The problem with human rights activism…

…is that it’s a package deal.

The right for education? It’s a good thing.

The right for proper housing? No problems there.

Right to vote? Certainly.

Right to life? Of course!

Right for equal treatment without discriminating against race, religion or creed? Yes please.

Right to freedom of expression? Definitely.

Right to choose? Yep.

Right to choose your sexual orientation? Right to change your gender? Ummm… There’s the stumper.

If you are a true human rights activist, your answer should be in the affirmative, not the negative. You have to treat every human equally, and fight for their rights indiscriminately. So, can Ali change his sex and become Aminah? Can Roger marry Robert? Your answer should be a yes. It’s about absolute freedom. Right to choose. Non-discrimination. The whole thingamajig.

Religion is painted as the enemy, as far as issues pertaining to sexual orientation are concerned. Religion curtails people’s right to choose their sexual behaviour, their sexual orientation, or their gender. They impose their rules on other people. They discriminate against those who don’t subscribe to their system of belief. Religion are the bad guys.

I say that is not a fair thing to say.

Human rights activism has its own set of rules. A system of fundamentals that they live by. Their rules say: You are absolutely free, or you are not free at all. There is no such thing as limited freedom. It is your right to choose what is best for you.

Religion too has its own set of rules. Religion’s system of fundamentals say that freedom is not absolute. There is a God, and God created a certain order for us to live by. We are free, as long as we are operating within His will. You have a  right to choose what is best for you, as long as what you choose is not in disobedience to God’s will.

Now, human rights activists will say that religion infringes on the transexual’s right to choose their gender. They say religion curtails the homosexual’s right to choose their sexual orientation. Therefore, religion is at fault.

But isn’t that sort of activism infringing on the right of religion to operate within its system of fundamentals? According to your set of rules as an activist, you say it is alright for a person to change their gender. But according to mine as a religious person, it is not alright to do that. Why are your rules superior to mine? Why is it ok for you to impose your view that changing genders is alright, and I cannot do likewise by saying otherwise?

I smell a whiff of hypocrisy.

If you champion transexualism in the name of human rights, you say you are operating on a higher ground of values. But if I champion the non-affirmative in the name of religion, how come I am operating on a lower ground? If human rights activism hold the idea of equality on a pedestal, who is to say who has the higher ground or lower ground? How come you get to say whose system of fundamentals is superior?

You say, “We go around championing our cause. We fight for people’s right to choose, and religion is a resistance to our work.”

But I say, “Look. We go around championing our cause to get people back to God. We try to restore the order that God created for humanity. And you guys, in the name of human rights, are throwing a wrench into our spokes!”

So, they will look superior, and we will look oppresive. Fair or not?

Here is where human rights activism and religion go hand in hand: We both believe in equality, justice and  freedom.

Here is where we diverge: Our definition of freedom, what our understanding of acceptance.

You will say that freedom means “to do whatever that is within your right to do so.”

I say, freedom means “the liberty to operate anywhere within God’s will.”

You will say that acceptance means “accept the transexual for who he/she is, and fight for his/her right to be who he/she wants to be.”

I say acceptance means “accept the transexual for who he/she is, and help him/her to change into who he/she is meant to be.”

What is the cause of this difference? Simple. It boils down to one word. God.

If you don’t believe in God, then you’ll probably be comfortable as a true blue human rights activist. The idealistic notion that human choice prevails over any set of rules that are oppressive to absolute freedom is very appealing. The question of right and wrong is secondary. What is right, and what is wrong anyway? Everyone is equal. Nobody can or should set the rules. What is right is, your right to choose. What is wrong is, when you take away my right to do what I can rightfully do.

If you believe in God, then you’ll probably feel that something is amiss in the whole package of human rights activism. The matter of right and wrong is more important than human choice. There is such a thing as a standard of moral absolutes. Why? Because God says so. God has created all mankind to be equal, and He has set a certain order. He gets to set the rules, because He created.

I’m picturing this scene in my head…

Activist: What do you mean I cannot change my gender? Who are you to tell me what to do? You think you are God ah?

Jesus: Ya loh.