Human rights do not have adequate justification under a secular government.

Introduction 2. Human Rights: Another Term For Desires 3. Secular Government Can Be the Protector of Human Rights 4. Religion is Not the Answer 5. Conclusion 6. References 1. Introduction Thorough out the past several thousand years, right is a definition that bears different meaning in different era. American cultural is primarily built up Judeo-Christian tradition, a belief reveres one god. The protection of fundamental human rights was a foundation stone in the establishment of the United States over 200 years ago. Since then, a central goal of U. S. foreign policy has been the promotion of respect for human rights. [1] Human right mades its first and finest appearance in the Declaration of Independence, in which the America"s founding fathers assert that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness. " 2. Human Rights: Another Term for Desires Right is an elusive term. Human right, according to the Oxford Dictionary, is "a right that is believed to belong justifiably to every person. " [2] But what would constitute "a right that is believed to belong justifiably to every person? " Would right to self-defense be a part of rights belong to any human being? Perhaps and perhaps not. In nature, strong preys on the weak and there is so such thing called right to kill or right not to be killed. Self-defense is a mean to survive, a instinct imprinted in all species, including humans. Human civilizations are the product of nature. Therefore, in essence, humans are no different from other species: we are all fighting for our own survival. If human rights are indeed inalienable rights conferred by the Supreme Being, why did the salves (Spartacus for example) who live in ancient Rome Empire have to resort to violence to have the right to liberty? Why did God abandon him and his followers who are ruthlessly crucified by Roman legions? Would emancipation still be possible if President Lincoln was defeated in the American Civil War? Then what are Human rights if they are not conferred by nature? The answer is: Human rights are what we desire. The nexus between desire and rights is very complicate. Naturally we want to believe we have a right to that which we desire. Equality and liberty, for examples, are virtually non-existed until the founding of America. Since people are not born equally and we all long for equability, we cover our desires into something indestructible: inalienable rights. Years ago, during an interview, Mr. Warren Buffett said: "Before you enter the word, you will pick one ball from a barrel of 6.8 billion. That ball will determine your gender, race, nationality, natural ability, and health - whether you are born rich or poor, sick or able-bodied, brilliant or below average, American or Zimbabwean. " [3] As he explained to a group of University of Florida students, "You"re going to get one ball out of there, and that is the most important thing that is ever going to happen to you in your life. " in conclusion, equality and liberty are not something we are entitled to, but what we desire. 3. Secular Government Can Be the Protector of Human Rights Undeniably, not all governments are American alike. President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, for example, murdered hundreds of innocents people to maintain his ruling. President Mohamed Morsi of Egypt, for instance, issued an decree to shield him from judicial review to consolidate his power. But if democratic government is the evolutionary end of all governmental systems, Human Rights, in theory, could be adequately guarded by it. The main object of any ruling party in a democratic government is to secure the further of its governing by maintaing a peaceful living environmental and promoting general welfare for its people. Special interests are somewhat unavoidable given the fact that money is the symbol of power. But as long as such special interests do not fundamentally alter the nature of democracy, we should expect the government to continue respecting human rights for the purpose of prolonging its legitimacy. 4. Religion is Not the Answer Apparently, not all type of governments are able to adequately protect human rights, many perhaps are unwilling to protect given the fact that fear and oppression are much more powerful and effective tools to govern people. But religions are not the answer. Religion, since its inception, is largely utilized as a political tool to advance some special interests. The war between Christians and Muslims epitomizes the power of religion, and how religion can lead to violence and blood. Today, Hamas, in the name of God, dedicates its charter to Israeli destruction because their god despises Jews. Russian authority, in the name of God, arrests Pussycat, a popular pop music group for its criticism of Primer Mister Vladimir Putin. For some rulers, the word God is often used as a semantic stop-sign, meaning simultaneously "Stop asking questions. " It is hard to believe religion, in the hands of wrong people, would sufficiently protect human rights. 5. Conclusion Human rights are rights desired by human beings. But what we desire is not necessary what we are entitled to. Although not all governments are willing to protect their own people from human rights abuse, religions may perhaps do more harm than good in these cases. Democratic government, in hope of prolonging its governing, may resort to promote human rights to avoid social upheavals, which would inexorably undermine the strengthen of its ruling. Therefore secular government (democratic government) can be the protector of human rights. Thank you 6. References [1]. . http://www.state.gov... [2]. . http://oxforddictionaries.com... [3]. . http://www.getrichslowly.org...