I come before you this morning to talk about the challenge of promoting human rights in the world of the twenty-first century.  That challenge consists in large part of finding ways to make attention to human rights more than a moral luxury, to be set aside when more “practical” considerations take precedence.

     This sermon is based largely on a recent book, In Our Own Best Interest: How Defending Human Rights Benefits Us All.  The book was written by William F. Schulz, who is a former president of our Unitarian Universalist Association, and who is currently Executive Director of Amnesty International USA.  Schulz has devoted the last several years of his life to traveling around the country and the world advocating for universal human rights and investigating and detailing human rights abuses.
 
    Another source for this sermon was a group of several members of this congregation who came together a week-and-a-half ago to share reactions and responses to Schulz’s book.  Those who participated may or may not hear some of their words coming from me this morning.  However, I did find that conversation helpful in thinking about the topic and preparing my remarks.

     Now I realize that, in speaking out for human rights this morning, I am preaching to the choir.  I am sure that very nearly all of us are deeply troubled by human rights abuses both in this country and around the world.  And if we knew what we could do to improve the situation we would be willing to do so.  Schulz, in writing his book, also saw himself as preaching to the choir.  And so, his aim is not so much to convince his readers of the importance of the issue.  Rather his aim is to provide those of us already on board with a means of spreading the message more widely and more convincingly.

     He does this by arguing that we must do more than appeal to people’s sense of morality and ethics.  He writes that “What we need to make the human rights ‘sale’ – to build a broader constituency for human rights, to convince larger numbers of people that human rights matter . . . are compelling practical reasons why respect for human rights is in the best interests of the United States.”

     And so he uses his book to catalogue and present some of those practical reasons.  But before building his pragmatic case for human rights, Schulz presents the larger framework within which that position fits.  Let’s consider that larger framework a bit now.  For instance, let’s look at a couple of the fundamental questions that must be dealt with in order to have a meaningful conversation about human rights.

     Probably the two most basic questions are 1) “What are human rights?”, and 2) “Where do they come from?”  Human rights are those rights that we acknowledge for ourselves and others simply on the basis of our being human.  They’re entitlements grounded in our humanity.  There may be some debate about exactly what all belongs on the list of basic human rights.  But typically such a list would include, for starters, some of those I read earlier, as enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  Things like the right not to be enslaved or tortured; the right to speak and move about freely; the right to a fair trial; the right to religious freedom, to an education.

     When I raised this question at our pre-sermon discussion, some additional rights mentioned were the right to clean drinking water and adequate food, the right to basic health care, and the control of one’s own body.  As I said before, the precise contents of your list and mine may vary, and can be debated.  But the idea is that there is some set of basic rights that are necessary to insure the opportunity for a human life of meaning and dignity.

     That brings us to the second question: “Where do human rights come from?”   Schulz relates a conversation he had with a high school class, in which he raised that question.  Speaking specifically about the right to a fair trial, he asked the students how they would argue for its existence as a right.  The first response was that it’s in the Constitution.  Schulz pointed out that the Constitution only applies to one country, and besides, someone else might say that the Constitution is just wrong.  So where do these rights really come from?

     Another student replied, “It’s because God gave us those rights.”  Another said, “We could say that human beings just deserve those rights.  Rights are what make us human.”  They went round and round about how convincing these arguments might be, and how they might be refuted.  Finally, one girl said, “Maybe we can’t argue others into believing our way for sure.  But what we can do is say to them, ‘Look, this is just the best way to live.  Do your really want to live in a world without any rights?  We think this way works best, and we think you should try it too.’”  Furthermore, adds Schulz, “almost every government in the world says that it agrees,” as evidenced by the adoption of the Universal Declaration.

     In the course of their discussion, this class had touched on the three most commonly articulated sources for human rights – God, natural law, and pragmatism.  But not everyone’s God speaks with the same voice.  In fact not everyone acknowledges the existence of a Deity who is in a position to mandate rights.  The natural law argument – that we, as humans, possess some special quality that, by the laws of nature, entitle us to be treated with dignity and respect – has not always fared well, either.  Natural law has been used in defense of both sides of many arguments, just as God has.

     Schulz suggests a third way to justify human rights, that he thinks works better than appeals to God or Nature.  And that is “to point to the capacity to identify with others, the capacity for human empathy or solidarity.”  Of course, humans can be cruel as often as they are empathetic.  And yet, isn’t it obvious that living out of empathy creates a more appealing living environment for all than does cruelty?  If so, then a major goal of a human rights movement would be to spread empathy, to combat cruelty, and to protect the weak from their oppressors.  And, according to Schulz, “The question to ask about rights is not, Are they true?  The question is, Do they work?”  His experience in the international human rights community suggests to him that they do.

     Before summarizing some of Schulz’s pragmatic arguments, let’s consider one more question.  Why is there a problem?  That is, why are human rights routinely violated, and why do we – the United States – allow it?  To give a short answer, I believe that governmental and corporate entities violate human rights as a means of acquiring, consolidating, and maintaining power.  If “the people” get in the way of political initiatives or corporate profits, then the people must be suppressed however possible.  And why do we allow it?  Usually in the name of pragmatism.  This country or that is essential to our national interests.  If we offend them, then we may lose their friendship, their resources, or their markets.  Therefore, we must sometimes turn a blind eye to abuses.  Besides, how can we presume to impose our cultural values on others?

