"Faith in Human Rights" in International Law

[Have you done any research in this area?  If so, please share it.]

Robert Traer

There is in international law a surprising reference to faith that is rarely noted. The fifth paragraph of the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads: "Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women . .." This affirmation is presented as a reaffirmation, which suggests a continuing notion of faith. The United Nations and all of international law are presented as a result of this act of faith by the peoples of the world.

Certainly, this is an instance where the words "religion" and "faith" are not synonyms. The peoples of the world do not have a "religion" in fundamental human rights. We see immediately the clear difference between these two words, religion and faith. The sentence in the preamble is about faith; it is not about religion. Faith may be expressed in religion, but the meaning of faith is not restricted to religion. The meaning in the preamble of the word "faith" has nothing to do with religion or belief in the sense that these are protected in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In English it would theoretically be possible to replace the word "faith" with "belief," if faith is meant to represent the convictions of the peoples of the world. Belief is often used as a synonym for faith. But I think most persons would agree that this change would weaken the affirmation. The authors of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights chose their words carefully. The word "faith" means more than having a strong belief. It suggests an act of the whole person and not only an assertion of the intellect. In this instance we might even say that the faith expressed in fundamental human rights involves a "leap of faith." It is not merely a reasoned conclusion, nor is it a consequence of considering human behavior. Moreover, it is not simply an opinion, which in contemporary English is often what we mean by belief. Faith in fundamental human rights is a way of affirming our faith in one another.

In the Universal Declaration the word "belief" is used to represent convictions that are not religious but that are to receive the same protection as religion. The two words "religion" and "belief" are used to designate the diverse ways that people may express their convictions. Each is an abstraction that stands for a variety of manifestations. Each has an obvious plural: religions and beliefs. Both words thus represent human choices that differ. These choices are to be protected by law, because they are fundamental human rights. But they are a different kind of choice than the affirmation of faith that is expressed on behalf of the peoples of the world in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

By reaffirming their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, and in the equal rights of men and women, the peoples of the world are expressing their unity and solidarity. This coming together in trust is described in the preamble as an act of faith. What else could it be? There were no legal or political precedents on which to base the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These cornerstones of a world order after the devastation of World War II were expressions of a deep and fervent hope on the part of a significant minority of the world’s peoples, who dared to speak for all humanity. They knew that the governments of the world would not readily enforce the fundamental human rights set forth in the Universal Declaration. Nonetheless, they had faith in human rights, in the human dignity of each person, and in the goodwill of the peoples of the world.

There is no comparable use of the word "faith" in the founding documents of the United States. Yet, we see in the opening words of the Declaration of Independence a similar faith: "We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." In 1775 these were not self-evident truths but a radical assertion of what were then described (but not recognized by law) as "natural rights." The Declaration of Independence affirmed that governments are instituted to ensure these rights.

This kind of faith was reaffirmed by Justice Harlan F. Stone in 1940 in his dissent to Minersville School District v. Gobitis 310 U.S. 586, and his view was confirmed when the opinion of the Court was overturned only three years later. Stone asserted: "The Constitution expresses more than the conviction of the people that democratic processes must be preserved at all costs. It is also an expression of faith and a command that freedom of mind and spirit must be preserved, which government must obey, if it is to adhere to that justice and moderation without which no free government can exist."

Not only "religion" and "belief," but also "faith," are important words in the law concerning religion that governs our societies today. Those who tangle with governments over issues concerning religious life may well find themselves being understood through this language. Their aspirations and convictions will be cast into the language of religion or belief as expressed in international or constitutional law. At the same time, many of those who have struggled for the enforcement of human rights express their support as a matter of faith. They affirm their faith in the fundamental human right to freedom of religion or belief.

As early as 1951, the French scholar Jacques Maritain suggested that support for human rights was a kind of "secular faith." Earl Warren, who served for many years as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, affirmed that "we acquire our faith in the objectives of the nations of the world and of the justification for the United Nations itself" from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for it expresses "our faith in humanity, the kind of faith that is based on things not seen." And former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall urged relying on the law "with faith in the democratic processes."

The law of human rights is rooted in faith in human rights and in the human dignity of persons that makes democratic government both possible and necessary. We put our trust in democratic government, because we affirm that persons are basically trustworthy. We trust in democratic government, because any other form of government denies the basic human dignity of its citizens. Yet democracy is not unlimited; human rights standards express the minimum ethical standards that must be protected by every government. Our faith is not merely in democratic government but in human rights that must be realized by democratic government.

One of these fundamental human rights is freedom of religion or belief. In the law of the United States this right is defined as the free exercise of religion. In law it is "religion" that is protected, not "the religions." Religion refers to freedom of conscience and the expression of religious beliefs and practices by individuals and groups, whether or not they constitute what might reasonably be described as "a religion." In protecting religious life the law is not necessarily promoting it. Rather, the law is concerned with freedom and with providing the social conditions that are necessary for human dignity.

The study of religion describes faith and belief as phenomena within religion that receive diverse interpretations within the religions. Interfaith dialogue encourages people of faith to cooperate despite their differences in belief and religion. Law about religion protects the freedom of religion or belief and is grounded in faith in human dignity. These uses are not isolated from each other. Interfaith dialogue may be included in the study of religion, and government officials who administer our laws may read studies on religion and participate in interfaith dialogue. Yet the emphasis of the conversation in each case is clearly different.

In all three contexts there is a sense that faith, belief and religion concern a dimension of human life that is of great significance. The study of religions seeks to reflect the human wisdom of our cultures or the mystery of life that is so evident in religious experience, because these are being forgotten in contemporary culture. Interfaith dialogue hopes to apply the insights of faith found in the different religious traditions to the pressing problems of our contemporary world. The law provides protection for religion or belief, because it reflects the conviction that the right of conscience is fundamental for human dignity and crucial for the moral and spiritual health of the human community.

1997

[Have you done any research in this area?  If so, please share it.]