Comments on: Savage Minds Around the Web http://savageminds.org/2008/12/21/savage-minds-around-the-web-12/ Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:06:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Richard http://savageminds.org/2008/12/21/savage-minds-around-the-web-12/comment-page-1/#comment-550078 Richard Tue, 23 Dec 2008 19:16:29 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=1443#comment-550078 Indeed, and I think this is a good story to bring to our attention for that reason. Personally, I think what is interesting about this debate is that it shows us the limits of essentialising something called "human rights". The idea of lumping sexual/ religious/ racial/ dietary/ sporting preferences together, and declaring them all to be part of the same body of human diversity that should be respected under universal human rights provisions seems to fail to realise that many sexual/ religious/ racial/ dietary/ sporting preferences are contradictory both in expression and in the forms of social behaviour and organisation which they lead to. As we know, compartmentalising and privitising religion is something that has happened under particular historical circumstances. More usually, religion is not just something that goes on in your head and that you keep to yourself, it is something which guides expression and behaviour in the world. As a result, you cannot simultaneously protect the rights of people to live according to their religion (as religion is, de facto, a form of social organisation which directs social expression and behaviour according to social norms), AND also force people who wish to live in this way to accept that it is unlawful to express themselves, or organise themselves in such a way, that they believe they are guided to by revelation. Yet this seems to be the conceit of certain relativistic modes of pluralism. Indeed, and I think this is a good story to bring to our attention for that reason. Personally, I think what is interesting about this debate is that it shows us the limits of essentialising something called “human rights”.

The idea of lumping sexual/ religious/ racial/ dietary/ sporting preferences together, and declaring them all to be part of the same body of human diversity that should be respected under universal human rights provisions seems to fail to realise that many sexual/ religious/ racial/ dietary/ sporting preferences are contradictory both in expression and in the forms of social behaviour and organisation which they lead to. As we know, compartmentalising and privitising religion is something that has happened under particular historical circumstances. More usually, religion is not just something that goes on in your head and that you keep to yourself, it is something which guides expression and behaviour in the world. As a result, you cannot simultaneously protect the rights of people to live according to their religion (as religion is, de facto, a form of social organisation which directs social expression and behaviour according to social norms), AND also force people who wish to live in this way to accept that it is unlawful to express themselves, or organise themselves in such a way, that they believe they are guided to by revelation. Yet this seems to be the conceit of certain relativistic modes of pluralism.

Report this comment

]]> By: jay sosa http://savageminds.org/2008/12/21/savage-minds-around-the-web-12/comment-page-1/#comment-550074 jay sosa Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:03:40 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=1443#comment-550074 Don't worry, Richard. Not picky at all. I didn't mean to imply that the Vatican had voting rights, just that their objection seemed ironic. Of course an LGBT amendment to the UN Declaration would 'challenge existing human rights norms.' That is, after all, the point of the resolution. But your point on the Holy See is well taken. I wrote the Vatican so as to leave no one scratching their heads about who the the Holy See is. But the NYTimes article does, correctly, refer to the Holy See and not the Vatican. Don’t worry, Richard. Not picky at all. I didn’t mean to imply that the Vatican had voting rights, just that their objection seemed ironic. Of course an LGBT amendment to the UN Declaration would ‘challenge existing human rights norms.’ That is, after all, the point of the resolution.

But your point on the Holy See is well taken. I wrote the Vatican so as to leave no one scratching their heads about who the the Holy See is. But the NYTimes article does, correctly, refer to the Holy See and not the Vatican.

Report this comment

]]> By: Richard http://savageminds.org/2008/12/21/savage-minds-around-the-web-12/comment-page-1/#comment-549742 Richard Tue, 23 Dec 2008 00:08:40 +0000 http://savageminds.org/?p=1443#comment-549742 I thought it was worth flagging up that the Vatican City isn't a member state of the UN; rather, the Holy See has permanent observer status. This may sound like nitpicking, but it is not meant as such, for two reasons: a) they are able to remark on matters such as this, but cannot vote on them, and b) diplomatic relations by and from the Holy See are not with the state itself (the Vatican City), but with the jurisdiction of the pope (ultimately the government of the whole Church), which is treated as a sovereign entity for these purposes. I thought it was worth flagging up that the Vatican City isn’t a member state of the UN; rather, the Holy See has permanent observer status. This may sound like nitpicking, but it is not meant as such, for two reasons: a) they are able to remark on matters such as this, but cannot vote on them, and b) diplomatic relations by and from the Holy See are not with the state itself (the Vatican City), but with the jurisdiction of the pope (ultimately the government of the whole Church), which is treated as a sovereign entity for these purposes.

Report this comment

]]>