Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Kailash Satyarthi: Well, it's an interesting question. But, let me tell you that there is no inherent conflict between the fundamental universal human rights and the positive values of our traditions and religions. True that the beliefs, the myths, the wrong traditions which are prevailing in the name of religion and cultures in our society go against justice, go against equality, go against some of the fundamental human rights. But, they are just the negative values which are still prevailing in our cultures and in the name of religions, in the garb of religions. But, on the other hand, there are huge amount of liberated values and positive values, as well as the positive traditions, even the stories in our traditions and cultures which we can dig out and we have to dig out. So, the most important things include that the values related to justice, liberty, equality and freedom have to be digged out from our cultures and religions and they should be interpreted in such a manner that the human rights could be promoted. Secondly, we have to demystify the human rights. Sometimes, we use the connotations, the phrases, the language, the jargons in the human right discourse which are not really comfortable with ordinary people. And, sometimes, apparently, it looks that they go against the cultures and religions. That is not true. So, if we can devise a way where each universal human right could be linked with some of our social, cultural, traditional and religious teachings, that will definitely be very helpful, and that is possible. In case of child rights, which is of course a part of human rights in India and worldwide, I myself in my moment we try to explain and interpret the child rights in the wider context of the positive teachings and positive values in our religions and cultures. There is always great things in the religious books and teachings of the big leaders.

by Kailash Satyarthi

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Kamal Boullata:

by Kamal Boullata

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Kigge Hvid: Hello Frank... in New York! Hi! So, how can we do that? I don’t know how we should do that. But, I think that one thing is for really, really sure and that is that the global human rights should prevail over all other rights in the world. That might sound hard, that’s just a part of democracy, that’s also a part of living again together in a global society. We simply have to have some values, some rules, some legislation that ensure us that we cherish the same overall values which really are about liberty, about having the right to cover basic needs. So basically they should; and if they would conflict with traditional or religious value, that’s a problem we have to solve and that’s a problem we see many places in the world. But, it is something we have to solve that which would be up to the international society, to governments and to individuals to see too that these values, the overall values of the human society are accepted, are lived by all over the world.

by Kigge Hvid

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Kurt Weidemann: If the religions in this world are opposed one to another or if their doctrines diverge a lot from their application then they should be deprived of power no matter if it is Islam or Buddhism or Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism. Our Christian religion tells us that God created man in his own image and that very man crucified his son. That shows that the doctrine and its application differ in such a strong way that they should not be accepted any more. Luckily the wars inspired by religion or by religious believe do no longer exist. If they are gone for good can't be said for sure now if we think of the fanaticism of Islamic fundamentalists these days. Any kind of fanaticism and any kind of craving for power or hunger for world domination must be vehemently fought and prevented.

by Kurt Weidemann

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Lesego Rampolokeng: Tradition, religion are very safe as homes from which to operate, from which to visit untold horrors upon others. Tradition and religion are used for the oppresion of other beings. And, if that is indeed right, they have to backtrack a little bit and say, "universal human rights," I mean what -- what essentially are we talking about there? Are we talking about all creatures across this existence of ours and their right to exist within the zone in which we are with respect, with dignity, with all of the position? If that is what we are talking about, if we are saying it is about the positive that which is meant to respect, to celebrate humanity, even that’s what we are talking about and we backtrack and see the religion and so-called tradition, things, concepts that have been utilized to work precisely against us being human, then I think perhaps there is a call for an entire, total, complete overhaul and an onslaught against those values. At the same time, I respect all human beliefs if they are not cared towards the oppression, this oppression and the exploitation of others.

Wretch oppression bleed
and richest nation feed
bloated,
hot air balloon floated,
they can be quoted how the [mandeed]
drowned in the witches broom, nothing []penthouse the cold []syndrome says to each a kingdom in their own back garden.

by Lesego Rampolokeng

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Leung Ping-Kwan: The basic dignities was, could we curtail the basics like freedom of expression and freedom of speech, to be able to keep one’s own religion/lifestyle? When this happens, is to choose work and to choose places with faith. Indeed, in some of the countries nowadays, these basic needs are not met and there are restrictions for them. I think the reason which would be, I mean if you look back at different countries and their political agenda and provinces and this country’s ideology and we may see, because of their particular ideology, they may not like the actual happen and there seems there could be a conflict within the faith restriction and the need for the basic respect for the human dignity and not that we let so many people to [inaudible], but I think because of this dictatorship, our country and the people’s ideology, they put the privilege of their faith in front of the religions and that’s the reason why a lot of times, the human freedom or the human dignity seems to be sacrificed because of the faith and ideologies.

