Human Rights and Religion

Fabiano Schoenberg

Reading Questions for September 24

 

1-      In "Origins: the Rise and Fall of Natural Rights" according to Freeman, was the concept of natural rights a) rare; b) common; or c) pervasive in 18th century America?  Pick one.

 

The concept of natural rights was pervasive in 18^th century America. Prior to the revolutionary war, Americans were fighting for both religious freedom and government representation. The British government had become viewed as tyrannical. Thomas Paine was an Englishman who migrated to the American colonies and greatly influenced the American Revolution. His pamphlet called “Common Sense” was a strong proponent of natural rights and widely read and supported by the revolutionaries. The Virginia declaration of rights offered natural rights, which originate from the laws of God. Unfortunately at that time these natural rights were not afforded to women and slaves.

 

2-      In the "First Two Hundred Years of an Idea" what does Henkin identify as the "antecedents", the "18th Century thesis", the 19th Century "anti-thesis" and the 20th Century "synthesis" of the idea of "rights"?

 

The antecedents of human rights can be traced back to the Bible. Biblical laws required individuals to obey God’s laws. Indirectly, God’s law differentiated between good and evil behavior as well as justice, judgment and punishment. The individual had some free will, freedom of choice and protection under this system. There are examples in the Bible of governments asking individuals to go against God’s laws and they refused. The 18^th century was a time of great change and a new thesis. The creator gave natural rights to all men, which was not given by the bible but was inherent in the person. The individual was born with these rights. Men were free, allowed to pursue employment, and happiness. The government was there to protect the people but not take away these rights. Some powers were given to the government to protect people from harm from each other and from outside societies. Unfortunately the natural rights in the United States revolution did not include women or slaves. Worse the French revolution was excessively violent resulting in the slaughter of many people. The rights were tilted to the middle class. This led to a counter-revolution against natural rights in the 19^th and early 20^th centuries. Natural rights were associated with capitalism and the oppression of poor people. The masses revolted in Russia and china and communism was developed. Large populations of people traded food and protection for individual rights and freedom. Government dictatorships returned and many people were killed. After the horrors of World War II, a fusion or a convergence of these movements occurred. Regardless of a democratic or communist/socialist government, the return of human rights is here. Religion has been entirely removed. The individual has universal human rights that he/she is born with as described in the United Nations “Universal declaration of human rights”, which is accepted whatever, the individuals’ race or sex or country of origin. This time everyone is included and the governments are using positive international and country laws to reinforce the individual’s human rights or using the court system to overturn oppressive laws.

 

3-      What does Morsink mean when he says that human rights are "inherent"?  And according to Morsink, what two avenues enable us to know that human rights are universal and inherent?

 

Human rights are inherent, meaning we have them at the moment of birth. They are not created by governments or bestowed by other men. We all have them everywhere and all the time and never lose them.

We know human rights are inherent because we have the natural ability to see the truth and judge for ourselves. We don’t need an expert to judge for us. The other route notes that if human rights are destroyed, we are able to feel the outrage of evil actions that are performed on our fellow humans.

Religion and Human Rights

Fabiano Schoenberg

Reading for October 15

 

1.      What "social transformation" and "paradox" are noted by John Langan in his brief article on Christianity and Human Rights?

 

The "social transformation" was the gradual exchange of the multiple God Roman religion for monotheistic Christianity.  After the Caesar Constantine converted to Christianity, it rapidly became the official religion during the reign of Theodosius (379-395). The "paradox" refers to the humble, revolutionary, free-thinking origin of Christianity vs. dominant, oppressive and dictatorial religions it became. Especially in the west, Christianity would preach love, tolerance and piety but practice hate, persecution and abuse of power.

 

2. According to Brian Tierney, what contribution was made by the Anabaptists and Baptists to religious rights and freedoms?

 

Beginning in the 16^th century, both Anabaptists and Baptists were against intimidating and forcing individuals in the name of religion. Following the British civil war they requested tolerance between the different protestant groups as well as for “Jews and Turks.” Roger Williams, a famous 17^th century Baptist and founder of the Providence colony in the new world went further. He asked for tolerance and respect for Roman Catholics. Roger Williams went further to request a “wall of separation” between religion and the state. This eventually became part of the first amendment of the United States Constitution.

