Human Rights? Only for Some Humans
State governments, the Federal Government, and Supreme Court have been clear and consistent throughout U.S. history: Rights and Constitutional protections are not for allhumans; those protections are only for those legally recognized as persons—according to whatever subjective criteria the ruling elite are using at any given time. Focusing the argument on Human Rights protects innocent life on both ends of the mortal life continuum.
My daughter, Jennifer, tends to be a bit timid and shy. She has formed solid opinions but, unlike myself, doesn’t feel compelled to share them with everyone who walks by. In other words, she is not a fan of confrontation. She has had a quieter faith and has found less “in-your-face” ways to open the discussion. When she was in high school, she would wear a shirt that had a picture of a garbage can with the caption under it: “This is no place for a baby.” Jennifer was one of only perhaps two or three who were pro-life in her freshman class.
During that time, she had to compose a persuasive paper for her English class and wanted to write “Murder is Socially Acceptable” to compare slavery, the Holocaust, and abortion. Her teacher’s response was: The concept is interesting, but there is no evidence abortion is murder, and so she wouldn’t let her write the paper. Jennifer was not happy, and as the old saying goes: “When Jennifer ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.” Instead of giving up, she decided to reframe the argument and write a persuasive paper demonstrating that abortion is murder. As we thought about it and talked with a few teachers and college professors we know, we realized Jennifer’s teacher probably has one or two students each year who want to make a biblical case for a pro-life position. Jennifer and I decided the best approach would be to make a sound, compelling case, which would be consistent with biblical teaching, but not quote the Bible in the process. She gathered the scientific data on fetal development, talked about what is in the mother’s womb (a human rather than a plant, bird, fish, etc.), and Jennifer developed her persuasive argument. After reading it, her teacher changed her personal opinion from “pro-choice” to “pro-life.” In a later class assignment, she was to debate students who took a “pro-choice” position; and she went first. I suggested while giving her a positive “pro-life” case; she should refute the arguments the other students likely would use for the “pro-choice” position. After she finished, the students affirming the “pro-choice” side, really didn’t know what to do since their arguments had been destroyed before they even took the floor.
Reframing the Argument
The July 22, 2010, Washington Times article “Clinton pushes Vietnam on human rights progress” raised the issue of human rights in foreign lands (in this case Vietnam), and how much Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would focus on that in her discussions with the leaders of Vietnam. Some of the U.S. Congress thought this important as well:
“The government of Vietnam’s desire to reap the benefits of the global economy must be matched by efforts to respect comprehensive human rights,” a bipartisan group of 19 members of Congress wrote to Clinton on July 15.
As I read this and other articles since then, I thought back to Jennifer’s high school days, which seems another lifetime ago now that our grandchildren are getting close to their teen years themselves. A new idea or way to reframe the human rights argument began to crystallize. This is a subject I have been thinking about for a while, but there was something in that particular article; or perhaps, it was just the mood I was in while reading it, but I wondered: Do humans have rights based solely on being human, or is there some other criteria? If there are some other criteria, is it constant, or does it change from culture to culture and/or time to time in order to exclude certain humans from protection? Rather than simply developing a position and asserting my view is correct, I decided to put the question to an organization that specializes in addressing violations of human rights: Amnesty International. I e-mailed them and asked:
There seems to be some confusion when using the term “human rights.” Do you mean by this that humans have rights based solely on being human? If a nation decides that a human is not legally a person and, therefore, has no rights, for only persons have rights, is that something you affirm?
The question is fairly simple and straightforward. Do humans have rights because they are human, or are there some other criteria for deciding which humans are worthy of human-rights protections? Perhaps, a human has no inherent rights, and lawmakers or the ruling elite in various societies are free to use any arbitrary criteria they choose in defining which humans have rights and which ones do not. Currently, in the United States, only those who are legally deemed a “person” are members of the protected class. In this scenario, non-persons—human or not—do not have any legal rights and, therefore, are not deserving of protection. I received their response in less than 24 hours:
Thank you for your interest in Amnesty International and the work that we do.
I’m unaware of the confusion that you mention.
Human rights are those which all humans should be entitled to, regardless of legislation introduced by an individual country that may undermine any of these.
I do not understand your differentiation between people and humans, but I hope that this goes some way to answer your question.
