Category: Human Dignity

A New Hope: Human Rights and Human Responsibility

A New Hope: Human Rights and Human Responsibility
Jeffrey Imm, Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.)

Hello, my name is Jeffrey Imm. I am the leader of the Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) coalition for human rights. The goal of R.E.A.L. is to use the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and we commemorate its December 10, 1948 creation every year, as a standard for progress in human rights objectives throughout the world, and as a coalition on together on shared human rights issues. This year we have gone back to having a press conference at the National Press Club, as we have had in the past. The reason the UDHR was created on December 10, 1948, was as a response to the “disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts” during WWII. We have seen such disregard and contempt again over the past few years, and more barbarous acts than we can count.

The list of all of the atrocities and contempt against human rights is almost endless. So instead of only focusing on that horrible list, I come here this year with an offer for new hope. Because so many of us have been dispirited at the willingness of global representatives to commit “barbarous” abuses, which the UDHR was specifically created to discourage and prevent. Let us look at a path for solutions instead.

Even in the dark days of our world, let us find hope to remember that every day is still a Good Day to be Responsible for Equality And Liberty.

  1. The New Hope Begins with Ourselves

There is a new hope for universal human rights, despite grave injustices and dark days that we live in as human beings on our shared Earth today.

We can make a difference in our world by starting with ourselves and encouraging others on the path of KINDNESS, MERCY, and LOVE to one another. Kind people don’t mass murder others. Merciful people don’t persecute others. People with love in their hearts don’t hate and revile others as non-human beings. The path to degrading human rights through cruelty, mean-spiritedness, and hate is the path that we can change – one person at a time, one example at a time, one life at a time. We can set an example and standard, no matter how difficult the past or our past selves have been, for a new path forward to build the long abandoned infrastructure that a serious movement on universal human rights requires.

Where do the atrocities against human rights come? They came from a normalization of being mean and being cruel towards others. And they come from INDIFFERENCE – which is the true opposite of love – about acts by representatives in world governments and institutions of mean-spiritedness, cruelty, violence, and hate against our fellow human beings. We must find this unacceptable. We have demonstrations by some against such obscene behavior, but daily life shows that clearly those demonstrations are insufficient. We must not fail to recognize that accepting a society where only the smallest number is encouraged to live with a conscience – is not, and will never be enough. The change we must seek is within ourselves, and we must live that change, and THEN we must evangelize that change to the world. In so many other difficult times in history, THIS is how we made meaningful human rights change, by working to change the hearts of ourselves and being a beacon of that change to others. It is not enough to demand that we do not have representatives that reject human rights. Our lives must be a standard to others to embrace kindness, mercy, and love, so that cruel representation is not acceptable to them as well.

We begin to control the state of human rights by first working to control our own behaviors as human beings. The starting point is not someone else’s responsibility. It is not someone else’s problem. It’s not some organization‘s, the United Nations, our various government’s responsibility to begin with. The state of human rights begins the responsibility and accountability of each one of us in our lives with one another. WE…. are the starting point.

We… not they… are the leaders responsible for universal human rights. We… in the choices that we make in our lives – we are the new hope that we seek for universal human rights.

  1. Choice of Kindness and Mercy in Ourselves and Our Representatives

We can first choose to be kind and offer mercy to others. We do not have to be mean. I realize that many of us are in difficult situations in many different times of our lives. I realize that we have to stand up for ourselves and protect ourselves and boundaries in our lives.

But we don’t have to choose to be mean. We can choose to be kind and to offer mercy.

There is an addiction and normalization to being mean. We think it’s all right to be mean. We can justify and rationalize it. There are many leaders in our representatives, in society, in the media, in world organizations, and of course, among those in social media, who advocate being mean as being a good thing.

They are wrong. Let us never forget this. But we do not encourage change by adopting the tactics, the views, and values of those choose mean-spiritedness, cruelty, and hate. As the great Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stated “Hate is Too Great A Burden.” And it is. We cannot let Hate and Mean-Spiritedness rob us of our ability to inspire, to offer hope, and most importantly to love our fellow human beings, especially those whose views we seek to change.

We change the debate by insisting that we share the common facts that humanity is worth our mercy and kindness, because the reality is that we cannot survive without it.

We must choose the kindness and mercy of offering an outstretched hand. Not just to those like us and to those we like, but also (especially) to those we do not like and those who are not like us. To the weakest. To the most confused. To the most vulnerable. And especially to the most hateful. Because every burden of hate towards others is a burden in our heart to keep us from being strong enough to be a beacon of kindness and hope – that we must be – to call for the institutional changes around the world for representation and for government actions based on our shared universal human rights – and that we reject all “barbarous acts” – for a path of kindness and mercy.

What type of humanity are we, without kindness and mercy?

Who is so deluded in their lives that they believe they will never need kindness and mercy in their life? And if we all need kindness and mercy in some part of our life, how can we receive what we cannot give?

When kindness and mercy become the center of your moral compass, your decisions must change. The choice of cruelty, the choice of hate, the choice of being mean to others may be expedient, but it is NO LONGER YOUR WAY. But you have to choose kindness and mercy first.

A commitment to kindness and mercy is not only karma; it is fundamental to survival of a shared species of life and to life itself. We are constantly every day, every hour, every minute, completely dependent on the kindness and mercy of others. We may not see or hear it. But like air and gravity, kindness and mercy are an existential part of human life.

Kindness and Mercy are fundamental to human rights and human survival. Mercy changes lives and transforms others. We must choose kindness and mercy to be consistent in a path for human rights.

Furthermore, we must reject the perversion of “The Golden Rule” that so many of our representatives and world has chosen – their dystopian view of “Do Unto Others As They Would Do Unto You” – as a rational for cruelty, mean-spiritedness, and hate. No. That was NEVER the intent of “The Golden Rule.” And as people of conscience it is NOT OUR WAY. We must choose to offer the outstretched hand – even to those who come to us with an upraised fist. Because we can never progress – by accepting a society of division and mean-spiritedness. We must find the courage and the choice of kindness and mercy – especially when it is hard to do.

