No need for secular interpreters?

Texan theologian Stanley Hauerwas gave a lecture last night "Against Cosmopolitanism". It was pretty relevant to this discussion. He said that the secular language of 'rights', which is claiming universal applicability (as in the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights') is not as straightforward as it seems. The claimed 'rights' are "breeding like rabbits".

He asked "Do you have a right to eat meat? Because many Hindus would say that we have no right to eat meat". If, for the sake of argument, Christians would claim we do have such a right, does it really help to have a third (secular) party stepping in to arbitrate, using a third (secular) 'language' of rights? Isn't peace more likely to come if the Hindus and the Christians just have a real dialogue with each other - 'go direct'?

This is a rather more radical position than Archbishop Rowan Williams, and certainly Bp James Jones, I think. Always good value, Stanley Hauerwas, but never comfortable to listen to. He challenged the idea that there is such a thing as 'our common humanity' (on which to base 'rights') except as an eschatological vision formed in the suffering of the risen Christ. "You have to be trained to be a human being - it doesn't come naturally!" (Didn't Aristotle say something like that?)