Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Constantin von Barloewen: This is a key question in current international politics. A few years ago the United Nations organized a big conference in Vienna on human rights policy. Dignity, the notion of human dignity is an anthropological condition of human rights. On the one hand we have the affirmation of universality, on the other hand we have the relativization because of the plurality of cultures. I think we have to find a balance here. On the one hand between what we could call a world ethos, that is a world public designed according to western patterns and the primacy of human rights as it has been constituted in the preamble of the United Nations after World War II. On the other hand, as far as the affirmation of the plurality of cultures is concerned, the affirmation of individual cultural traditions for human rights, as it was expressed back then in the conflict at the world conference of the United Nations. This is a very difficult question, because the notion of human dignity is such a deep philosophical notion as an anthropological condition of human rights. On the other hand we have to consider that in the Koran, too, and in othern world religions, there are always conditions of human rights. It is a fallacy to believe that human rights are only a privilege or a possession of western nations. We have to research human rights traditions in other cultures and traditions and to understand them and to bring them in line with western expectations. I would be against a purely western primacy of human rights that excludes other cultures and traditions because of their particularities. I would support a plurality of cultural traditions, of course not at the price of annulling the preamble of the United Nations. To sum it up, the balance between relativity and universality is necessary in this context.

by Constantin von Barloewen

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Cornel West: Reconciling human rights with traditional and/or religious rights depends on how we define religious values. When I turn to Hebrew scripture, I see a stress on justice, justice, justice, like justice rolled down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream [inaudible]. When I turn to Christian New Testament, I see a stress on love and justice. There is no doubt that human rights ought to be fundamentally about justice and ought to be leaven by talk about love and compassion. So, in that sense there is no need for reconciliation. It’s the matter of seeing the continuity of being consistent via the commitment to justice such that the right to liberties of every precious human being on this globe is respected, affirmed, recognized and acknowledged. There is no doubt that institutional religion has tended to go hand in hand with forms of social hierarchy. In that situation, the very clash between religious values of justice with religious institutions, the hierarchy ought to take place. This is precisely where prophetic religion is opposed to mainstream institutional religion. That division -- that clash needs to be acknowledged and prophetic religious values can reinforce human rights. Highly institutionalized hierarchical religion often stands in the way of the quest for human rights; and we see this especially in regard with the rights of women. We see this especially in regard to the rights of gay brothers and lesbian sisters. We see this especially in regard to the association of religious institutions historically with class written privileges.

by Cornel West

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Dedi Baron: Answertext will be available soon.

by Dedi Baron

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas: In my personal point of view, universal human rights can only be said universe of human rights if it's not in contradict with traditional and religious rights. And, I am referring to the universal human rights of the human beings, their basic rights to live in dignity, to have equal access for water, for food, for shelter, in education and a healthy environment. Those for me defines universal basic human rights. However, we may have some cultural specifications which for me let's say the right to demonstrate, for example, which is related to freedom -- the human rights for freedom. There are some societies maybe because of political culture who does not allow rallies, but still those are sectoral or very geographical in nature. And, therefore, for me, those are specific in nature and is not part of the universal basic human rights. But, for me, our human rights to live in dignity are some of -- of course are universal human rights

by Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Dritëro Kasapi: Hello, Miss Davis. Universal human rights are good and I’m for them. But they are defined from a Eurocentric or Western-centric point of view. They are defined out of our Western democratic perspective and in defining these human rights, universal human rights, we have not included the rest of the world, and I think that is part of why traditional values conflict with it because there’s a lot of traditional values in the Western world which we have abandoned, which would be in conflict with what we perceive today, universal rights. But there has been a process we’ve undergone and now we are in a position where we more or less put ultimatum to these societies and say, “Take it or leave it. This is the right way,” without granting them the possibility of undergoing a process, which our societies have undergone and that is again perceived rightfully so, I think, as an imperialistic attitude and because I want to be participant in whatever is called universal, and if somebody else has decided and tells me that is universal, I want to question it, and the only way I can question is by going back to the values I have, which happen to be traditional. So, I think the question would rather be, “How do we make traditional societies be compatible with how do we make/give possibilities for traditional society to undergo process of development?”