by Leung Ping-Kwan

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Lijun Fang: First, I think, we should attempt to coexist with each other. The coexistence of Confusion, Buddhism and Taoism in ancient China was very successful. They can even be in the same temple at the same time. Their thoughts were exchanging. There are also many good examples that Christianity, Catholicism, Islam, Buddhism and Taoism exist in the same village or in the same region and communicate with each other. If it is impossible to coexist, we would have no choice but to change ourselves to someone else. Can we accept that? If no, then the third choice would be to exterminate the opposite or to be exterminated.

by Lijun Fang

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Lillian Holt: Well, ultimately I don't think that they should conflict with traditional religious values because universal human rights are universal human rights. I think it's our interpretation of those universal human rights. I mean the need for people to be needed, wanted and loved; to have access to enough food and to have a warm bed to sleep in and enough food to eat. I mean to me that's a universal human right and I believe the United Nations statistics says that if I have a warm bed to sleep in, enough food to eat, and a roof over my head then I am in the top 7% of the world’s population. Now you know the right to this and the right to that, there’s a whole range of other things and I know that cultural convention can intrude in these areas, but ultimately the truth of humanity and the universal human rights cannot be trampled upon. And as I said -– and we have many documents that say that -- but they are trampled upon. I know that. But it's also about interpretation and it becomes sometimes it's a question of fundamentalism. Whose interpretation are right? But it is not right to impede the human rights of the people, and that includes the physical, mental and spiritual development, and life.

by Lillian Holt

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Livingstone Maluleke: Thank you. The issue of the human rights is based on ethics. They are not universal. Rights are not universal because every environment has got its own rights. This also includes and adheres to the issue of the equal rights, attuned by the equal rights. The culture, the society in which we find ourselves, and also are we able to say that the universality of human rights is in all aspects the same. Really, these are the debates that we need to try and bring together so that we are able to depict what we mean by the human rights. Therefore, that is why in some cases some human rights conflict with the traditional aspect of human. Like, there will be other aspects whereby communities find, for an example, the ritual king is an aspect which was traditionally accepted or which was in practice. And of course, in today's world in globalization we need to also consider the issue of ethics when we're looking at all this human rights, which sometimes is of religious value; which, of course, is based on the venting and abuse of certain rights. Are we not abusing certain rights if we practice without enough valuing the traditional and the religious approach of certain communities? And in that way, really, we need to consider all these things in order to have the human rights respected, not to conflict with the traditional and religious values.

by Livingstone Maluleke

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Mae-Wan Ho: I don't think there is a conflict between traditional values, religious or otherwise and universal human rights. I think that the conflict arises between those values and fundamentalism and that's what we have to guard against. We have all religions of the world, for example, have core values of doing no harm, of love, forgiving your neighbors for trespasses and so on. And we -- these do not conflict with basic human rights. On the other hand, notions of fundamentalism, crusades and so on, those are in conflict with basic human rights. Those have got nothing to do with traditional, religious and human values.

by Mae-Wan Ho

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Mahsa Shekarloo: Well, whether we like it or not, there are people who have issues with the idea that there is something called universality. What we call universal is very often certain people, sectors, in society, in the world, who tend to have more power, who tend to have more voice, who declare something as being universal. Now, this is debatable, and some people who challenge universality have, of course, various motivations, at its most negative, one motivation being to violate human rights. Nevertheless, there are people who launch this challenge and question the idea of universality, and that’s a challenge that needs to be addressed. And we can’t unquestioningly use words like “universal.” At the same time, one of the problems with the application of human rights today is the way it’s used politically, and the way it’s used selectively. And this has hampered the legitimacy of human rights in many areas throughout the world. When it is used for political purposes, when it is used selectively, on certain peoples, on certain regimes, then the legitimacy of such rights are de-legitimized. And, again, these issues must, must, must be addressed. I don’t think that human rights necessarily conflict with traditional or religious values, but I think we need to re-look traditional values, we need to re-look religious values and we need to re-look human rights, perhaps not make human rights so individually based, perhaps bring in the notion of collective rights just [audio ends]

