Who Puts the 'Universal' in Universal Human Rights?

From an aesthetic stand point, I really like this visualization of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  

I find it interesting that at the very beginning, when the statement of who the Declaration applies to ("every man, woman and child") is illustrated, the icon for man/woman is a root that simultaneously grows up into a recognizable human shape, and down as a root.  However, the animation for "child" is simply a root, with no corresponding above-ground human shape.  My initial impulse is to assume they are making a statement about the definition of 'child', and that the statement asserts the sanctity and protected status of children who are not yet born.  That would be encouraging, except the very next portion of the Declaration is that the rights to be mentioned apply to those who are "born".  Birth is the action which conveys these 'universal' rights to someone, apparently.  

This isn't the first time I've read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), but each time I come across it, I can't help but taste bitter, bloody, irony.  

The document has no statement of the source or rationale or reason for asserting these rights.  Probably because it has none.  The US Constitution, in framing similar statements about 'inalienable rights', has the decency to acknowledge that the source and rationale for these rights lies beyond the Constitution itself.  These rights are inalienable because of our status as created beings.  We are created, and there is a creator, and the creator is the one who dictates what rights ought to be inalienable.  Conversely, the UDHR simply states that we inherit these universal rights by basis of being born.  That's it.  If you're born, you get these rights.  Rights that are defined not by a creator, but by an arbitrary group of people.  Well-intentioned people, no doubt, but a group of well-intentioned people is pretty much indistinguishable from a group of ill-intentioned people.  Neither have any power or authority beyond what they are granted or what they can seize from others.  

So I imagine that, were a refugee from Darfur, who has been raped and beaten and watched her children and husband murdered, been read this declaration, she would have no trouble seeing the foolishness of it.  She would know first hand that the declarations of a person or people - any person or people - are arbitrary.  They are not only subject to the limitations of enforcement, but they are also capable of being rescinded or revoked or restricted whenever it suits people to do so.  What man giveth, man can take away.

What God gives, man can only deny - man can't take it away as though it never existed.  The equality and sanctity that we each are given by our Creator God cannot be taken away.  They can be given short-shrift in our life here.  They can be ignored by others.  They can be abused, even to the point of murder and the ending of our lives.  However, the divine equality and dignity and sanctity of our lives are not measured or controlled by others, and however much they might be denied us, that denial is temporal, not eternal.  

The UDHR is a collection of nice words and thoughts, but nice words and thoughts without any grounding, without any raison d'etre than the hopeful intentions of those who crafted it.  They are arbitrary words which sound nice, but are powerless both in their ability to, on their own, create rights, and in their ability to be enforced.  
Posted by Paul Nelson at 4/8/2009 1:29 PM
Categories: Theology, Citizenship, Politics, Life, Philosophy, Apologetics, History
 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this post
  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

  • 4/10/2009 8:40 AM JP wrote:
    Hi Paul. Thanks for another intriguing article.

    I think you are right that the UDHR is not the final word on human rights, and that it is, in fact, limited by the very people who create it. It will never be able to fully give what it promises, unlike our Creator who has fulfilled (and will consummate) all His promises. God's definition of human rights has eternal value.

    However, your article leaves little room for saying anything positive about the UDHR. While it is not perfect (I particularly agree with your assessment about what defines a human), there is much that is useful. The UDHR is a standard that is used to hold people and governments accountable. It has been used effectively by governments, IGOs, NGOs, and others to set agendas, exert pressure, engage in diplomacy, all in order to stand up for those that are oppressed. 48 countries speak louder than one. Personally, aside from a few quibbles that you ably bring up, I find much to applaud in the UDHR.

    In the left hand realm, this is exactly what the ruling authorities are supposed to do. We might prefer that governments dispense justice on the basis of God's law, but we have seen very clearly what a slippery slide that can be. Theocracy often leads to the same human rights violations that the UDHR seeks to eradicate.

