RIGHT or WRONG? Human/civil rights

Posted: 2/02/07

RIGHT or WRONG?
Human/civil rights

“Human rights” and “civil rights” are terms constantly voiced by minority groups. Are these terms synonymous? What responsibilities should accompany these rights?

This question is especially appropriate in 2007. As the United States tries to extricate its soldiers from Iraq, our country still hopes Iraq will become a nation that respects human and civil rights. With the undignified executions of Saddam Hussein and other convicted Iraqi leaders, the world has questioned whether any progress is being made there.

At the same time, this country is embroiled in an immigration debate in which these two terms have been used frequently. Some have labeled construction of a wall on our Mexican border and deportation of illegal-immigrant parents of a child born in the United States as inhumane acts.

How are we to understand and respond to these charges?

First, it is important to make a distinction between human rights and civil rights. Civil rights are reserved for citizens of a nation and guaranteed by law. For example, in our country, the U.S. Constitution guarantees certain rights for U.S. citizens. Other nations have laws that guarantee rights to their citizens. No nation completely fulfills its guarantees.

Human rights are rights every human being should have. These rights should be respected regardless of whether that person is a citizen of the nation where he/she lives. Of course, there are differences of opinion about what rights are human rights. In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration included such rights as the right to freedom, security, equality before the law, nationality and property ownership. The United Nations passed this declaration because “… recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”

Often nations will decide certain human rights should become civil rights for its citizens. An example was the decision of the United States to abolish slavery and allow former slaves to become full citizens. Sometimes, nations will expand their definition of human rights to include rights previously only granted to citizens. An example would be granting driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. In the case of illegal immigrants in this country, there is a push by some to provide civil rights to them even though they are not citizens. Such action usually is justified on the assumption these civil rights really are human rights.

Philosophers and politicians who have advocated for civil and human rights always have done so with the proviso that every right entails a responsibility. This is recognized in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which declares in Article 29, “Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of personality is possible.” This means each person must meet “the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.”

As Christians, we recognize we have an obligation to respect and care for other people. We also have an obligation to meet our own responsibilities in society. This means respecting and advocating for civil and human rights for others. This two-faceted teaching is perhaps best summarized in the Golden Rule: Do unto others what you would have them do unto you.

Philip Wise, senior pastor

Second Baptist Church, Lubbock

Right or Wrong? is sponsored by the T.B. Maston Chair of Christian Ethics at Hardin-Simmons University’s Logsdon School of Theology. Send your questions about how to apply your faith to [email protected].