by Mahsa Shekarloo

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Mark Benecke: Universal human rights are defined by a very, very, very long evolutionary process. I guess what everybody would agree upon is that a certain degree of freedom, a certain degree of wealth and a certain degree of health is a universal human right. But this has developed. You cannot dictatorially tell people how much freedom and how much wealth and how much health is good. Because we are all interconnected economically, socially, culturally, and if a society is not ready for a certain degree of freedom, health and wealth, then it needs a long stage of negotiations and maybe even a little bit of violence. I mean, I don't like that, and maybe I wouldn't take part in the violent part, but you always have to ask yourself how much do people do who don't have freedom and wealth and health to gain it and how much do people who do have it, who want to share it with the other people? So in the end, it boils down to the question: how much do people individually want to give for this? Those who want to receive more freedom, wealth and health and those who have it and want to spread it. If we really, really want to spread universal values, if they exist, then it needs a lot of negotiation and talking and discussing and maybe also laughing and drinking, because maybe the best way to negotiate values is to find a level on which we can communicate them. So, I think it's a very individual thing and it won't be done from top to the bottom but from bottom to the top, if people want it. If !

by Mark Benecke

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Martin Almada: Where fanaticism prevails, be it political or religious, it is impossible to reconcile it with universal human rights. Sadly we talk from the occidental point of view when we talk about universal human rights. The Orient has a different view in case of politics and religion. We have to respect both points of view. But I would like to finish saying that where fanaticism prevails, it is impossible to reconcile human rights or cultural values with the universal human rights.

by Martin Almada

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Masami Saionji: It can be surely done. We say that religious confrontation, but we have misunderstood the religion. The religion is not bad. I think whichever the religion, it exists with the truth. Human being's way of life, dignity of human's life, love, share, forgiveness and gratitude. So the religion is not bad, but a religious people are bad. But it is misunderstood that the religion is bad. If religious people lead in right way, then there are no religious conflict or bad thinkgs of religion. The religion preach love of the god, forgiveness, freedom, creativity, and wonderful capacity which no one can violate them. The most important thing is respect for human's life and dignity. Human race's right doesn't conflict with religious value. So if a religious person shows the oberved truth, then it is possible to harmonize human race's way of life and religious way of life

by Masami Saionji

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Masuma Bibi Russel: I think that it’s so important we know -- we should know there are different part of the world, they have their tradition, they have their culture, they have their religions that value. And with respecting that, knowing the condition geographical, economical, religious, and cultural, I think if we respect these and you will understand the circumstances about the people, about their living condition and think. I think human rights, the basic rights of universal human rights should be, we should not take away any, any person their human dignity. Whatever, which part of the world they are, it’s so important, don’t take away their pride, don’t take away the -- respect their culture, respect their religion, respect their peacefulness. I think that if we know about that and respect all this, I think that there should be a universal human rights for one thing that we don’t take away any person’s human dignity pride, especially -- repeating again and again I come from Bangladesh, and it’s so sad when I see that people are taking away the human dignity or the pride. Pride is someone live for. I think that should be -- we should know that if the basic things, whichever part you are coming from, developed country, developing country, everyone should have their human dignity, pride, that is something should no one in any cost should be taken away.

