challenging an axiom - the theory of rights

The Preamble: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence

It is upon this foundation - the theory of human rights - that the entire western civilization has established itself. There cannot be any value more central to a member of the West than this - above all in America. The concept of human rights is the most solid example of an axiom given the place of factual truth - a place it may actually occupy falsely. Together we will break down the concept of rights and see that it is derived from an ideology that is built around a belief that is, in turn, based on completely unsubstantiated ideas. Together we will take our first steps to seeing a world of truth and freedom that doesn't rely on rights - or acknowledge their existence.

The Case: This examination can get very heavy very quickly so let's take it step-by-step and start at the top. One of the most interesting thoughts expressed by Jefferson in his Declaration is the assertion that human rights are "self-evident". The reason this is interesting is because Jefferson is stating a belief of his as though it were completely and empirically factual. But nothing could have been further from the truth in his time - and this is still the case today. At the time of Jefferson the concept of rights under an arbitrary law derived from the citizenry was not only not self-evident, it was totally contrary to any system of government that had existed in the previous four thousand years. From ancient Sumeria to Georgian-era England the concept of human rights scarcely existed at all and, even then, it was in the minds of radicals that were not taken seriously by the majority of western society. There was nothing "self-evident" about rights and the great trick of Jefferson is to assert his position so boldly, so eloquently, and so passionately that it became the "truth". But the truth of rights and equality derives its authority not from objective reality but from the beliefs of the masses. The truth of this assessment is pointed to not only by history but by current events worldwide: there are hundreds, if not thousands, of societies and cultures around the world that do not recognize Jefferson's rights and they continue to retain what most would consider a peaceful or just society.

What the Declaration won't tell you is that Jefferson's notions of rights are heavily influenced by the writings of John Locke - most specifically Locke's Second Treatise of Government (1698) - and Thomas Paine's Common Sense (1776). Locke, a career political thinker and radical, makes it clear from the outset of his argument that the concept of private property and ownership is essential to the theory of human rights. (Section 35) In fact, one of his core human rights, is the right to property (replaced, by Jefferson, with "the pursuit of happiness"). Locke's argument also asserts that a man's life and liberty are simply manifestations of human ownership and that such ownership cannot (life, liberty, and property) be infringed upon by any other or by the state (government). There is one very deep-seated and fundamental problem with Locke's argument: if the idea of property and ownership were somehow changed or was understood differently, the entire "house of cards" that is human rights collapses on its own face. Herein lies the problem: there are ever increasing philosophical questions over, and realistic challenges to, the concept of ownership, property and - by extention - rights.

In short: our entire civilzation could be based on a complete fabrication.

This is a huge jump, a jarring conclusion. The possible denial of the validity of human rights is so uncomfortable, so potentially offensive, that it will strain any remaining credibility I have left among you. I simply ask you to hear me out and keep an open mind. I do not ask this question lightly and do not come to any conclusions with a cavalier attitude.

Locke, and Jefferson after him, argues that rights must be recognized and legalized in order to protect the holders from violation. While there are many rights there is a central core among them: "life, liberty, and property". What I find interesting - what stands out so incredibly - is that Locke's predication of rights is his own weakest link. What I mean by that is this: he claims that rights have to be protected and recognized in order to be secure, but I look at this and see the complete opposite: because they must be recognized, legalized, and protected - it is obvious that they do not actually exist! Whew, ok. Let's take a break from this for a second and skip over to an analogy.

Let's say I'm walking along in a field and I find an apple tree. By my own efforts (labor) I pick an apple from the tree. According to Locke, this makes me the owner of the apple. I own the apple simply because I exerted the labor to take it for myself. But this begs the question: how can something go from being in the domain of public (on the tree) to private (in my hand) simply because I decided to take it? Is that even ethical? Is it moral? Is it practical? Back to the analogy: along comes another man and he decides he wants the apple in my hand. He decides to make an effort (labor) to take the apple from my hand. But here's where the definition of ownership breaks down: Locke doesn't call that a transfer of ownership in the academic sense, he calls it robbery in the legal sense! But that begs the question: what's the difference between me laboring to take the apple from the tree and a man's labor to take the apple from me? If I work harder to take the apple from the tree than the tree works to keep it, and the man works harder at taking the apple from me than I do at keeping it... then how does that jibe? But it doesn't end there. Locke says that a man's willingness to "rob" me of my apple (property) constitutes a willingness by this man to steal everything else (my liberty and my life) and I am - according to Locke - authorized to kill that man. Yes - that's actually what he says. Your thirteen year old can kill the bully trying to take his lunch money... no problem, it's a "protected right". I hope that the ridiculous nature of this argument is becoming increasingly obvious to all of you.

