“First, the concept of inherent human rights is almost certainly a Judeo-Christian gift to the Western world.”

This is an arrogant assumption. Human rights is just another name for justice for all peoples. Human beings have known about justice for thousands of years before Christianity. Human beings know that when they are not being treated fairly they feel anger – a physical reaction. Conversely when we treat someone else unfairly or aggressively we feel guilt – another physical reaction. We feel the way we do because a sense of justice is built into our human nature. We do not need any religious experts to tell us what we already know as a cause and effect in our own bodies.

People sometimes suppress their guilt and go a head and act unjustly anyway. This does not mean there is something wrong with human nature but that there is something wrong with that particular person. The way to achieve justice for all is for each individual to become aware of their guilt and right the wrong they are causing. The appeal should be to get people to act according to their nature and not according to some set of rules based on authority figures that may or may not exist.

Religious people who appeal to outside authority in order to control the behaviour of others are themselves contributing to the problem. A great deal of religious behaviour demands that you suppress some of the most basic attributes of human nature. You are told you should feel guilty when often there is no corresponding physical reaction. You are told to suppress your anger when your whole body is screaming for justice. You are told to ‘turn the other cheek’ even when your most basic human rights are being violated.

Religion has nothing to contribute to any charter of human rights. Human rights should begin from a premise that is common to all human beings and that is our feelings. Christianity is not common to all human beings and trying to make it so under the guise of ‘human rights’ masks a controlling agenda.

First, I'm against a BILL of human rights (while being very much FOR protecting human dignity and human rights as far as possible!)

This podcast pretty much sums up my opinion to date. But that could change, because my opinion about this particular matter is secular and open to current political wisdom, not the unchanging truth of God's word.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2009/2596855.htm

To Phanto:
"Religion has nothing to contribute to any charter of human rights. Human rights should begin from a premise that is common to all human beings and that is our feelings. Christianity is not common to all human beings and trying to make it so under the guise of ‘human rights’ masks a controlling agenda."

"Christianity is not common to all human beings and trying to make it so under the guise of ‘human rights’ masks a controlling agenda."
They were doing no such thing, but arguing the historical origins of the concept, not some sinister plan moving forward.

They were mainly discussing the historical origin of the IDEA of human rights, but that a Christian position can be either for or against a BILL of rights depending on one's political wisdom of the day.

As for the historical origin coming from 'our feelings'.

Do you remember the ancient notion of the inherit superiority of Kings and Rulers, not just of their political position but that the King himself was somehow of the God/s themselves? They were born special, entitled to subject their citizens to whatever slavery or lack of dignity the King felt necessary. Christianity teaches that *all* are fallen and equally need the Lord's forgiveness, just as it teaches *all* were originally made in God's image and have something of the divine about us, even the *common man*. This is why Christianity has traditionally been a religion of comfort for the poor.

...continued...

...continued....

Other religious traditions teach us that suffering in this life is the result of a crime we can neither remember nor make amends for, because it apparently happened in a previous life? If you are born into a poorer caste, it is just universal balance restoring itself, the result of Karma. Basically, Karma says you deserve it. So why would there be any move towards social justice and rights for the poor when Karma is already getting the job of JUSTICE done, and these poor people end up with the burden of GUILT and social discrimination for their condition. The discrimination can perpetuate and exacerbate the actual poverty.

And one only has to watch the ABC on origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece to realise that universal 'human rights' was also far from their minds. Democracy was more about the most effective way of administering the expanding glory of Athens than anything so idealistic and 20th Century as a Charter for Human rights.

As far as I can tell, John and Greg are historically correct when they assert that the Western world basically owes the tradition of "Human rights" to the Christian world-view. No matter how arrogant that may sound, and how alien to our modern ears, it just may be the historical truth.

"...John and Greg are historically correct when they assert that the Western world basically owes the tradition of "Human rights" to the Christian world-view. No matter how arrogant that may sound, and how alien to our modern ears, it just may be the historical truth."

It's ironic really that Christianity was believed to have been the original instigators of the concept of human rights.

Catholicism taught us that:

-women cannot become Priests or Bishops.

-Divorce is not allowed- even if there
is violence in the marriage.

-Women cannot have an abortion and thus
must be forced to carry an unwanted
pregnancy

-euthanasia is not allowed.

Yep, sounds like a veritable human rights fest to me alright!