No, it was pretty new. Philosophers started thinking outside the "divine box" and seeing human being as autonomous and with certain freedoms from religion and its authority. Human rights came out of this.
Human rights evolved over centuries, specifically via Medieval Canon .
Freedoms from religion were also not some magical new creation, but have long roots in Christian thought. See for example:
Defensor pacis - Wikipedia
The tract
Defensor pacis (
The Defender of Peace) laid the foundations of modern doctrines of
popular sovereignty. It was written by
Marsilius of Padua (Italian:
Marsilio da Padova), an Italian medieval scholar. It appeared in 1324 and provoked a storm of
controversy that lasted through the century. The context of the work lies in the political struggle between
Louis IV, Holy Roman Emperor and
Pope John XXII. The treatise is vehemently
anticlerical. Marsilius' work was censured by
Pope Benedict XII and
Pope Clement VI.
Defensor pacis extends the tradition of
Dante's
De Monarchia separating the secular
State from religious authority. It affirmed the sovereignty of the people and
civil law and sought to greatly limit the power of the
Papacy, which he viewed as the "cause of the trouble which prevails among men" and which he characterized as a "fictitious" power. He proposed the seizure of church property by civil authority and the elimination of
tithes. In his view, the Papacy would retain only an honorary pre-eminence without any authority to interpret the
scriptures or define
dogma.
As its name implies, it describes the State as the defender of the public peace, which is the most indispensable benefit of human society. The author of the law expresses will of the people, not of the whole populace, but of the most important part (
valentior) of the citizens; these people should themselves elect, or at least appoint, the head of the government, who, lest he should be tempted to put himself above the scope of the laws, should have at his disposal only a limited armed force. This chief is responsible to the people for his breaches of the law, and in serious cases they can sentence him to death. The real cause of the trouble which prevails among men is the Papacy, the development of which is the result of a series of usurpations.
[1]
Marsilius of Padua - Wikipedia
In
Defensor pacis, Marsilius sought to demonstrate, by arguments from
reason (in
Dictio I of the text) and by argument from
authority (in
Dictio II) the independence of the
Holy Roman Empire from the
Papacy and the emptiness of the prerogatives alleged to have been usurped by the Roman pontiffs. A number of Marsilius's views were declared to be heretical by Pope John XXII in 1327.
[4]
Most of
Defensor pacis is devoted to theology. Relying heavily on Scripture, Marsilius seeks to show that Jesus did not claim to possess any temporal power and that he did not intend his church to exercise any.
[5] On the contrary, Scripture teaches that the church should be thoroughly subordinate to the state in both secular and spiritual matters. All authority in the church lies with the whole body of the faithful, the secular ruler who acts as the people's representative, and general councils called by the secular ruler.
[6] Some of Marsilius's arguments on these themes had a marked influence during the Reformation.
[7]
I do consider divine right as a form of theocracy because it assumes its authority from a God. Let's note that many people did not fair well under these leaderships.
A justification of authority that specifically splits church and state power is 'theocracy'?
Let's note many people didn't fare well under secular regimes either.
Right, religion offers no advantage as a basis for governing.
Most of the values you hold dear developed in a religious context, so to say it offers 'no advantages' seems a bit myopic.
Any basis for power has advantages and disadvantages.
Yet they used it nonetheless. Perhaps it was a way for the cruel to dupe themselves so they felt less guilt about killing a bunch of villagers. When God is on your side you have less reason to rethink your acts.
And Marxists used their materialistic worldview to justify mass murder as the sanctity of human life was a religious myth.
'Human rights' were one justification for wars in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan too. Just about any ideology can be used to justify whatever you want.
Religion is no better or worse in this regard. The problem is humans.
However humanism evolved to be a basis for human rights and dignity what better alternative is there?
There might be a decent dictator out there.
See, ideologies grounded in silly myths can be good after all
Humans evolved this way because those who formed groups/tribes and cooperated with each member survived over those who tried to do their own thing. The human brain evolved to conform for the group norms for the sake of survival and for belonging, and even meaning eventually. So this is biological, and the person has little choice in how these impulses project onto consciousness.
Yes, and humans evolved to understand the world via subjective narratives/ideologies/myths/fictions. We should embrace this rather than pretending 'our group' sees the world as it is and everyone else believes in childish nonsense.