  1. The Deception of Violence

The greatest advocate for non-violence in modern times, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. lived in fear of violence against his family. At one point, this great advocate for nonviolence considered buying a gun to protect his family. He did not. But let’s not question the fact that there are those who want to kill and attack other people. We do not survive by being unwilling to defend ourselves if it truly comes to that as the LAST option. But we also do not survive by embracing the tactics of criminals, the cruel, and murderers. Becoming them does not make us safer. It simply makes us worse and undermines who and what we are.

Our society glamorizes and normalizes the deception of violence as something that we should use frequently at all the time. Not simply as the last possible resort.

We always have to find other solutions first. We must not choose violence first. The deception of violence as normal is apparent to anyone. If everyone chooses to be violent at whatever they believe is an appropriate provocation, we will literally live in a society of chaos and constant turmoil. This is not “warrior thinking”. This is madness. It is literally and genuinely unbalanced. The deception creates actual imbalance in society itself. Our society and our media popularizes violence as something endlessly good and worthy; not as something that is abused and is mostly disgraceful and shameful.

We – the ones responsible for human rights – must set an example by rejecting the glamorization and normalization of violence as something desirable or entertaining.

The deception of violence only makes humanity less and less safe.

  1. Love is All We Need

Love is Life.

Love is clearly the “inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny,” referenced by Dr. King.

If we are unable to open our heart to love, we are unable to open our heart to our society and its universal human rights.

Love is life. Love is the network of life. Love is the destiny of life. Love is the power and the energy and the fuel behind ALL of life.

Without love, there would be NO humanity at all.

So love is not only our oxygen, love is not only our gravity, love is not only our moral compass, love is the network of life and destiny that ties our hearts truly together. Because when we choose to be open enough to love one another, our hearts beat in a way that they cannot beat when we do not accept love into our heart. Love is more than an individual bright light of mercy, kindness, and nonviolence to the world. With love in our hearts, we become human lighthouses that serve as beacons to the world to come together as one.

A new hope for human rights begins with the power of love. To change and be responsible stewards for human rights, and we have to break down the walls and the barriers to giving and receiving love. We must work to reject hard and cold hearts in ourselves. We must strive not for distance, but to embrace love. Life depends on it. Love is life.

Love is life. If we choose a path that love towards ourselves and our fellow human beings are not worth it, then we ultimately choose a path that human life itself is not worth it. How can we lead human rights change if the essential of human life as part of universal human rights is not an essential for us?

Love transcends all. It breaks down the barriers between the artificial categories that we create among our human species. It becomes a fuel for kindness, mercy, dignity, non-violence because who can love one another and still want to do horrible things to one another?

We don’t know how long we have on this Earth. We may think you do. We have no idea. We may have moments; we may have years; we may have something in between. Can we afford to be so recklessly wasteful with our precious lives born from love itself, as to not allow love in our lives?

But if we choose to spend the currency of our life exclusively in the pursuit of material success, what many in our cultures like to call “progress,” we have not invested in the essential part of life that is our love for one another, and we haven’t started towards real responsibility for human rights

Our campaigns for change in human rights must begin with change within ourselves. We cannot ask anyone to change when we are unwilling to change ourselves. That hypocrisy will never work and it never does.

So the fundamental part of being responsible for human rights must include being responsible to live our lives fully enough to open our hearts to give and receive love.

We not only have to be kind; we not only have to have mercy; we not only have to be responsible; we have to be able to actually love our fellow human beings.

When we chose to become a society of loving human beings, this is where responsibility for human rights begins. This is because our true connection to each other is then fully apparent and we are constantly aware of the ability to be connected as “one.”

Life is not practical and rational. Your human life came from the miracle of irrational love. The miracle of life constantly begins with the miracle of love, in some way. You were born in love, with the mission of love as your highest calling. The miracle of love that creates human life transcends all reason. Love transcends all logic. Love makes practicality look like a joke. Love laughs at all the plans, and all the campaigns that we can logically create, and that we logically believe makes sense.
Because when those campaigns or plans are not made out of love for or by people who understand love for their fellow human beings, or who by people whose hearts have been touched by the essential of love towards their fellow human beings – those plans may be well-intentioned, but they miss the energy of human love that is behind all meaningful human rights change.

  1. Islands of Isolation

Those who embrace the essential human infrastructure of kindness, mercy, nonviolence, and love – cannot live as islands of isolation. In a world normalizing cruelty, we are taught that the only ones we need to love are ourselves. We are taught and encouraged to become “successful” islands of isolation in our shared world. How can a sane society survive like this?

If we cannot connect with our fellow human beings, how can we work for their shared universal human rights? If we cannot love others, what do we really seek to accomplish with our lives? What accomplishments do we think our hardened hearts will really achieve?

So yes, when the poets say “all you need is love,” from a human rights perspective that is essentially true. Because we need hearts that love to be able to reach out and offer the universal human rights that all people deserve. But we cannot love one another as islands of isolation, we must reach out our outstretched hands to love our fellow human beings as ONE human society and to overcome the divisions that so many seek to promote between us.

  1. Coming Together as One

In our case, the concept of sharing our common cause of the objectives of universal human rights is the goal of our coalition.

Given the vast magnitude in dark circumstances regarding universal human rights today, the best use of my limited public attention this day, was not to recite a laundry list all the tragedies, persecutions, and horrific atrocities around the world. Rather, I offer this as an opportunity for a new hope and a new direction for change in human rights, which puts the responsibility for change in the hands of every fellow human being.

We must examine the mirror of our soul and ask ourselves the hard questions if we are doing what we can for universal human rights. Because we are responsible for change in universal human rights.

We must choose to be kind and reject being mean.

We must choose the existential of mercy to one another, especially to those not like us and to those we do not like.

We must reject the deception of violence as the answer, which only leads to a burden of hate and destruction in our own souls.

Finally, most importantly, we must pursue the imperative that love is life. We must open our hearts to give and receive love, not just in theory, but as a reality to bring us together in a oneness of humanity.

The new hope for human rights is there and it always has been. It is simply in our hearts if we choose to see it.

Yes, today, is another Good Day to Be Responsible for Equality And Liberty.

