Human Rights & Christianity: How a Biblical View of Man Resolves the Question of Human Rights
Hardly a day goes by that an example of
human atrocity isn’t making the news. Christians are tortured and murdered.[i]
Hundreds of women and girls are kidnapped and raped by terrorists.[ii] A
celebrity is found guilty of fatal domestic violence.[iii]
Another human trafficking ring is busted.[iv]
These kinds of reports shock and appall us, as well they should. Left with a
vexing queasiness, we question why these horrific events happen and wonder if
there is a solution to the problem of Human Rights violations. We feel like
something should be done.
To find an answer to the Human Rights
problem, we must understand what are Human Rights and where they come from.
This paper will take a look at the traditional view of Human Rights, compare
different worldviews on Human Rights, and conclude that a biblical worldview of
man and the Gospel message are the best approach to the Human Rights issue and
a solution to the problem.
Traditional View of Human Rights
The dreadfulness of the Holocaust
was a catalyst for the Human Rights movement. In response to the mass torture
and murder inflicted on approximately six million Jews by German Nazis, nations
came together and formed the United Nations.[v] In
1948 the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(“UDHR”).[vi]
Often quoted, the UDHR preamble states in part:
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, Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have
resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and
the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and
belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration
of the common people…Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve,
in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and
fundamental freedoms…[vii]
The
UDHR was adopted as a consequence of the heinous events of World War II in an
effort to prevent a repeat of such a horrendous experience.[viii]
“With the end of that war, and the creation of the United Nations, the
international community vowed never again to allow atrocities like those to
happen again.”[ix]
Three key concepts can be found in
the traditional view of Human Rights: “Inherent Dignity,” “Universality,” and
“Higher Law.” “Inherent dignity” and “universality” are found in the UDHR.
“Higher Law” was the basis for the convicting WWII German military leaders of
war crimes at the Nuremburg trials.[x]
In general, the traditional view of
Human Rights appeals to a “Higher Law,” which means that nations and any
man-made law are subject to the law of God and the laws of nature.[xi]
This is commonly known as a Law above the law. Additionally, Human Rights are
based upon the “Inherent Dignity” of human beings, that is the unique value and
worth with which humans are born.[xii]
Finally, Human Rights are “Universal,” which we know intuitively means belonging
to all human beings—regardless of gender, race, class, wealth, education,
mental or physical abilities. To summarize this traditional view, Human Rights
come from God, and gives unique and immense value to all human beings. As we
will see below, there is only one worldview that is consistent with this
traditional view of Human Rights, despite competing worldviews.[xiii]
Although the UNDHR was founded on
these key concepts supporting the idea of Human Rights, eventually the
traditional view was undermined by atheist philosophers who searched for an
explanation for Human Rights, apart from the existence of God.[xiv]
If we want an answer to what is the source of inherent dignity of all human
beings, the answer isn’t clear if we take God out of the picture or have a
distorted understanding of God. In fact, the rejection of God or
misunderstanding of God can actually contribute to the Human Rights problems,
as we shall see. Let’s take a look at different worldviews to see if they
provide a solution to the problem that underlies the Human Rights discussion—do
all human beings have inherent dignity?
Comparison of Worldview Philosophies of Human Rights
Atheist Darwinist Worldview
The Atheist worldview of Human Rights
cannot appeal to Higher Law since atheists don’t hold a belief in God or gods.[xv]
Science professor and author Jerry Bergman explains that without a belief in
God, evolutionary science, based on a naturalistic worldview, becomes a god or
religion.[xvi] In the 19th
Century Charles Darwin popularized the theory of evolution, or natural
selection, otherwise commonly known as “survival of the fittest.”[xvii]
A Darwinist view of the world values the strong over the week and contributes
to the evils of eugenics, racism, sexism, capitalism, Nazism, and communism.[xviii]
Moreover, the idea of a “violent revolution in which the strong overthrow the
weak” came from Darwin’s theory.[xix]
Bergman claims that “naturalistic evolution theory, especially as popularized
by Darwin,” was critical in influencing Stalin, Lenin, Marx, Mao, and Hitler.[xx]
He states:
A
central plant in Nazism, communism, and other totalitarianism movements was
eugenics…Eugenics, the “science” of improving the human race by scientific
control of breeding, was viewed by a large percentage of all life scientists,
professors, and social reformers for over a century as an important, if not a
major, means of accomplishing the goal of producing paradise on earth…The
now-infamous eugenics movement grew from the core concepts of biological
evolution—primarily those ideas expounded by Charles Darwin…[xxi]
Ironically,
eugenics may have originated as a means to move humans towards perfection,
however, “it eventually led to some of the most heinous crimes mankind has ever
seen.”[xxii]
Clearly, eugenics is inconsistent with Human Rights, dignity and value for all
human beings.