Articles written by Mark Cohen and Norman Stillman

Hebrew 215 (sec 001) Fall 2014

Hebraic and Judaic Culture and Thought in the Medieval Islamic World 
Fabiano Schoenberg

 

 

The articles written by Mark Cohen and Norman Stillman quote from many writers that have used various methods to support their articles, chapters and books regarding the Lachrymose (inter-faith utopia) and neo-lachrymose (persecution) views of Jewish history in the Arab lands. Some write essays and use anecdotal evidence that supports their view but is too small a sample for statistics. Others are historians who use actual documented historical events that may or may not be complete or accurate. Many just render their own opinion. Most borrow from each other to support their side of the argument, which can be extremely inaccurate.
Mark Cohen identifies the historian Heinrich Graetz as the”father” of modern Jewish history. His study of Jewish history led him to conclude that Jews were persecuted under Christian rule from pre-Christian Roman times to the enlightenment in the 1800’s in Europe. He wrote the opposite was true regarding Jews in Islamic lands during middle Ages to the 1800s. He suggested the Jews had a “golden age” during Islamic rule in Spain. He continued with the idea of an interfaith utopia within the Arab-Muslim lands and the Ottoman Empire. However review of the fourth volume of the “History of the Jews” performed by Rabbi S R Hirsch found that Graetz often left out the second halves of quotations that would have contradicted his theses. He was biased and sloppy.
Yossi Yonah is a modern writer. He uses mass media in his article “How the Right-Wing are the Sephardim” discussing the argument regarding anti-Semitism in the Arab lands. He uses a recent television documentary discussing the recent immigration of Jews to Israel from Arab lands in 1951-1952. His view is that the documentary is misinterpreted as proof of historical persecution of Jews in Arab lands throughout history. More interestingly he notes that the purpose of the view of Jewish persecution in the Arab lands is to increase the share of the economic value of the state of Israel towards the Sephardim. This discussion by Yonah is very interesting but has no historical findings to support either side.
The book by Christian Arab writer George Antonius called “the Arab Awakening” (1939) supports the interfaith utopia view of Arab history and notes the democratic (American style) treatment of Jews in Arab countries. However we know from Yonah that more recently (1951-1952) the Iraqi Jews were persecuted and had to leave Iraq by an Israeli airlift completely destroying his argument of tolerance.
Edward William Lane lived in Cairo, Egypt during the 1820’s and 30s. He wrote that the Jews were “held in the utmost contempt and abhorrence by Muslims in general.” Samuel Romanelli, who was both Jewish and Italian wrote in the late 18^th century the following about Jews in Morocco, “oppressed, miserable creatures, having neither the mouth to answer an Arab, nor the cheek to raise their head.”  Both of these quotes are anecdotal evidence, if true, for a point in time in history. However it would inaccurate to assume the neo-lachrymose point of you from just these two quotes.
At the time of his critique entitled “Myth, Countermyth and Distortion”, Norman Stillman was Professor of History and Arabic at State University of New York at Binghamton. He had published two books on “Jews in Arab Lands.” He has the credentials and the expertise to discuss this topic. His argument is also very persuasive. You cannot squeeze fourteen centuries of Jewish-Arab history into two simple movements either lachrymose or neo-lachrymose. Beginning in the seventh century the rise of Islam in the Arab states was a time of huge prosperity. This included Islamic Spain. Although second-class citizens, the Jews prospered as well. Even in the Ottoman Empire this was true. But as the rise of poverty overtook most Arab countries towards the 17^th century and beyond, the Jews suffered poverty as well. Along with poverty came greater adherence to Islamic rules against Jews and persecution. Cooperation with European imperialism was a temporary fortunate circumstance for Jews. They were allowed to trade with Europeans and assisted themselves out of poverty and out of some of the persecution in the Arab lands. The rise of Arab nationalism and the rise of anti-Zionism have also contributed to more recent persecution of Jews within Arab countries in the 20^th century as well as the present.

Spanish Expulsion - #38

Karaism - LookLex Encyclopaedia

Karaism - LookLex Encyclopaedia

Mysticism and Kabbalah - #35

Aula de Teologia 39 - Cronologia do Reino Dividido