Hi Meg,

Surely, when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was first agreed to, the signatories didn't envisage that there may be basic contradictions in what they were agreeing to: that the very 'freedom' of religious practice would logically mean the infringement of rights for many people.

For example, the rights of women: those religious precepts which dictated

* that men were to have more right than women,

* that women could be beaten (as long as the injuries were not visible),

* that young women could be married off at ages which - perhaps ? - conflicted with other UN declarations,

* that inheritance rules etc., favoured men over women,

* that a divorced woman had to give up her children, including her baby once she had stopped breast-feeding it,

* differential treatment for men and women accused of adultery,

* the sanctioning of honour killings, etc., etc.

And surely that Declaration did not sanction the right of religious schools to teach principles which directly conflicted with the political notions of the society which hosted those schools ? Against the freedom of speech, for example ? Against the equality of women ? Against observing the rule of law, in the name of a god ?

So I must strongly endorse your conclusion, that:

"The view that religious freedom is pre-eminent over freedom of other beliefs cannot be sustained if we are to promote freedom of, and consequently freedom from, belief."

And surely that was not the intention of those who signed that Declaration ?

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Agreed, Meg.

The state and its blind functionaries could not tell a religion even if it was placed squarely in front of their eyes (and often also mistakes other things to be "religion"), so only a freedom of everything for everyone can assure freedom of religion!

Agree.

"Every nation in the world has signed up to the Universal Declaration."
Unfortunately this is not true. And Article 18 is the reason that Saudi Arabia didn't.

Hi Yuyutsu,

That was my point - that 'freedom of religion', if taken to its logical extent, could mean the crippling of the freedoms of entire groups of people.

I forgot to mention female genital mutilation. And the burning of witches. And ritual rape for pretty young women as a penalty for the offences of a male relative. Or, ultimately, the murder of non-believers.

Surely all 'freedoms' within a society must dovetail with the basic political or human freedoms of everybody ? Basic political rights must surely come first, and any other rights, such as the right to practise one's religion, must fit in with those, and give way to them ?

Joe

Dear Joe,

The most basic and inclusive freedom is the freedom from association, to not belong or have anything to do with other people and groups which one doesn't wish to associate with. This includes the groups that call themselves "states" and we currently do not have that freedom. Freedom of religion is already implied, so we need not discuss it separately (which is what this article is all about)!

Obviously other people should have their own freedom to not associate with you.

"Political freedoms" are not basic because they only make sense within a group. Once an individual has agreed to be associated with a group, then we can begin to discuss political freedoms within that group, but there is nothing basic about it. Had participation in society been voluntary as should, then the prioritisation that you write about would make sense.