THE TANDEM PROJECT
UNITED NATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS,
FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR BELIEF
ALL CULTURE IS SACRED IN THE
SYMBOLIC AFFAIRS OF PEOPLE: OPENING DAY
OF SECOND SUBSTANTIVE SESSION
PREP FOR THE
Issue: Prep for Durban Review Conference: all Culture is
Sacred in Symbolic Affairs of People and Opening debate over Caste-based
discrimination in
For: United Nations, Governments, Religions or Beliefs,
Academia, NGOs, Media, Civil Society
Review: The United Nations Human Rights Council Preparatory
Committee for the United Nations Durban Review Conference in 2009 met in the
First Substantive Session 21 April to
This is an academic viewpoint offered in preparation
for the Durban Review Conference in the understanding that open and transparent
opinions are sought as to the root cause of racial and religious intolerance
and discrimination. These are perspectives of a professor of social theory,
anthropology, sociology and social psychology who proposes that one root cause
of racism and its relation to religion is beyond culture,
in the hearts of all people everywhere since recorded history.
Excerpts from Escape from Evil may
add a cultural dimension to the Durban Review
Conference in April 2009. Ernest Becker, Escape from Evil:
A Division of Macmillan Publishing, 1975. Ernest Becker (1924-1974) won the
Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction for “The Denial of Death.” He was a distinguished social theorist and a
popular teacher of anthropology, sociology, and social psychology.
Ernest Becker: “It is very important for students of
humanity to be clear about this; culture itself is sacred,
since it is the ‘religion’ that assures in
some way the perpetuation of its members. For a long time students of society
liked to think in terms of ‘sacred’ versus ‘profane’ aspects of social life.
But there has been continued dissatisfaction with this kind of simple
dichotomy, and the reason is that there is really no basic distinction between
sacred and profane in the symbolic affairs of people.”
The archived live U.N. Human Rights Council web cast
of the opening of the Second Substantive
Session 6 Monday, 2008 is linked here including the addresses of the Chair of
the Session, the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the President of the
Human Rights Council. Relevant to issues of culture is the debate in Decision
5; the objection by the Permanent Mission of India to the accreditation of the
NGO called International Dalit Solidarity Network (IDSN) to the Second Session,
on technicalities of who can be seated, and the more substantive debate over
Caste-based discrimination in India as not being in order as it is not,
according to India, part of a conference on race. This calls into question
terms for dissent-based discrimination and the willingness to be open and
transparent inviting all NGO’s into preparation for the Durban Review
Conference in 2009.
The US State Department 2008 Report on International Religious
Freedom in
“Discrimination
based on caste is officially illegal but remained prevalent, especially in rural
areas. With more job opportunities in the private sector and better chances of
upward social mobility, the country has begun a quiet social transformation in
this area. However, in rural areas, caste remained a major impediment to social
advancement, and low-caste Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, and Sikh Dalits
continued to face class and race discrimination as a result. Some Dalits who
sought to convert out of a desire to escape discrimination and violence
encountered hostility and backlash from upper castes. Ultimately, caste is a
complex issue entrenched in society.” Link to the complete report:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108500.htm
Source: US State
Department 2008 International Religious Freedom Report;
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Link: to Opening day of the Second Substantive Session web cast of the
Preparatory Committee for the Durban Review Conference,
http://www.un.org/webcast/unhrc/archive.asp?go=032
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Link: to the U.N. Human
Rights Council web cast Preparatory Committee for the Durban Review Conference
First Substantive Session,
http://www.un.org/webcast/unhrc/archive.asp?go=080422
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Excerpts: Excerpts are presented under the Eight Articles of
the 1981 U.N. Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and of
Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. They are presented prior to an Issues Statement for each Review.
3. 1 Discrimination between
human beings on grounds of religion or belief constitutes an affront to human
dignity and a disavowal of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
and shall be condemned as a violation of the human rights and fundamental
freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and enunciated
in detail in the International Covenants on Human Rights, and as an obstacle to
friendly and peaceful relations between nations.
3.1.1: UNESCO. Article 3 of the 1981 U.N. Declaration is a reference
point for the principles of the United Nations Charter and a bridge to all
entities within the United Nations system.
