I do not follow the BBC series The Big Questions. I don't think I have seen an episode before but the 10 May 2015 episode came recommended. It asked: "Has human rights' law achieved more for humankind than religion?" (The programme description puts "law" in the plural.)
The discussion was pretty pathetic - a lot more shouting than logic; watching it felt like a waste of time. The question is not well put. What is "religion"? Is it the sum of all "religions"? What would count as "a religion" in this broad sweep? Is belief in some sort of deity required? If yes, how do we think about Buddhism? If not, does the belief that every human being (excepting the unborn, usually) has human rights make you a religious person?
Even if one knew what "religion" was, how would one measure what it has achieved? By what standard? We cannot run experiments on societies with and without "religion". Peter Tatchell maybe sought a way through by distinguishing between "religious people" who may be good or bad, just like non-religious people, and "religious establishments" which, it seems, have always been bad - at least for human rights. To point out that some religious leaders have led governments that promoted justice and peace and that the record of atheist leaders can hardly be said to be inspiring would not wash with Peter Thatchell. "Hitler? Stalin? Mao? It wasn't their atheism that did it" would be the answer. But would it not be at least worth exploring how and to what extent particular religions have promoted oppression and how and to what extent they have been a restraint on oppression? Yes, "atheism" did not tell Hitler or Stalin what to do but was their lack of religion in any way related to a lack of restraint? Yes, "atheism" did not tell the Chinese to adopt single-child policies and to prefer baby boys to girls to the extent of murder but did the freedom from the shackles of religion promote gender equality in China?
The programme's question invites a comparison, albeit not a very sensible one because "religion" and legislation are rather different things. Here the rhetorical question asked by one of the participants along the lines of "Has Starbucks done more for humanity than coffee?" makes a fair point. But at least it should be comparatively easy to establish what human rights legislation has achieved.
There was surprisingly little attempt to establish even this. Iran was held up as a (bad) example for what "religion" does to deny people their human rights. This looks promising because it seems possible to link specific violations of human rights with particular interpretations of Islam and because one can compare the cultural situation before and after the revolution to get a broader perspective on the difference made by giving religion a greater role in the political life of a nation. But to move this forward it would also be helpful to ask specifically, "What has human rights legislation achieved for the people of Iran?"
The question could be put more pointedly. It was taken for granted by several participants that "equal marriage" is a human right. It was also allowed that if the question of "equal marriage" were put to a referendum in Afghanistan, the answer would be a fairly unequivocal "No." But, as Andrew Copson in answer to that question explained, "human rights guarantees [!] that even if 99% of the society voted that you should be tortured, you're not going to be tortured [!] because the rest of the world, if they are watching and available...are watching out for your rights." How does this work in practice? Does the CEO of the British Humanist Association believe that the UK has a moral obligation to invade Afghanistan and occupy it again until torture has been ended and marriage no longer requires a mix of sexes?
If it is not enough to ask what the aims of a religion are, if we also have to ask what a religion has actually achieved, the same goes for human rights law. Pointing this out is not meant to suggest that human rights legislation is merely an ideal - fcar from it. I believe that legislation can play an important role in securing people their human rights but arguably on its own it is not enough. There needs to be a willingness to grant and defend human rights in actual practice. Laws and declarations need to be internalised and/or defended by force.
For many the question whether on balance "religion" proves to be more of a help with this than a hindrance is critical here and this was probably the question behind the question, given that no thought was given to what "religion" has "achieved" in terms other than securing the human rights of individuals. Much was made of the potential for "religion" to differentiate between an in-group and outsiders with the latter being treated badly. But no-one wondered how this relates more broadly to the question of how we nurture community cohesion and identity without encouraging such arrogance. Securing the human rights of individuals cannot really happen without communities who share a common interpretation of human rights and commit to watch out for each other's rights.
If the practical effect of human rights legislation was barely addressed, neither was its foundation properly explored. Claims and counter-claims as to whether the concept of human rights arose (uniquely) within Judeo-Christian cultures are only a very small part of the discussion that needs to be had here. Andrew Copson seemed to defend the fact that "human rights" are a cultural construct as an advantage but towards the end of the discussion rejected the premise of a question that queried our right to impose this cultural construct on others with a riposte which assumed that human rights are self-evident. True, "the person who is being tortured in a prison in Bangladesh for exercising their right to free expression" is not asking to be colonised, that person may well have a right sense oif their human rights being violated but this is only part of the picture. What about the torturers? Why do they not acknowledge the prisoner's human rights? Do they lack a proper concept of human rights or do they violate prisoners, knowing full well that they deny human rights? If the former, how do we explain human rights to them? If the latter, is force the only reply available to us to counter their use of force?
No, all in all it was a very superficial discussion.