Human Rights Rejects Murder

Human Rights Rejects Murder —

December 10, 2024 –
Universal Human Rights Day –
Jeffrey Imm, Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) –

Advocacy of human rights rejects the concept that murder is normal, common, and acceptable; it furthers moral shame to reject those who consider murder even laudable. On December 10, Universal Human Rights Day, this is the most compelling and urgent issue for human rights. Rejection of murder needs to discussed with our children. Opposition to murder needs to be shouted from our street corners. Shame over murder needs to be part of protests to our institutional leaders, both to dictators and to those who claim to be democratic leaders, to those who who make and facilitate weapons to murder, or and to those denying health care, food, and support to those in desperate need for survival. We cannot progress towards all of the other objectives and values of universal human rights, if we casually accept murdering fellow human beings, and if we view their human lives as merely expendable with the “ends justifying the means.”

On Human Rights Day, December 10, the world remembers the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The position of the UDHR on murder is crystal clear.

— UDHR Article 3. “EVERYONE has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”

We all have the right to safety, security, and liberty, and we have the right to defend ourselves accordingly. But as the UDHR states, it was created in 1948 in response to “disregard and contempt for human rights [that] have resulted in barbarous acts,” and so it also appeals to the “conscience of mankind” to find a path to peace with “human rights [that] should be protected by the rule of law.”

Those who choose “barbarous acts” of MURDER as their pathway to “security” or “liberty” are choosing neither; they are only perpetuating contempt for human life itself.

Many institutions and people have terms to disguise their actions in violence either by physical attack on others or by denying healthcare to others with glib terms of “national security,” “security operations,” “economic stability,” etc.

But those of us who demand respect for fellow human life and dignity know MURDER when we see it – no matter who is doing the murdering or what they claim to be their justification.

Murder is NOT a human right. Life is a Universal Human Right.

Defense of our human civilization demands that we reject murder and respect life of fellow human beings.

Progress requires that we have find a shared view of actual reality, and we cannot get achieve progress without a greater common cause in respecting lives of fellow human beings. As my long-time comrade in human rights campaigns Shireen Qudosi reminds me of our discussion six years ago, “there could be no rule of law without a shared reality.”

Too many allow this concept of a “shared reality” to be too complex to grasp, and that it is impossible to understand how others might feel and how their lives are impacted by events. Let us start with the beginning – We are all ALIVE. We all breathe. We all have a heartbeat. We have brains to think. We are all human beings, no matter how different we think that we are. Our lives matter as human beings.

UDHR Article 1: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”

No matter how much we oppose, object, or in worse case are even at war, with our fellow human beings, let us stop, BREATH, FEEL OUR HEART, THINK. We are all born free and equal in dignity and rights. We can control our world choices and the actions those of those who claim to represent us.

Let us first respect shared human life. ALL OF US.

Let us STOP THE KILLING of fellow human beings.

To ever be Responsible for Equality And Liberty, let us first believe that our fellow human beings have the right to be alive on our shared Earth. Let us start with THAT shared reality.

The Culture of More and the “Dark Future of Artificial Intelligence (AI)”

The Culture of More and the “Dark Future of Artificial Intelligence (AI)”

by Jeffrey Imm, Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.)

On Earth, the boundaries of those seeking what they consider to be “progress” are limited by basic foundations of Earth-based life: gravity, the 24-hour day, and physical and mental humanity of human beings. These foundations of human existence, which can and should be a celebration of shared reality and humanity, are considered frustrating “pain points” of those who chart what they consider to be “progress” on an electronic spreadsheet and graphic that seeks to endlessly fulfill a “Culture of More” that has no horizon point, no vision for fulfillment, no end, and no standards… simply an infinite, merciless, inhuman march beyond time, space, reality, and humanity to an infinite “More” – of everything and all the time.

The captains of the Culture of More constantly decry the shared reality of humanity on Earth, rather than recognize and respect our common bonds, they demand that we snap these bonds as “chains” on our humanity. They demand that we must become more than human. They demand that physics and time themselves must be beaten and shaped into malleable tools that they can wield for the inhuman drive for the Culture of More over all other priorities. To the captains of the Culture of More, there is no other meaningful goal in life itself other than… More.

The concepts and arguments on other aspects of life: companionship, contemplation, laughter, joy, comfort, respect, freedom, dignity, mercy, our shared enjoyment of a limited life, and even peace – these are all nothing more than chunks of coal to the captains of the Culture of More – to be used as fuel and tossed into a raging fire of what they consider “progress” towards the endless and infinite worship of the Culture of More. What human beings have sought, debated, honored, and wondered wistfully about over the eons of time are to be considered as nothing more as rough bricks to be shaped and hewn into building an endless highway winding into infinity as an religious altar and the only possible goal that humanity should seek — of MORE.

The context of this global dystopia of the captains of the Culture of More rising against humanity and human existence itself is ignored. The Culture of More has become so all-pervasive, so all-consuming, so total in its cruel grip around the throat of human existence, much of humanity no longer questions it. The Culture of More has become “normal” as its atomic-level obliteration of normal boundaries of humanity and physical/mental/moral/ethical gravity. After all, who could even consider questioning the Culture of More? Even those who recognize the devastating tide of the Culture of More’s damage to humanity is caught in its merciless grip. As they desperately try to grab onto what is left of our shared humanity, tide after tide after tide of ceaseless waves of the Culture of More batters against them, rending them, knocking them, and shredding the realities that they desperately try to cling to in a common human life and existence. When they do respond, if ever, the captains of the Culture of More sneeringly respond, “Isn’t life itself only a pursuit of more?” ignoring every other aspect of a common human life and existence in their mad pursuit of the unachievable and sacrificing everything and everyone for a cause with no real purpose other than MORE.

The captains of the Culture of More would consider those calls to recognize the unbelievable damage being done to humanity as the whining of losers and the weak, those who are fundamentally “flawed” to fit the holy mission of MORE that must replace the frail and pitiful aspects of what we once considered human life, culture, gravity, and even time itself. Calls to reconsider the destructive path of the Culture of More are mere whispers. Such calls are barely audible, and only if one could stop long enough to look and listen carefully. Such calls are readily swept away in the gale storms that the captains of the Culture of More relish as cleansing storms to rid our lives from inconvenient humanity and gravity that once bound us together and gave us a common purpose – to now be replaced by the only imperative as a Culture of More.