But this is where I differ from Locke - right at the beginning. It has become evident to me that the very fact that a piece of private property can be "stolen" from me proves that such an object was never actually in my possession to begin with. In short: if it can be taken from you, you don't actually own it. Ownership must rely on intrinsic security to be real, otherwise it is contrived and false. I'm certain that there are those of you that would see this statement and say: "Well that's just irresponsible and naive." If you belive that, you're certainly entitled to your belief, but the facts and the reality of the world should easily bear out the truth. What's more: if the concept of ownership is not based on reality and fact, it will eventually fail (both individually and corporately) in the same way that ideology will eventually fail.

The final point of contention I will make is theological in nature. Jefferson declares that these "inalienable rights" are endowed by God to a people He has created in a state of equality. This, again, he absorbed from Lockean philosophy. Contrary to public opinion, Jefferson was no Christian. Oh yes - he had a copy of the Bible. Oh yes - he read from it daily. Oh yes - he dropped God's name into as much documentation as he could. But what they fail to tell most people is that Jefferson does not ever refer to God in the traditional sense. He does not refer to Him by the obvious and most oft-used title of "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" or the "God of the Bible". No, he constantly refers to God as "the God of Nature" or "Nature's God" very carefully leaving any Christian dogma or kerygma out of his authoritative writings. Even more disturbing to the Christian is that Jefferson had his copy of the Bible, literally, re-written to cut out any mention of miracles, supernatural occurrences, or - most especially - the divinity of Christ. He regarded (as Benjamin Franklin did) Christ not as the Son of God but as a moral teacher on the same level with the pagan Greek philosopher Socrates. The miracles of Jesus were considered a series of superstitions and legends. The resurrection was a physical impossibility. The narrative of Jesus Christ ended at the crucifixion in the Bible of Thomas Jefferson. And, as the Apostle Paul reminds us, "if Christ has not been raised then our preaching [of Christianity] has been in vain, your faith also has been in vain." 1 Corinthians 15:14.

How is any of this relevant? It only goes to this point: Christians (specifically Western Christians and American Christians in particular) have become much more loyal to the teachings of Thomas Jefferson and John Locke than the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles. While modern evangelicals have become some of the strongest proponents of the theory of rights in our culture, there is a stark contrast between New Testament and Apostlic Christianity and Lockean political philosophy. Unlike Locke and Jefferson, Jesus discouraged his followers to retain private property (Matthew 19:21, Luke 12:33, Matthew 5:42, Matthew 10:8, Matthew 14:16, Matthew 16:26, Mark 10:21, Luke 6:30, Luke 6:38, Luke 9:3, Luke 12:33, Luke 14:33) , the very first manifestation of the Christian church - located in Jerusalem (not Rome) - was akin to a communist society - devoid of private possession (Acts 2:43-47, Acts 3:6), and pre-Nicene or pre-Constantanian Christian teaching frowned heavily upon the notion of luxury and "comfort" (1 John 2:16, Acts 20:35, Romans 12:20, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:16). [DISCLAIMER: To double-check my exegesis, feel free to visit any online Biblical resource and read these passages for yourself. I, personally, use Studylight.org's application because it has all available translations of the Bible in one location.]

The New Testament does not give a single endorsement of human rights. It also implies a strict taboo on collaboration with state (government) entities or any institution or societal structure built on top of the concept of private, propertied, or privileged. The post-New Testament church (in the Apostlic tradition) also retained a stigma of unholiness for any system that incorporated the elevation of self-interests (which would include rights and ownership), especially with two influential second century Christian bishops: Polycarp and Hyppolitus.

