Apr 10
20
“Human Rights” vs. God’s Law
“Human Rights” is a law code. As such, it’s mutually exclusive of God’s Law, the Decalogue. There may be touching points. God’s Law bans murder (Commandment #6). So does “Human Rights.” Wait a second, no it doesn’t. Well not for everyone. Not for unborn babies. And in some countries, not for those who want to commit suicide. The Separatist MP who is pushing euthanasia in Canada says all Canadians should have the right to die with dignity.
OK, theft. God’s Law bans theft (Commandment #8). So does “Human Rights.” Wait a second; maybe not. Politicians pillage us with extortionary taxes. And “human rights” in favour of employees, tenants and customers grant them special advantages at the expense of the business owners who are investing to provide goods and services. This violates property rights and, as such, is a form of theft.
The European Union commissioner for enterprise and industry escaped from the lunatic asylum and just declared vacationing to be a human right. “Human Rights” is somewhat malleable because it is developed within a relativistic system, but it constitutes a law code that competes with God’s Law.
Real law is more than just symbol. It is also substance. It did not take any effort at all to show that beyond the slogans – “Right to life”; “Right to personal ownership of property”; etc. – God’s Law and “Human Rights” are incompatible law codes.
Problem: Many Christians today have embraced the language of “human rights.” For some reason they seem to think they will be able to redefine “Human Rights” and use that language to win people over to a Christian way of thinking. These Christians think there is value in trying to claim such language.
But we already have language. It’s “God’s Law.” The problem is that many – most? – politically and culturally active Christians today are embarassed by the language of God’s Law. (In fact, some schools of theology don’t even think God’s Law is relevant to human life in our day.) Doesn’t the Bible say something about embarassment over Christ? If we’re embarassed at Him, He’ll be embarassed at us? Maybe there is a reason why we aren’t winning any culture wars!
But it’s just not sophisticated to talk about God’s Law; and there’s no middle ground to be found with our opponents when we use such language.
Well, there isn’t any common ground with “Human Rights” either if we understand “Human Rights” for what it is and choose not to compromise. What’s really going on is that we are willing to compromise our views to find common ground in a fantasy, but we aren’t requiring our opponents to compromise. In a military conflict, who wins? The army that compromises or the one that stands its ground? Hmmm, maybe there’s a reason we aren’t winning any culture wars!
One of the characteristics of ChristianGovernment is that we want to win the culture wars against liberals/humanists/socialists. But we don’t expect to realise victory if we don’t fight God’s way and honour God in the process.
“Human Rights” doesn’t require acknowledgement of God. It’s a humanistic, naturalistic model. That alone should prick the conscience of any spiritually sensitive Christian trying to draw primarily on “Human Rights” to articulate his moral demands. Christians need to make the case for God’s Law as the standard and criterion for establishing a just social order. It has worked in history and the future will unfold that way again in Canada and around the world. Ride the wave so you don’t drown…