Strange how the same folks who think there are limitless human rights in the
world also believe that only a finite amount of wealth is
on the planet. Here's what they mean by the latter belief: Earth's wealth is
like a sack of valuables strewn across the continents. Each affluent
person has gathered a share of the total wealth. Their bad news is that too many
have now become rich. For the next person's net worth to greatly
increase, someone else's share of the pie has to shrink. This error refuses to
accede that new wealth can be created by hard work, or, even
better, by smart work. Although dishonest scales bolster the crook's finances
there are still many legitimate ways to increase the world
population's wealth.
Having disagreed with the limited wealth philosophy; I now
wish to counter the limitless rights idea. Whatever your position on abortion we
all understand that it's a clash of rights. The right of the mother to a life
without the added responsibilities of another child, is weighed
against whatever that is within her womb - person, protoplasm or benign growth.
Only in childbirth and, if needs be, adoption, can the rights of
both mother and baby be upheld. Our courts have granted a woman the right to
take away the rights of her unborn infant. It's not a win-win
situation.
Most of us value the right to own property. People have
bought all kinds of land. Some live in the flood plane of major rivers. After
recent
NJ floods there's a call upon the federal government to buy homes that keep
getting soaked. To force the state or the union to buy these homes
is bending the right of the government to keep out of private property matters.
Mind you there's a dangerous trend in our national politics
where a government official can cast a greedy eye on your property, force you to
sell it and then hand what's yours to a favored developer. In this
transaction your property rights and the rights of government to muscle you out
of what you don't want to sell can't both stand.
A private high school run by the Wisconsin Evangelical
Lutheran Synod in California, thought they had the right to rule that homosexual
behavior would be considered worthy of expulsion. They suspended 2 students.
"The 142 student school" said their San Diego lawyer "has no
right to discriminate against lesbians because it operates as a business and
falls under California civil-rights laws. It also allows
non-Christians to attend who may not follow Lutheran teachings." The state of
California has conferred rights that the school doesn't
recognize. Both can't win.
My friend Ken is the principal of a Church of the Nazarene
high school in Miami, Florida. He and the board thought they had the right to
expel kids who were caught smoking pot. The use of marijuana is forbidden in the
school rules. Parents sign acceptance of these. Recently a judge
ruled that a boy so expelled had his rights disrespected. They were ordered to
take the boy back. Don't be too reliant on what you consider
your rights. They are not limitless.
This is an old debate. The king of England believed he had
the right to harsh taxation of the American colonies. The settlers believed
they had the right to representation in the British parliament. This clash
escalated into war because both sides stood resolute.
Pastors are going to jail in western countries for hate
speech. These humble people of conviction have been cajoled by their
governments
to stop calling homosexual acts deviant behavior. While there's no room for
zealous relish in using the pulpit to denounce people, I stand by
those who quietly and with inspired reason speak the tenets of the Bible.
Be bold. Be loving. Know the scripture. Speak clearly. Only weigh the
cost of such speech. Don't expect to hide behind your rights. Ultimately your
only rights are in heaven. Only what God calls valid will eventually
matter.