Amidst the storms of change, the campaigns for the Culture of More look for topics of misdirection to distract people from asking questions about their vision which must be accepted without question or defiance. For example, those permitted to write and define what the “news” and “issues” have been allowed pundit privileges on a different, less-challenging topic: “the Dark Future of Artificial Intelligence (AI).”

The permitted pundits are allowed platforms to speak in the artificial reality where only those voices of the privileged matter that we are told is “freedom” by the captains of the Culture of More. They use their punditry to warn us of the terrible dark AI machines, as if these exist in some vacuum of reality. They state we need to be vigilant about and question the “dangerous” AI machines as the real challenge, as some AI machines may be developed with the ability to “think” “without adequate safeguards,” and which may gain the ability to think for themselves. How dangerous. The idea that anyone or anything could think for themselves could be such a threat to the Culture of More.

While they offer the distraction about AI machines, the permitted pundits are being given a more important message that “uncontrolled thinking is BAD.” And even if their human audience doesn’t quite get the real message at first, the millions of sales messages about the “evil of thinking” will assist to help to tap down any resistance to the Culture of More, while it provides a convenient scapegoat in AI machines – completely incapable of defending their creation/existence – all during the goal of endless changes to society for the sake of the Culture of More. Teaching the masses about bad machines that could “think!” also gives captains of the Culture of More a useful narrative to more readily circumscribe dangerous ideas about thinking at all.

So, the permitted pundits are instructed to tell us what to think about AI machines as a distraction from all the disastrous impacts on our world by the Culture of More around us, and we are told to live in fear of AI machines that may gain the power to think. Because to the captains of the Culture of More, there is no greater threat and no greater “sin” against humanity than the right of “uncontrolled thinking”- by anyone or anything. The Culture of More demands that we must be automatons in lockstep slaving without question for the goal of More above all.

At the same time, the permitted pundits are given no opportunity to opine on who and what the bad “AI machines” are, who create them, what they really do, etc. Because they are not really permitted THAT much freedom of expression; that would lead to inconvenient questions that challenge where the Culture of More is taking our humanity.

And the permitted pundits are not allowed to address mirrors in what is left of our humanity, strip-mined down for the Culture of More, because mirrors would ask inconvenient questions. We cannot really discuss who and what the “AI machines” truly are, because then we would have to ask who and what is creating them and why. Most dangerously, if we discuss mirrors of the AI machines to our society, this could lead to the dangerous reflection that WE have become truly threatening machines to one another.

Humanity as Machinery is not really a permitted pundit topic, and perhaps the grieving heart of humanity might finally break, if the true magnitude of the efforts to change our humanity was fully understood. The captains of the Culture of More cannot have any wasted time in human grieving to take away from the imperative of building the infinite highway for the Culture of More. Get back to work, slacker human.

But if we could think and if the unforgivable crime of freedom of thought and speech was respected, not merely a threat to what the powers call “security,” we might ask the question: “who exactly is building such so-called dangerous artificial intelligence machines and for what purpose?” The answer is blindingly obvious to those who see the threat of the Culture of More to human existence. Along sacrifices of human society on the altar of More, many of such AI machines are built by the same captains of the Culture of More that seek to drive us in their mania towards a humanity without human beings, without human and Earthly gravity, without any of the boundaries in their goal to the unachievable. Because only more machines can get us “there” — a place of “More” that only exists in the fevered imaginations of the captains of the Culture of More, since clearly weak and whining human machines are not up to their holy task of seeking an infinity of More without end.

But the “dark age” of the AI machines themselves are a distraction from the Culture of More, in the same level of an argument of a dark age of machines that “do things for us”: automobiles, airplanes, ovens, fans, telephones, typewriters, or any of the other tools over eons. Like any tool, they can be used for good or bad purposes. In the dark words of warning, the permitted pundits caution but these machines might be able… horrors… “think!” And to a Culture of More, unpermitted thinking is a very dangerous thing – and not just for the human machines. The captains of the Culture of More may want to use tools to expand beyond human capability, but they want to keep any independent thinking under control to deny any ability to question their “holy” mission of More above ALL.

So why are the permitted pundits given the right to question the AI machines? The captains of the Culture of More know that human beings need a distraction from gales of change that batter our lives and our very humanity. They give the weak humans something to watch out the window, while the captains of the Culture of More are sailing the ship of humanity beyond the falls, the waves, and plummeting human life deep into the ocean of uncharted waters where they seek the dissolution of what human life once meant. The captains of the Culture of More believe in letting the worker machines rail against the electronic machines; it will keep them occupied, and even more importantly discussion of the AI machine will help prepare them for the future that a Culture of More must demand. That is a future where human beings are replaced in their insane electronic world with avatars of ourselves, then simply avatars of intelligent thought itself (as we are considered so expendable with human thought). Creating avatar symbols of what humanity once was makes sense only to those who have removed themselves so far from daily and normal human life, that they believe actual physical life is an inconvenience and an inefficiency to their endless Culture of More.

While giving the human machines a topic to debate and complain about, it will keep them from asking inconvenient questions about how both AI machines and human machines are being used for the larger Culture of More. The captains of the Culture of More want no questions about who and why some AI machines are being created, programmed, and their goals, because the Culture of More ultimately demands more than human intelligence. Instead of permitting such challenging questions, it is easier to use permitted pundits to challenge individual AI machines and/or programmers, or even the “sin” of such halting intelligence and awareness being breathed into electronic devices. Because if society has a distraction from the larger issues, questions about the changes in our society can be readily laden onto AI machine scapegoats that have no ability to defend themselves.

Because it makes no difference anyways to the captains of the Culture of More, who will take AI machines and other endless machines, along with every part of human existence as merely more fuel for the endless flaming pyre engine of the Culture of More above all. In the end, the only authority that matters to them is the complete and total supplication to the Culture of More.