What then is the atheist’s solution to
the Human Rights problem? Philosopher Richard Rorty, who insisted the original
foundation of the Human Rights culture is “outmoded,” rejected the traditional
view of Human Rights and favored taking a “pragmatic view,” i.e. “how best to
grab hold of history.”[xxiii]
In other words, if people just become more educated about the mistakes of the
past, like the atrocities of WWII, we can avoid such Human Rights violations.
Arguably since WWII there has been much
education regarding the importance of Human Rights. Lest we forget the lessons
we should learn, people can visit one of many Holocaust war memorials, like Yad
Vashem in Israel. But has education helped improve Human Rights since WWII?
Let’s first take a look at Islam.
Islamic Worldview
The Islamic worldview does appeal to a
Higher Law (i.e. Allah) but it most certainly does not give equal value and
dignity to all human beings. For example, according to the Quran women do not
have the same rights as men.[xxiv]
Husbands have authority over their wives, and even permission to strike them:
Men
are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other
and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are
devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have
them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise
them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them.
But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is
ever Exalted and Grand.[xxv]
Another
thing is clear, non-Muslims to not have the same rights as Muslims.[xxvi]
Moreover, Muslims who leave Islam acquire a death sentence.[xxvii]
Amnesty International, well known
for its human rights advocacy, and a huge supporter of the United Nations,
warned in its 2016 report that Human Rights violations is an escalating problem.[xxviii]
The report highlights Syria, a predominantly Muslim country, as “one horrific
example of the catastrophic human consequences of a systemic failure of the UN
to fulfil [sic] its vital role in upholding rights and international law and
ensuring accountability.”[xxix]
Other Muslim countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia made the list of problem
countries, whereas Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Indonesia are noticeably
missing.[xxx]
With the Quran as the guide to Islam
and the atrocious Human Rights track record found in many Islamic countries,
one can see why it is easy to dismiss Islam as a worldview that cannot explain
Human Rights nor find a solution for the problem.
Hindu Worldview
The Hindu view of God is rather
complicated, often espousing a belief in one Supreme God who is revealed in
many different forms, while allowing for thousands of other lesser gods and
goddesses.[xxxi] Hinduism does not
provide for dignity for all human beings, because it is based on the caste
system, that is, some people are more valuable than others.[xxxii]
For example, Brahmins are the highest class and have more rights than the
lowest class of people, who are still referred to as the “untouchables.”[xxxiii]
Christian apologist Greg Koukl said this
about Hinduism after a trip to India: “Hinduism is supposedly a very tolerant
religion. This really isn't true in practice because Christians are ostracized,
especially Hindus who become Christians. They are often ostracized from
their families. So much for the religion that accepts all other
religions.”[xxxiv]
One problem with Hinduism is the theory
that everything is an illusion. If everything is an illusion, then you can’t
know anything. This means you cannot know morality either. “Consequently, if
you can’t know a moral truth then there is ultimately no distinction between
good and evil…This is one reason you can see incredible debauchery and evil
among the highest members of the Hindu castes.”[xxxv] For
example, India, predominantly Hindu, experiences daily violence, “where
brutality and torture have become a daily routine and which have reached a new
level.”[xxxvi]
Even the abhorrent practice of widow burning is still practiced in India (when
a husband dies, the widow either voluntarily, or through force or coercion, is
burned alive on her husband’s funeral pyre).[xxxvii]
Clearly Hinduism cannot provide the basis
for Human Rights if it is unable to separate good and evil, and does not
recognize the inherent human dignity for all.
