document, they set in motion a global movement that would hold every government, organization and person accountable to the same universal standards of respect for dignity and freedom.  Over the past six decades, that movement has demonstrated it can literally open prison doors, shut down torture and execution chambers, advance economic and social justice, tear down walls and lead to the fall of even the most enduring tyrannies.  The Declaration gave humanity a powerful non-violent weapon: a set of universal values embodied in international law.”

Building on the foundation of the Declaration, adopted in 1948, have been a whole structure of international human rights laws.  In 1951 came the Convention on the Status of Refugees; in 1965 the Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, in 1973 the Convention on Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, 1979 the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, 1984 the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, 89 – the Convention on the Rights of the Child – a laminated copy of which is also on my office door.  There are conventions on rights of migrant workers, persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples, and much more.  The Declaration invites all people to get behind the rights it proclaims.
:::
Although the Declaration’s affirmation of the inherent dignity and rights of all people has provided a foundation for freedom, justice and peace for 60 years, today millions of people still suffer abuses at the hands of their own governments or others who should be protecting them.  The Human Rights Watch organization documents cases of “whole families – including children and the elderly – dragged from their homes and summarily executed, of entire communities forcibly expelled, of people tortured.  Others are jailed for simply stating their opinions.  In many places around the world authoritarian governments and armed rebel groups enforce brutal discriminatory practices based on race, gender, ethnicity, or religion.  The news of grievous crimes such as state sanctioned neglect of orphans, sexual abuse of women refugees, and the disappearance of innocent civilians are often in the news.”

It seems not all the governments in the world agree to enforce all of the rights listed in the Declaration.  The rights can not be truly “Universal” as long as governments feel free to trample upon them at will.  Of course, if pressed to account for their actions, governments either deny they have abused anyone’s rights, or they claim overarching circumstances as justification for abridging human rights.  And, maybe they have a case.  The world as it currently stands makes it impossible to provide all of the rights in the Declaration all of the time.  But before we give up on the idea of trying to make the list of rights in the Declaration truly universal, let’s try a little exercise our youth experience when they visit with the UU Service Committee.

First I am going to read you a few of the 30 rights contained in the Declaration.  I have abbreviated them:
Article 4 - No one shall be held in slavery or servitude. 
Article 5 - No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 
Article 9 - No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. 
Article 17 -  Everyone has the right to own property. 
Article 18 - Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
Article 25 - 1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.  2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. 
Article 26 - 1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages.  2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. 

Now, I want you to imagine that your government has told you it can’t afford to let everyone have all these rights, and wants you to decide which of these rights you will give up.  Take a minute to think about it...  Did anyone choose to become a slave?  How about to be arbitrarily exiled?  Or did you choose to give up having a standard of living adequate for the well-being of your family?  So, now that we think about it, how could anyone chose to give up any of these rights?

We who live in relative plenty tend to champion the rights having to do with civil liberties and the freedom from fear.  We and our governments have never fully embraced the freedom from want as a right.  Americans have depended on the marketplace to be able to provide food, clothing, housing and medical care, and haven’t wanted the government to play a large role in those arenas.  Poorer countries emphasize the right of freedom from want, claiming that if people weren’t starving freedom from fear would take care of itself.  These opposite prioritizations for achieving the entire set of human rights listed in the Declaration represent profound clashes of vision. Each side tends to back away from some of the rights listed in the Declaration when it suits its purposes.  If the rights put forth in the Declaration are to become reality for all the peoples in the world, the ideological differences must be worked out.  Until we do that, people will continue to suffer.  Some serious discussions as to their efficacy need to take place, and we need to press the US government to take part in them.

In recent years the globalization of markets has been interpreted by many as a new form of Colonialism, in the sense that it imposes Western customs on other cultures.  This perception has created resentment of richer countries and has prompted strong critiques of Western values.  These resentments have hurt the cause of Human Rights.  Bill Schulz says, “Human rights values transcend culture, ideology, and faith in service to that which is recognizable to all: the human face of suffering.” In our reading this morning he contends that the most logical justification for human rights comes from a shared commitment to what makes for a civilized world (not the same notion of God, human nature, etc.)  In essence I agree with him, but we can’t avoid dealing with the differences in cultural values. 

