|
Human Rights -Says Who? |
|
The news today is filled with headlines of human struggles and atrocities occurring all across our globe. My wife and I have come to refer to the broadcast "news" as the "disaster channel" because it seems that each day there is another set of new human disasters. Each time we see people in a terrible plight, we can’t help but feel compassion for them. The images from the recent war in Iraq were often very heartwrenching. As we learned more and more about the way Saddam Hussein abused his people, it seemed that America’s invasion into Iraq was as much for protecting the human rights of Iraqi citizens as it was for protecting the world from the use of weapons for mass murder.
No one, not even the most staunch anti-war protesters, could argue that Saddam shouldn’t go when the atrocities he had been carrying out against his own people became more exposed. It seems everyone believes in human rights, and why not? It sounds like a good thing. Everyone likes having rights. Having certain rights for just being human sounds like a pretty fair deal.
It’s such an important issue these days that there are literally hundreds of organizations and government-sponsored groups around the world dedicated to protecting people from human rights abuses. Organizations such as Human Rights Watch monitor the globe for human rights abuses. The United Nations, believe it or not, was actually out in front of this campaign more than 50 years ago. UN General Assembly Resolution 217A (III) "THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS" was adopted on December 10, 1948. This resolution made broad, sweeping declarations of human rights and the actions which would constitute abuse of such rights. Various groups have made similar declarations since then, all of them generally the same.
Now, I’m certainly all for the idea of human rights and protecting people from tyranny and abuse, but there is one major problem that seems to be overlooked by all of these organizations, namely, exactly what are human rights and where do they come from? The answer to this question is of the utmost importance and forms the foundation for any discussion of real human rights. Just talking about the rights that the UN or some other body professes we are entitled to is not enough.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, defines human rights as, "The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law."
The preamble to UN Resolution 217(A) III states,
"WHEREAS recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal
and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the
foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,"
Article 1 of UN Resolution 217(A) III states,
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards
one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
Look at these statements closely and you will see that something is missing. There is no real definition of what human rights are, or where they come from. The Heritage Dictionary tells us that we are all entitled to them, but doesn’t explain where that entitlement comes from. The UN resolution tells us what rights can do for us and that we all have them, that they are somehow inherent in us and recognition of them will bring peace to the world, but that still doesn’t really tell us what human rights are or where they come from.
The UN has published commentary on this resolution. The commentary
for Article 1 is quite telling. It states:
"The article (1) thus defines the basic assumptions of the
Declaration: that the right to liberty and equality is man's
birthright and cannot be alienated: and that, because man is a
rational and moral being, he is different from other creatures on
earth and therefore entitled to certain rights and freedoms which
other creatures do not enjoy."
So, at least according to the UN, these rights stem from just being born. That sounds great, but as my little brother used to tell me, "Says who?" See, it’s not that we really need to define human rights; most people can agree on what they should consist of. What is needed is a definition of where the rights come from. This foundation must be laid or human rights are nothing more than opinions. If they are just opinions, well, then what are they really worth?
Again, that sounds nice, but who says that everyone has an inalienable right to liberty and equality? The UN? The United States? The country or group of countries that have the biggest armies? Why should anyone have to listen to what they say? Don’t I have the right to disagree with them and live peacefully in my disagreement? In fact, Article 19 of UN Resolution 217(A) III states:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression: this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
So what if my opinion is that human rights are a bunch of hogwash? Now, you may say that my opinion is of little or no consequence to the world. But what if Saddam Hussein or Fidel Castro or Slovadon Mlosaveich has the same opinion? Aren’t they entitled to their opinions? Doesn’t Article 19 give them that right?
Can you see where this is headed? Opinions are worthless unless they are backed by authority. There is no foundation for human rights without agreement on who the granter of such rights is. By anyone’s definition, human rights are inalienable, and therefore, no human group can grant them or take them away. That being the case, there is only really one possible source for an inalienable right – you got it, the Creator, G-d.
