Bill of Rights Gone Awry
Women’s rights, black rights, animal rights, gay rights, civil rights, migrant’s rights, abortion rights, prison rights, Palestinian rights—and I could go on and on. In today’s world it seems everybody and his uncle has a claim to some kind of "right." It makes you wonder if this is truly what our founding fathers had in mind when they crafted the "Bill of Rights" in 1789.
One day when I was particularly up to my eyeballs with scenes of angry fist-pumpers, I decided I better come to grips with this issue before I completely lost it and took to the streets myself to protest the protestors with some kind of "right" claim of my own. ‘Now that would be totally insane,’ I thought.
But, no, I did not rush out to Barnes & Nobles to pick up the latest self-help book, or consult Dr. Phil, or (heaven forbid!) dial up Oprah. Instead, I opened up the only book I trust to give fresh insight into life’s questions and struggles, and I began an all-out search for the term "rights" somewhere in the texts.
I searched and searched, but search as I might, the strange thing is, nowhere could I find any language that speaks in terms of "rights." What I did find instead is that all of the scripture’s instruction is phrased in the language of "responsibilities"—responsibility to one’s family, responsibility to one’s community, and responsibility to God.
Scripture is preeminently concerned with the welfare of the poor and the underprivileged, I realize that, but I found that the text nonetheless speaks only of our obligations, not our "rights." There is one place I discovered that the text perhaps alludes to human rights: in the treatment of slaves and indentured servants. Of the possible "rights" of a slave, the verse states, "for it goes well for him beside you" (Deuteronomy 15:16). The Jewish Rabbis take this to mean that a slave is to be fed and clothed well, he is not be overworked, nor embarrassed or belittled in any way, and if his master abuses him physically, he is allowed to go free (on this latter point, see Exodus 21:26-27).
As I pondered these things, it occurred to me that the scripture is making a subtle point, but when the ear truly hears it, the truth rings out loud and clear. The point is this: the difference between "rights" and responsibilities is the difference between slavery and freedom. For a free person is not defined by the "rights" he or she deserves, but by the responsibilities that he or she bears.
Freedom is not an end unto itself, to be the focus of legislation; it is instead a means to something greater, to bring "blessing" to the world. Only a person under the subjugation of another needs "rights," but since scripture views God’s people as intrinsically free (the First Commandment states, I am YHWH your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery . . .), it makes us "responsible" for others and for the entire world.
One day when I was particularly up to my eyeballs with scenes of angry fist-pumpers, I decided I better come to grips with this issue before I completely lost it and took to the streets myself to protest the protestors with some kind of "right" claim of my own. ‘Now that would be totally insane,’ I thought.
But, no, I did not rush out to Barnes & Nobles to pick up the latest self-help book, or consult Dr. Phil, or (heaven forbid!) dial up Oprah. Instead, I opened up the only book I trust to give fresh insight into life’s questions and struggles, and I began an all-out search for the term "rights" somewhere in the texts.
I searched and searched, but search as I might, the strange thing is, nowhere could I find any language that speaks in terms of "rights." What I did find instead is that all of the scripture’s instruction is phrased in the language of "responsibilities"—responsibility to one’s family, responsibility to one’s community, and responsibility to God.
Scripture is preeminently concerned with the welfare of the poor and the underprivileged, I realize that, but I found that the text nonetheless speaks only of our obligations, not our "rights." There is one place I discovered that the text perhaps alludes to human rights: in the treatment of slaves and indentured servants. Of the possible "rights" of a slave, the verse states, "for it goes well for him beside you" (Deuteronomy 15:16). The Jewish Rabbis take this to mean that a slave is to be fed and clothed well, he is not be overworked, nor embarrassed or belittled in any way, and if his master abuses him physically, he is allowed to go free (on this latter point, see Exodus 21:26-27).
As I pondered these things, it occurred to me that the scripture is making a subtle point, but when the ear truly hears it, the truth rings out loud and clear. The point is this: the difference between "rights" and responsibilities is the difference between slavery and freedom. For a free person is not defined by the "rights" he or she deserves, but by the responsibilities that he or she bears.
Freedom is not an end unto itself, to be the focus of legislation; it is instead a means to something greater, to bring "blessing" to the world. Only a person under the subjugation of another needs "rights," but since scripture views God’s people as intrinsically free (the First Commandment states, I am YHWH your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery . . .), it makes us "responsible" for others and for the entire world.
posted by Rev. Jo | 4:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home