by Dritëro Kasapi

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Eliane Potiguara: Religious values themselves are in conflict. You can see that Muslims don’t accept Hindus, Hindus don’t accept Buddhists, Buddhists don’t accept Christians, Christians don’t accept Spiritists, Shamans… We have to find a religious tolerance, in first place, so the religions really respect themselves. It’s no use to say it in books, in words, this is about action. The world is used to talk, talk and talk. The world doesn’t set these words and philosophies in motion, for real. We see these religious wars and all those modern wars nowadays, all because of religious philosophy. So, as we can see, if the religions themselves are in war, how are we supposed to have respect for traditions? How, if the most ethic people are fighting too? So, we need to review all those concepts. A tolerance must me established so that people can respect themselves in practice. We have had too many words. We had enough of words. We had enough of this “blah, blah, blah” and just hearing, but having no concrete actions. Christianism needs to respect more other religions. There are very important religions, all of them are important. So, until there won’t be this respect, this tolerance, in practice, there won’t be respect among human beings. And the exercise of human rights won’t be accomplished.

by Eliane Potiguara

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Eliot Weinberger: Well, I think the problem is that change within a society has to occur from within, and it cannot be imposed from without. If there are traditional or religious values that seem to us in the West to be particularly retrograde, and this is mainly in things having to do with the role of women in society. Where this change occurs in the kind of globalized world and in a world with a lot of migration is that it occurs through the generations and when people start finding out how other people in the world are living. I think it was a huge mistake for the French, for example, to ban head scarves in French schools because this then drives young Muslim women into only attending Muslim schools whereas if they are in a situation where they are interacting on a daily basis with European-origin kids who are living a completely different lifestyle, then they themselves, while they are still at home must live according to the values of their home; but then, as they become adults, then they make much more of a conscious decision whether they are going to preserve traditional lifestyles or whether they themselves are going to change. But the point is that that they have been given a window into other ways of living, and whereas to either to ban the head scarves to keep the young Muslim girls in traditional Muslim schools is a way of perpetuating that system.

by Eliot Weinberger

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Elisabet Sahtouris: This is a difficult and deep question about reconciling respect for universal human rights when they conflict with traditional or religious values. The question before this was about the inequality of men and women and that’s of course one of the issues that comes up when religious beliefs put women in inferior positions, it's very difficult to respect universal human rights in that kind of a situation. And I think what we have to do is recognize that change happens in the world. I am an evolution biologist, I study living systems and change. I am a scientist and science in the sense is expected always to function through change - to change its theories, to changes its hypothesis, to come up with new facts and new ages. Religions where expected not to change overtime because their knowledge was revealed and considered to be eternal permanent law, a permanent way of doing things. However, in this world, religions are changing more in a way than science is, at least so it seems to me. We have -- I have been asked as a scientist by Catholic nuns, by a Episcopalian priests, how do we redefine things in our religion for this changing world. They are ready to shift. The nuns have looked into their rules, their hold bylaws and discovered that they can change their own rules within their convents. They came out of their habits into lay dress in many cases. They liberated themselves and they still are active in full members with the Catholic Church. So, change is possible and it often has to come from -- not from the high priesthoods of religions or traditional values, but from more of the grassroots, from the lay members of a religion or of a society. And we can only hope that the process of change toward equality in the world will continue in more and more ways, in more and more traditions so that the tradition... [audio ends]

by Elisabet Sahtouris

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Ervin Laszlo: I don’t believe that fundamental human rights conflict with traditional religious values. The only conflict is the interpretation of traditional and religious values. At their basis, all religions, all great traditions are universal; base they are understanding on universal valuation of human life or human liberty and human well being. We just have to rediscover these fundamentals. We are there.

