 Thank you. It's a privilege to be here with you tonight, to remember and to honor Hand of the Cause of God, Mr. Balouzi. I've been very relieved over the past three days because many of the themes that I'm going to discuss tonight have already been discussed. So if I fail to communicate it effectively, you can just fall back on the wonderful panels and presentations we already have. So the themes of freedom, of oppression, of rights, and the role of religion have been discussed wonderfully in the presentations that we have. Mr. Razavi reminded us at the key plenary on Thursday evening, Bahá'u'lláh's emphasis, be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age he live in. Undoubtedly one such need is religious extremism. The message of the House of Justice in 2002 to the world religious leaders bemoaned the fact that tragically organized religion, whose very reason for being entails service to the cause of brotherhood and peace, behaves all too frequently as one of the most formidable obstacles in the path. To cite a particular painful fact, it has long lent its credibility to fanaticism. That fanaticism has now grown to a relentless global scourge of extremist violence. Killings are unleashed around the world. We see the horrors year by year, even month by month. There seems no end in sight. Just one example of the disasters and the oppression that flows from that is the story of Mariam. On the night of 12th April 2014, 14-year-old Mariam was jolted from sleep by the sound of a door being knocked in. She knew what it meant. Woko Haram had arrived. She dived under a pile of clothes in a corner of her room and watched as armed men dragged her father and her two teenage brothers out of the house. The rapid gunfire that followed told her that they were dead. The men then returned for Mariam and her five-year-old brother and her mother. Mariam lived in northeast Nigeria where the militant group Woko Haram has operated since 2010. The group has killed an estimated 8,000 civilians and another 1 million people have been displaced and forced to flee. Since last year, the group has expanded to Cameroon, Chad and Niger and has pledged allegiance to ISIS. And of course, this is not restricted to Nigeria, Cameroon, Chad and Niger. Men figures suggest that 1,332 people were killed in July 2015 and 1,466 in June 2015 in the war against ISIS in Iraq. In January 2015, the UN put the numbers killed in the Syrian war to 220,000 people. In Myanmar, some 90,000 Rohingya Muslims have handed themselves over to smugglers and traffickers in seeking to escape religious extremism. Some 1,000 have died on the way. Tunisia has seen 60 ISIS deaths already this year in the museum and at the beach. 67 people were killed in an attack by al-Shabaab at the West Gate Shopping Center in Nairobi in Kenya in September 2013. I'm sure the pictures of all these horrors are coming into your mind. And on 7th July, 2005, suicide bombers killed 52 people in central London. More than 770 people were injured. The global scourge also poses grave concern for international human rights law. As one international lawyer, Karima Banoon has commented, if international lawyers do not engage in addressing, she says, Muslim fundamentalism, but there are others as well, if international lawyers do not engage in addressing this issue, we risk making our field unnecessarily irrelevant in the face of some of the most significant international law questions of our time. So in the short time that I have before me, I'd like to discuss this issue in four parts. Firstly and very briefly, what is human rights law? Secondly, what are some high reflections on it? Thirdly, how is human rights consistent or is it consistent with the oneness of humanity? And then finally, turning to the challenges of religious extremism and some responses. So to start with, I'm going to be discussing international human rights law. Of course, human rights could also be approached from a philosophical perspective, from a sociological perspective, from a political science or other perspectives. But in the interest of clarity and time, we'll limit ourselves to human rights law. The modern human rights project asserts a global legal minimum safety net for all human beings simply by virtue of their humanity. Human rights are a birthright without any other conditions or requirements. They do not require other prerequisites such as citizenship, the right religion, the correct race, good behavior, and so on. We don't earn or deserve human rights. We are entitled to them merely by virtue of our humanity. According to Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. And over the past 68 years, this commitment to human rights, captured in the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, has given rise to a complex system of laws, norms, and instruments, and mechanisms for the promotion, protection, and fulfillment of international human rights law at the international level, the regional level, and also the national level. The advantage of this stance of international human rights law is that it should be available for all of us and should be accessible to all. After all, the human rights standards do not set excessively high standards. For example, in relation to the right to health, of course it would be nonsensical to guarantee all of us good health. What human rights recognizes is that everyone should be able to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. So what are some Baha'i reflections or readings of human rights law? Let me first turn to some general religious objections to human rights. These objections seem to center cluster around various concerns. The most common of these objections are the assertions that human rights do not allow for duties to the community, that they somehow make us atomized and selfish and self-seeking, that they don't allow consideration of the rights of others to be featured and factored in, and they don't recognize collective rights, which is of more concern to most religious people. Since Baha'i perspectives might also have some concern around these three areas, let's turn to them very briefly. So