Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
How are you finding your reading of the book, Perg?
Human rights. What are they? How do we protect them?
- Thread starter Pergamum
- Start date
- Status
I've read one page so far. Ha. So far so good.
Been sick this whole month basically, and my waking hours been doing as much ministry as I can given my weak condition before I have to lie down.
RobertPGH1981
Puritan Board Sophomore
Here is an excerpt for the New Dictionary of Theology below in Italics. The idea of Human Rights would have to be rooted in the truth that we are all created in the Image of God. This truth is universal for all of us but the information on what it means to be created in his image differs. Hope this helps.
Explicit Christian thinking about and articulation of the idea of human rights is of more recent origin. But the issue itself is longstanding. From a biblical viewpoint, human rights are founded not in the fundamental freedom of humanity, but in the revealed truths that: 1. men and women are the fruit of the everlasting word of creation (Gn. 1:26–27), as confirmed in the person and work of Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:29; Eph. 4:24; Col. 1:15), and as the bearers of God’s image have a dignity and worth guaranteed by their creator (Gn. 9:6; Jas. 3:9); 2. they are called and enabled by that same creative word to be stewards of God’s creation (Gn. 1:28; 9:1, 2; Ps. 8:6–9); and 3. for that reason they have a momentum in themselves and a responsibility towards themselves and others before God (Mt. 22:35–40). This responsibility stands alongside and, if necessary, may need to be exercised even over against the communities of which they are part (e.g. Acts 4:19; 5:29). Their rights may need to be claimed over against, e.g. states (cf. 1 Ki. 21:3; Acts 16:37) or families (cf. Mt. 8:21–22).
The individualistic concepts of human freedom and rights and of the state were implemented in various Western countries in the 19th century. They failed to produce, however, the predicted harmony. Since they were only formal in nature, they did not offer a substantial basis for freedom for everyone, and in particular not for manual labourers. The consequence was a process of proletarianization, a basic denial of humanity. This necessitated labour legislation by governments to protect workers and their families against bad conditions of work and inadequate wages, in order to guarantee a minimum level of livelihood. This process accelerated rapidly after World War II, at least in the highly industrialized countries, and a fundamental shift took place. Regulations were sought, not only to protect individuals against unworthy conditions of work but also to augment their possibilities for wider development.
The result has been that, next to classical human rights (freedom of religion, conscience, expression of opinion, press, association, and disposal of property, equality before the law, security of the person), new social, economic and cultural human rights were formulated, a number of which found a place in international documents such as the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and, with a more positive effect, the European Convention on Human Rights (1953), and in several national constitutions. These new rights include the right to life, food, clothing, housing, integrity of the human body, health insurance, unemployment benefit, old-age pensions, education, participation in culture, democracy in industry, etc.
A key question became, ‘Who is to guarantee these rights?’ The answer of many has been that the state has the primary responsibility. This whole development, however, has caused 1. a far-reaching individualization and even fragmentation of society, with a process of ‘massification’ as a consequence; 2. a tendency towards a totalitarian democracy in the name of freedom and equality, in the spirit of Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712–78; cf. his ‘social contract’); 3. a denial of a basic plurality and diversity of communities in human life (e.g., families, industries, trade unions, artistic companies, cultural organizations, schools, churches, universities), each of which has, within the general cultural mandate given to mankind (Gn. 2:15), its specific task and responsibilities. Human rights can flourish only in such a pluralist, non-totalitarian society, in which groups of people have the freedom to organize, at least in part, their own communal life and in which the individual has a certain freedom to move from one community to another.