In short: New Testament Christianity runs diametrically opposed to the theory of human rights, private property, and ownership. This oppositition can also be extrapolated onto a foundational incompatibility between Christianity and the economic system of capitalism (and its political benefactor of democracy).

The Question: There are many questions that one should ask in regards to the subject covered by this post: from the reasonably superficial to the potentially worldview-altering. Does Locke's definition of ownership submit to logic and reason? At what point (if at all) does it start to break down? Does ownership imply or create "rights"? Do rights actually exist in nature or reality? If rights don't exist what remains to hold up the structure of society? Does the society "deserve" to continue existing in its current form if rights are not empirically or factually derived? Does New Testament Christianity really run contrary to the foundation of Western civilization? Does the disparity between Jesus' teachings and Locke's philosophy (assuming disparity does, in fact, exist) give more credibility to either side? If a disparity does, in fact, exist which teaching would you choose to live by? So many questions to ask.

Keep the emails, questions, comments, and criticisms coming. Now, more than ever, we need dialogue. Education - not indoctrination.

Leave the light on.

honesty - the best policy

The Preamble: I've gotten some good questions recently on the ideas I've posted so far (which, granted, isn't really much) and they've led to some really good conversations. I love conversation. Anyone that knows me knows that much. I don't like "small talk" or "chit-chat". It drives me crazy - too superficial, no depth, no meaning... whatever the reason I've just never liked it. But conversation is kind of like a unique learning style for me. Some people are auditory, some visual - I'm a very conversational learner. I guess that's why I like asking questions and making potentially provocative statements: they're bound to start a conversation - a chance for me to learn something. Today I got to talk to someone about the difference between "truth" (as I've defined it out to the right of the posts) and "reliability". As always, some people will accuse me of splitting linguistic hairs or of being too pedantic or technical when I say that there's a real difference between truth and reliability. But allow me to make my case and elaborate on why I think it's important.

The Case: Let me first say that there are two different kinds of "truth" that people will identify with. There's a factual truth (which, to me, is the only real kind of truth) and then there's a "philosophical truth". Factual truth deals in the realm of what is knowable. Tonight it is partly cloudy outside and 76 degrees... it rained earlier and the power went out twice. This is factually true if you live on the east side of Allen, Texas. Philosophical truth - which isn't technically a question of truth at all - is the realm of belief and opinion. "Humans are inherently evil" or "love conquers all" or "blondes have more fun", etc. These are statements that cannot be empirically proven or factually substantiated (yet or, perhaps, ever). They are opinions, beliefs, and values. They are axioms and maxims - not facts.

Let's put the more axiomatic philosophical truth aside for a moment and talk about the difference between factual truth and general reliability for a moment. A friend of mine asked me to unpack the differences that I saw between truth and reliability so I went to a place that was very familiar to the both of us: Biblical Christianity. (Uh oh.) You may think that what I'm about to delve into will look like I'm "picking on" Christianity and you may end up having very strong feelings about what I'm about to say. All I'll ask is that you simply hear me out.

Despite the rhetorical platitude you'll hear from evangelicals calling it a "relationship", Christianity is a religion. It is a religion and has been since (roughly) the late-third-to-early-fourth century. Just like every other religion in existence today (though I will readily admit its complete uniqueness in history), Christianity is an ideological framework based around "the sacred": in its case "the sacred" is Jesus Christ. As an ideology Christianity has been, at many times, at complete odds with the objective and factual reality that we call "the truth." In a vain attempt to deny the claim I'm making about Christianity, many modern (mostly protestant evangelical) believers will try to divorce the vast history of the Christian "church" from its more modern manifestations. As an ideological framework Christianity has historically been on the wrong side of truth by tying itself to empirically improvable or empirically false beliefs and insisting on their truthfulness. Ok - that's a big, bold, and mean claim to make. A big accusation to level. So what could I be talking about?

