Chile: religious freedom at stakeAs it is known, probably during this year, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights will issue a judgment in the case of Pavez vs Chile, that of the religion teacher whose license to teach that subject was revoked, for being incompatible with her way of life, for having entered into a public sentimental relationship with another woman.
Some background information
Previously, the Inter-American Commission, the body through whose review the case must necessarily pass first, stated not only that it considered the measure discriminatory, but also that religious institutions did not have the right to demand from their professors a coherence between their way of life and the beliefs they teach.
Now, since no agreement was reached with the State, the Commission itself has sued the State before the Court, and a condemnatory sentence with similar arguments is very likely. All of which will affect, both in Chile and in all of Latin America, the autonomy of religious institutions and the right of parents to have their children receive a religious education according to their own convictions. This is because many activists and national judges see in the rulings of this court, a kind of precedent system in human rights, which must be followed without question by all countries in the region.
Consistency
In fact, the Commission's statement is surprising. All the more so if we remember that in recent weeks, this "coherence" between personal convictions and "political correctness", whatever the job in which the subjects work, has been demanded to the point of paroxysm in some countries, such as the United States, generating a veritable witch-hunt against those who have any hint of conservative thinking. However, it seems that this coherence is demanded and even imposed only in one direction.
The right of the institution
Now, it is evident that any religious institution has the right to profess its own creed. Also, and for obvious reasons, to select or disassociate, as the case may be, the suitable personnel to teach it. To do otherwise would be tantamount to an authentic "suicide" as an institution. To this must be added that no one is forced to embrace a belief. However, what cannot happen is that a person pretends to continue teaching this creed and at the same time, seriously and deliberately contradicts important precepts of the same.
However, if this last argument is entirely logical and falls within the basic human right of freedom of conscience, how is it possible that in the name of these same rights, such different conclusions are reached?
Origin of human rights
The fundamental reason is that at present, for vast sectors, human rights do not depend on a reality or human nature to be discovered, but are a fact to be invented, to be constantly constructed and reconstructed at our whim, in theory, by means of national and international consensus.
Therefore, if they move further and further away from anything resembling a Natural Law, it is not surprising that these "new human rights" (to differentiate them from the previous ones), are evolving further and further away from their original meaning and even in open opposition to it.
In fact, this process has reached such a point that nowadays, almost anything can end up becoming a "human right". And in this endeavor, the rulings handed down by various international tribunals on the matter are becoming increasingly important and influential.
Human rights as a talisman
The problem, however, is that the very notion of "human rights" has become a veritable dogma in our Western societies, or if you prefer, a kind of talisman. Hence, despite the aforementioned evolution, everything they "touch" is to a certain extent sacralized, which means that for vast sectors, these matters, however absurd or controversial they may be, end up being practically indisputable and do not admit any divergence or criticism whatsoever. And even, because they are "human rights", they should be put into practice as quickly and completely as possible.
Therefore, contrary to their primitive intentions and thanks to the almost irresistible prestige they still have, human rights are being used as a remarkable instrument to impose a single way of thinking, at least in the West. This single way of thinking is intended to affect all spheres of life, which is why many believe that it should be the State itself that puts them into practice, encouraging compliance, preventing possible violations, and severely punishing those who do not comply with them.
That is why, beyond appearances, these new "human rights" are no longer what many believe them to be, and are becoming more and more threatening, limiting our freedoms day by day. It is therefore imperative to become aware of this delicate and dangerous phenomenon.
D. in Law from the University of Navarra and Professor of Philosophy of Law at Universidad San Sebastián (Chile).