James Cone said, “We always have to remember that we share a common humanity despite our cultural, racial, and gender differences, and that common humanity is more important than all the other things…A dominant group needs to use its own culture and history as the ‘common humanity,’ so that they won’t even have to talk about anybody else except themselves and their history and their culture.  When I speak about a common humanity, I am speaking about the cultures of everybody.  You can’t find common humanity until you search for it in ‘the other’!” The peoples in the affluent countries must learn to look for and recognize the positive values in the cultures of other countries and to treat poorer countries with more respect.

In his 2003 book, Tainted Legacy: 9/11 and the Ruin of Human Rights, Schulz says, “The US preaches democracy and law, but in practice it endorses tyranny over Muslim populations…, and our adversaries see it as evidence that our claim to be fighting terrorism to restore the rule of law is mere rhetoric.” Such policy breeds anti-American feelings—and promotes rather than hurts terrorism.” “Democracy cannot exist without the protection of individual human rights…this is the lesson the US should be teaching—by example.” That Americans are willing to abridge human rights points to a misunderstanding of what they are.  “American power is dependent for its preservation upon its fidelity on human rights… power not grounded in justice and not recognized as just by those subjected to it eventually does not stand.” He goes on to say, “The human rights movement risks irrelevance if it does not challenge directly the claim that national security trumps human rights.  Ultimately the question we must answer is, “Will more people die if we follow human rights standards or if we violate them?  “Respect for human rights will ultimately help win the war on terror…and offers all nations and peoples a transforming vision—the universally appealing and inspirational idea of a world without oppression.”  

In a Post-Colonial world there must be recognition of the cultural values of individual countries and a process to bring them together in order to foster global cooperation.  There must be democratic and face-saving ways to negotiate the differences between countries’ views of human rights.  Talking openly about our differences is some of the hard work that must be done, and a byproduct of such reconciliation can be the creation of more respectful relationships between countries, multi-national relationships between equals that must be part of a viable Post Colonial world.  An ongoing process of global democracy will surely advance human rights, even if the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has to change along the way.
:::
Because human beings are both social and rational, we are moral.  We rationally choose what is ultimately good for ourselves, such as happiness or well being.  We create social contracts which allow us to efficiently cooperate with others for our mutual benefit.  Humane societies must maintain social contracts which establish basic human rights such as safeguards against killing and torture.  People can’t live fulfilled lives outside of a social context in which virtue, law, moral reciprocity and consistent reward and punishment are present.  An adequate moral recipe must incorporate basic rights that can’t be violated on utilitarian grounds -  that is  -  promoting the greatest happiness for the most people while leaving some people out of the contract. “Full mutuality demands that we treat all human beings as sacred, simply because they are like us.”

We live in a postmodern world, one of seemingly endless change and in which we are aware of multiple cultural systems often with divergent claims to truth.  Amidst the confusion, we ask each person to individually create an ethical and/or religious system.  As individuals left to our own devices, it is hard to overcome the cultural schizophrenia.    To be successful in the quest for spiritual grounding involves finding a unifying vision which allows an individual to gain a perspective on the interconnectedness of the whole of creation.  And not just any myth will do.  A vision that can animate our aesthetic must have divinity in it.

Fulfilling lives are those lived in response to the call of high purpose rather than in servitude to ideologies whose flaws leave us wanting.  The cause of expanding the numbers of people in the world who benefit from a full set of human rights is as high a purpose as I can imagine.  Joining the cause of ending human suffering both focuses us in the immediate needs of our world and connects our “own personal sense of outrage and injustice to larger sublime human possibilities.” I call on us as Unitarian Universalists, who are liberated from convention, to use our principles to always work for more inclusive community and to create a world in which human rights are universal.