The Extremist View Of Human Rights

The Word of God does refer to certain God-given human rights (see Deuteronomy 21:17, Psalm 9:4, 140:12, Isaiah 10:2, Jeremiah 5:8, Lamentations 3:35 and Ezekiel 21:27). But in primary and secondary schools and universities, many teachers and lecturers continually tell young people there are no absolute rights and wrongs and they have to determine themselves what is right and wrong on the basis of the extremist humanistic standard: “something is right as long as it does not hurt or infringe on the human rights of others.” Many non-Christians treat this philosophy almost as though it was an absolute standard in itself. There are a number of major faults in this view:


a)        On what objective basis can we define what is a human right? In other words, what is the final so-called objective standard by which a human right is supposedly determined? Is it laws made by kings, queens, parliaments, presidents or other politicians? Is it the decisions of supreme court judges or conventions which determine national constitutions or so-called Bills of Rights? Is this supposedly objective standard the reasonings of philosophers or the research of university academics or the opinions of the majority of the population as determined by referendums or opinion polls? How can we be sure that the laws, decisions, reasonings, research and opinions of the above individuals or groups are guaranteed objective standards by which we can determine whether certain things are human rights or not? Does not it involve a certain amount of blind faith to believe that the laws, decisions, reasonings, research and opinions of these people are objective standards by which to judge what are human rights or not. In different countries over the centuries, kings, queens, parliaments, presidents, other politicians, supreme court judges, constitutional conventions, philosophers, university academics and majorities of citizens have had continual disagreements about what are human rights. So they are a very fallible subjective standards to go by.

b)        Many issues in society cannot be successfully solved on the basis of the simplistic standard of human rights. For example, many cigarette smokers believe they have a right to smoke in buildings. But non-smokers generally argue they have a right to not inhale the poisonous fumes associated with smoking. It is impossible to solve this conflict of rights without one side having their rights infringed to some degree.

Similarly many opium farmers in Thailand and coca farmers in South America claim the right to produce these crops so they can feed their families. They say that producing other alternatives to opium and coca results in them and their families being hurt through poverty. These farmers claim their products can be used for harmless purposes so it is not their fault if people use these for heroin and cocaine addiction.

But the greatly suffering parents of drug addicts, people who have been robbed by drug addicts and taxpayers who pay fortunes to their governments for drug-related crime prevention can strongly argue they are being hurt or having their rights infringed by the farmers exercising the right to produce these crops.

c)        Who has the infinite wisdom to determine what are the so-called “rights” that supposedly do not really hurt other people? Many young people I have spoken to believe that because they do not have certain material possessions, they have a right to “borrow” (steal) these things through house break-ins and other types of theft. They say others have more than they need so the latter will not be hurt by having some of their possessions “borrowed”.

Such young people are putting into practice the foolish relativistic approach to right and wrong with which they have been brainwashed by others. These young people are criticised greatly and locked up in juvenile detention centres or gaol for deciding themselves what is right and wrong. This is even though this is how they were taught to determine right and wrong. The adults, who have imposed such false philosophies on our young people, carry almost as much guilt as the young criminals themselves.

d)        Do you believe that one or two or three or ten or a hundred or more people have to be hurt before you lose your right to something? For example, does the right of millions in wealthier Western nations to a clean environment and atmosphere mean all poorer nations should close down all their polluting factories, resulting in millions of poor families in these countries losing their jobs and having no food to eat. Note in poorer nations, there are no unemployment benefits. I personally am against both pollution and poor families starving. But I quote this example to show we cannot decide all issues just on the basis of the concept of rights and not hurting others.

Do Muslims living in Western countries have the right to circumcise their daughters? Do political demonstrators have the right to destroy police cars and other public property and then expect other taxpayers to have to pay for repairs. This is despite taxpayers losing the right to the benefits of this money being spent on say hospitals, roads and so on? Drug addicts claim they have the right to take drugs.

Romans who threw their unwanted children into the Tiber River in Rome claimed they had the right to do this. Prior to this century, many Hindus insisted that a dead husband had the right that his living widow be burned at his cremation. (This “right” was stopped by the British rulers of India in the 1800’s.) In the southern states of America prior to the Civil War, slave-owners claimed to have a right of ownership to children born to their slaves. Paedophiles insist they have a right to look at child pornography. There are multitudes of similar examples to these.

e)        Human nature tends towards selfishness. So when many humans consider what hurts others or infringes others’ rights when determining limitations to the satisfactions of their own rights, it is likely such decisions will involve more rights for themselves and less rights for others.

f)         If we say most humans are not capable of deciding such issues, but must have so-called “academic experts” or judges or politicians mostly decide such issues, we will have a draconian “Big Brother” society in which most people end up with far less rights than they began. There is already a strong move among many humanistic so-called civil liberties and human rights groups to have society enforce on everyone else a dictatorial agenda of what they believe are “rights”.

They are similar to the hypocritical French Revolutionaries in France in the late 1700’s and the Communists in Russia in the 1900’s. Both the French Revolutionaries and the Communists rid their nations of corrupt political systems led by absolute monarchs and mostly self-serving nobles. To gain the support of the workers, peasants, middle classes and university academics, the French Revolutionaries and Communists spoke about human rights much of the time, but used this to deceive millions of Frenchmen and Russians into permitting them to establish new self-serving dictatorships which later oppressed and tyrannised multitudes of people.


The dictatorship of the minorities


For about the last 30 years in Western democracies, major political parties have permitted themselves to be ruled by very active minority groups. Despite some weak opposition from some individuals and small groups from the majority, these highly motivated minority groups have won the support of most university academics, most journalists and many of the main leaders of major political parties in many Western countries.

Originally major political parties made minor changes which favoured these minority groups at the expense of the views of the majority. But as soon as any opposition from the majority died down and people got used to the changes, the minority groups pressured for more changes.

It has reached a stage after only 30 years that the views of these minority groups are now acting like a dictatorship over the views of the majority in many Western countries.

The main minority groups I am referring to are:


a)        the homosexual/paedophile lobby

b)        the legalise harmful addictive drugs lobby from Holland and some other countries

c)        the anti-smacking children lobby from Sweden and some other countries in Europe.



Bible Study Questions


1.         Which verses reveal that humans have certain God-given human rights?

2.         Explain the faults in the philosophy that something is right as long as it does not hurt or infringe on the human rights of others.



Copyright © 2002 -
Individuals may take copies of these works for the purpose of studying the Bible provided that this copyright notice is attached to all copies.