    The job of the government is to govern well and govern justly. As far as it can go, the UDHR works this way. Of course it is limited by enforcement, but so are all laws in any country. Does that mean that they are useless?

    To the refugee from Darfur, I agree that the UDHR can offer little immediate comfort and relief. But without the UDHR we can offer even less. Of course, the best comfort and relief would be to introduce to her to the One True God who took her present and eternal "rights" so seriously that He died for her.
    Reply to this
    1. 4/10/2009 11:42 AM Paul Nelson wrote:
      Thanks J.P.  I didn't mean to say that good hasn't been done by the UDHR.  I'm not aware of what specific good it has done, but that's another matter entirely.  If you could provide some links or perspectives on the good it does, that would be great so I can learn more.

      My issue is more esoteric/theological (no surprise there, eh?!).  Ought we as Biblical Christians to support assertions regarding the nature of human rights which do not acknowledge, and are not actually based on or in, the Bible?  The UDHR is nice and all (another cool graphical presentation of it can be found here).  But who determines what are rights?  For examples, Articles 13 & 15 seem pretty arbitrary to me.  They're nice ideas to be sure, but are they human rights on a par to justice?  Seems sketchy to me.  

      I'm all for things that promote good.  But our concept of left and right-hand kingdoms is not one (and correct me here if I'm speaking like a moron) that says that the left-hand kingdom can or should operate totally in a vacuum from Biblical revelation.  Luther understood that princes would execute authority in the left-hand kingdom, but did he anticipate that they would do so by determining for themselves what they thought was right?  My understanding and memory is that Luther assumed that even the left-hand kingdom understood that it was based upon and supported by the right-hand kingdom.  Maybe my memory is failing me with old age?

      And we're speaking in terms of left/right-hand kingdoms in relationship to those who execute authority.  I'm not arguing that my atheist neighbor is capable of being a very good neighbor even though he rejects God.  But does the same principle extend to rulers, specifically as defined in Luther's understanding of left and right-hand kingdoms?  



      Reply to this
  • 4/14/2009 1:44 AM JP wrote:
    Hi Paul! Thanks for your reply to my reply. Now let me reply again.

    Let me begin with the second point first. I could not agree with you more. The left-hand kingdom, as Luther framed it, does not (perhaps "should not" is safer) operate apart from the revelation of God through His means (Jesus and Scripture). There is no true law other than the Law of God. Any deviation therein is not desirable for the world, and in the long run will bring destruction.

    After reading your comment, I went back to a book from seminary days, and found a good relevant quote. From Kurt E. Marquart's "The Church and Her Fellowship, Ministry, and Governance," page 182.

    "...the Lutheran two-governments approach is in fact the only possible one in to-day's pluralistic culture. To dream now of imposing and enforcing "Christian" or "biblical" standards on society in general is to play into the hands of those who cry "Inquisition!" or "First Amendment!" whenever their trade in human blood and souls is challenged. Arguments made about public policy must rest on reasonable grounds accessible to all, not on special revelation acknowledged as such only by faith. The state accordingly must punish crimes against humanity, not sins against God."

    Marquart, in his often overdramatic way ("trade in human blood and souls"), speaks to our present societies when appeals to God's Law and God's way are met with cries of political incorrectness arrogance. This is expected unless we push for a theocracy. And yet Marquart asserts that we can talk of human rights, not apart from natural law, but without necessarily acknowledging it as such.

    The UDHR falls in right about here, no? It is document that has been agreed upon by a number of sources, using arguments which rest on"reasonable grounds accessible to all."

    However, as you rightly point out, it is flawed. It does make assertions that seem to contradict God's Law, or are at least ambiguous. These should not be supported by Christians. And some assertions just seem pointless (you are right about 13 and 15). Given these inadequacies, what is the Christian response? Is it to reject the document flat-out? I don't think so. I believe we should, as responsible Christians living in the left-had kingdom, speak out about those points we disagree with, as you have. As for those assertions that are good and right, it is our job to show the world the true Source from whom these human rights flow.
    Reply to this
    1. 4/14/2009 12:49 PM Paul Nelson wrote:
      Thanks for continuing this, J.P. - I was hoping you (and others) would.  

