Re: Religion and Human Rights

It isn't religion per se that can be hostile to human rights. It is certain modes of religiosity, usually of the more dogmatic variety, that are more apt to spell trouble. War protesters like Father Daniel Berrigan, or saintly martyrs like pastor Dietrick Bonhoffer, both intensely religious but with a peace-minded religiosity, are among history’s great champions of human dignity. It would be easy for me to tell the story of Archbishop Oscar Romero, whose superhuman devotion human rights led to him being machine gunned mid-sermon by U.S. backed reactionary goons in El Salvador in 1980. The religious intensity of the abovementioned, leavened with a healthy epistemic skepticism and genuine Christian humility (“Judge not…”), is what makes their recognition of the sanctity of life so much more august, I'd argue, than any atheist can ever fully appreciate. One has to distinguish religious trends from religious necessities. It's true that religious doctrine is usually manipulated by ecclesial institutions and their leaders to inculcate a religiosity of moral and mental narrowness and fear in their adherents. But thought control of this kind has been the eternal tactic of all powerful and power-seeking institutions--such as schools corporations, governments--and certainly isn't limited to churches. It may be more sinister when perpetrated by churches because of the profound and intimate issues of which religion is comprised, but this difference is mostly quantitative, not qualitative. All powerful institutions seek to infuse docility into the moral psyche of those at the bottom of their social hierarchy by associating virtue with obedience. It is how one believes in God that will determine his or her attitude toward human rights, not whether one believes in Him. Just as there are political dissidents in the U.S. devoted to the Constitution but wish to see it interpreted differently by politicians, so are there saintly men and women who, because they so honor their holy texts, demand that their religious institutions re-define the tenets and tone of their evangelism so as to truly enlighten those whose mental darkness they've till now found so profitable. This blog itself has in the past recognized St. Augustine of Hippo, perhaps the greatest definer of Christianity after St. Paul, as someone who once took a brave and principled stance against torture. When a Roman judge was going to get creative with knives and branding irons on a bandit who'd been looting Augustine's churches and assaulting his parishioners, the 4th century bishop penned an eloquent letter explaining that, however sweet the taste of revenge might be and whatever practical advantage might result, torturing even a sinner such as this offended the fundamental Truth of the Gospel and should not be tolerated. In at least one way Augustine's condemnation of torture isn't enlightened at all. It is based entirely on a dogmatic and faith-based (fundamentalist, even?) belief that whatever God disapproves of is wrong and, since He disapproves of torture, Augustine must disapprove as well. God can inspire fanaticism of the best kind as well as the worst. St. Francis of Assissi, for instance... A cross strategically placed can be just as apt to thwart a torturer's hand as it can be to compel it forward. It usually depends on one’s ability to remember that religion is a matter of faith, which presumes an aptitude for error, and not certainty, which implies a kind of perfection reserved only for God Himself.