     These are some of the arguments from what Schulz calls “realists” (in quotes).  Besides arguing that we must choose between pursuing the national interest and promoting human rights, and that promoting human rights imposes our values on others, they say that there’s little we can really do, short of becoming the world’s policeman, and also, international approaches, such as the International Court, may compromise our national sovereignty.

     Schulz argues for a “new realism,” that “would insist . . . that human rights concerns be understood as matters of morality, legality, and utility, rather than sloughed off as a subsidiary interest unrelated to the truly ‘serious questions’ of the day.  A new realism would take human rights out of the box marked ‘preferences’ and place it solidly in the box marked ‘strategic interests.’”

     The first direct pragmatic argument in favor of promoting human rights has to do with war.  Now, the relationship between democracy and human rights is complex, but the two generally go together with a fairly high correlation.  And extensive studies indicate that democracies tend overwhelmingly not to go to war with other democracies.  With the growing capabilities of carrying warfare anywhere in the world, it is clearly in our interest to discourage war, and one way to do that is to encourage the spread of democracy.  Not necessarily capitalism, but democratic practices where populations have basic freedoms and some say in how they are governed.

     When we think about corporations in relation to human rights, what comes to mind?  Cheap labor, sweatshops, reaping huge profits on the backs of the poor and helpless?  Those things are very real.  But Schulz makes the counter-intuitive argument that human rights are good for business.  Why?  For one thing, countries that abuse human rights are often unstable, scaring away many potential investors.  Also, reputation is an invaluable commodity for a company.  Therefore, respect for human rights – or at least the perception of such respect – is good for business.  And considering the self-interest of American workers, exploitation of cheap labor abroad costs Americans jobs.

     Another whole set of arguments revolves around care for the environment.  One of the ways that human rights are violated in many third-world countries is through environmental degradation, often in the interests of short-term economic gain.  As our world grows smaller, the impact of such degradation encroaches on everyone more and more.  It’s not just a problem “over there” that we can afford to ignore.

     Environmental problems reach our shores in human form as well.  “One of the causes of the economic collapse in Haiti that sent so many Haitians fleeing to this country in the mid-1990’s was the fact that nearly all of Haiti’s forests had been stripped, making erosion inevitable and leaving the country with few natural resources with which to support the people economically.”  The fact is that environmental dangers are exacerbated by human rights abuses, and they often have consequences for the United States and the world at large.

     In the area of public health, many maladies are amplified by human rights violations.  HIV/AIDS and Ebola are only the most obvious.  Subsequent migrations of people then spread the diseases throughout the world, including the United States.  “In 2000, the world contained at least sixteen million refugees, many of them living in camps and settlements that are breeding grounds for pathogens.”  And, again, with our shrinking world, they are only a plane ride away.

     One of the differences between the so-called “realists” and the new realists, is that the realists often dismiss human rights concerns in deference to “more important” short-term interests.  The new realism, on the other hand, recognizes “that short-term expediencies often lead to long-term catastrophes, and act with an eye cocked toward the future.”

    Decisions on support for human rights are often based, by the realists, at least in part on the costs involved.  The new realists are more likely to consider the price of neglecting human rights.  Much of the money poured into relief efforts might have been unnecessary had the human rights-related causes of crises not been ignored.

     Bill Schulz encourages the use of pragmatic arguments in support of defending human rights around the world.  Such arguments can be used with conversation partners, with potential contributors to human rights organizations, and in letters to our elected officials.  People are often more responsive when they’re told “what’s in it for them.”  One important lesson I take from the whole discussion is the crucial importance of paying attention to the long-term consequences of our actions or our inaction.  When we arm Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union, or Iraq to fight Iran, we need to recognize the very real possibility that those arms may one day be turned on us.

     Another lesson I draw is this:  If I want to have an effect on the promotion of human rights; and if those in a position to make policy decisions, either in business or in government, are likely to decide based on their own interests; there’s more I can do than simply point out the long-term interests that favor human rights.  I can also try to influence the shorter-term interests in such a way as to encourage better decisions.  That might mean supporting boycotts against some of the worse corporate violators.  Or it might mean working for a peaceful regime change at the ballot box.  In other words, I must take responsibility for providing more incentive to do the right thing.

     All of this is actually independent of my own, and perhaps your, deepest motivations for defending human rights.  For me it’s expressed by the first and last of our Unitarian Universalist principles: recognition of the inherent worth and dignity of every person, and of the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.  These are part of my deepest religious convictions.  When it comes to basic rights, there is no we and they.  There is only we.  And in the words of one of the hymns in our hymnal, “Our world is one world; what touches one affects us all.”

     On the cover of your order of service are some words from Marge Piercy about “One World.”  She says “it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more.”  Everyone must become apart of our We.

     Bill Schulz’s book has an appendix called “How to Get Involved”, which includes contact information for nearly forty organizations involved with human rights, environmentalism, women’s rights, gay rights, and other related issues.  There are copies in the Social Room.  I invite you to check out those of interest to you.