Ferguson, S. B., & Packer, J. I. (2000). In New dictionary of theology (electronic ed., pp. 594–595). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Explicit Christian thinking about and articulation of the idea of human rights is of more recent origin. But the issue itself is longstanding. From a biblical viewpoint, human rights are founded not in the fundamental freedom of humanity, but in the revealed truths that: 1. men and women are the fruit of the everlasting word of creation (Gn. 1:26–27), as confirmed in the person and work of Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:29; Eph. 4:24; Col. 1:15), and as the bearers of God’s image have a dignity and worth guaranteed by their creator (Gn. 9:6; Jas. 3:9); 2. they are called and enabled by that same creative word to be stewards of God’s creation (Gn. 1:28; 9:1, 2; Ps. 8:6–9); and 3. for that reason they have a momentum in themselves and a responsibility towards themselves and others before God (Mt. 22:35–40). This responsibility stands alongside and, if necessary, may need to be exercised even over against the communities of which they are part (e.g. Acts 4:19; 5:29). Their rights may need to be claimed over against, e.g. states (cf. 1 Ki. 21:3; Acts 16:37) or families (cf. Mt. 8:21–22).
The individualistic concepts of human freedom and rights and of the state were implemented in various Western countries in the 19th century. They failed to produce, however, the predicted harmony. Since they were only formal in nature, they did not offer a substantial basis for freedom for everyone, and in particular not for manual labourers. The consequence was a process of proletarianization, a basic denial of humanity. This necessitated labour legislation by governments to protect workers and their families against bad conditions of work and inadequate wages, in order to guarantee a minimum level of livelihood. This process accelerated rapidly after World War II, at least in the highly industrialized countries, and a fundamental shift took place. Regulations were sought, not only to protect individuals against unworthy conditions of work but also to augment their possibilities for wider development.
The result has been that, next to classical human rights (freedom of religion, conscience, expression of opinion, press, association, and disposal of property, equality before the law, security of the person), new social, economic and cultural human rights were formulated, a number of which found a place in international documents such as the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and, with a more positive effect, the European Convention on Human Rights (1953), and in several national constitutions. These new rights include the right to life, food, clothing, housing, integrity of the human body, health insurance, unemployment benefit, old-age pensions, education, participation in culture, democracy in industry, etc.
A key question became, ‘Who is to guarantee these rights?’ The answer of many has been that the state has the primary responsibility. This whole development, however, has caused 1. a far-reaching individualization and even fragmentation of society, with a process of ‘massification’ as a consequence; 2. a tendency towards a totalitarian democracy in the name of freedom and equality, in the spirit of Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712–78; cf. his ‘social contract’); 3. a denial of a basic plurality and diversity of communities in human life (e.g., families, industries, trade unions, artistic companies, cultural organizations, schools, churches, universities), each of which has, within the general cultural mandate given to mankind (Gn. 2:15), its specific task and responsibilities. Human rights can flourish only in such a pluralist, non-totalitarian society, in which groups of people have the freedom to organize, at least in part, their own communal life and in which the individual has a certain freedom to move from one community to another.
Ferguson, S. B., & Packer, J. I. (2000). In New dictionary of theology (electronic ed., pp. 594–595). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
RobertPGH1981
Puritan Board Sophomore
Providing healthcare would equate to loving your neighbor as yourself.
RobertPGH1981
Puritan Board Sophomore
Just to expand on this a bit further the Hospitallers later known as the Knights of Rhodes / Malta were tasked with protecting and taking care of the poor, lame and sick. It started as early as the 4th century A.D. and were officially established during the crusades. Their mission was rooted in the statement to love your neighbor as yourself. Because of this I would see this as something christians should do if the nation isn't owning up to its role.
EDIT: fixed grammatical error, added additional statement
EDIT: fixed grammatical error, added additional statement
Does this mean access to healthcare or free universal healthcare?
There is little to no access to healthcare in my jungle region. If these are citizens why don't they get treated like citizens?
But on the other hand, I've never been a fan of universal free healthcare. But having reasonable access to medical care seems like it is not overstepping the limited roles of the State.
What do you think?
RobertPGH1981
Puritan Board Sophomore
How would you define Healthcare vs Universal Health Care?
If Universal Health Care would be defined beyond preventive care such as vaccines and medicines then I would say NO. I see Healthcare in our modern era as a fundamental human right because if I couldn't afford it I would like other to purchase on my behalf. Translating this into Christianity would be simple since you would use the law of love. I am not sure where we would draw the line but it most likely would be rooted in finances for your situation.
