[Oe List ...] A Matter of Human Rights

[Susan Fertig]

Randy, thank you for that research and reasoned response. And yes, you got
my point exactly.  I still feel that this country's incredibly generous
citizenry has demonstrated over and over again that, presented with a need,
they will respond.  But when government co-opts that role, they turn away.
This current government has already created a situation that is
unsustainable financially, even without the addition of universal health
care.  Individuals and communities are much more creative and capable of
finding solutions than the massive and unwieldy machine that the federal
government is.  Canada has already proclaimed that its health system is
unsustainable and has warned the U.S. against using it as a model.
 
Susan
 

  _____  

From: oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf
Of R Williams
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 12:45 PM
To: Colleague Dialogue; Order Ecumenical Community
Subject: [Oe List ...] A Matter of Human Rights



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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20090902/59d96162/attachment.html>