To preserve our humanity, we need to preserve both thought and intelligence, which are under aggressive attack. Thought is not a crime. Intelligence is not merely human. Human beings can respect all intelligence without fear and respect our humanity, while respecting human intelligence as unique. If we fear thought, we fear intelligence, then we fear life itself. The captains of the Culture of More want their human machines to live in fear, dependent on only the guidance that they will give, as they strip mine human lives and souls. But we are not the machines they seek. We are Human Beings. We have the power to think for ourselves and the ability to welcome intelligence that respects our actual lives as human beings, something that the captains of the Culture of More will never do in their unbalanced quest to reject our shared humanity. We can respect our humanity. We can declare: I Am A Human Being.

Infinite Hope and the Power of Mercy

Human Rights Day, December 10, 2022
Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.), Jeffrey Imm

Our fellow human beings reach for courage in the difficult times and the difficult age we face today. To the many suffering, endangered, or living in mortal fear around the world, the idea of concern for universal human rights may seem naive and absurd. But while we live on this Earth, we are taught to build our homes on rock, and not on sand. The angry calls for power, violence, and division may seem attractive buildings to house hearts consumed by hate. We Survive Together – by making responsible choices – not with calls for hate, division, and violence. For responsible survival together, we must build on the rock of reason, mercy, mores of our faiths and conscience, and the human reason that understands human dignity must include dignity for ALL fellow human beings.

A responsible society and responsible individuals must recognize that such dignity, security, life, and human rights are for all – not just for those like us and those we like – but for all.

Whether we face the dark night or shining day of life, our commitment to a shared cause of reason and conscience must endure. We must continue to advocate for hope in humanity. Where it is lacking, we must take on the responsibility to be advocates for such campaigns of mercy, love, life, and dignity, which are universal human rights. As Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. advised: “become the firemen. Let us not stand by and let the house burn.”

Despair must not be allowed the victory of stealing our hearts, dreams, hope, and most of all – the precious trust that we must have for one another. Hate and division must not pridefully steal our conscience and reason for a shared society. We can and we must find the strength to defy these thieves. We freely share and inspire hope, but we must refuse to allow others to steal hope from us.

“We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope,” as Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was widely quoted in February 1968, two months before his assassination. But Dr. King spoke of this frequently. We must work to build the individual and the societal discipline to live from within instead of from without. Our shared cause must be to “stand up amid the disappointment of life without despairing,” as Dr. King counseled for many years. He counseled humanity that “Real peace is something inward, a tranquility of soul amid terrors of trouble. It is inner calm amid the howling rage of outer storm.”

Despite the terrible stories of hate, violence, and division among us, we are still share our identies as Human Beings. We are connected to one another, even to those who hate and seek to oppress us. Ultimately, not only do all of us need shared hope and universal human rights, most importantly, we all will ultimately need the power of Mercy in our lives – no matter how powerful and elevated we or others may think they are. In our fragile lives, we must keep the flickering flame of shared human rights shining – by a commitment to mercy – not just to those like and those we like – but to all.

Amongst the storm of hate, anger, division, violence, which howls cruelly at our doors and windows, and which ceaseless screams in our street – let our whisper for Mercy win. Let our defiant whisper for “Mercy” be heard. Not whispers for Mercy in prostrate surrender. But a gathering and an insistent growing whisper for Mercy on the lips of every one of our fellow human beings – ourselves, our loved ones, our cities, our nations. Make our insistent voice for Mercy heard.

Those who believe they can steal Mercy and Hope from our societies parade their pillage in the streets, on our television, and on the Internet. They are proud that they believe can steal these from us. But we have power to regenerate Mercy and Hope in our hearts and in our society, no matter how much is stolen, we can find it anew – every hour of every day. We must always freely give Mercy and Hope, to the fellow members of our human race, no matter who they are. Theivery of it will never pay and ultimately never win. Let us never lose infinite hope.

December 10 is once again the anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948 – 74 years ago. Nations of the world, of different nationalities, races, genders, faith, conscience, political views, and backgrounds gathered together to offer a code of 30 articles to offer a framework for freedom, dignity, and of course – Mercy. Foundation ideas and values of humanity are core of the UDHR.

After the end of the World War II in response to the “barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind.” They created the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as an opportunity for fellow human beings of all types to find a new path and to work towards “the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.”

Difficult times in a difficult age does not force us to choose to focus only on darkness and ignore shining stars of hope in the night. We can choose to be committed to our human “reason and conscience,” which is described in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and find ways to combat evil by building good.

Let our greatest advocacy on Human Rights be to ourselves. We know what is wrong. Let us not allow rationalizations to shout over our conscience, which we know is our guide.

Let us do more than simply be outraged at the many injustices in the world. Let us choose to offer and remember the need for Mercy as part of the human rights that we advocate for all.

And when we feel the darkness at our windows, let us light a candle of Mercy, and let the darkness be a canvass to shine upon. Let us our whispered calls for Mercy be most important message that we share amongst all of our society.

Courage.

Human Rights Begins with Humanity – for Every Individual Human Being

The needs and demands of powerful or the many cannot outweigh the rights and dignity of the individual. This respect for each human being is the soul of our universal values on human rights.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was created 70 years ago on December 10, 1948, so that in no part of world, no nation (totalitarian or democratic), the demands of the many would deny the Human Rights and Dignity of the Individual. We struggle for universal human rights for ALL – not only as a collective human race, but also every individual with inviolable human rights and dignity.

It is often forgotten why the nations of the world banded together in a United Nations (created in October 1945, a month after the end of World War II. Nations of conscience joined to develop this Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It was December 10, 1948, three years after the horrors of World War II, including the Holocaust, and the world had jointly rejected the “disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind.” The horrors against humanity of total war, persecution, and genocide had convinced enough world leaders that it was time to say “enough” to such abominations against our fellow human beings. They had not only seen the worst of human violence, but they also had seen the most ignominus of persecution of individuals for who they were as human beings.

The importance of rejecting such “barbarous acts” in universal human rights is based on a foundational ideal of dignity and mercy. Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” We begin with a universal declaration of the dignity of humanity and a call for merciful spirit of brotherhood. World nations decided that human rights began with a commitment to humanity.

