Teaching on Human Rights

Rights belong to people, not just citizens

Human rights are basic freedoms and protections that belong to everyone simply because they are human. They are not rewards for good behaviour or privileges reserved for a particular nationality or religion. Their purpose is to protect human dignity: the worth of each person and their entitlement to respectful treatment.

Some rights protect people from abuse or unfair interference. These include the rights to life, freedom from torture, a fair trial and freedom of religion. Others concern the conditions needed for a decent life, such as education, work and an adequate standard of living. Together, they protect both personal freedom and basic wellbeing.

For example, a fair trial protects an accused person against arbitrary punishment. Freedom of religion protects a Christian’s ability to worship, but also protects someone who follows another religion or has no religious belief. Calling rights universal means applying them to people whose beliefs we disagree with, not just to people like ourselves.

How human rights became an international commitment

The atrocities of the Second World War showed the devastating consequences of allowing states to persecute and dehumanise people. In response, the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) on 10 December 1948. Representatives from different countries and religious, political and cultural backgrounds contributed to its development.

The Declaration contains 30 articles. These include the right to life in Article 3, freedom of thought, conscience and religion in Article 18, and education in Article 26. It established a shared international standard for protecting freedom, justice and peace and became a foundation for international human rights law.

Declaring rights does not automatically stop abuses. Rights provide standards against which governments and other powerful institutions can be judged, and a basis for challenging mistreatment. They also involve responsibilities: respecting our own freedom requires us to respect the rights of others.

Why Christians support human rights

For many Christians, human rights express something already central to their faith: every person matters to God. Genesis 1:27 teaches that human beings are made in the image of God. Human worth therefore does not depend on wealth, power, nationality or religious belief. This gives Christians a reason to defend the rights of strangers and opponents as well as their own community.

Jesus’ command to ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ (Mark 12:31) turns this belief into a responsibility. Love is not only a feeling; it means acting for another person’s good. Defending someone against persecution, supporting access to education or campaigning against unjust imprisonment can put that command into practice.

Proverbs 14:31 makes the connection between treatment of vulnerable people and respect for God especially clear:

‘Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.’

The poor have the same Maker as everyone else. Exploiting them therefore insults the God who created them; helping them honours God. This supports protecting people who lack the money or influence to defend themselves. Human rights matter because they give vulnerable people claims to fair treatment, rather than leaving their wellbeing entirely dependent on someone else’s generosity.

Agreement about dignity, disagreement about particular rights

Christians can agree that people need protection while disagreeing over how individual rights should apply. Their differences often concern how to interpret scripture and how to balance freedom with moral responsibilities.

Many liberal Christians place strong emphasis on inclusion, compassion and equal treatment. They see campaigning for human rights as a practical expression of loving one’s neighbour. For example, they may support same-sex marriage because they believe equal dignity should include equal opportunities to marry.

Many evangelical Christians particularly emphasise freedom of religion. They defend the ability to practise and express Christian faith openly, and may also defend that freedom for people of other religions. This recognises that religious liberty is a universal right, not merely protection for Christianity.

Some conservative Christians argue that personal freedom must remain consistent with biblical morality. They may oppose same-sex marriage because of their understanding of Christian marriage. On abortion, they may argue that protecting life includes protecting unborn life, whereas supporters of access to abortion emphasise the pregnant woman’s freedom to make decisions about her own life and body.

These disagreements do not necessarily mean that one side rejects all human rights. They can involve competing understandings of whose rights are at stake and what those rights require. The strength of conservative arguments is their attempt to apply moral principles consistently. A criticism is that restricting another person’s choices on religious grounds may deny equal freedom to people who do not share those beliefs. Liberal approaches protect individual choice, but must still explain how that choice respects the dignity and wellbeing of others.

Situation ethics: putting loving action first

Situation ethics, developed by Joseph Fletcher in the 1960s, judges an action by whether it is the most loving response to the particular circumstances. Its guiding principle is agape: unconditional, selfless concern for others. It does not mean doing whatever feels pleasant or convenient.

This approach supports human rights because protecting dignity and freedom is usually a way of showing love. However, it does not treat following a fixed rule as automatically more important than helping a person. Helping someone escape unjust imprisonment, for example, could be considered right even if it breaks the law: obeying an oppressive law would not necessarily be loving.

Its strength is that it notices the real people affected by a decision and can challenge rules that cause suffering. Its weakness is uncertainty: people may disagree about which action is most loving. A Christian who favours fixed moral rules may argue that reliable protections are needed precisely because people’s judgements vary. Situation ethics offers a reason to defend rights, but does not remove disagreement about their application.

Humanist and atheist arguments, and Christian responses

Humanists support human rights through reason, human experience and concern for wellbeing rather than belief in God. People can recognise the suffering caused by torture, persecution and discrimination, and conclude that everyone needs protection. Universal rights also help people with different beliefs live together fairly.

Atheism means not believing in God or gods; it is not a complete ethical system. An atheist may support Humanist arguments, but atheists do not all hold identical views. A common non-religious argument is that people can recognise dignity and act compassionately without religious faith.

Many Christians agree with these practical aims and can work alongside non-religious campaigners. They may regard such action as consistent with Jesus’ teaching, even when the campaigners’ reasons differ. Other Christians argue that God provides the ultimate foundation for dignity: people have worth because God created them, not because society happens to agree that they do.

A Humanist can respond that rights need reasons accessible to everyone, including those who do not believe in God. Shared vulnerability and the benefits of fair treatment can provide those reasons. Christians may reply that faith offers a lasting basis for dignity, especially when a society stops valuing an unpopular group.

A justified conclusion should distinguish the foundation of rights from their protection in practice. Christian belief offers believers a strong reason to defend every person, while non-religious reasoning shows that defending rights does not require shared faith. Agreement on protecting people is possible even where there is disagreement about God or the application of particular rights.