regarding duties to the community, in fact Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes that everyone has duties to the community, in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. The same notion of human rights duties is embedded in regional instruments, such as the American Convention on Human Rights and the African Charter on Human and People's Rights, which elaborates on it in quite some detail and outlines, in fact, eight sets of duties that we have. You may also want to look at the 1947 Baha'i Declaration of Human Rights Obligations and Rights. So duties to the community are captured in international human rights law instruments, although they are somewhat dormant. There isn't much emphasis on them by human rights lawyers or human rights bodies, but the potential is there. Secondly, what about limitations on rights? Do rights make us selfish and self-centered and make us forget and ignore the rights of others? Well, human rights contain limitations. Most human rights are not absolute in their enjoyment. For example, in relation to freedom of religion or belief, the right to hold, to adopt, and to change your religion or belief is absolute, but your right to manifest it in public can be limited. It's not absolute. Most human rights can also be derogated from. In times of public emergency, they can be derogated, though the state can escape those human rights. Of course, that is subject to a strict legal regime. For example, there are many countries around the world that have had emergency laws in place for 40, 50, 60 years because they want to suspend human rights, and obviously the human rights regime doesn't accept that. There is also recognition to limitations in particular rights. For example, in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights regarding freedom of expression, this article reminds us that freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities that means it can be subject to necessary restrictions that are established in law. So what about the third general concern? Recognition of collective rights. Is there such recognition in human rights law instruments? Well, in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, we have Article 21 on the right to peaceful assembly, Article 22 on freedom of association, Article 18 on freedom of religion or belief, which is also with others and in public, and Article 27 regarding persons belonging to minorities. So yes, indeed, it seems that human rights has the resources and the reference points for duties, for limitations, and for collective rights. They are not being emphasized by current human rights actors, but all of these three are captured. So now let's step up the analysis and look at the strengths and limitations of human rights from the knowledge system of religion as Julia, Ben, Emily, and Matt were discussing yesterday morning. What are some of the strengths of human rights from a religious perspective? Can religion and human rights be considered supporting pillars towards the same objectives? There's just two areas I want to examine here, where religion might recognize strength and support from international human rights law. The first is human flourishing, and the second is universality. Now those with religious worldviews mostly hold that a human soul is born into this physical world in order to fulfill its purpose, to reach its potentialities, and to spiritually flourish. Now this spiritual and human flourishing benefits from stability, from education, from family, food, and shelter, and water, and various other rights. So in this sense we could consider human rights as a spiritual project. Indeed religions put a lot of emphasis on justice and freedom from oppression. In envisaging and describing the unity of the human race, the guardian talks of such laws as shall be required to regulate the life, satisfy the needs, and adjust the relationships of all races and peoples. The guardian also speaks of a world community in which the clamour of religious fanaticism and strife will have been forever stilled, in which there will emerge a single code of international law. What is this single code of international law? Do we see hints of it as we look around us? Of course a code of international law would also concern trade, refugee law, it would concern telecommunication law, cyber law, et cetera, et cetera. But surely within it I would suggest there would also be a place for international human rights law. Though the vision of human rights flourishing from a religious perspective focuses on the spiritual rather than only the physical, education, shelter, and rest are essential to both material and spiritual flourishing. The spiritual damage that can result from injustice and oppression are just too vivid, we can all see it around us. Indeed the 26th of November 2003 message of the Universal House of Justice raises the plight of the countless millions of victims of injustice the world over. They then raise a very illuminating point about the spiritual damage done to the victims even beyond the material and physical anguish that is caused by oppression. Something that Dr. Nader Saidi discussed superbly this morning. So let me quote from that message. The Universal House of Justice says, deliberate oppression aims at dehumanizing those whom it subjugates and delegitimizing them as members of society entitled to neither rights nor consideration. Where such conditions persist over any length of time many of those affected lose confidence in their own perception of themselves. Indeed some who are exposed to sustained oppression can become so conditioned to a culture of brutalization that they in their turn are also ready to commit violence against others should the opportunity offer itself. So here we see a vivid example of a spiritual purpose behind countering oppression and as part of that possibly promoting human rights. We find a spiritual objective for standing up for the victims of oppression really legitimizing their case and hopefully accompanying them in rehealing from spiritual damage and even of becoming spiritual giants to others. This morning's panel very