• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Secular Humanism and Human Rights

Slide

The 1st Rule.
I am very interested in the ideas of Secular Humanism. I believe in the tenants provided by the Council for Secular Humanism (at least as I understand them), but am hesitant to call myself a Secular Humanist because of my recent conversion to reality from the myth of Christianity. With that in mind, I'd like to discuss the following:

Can Secular Humanism be used to determine what rights should be given to every human being (from Gandhi to Hitler)? Furthermore, can Secular Humanism be used to provide those rights?
 

Nerissa

Wanderer
Can Secular Humanism be used to determine what rights should be given to every human being (from Gandhi to Hitler)? Furthermore, can Secular Humanism be used to provide those rights?

We recently had a discussion about that in class. It was me against the rest as usual, but what the heck ;)
Personally, I don't think secular humanism is a solid basis for providing rights, duties and laws. In my opinion, humanism is an ideology the same way any religion is. I know many people seem to think otherwise, but I never really understood why.
The idea is rather widespread that people don't want to be told how to live by religious groups. For example, the right (or prohibition) on abortion is not something we want to be decided only by Christian groups because they tend to have a certain biased world view. I don't see how this is any different with humanism. Why would humanists have the power over religious people's lives and not the other way around?
The idea that secular humanism is "neutral", seems false to me. It is a believe about the world in which we live, and we can't claim it to be superior to any other views.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Can Secular Humanism be used to determine what rights should be given to every human being (from Gandhi to Hitler)?

Not by my understanding of what it is. A moral understanding that would be fully compatible with it, sure. But not Secular Humanism itself, among other reasons because it is not its place to give rights to those who do not adhere to it.


Furthermore, can Secular Humanism be used to provide those rights?

Not sure I fully understand what you mean here. Rights can only be given by lending people our consideration and respect.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I am very interested in the ideas of Secular Humanism. I believe in the tenants provided by the Council for Secular Humanism (at least as I understand them), but am hesitant to call myself a Secular Humanist because of my recent conversion to reality from the myth of Christianity. With that in mind, I'd like to discuss the following:

Can Secular Humanism be used to determine what rights should be given to every human being (from Gandhi to Hitler)? Furthermore, can Secular Humanism be used to provide those rights?
I'm a secular humanist simply because the definition fits.
I don't think of myself that way.
How can it advance human rights?
I'd say it doesn't...but the people who are motivated by it do.
Note: We are a very very diverse group, & might differ on what rights are rights.
 

Slide

The 1st Rule.
I guess I misunderstood what I read at the Council for Secular Humanism. Here, they said:

A comprehensive, nonreligious lifestance
Secular humanism is comprehensive, touching every aspect of life including issues of values, meaning, and identity. Thus it is broader than atheism, which concerns only the nonexistence of god or the supernatural. Important as that may be, there’s a lot more to life … and secular humanism addresses it.

Secular humanism is nonreligious, espousing no belief in a realm or beings imagined to transcend ordinary experience.

Secular humanism is a lifestance, or what Council for Secular Humanism founder Paul Kurtz has termed a eupraxsophy: a body of principles suitable for orienting a complete human life. As a secular lifestance, secular humanism incorporates the Enlightenment principle of individualism, which celebrates emancipating the individual from traditional controls by family, church, and state, increasingly empowering each of us to set the terms of his or her own life.

The bold parts in the quoted portion led me to believe Secular Humanism could be a guide to solving issues of human rights and other important issues. It is entirely possible I misunderstand Secular Humanism.
 

Nerissa

Wanderer
I guess I misunderstood what I read at the Council for Secular Humanism. Here, they said:



The bold parts in the quoted portion led me to believe Secular Humanism could be a guide to solving issues of human rights and other important issues. It is entirely possible I misunderstand Secular Humanism.

I don't think you misunderstood. They do address those issues and they claim their views to be universal to all of humanity because of their neutrality. I just think it is unfair to do so, because their view isn't as neutral as they like to think.
 

Slide

The 1st Rule.
I don't think you misunderstood. They do address those issues and they claim their views to be universal to all of humanity because of their neutrality. I just think it is unfair to do so, because their view isn't as neutral as they like to think.

My personal philosophy leans toward individual liberty, but that means the same liberty for all. In other words, Gandhi and Hitler have the same rights, and the same responsibilities that are inherent in those rights. You're saying secular humanism doesn't support that? If so, I'll have to look at it deeper. I do have a learning disability that makes reading comprehension a pain in the blessed assurance.
 