4. 1 All States shall take
effective measures to prevent and eliminate discrimination on the grounds of
religion or belief in the recognition, exercise and enjoyment of human rights
and fundamental freedoms in all fields of civil, economic, political, social
and cultural life.
4.1.5: Cultural Life
*The Tandem Project has made the following excerpts
in “Escape from Evil,” Gender neutral. Where Becker uses “mankind,” neutral
phrases are used like “humanity” or “people.” It in no way detracts from the
author’s intent to refer to culture as sacred.
We can see that the self-perpetuation of organisms
is the basic motive for what is most distinctive about people – namely,
religion. As Otto Rank put it, all religion springs, in the last analysis, ‘not
so much from…fear of natural death as of final destruction.’ But it is culture
itself that embodies the transcendence of death in some form or other, whether
it appears purely religious or not.
It is very important for students of humanity to
be clear about this: culture itself is sacred, since it is
the ‘religion’ that assures in some way the perpetuation of its members. For a
long time students of society liked to think in terms of ‘sacred’ versus
‘profane’ aspects of social life. But there has been continued dissatisfaction
with this kind of simple dichotomy, and the reason is that there is really no
basic distinction between sacred and profane in the symbolic affairs of people.
As soon as you have symbols you have artificial
self-transcendence via culture. Everything cultural is fabricated and given
meaning by the mind, a meaning that was not given by physical nature. Culture is
in this sense ‘supernatural,’ and all systematizations of culture have in the
end the same goal: to raise people above nature, to assure them that in some
ways their lives count in the universe more than merely physical things count.
This is humanities age-old dilemma in the face of
death: it is the meaning of the thing that is of paramount importance; what a
person really fears is not so much extinction, but extinction with insignificance. People want to know that their life has
somehow counted, if not for themselves, than at least in a larger scheme of
things, that it has left a trace, a trace that has meaning. And in order for
anything once alive to have meaning, its effects must remain alive in eternity
in some way. Or, if there is to be a ‘final’ tally of the scurrying of people
on earth – a ‘judgment day’- then this trace of one’s life must enter that
tally and put on record who one was and that what one did was significant.
When Tolstoy came to face death, what he really
experienced was anxiety about the meaning of his life. As he lamented in his Confession: “What will become of my whole life…Is there any
meaning in my life that the inevitable death awaiting me does not destroy?”
Now we can get to the point of this brief
Introduction and see where it has all been leading. The reader has surely
already seen the rub, and objected in their own mind that the symbolic denial
of mortality is a figment of the imagination for flesh-and-blood organisms,
that if persons seek to avoid evil and assure their eternal prosperity, they
are living a fantasy for which there is no scientific evidence so far.
To which I would add that this would be alright if
the fantasy were a harmless one. The fact is that self-transcendence via
culture does not give people a simple straightforward solution to the problem
of death; the terror of death still rumbles underneath the cultural repression
(as I have argued in a previous book). What people have done is to shift the
fear of death onto the higher level of cultural perpetuity; and this very
triumph ushers in an ominous new problem. Since people must now hold for dear
life onto the self-transcending meanings of society in which they live, onto
the immortality symbols which guarantee them indefinite duration of some kind,
a new kind of instability and anxiety are created.
And this anxiety is precisely what spills over
into the affairs of people. In seeking to avoid evil, people are responsible
for bringing more evil into the world than organisms could ever do merely by exercising
their digestive tracts. It is people’s ingenuity, rather than their animal
nature, that has given fellow creatures such a bitter earthly fate. This is the
main argument of my book, and in the following chapters I want to show exactly
how this comes about, how humanities impossible hopes and desires have
heaped evil in the world.
Persons have to keep from going mad by biting off
small pieces of reality which they can get some command over and some
satisfaction from. This means that their noblest passions are played out in the
narrowest and most unreflective ways, and this is what undoes them. From this
point of view the main problem for human beings has to be expressed in the
following paradox; Men and women must have a fetish
in order to survive and to have ‘normal mental health.’
But this shrinkage of vision that permits them to
survive also at the same time prevents them from having the overall
understanding they need to plan for and control the effects of their shrinkage
of experience. A paradox this bitter sends a chill through all reflective
people…Self-knowledge is the hardest human task because it risks revealing to
persons how their self-esteem was built; on the powers of others in order to
deny their own death…Life imagines its own significance and strains to justify
its beliefs. It is as though the life force itself needed illusion in order to
further itself. Logically, then, the ideal creativity for humans would strain
toward the ‘grandest illusion’.
