This paper examines the relationship between secularism and the International Bill of Human Rights, arguing that the bill encourages governments to adopt secular principles in order to protect universal human rights. The paper traces the composition of the International Bill of Human Rights and outlines how religious ideologies can conflict with core human rights standards, including non-discrimination, gender equality, and the prohibition of capital punishment. It concludes that secular governance provides the most reliable foundation for religious liberty and the full enjoyment of rights such as life, liberty, and freedom of conscience.
The International Bill of Human Rights is an informal name for a set of General Assembly resolutions and two international treaties established by the United Nations. It is composed of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights together with its two optional protocols, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The role of the International Bill of Human Rights can therefore be understood as placing responsibility on individuals, groups, and organs of society to promote and protect universally recognized human rights.
Secularism is a principle premised on the separation of government institutions — and anyone with the mandate of representing the state — from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. Secularism asserts the right to be free from religious rules and teachings, as well as the right to freedom from government-imposed religion. It envisions a state that remains neutral with respect to the beliefs of its citizens (Brace, 2005).
The International Bill of Human Rights can thus be seen as encouraging governments to adopt and promote secularism. Its primary role is the protection of human rights, and since certain religious ideologies conflict with established human rights principles, governments are — through this framework — encouraged to adopt policies that are not religiously based.
The ideologies of human rights and religion differ in their sources, the bases of their authority, their modes of expression, and their substantive norms. Some religious communities have been found to violate human rights norms, though it should equally be acknowledged that some religious communities have also played a role in the development and defense of certain human rights. Human rights constitute a political ideology that claims to reflect universally held contemporary moral values. Human institutions have adopted the idea of serving the purposes of the good life within national political societies and within an international political system — one devoted to the cause of freedom, justice, and peace.
The human rights discourse is firmly rooted in human dignity and finds its complete justification in that idea. The content of human rights is defined by what human dignity requires. Under contemporary human rights ideology, human dignity demands equality and non-discrimination, including non-discrimination on grounds of religion. Religions, however, have accepted and mandated distinctions on the basis of religious identity, permitting differences between one religion and another and between those who are faithful and those who are not. These distinctions are inherently at odds with the non-discrimination principle central to the human rights framework.
Governments should therefore adopt secularism because, by refusing to privilege any particular religion, they eliminate a primary source of rights violations rooted in religious partiality and discrimination.
"Examines specific doctrinal conflicts with human rights norms"
"Argues secular governance best protects human rights"
You’re 55% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.