by Masuma Bibi Russel

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Mayank Mehta: Very hard question. Since it’s very hard, I’ll give an easy answer and that easy answer is not going to be practical, but that’s what we have to go towards. If there is a conflict between universal human rights and so called traditional or religious beliefs or values and also the human rights take the first precedents and the other things have to step back, that’s the way it should be. And of course that’s not answering the question. The question is how can, how can we generate situations that does happen? Once again, instead of thinking of large systems, let’s think of individuals which make up the large system and will change, we can generate in the individuals that make up the large system. So let me imagine that, there’s a person whose individual human right belief is that, it’s good for the other person to have the same rights that he or she has. But in religion or tradition says that the other person has either different gender, different cast, different religion, and hence, the other person is inferior or less deserving. And hence, it’s easier for me to impinged upon their, or impinge their right and maximize my rights and beliefs. So the source of trouble lies within the individual. And the only way to solve the problem is actually not by saying the religious cast base or gender base, many other ways of discrimination and to stop in making laws, we have plenty of them and which we have more of them, but still, that’s not going to stop it. The only way that it s going to stop is for individual to feel, that what you do is indeed is hurting them. To see that just like they can make up a decision that the other person is less deserving, the other person can make similar decisions too, and they can be at the receiving end. So, by showing people, really by education, has people become more and more aware, that justice today, I can then be the other person to visually based on some differences between me and the other person, by on skin, color, religion, gender, cast and so on, the other person has done it to me as well.

by Mayank Mehta

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Michael E. Tigar: Mr. Davis, the question you pose is a perennial one. You know, in 1608 or so, Hugo Grotius in his monumental treatise wrote about what he proclaimed to be universal human rights; and among the universal human rights was slavery, under certain carefully limited circumstances. Now by the early 1800's, slavery of course was the law in the United States and it was affirmed as a just part of our constitutional system, even though many of the most influential countries in the world had rejected it. By 1841, Justice Story was able to say for our Supreme Court that slavery violated universal laws of justice. So you see traditional values have always acted as a break on the recognition of so called universal rights. I think the problem lies in our easy acceptance of some idea of universality, which after all if we take the example of Grotius, simply means as far as I can see right now. Our struggle, yours and mine, is to work within the context of existing social orders, to improve our own perception of what is and is not universal, and then to seek to establish and maintain institutions of justice that permit the progressive realization of an increasingly broad and shared view of what universal human rights might consist of. And in that process, we ought to be listening as well as trying to teach, because cultures that may very well have principles that you or I would regard as inconsistent with our vision of human rights may have a great deal to teach us about areas of human striving to which we may not have paid sufficient attention.

by Michael E. Tigar

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Michael Laitman: All people are different by nature. We cannot demand the same efforts from a person who is lazy by nature and from one who is hard-working by nature. We cannot demand the same thing from a person who is intelligent by nature and from one who is not so smart, from a person who is drawn to technology and from a person who is drawn to education, to culture, to a different development. People are completely not like one another, and therefore it is impossible to demand equality from everyone. We are also unable to recognize and measure the natural qualities of every person, their direction and size. By demanding the same results from everyone, we are trying to squeeze everyone into the Procrustean Bed. In other words, we want to "shorten" or "stretch" every person, so that everyone will fit exactly one size. This situation is completely incorrect. Besides this, there exist differences in culture, education, religion and the development of the nations. Not all nations relate to the same level and the same place in the human society. Each one has its own place, and each one must be respected on it place. After all, each person is unique in his own way. This is why the international law must take into consideration all of the limitations and all of the distinctive characteristics of each person. If we will preserve this equality, the equality of each person's opportunity to correctly express himself in the most effective way relative to humanity, by this we will abolish the egoistic interrelationships and bring everyone to altruistic, equal, relationships, where each person will give his part—that which no one can give instead of him. Every person will be unique in this regard. Then we will really come to the fact that every individual will preserve himself and will develop in the most favorable way.

by Michael Laitman

Sep 9, 2006 11:25:00 AM cite

Michael P. Totten: All human beings that come into this life have a right to pursue freedom and happiness and development as any other human being. I also would expand that to include creation of those species who, whether it’s orangutans or elephants or whales, or the whole range of millions of species on this planet, also are part of that magnificent creation that comes out of nothing, and this is something, and should give us a life time of awe and wonder as to how all this diversity of life is possible. We obviously in our societal structures have failed to enable the rights of all people that [inaudible] the American constitution of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness or the universal declaration of human rights, and it goes to again conscious recognition. How do we awaken ourselves and others from our dogmatic slumber that fails to give to others what we expect for ourselves? This is a daily renewal of our consciousness that’s required. We have filled our lives with such trivia of activity, whether it’s going after more money than we possibly need to have a happy and extensive well-being, that we lose that time that could allow us the reflection of how to change our own lives and the lives or the policies that we allow our elected officials to set up that would promote rather than prevent these rights for others.

by Michael P. Totten