movingly illustrated that. Universality is another area where we might find religion and human rights to be reinforcing. The very idea of the universality of human rights is challenging to many religions or beliefs but we see evidences of its general acceptance in Baha'i sources. For example in addressing the Baha'is in Iran on 20th of June 2008 the Universal House of Justice refers to the universal principle of the equality of men and women. They boldly assert that for you the equality of men and women is not a Western construct but a universal spiritual truth. A statement about human nature that was promulgated by Baha'u'llah. Indeed the Baha'i view has always been that women and men have been and will always be equal in the sight of God. I don't want to suggest that everything that is codified in international human rights law would also be considered universally true to Baha'is. I think we get a clue in this message. It says a universal spiritual truth, a statement about human nature. We also find strong support for the rights of children especially in the Resvan 2000 message of the Universal House of Justice which addresses the cruel fate faced by millions and millions of children around the world. The Resvan 2000 message talks about children who are dislocated socially, employed as soldiers, exploited as laborers, sold into virtual slavery, forced into prostitution, made the objects of pornography abandoned by parents, centered on their own desires and subjected to all forms of victimization too numerous to mention. They talk about the spiritual and psychological damage that defies estimation to such children. They warn that our worldwide community cannot escape the consequences of these conditions. Children are the most precious treasure a community can possess for in them are the promise and guarantee of the future. I remember that Resvan message really well and being at National Convention when it was read. In fact, it inspired us to get on with having children. But I think we forgot to read the earlier part about the responsibility of parents. And another underpinning and strong pillar for human rights is equality before the law. And Abdul Baha has stated that all men are equal before the law which must reign absolutely. Prince, peer and peasants alike. I love that. Prince, peer and peasants alike have equal rights to just treatment. There must be no favor shown to individuals. Human flourishing and universality are examples of where we may consider religion and human rights to be strong, supportive pillars towards the same objectives. But what are some of the weaknesses that human rights law has currently understood? Sorry, that human rights law might be considered as being weak from a religious perspective. Maybe not inherently, but in its current form. So where are there different visions in human rights law and religion? So when we look further and in more detail at the current human rights project, there are some questions that arise. Specifically, we might turn to who is deciding on human rights? How are these rights brought into existence? And I think we can focus here just on two areas. States as the key actors and the question at which level decision making is taking place. Human rights standards are adopted and drafted by states. Every declaration, every treaty, every optional protocol, and every human rights mechanism is only pursued when it coincides with state interests. Each of these has only the protections, the procedures, the standards, and even the semicolons, which states have agreed to in their drafting. Who's been involved in drafting of international instruments or observed it? I think you will chime with me about the semicolons sometimes taking days. So even when states decide on the semicolon and the standards and the norms, then they decide whether they want to ratify it, whether they want to sign it. Then they decide that when they ratify it, will they have reservations to some of the provisions, and then they decide subsequent to that to what extent they implement it. So human rights is not a fully consultative process. The extent to which it is consultative is very limited. The action reflection elements in human rights law are very elementary. It falls far short of being participatory, both in its generation and in its implementation. In some, though we call human rights standards as being the outcome of the international community, the extent to which that international community is present and is making that decision is sharply limited. The second question is, at which level decision making is taking place? Now human rights law is trying to grapple with the role and the duties or the responsibilities of non-state actors. After all, we are plagued by many non-state actors that have severe consequences on human rights all over the world. Extractive industries, multinational companies, rebel groups, and private security companies are only a few examples. But high perspectives push beyond this state centrality. They envisage a more diverse vision of the world community, one which directs matters both up and down beyond the state model. It directs down to a much more, a vision of a much more decentralized decision making to the lowest appropriate level, where possible, even to the neighborhood level. It also directs up towards recognition of the need for far greater cooperation at the global level, indeed the establishments of institutions that are much more robust and able to deal with the global challenges of our time. These direct up and direct down models might be understood in some way by the principle of complementarity. Complementarity in some ways also guides the work of the European Court of Human Rights and the International Criminal Court. For example, the European Court of Human Rights is only intended to be complementary to national legal systems. It should only come into force, it should only operate when the national legal systems have failed to protect human rights law. The International Criminal Court is also envisaged as a court of last resort, not a court of first resort. Furthermore, the Baha'i view does not abdicate