The freedom of religion is declared as a fundamental and universal human right. Considering the current social developments around the world, we may contemplate this right. I do not wish to take away or ban some human rights; I would only like to present a different perspective on fundamental human rights and point out some incompatibility and paradox, highlighting why the right of freedom of religion and other basic human rights are not consistent.
Firstly, we should take a huge step back till the beginnings of our species. After our ancestors descended from the trees, formed their first words and established their initial communities, it did not take long for them to develop their first beliefs.
Beliefs are a remarkable development of Homo sapiens. Actually, we are the only existing species on this planet that possesses beliefs. The ability to form such beliefs and adopt them as common goals or common laws is the cause of the progress of our species and also the reason why we could become the lords of nature.
Through the millennia, our species has embraced a myriad of beliefs, each contributing the rich tapestry of human history. From the enigmatic Venuses of Villendorf, through the Phoenicians, Sumerians and Maya civilisations to the enduring legacy of ancient Egypt spanning nearly 5000 years, our journey has been marked by a diverse array of religious and spiritual traditions. Many of which also served as a foundation for common law. The ancient world, with its myths and beliefs of the Greeks and Romans, witnessed the advent of the religions of Abraham, such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism. These not only shaped the spiritual landscape of the following centuries but also influenced the legal systems of these times, including the legal structures of the Middle Ages.
Let’s pause here for a moment. All these beliefs share a common goal: the concept of an afterlife. While there are diverse interpretations and imagination surrounding it, they all converge on the notion of existence beyond earthly life. The shared idea is that one should lead a life on this earth that aligns with the principles or expectations set by the respective gods or deities of these beliefs. The reward for such a life is often framed as salvation, a divine salary, or an equivalent concept coined in accordance with the specific beliefs held.
For a long time, religious beliefs and monarchies functioned as a well-coordinated, powerful team. Of course, there were some inconsistencies, sometimes with death as a consequence but overall, they provided a pretty strong foundation for the progress of human societies. This continued until the point where these beliefs became an obstacle for future development. We all have learnt about the Revolution in France and its idea of a secular state which has swept not only through Europe but also through other countries around the world.
The idea of a secular state involves the separation of religion and its rules from the legal system of a state. Of course, this new condition brought forth a variety of different challenges. Other kinds of beliefs found their ways next to the religious ones. Beliefs, not defined by a deity reigning from above, but rather by political ideologies. We embraced a variety of these ideologies, such as liberalism, capitalism, fascism, socialism, nationalism, Marxism, communism, feminism, wokeism, racism, antisemitism and many more. Through the time we framed different legal systems, and we also changed them depending on the prevailing ideology within societies.
If we examine the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) from this perspective, we can recognise that it functions not merely as a set of rights or bills within a legal system that can be easily altered. It is a steadfast and an enduring framework. It goes beyond a set of provisions and functions as a belief, encapsulated in the statement “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” (Article 1) Furthermore, it is stated that “everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms (…) without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” (Article 2)
The right of freedom of religion is specifically articulated in Article 18 (UDHR), which states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” Additionally, Article 19, points out that “everyone has the right of freedom of opinion and expression.” At least, Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief (1981) states that “religion is a fundamental human right.”
Nowadays, fundamental human rights can be seen as the basis of many societies worldwide. They shape and govern our legal systems, much like the variety of beliefs did throughout the millennia of human history. They ensure that we can work and live together under the secure umbrella of equality and dignity.
As long as other beliefs are compared to them, there is no necessity for a change. Unfortunately, there are several cases, in which a religion or ideology contradicts the basic human rights to dignity and equality. In these cases, it is on our legal system to decide where the freedom of religion, belief and expression ends. Racism, antisemitism and crimes based on gender are rooted in beliefs that cannot function under the the umbrella of basic human rights. Disregarding and hating people contradicts the belief of equality and dignity. There are also several beliefs that insist on their religious freedom to express views — such as women’s inequality, mistreatment or oppression of other people with different beliefs, races or nationalities — and in doing so, they simultaneously disregard human rights. In this case, it is possible that the human rights of freedom pave the way for further radicalisation and its demise.
The point I am trying to make, is that all the basic human rights, like equality, dignity, inherent properties bestowed upon a human at birth. We cannot choose our race, colour, sex, language, nationality, property or birth status. However, we can choose our thoughts, beliefs and expressions. We cannot simultaneously go in two different directions. Everyone has to choose which path they wish to take and which goal they aim to achieve. Ultimately, for our actions, we must take the consequences. If we allow the expression from beliefs that go against human rights, if we allow planting ideas against these rights in our children, if we allow shaping and educating our next generation through such hate ideologies and if we allow causing harm, trauma and indoctrination, we may end up with a future where tolerance and human rights seem like ancient beliefs.
The right of freedom of religious and political beliefs and the right of their expression should not exempt individuals of their personal responsibility. For our actions, we have to take the responsibility and so the consequences. Therefore, in my opinion, this kind of right of freedom should not be considered as basic human right. Actions are not predetermined, are not “basics” – they have to be carefully chosen.