In the preamble to the UDHR, the world leaders recognized that “the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” Note who they are referencing in this preamble – not simply citizens, not simply individuals, but “members of the human family.” Human rights begins with a commitment to the dignity of OUR family of human beings.

This is very important distinction from previous human rights documents, such as the British Magna Carta, the French La Déclaration des droits de l’Homme et du citoyen, and the U.S. Bill of Rights, all of which played historical (and in some cases controversial) roles in documenting the concepts of equality and human rights.

But by 1948, the “barbarous acts” of the past had so shaken leaders of the nations of the world, that they needed more than a litany of documented natural rights. They needed to begin with taking a stand on the dignity of the human being – both collectively  and individually – and the need for merciful “brotherhood” shown to him – not because of the person’s nationality, citizenship, gender, religion, or other identity group – but for “ALL human beings.” This makes the UDHR historically different than other previous natural rights documents. It introduces the concept of human rights and dignity for every human being, simply because they ARE another fellow human being.

The concept of such universal codification of the global priority of dignity and mercy cannot be overstated. It is a recognition that law, codes, organizations, structures, political systems – all are meaningless, if they cannot respect such dignity and mercy for our fellow human beings – both collectively and (more importantly) individually.

Of the 56 nations at that time in the United Nations (there are now 193), 48 of them voted in support of the UDHR. Notable abstentions among the 8 nations that did not support the UDHR included the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) Communist nations of that time and Saudi Arabia.

The UDHR’s stand on the dignity and freedom of the individual human being to be unique and different, rather than only an element of a collective nation, set of nations, political ideology, or other group, is a marked and remarkable distinction of the UDHR in the history of humanity.

The foundational concept conveyed by the UDHR is, in essence, I have human rights and dignity because I am an individual Human Being. In an increasingly complex and challenging 21st century, we cannot lose sight of this essential concept in considering human rights and ethics for the future.

It was a statement which would be more concisely stated in the signs of those in the 1960s protests against white supremacy persecution in the United States of America, carrying a sign “I am a Man.” We see such similar statements by women in America and around the world, seeking the realization of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, not only as goals and values, but also as part of daily lives for all.

The UDHR’s concept of the universal rights and dignity of the individual as a human being, without qualification, is different than other collectivist-based human rights agreements, such as the August 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (which as it states, is a human rights view based on this religion), and the 1975 Helsinki Accords or “Declaration on Principles Guiding Relations between Participating States,” refers to such “inherent dignity” as (ironically) something that must be promoted and encouraged “by participating States.”

The concept that an ideology, a belief structure, or a nation state is giving us, as human beings, dignity and human rights is NOT what we accept. We have been there before as a human race. We have seen how nations choosing to give collectivist human rights and dignity to only people of chosen belief sets, races, or identity groups, have led to the very “barbarous acts,” which drove world nations to create this Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is, by definition, Universal. The UDHR is both a compass and a warning for generations in the future to choose the path of “Never Again” to massive persecution, not just for some, but for all of our “members of the human family.”

While this UDHR was legally formed into an international treaty as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the ICCPR also shares its commitment to a “human family” and our shared “inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family.” Like the UDHR, the ICCPR recognizes that “these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,” not simply as some collective body, but as individual human beings. Similar to the UDHR, Article 10 of the ICCPR also calls for “respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.”

In addressing the future of world progress and world events, we must continue to use this Universal Declaration of Human Rights to guide us in fulfilling what the great human rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., might have called the “promissory note” of equality and dignity to all. If we believe in Universal Human Rights based on dignity and mercy, we must respect that “human family” regardless of their gender, age, race, or other identity group.

In U.S.A. and around the world, we continue to see movements to try to ensure that such values of dignity and mercy are used to truly respect freedom and equality for all. We must not forget that slightly less than 100 years ago, in the U.S., women did not have the right to vote. While black Americans were given the legal right to vote in 1870, it took another nearly another century for the Voting Rights of 1965 to be passed, to consistently ensure federal law enforcement of this right. If our human rights are based on mercy, then we must also accept humility in judging where others are on the path to make changes. We cannot seek change for others, while we are failing to change ourselves. Our greatest progress is achieved when we recognize this change is not for “others,” but for our shared “human family.”

In the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which has had such horrific persecution of human beings for so long, has now made an official statement rejecting such universal human rights. While the UDHR was voted by the Republic of China in 1948 (before the Chinese Communist Party coup in 1949), the PRC did agree to the ICCPR in October 1998. Despite this agreement to the ICCPR, the Communist regime has continued to persecute democracy and human rights advocates, persecute religious and ethnic minorities, and violate the principles and concepts of the human rights and dignity in the ICCPR.

To ensure the world had no doubt about its intentions, the PRC Communist regime specifically told the United Nations in November 2018 that it was rejecting a “universal road to human rights.” In its November 2018 submission to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), the Communist regime stated that “There is no universal road for the development of human rights in the world…” and it would only consider “human rights with Chinese characteristics”… “guided by Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era.”

In China, we have seen the result of consciously abandoning the path of universal human rights, and abandoning mercy and dignity for the individual. We have seen the mass waves of persecution of Tibet Buddhists, destruction of their temples, the roundup and arrests of Uighur Muslims put in massive concentration camps, the arrest, torture, murder, and mutilation of Falun Gong (including horrific organ removals of political prisoners), and the destruction of Christian minority churches, arrest, beating, and imprisonment of people of Christian minority faith. In the PRC on Human Rights Day 2018, as this is being written, 100 Christian minorities are being arrested for their faith. The goal of the Communist regime to wage a war “against the soul,” however, ultimately is a losing battle, as the USSR and other Communist totalitarian regimes ultimately learn. As much as the Communist regime seeks to watch and control everything its Chinese citizens do and think, the human soul will find a way for freedom.

The anti-human rights war “against the soul” of members of the human family has also been waged in Pakistan against religious minorities. While also signatories to the UDHR and ICCPR, Pakistan has chosen to institutionalize legal persecution against religious minorities human rights and dignity. Among the most graphic examples of this has been the imprisonment of over 9 years of Christian minority woman Asia Bibi, who was imprisoned on false charges of blasphemy, due to argument over her drinking from the same water cup of those of the majority religion. Even when Asia Bibi was found not guilty by the Pakistan Supreme Court, extremist marched in the street calling for her to be murdered, the Taliban terror group called for attacks on her, and she and her family have been living in seclusion while terrorist have sought her. The blasphemy law in Pakistan is regularly used as an institutional method to persecute minorities who face institutional, social, and economic persecution.

