[Dialogue] A Matter of Human Rights

[Colleen Smith]

Randy, 
Thank you so very much for your excellent research and very thoughtful reply.  If I copy and paste, thus eliminating the dialogue connection, may I share this?
Colleen

--- On Mon, 8/31/09, R Williams <rcwmbw at yahoo.com> wrote:


From: R Williams <rcwmbw at yahoo.com>
Subject: [Dialogue] A Matter of Human Rights
To: "Colleague Dialogue" <dialogue at wedgeblade.net>, "Order Ecumenical Community" <oe at wedgeblade.net>
Date: Monday, August 31, 2009, 10:44 AM







Colleagues,
 
The conversation about rights--generally "human" rights although the non-human has been interjected--has been fascinating.  I have been encouraged to go beyond my usual knee-jerk reactions when I hear something I disagree with.  So I've done a little research on the subject through religious and secular sources, namely the Social Principles of the United Methodist Church, The Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church and The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the U.N.  Interestingly, none of them gives a theoretical definition of "rights" or "human rights."  Each of them gives their list of human rights -and- each of them in one form or another proclaims human rights to be rooted in human dignity which, in the religious tradition is because of the belief that humans are created in the image of God.
 
The Methodists say, "We support the basic rights of all persons to equal access to housing, education, communication, employment, medical care, legal redress for grievances, and physical protection."  They then get more specific about the rights of particular groups--racial and ethnic persons, religious minorities, children, etc.
 
In the case of Catholics one must search a little more diligently since everytime a new Pope comes along he appears to write something somewhere that implies directly or indirectly a new stance on the subject.  The latest list of specific human rights I could find comes from the Pastoral Constitution of Vatican II and includes food, housing, work, education and access to culture, transportation, health care, the freedom of communication and expression, and the protection of religious freedom.
 
The UN Declaration has several very abstract human rights listed and reads in part a little like the American Bill of Rights enumerating a several items of "freedom from."  The more practical, material ones that compare with the Methodist and Catholic lists are found in Article 25 and include food, clothing, housing, medical care, security during unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age "or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."  Article 26 includes education as a right.  You really have to read the entire document to get the full impact.
 
These three sources, but especially the Catholic one, relate rights to responsibilities, insisting that every person has the responsibility not only to provide for his or her brothers and sisters but also, and perhaps first, for himself or herself.  When we hear strident voices that seek to deny basic material human rights to anyone and claim that all should make their own way, I believe they have the view that most people who lack basic necessities simply have not worked for them and therefore do not have a right to them.  The facts do not bear this out.  For example, nearly 50% of the 39 million Americans who live in poverty work at full-time jobs, some more than one job, and still are impoverished.  Others are the very young, the very old or the chronically ill.  When you put such faces on the need, what are their rights?
 
The issue, as I heard Susan Fertig raise it, was not whether people in dire circumstances should be provided a safety net, but who should provide it, and whether government has a role to play.  I appreciated Marsha Hahn's reminder that our government is "by the people, for the people and of the people," "we the people."  We and our government are not adversaries.  I believe it is naive to think that those in need can be provided for without government mandates in the form of legislation, funded by our taxes.  I believe the business and social sectors, including certainly faith-based groups, have an obligation to participate but for better or worse we cannot rely on the voluntary good will of the people anymore than we can rely on the trickle down of Reaganomics.  Not that legislation changes anyone's heart and mind, but where would we be today in terms of race relations and the practice of racial equality without the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
 
Each of us in deciding what we believe are inalienable human rights must rely on some kind of input to help us decide responsibly.  In the Christian faith, depending on the flavor we rely on some combination of Scripture, tradition, experience and common sense (reason.) Whether this or something else, I would encourage those ranters at the healthcare town meetings, etc., and each of us as well, to rely on something other than our own immediate emotional reactions.
 
Randy Williams
rcwmbw at yahoo.com

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
Dialogue mailing list
Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20090831/8a4f3bdd/attachment-0001.html>