to states the sole responsibility of promoting, protecting and fulfilling human rights. So these are just two areas. We may also have questions about the clarity with which human rights law is currently dealing with eliminating the extremes of wealth and poverty, of ensuring independent search for truth, of eliminating prejudice in all its forms and international concerns, institutional concerns, such as the one raised by Julia yesterday regarding block voting in the United Nations including on human rights matters. Clearly, therefore, we cannot accept the current form of human rights uncritically as a package for all time. So having observed the imperfection of human rights should not, however, lead us to a total rejection of the human rights project. Human rights also has impulses and elements that are consistent with the broader aims of advancing the oneness of humanity. Human rights has emerged as humanity's imperfect but growing and largely constructive response to upholding a minimum safety net for the rights of all of us. It doesn't claim to be a perfect encapsulation of our human essence and it doesn't claim to be a completed project. The imperfection and the incompleteness of human rights needs to be understood but it should hardly take us by surprise. As the generation of the half-lites we are experiencing, quote, the simultaneous process of rise and of fall, of integration and of disintegration, of order and chaos with their continuous and reciprocal reactions on each other. So in the context of these twin processes that seem to run as the House of Justice says at opposite sides of the same corridor of time, human rights would appear to largely lie on the constructive integrative side of the equation but not in all circumstances and not in all places. We should not shy away from recognizing that. Furthermore, human rights is sometimes claimed by those who have little concern with social cohesion. Certainly, any assumption that some uncritical notion of human rights should serve as the higher value system by which the totality of religious knowledge or spiritual precepts should be judged is patently misguided. Human rights does not substitute religion. It does not even have as its objective to do so. But there are also more concrete critiques that high perspectives may wish to raise and assess human rights against. And I want to raise three of them here. Firstly, its adversarial system. Secondly, its vision and model for social change. And thirdly, whether it goes far enough in recognizing the oneness of humanity. Now in the last two days, we've had a lot of discussion around the issue of adversarial systems. It was discussed in the panel yesterday as an antagonistic process of being disruptive with a permanent posture of resistance and as having contention and conflict at its core as a result of a conflict at its core. In human rights though, there is much talk about struggle, opposition, fighting and many people describe human rights as an unfinished revolution. There is a distinct sense that adversarial systems have established themselves firmly into human rights. But this has not always been so. And just one example comes from the methodology of the premier political human rights body of the United Nations. That's the UN Commission on Human Rights which changed to the Council in recent years. At the outset of this UN body, the decision was made that it had no power to take any action regarding any complaints concerning human rights. This body did not want to mention particular human rights situations and highlights the country in which these violations were taking place. It was only the international community's response to South Africa's apartheid and then the human rights violations following the coup in Chile in 1973 that led to various working groups that highlighted particular situations. And as the years went by, then naming violations and recognizing them, naming and shaming, and the violations approach became the only game in town. And when we look at human rights NGOs around the world, most of them seem to be working through this method of highlighting violations. This violations approach might sound divergent to Bahá'í culture, but we also have many writings that speak strongly of the needs to counter tyranny and oppression. The hidden words warn the oppressors of the earth to with it says as follows, withdraw your hands from tyranny for I have pledged myself not to forgive any man's injustice. Abdel Bahá also described the women's struggle for their rights. So we do recognize that it has taken struggle to advance human rights or to advance rights, including those that are spiritually, you know, part of the spiritual nature of the human being. Nevertheless, our own approach often uses other methods. Yes, there are exceptions to these violations, such as domestic violence or child abuse. But at the community level in the Bahá'í community, a much broader spectrum of tools is used. If we look at community building as also promoting human rights and I'm thinking of a particular section of frontiers of learning, if we think about human rights and community building, then we see a broader spectrum of tools that are being used. For example, in response to polygamy, regarding the prohibition to marry across caste divides. And the methods that are used include consultation, patient encouragement, allowing for generational change and primarily exposing individuals to the depths of their own spiritual powers to make lasting and positive change. Even in the narrow world of human rights, there is a growing appreciation that the violations approach alone cannot suffice. After all, it is very expensive and time-consuming. As of the end of last year, the European Court of Human Rights had nearly 70,000 applications that were pending. 