We can talk for a century about what causes human
aggression; we can try to find the springs in animal instincts, or we can try
to find them in bottled-up hatreds due to frustration or in some kind of
miscarried experiences of early years, of poor child handling and training. All
these would be true, but still trivial because men kill out of joy, in the
experience of expansive transcendence over evil. This poses an immense problem
for social theory, a problem that we have utterly failed to be clear about. If
men kill out of heroic joy, in what direction do we program improvements in
human nature? What are we going to improve if men work evil out of the impulse
to righteousness and goodness?
ISSUE STATEMENT: Addressing all culture as sacred in literature is
common. Moby-Dick, the struggle of Captain Ahab
with the White Whale, known in the novel as the deity, is illustrative of a
novel as a record in symbolic imagery of an intense inner experience. Edward E.
Edinger, Jungian psychotherapist and author of Melville’s
Moby-Dick, an American Nekyia, called Moby-Dick an
American Faust. “Melville pitted the powers of
his own creative imagination against the ultimate
mystery of human existence. Taken as a whole, Faust provides
the closest parallel of all to Moby-Dick. Ishmael
and Ahab are primordial images that
lie deep in the American soul. This makes the study of Moby-Dick, for
an American particularly, more than an intellectual exercise. A collision
against the impenetrable mystery of being may bring personal trauma or tragedy,
but collectively, given the image-making genius, it produces a new symbolic
image to be added to the collective cultural
consciousness.”
Surely one of the best hopes for the future of
humankind is to embrace a culture in
which religions and other beliefs accept one another, in which wars and
violence are not tolerated in the name of an exclusive right to truth, in which
children are raised to solve conflicts with mediation, compassion and
understanding.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
STANDARDS: http://www.tandemproject.com/program/81_dec.htm
Submit information under the Eight Articles and
sub-paragraphs of the 1981 U.N. Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of
Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief by using The Tandem
Project Country & Community Database.
http://www.tandemproject.com/databases/forms/card.htm
The Tandem Project: a non-governmental organization founded
in 1986 to build understanding, tolerance and respect for diversity, and to
prevent discrimination in matters relating to freedom of religion or belief.
The Tandem Project, a non-profit NGO, has sponsored multiple conferences,
curricula, reference materials and programs on Article 18 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Everyone shall have the right to
freedom of thought, conscience and religion - and 1981 United Nations
Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination
Based on Religion or Belief.
The Tandem Project
initiative is the result of a co-founder representing the World Federation of
United Nations Associations at the United Nations Geneva Seminar, Encouragement of Understanding, Tolerance
and Respect in Matters Relating to Freedom of Religion or Belief,
called by the UN Secretariat in 1984 on ways to implement the 1981 UN
Declaration. In 1986, The Tandem Project organized the first NGO International
Conference on the 1981 UN Declaration.
The Tandem Project
Executive Director is: Michael M. Roan, mroan@tandemproject.com.
The Tandem Project is a UN NGO in
Special Consultative Status with the
Economic and Social Council of
the United Nations
_________________________________________
Separation of Religion or Belief
and State
The Tandem Project Concept: Separation
of Religion or Belief and State (SOROBAS) supports
the U.N. Human Rights Council by monitoring implementation of the 1981 U.N.
Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and of
Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. The Tandem Project uses
international human rights law to review the actions of governments, religions
or belief, non-governmental organizations and civil society living under
separation of church and state, state church, theocratic and other legal
frameworks. The concept is equal, fair and practical support for all theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not
to profess any religion or belief, in tandem with the rule of law
and international human rights standards on freedom of religion or belief.
The Tandem Project
Objectives: (1) Use International Human Rights Standards on Freedom of Religion
or Belief as a platform for genuine dialogue on the core principles and values
within and among nations, all religions and other beliefs. (2) Adapt these
human rights standards to early childhood education, teaching children, from
the very beginning, that their own religion is one out of many and that it is a
personal choice for everyone to adhere to the religion or belief by which he or
she feels most inspired, or to adhere to no religion or belief at all.1
Surely one of the best hopes for the future of
humankind is to embrace a culture in which religions and other beliefs accept
one another, in which wars and violence are not tolerated in the name of an
exclusive right to truth, in which children are raised to solve conflicts with
mediation, compassion and understanding.