      We most definitely can - and should - talk of human rights from a perspective of natural law (general revelation), and much of my reading of late has been focused on this area.  Which I suspect is why the glaring lack of any sort of appeal to some sort of authoritative norm for the assertions in the UDHR strikes me as so dangerous.  While left-hand kingdom institutions and policies needn't directly base themselves on God's Word, if they don't, they need to explicitly indicate what their basis is.  Otherwise, the assertions are simply that.

      This is my beef with the UDHR.  Not that it doesn't have value, but that without grounding itself somehow, how can it be reasonably used as a basis for insisting on certain behaviors?  Or perhaps more frightening, it sets a dangerous precedent.  It makes baseless assertions about what should constitute people's rights, simply on the basis that it sounds nice.  But  if people are willingly to blindly follow the assertions of something that claims to be acting in their best interest, but doesn't show them how or why it is, and more importantly, how and why these particular assertions are grounded in the whole of human experience and history, then we simply train people to do whatever the current authority demands is the 'right' thing to do.  

      In the particular case of the UDHR, there are sections of it that seem to be rather biased towards the American understanding of freedom and human 'rights'.  Understandable, considering it's source, but problematic in application, I should think.  

      So no, we shouldn't reject the document flat out - at least not in it's entirety.  But we should be vocal about demanding that the basis for any sort of assertion or declaration be clearly laid out for everyone to examine.  Otherwise, we continue the trend of newspeak by which governments can redefine actions and behaviors and rights by controlling the use of language itself.

      Thanks for the thoughts - and kudos for referring to a book from Sem days!  

      Reply to this
  • 4/14/2009 2:38 AM JP wrote:
    In regards to your question about specific good that the UDHR has done, it depends on your definition of good. You asked for specific examples, and I don't think I can find any as emotionally stirring as a refugee from Darfur. But what if situations like this are never labeled as human rights violations? What if human rights NGOs do not speak out about issues like this? What if no one ever hears about them? I wonder then, if governments would be so willing, or feel so much pressure, to grant asylum to these refugees.

    Thus, a document like the UDHR is a link in the chain. It is the beginning. It works in the realm of advocacy, not action. And in that realm, I believe it has done good. Organizations like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Worldwide Organization against Torture, and others, all utilize the UDHR in writing reports and identifying human rights violations throughout the world. I do not support all the activities of these organizations, but many I do.

    OK, that's enough for now. Thanks for the conversation. I had fun thinking about this.
    Reply to this
    1. 4/14/2009 12:54 PM Paul Nelson wrote:
      Thanks for the follow-up on this as well.  While I'm familiar with the UDHR, it's something I've only become aware of in the last year or so.  Not that I'm the bellweather for what most people do or don't know, but I figure that something that claims to be as landmark as this does ought to be more widely publicized.  I thought perhaps your current situation and experience might have given you a better perspective on how it's being applied.  

      We definitely need to cry out when human rights are abused - the issue becomes one of who gets to define what human rights are, and what constitutes an abuse?  Is a government (any government) really the best source for such a statement?  That's the part that worries me.  I know that America has a rather spotty record in applying the lofty rhetoric we're fond of regarding human rights.  

      I agree that the organizations you list can do great good - though they certainly aren't neutral in their applications either.  But we need extra-governmental watchdog groups to keep governments accountable, and there could be far worse baselines than the UDHR to go by.  But I think that we need to question carefully where such statements of rights originate from, because more and more there will be rights included that we can't accept (as Biblical Christians), and yet we'll be expected - perhaps even required - to acknowledge and encourage them on pains of being labeled as human rights abusers.  

      Reply to this
  • 4/15/2009 7:21 AM J.P. wrote:
    Thanks, Paul. Great comments and good food for thought, especially in my current situation.
    Reply to this
Leave a comment

Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Name

 Email (will not be published)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.