70,000 people were waiting to hear what the court had decided regarding their applications and that is regarding a court that is fairly well-funded that is full-time and groups together applications that raise the same legal issue. So we may conclude that the current ascendancy of the violations approach to human rights protection will not remain so exclusively prominent in the longer term. I suspect it will always retain a role but it will come to be complemented by a broader spectrum of other methods and tools. What about social change and Baha'i views on social change? What are the ingredients of social change from a Baha'i perspective? Matt Weinberg reminded us yesterday that the Baha'i position is that social change is not possible without reaching to the roots of human spirituality. But a broad spectrum of human rights also aim at deep social change. Changes such as ending discrimination that might be centuries old, eliminating racism and bringing about the culture of human rights more generally. One example will suffice. In the convention for the elimination of discrimination against women, the convention calls upon states to modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women. The convention calls on states to eliminate patriarchy. Is it possible? Although the role of the state is a very heavy one and a very serious one in the current context, the Baha'i perspective would not only recognize the role of the state but also the cultural changes in patterns of conduct. For example, in the elimination of prejudices. The emerging Baha'i experiences at the community level suggests that there is a powerful inner force and from below for cultural change. It is rooted in spiritually reorienting the individual, obviously freely their own choice. This can prove a very significant compliment to such cultural objectives in human rights. This spiritual force though is not one that human rights advocates plug into or even recognize in many cases. As Baha'is, we may indeed assess human rights standards against another criteria and that is our litmus test objective of the oneness of humanity. Yesterday morning's panel refers to the oneness of humanity as an immutable concept for us. It is for the reason, it is for the realization of the oneness of humanity that Baha'u'llah's principal mission in appearing at this time in human history should be understood, tells us the House of Justice. So on the surface of it, it might seem that the spirits behind human rights and the advancing the oneness of humanity may overlap. However, we should not take the two as being interchangeable. Let's remind ourselves of what the Guardian says. He speaks of the oneness of humanity as requiring a radical change in the very conception of society. This radical change will coalesce ultimately the disjointed the bleeding limbs of humankind into one single one body single organically united and indivisible. This end goal is indeed far too ambitious for human rights change to achieve on its own through the state system with reservations along with all the political interests that it is burdened with and only through the methodology of this antagonistic system. Though advancing human rights has many nascent integrative civilizational objectives in its scope, it can only fall short in advancing this more ambitious goal of the oneness of humanity with its polarized confrontational and adversarial system. Let's now turn our attention to religious extremism. How has it changed our conception of religion in human rights? First of all, what does human rights define as religion? What does it understand from religion? We're going to be discussing religious extremism. So what is the understanding of religion in human rights law currently? In the field of human rights and its circumstance, often religion is focused on as a barrier to human rights. After all, when the word religion comes up in international human rights fora, it is unfortunately often grounds for why human rights should not be adopted. It is often in an effort to justify female genital mutilation. It is used as an excuse to describe polygamy and widow burning. So no wonder human rights does not have much affinity with religion. To human rights, religion is individual centered. It describes beliefs, traditions and ways of life. The scope for religion is very broad. It includes theistic, nontheistic and atheistic beliefs. Today's law has recognized protection for religion or belief in some circumstances as also protecting pacifism, veganism and those believing in climate change. That is, everything that an individual may hold with cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance can be deemed religion or belief. Courts after all do not see as their role to make theological decisions about what is or isn't religion. So therefore they fall back on the seriousness with which the individual associates with those beliefs. Violent extremism and religious fundamentalism are now serving as grounds for many states to clamp down on freedom of religion or belief around the world. This may be in many cases not in good faith and for opportunistic ends. The tension facing human rights to offer adequate protection for freedom of religion or belief on the one hand but not allow it to be used as a mask for violent extremism is a difficult one. We too recognize extremism as a deviant form of religion. As the violations that flow from religious extremism grow ever more ruinous, there have been authors that have described the need to defend religion from itself. Knox Tame in an article very recently in Foreign Policy recognized that the biggest threat to religious freedom is religious extremism. The message of the Universal House of Justice in 2002 showed particular insight on this question. They observed that the greater part of organized religion stands paralyzed at the threshold of the future, gripped in those very dogmas and claims of privileged access to truth that have been responsible for creating some of the most bitter conflicts dividing the earth's inhabitants. The consequences they observe in terms of human well-being have been ruinous. In some, there has been nothing that is more challenging to the relationship between religion and human rights than religious extremism and violence. This puts religion up as the gravest danger to human rights even to humanity. So in seeking to counter violent extremism and religious fundamentalism we need to rethink the category