Buddhist Worldview
The Buddhist worldview is not
theistic, so an appeal to God’s law is tricky.[xxxviii]
Buddhism does not recognize rights or dignity of
humans, and holds that no one exists independently.[xxxix] Additionally, Buddhism views some people as more valuable
than others due to its origination in the caste system as seen in hierarchical
Asian societies.[xl] Inherency and universality of Human
Rights simply do not apply in Buddhism. Therefore,
trying to justify a Human Rights argument is a thorny issue for Buddhists.
History professor and Buddhist Damien Keown admits this in his article “Are
there ‘Human Rights’ in Buddhism?” He confesses that it is virtually impossible
for Buddhists to even discuss human dignity:
It is by no
means apparent, however, how human dignity is to be grounded in Buddhist
doctrine. The very words “human dignity” sound as alien in a Buddhist context
as talk of rights...If human dignity is the basis of human rights Buddhism
would seem to be in some difficulty when it comes to providing a justification
for them. The theistic religions, on the other hand, seem much better equipped
to provide an account of human dignity. Christians, Muslims and Jews typically
refer to the ultimate source of human dignity as divine.[xli]
Without the ability to accept the concept of human dignity,
Buddhists are forced to twist word meanings and theories to justify what they
must know in their hearts and conscience to be true—Human Rights are important.[xlii]
For example, the Dalai Lama repeatedly calls for the respect of Human Rights.[xliii]
However, Buddhists are incapable of a coherent explanation. They are left with
an impossible challenge to come up with a justification for Human Rights that
is consistent with their worldview.
No
doubt there are atheists, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists who believe in and
advocate for Human Rights, which is marvelous. However, the ironic thing is
that their worldview is not consistent with their position and advocacy for
Human Rights.[xliv] They are forced to
borrow arguments from the traditional view of Human Rights, which can only be
found in biblical Christianity, which we will see below. These other worldviews
cannot justify inherent human dignity for all human beings. Arguably it seems
these four worldviews actually contribute to the Human Rights problem. Not to
leave us without hope, there is a worldview that explains Human Rights, where
it comes from, why it is important, and even offers a solution to the problem.
Let’s take a look at the biblical Christian worldview.
Biblical Christian Worldview
The Christian view of Human Rights
includes a belief in God, and that God created man and woman in His image.[xlv] God
is love and He loves us.[xlvi]
Therefore, He created human beings from love, through love, to love.[xlvii]
Through the first sin of Adam and Eve, all mankind became separated from God.[xlviii]
We are all lost sinners in need of a savior.[xlix]
However, the good news is that God loves us so much, He sent His Son Jesus to
provide a way for us to be reconciled to Him, through His death on the cross.[l]
For those who believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior, they are reconciled to God
and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.[li]
This is the essence of the Gospel message of Christianity.
What gives something value? The identity
and signature/imprint of the creator of something helps establish its value.
For example, a signed painting by Rembrandt has more value than a finger
painting by an anonymous child. Why? We admire the well-known skill, expertise,
and genius of Rembrandt; we do not find the same talent and ability in the
child’s finger painting. Additionally, the signature on a painting by a famous
artist increases the value because we know who painted it—someone very
important; we don’t know the identity of the anonymous child. Christians believe that men and women were
created by God, in the image of God. When He created us in His image, this left
His signature or imprint on us. This gives us immense value.
Another way to determine the value of
something is what a buyer is willing to pay a seller for something in a given
market and the seller is willing to accept. For example, in determining fair
market value of a house, it is based on what amount someone would actually pay
to purchase the house in the market at the time, and the seller would be
willing to accept. This is true regardless of whether the owner may think it is
worth much more than anyone is willing to pay. Christians believe that God
revealed the value of men and women when He paid an astronomical price for us,
when He sent His Son Jesus to die on a cross in order to redeem us. This
demonstrates how enormously valuable we are to God.
This concept of the inherent value of men
and women is universal to all human beings. The Psalmist King David describes
how specially and beautifully God created each of us with a purpose:
For
you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise
you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I
know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the
secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes
saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book
before one of them came to be.[lii]
This
concept of universality is confirmed by the apostle Peter, “[God] is patient
with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”[liii]
Human rights can only be legitimately justified by the Christian worldview
because only in Christianity do we find inherent dignity and value in all human
life.