by Ervin Laszlo

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Esther Mwaura-Muiru: So, when we define human rights, it’s not inclusive of traditional beliefs and not of religion beliefs or values. I think I question who then determines the human rights. For me, human rights, protecting everybody equally, giving everybody the opportunity to participate and I think traditional - religion traditionally provided for that. Our traditions in fact have been involved in a process where we are looking back and understanding whether the former laws that exist in Kenya actually do protect the marginalized groups, in particular, women, or modern day traditional - the traditional values and cultural laws and customary laws protected and is very very clear that over years professionals have taken over. They have written the former laws, they have decided what is human rights, and they have ignored completely the community’s understanding of human rights; and communities have been forced to be trained on what is human rights. In my view, the communities understand what is human rights and human rights is understood by grassroots community, does not conflict with religious values and does not either - does not also conflict with the traditional beliefs. And, I think again I believe if all we agree to go to the basics and look at where we came from and understand what is the beliefs, what is a practice among our traditional communities without having our own external influence on how we want to see things happen, I think we will appreciate that all these human rights as dictated today do not hold in our traditional societies.

by Esther Mwaura-Muiru

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Fernando Solanas: The universal values of mankind are in question and they are not executed. Today, our societies or humanity lives in this dichotomy, this schizophrenia between the universal charter of human rights and the human and social rights that are in fact assured by the United Nations. We live in an era of a gigantic hypocrisy where campaigns worked out at the desks of the military intelligence, of the great powers, impose upon us abominable lies, that provoke and unleash wars and where those who are responsible, who are the real murderers and terrorists of the state, go on governing, as is the case with the president of North America, Bush. He does not have to answer to an international tribunal as the prominent guilty person for the massacres of Iraq and Afghanistan and all those lies of his war on terrorism. All this is being kept up and so the universal values do not disagree with religious values and – how does the question put it – with certain traditional values. What in fact is at odds is the great governing elite and the governing powers. Humanity will always have contradictions between all its minorities and the plurality of cultural and religious conceptions that exist in it. The true danger for the universal values of mankind are those dominant elites that respond to conservative traditional values. But these conservative traditional values are the values of capitalistic egotism, of dehumanisation on a large scale.

by Fernando Solanas

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Fred Matser: I think it is possible. Perhaps traditional values were even meant to express universal human rights. But, as long as they don't and they documentize, there may be representations of another era in which the development of the mind and the heart was not yet that far as advanced as now on certain levels of our society. So, my answer would be, let's have a look back in number 18, yes, we have then to look into the traditional values and religious values and see in what way they don't match with the human rights, and see how we can help the leaders in these arenas to make changes. An example, for example, is in the Catholic Church, by the way, many, many gazillions of people in the Catholic Church do great works. They still have a different approach related to women. Not in all parts of the church, women are equal to men. We see the same situation with the Islam. And I mean, of course, on one side, we have to respect traditions, because it is a collective mindset that has been around often for ages, and we have to also respect that these other traditions that perhaps do not yet see men and women as equal that they have the chance also to develop on their own their minds and hearts to a different understanding. We also have not, in the West, I mean I come from Europe, we don't need to forget -- we have not to forget that we [audio ends].

by Fred Matser

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Galsan Tschinag: That the communist doctrine of equality was accepted by the masses in the beginning had to do with the basic ideas of all religions and cultures. Because they as well had taken up the cause of equality and had tried to educate the people to this principle. That communism failed later, had to fail, was due to other causes. The universal human rights and the traditional religious values are not conflicting in my opinion.

by Galsan Tschinag

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Geert Lovink: There is a conflict here that cannot be reconciled. So your question is a relatively important one, but I would say I would rephrase it. Universal human rights have to be enforced and they are in conflict with traditional values. So the reconciliation will need to be done in the form of negotiation, enforcement, also defeat. So human rights activists will also I know they are have to be ready to admit that there are certain time zones issues in which major defeat happened and we see that at the moment again, with the issue of torture. I don't want to traditional values -- it's very easy to give no graphic answer and to look at it from a Western point of view and say all the Western cultures just have to comply to this. I think the human rights agenda have been thoroughly deconstructed as a Western set of values. This has been done in the '80s and '90s; we all know that. But instead of going there, I'm more interested in how it conflicts with Western values. Take for instance the debate that is right now happening concerning Abu Ghraib, the secret detention centers, Guantanamo Bay. This is where we see a conflict happening inside the Western values.