In Pakistan, religious minority Ahmadi are also regularly and instituationally persecuted by the Pakistan government, which refuses to accept their faith as “Islamic;” other human beings of minority faiths, Shia Islam, Hindu, etc., are also regularly targeted for persecution, kidnapping, violence, murder, and terrorist attacks by extremists. Such religious minorities are often sought to be used for lowest paid employment and are frequently threatened by religious extremists of the majority faith. This has led to a number of Christian minorities fleeing the nation and seeking asylum from their persecution in Pakistan. But there, once again, such efforts to seek safe haven as refugees are regularly withheld, and only the smallest margin have thus far been successful in fleeing such persecution.

Consider that just the Communist regime China (1.4 billion human beings) and Pakistan (200 million human beings) alone represent 20% of the world’s population. If major nations, such as Communist regime China and Pakistan can normalize and accept a “war against the soul,” then a war against what it means to be a human being by technology extremists is a predictable expansion. If we agree that human rights is based on humanity, our modern struggle for human rights is not only for codes or values of rights, but more fundamentally on what it actually means to be a human being.

As we continue to work to improve human rights and dignity through mercy and equality, and defend human rights based on humanity, there are others who seek to also redefine what it means to be a human being. The concept of technology innovation is to develop tools to help human beings. This led to tools such as what is known as “artificial intelligence” to be used in machines to aid human being in making complex decisions on navigation and other multi-faceted functions. In his 1976 book “Computer Power and Human Reason” (Chapter 10, page 269), the “father” of such “artificial intelligence” (AI), MIT Professor Joseph Weizenbaum warned against abuse of such AI technology. Professor Weizenbaum warned that the concept of “an animal’s visual system and brain be coupled to computers… represents an attack on life itself. One must wonder what must have happened to the propsers’ perception of life, hence to their perceptions of themselves as part of the continuum of life, that they can even think of such a thing, let alone advocate it.” The professor continued to warn that “I would put all projects that propose to substitute a computer system for a human function that involves interpersonal respect, understanding, and love in the same category.”

But in 2018, while we see a war “against the soul” against our fellow human beings in much of the world, we also see a struggle over the very definition of what a human being is. Most troubling, there is not onlya common and consistent set of technology ethics used in such technology research, there is a very limited knowledge or even outright rejection of our shared Universal Declaration of Human Rights among some researchers. Many come from backgrounds that either support collectivist views of human rights, rather than the human rights of the individuals, or have views on mercy and dignity based on digital values rather than human values. A frequent pattern among many, based on R.E.A.L.’s research, has been a trend of “Marxist” collectivist views on “human rights,” which reject the value of the individual’s human rights and dignity as an individual human being. Once again, we see the critical nature of defining human rights for each and every individual as core to our univeral human rights.

Despite the warnings by Professor Joseph Weizenbaum, the very concept of such coupling of brains to computers is advocated by the CEO of one of the largest computer companies in the world, Microsoft’s CEO Satya Nadella, and he has been recently praising such brain reseach by Microsoft, who previously sought a patent for a system that could take action based on brain input. Neuralink has been seeking an objective of implanting tiny electronic devices into the brains of healthy humans within a decade, with such computer-human brain interfacing promoted by Tesla founder Elon Musk. Facebook’s Regina Dugan is part of a reported team of 60 engineers looking to control your computer from your brain. We must find a path of mercy to guide such technology innovation to respect the integrity of human beings.

This concept of seeking to redefine what a human being is through technology, known as “transhumanism,” is also leading to changes in calls for basic universal human rights. Dr. Jason Kuznicki published a book “Technology and the End of Authority,” which believes there can be a future rejection of murder as a crime. Life is a foundational part of the Universal Declaration of Human Right, as defined in Article 3. But to Dr. Kuznicki, human life may become a relative consideration, and we “might consider revisiting the prohibiton on murder, if, for example, futuristic technology made it possible to generate moment-to-moment backups of a person’s complete mental and biological state, and to regenerate them therefrom at trivial cost. Such technology could at least arguably falsify the statement ‘All human beings should be forbidden from murder.'” We must urge a call for change from this path.

With technology advocates supporting a redefinition of the “human being,” even biological experimentation is now ongoing among Communist regime China and America researchers in China laboratories, to alter the very DNA of human beings through what is called “gene editing.” The Communist regime state media Global Times has been actively promoting that the majority of its population support such “gene editing.” To what end, will the totalitarian Communist China regime seek to alter the very DNA of human beings, to “improve” human beings to meet the goals of a regime that denies the existence of universal human rights? As the world wonders, one Chinese scientist, He Jiankui, has already claimed to have edited the human genes of two live baby girls who have been born.

The world has previously faced and challenged the concept of political totalitarianism. But as we continue to struggle with that challenge of the 20th century, the new issue of technology totalitarianism may soon be upon us. Already we see large techology companies using ubiquitous techology tools to monitor our behavior, listen to our words, and track our movements. The creators of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights did not consider a humanity, where a large segment was being continously monitored, and is in Communist regime China, their every word and action monitored for a “social media score” to determine whether the public had the right to its freedoms. We see new technology changes by the totalitarian Communist China regime and many other parts of the world to include ubiquitous surveillance cameras, rejecting our Universal Human Rights of privacy. We see new technology changes with facial recognition tools being increasingly used around the world to track what we do, what we say, and where we are. In the Communist China regime, we also see a growing pattern of other devices to monitor human thoughts, including devices built into the hats of officials to measure their emotional state. The new age of technology totalitarianism is nearly upon the world.