If Human
Rights is only legitimately justified by the Christian worldview, does this
worldview also have a solution to the problem of violations of Human Rights?
Christianity holds that the problem of Human Rights is not external. It is
internal, a sin problem, a heart problem. The Scriptures tell us: “The heart is
deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?”[liv]
and “For out of the heart come evil thoughts,
murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.”[lv]
Everyone is born with a sin problem.[lvi]
If the problem
of Human Rights is a sin problem, a heart problem, what is the solution
proposed by the Christian worldview? The solution is found in the Gospel
message – we need a new heart, a new nature, which is only possible through
believing in and following Jesus.[lvii]
Conclusion
[i] Samuel Smith, “ISIS Using
Churches as Torture Chambers, Forcing Christians to Convert or Be Killed,” Christian Post, September 21, 2015,
accessed May 14, 2016, http://www.christianpost.com/news/isis-using-churches-as-torture-chambers-forcing-christians-to-convert-or-be-killed-145814/.
[ii] Adam Nossiter, “Boko Haram Militants
Raped Hundreds of Female Captives in Nigeria,” The New York Times, May
18, 2015, accessed May 14, 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/19/world/africa/boko-haram-militants-raped-hundreds-of-female-captives-in-nigeria.html?_r=0.
[iii] “Oscar Pistorius found guilty of culpable homicide,” BBC News, September 12, 2014, accessed May 14, 2016,
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-29149581.
[iv] Aaron Mesmer, “Human
Trafficking Ring Busted in New Port Richey,” Fox 13 News, May 11, 2016, accessed May 14, 2016, http://www.fox13news.com/news/local-news/140128606-story.
[v] “History of the Document
[UDHR],” United Nations, accessed May
14, 2016, http://www.un.org/en/sections/universal-declaration/history-document/index.html.
[vi] Ibid.
[vii] “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” United Nations, accessed May 14, 2016, http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/;
emphasis added. “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a
milestone document in the history of human rights. Drafted by representatives
with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world,
the Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris
on 10 December 1948 General Assembly resolution 217A as a common standard of
achievements for all peoples and all nations. It sets out, for the first time,
fundamental human rights to be universally protected.”
[viii] “History of the Document
[UDHR],” United Nations.
[ix] Ibid.
[x] Judge Roy Moore, “Nazis, Nuremberg and the law of God,” WorldNetDaily, April
11, 2007, accessed May 15, 2016, http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41028/. “…on what basis could
the victor nations presume to convene these war crimes trials in Nuremberg? The
answer to that question is found in the opening statement of the lead
prosecutor at Nuremburg, Robert Jackson, who was also a justice on the United
States Supreme Court at the time. Justice Jackson stated that ‘even rulers are,
as Lord Chief Justice Coke said to King James, “under God and the law.”’ The
Nuremberg Court rejected the argument of Nazi defendants that there was no
pre-existing law and appealed to natural
law in its judgment, noting that “so far from it being unjust to
punish [them], it would be unjust if [their] wrong[s] were allowed to go
unpunished. Despite the fact that the defendants were following orders and laws
of their country, they were found guilty of violating a higher law to which all nations
were equally subject.”
[xi] Ibid.
[xii] Donna Hicks, “What Is the
Real Meaning of Dignity?: Few People Realize It’s Extraordinary Impact on our
Lives,” Psychology Today, April 10,
2013, accessed May 16, 2016, https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dignity/201304/what-is-the-real-meaning-dignity-0.
[xiii] This traditional view of
Human Rights can be found in the United States Declaration of Independence: “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.” See “Declaration of
Independence,” The Charters of Freedom,
accessed May 19, 2016, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html.
[xiv] Richard Rorty, “Human
Rights, Rationality, and Sentimentality,” On
Human Rights: The Oxford Amnesty Lectures 1993, ed. Stephen Shute and Susan
Hurley (Basic Books, 1993), 112-134.
[xv] “What is Atheism?,” American Atheists, accessed May 19,
2016, https://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism.
[xvi] Jerry Bergman, The Darwin Effect: It’s Influence on Nazism,
Eugenics, Racism, Communism, Capitalism & Sexism (Master Books, 2014),
7, 10-11.
[xvii] Ibid., 9-11.