RobertPGH1981
Puritan Board Sophomore
I would say that is a definitive human right and would equate that out of necessity. Prosthetics and more advanced treatments would be out of scope but should be evaluated on a case by case basis.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So if a nation claims a territory and yet does nothing to promote the basic health needs of the region, this is a human rights violation?
The tribe where I live is considered "exotic" and has been featured in magazines. Tourists come to take photographs. Now miners come to extract the gold. But very little has been done for health or education in this region. Politicians sometimes show up to hand over a few bags of rice and get their pictures taken with the "naked savages" for public appearance. But these politicians never put together any effective system to actually establish schools or health centers in my region.
The tribe where I live is considered "exotic" and has been featured in magazines. Tourists come to take photographs. Now miners come to extract the gold. But very little has been done for health or education in this region. Politicians sometimes show up to hand over a few bags of rice and get their pictures taken with the "naked savages" for public appearance. But these politicians never put together any effective system to actually establish schools or health centers in my region.
RobertPGH1981
Puritan Board Sophomore
The leftists in the US have much to say about Colonialism which is what you are describing above by their definition. The leftists use the forceful taking of the United States from the Native Americans as an example of this Western Colonialism (anti-west rhetoric but some truthfulness in these sentiments exists). While it appears the gold is the primary reason the nation you refer to are interested in the region, I suspect they will leave once the gold is gone. Some would equate this as theft and exploitation regardless if the locals value the Gold. If a child had a diamond ring and I convince them to give me the ring in exchange for a $5 toy it would still be considered theft.
1. Do they claim this area or region is theirs or do they not have a concept of territory ownership?
2. Do they desire to have treatment, education and technology?
3. Do they understand what this would mean to civilization as they know it?
Based on stories I read in the past some tribes want to retain their culture and are not interested in our education and technology. However, treatment would still be necessary especially if they are coming in contact with people outside their climate. For example, the Native Americans ended up getting ill because the Europeans carried illnesses that their immune system was not capable of fighting. This would be reason enough to help them especially if this is true for the local tribe at least for a season.
1. Do they claim this area or region is theirs or do they not have a concept of territory ownership?
2. Do they desire to have treatment, education and technology?
3. Do they understand what this would mean to civilization as they know it?
Based on stories I read in the past some tribes want to retain their culture and are not interested in our education and technology. However, treatment would still be necessary especially if they are coming in contact with people outside their climate. For example, the Native Americans ended up getting ill because the Europeans carried illnesses that their immune system was not capable of fighting. This would be reason enough to help them especially if this is true for the local tribe at least for a season.
Yes, there is a concept of ownership and clan areas. Yes, they want education and healthcare (at least in theory, when it comes time to attend school faithfully every day some people do find that they cannot sit still like that). Yes, they want technology. They do not understand the full impact of assimilating into the outside world.
Many of the same abuses towards the Amercian Indians is happening here. People shipping in hard liquor to cloud their minds, bad land deals to sign when the people cannot read, re-education at schools (Islamic schools), encouraging birth control and sterilization. The American Indians often rampaged and killed settlers and those settlers then often killed back...and then some, but this very rarely happens where I am working, so there is no excuse for these abuses.
RobertPGH1981
Puritan Board Sophomore
From a biblical standpoint the law of love and the fact we are all created in God's image is enough to justify it. But through legal channels I am sure there is a lot of complexity. In my personal opinion the Gold mining company should be forking over large sums of money to these people groups to improve the quality of life. You could also try to send Media Kits to major news stations (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, BBC).
https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/fs9Rev.2.pdf
https://www.ohchr.org/en/AboutUs/CivilSociety/Pages/Handbook.aspx
Great organization that offers microloans to struggling families / people groups:
https://www.kiva.org/
https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/fs9Rev.2.pdf
https://www.ohchr.org/en/AboutUs/CivilSociety/Pages/Handbook.aspx
Great organization that offers microloans to struggling families / people groups:
https://www.kiva.org/
- Status