of religion. We need to be able to distinguish it from extremism. We need to try and distinguish religion from political objectives especially violent ones. And we need to emphasize that freedom of religion or belief can never allow us to impose our religious laws on others through violence and by force. Now these are not very tricky from a Baha'i perspective. After all the Baha'i perspective has always believed that the primary task of the soul will always be to investigate reality, to live in accordance with the truths of which it becomes persuaded and to accord full respect to the efforts of others to do the same end of quotes. Also, the Universal House of Justice has emphasized that one's beliefs are an internal and personal matter. No person or institution has the right to exert compulsion in matters of belief. Professor Hatcher also drew attention to this in his workshop on Thursday morning. In the message the world's religious leaders, the Universal House of Justice condemned the preoccupation of religious leaders with seeking to exercise power in matters of belief. Even more robustly in the Kitaba Akhtas itself Baha'u'llah says that recognition of him who is the day spring of his revelation and the fountain of his laws and observance of every ordinance of him who is the desire of the world these are twin duties neither is acceptable without the other. Another way of reading this is that without love for him we cannot expect obedience of religious laws. The House of Justice says in another letter by obeying his laws we demonstrate our love for him so if we haven't recognized him and we don't love him then why would we seek to impose the laws on others? The love comes first but neither is acceptable without the other. Overall the Baha'i view captures a fascinating duality both of the indictment of religion when it has gone horribly wrong and recognizing the power of religion. The misery caused in the name of religion is vividly recognized in the message of the Universal House of Justice to the world religious leaders. However they observe that this misery is less an indictment of organized religion than a reminder of the unique power it represents. Religion as we are all aware reaches to the roots of motivation. They also state that any fundamental advance in civilization its heart to imagine could occur in a spiritual vacuum. So on the one hand we recognize the essential role that religion will play in imparting its power on the building of an integrated and free world community. On the other we strongly recognize the awful dangers and misery that a twisted religion poses to humanity. Violent extremist religion draws its sustenance from the claims of exclusivity or finality that according to the House of Justice winds their roots around the life of the spirit and suffocates unity and promotes hatred and violence. Countering it they argue is a historical challenge. So as the awful excesses of religious extremism grow, we humanity need to ponder more deeply on the category of religion or belief in a way that is belief oriented and inclusive that it has the courage and it has the dignity of giving that right to others as well. Secondly we need to be able to distinguish religion from destructive political objectives and thirdly we need to insist that freedom of religion or belief is an ongoing right for all and cannot be used as a basis for forcing religious laws on others. If only the Taliban ISIS, Boko Haram and al-Shabaab could be here with us tonight. The insights from Baha'i perspectives have long impressed on us the need to consider these with urgency. They may also lend support to human rights law to navigate the challenges it now faces. In conclusion then in some parts of the world and in public discourse human rights is discredited as being imperialist interventionist orientalist or a conservative discourse of the elites and the privileged. In other parts of the world it is deemed a tool of emancipation necessarily positive in all its guises on the side of the good and beyond any critique. But there are also millions and millions for whom religion is beyond reproach and carries severe penalties. If questioned we can think of many countries where religion cannot be discussed not in a blog, not on Facebook and at the pain of death. A Bangladeshi blogger was killed again yesterday. These uncritical perspectives on both sides do not hold much promise for a detailed examination of the relationship between religion and human rights. Yet examining this relationship intelligently and sensitively can offer key opportunities towards understanding one of the anxious concerns of our time. In 2002 in April 2002 the message of the Universal House of Justice the world's religious leaders warned that with every passing day that passes danger grows that the rising fires of religious prejudice will ignite a worldwide conflagration the consequences of which are unthinkable. We might think that especially in the last 12 months we have seen the unthinkable on our TV and on the news. But I don't know if it's unthinkable enough. Though the message addresses religious leaders, human rights law and all of us as community builders need to play a supporting role. The message reminds us that we cannot delude ourselves that appeals for mutual tolerance can alone hope to extinguish animosities that claim to possess divine sanction. And that is the most dangerous element of religious fundamentalism that those that are carrying out these atrocities are doing so thinking that it enjoys divine sanction, that it gives them golden key to heaven. So merely politicians getting together and saying that is not really your religion that's not really a good thing to do you might lose your citizenship and your passports but coming back to this country is just not going to fix it. The message says the message calls on religious leadership for a break with the past whatever justification exists for exercising influence in matters of conscience lies in serving the well-being of humankind at this greatest point in the history of civilization the demands of such service could not be more clear. Thank you.