The NY Times reported on Pope Benedict XVI's speech on Friday in which he insisted that human rights must be the basis for ending war and poverty. This speech which took place before the General Assembly at the United Nations Headquarters in New York took the tone of the Pope's other references to human rights issue in the fact that he made no specific references to human rights violations. In one of his most striking points the Pope said that, "every state has the primary duty to protect its own population from grave and sustained violations of human rights." The importance of this point lies in the UN General Assembly's current deliberation over whether or not they want to instate the right of the outside world to intervene in situations where nations fail to shield their own citizens from atrocities. I thought this article was really interesting because of the way the Pope used his power to speak not to speak to the general public about this issue, but because he took it straight to the UN. I'm very interested to see what effect his words have on their upcoming decisions.
"In Speech Pope Urges Promotion of Human Rights"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I agree with Molly about the article, the way the pope projected his speech is unique and hhopefully had a strong affect on its listeners, i feel that such information coming from him could get the attention of a different group of people
Personally, even though the pope is head of the catholic church, i think his meaning is even larger than that. His ideas are greater than those of political leaders, and people see his connection with god to look after. Therefore, the pope making humanitarian claims like these is extremely beneficial and powerful to people of all the world, and not just directed to the catholics in NYC.
Obviously I think that it is a good thing for the Pope, as a powerful figurehead to get involved in humanitarian issues, and to urge other to do the same, but it still raises an interesting question about the nature of the separation of church and state.
What happens when such an influential global figure is also strongly religiously affiliated (to say the least)? Is there an issue there...and does it contradict our strong opposite to such a connection? or is he simply so authoritative and globally respected that it works out?
just something to think about..
Post a Comment