I have spoken with others and asked this question and have watched as they, like Amnesty International, also short-circuited and changed the parameters of the question from “person” to “people.” There is an important distinction here. The word person is a legal designation and may be applied to a human or a corporation. It might be people or some other legal entity. On the other hand, the word people is used interchangeably with human. So, people are always human, but person may not be. I responded to Amnesty International:
Thank you for your timely response and clear answer. The confusion wasn’t between “people” and “human” but between “person” and “human.” For example, in the United States, when slavery was legal, no one denied that slaves were human. However, in the eyes of the law, they were not “persons.”1 Therefore, even though they were human but not persons, they had no rights or protections under the law. They were simply property and could be cared for and protected or beaten, sold, dismembered, and even killed without legal reprisal since they were not persons and had no rights. This classification was based on the arbitrary criteria of skin color.
Currently, preborn humans are legally classified as non-persons based on the arbitrary criteria of geography. They are living inside the womb vs. outside the womb. Based on these arbitrary criteria, state legislatures and the U.S. Supreme Court do not extend “personhood” and the attendant legal rights and protections afforded “persons” until a geographical change occurs from inside the womb to outside the womb. Even though human, they are property and can be cared for and nurtured until they make the geographical change; or they can be dismembered, burned to death with saline, or even have their brains vacuumed out a few centimeters away from a full geographical change, since they are property and not persons even though human. As long as this arbitrary classification stands, I am not really sure on what basis someone could say that slavery was wrong or, in the case of other nations, if they are abusing humans who have been legally classified as non-persons on what basis they could be charged with human rights violations? In the U.S., legally, persons have rights, humans do not.
It has been nearly two years, and so far, they have not responded. At this point, I doubt they will. I think I can safely assume it is probable they have chosen to ignore the question at this point. Why? Well, if they affirm the law can use any arbitrary criterion which excludes certain humans from protection to determine a legal definition of person, then there is really no “human rights” basis on which to say slavery was wrong. After all, slavery was legal. The ruling elite of that day determined the slaves legally were not fully counted as persons in the census (which determined state representation) even though they were human. It is wrong to own slaves in the United States today, but that is only because the criteria for human rights are arbitrary and changeable, and, consequently, the current law has changed and eliminated skin color as a criterion for being a person or non-person. It isn’t because today’s blacks are any more human than were their ancestors, but simply because the ruling elite currently has declared it to be so.
-
Christ over Doctrine
If the church is to fulfill her calling to know and glorify God, we must return to sound theology, and this must begin with a proper understanding of who the triune God is in the face of our Lord Jesus Christ. In its most basic sense, systematic theology, or dogmatics, is the orderly, comprehensive study of the triune God and all things in relation to him. As the Westminster Shorter Catechism rightly answers the all-important question—“What is the chief end of man?”—“Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.” There is nothing more urgent for humans as God’s creatures than knowing God. And especially for God’s redeemed people in Christ, there is no higher calling than delighting in our triune God in all of his majesty, beauty, and holy splendor. The life and health of the church is directly dependent on our knowledge of God, which is central to the theological task.
-
Hyssop
Written by Michael P.V. Barrett |
Friday, August 12, 2022
David’s prayer of confession in Psalm 51:7 (literally, “De-sin me with hyssop”) figuratively sums up the theological significance of hyssop. His sin had robbed him of fellowship with God, and knowing that the only thing that could restore that fellowship was the hyssop, he expressed his faith in the cleansing of the blood of the sacrifice. So it is that we must appeal to the blood of Jesus in order to experience forgiveness of sins and the enjoyment of restored fellowship with Him (1 John 1:7, 9). There’s more to hyssop than meets the eye.At first glance, there is nothing special about hyssop. Solomon spoke about the tall-growing cedars of Lebanon and the hyssop that grew out of a wall (1 Kings 4:33; Heb. 9:19). The cedars and hyssop were at opposite ends of the spectrum: from big and beautiful to small and stark. Hyssop is a small, bushy plant that generally grows in arid, rocky places such as walls. Its principal feature is the sponge-like shoots that collect moisture and transfer that moisture to other objects, particularly when the plant is shaken. Its simple ability to collect and disperse liquids is what made it suitable for its most significant function in the ceremonial rituals of the Old Testament, all of which were picture prophecies pointing to the sacrificial work of Christ.