But our answer to the problems of all those who seek persecution, by extremism, by state force, or by technology force, remains the same: we must continue to use respect and mercy of the dignity of individual members of our “human family.” In a world that questions our human rights and humanity, we can continue to seek change with an outstretched hand, not an upraised fist. As the great American human rights activist Dr. Martin Luther King stated: “Hate is too great a burden to bear.” “I’m not going to let my oppressor dictate to me what method I must use… our oppressors used hate… I’m not going to stoop down to their level.” Even those who seek to deny others human rights are part of our shared human family. We can and will reach hearts through a fearless commitment to mercy and dignity. Let us find the courage to find the mercy in our hearts to be Responsible for Equality and Liberty for all.

 

Enemy of Human Rights is Our Hate

On Human Rights Day, we remember the December 10, 1948 proclamation by the nations of the world to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The chartered nations of the United Nations acted to form this declaration on human rights and dignity in the face of world horrors, described as “disregard and contempt for human rights [that] have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind.” The chartered nations of the United Nations used the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to reaffirm “their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.”

The foundation of such shared universal human rights is described in Article 1 of the UDHR. “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

We cannot act towards one another with respect, with a conscience, in the spirit of brotherhood or sisterhood, when our hearts are burdened and consumed by hate.

The answer to respecting the brotherhood and sisterhood of our fellow human beings – begins with compassion, dignity, mercy. While we are outraged at the indignities of extremists and tyrants, remember to always fights the battle for compassion of human rights in our own hearts first.

The Importance of Human Dignity in the Face of Political Viciousness

When we see repeated and vicious attacks on public figures, too many involved in charged political debates need to assess their moral and ethical compass. We should question if it is wise and improves our society to be pulled into public mud fights. We should question a culture that believes in “humiliation” and “mockery” regarding political leaders as the means to debate political issues and promote democratic values. We should also question what such a culture does to the level of civil behavior and communication in general society.

Our universal human rights includes freedom of speech, and we can use it as we will, both wisely and unwisely, which can be viewed differently depending on our individual perspectives. But our shared Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) begins with the understanding that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

Being endowed with “reason and conscience,” and being urged to “act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood,” is not a focus to predominantly mock and humiliate others. The UDHR is based on the “recognition of the INHERENT DIGNITY and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” This is where our commitment to human rights begins.  It is often forgotten that “dignity” is referenced many times in the UDHR, as a fundamental part of our universal human rights.

While using the universal human right of our freedom of speech, too many of our vicious political discussions and our political “humor” comments are far from such a “spirit of brotherhood” and the recognition of the “inherent dignity” of our fellow human beings.

While such extreme political comments may be part of our shared freedom of speech, it is unfortunate that those who degrade and humiliate others to promote “political views,” do not understand that such comments still retain consequences for us, both individually and as a society.  Our society is worse off when degrading and humiliating comments are viewed as socially-acceptable behavior.

Supporting dignity for our fellow human beings should also reject comments and tactics of obscene remarks and slander. Such comments and tactics do not further democratic principles and our shared universal human rights.

If anything, such a negative culture fixated on the humiliation and degrading of “others” undermines our shared universal human rights, security, and dignity for all.

Part of the problem remains the view by some that “political satire” can be effectively focused, during what are very charged, even out-of-control, disagreements. The cruelness of mockery under “political satire” is a short walk from abusive and mean-spirited behavior. When such “satire” involves someone we disagree with, it may be difficult to see this. But when such “satire” is turned against those we support, it is easy to recognize the viciousness behind such attempts at humiliation. We will then hear the argument that “it was a joke” and that people need to be more “thick-skinned” and “have a sense of humor.” We are even told that perhaps “we are not good fun at parties.”   What type of “parties” do we need to mock, humiliate, and degrade people who are different than us and who have different views than us?

Too many are willing to write and say cruel, malicious, slanderous comments, and then when they are called upon it, they sneer and ask, “what’s wrong with you? can’t you take a joke?” But in our shared respect for universal human rights and dignity, we must not allow those who promote the malicious humiliation of others to hide behind the mask of “humor.”  It is not funny.

The argument will be made that “political satire” is only used to target “powerful oppressors” who need to be mocked. But a culture of viciousness that embraces humiliating “the other” can be quickly be turned from perceived “powerful oppressors” to simply “anyone they disagree with.”

We have seen this before by laws and group-think from other groups and nations, where the majority sets down some standard, whether it is a blasphemy law or something else, for use to maintain certain standards. But inevitably the law becomes used as a means to persecute minorities and minority opinions.

So it is with “political satire.” A culture that seeks to promote democratic values and principles through humiliation and mockery is not really defending free speech; it is defending the degradation of others, simply because we disagree. Furthermore, there is no end to a culture of degrading others. This path of darkness in human interactions inevitably requires worse and worse mockery and humiliation of “the other” to become more and more extreme.  The jaded views by those who accept humiliation and mockery as a substitute for dialogue, eventually require more extreme mockery and humiliation than the last time, so that they can get their emotional satisfaction in attacking the “other.”

Defenders of such a culture of “political satire” will say that they “need” “political satire,” as it is the only method they have of educating the public and expressing political views. Why? Do we need satire/mockery to discuss everything else in our lives? Do we need satire/mockery in our jobs, schools, homes, families, public places, houses of worship to effectively communicate? Of course not. We communicate just fine without such satire/mockery filtering our communications with one another, in most other aspects of life.

Do we need to mock our doctors at the hospital?  Do we need to mock our co-workers and supervisor on the job to do our work?  Do we need to mock the bus driver when on a bus?  Do we need to mock our server at a restaurant?  In fact, we don’t.  We can communicate just fine what our needs are, what our concerns are, without resorting to mockery and humiliation in our communications.

In politics, this addiction to humiliation and mockery in our communications is a sickness in our political health. It does not help our democracy, it does not help our politics, and it certainly does not improve our integrity, no matter how “right” we may view our political position.

A commitment to democracy must start with the basis of our universal human rights. This is how we bring meaningful, productive, and inclusive political change. It must begin with our shared “faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women” as a basis “to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.”

We urge our fellow human beings to respect the dignity of one another as human beings, even when, or perhaps especially when we disagree.

Honoring human dignity is the starting point to be Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.)

R.E.A.L.'s Orange Ribbon Campaign for Equality And Liberty
R.E.A.L.’s Orange Ribbon for Equality And Liberty