Purpose: Build understanding and support for
Article 18, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights –Everyone
shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion - and the
1981 UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and
Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. Encourage the United Nations,
Governments, Religions or Beliefs, Academia, NGOs, Media and Civil Society to
consider the rule of law and International Human Rights Standards on Freedom of
Religion or Belief as essential for long-term solutions
to conflicts in matters relating to religion or belief.
Challenge: In 1968 the United Nations deferred work on an
International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Religious
Intolerance, because of its apparent complexity and sensitivity. In the
twenty-first century, a dramatic increase of intolerance and discrimination on
grounds of religion or belief is motivating a worldwide search to find
solutions to these problems. This is a challenge calling for enhanced dialogue
by States and others; including consideration of an International Convention on
Freedom of Religion or Belief for protection of and accountability by all religions
or beliefs. The tensions in today’s world inspire a question such as:
Should the United Nations
adopt an International Convention on Freedom of Religion or Belief?
Response: Is it the appropriate moment to
reinitiate the drafting of a legally binding international convention on
freedom of religion or belief? Law making of this nature requires a minimum
consensus and an environment that appeals to reason rather than emotions. At
the same time we are on a learning curve as the various dimensions of the
Declaration are being explored. Many academics have produced voluminous books
on these questions but more ground has to be prepared before setting up of a UN
working group on drafting a convention. In my opinion, we should not try to
rush the elaboration of a Convention on Freedom of Religion or Belief,
especially not in times of high tensions and unpreparedness. - UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief,
Option: After forty years this may be the time,
however complex and sensitive, for the United Nations Human Rights Council to
appoint an Open-ended Working Group to draft a United Nations Convention on
Freedom of Religion or Belief. The mandate for an Open-ended Working Group
ought to assure nothing in a draft Convention will be construed as restricting
or derogating from any right defined in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, the International Covenants on Human Rights, and the 1981 UN
Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of
Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.
Concept: Separation of Religion or
Belief and State – SOROBAS. The First Preamble to the 1948 United Nations
Universal Declaration of Human Rights; “Whereas recognition of the inherent
dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human
family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. This concept suggests States recalling their history,
culture and constitution adopt fair and equal human rights protection for all
religions or beliefs as described in General Comment 22 on Article 18,
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, UN Human Rights
Committee,
Article
18: protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not
to profess any religion or belief.
The terms belief and religion are to be broadly construed. Article 18 is not
limited in its application to traditional religions or to religions and beliefs
with international characteristics or practices analogous to those of
traditional religions. The Committee therefore views with concern any tendency
to discriminate against any religion or belief for any reasons, including the
fact that they are newly established, or represent religious minorities that
may be the subject of hostility by a predominant religious community. Article 18: permits restrictions to manifest a religion or
belief only if such limitations are prescribed by law and necessary to protect
public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms
of others.
Dialogue & Education
Dialogue: United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki
Moon, at the Alliance of Civilizations Madrid Forum said; “Never in our
lifetime has there been a more desperate need for constructive and committed
dialogue, among individuals, among communities, among cultures, among and
between nations.” A writer in another setting has said, “The warning signs are
clear: unless we establish genuine dialogue within and among all kinds of
belief, ranging from religious fundamentalism to secular dogmatism, the
conflicts of the future will probably be even more deadly.”
International Human Rights Standards on Freedom of Religion
or Belief are international law and universal codes of conduct for peaceful
cooperation, respectful competition and resolution of conflicts. The standards
are a platform for genuine dialogue on core principles and values within and
among nations, all religions and other beliefs.
Education: Ambassador
The 1981 U.N. Declaration states; “Every child shall
enjoy the right to have access to education in the matter of religion or belief
in accordance with the wishes of his parents, and shall not be compelled to
receive teaching on religion or belief against the wishes of his parents, the
best interests of the child being the guiding principle.” With International
Human Rights safeguards, early childhood education is the best time to begin to
teach tolerance, understanding and respect for freedom of religion or belief.
Documents Attached:
All Culture is Sacred - Oct. 6-17 Prep for Durban Review Conference
Five Experts Study - Preparation for Durban Review Conference in 2009