|
· Home · Resume · Religion · Language · Children · Rainbow · Books · Contact |
Are Human Rights A Western Concept? Edip Yuksel, J.D. © 1998, yuksel.org
Above are two sets of excerpts from Pannikar, a Hindu-Christian theologian. Though belonging to the same author, the first excerpt impressed me with its brilliance and the second dissappointed me with its fallacy. Western system is not based on myth like Hindu system as Pannikar claims. Pannikar conveniently confuses Hindu mythology with reason. The democratic and free system that falsely attributed to the Western civilization is generally based on reason and empirical evidence driven from our experience throughout human history. Ironically, Pannikar uses "reason," though in a clumsy way, to banish and blemish the very reason he is using. He is not aware that he is using reason, the universal operative system program common among humans and dominant in the universe, to reduce it to the level of mythologies. In other words, he is not using mythology to equate reason to mythology. Those who do not subscribe or inherit the Hindu religion will not seriously consider the divine nature of "dharma" or cast system. Who is Manu or Svayambhu? Where are they? How can you prove that the cast system is a divine order? Why should I believe your mythology and condemn myself or others to permanent subjugation and exploitation by those who promote self-serving stories? Why should I respect any mythology that, for instance, considers all other races Satanic and advocates their extinction? Why? The troublesome question "why" is the engine behind human rights. As long as relativists ask this question they will be doomed to use universal language of reason, and reason cannot accept to be equally treated with local mythologies. Whenever they try to defend relativism people of reason will be asking the question "WHY should we tolerate to the 'abnormality' of certain cultures?" How can we say that the religious mythologies are in the same category with reason and experience? How can I evaluate the practice of "cast" system in the same category with opposing to "child sacrifice" or "infant's starvation" or "the rape of abducted women" or "torture of another human" or "genocide?" Mythologies advocating cast system has no claim of being rational, since it appeals to faith, perhaps a blind one. But a system opposing to torture, child sacrifice, and genocide etc., has universal appeal. It appeals to our reasoning and self-interest of all humans. It is supported by painful experiences from history that destroyed both parties: the torturers and the tortured ones. In order to accept that torture or racism is bad you do not need to become Hindu or Muslim or Atheist or Western, or Eastern. Your own reasoning will make you know this fact. There are many people from all religions, regions and cultures who have no problem with accepting the goals of Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Its appeal, in general, transcends cultures and religions. However, if you are not a Hindu, it is very unlikely that you would promote a "cast" system. Sure, the so-called western concept of human rights is not entirely based on reason and experience. There is a tendency to inflate and exaggerate individual rights. For instance, an Alabama court, citing Roe v. Wade ruled that a man had a constitutional right to sexual devices made of rubber. A law suit filed in Massachusetts demanded the right to have one's breasts touched by strangers. The chairman of Sierra Club articulated the fundamental rights of trees and rocks to their own freedom. A convict claimed a constitutional and religious right to rape his wife at any time. Some feminists fought for women's right to use men's restroom. Some rejected authors claimed the right to get published for every writer. You can add to these "negotiated" rights many others, such as, prisoner's right to procreate before being executed, the rights of gays to be affirmed by government, the right to commit perjury, the fundamental right to a Ph.D., or other long-term schooling, the fundamental right to proportional representation on television, etc. (see John Leo's hilarious article titled "A man's got a right to rights" in U.S. News & World Report, August 4, 1997, p. 15). The inflation in demanding and creating new rights, I believe, is a temporary byproduct of a transitional period. Those rights that are plagued with inconsistency or contradiction which is not an attribute of "reason" and "sound empirical investigation" will not be accepted by free societies. Even if they are accepted because of distortion in the democratic process they will most likely not survive. For instance, US promotes equal rights, including right to marry for homosexuals while denying similar rights to those who want to practice polygamy. Those who are trying to impose gay rights as an extension of human rights are deaf and blind to the rights of those who are condemned because they are adults committing incest. Would they acknowledge and promote similar rights for beastealists? What if I want to marry with my loyal cat? Would they defend my rights to marry my animal friend? While the It is the communicated reason and human
experience that tumbled the It is very simple. Let individuals freely
participate in shaping their government and legislation. With time, a healthy
balance will be discovered between individual freedoms and social norms and
constraints. Let Iranian woman (not male clergy) freely express their mind
and chose their government. If they chose to live in sacks it is their
choice. Sure, you can always criticize them or others, but you cannot enforce
"your rights" on them if they have accepted different rights with
their free will. As it turns out, the source of human rights is freedom of
expression and open society. The rest is just a matter of time and space, in
other words reason and experience. |