Only the Creator of humans could produce them with an inherent quality that cannot be taken away by other humans. Only G-d can have the authority to grant something that no person or human institution can revoke. This was recognized by the people who first began to institutionalize the rights that we now take for granted. Notice the difference in the language from the Magna Carta, the first real declaration of basic rights:
"Know that, having regard to God and for the salvation of our soul, and those of all our ancestors and heirs, and unto the honor of God and the advancement of his holy Church and for the rectifying of our realm, we have granted&ldots;"
In our modern English, this document doesn’t seem perfectly clear as to who the right giver is, but it was the Church that was recognized as having authority from G-d, and therefore ultimately it was G-d that was granting the rights.
The American Declaration of Independence records one of the clearest
statements of where inalienable rights come from:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain
unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness."
Nowadays, many people who advocate human rights do not believe in G-d the Creator. I would venture to predict that the majority of people who fight for human rights, in fact, believe in evolution, not a Creator. In terms of logic, this is a big problem for them, and it is why you will not find a real definition of human rights anywhere in their publications. Chance cannot grant you anything! In fact, a real honest evolutionist would have to admit that there are no rights except those given by the one who has the might.
The other great irony is that many people who believe strongly in human rights are also strong advocates for relativism. They do not believe in absolutes. They believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion and no one is right or wrong. Of course, that’s just their opinion (see our FAQS page for more about relativism). Well, if that’s the case, then no one has any absolute inalienable rights either. The only rights a person can have are those that the controlling group of people gives them. You see, it’s total hypocrisy. You can’t have it both ways. You cannot say that there is no absolute authority and then try to establish one.
So what does this have to do with Jews? Well, many of the Jews that I meet are nice, compassionate people. They have deep scars from their history and have suffered from some of the worst atrocities. They never want to see what happened to them and their families happen again. This is certainly commendable. The problem occurs when those same people, for whatever reason, turn away from the human rights giver, the One who has chosen them to be a light to the rest of the world and show the rest of the world where their rights come from. Instead of trusting the Creator who can grant rights, they tend to rely on organizations and governments to protect them. Unfortunately, if there is one thing that Jews should know, it is that no government or organization can or will protect their rights. Only G-d can grant them, and only G-d can and will protect the Jews in the end.
On the larger scale, this is no more evident than in the case of Israel. Without a doubt, the issue of human rights has been at the forefront of Israeli debate and the propaganda machines of the Arab world as they try to plead their case to the world for another Arab state. The whole so-called Middle East Peace Process is predicated on balancing human rights with Israel’s right to exist.
Just as with human rights though, a discussion of Israel’s rights must begin with the fundamental question, where does Israel’s right to exist come from? If it is simply the right granted by other nations or some political organization which has deemed itself to be the universal "Keeper of Justice," then frankly, Israel is doomed. The Jewish State would then be at the total mercy of the rest of the world and dependent upon the will of the world and/or organizations for its existence. With typical UN votes against Israel in the range of 150 to 3, well, bonne chance.
If most of the world doesn’t recognize Israel’s right to exist, then the strength of the Israeli military is the only means of securing any right that Israel believes it possesses. While this may seem okay now, the threat of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in the hands of people who have shamelessly declared their intent to destroy Israel and its people may negate much of the Israeli military’s power of deterrence.
Thankfully, Israel’s right to exist, like real human rights, has been determined by the G-d of Israel who is the only One who can grant such rights. The irony is, for a Jew to thumb his nose at G-d and choose humanism, relativism, atheism, or anything else but obedience to the G-d of Israel is, in fact, suicidal. Think for a moment. If G-d has granted Israel the right to exist, then pushing G-d out of Israel is tantamount to throwing away your right to exist.
This applies to individuals as well as corporate Israel. Jews who have chosen to throw the G-d of Israel out of their lives cannot then expect to have any rights except what is given to them by someone else. This is exactly what the Jews who first began making alliyah were trying to escape from. History has made it clear that Jews simply cannot rely on other human beings for the establishment and/or protection of their human rights. Instead, they must trust in the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He made you, He gave you the right and privilege of life, and He can protect you, if you let Him.
Interesting References
What are Human Rights? http://www.hrweb.org/
For a short history on human rights - http://www.hrweb.org/history.html
Human Rights Watch - http://www.hrw.org/
Matthew Wilson can be reached at Matthew@JewsforTruth.org
©Copyright 2003 Jews For Truth - All Rights Reserved