[xviii] Ibid., 10-11.
[xix] Ibid., 268.
[xx] Ibid., 267.
[xxi] Ibid., 43.
[xxii] Ibid., 58.
[xxiii] Rorty, “Human Rights,
Rationality and Sentimentality,” 116, 118.
[xxiv] The Noble Quran: an effort of the Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project,
Sura 4:34, accessed May 16, 2016, http://quran.com/4/34-44.
[xxv] Ibid.
[xxvi] Samuel Shahid, “Rights of
Non-Muslims in an Islamic State,” Answering
Islam, accessed May 16, 2016, http://www.answering-islam.org/NonMuslims/rights.htm.
[xxvii] Ibid. “Once a person
becomes a Muslim, he cannot recant. If he does, he will be warned first, then
he will be given three days to reconsider and repent. If he persists in his
apostasy, his wife is required to divorce him, his property is confiscated, and
his children are taken away from him. He is not allowed to remarry. Instead, he
should be taken to court and sentenced to death.”
[xxviii] “Amnesty International
State of the World 2015-2016,” Amnesty
International, February 23, 2016, accessed May 14, 2016,
http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/reports/amnesty-international-state-of-the-world-2015-2016?page=show.
[xxix] Ibid.
[xxx] Ibid. Ironically, the
United States is on the list with the likes of Syria for, “the continuing operation
of the Guantanamo detention centre, an example of the grave consequences of its
‘global war on terror’; and its failure to prosecute those responsible for
torture and enforced disappearances.”
[xxxi] “Hinduism: Beliefs about
God,” BBC, accessed May 18, 2016, http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/rs/god/hinduismrev1.shtml.
[xxxii] Jayaram V, “Hinduism and
Caste System,” Hinduewebsite.com,
accessed May 18, 2016, http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_caste.asp.
[xxxiii] Ibid.
[xxxiv] Greg Koukl, “Reflections on
Hinduism,” Stand to Reason, February
21, 1993, accessed May 16, 2016, http://www.str.org/articles/reflections-on-hinduism#.VzqILZODGko.
[xxxv] Ibid.
[xxxvi] Shiv Visvanathan, “The ‘everydayness’ of our violence,” The Hindu, (May 10, 2016), accessed May
18, 2016, http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/the-everydayness-of-our-violence/article8576738.ece.
[xxxvii] Linda Heaphy, “Life in
India: The Practice of Sati or Widow Burning,” Kashgar: Life for the Modern Nomad, accessed May 19, 2016, http://www.kashgar.com.au/articles/life-in-india-the-practice-of-sati-or-widow-burning.
[xxxviii] Damien Keown, “Are there
‘Human Rights’ in Buddhism?,” Urban Dharma:
Buddhism in America, accessed May 17, 2016, http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma/humanrights.html.
[xxxix] Ibid.
[xl] Ibid.
[xli] Ibid.
[xlii] Ibid.
[xliii] Ibid.
[xliv] Tanya Walker, “Genesis -
The Christian's Claim to Human Rights” (video of lecture, What Does It Mean To
Be Human?: An RZIM in Asia Apologetics Conference, September 18-20, 2014),
accessed May 14, 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yQKlEg2RJg. Walker’s
lecture provided the launching pad for this paper.
[xlv] Genesis 1:27. All Scripture
quotations from the New International Version unless otherwise noted.
[xlvi] 1 John 4:7-12.
[xlvii] Michelle Tepper,
“Apologetics for Doctrine of Trinity,” (video of lecture, RZIM beta testing of
online apologetics program), accessed Summer 2013, URL unavailable.
[xlviii] Gen. 3:1-24; Rom. 5:12-19;
Isa. 59:2.
[xlix] Rom. 3:23; Eph 2:1-10.
[l] John 3:16-17.
[li] Rom. 10:9-10; Eph. 1:13-14.
[lii] Psalm 139:13-16.
[liii] 2 Pet. 3:9.
[liv] Jer. 17:9.
[lv] Matt. 15:19.
[lvi] Rom. 3:23.
[lvii] Eze. 36:26-27; 2 Cor. 5:17;
John 3:3-8.
[lviii] Isa. 1:17; Luke 10:25-37; Luke
4:18.
Comments
Post a Comment