It's quite clear that we have the perception that humans have certain "inalienable rights". That is, there are apparently certain rights that all people are assigned that cannot be taken away. The Declaration of Independence considered these rights inalienable because they were "endowed by their Creator" -- God gave them to us. As such, no human entity has the right to intervene. Just what these rights are seems to be unclear, however. Several have tried to explain it.
The U.N. created a document titled, "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights". I wrote about it here. Listed as universal human rights were things like "a fair and public hearing" (so that concerns like national security are outlawed), "the free development of personality" (so that sociopaths and child molesters should be left alone), and the right to marry whomever you choose (making God's earlier version of arranged marriages a violation of universal human rights). This helpful little document ruled out all governments except democratic ones by confirming that the will of the people is the only proper basis for government. (And, remember, it was God who established a monarchy in Israel.) Those are just some examples. Now, remember, the Founding Fathers assumed that rights were inalienable because they were given by God. Now we have God violating human rights. Where does that leave us?
One assumed "inalienable right" is "equality". The Fourteenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights says that "No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." From that, apparently, we extrapolate that all people are due "equal rights". And from the term "equal rights" we extrapolate something like "everyone must be treated the same". Assuming that all of this is well and good, however, now we immediately step into unclear territory. "Marriage equality", for instance, means to me that anyone who wants to should be allowed to marry, but to others it means that anyone who wants to redefine marriage should be allowed to do so. But, look, let's not go to the firestorm that this discussion will start. I just want to illustrate the difficulty of the question. So let's go here. If we agree that everyone should have the same rights, would you agree that everyone should have the same rights to your money as you do? If not, why not? If not, aren't you opposed to "equal rights"? Now, I think there are answers to these kinds of questions that make sense and that can be fed back to, for instance, the "marriage equality" question, but for the most part people aren't thinking beyond the term, "rights".
One of the unspoken but most certain rights that seems to be assumed in most circles today is the right not to be offended. The LGBT crowd is offended that anyone in the Christian crowd would consider their behavior (behavior, not "orientation" or "preference" or "lifestyle" -- behavior) a sin. They are taking steps to eliminate that option for Christians. Some have been sued for taking that position. Mostly the steps are in the realm of public opinion. "Label those folks as 'bigots' and 'haters' and our will will be done." You see, when someone in the Christian crowd says "That behavior is sin" without a single step toward actually ruling out the behavior, it's unacceptable not because it's intolerant (Tolerance requires a difference of opinion and the willingness to endure the opposing position) -- it is tolerant -- but because it's offensive. "You called me a sinner!" And we appear to believe that we have an inalienable right not to be offended. Look, again, let's back off the "gay" question and look at something else to get the point. Recently Frito Lay played a commercial for Doritos during the SuperBowl. The ad was about a dog who apparently killed and buried a cat and was covering it up by bribing his owner to keep silent with Doritos. Humor. That was the intent. "Doritos are so good that it will keep this guy silent." And the world was offended. There is a petition now to remove it from the airways. It was "offensive to cats" (although, apparently, no cats have signed the petition) "and cat lovers". People are outraged. Boycotts are marshalling. Law suits? Not yet, but why not? (Interestingly, USA Today's poll rated this offensive commercial in the top 10 of 2012.) You see, we have an inalienable right not to be offended.
It seems as if we've developed a really healthy (or, perhaps, better identified as "meaty" or "bloated" or "obese"?) sense of "inalienable rights". They include such previously unheard of things as education (through college, apparently), all types of personal sovereignty (which, when you think about it, will collide with others), "affordable housing", "decreased reliance on fossil fuels", "affordable gas", and a host of other "rights" that God apparently endowed without letting anyone know. Of course, there is the problem that many who argue for these "inalienable rights" do so while directly denying the existence of any such Creator (and thus nullifying any sort of "inalienable" nature to these rights). But we won't let that stop us. And there is the problem that we don't appear to need to be grateful for endowed rights, genuine or assumed. We might even be willing to fight for the right to party. Why? Well, that's simple. "I will be like the Most High." It's part of sinful human nature. So I'd like to urge Christians, at least, to be very cautious when demanding their "rights". "Privileges" makes more sense from a biblical worldview. It certainly makes it easier to retain an attitude of gratitude. So choosing between being grateful for what we have or fighting for what we don't, I'll let you consider what looks more Christ-like.
5 comments:
It seems that these days, rights are defined merely by what one wants. If one wants something, one then has the right to it. But this would fall under the "right to pursue happiness". This pursuit is guaranteed, but not what is pursued. In this sense, I don't so much mind that homosexuals, for example, might pursue what they feel is their happiness. But to state that they must be given it is not Constitutionally justified. Thus, what one wants is not what it is that one has the "right" to, but only what one has the right to pursue. This pursuit must be measured against the law as it stands in order to demand equal protection or consideration. Marriage has always been considered the union of one man and one woman, and thus no one has been denied equal consideration under this understanding, and the complaint that rights have been denied are not justified. And as they have not been prevented from demanding the definition of marriage be changed, nor have they been prevented from supporting and voting for candidates that agree with them, their right to pursue this "happiness" has also not been denied them.
I think you're right. I think that we've taken the "right to the pursuit of happiness" to an extreme that simply cannot work. For instance, "It makes me happy to dismember young girls, so it's my right to do so" won't fly in just about any reasonable discussion, but if the right to pursue happiness is an "inalienable right", then we're going to have a hard time stopping it, won't we?
"I want it because it will make me happy" is not sufficient to make it a right.
But lately, the majority is not ruling. The number of openly, admitting homosexuals from 2000 to 2010 has actually decreased according to the U.S. Census. Now, it is which ever group can scream the loudest.
I'm all for greasing squeaky wheels, but not to the detriment of the other wheels.
Pax,
Gina
But remember, Gina, "rights" has nothing to do with "majority" ... as demonstrated when the courts struck down the vote of the people against redefining marriage in California ... twice.
It funny that so many people truly believe in these inalienable rights, but don't bother to ask WHY they're inalienable. What makes them inalienable other than "we said so". Arguing from a religious stance of rights while arguing that religion is a crutch...hello inconsistency post.
Post a Comment