Nerissa

Wanderer
My personal philosophy leans toward individual liberty, but that means the same liberty for all. In other words, Gandhi and Hitler have the same rights, and the same responsibilities that are inherent in those rights. You're saying secular humanism doesn't support that? If so, I'll have to look at it deeper. I do have a learning disability that makes reading comprehension a pain in the blessed assurance.

They do support that. Like you said, they state that everyone in every culture and from every religion should have the same rights and responsibilities. My personal view, however, is that they have no right to grant rights to the rest of humanity. Why should their views be superior over an islamic community, for example?
 

Slide

The 1st Rule.
They do support that. Like you said, they state that everyone in every culture and from every religion should have the same rights and responsibilities. My personal view, however, is that they have no right to grant rights to the rest of humanity. Why should their views be superior over an islamic community, for example?

I see what you're saying. My personal view is that there are rights--no matter what creed or religion you ascribe to--that you should have. I don't think anyone has the right to grant any rights to anyone else. We have rights, and they should not be infringed. We all have inherent rights the moment we begin breathing. If anything, secular humanism can recognize those rights, but certainly cannot grant them to anyone else. In that way, I don't think secular humanism is superior to every other mindset. I do think it's better than some.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
The Oxford Declaration on Freedom of Thought and Expression
Isn't a bad starting point...

All around the world and at all times, it is freedom of thought and freedom of expression that have proved the most essential conditions for human flourishing, but every generation must face new threats to these fundamental freedoms. Knowing this, we maintain:

The right to freedom of thought and belief is one and the same right for all. The human right articulated in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and elaborated elsewhere is and should be a single right, indivisible, protecting the dignity and freedom of all people by protecting their right to their personal beliefs, whatever those beliefs, religious or non-religious. As Article 7 of the Declaration says, ‘All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.’

No one anywhere should ever be forced into or out of a belief. Freedom of thought implies the right to develop, hold, examine and manifest our beliefs without coercion, and to express opinions and a worldview whether religious or non-religious, without fear of coercion. It includes the right to change our views or to reject beliefs previously held, or previously ascribed. Pressure to conform to ideologies of the state or to doctrines of religion is a tyranny. Laws that prescribe or criminalise beliefs contravene human dignity and must be abolished. Every citizen of every state has the right to demand the repeal of such laws, and all states should support those, wherever they are, who demand that their social freedoms and personal liberty be upheld.

The right to freedom of expression is global in its scope. The human right articulated in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes the right to ‘seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers’. No parochial nationalism or state insecurity should prevent the global human community from fulfilling the promise of our new technologies, our mass media, our social media, and our personal access to transnational networks. States should invest adequate resources to allow their citizens’ participation in this global conversation.

There is no right not to be offended, or not to hear contrary opinions. Respect for people’s freedom of belief does not imply any duty or requirement to respect those beliefs. The expression of opposition to any beliefs, including in the form of satire, ridicule or condemnation in all media and forms is vital to critical discourse and any restraint that is exercised in this expression must be in accordance of article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, namely to protect the rights and freedoms of others. The best response to the expression of a view we disagree with is to reply to it.Violence and censorship are never legitimate responses. All laws that criminalise language on grounds of ‘blasphemy’ or of offence to beliefs and values impede human freedom and should be abolished.

States must not restrict thought and expression merely to protect the government from criticism. States that criminalise criticism of government policies or officials as treasonous or seditious, or as threats to security, are not “strong governments” championing the best interests of the public, but censorious bullies exercising tyranny in their own interests. States should ensure in the law of the land, in their education systems, and in the conduct of their national life generally, that freedom of thought and expression are actively promoted and pursued to the real benefit of every member of society.

Freedom of belief is absolute but the freedom to act on a belief is not. As responsible members of a community we accept that our freedom to act must sometimes be restricted, if and only if our actions would undermine the rights and freedoms of others. Freedom of belief cannot legitimise overriding the principles of non-discrimination and equality before the law. These balances can be hard to strike but with a focus on freedom and human dignity, we believe legislators and judiciaries can strike them in a progressive manner.

We assert the principles of democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and secularism as providing the firmest foundation for the development of open societies where freedom of thought and expression will be protected and promoted.

We commit ourselves in all our work to uphold and promote existing rights to freedom of thought and expression within the international human rights framework and to resist national and international restrictions on the right of individuals to think for themselves freely and to openly express their views without fear.

We urge each of our member organizations and humanists worldwide to uphold these values in their own lives; to promote in their communities greater public understanding of the rights to freedom of thought and freedom of expression for all; to urge their governments to promote these values; and to join with humanists and others globally in defending and advancing them to the benefit of all humanity.
 
Top