H
HagiaSophia
Guest
A reviw of the Human Rights Intl report running in the Tablet-UK particularly with regard to pro choice and reproductive rights., If this kind of thing doesn’t wave red flags to pro life Catholics nothing will:
“…Human rights activists, the authors conclude, must not turn away from rights violations carried out in the name of religion…”.
"…While the authors pay tribute to covergence of faith and secular groups on human rights issues in the 1970s and 1980s, they argue that today, on issues “at the crossroads of religious dogma and human rights ideology, of personal moral conviction and public health, the points of divergence are growing”.
The secular groups are seen as taking rights-based positions on freedom of speech, gender, sexuality, sexual orientation and – perhaps most pertinently – “women’s reproductive rights” that clash with the positions of many religious groups.
Although this is a lucid document, HRW fails to explain what it means by “reproductive rights”, despite numerous uses of the phrase. It is possible to discern, however, that it means not simply the “right” to contraception but also the “right” to abortion. The essay refers to “flashpoints” between secular and faith groups “like sexuality or abortion”, and refers in the related next sentence to “traditionalist positions on issues like sexuality and reproductive rights”; a footnote to the fourth essay, on sexuality, by Scott Long, refers to opposition to “reproductive rights” under the Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, and “anti-abortion . . . policies” are mentioned as part of this opposition…"
Given this, the criticisms of the approaches of the Catholic Church and the Bush administration to HIV/Aids prevention are perhaps predictable. After favourable mention of the Philippines Catholic Church’s role in the ousting of the dictator Ferdinand Marcos, Marthoz and Saunders take that same Church to task for its increasing hostility to the human rights movement when that movement advocates “for sexual education and condom distribution in Aids-prevention campaigns”.
**
That assertion is remarkable in itself, but the grounds on which it is made to rest, in the context of the position just outlined on “reproductive rights”, are even more surprising. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, we are told, ratified by the Philippines, recognises “the right to life”, and requires the rejection of policies “that interfere with access to life-saving technologies”. The authors are evidently referring here to condoms. The suggestion therefore is that while condoms are a life-saving technology in the fight against HIV/Aids, emphasis on abstinence and marital fidelity is not scientifically-based and contravenes international standards on human rights.
The tensions thus exacerbated between faith-based and secular rights groups have, according to the report, caused leaders of different faiths to “subdue their antagonisms”. Referring to “impious convergences”, the authors of the essay on religions point to a coalition between the “Holy See and the International Islamic Conference … on population issues and women’s rights” at UN conferences.
thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/register.cgi/tablet-00973**
“…Human rights activists, the authors conclude, must not turn away from rights violations carried out in the name of religion…”.
"…While the authors pay tribute to covergence of faith and secular groups on human rights issues in the 1970s and 1980s, they argue that today, on issues “at the crossroads of religious dogma and human rights ideology, of personal moral conviction and public health, the points of divergence are growing”.
The secular groups are seen as taking rights-based positions on freedom of speech, gender, sexuality, sexual orientation and – perhaps most pertinently – “women’s reproductive rights” that clash with the positions of many religious groups.
Although this is a lucid document, HRW fails to explain what it means by “reproductive rights”, despite numerous uses of the phrase. It is possible to discern, however, that it means not simply the “right” to contraception but also the “right” to abortion. The essay refers to “flashpoints” between secular and faith groups “like sexuality or abortion”, and refers in the related next sentence to “traditionalist positions on issues like sexuality and reproductive rights”; a footnote to the fourth essay, on sexuality, by Scott Long, refers to opposition to “reproductive rights” under the Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, and “anti-abortion . . . policies” are mentioned as part of this opposition…"
Given this, the criticisms of the approaches of the Catholic Church and the Bush administration to HIV/Aids prevention are perhaps predictable. After favourable mention of the Philippines Catholic Church’s role in the ousting of the dictator Ferdinand Marcos, Marthoz and Saunders take that same Church to task for its increasing hostility to the human rights movement when that movement advocates “for sexual education and condom distribution in Aids-prevention campaigns”.
**
That assertion is remarkable in itself, but the grounds on which it is made to rest, in the context of the position just outlined on “reproductive rights”, are even more surprising. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, we are told, ratified by the Philippines, recognises “the right to life”, and requires the rejection of policies “that interfere with access to life-saving technologies”. The authors are evidently referring here to condoms. The suggestion therefore is that while condoms are a life-saving technology in the fight against HIV/Aids, emphasis on abstinence and marital fidelity is not scientifically-based and contravenes international standards on human rights.
The tensions thus exacerbated between faith-based and secular rights groups have, according to the report, caused leaders of different faiths to “subdue their antagonisms”. Referring to “impious convergences”, the authors of the essay on religions point to a coalition between the “Holy See and the International Islamic Conference … on population issues and women’s rights” at UN conferences.
thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/register.cgi/tablet-00973**
The agenda has been set for years:banghead: Now I guess religions will be charged with crimes against humanity for practicing their faith.These people are going to clamp down on us if everybody,takes it to lightly.The sadest thing is people think these things are rights
God Bless