by Geert Lovink

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Giora Feidman: Well, this is a process that people or religions or societies, they didn’t come in without my respect that people pay to any society, any religion; but this kind of society or religions that didn't come to the realization of the role of women in the society will need to give room to open the gates and to give to understand today the role of women in society. I understand, I accept, they endorse these before thousands of years. The society consider women in such a way they build religion’s law that doesn't go together with what today we arrive as human being to develop, the historical develop if you compare with those days and today and sometime not only the approach to women, the approach to many things. Food, relationship, this kind of society will need to open the gates and must be clear. They know all the things they put aside in the religion society those days, unacceptable today. No. There are many, many things, they are correct today. But the approach of women in those days, today is incorrect.

by Giora Feidman

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Gladman Chibememe: This is quite a very problematic issue. I do really agree, appreciate that, There are a lot of cultural values and cultural values that conflict with human rights. For example, we have a lot of cases in which there are [ritualmedas] done within cultures. There are also cases in which women remain oppressed based on culture. And, in this case we will see that culture legitimizes such systems, culture legitimizes ritual killings, ritual death. And, in this case what could be the best way to do it is that we need to make sure that we have to agree that culture is not or there is or is not something which is constant fixed. If in the early years, in the medieval times we believed that ritual death are important. And now we have found that isn’t no longer important. It is important that people should move away from such practice like ritual death and embrace the concept of right to life, so that people will be able to really appreciate the value of the human right to life. Because culture in itself exposes us to -- in such a situation that it doesn't really allow us to respect this universal right to life. So, in this case we need to ensure that culture is not something cast in stone thing. It is just one of those things that is transit, the one of those things that develops, one of those things that we lend and develop over time, and let’s not stick and get bogged on each to such an extent that we will end up compromising the rights of other people, human rights of other people, the right to life, the right to freedom, the right to information.

by Gladman Chibememe

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Govindaswamy Hariramamurthi: Depends on how you look at it, from whose point of view. I think the traditional values or religious values are not always in conflict. It is culturally possible for universal human rights are being practiced without being in conflict with traditional or religious values. You look at the communities in Asia that have existed in the spirit of being in harmony with universal human rights. It is not just being preached, it is being practiced. But, from their point of view what they do is often the way that they have seen it to be meaningful that way. But, from your point of view, you might be seeing that universal human rights are in conflict with traditional or religious values, because you don’t belong to that culture. When you belong to that culture you know why. They are in conflict with these human rights. If you look at the issue of Indian context, equal rights is being acquired by different communities, by fighting for them, and overcoming the inequality and the political process that has been shaping up equal opportunity across communities is visible today.

by Govindaswamy Hariramamurthi

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Hans-Peter Dürr: I don’t think that the universal human rights conflict with religious issues, but it does indeed with the religions we have today which were deformed in the course of history to this extent, that they became power forming words, which forgot the basics that must respond to the religious that stresses the common in people and are concerned about them. A real religion means that we can go back to the things that cannot be expressed in words. That means, among the things that make sense to us and that we can comprehend to recognise what actually has a much more general meaning. And to my mind that also corresponds with the natural human rights. Whereas the human rights themselves seem too narrow to me. It’s again an emphasis of the human against all the living creatures. A human must see that he’s only a part of a bigger whole where he’s embedded, and the religions also must realize that in some way. And that’s mostly the feature of the monotheistic religions to single out humans from this entity and make him better than the others, which leads to creating of power structures, and also to the fact that some people feel better than the others, which causes the inequality that deforms the community in some very sensitive way.

by Hans-Peter Dürr

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Harry Wu: I think human rights certainly conflict with traditional values as well as religious values, but I think such conflicts are engendered endlessly and they are inevitable. In my opinion, it’s time to reconcile them harmoniously. We should have time, and we are also capable to develop smoothly on and on.

by Harry Wu