Let's go back to my particular problem: the elevation of something that isn't empirical, factual, and objective to the elite status of true. Christians use Jesus as the reference point of truth. Jesus, according to Christians and the synoptic gospel narratives, is "the Truth." The word used for this in the gospels is "aletheia" and there is both an objective way to translate that word and a subjective translation. In an empirical sense, there is no way anyone can substantiate the claim that Jesus is the central reference point for all truth. There's no way to validate the truth of Jesus' "truthiness" (to borrow from Stephen Colbert). Until the day that we can prove - one way of the other - the factuality of this statement by Jesus, it remains firmly in the realm of philosophical truth: the realms of opinion and belief. This is the starting point for every skeptic in the world: every non-believer, every skeptic, every critic, and every cynic. What makes this unnerving to a Christian is that the notion of Jesus' factual truth-ness is unquestionable. The Christian won't even entertain the question - as my friend could not during this conversation. But in order to be intellectually honest, in order to remain objective, in order to give loyalty to the truth above all else, we must come to this conclusion - it's the only one that reality has left available to us. What should console the Christian is this quote from Dallas Willard: "Jesus is on the side of truth and if you don't believe that, you don't believe in Jesus." If Jesus is "the Truth", then our loyalty to finding the truth will ultimately lead to him. If not, then the Christian is wasting his time. Either way - there is nothing lost by evaluating the truth outside of an ideological scope while using uncomfortable questions.

The Christian, in this case, may not be interested in "the truth" or interested in intellectual honesty, or objectivity. It's understandable. The ideological framework of Christianity cannot allow a core supposition to be challenged. But let's get it out there: if we can't substantiate the truth-ness of Jesus or prove his divinity empirically, then what are we left with? That's where the vocabulary of "general reliability" comes in. We may not have empirical proof for a philosophical truth, but what information we do have - while not devoid of internal and factual "question marks" - can easily be called "generally reliable". In other words: what we do know about Jesus, on question of factuality, is reliable information. Much of it has been substantiated by archaeology, anthropology, historical studies, etc. The synoptic Jesus traditions and gospel narratives are historically reliable. Not "inerrant" as many Christians would try to elevate it, but reliable. We may not be able to prove Jesus rose from the dead or performed miracles or was born in Bethlehem to a girl named Mary... but we've got plenty of reasons to believe that this information is reliable and that's good enough to put some trust in. It's good enough to believe until or unless the information is proven one way or the other. We may never know if the Bible on the whole or the gospels is true in a factual or empirical sense - proven beyond reasonable doubt - but it can be said in the very least that it is "reliable" and potentially true.

Ok - so why would I even make this point? Why would I walk into such an unpopular and controversial minefield? And why would you, the reader, be at all interested in following along? Let me say this: I'm not naive. The statements I've made and the questions I've asked are, to many, inflammatory or even blasphemous. More to the point: what I've said is either going to turn most people off from listening to anything else I've got to say, or piss other people off. But this point has to be made.

When someone makes a claim of truth that cannot be substantiated or proven, it damages the credibility of the person(s) making the claim. One of the biggest reasons Christianity - as a religion - has slowly slipped further and further into complete irrelevance to this world is because its credibility is almost completely shot. From the absolutely corrupt institutions of the Catholic papacy in history, to the political catastrophe of the Crusades, to the shameful Copernicus/Gallileo (Sun-revolves-around-the-Earth) fiasco, to the Inquisition, to Protestant persecutions, to the Conquistadors, to the Augustinian/Calvanistic tradition of hybridizing church-state powers, to the modern embarrassment of literal creationism and the divorce of discipleship from "churchgoing" - Christianity has lost its credibility and claim of relevance because it advanced an ideology and elevated opinions and beliefs to the elite status of truth. And instead of being honest with themselves and others, Christians (like everyone else in the world) has placed a higher importance on being "right" instead of being "truthful"... on being believed instead of being honest.

The only way for anyone, in any walk of life, to regain any degree of credibility with the world-at-large is to return to a stalwart loyalty to the truth, calling things what they are, being intellectually honest about reality, and keeping an open dialogue with people who have different opinions and beliefs. And you can't regain credibility inside the framework of an ideology.

The Question: I hope that this post was very provocative. I don't have a specific set of questions to ask, but feel free to elaborate on whatever thoughts (if any) were spurred by the topic. Feel free to disagree or express whatever opinions you may have on it. Comments are not "moderated" or edited - I only ask that you be respectful to other commentors.