You are here: Home / Podcast / CMW031: Rights, a Three Legged Stool

CMW031: Rights, a Three Legged Stool

January 30, 2012 By 12 Comments
Play

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Rights, a Three Legged Stool. Why you have 3 basic rights and you either have all or nothing. Some thoughts.

Notes

Ask your questions or share your feedback

Please connect with me

Related posts:

  1. CMW023: Social Justice, Rapists and what they have in common
Filed Under: Podcast Tagged With: , , , , , , ,
  • ShadesofGra

    What's the Biblical basis of this arguement?

    I believe that you will not be able to find consistent Biblical backing for Life, Liberty, and Property as a concept of Christianity.

    The core concept of Christianity, as it relates to individual obligation, is as follows:
    "As I have loved you, so you must love one another." John 13:34b (http://niv.scripturetext.com/john/13.htm)
    Extend this principle to all of life and you will find that rights, in their entirety, are a human construction.

  • SciPhi75

    I would actually cite the OT as a biblical justification for my position. Secifically the 10 commandments and the their prohibition on murder and theft combined with the tolerance shown to sojounrers in Israel (Ex 22:21). We are talking about the rights safe guarded by the state after all and the OT Law is quite a useful framework for considering ways to structure a government and specifically a constitutional form of government. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I agree the duties of Christians are different from the duties merely of me person to another but that doesn't mean that the idea of basic God given rights are not biblical. After all the American founders thought of them as the rights you get by virtue of being made in the image of God

    • ShadesofGra

      The idea of Life, Liberty and Property as God given rights is not biblical!
      God has given us life as a gift, and made us in His image such that we may choose whether or not to have a relationship with Him. The only right that He has given us is, on the basis of us accepting Christ's sovereignty, the right to be called His sons and daughters, (something that was previously reserved for the Israelites.)

      AT NO TIME has God ever said, "you have a right to your life," or "you have a right to live however you please," or "you have a right to own anything that I have created." On the contrary, God says that everything belongs to Him and that you owe everything that you have to Him. Not just Christians, everyone. (This is why rejection of Him is such a serious matter. It is the equivalent of stealing from God.)

      • SciPhi75

        You say "life, liberty and property" as "God given" rights is unbiblical but I don't think this is so. Especially given the extent and context of those rights. Keep in mind that I am not suggesting the basic rights we have apply in our relationship to God but I would contend that they are actually derived from it, and again, they are rights in a man/man context not a man/God context.

        I disagree that God has never said "you have a right to life". The very prohibition in the 10 commandments against illegitimate killing (You know, broader than "murder" but not a blanket prohibition on all killing, there are exceptions, but this is a seperate topic) states in our relationships to other men that you do have a right to life. Especially as God ultimately is the author of that life and it is his to do with as he pleases (Potter and the clay from Romans 9 for example) not ours to take from another.

        Interestingly you suggest that a right to liberty is a right to live "however you please". Actually that conception of liberty is a fairly modern invention. In the past a "right to liberty" was understood as "the freedom to live as you ought" not "the freedom to live as you want". I think the older understanding is the right one and the new conception is a perversion of this so I think we may simply be talking past each other on this point, but I will let you clarify.

        Also a right to property is a right not to have your possessions taken from you by another person and there are a couple of commandments condemming theft and even covetousness. I agree we owe all to God and everything is ultimately his, noi argument, but the context of property rights applies in relation to interactions with other men not between man and God. So I think again we may simply be talking past each other.

        • ShadesofGra

          You said:
          "Interestingly you suggest that a right to liberty is a right to live "however you please". Actually that conception of liberty is a fairly modern invention. In the past a "right to liberty" was understood as "the freedom to live as you ought" not "the freedom to live as you want". I think the older understanding is the right one and the new conception is a perversion of this so I think we may simply be talking past each other on this point, but I will let you clarify. "

          Please go and listen to your audio again, in particular time stamp 14:50 on, and 19:00 on.

          • SciPhi75

            My apologies I misspoke I think or need more nuance. There is something to the idea of liberty that says you may live as you wish provided you are not harming others. Unfortunately this idea is always going to be one in tension. We put up with things we disagree with, we tolerate them, but that has been perverted into a demand for acceptance that is ultimately not compatible with the idea of liberty. As I said in the podcast the notion "of not harming others" is one that needs to be carefully defined.

    • ShadesofGra

      Coming back to the Mosaic covenant we see that it is just that, a covenant, of which the Ten Commandments were one part of one side of the agreement. But why this? Did God have to make a covenant with his creation? No, of course not! But God chose to use a human construction, a covenant, such that simple human minds had something familiar to work with. But this in no way detracts from the fact that the Ten Commandments were obligations, not rights. Further, we must also see that no simple individual is without sin, and we are therefore in no position to claim God's side of the agreement as our rights.

      As you can see, the American founders made a mistake, but they also took it one step further, the results of which are evident to this day. Effectively, what the American founding fathers did was to say, "we are as God."

      • SciPhi75

        Just a note. Think back to the start of the episode, I would argue that "Your right is my obligation" and vice versa. So if we do have obligations in our dealings with other men then they do in fact have rights because we have obligations. And again, we are talking about man/man not man/God interactions here.

        I'd profoundly disagree with your suggestion that the American founders ever claimed that "they were God". If anything I think they understood profoundly that that was exactly who they were not, unlike the rulers in Europe at the time. The whole point of a Natural Law that all men are under obligation too, and that the founders did draw from, is the idea that we do have obligations to God and our fellow men by virtue of being his creations.

        The founders made mistakes and they were not perfect, but I think it is a mistake to suggest they sought to set themselves up as god.

        Would you maybe be interested in doing a follow up interview show to hash this out a bit further? Could be fun.

  • SciPhi75

    I agree the bible hangs together as a whole, but keep in mind that in the context of the discussion the OT is far more relevant than the NT because the OT Law (in particular) is the blueprint for God's people in Israel as a nation state. The Church is not the State so you cannot expect to apply rules and principles for the Church to the State as a whole. They are not the same thing.

    Also, actually God does hand power and responsibility in the temporal realm over to the state for the administration of justice. This is affirmed in the new and old testament. Although it is a delegated power and ultimately God will see justice carried out.

    Additionally I think you misunderstand the notion of a right in this context. We have "rights" as claims of obligation against our fellow man precisely because God makes the rules and we are his creations. Am I right in assuming you seem to think that the notion of rights implies some sort of set of "rights" we have to hold over God?

  • ShadesofGra

    I'm going to have to break this up again because of word limits…

    Let's take a step back and look at the broader picture.

    The concept of rights, as they relate to human interaction, has its basis in systems of value.
    My value as an individual is intrinsically linked with my purpose – outside of this purpose I have no intrinsic value. The only value that I might claim outside of my purpose is a construct of my own devising.

    So what is my purpose?
    Though there may be much debate on this question the biblical perspective on it seems quite clear – God created man for the purpose of having a relationship with Him. (Some may suggest that our purpose is to glorify God. I would suggest that this is just a natural by-product of our relationship with Him and that it is not the end goal.) So, given that our purpose is to have a relationship with God, our value is based upon us being in this relationship.
    continued…

  • ShadesofGra

    Strange, I can't see the rest of the thread, (ie I can see my first post on 17/02/2012 but nothing after it.)

  • SciPhi75

    I seem to be having he same problem. Let me see what I can do :S