Social justice is a central social work value (NASW, 2000). Although no single, agreed-on conceptualization of social justice exists (Sterba, 1999), the construct has been associated with a wide variety of populations and perspectives. For instance, the intersection between social justice and race, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, and class has been widely discussed (Thompson, 2002). More recently, the literature has featured examinations of social justice and international adoptions (Hollingsworth, 2003), probation services (Smith & Vanstone, 2002), Tibetan immigrants (Nassar, 2002), mental health (Sheppard, 2002), late-fife care (Johnson, 2002), marginalized South Asian children (O'Kane, 2002), and education for undocumented families (Belanger, 2001).
Largely absent from the social work literature on social justice, however, has been any similar discussion of religion. An examination of Social Work Abstracts using the keywords "religion" or "spirituality" and "social justice" revealed no articles designed to equip social workers to challenge social injustice in the area of religion, a finding consistent with studies indicating that most social workers have received little, if any, content on religion and spirituality during their graduate educations (Canda & Furman, 1999; Murdock, 2004).
The paucity of literature represents a significant oversight given the growing professional interest in religion and spirituality (Canda & Furman, 1999; Cnaan, Wineburg, & Boddie, 1999; Derezotes, 2006; Hodge, 2005). The extant research has suggested that most social workers are interested in addressing religion in their practices, underscoring the need for material on social justice (Canda & Furman; Derezotes, 1995; Murdock, 2004; Sheridan, 2004). Furthermore, and perhaps most important, social workers have an ethical duty to address religiously based social injustice (NASW, 2000, Standards 1.05a, b, c; 2.01b; 4.02; and 6.04d).
Therefore, this article represents an initial step in helping social workers challenge social injustice on behalf of what some refer to as "people of faith" individuals who adhere to the mainstream tenets of their respective faith traditions (French, 2002; Hertzke, 2003). In keeping with the Code of Ethics's injunctions, I have adopted a transnational perspective.
DEFINING SOCIAL JUSTICE: A HUMAN RIGHTS FRAMEWORK
As implied earlier, social justice is a highly contested construct (Boucher & Kelly, 1998). Although the term is widely used, there is little agreement regarding what the concept signifies or how it should be operationalized (Reisch, 2002). Observers have noted that a wide variety of types (Chatterjee & D'Aprix, 2002), perspectives (Van Soest & Garcia, 2003), and conceptualizations (Sterba, 1999) of social justice exist.
One method that has been used to anchor the construct is human rights (Caputo, 2001; George, 1999; O'Kane, 2002; Queiro-Tajalli, McNutt, & Campbell, 2003; Stainton, 2002), with some commentators reporting that this understanding is gaining ground as a framework for understanding social justice (Reichert, 2003; Van Soest & Garcia, 2003). Within this framework, human rights are commonly defined as those characteristics that are necessary for us to live as human beings (United Nations [UN] Association in Canada, 1995). Human rights flow from the fact that all human beings have inherent dignity and worth. As these rights are grounded in the human condition, they are universal, applying equally to all human beings around the world, independent of their recognition in law. Social justice is exhibited by working to ensure that human rights are respected, nationally and internationally.
In keeping with the contested nature of social justice, the human rights framework is not without critics. Perhaps the most significant criticism has come from postmodern conceptualizations of social justice (Sterba, 1999). Lyotard (1979/1984) defined postmodernism as the rejection of meta-narratives and the accompanying idea of universals. Consequently, constructs that apply to all individuals, such as human rights, are no longer tenable. Conceptualizations of social justice are individual, local, and particular--a multiplicity of justices exist as opposed to any single, universal understanding of justice. In keeping with this line of thought, human rights have been criticized as an expression of Western values, and implementing these values in Western and particularly non-Western cultures is, at best, a dubious enterprise and, at worst, an unethical implosion of culturally foreign values (Pateman, 1998).
Others have noted, however, that postmodernism's rejection of universal conceptualizations is inconsistent as postmodernists themselves resort to the use of universals to describe their own version of social justice (Fraser & Nicholson, 1988). Furthermore, although respect for autonomy and for cultural diversity are central social work values, a number of social work authors have expressed difficulty with the idea that absolutely any culturally sanctioned behavior is acceptable, that no minimal standards of conduct apply universally (Caputo, 2001; George, 1999; Goldberg, 2000; Reichert, 2003). As has been noted, to reject universalism is to accept the idea that there is no place for widely affirmed basic rights, such as freedom from torture (George). In other words, without philosophical acknowledgment of universalism, it is impossible to say that people in every nation, across cultures, should not be subjected to torture.
In light of the criticisms that have been advanced against the idea of human rights, some have suggested adopting a limited number of basic rights that are widely supported (George, 1999).Although most rights theorists agree that certain rights are inherent in the human condition, they disagree about the extent and scope of these rights. Some individuals posit the existence of a limited number of rights (Feinberg, 1973), around which a substantial degree of consensus typically exists, and others argue for broader conceptualizations that tend to inspire more controversy (West, 1998). One way to maximize respect for autonomy and cultural diversity is to adopt a more limited conceptualization of human rights that is widely affirmed.
ARTICLE 18 OF THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
The most widely accepted human rights statement is the United Nations (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The declaration was developed in response to the intense persecution experienced by Jews during World War II. Adopted without dissent by the UN General Assembly in 1948, it represents the international community's attempt to prevent future Holocausts by delineating basic, fundamental human rights (Gil, 1998).
The declaration addresses religion in a number of places, including Article 2, which prohibits religious discrimination. Its most significant articulation, however, is found in Article 18. This article states that "everyone has the right to freedom of ... religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his …