New Testament references to hyssop underscore the truth that Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament ceremonies, making their continuance obsolete but not obliterating the significance of their message. Hebrews 9:19 specifically mentions the inadequacy of hyssop along with other elements of the Old Testament sacrifices in order to point to the superiority of the sacrifice of Christ, which actually accomplished what all the Old Testament types could only anticipate. Although not in the context of the Mosaic ceremonies, the reference to hyssop in John 19:29 ironically associates it with the supreme sacrifice of Jesus. The vinegar-soaked hyssop touching the parched lips of Jesus immediately preceded His dying declaration “It is finished” (John 19:30). With that declaration, any further ceremonial use of the hyssop became unnecessary. Nonetheless, looking at the hyssop in the Old Testament pictures highlights four realities that Christ’s sacrifice accomplishedDeliverance From Bondage
The Passover marked the first use of hyssop. The Israelites were suffering a harsh bondage over which they had no control and from which they could not free themselves. In keeping with His covenant promise, God delivered them by a mighty display of His irresistible power. But central to the Passover was the sacrifice of the perfect lamb that was chosen to be a substitute for the firstborn.Read More
Related Posts: -
Who is Really in Control?
We simply are NOT in control. But the good news is, a loving and caring and all-wise God IS in control. That means we can trust him, even in times of war. Even when a loved one passes away. Even when cancer strikes. The idea that illness and the like can be a wonderful teaching tool and a God-appointed means of bringing us closer to him while shattering all our false illusions is of course a truth that Scripture and the history of God’s people have long affirmed.
The real struggle throughout human history has to do with the question of who is in control – or better yet, who should be in control. Fallen autonomous men likes to think they are in control, and as such, they seek to take the place of God as the ultimate sovereign of the universe.
Sinful, rebellious humans think they are the centre of the universe and that they are in control. They certainly WANT to be in control. But the rightful ruler is not so easily deposed. It is God who is in control, and he is calling the shots. Sure, we are able to make morally significant choices, but at the end of the day it is the sovereignty of God that we all are under.
The fact that we keep forgetting – or refusing to acknowledge – that God is in control means that out of love for us he often seeks to get our attention by reminding us just how little control we have over most things. We plan a nice picnic in a park, and instead of the warm sunny day we had hoped for, a cold, miserable and rainy day happens instead.
Or the weather may be fine, but as we are about to drive to that park, we discover that we have misplaced the car keys, and they are nowhere to be found. Yes, human error has happened, but a God who is at work behind the scenes may be the ultimate cause of such things.
There is very little in life we have direct and total control over. Let’s say the weather is nice, the car keys are found, and the picnic with loved ones commences. We get stuck into a steak sandwich in a nice hard roll that we had prepared, only to find the first bite results in a very bad toothache – so much so that the picnic is cancelled and a quick trip to the dentist is undertaken.
God may well often allow such things for all sorts of reasons, but one such reason is to remind us that we are NOT in full control, and that there is a God in heaven who cares about us so much, that he is willing to rob us of temporary happiness in order to give us eternal holiness.
And often, difficult and trying times can be a major means of bringing this about. A time of war certainly brings us to an end of our sense of self-sovereignty and control. One minute you are planning picnics and sleeping in your own bed and having friends over and going to work, and the next minute you might be one of millions of refugees fleeing a war-torn country like Ukraine.
I just saw a quote on the social media by the famous US Senate Chaplain Peter Marshall which ties in here. I looked up the source of the quote and learned about this story. He was about to give a speech to the midshipmen at the U. S. Naval Academy, but changed his mind at the last moment, ignoring his notes and speaking off the cuff. An hour after his talk, it was learned that the Japanese had just bombed Pearl Harbor.
In that prophetic speech he said this in part: “War forces us to examine the very foundations of life itself. . . . What man refuses to learn in times of peace, God teaches him in times of war. . . . God permits war in order that we might see what sin really is.” It also teaches us how little control we have over things.
Everything changes in such a situation, and we quickly realise that the control we thought we had over life was just a mirage. Of course other calamities and tragedies such as illness or the death of a loved one also will help remind us of these basic truths. A particular illness may leave you without control of your own bladder. And a death of a spouse may leave you reeling as your world caves in.
When these things happen, we can either become bitter or better. We either re-orientate ourselves back to God, or we become even more defiant, angry and rebellious. And it is not just non-Christians I am talking about here. Christians need to learn and relearn these lessons just as much as any pagan does.
Read More
Related Posts:
