# Human Rights and 'Christian Culture'. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 6, 2013, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-rights-and-christian-culture/673231 "2013-11-06T10:01:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2013, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-rights-and-christian-culture/673231/81 "2013-11-07T11:54:35Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > That’s actually pretty clever. Circular, absurd, clever. I likes it very much. A better summary of the argument than mine can be found [here](http://spectacledavenger.blogspot.de/2009/12/kant-on-slavery.html): > [@](#): > > In his Metaphysics of Morals (1797), Immanuel Kant offered an explanation of why a theory of justice cannot allow me to sign a contract selling myself into slavery. The explanation goes something like this. A contract must be able to bind the parties to it. In order to be binding, a contract must apply to an agent who is capable of being bound, for example a legal person (specifically for Kant, a rational agent). > > But when I sign a slavery contract, I am in effect signing away my status as a legal person, making myself instead the mere tool of another’s will. As soon as I am no longer a legal person, I can no longer be bound by a contract, any more than a baby or a rock or a goldfish can be bound by one. Therefore, paradoxically, as soon as I sign the contract making myself a slave, by that very act I make myself not bound by the contract which I have signed. To put it another way, the act by which I sell myself into slavery simultaneously releases me from slavery. As such, the contract is irrational. > > Furthermore, because of the irrational nature of the contract, it cannot be construed as the expression of the will of a rational being. As such, it cannot be binding on a rational agent. [QUOTE=Kobal2] You could even say he was a bit of a two-faced son of a bitch about it all, really. Patronizing racism and rabid antisemitism aside, he himself certainly made a lot of cash trading in slaves regardless of any purported principles he might have held - but then, he always did have a thing about money. Count it first, repent later, if you will. He also considered it a genuine good deed to be taking negroes away from Africa, to work in and for civilized society. So, really, Voltaire wasn’t against slavery at all, although he might have been against the mistreatment of slaves. [/QUOTE] Yeah, point taken, I probably shouldn’t have brought up Voltaire. That offhand line in the _Candide_ also can’t really be construed as a ‘serious’ engagement with the issue. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2013, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-rights-and-christian-culture/673231/82 "2013-11-07T13:56:58Z")
I am not sure how I did it, but I had never encountered the tracts against slavery from Diderot or Montesquieu or Rousseau. (I am not sure that I would include Voltaire, based on some of his other comments, but I won’t quibble on that point having missed the others.) ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2013, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-rights-and-christian-culture/673231/83 "2013-11-07T22:43:19Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I am not sure how I did it, but I had never encountered the tracts against slavery from Diderot or Montesquieu or Rousseau. In the spirit of fairness : Rousseau was kinda sorta maybe a bit Christian if you squint right. Raised a Swiss Protestant, he then converted to Catholicism (to revert back out of convenience much later in life) - although he didn’t believe in miracles, the import of faith or the concept of original sin ; disliked organized religion and churches ; was very suspicious of priests and their influence over secular societies ; and would get married in the eyes of civil law but wouldn’t do it again in a church, a scandalous thing back then. For the most part, he was merely a vague deist of the “the world is orderly therefor there must be a god” variety… but he still self-described as a Roman Catholic. And I’m told by some Christians that it’s all it takes, so there you go :). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2013, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-rights-and-christian-culture/673231/84 "2013-11-07T23:36:48Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Rights are granted by someone who has the authority to grant or deny them. > > During Christianity God was the highest authority, so He was used to grant rights. > God-given rights. > > When God was done away with, the problem presented itself that the authority apect of rights fell away. Who grants the right to rebel against a king? What are rights anyway? Of course, by the same token, the authority aspect of authority falls away. Who grants the king his authority? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2013, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-rights-and-christian-culture/673231/85 "2013-11-07T23:45:50Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > And these bright red robes. “Hey, somebody tell the drag queen his handbag is on fire!” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2013, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-rights-and-christian-culture/673231/86 "2013-11-07T23:47:44Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > I dunno, my favorite is the Wheel. Conversion by example works best. It does tend to produce a well-rounded person. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2013, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-rights-and-christian-culture/673231/87 "2013-11-07T23:49:02Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > I think it’s more of a question about sovereignty than “Western Culture” or “Christian Culture”. Even places like China bristle at the idea of the UN or the US coming in and saying they are violating human rights. They see it not as an affront from an outside culture not understanding that torturing humans is part of their heritage, but more that people outside China shouldn’t get to complain about Chinese handling of situations. (Nor people inside, in the case of China.) Reminds me of the reasons why the U.S. still hasn’t ratified the International Criminal Court treaty. All the other democracies did, but we’re **exceptional!** ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2013, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-rights-and-christian-culture/673231/88 "2013-11-07T23:54:01Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > The founding fathers were mostly Christian with a smattering of deists, unitarians, &c… The soldiers who fought the American revolution were mostly Christian and the leaders of the state governments were mostly Christian. Note, however, that [they never intended to found America on “Christian principles.”](http://www.thenation.com/article/our-godless-constitution#). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2013, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-rights-and-christian-culture/673231/89 "2013-11-07T23:57:23Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > They were certainly anti-Catholic/Clergy but that isn’t the same as being anti-Christian. And, no, I’m not arguing that Catholics aren’t Christian. It’s just that the RCC in France held a significant amount of land, wealth and political power so it was natural for them to become a target. The same thing happened in Mexico during the years following their revolution. President Plutarcho Calles was an atheist who strongly disliked the Catholic church and he actually provided some protestant programs with money just as a way to stick it to the RCC. And [in the Spanish Civil War](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=16825052&highlight=spanish#post16825052). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-rights-and-christian-culture/673231/90 "2013-11-08T00:02:48Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > According to the writers of the Constitution, people are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. This includes rebelling against a king. No, that’s the DOI. Important difference. The DOI is a revolutionary document, all revolutions are illegal by definition, so Jefferson had to make an appeal to natural law. The Constitution is a legal document intended to establish a permanent state and, as such, implies no right of rebellion anywhere (no, [especially not in the Second Amendment](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=703091)). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-rights-and-christian-culture/673231/91 "2013-11-08T00:20:21Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > I’ve seen arguments for this notion not in the context of human rights in general, but as to the specific doctrine of the separation of church and state, which is theoretically more pronounced under Christianity than Islam. Even thus limited, though, I think it’s overstated; there are plenty of examples in Christendom of a ruler being the head of the church, or determining the denomination to be followed by the populace, or appointing church officials. Well, church-state separation fits better with Christianity than with Islam, anyway, because Christianity started out as an illegal underground religion that had to morally justify some disobedience to the state, while the Islamic movement was in control of its state from day one (i.e., [the \*Hijira](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_(Islam))).\* ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-rights-and-christian-culture/673231/92 "2013-11-08T00:24:05Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Don’t be dense. How were the biblical kings selected? Quite often by force of arms. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-rights-and-christian-culture/673231/93 "2013-11-08T01:17:52Z")
What gets overlooked is that to a large extent rights are determined by listening to people who claim theirs have been violated. People complain that, “hey, I shouldn’t be punished for doing something perfectly harmless like criticizing the government using mere words, or gathering together a group of like-minded individuals, or performing my religious rituals behind closed doors”, and if they can get politicians to empathize with them well enough, laws can be passed establishing those forms of behavior as protected ones. A quick look at the Constitution shows how our suite of rights is strongly influenced by the grievances of a lot of the people at that time. The 3rd Amendment prohibits forcing people to quarter troops in their homes. That’s not the very third thing a deity is liable to think of and hand down, but in the Colonies, a lot of people were thinking, “It isn’t right that we should have to put up with this”, and so it’s way up there on the list. And once the idea is hit upon that there should be laws that prohibit rulers from interfering with certain activities of the common people, thinkers at different times have tried to rationalize a comprehensive list of rights, as well as to justify them to the prevailing culture, and the debate as to just what and why continues to this day. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-rights-and-christian-culture/673231/94 "2013-11-08T03:04:57Z")
[Quote=Shodan] According to the writers of the Constitution, people are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. This includes rebelling against a king. [/quote] But the Judeo-Christian name for the Supreme Being is “The Lord God Almighty”. “The Creator” is the _generic_ term. The point of the phrase in the DOI is that it’s a self-evident truth that we are endowed with inalienable rights. Nothing about God is self-evident; religion is a matter of _faith_. Is it not true that at the time of the American Revolution the majority of Christians believed in the Divine Right of Kings? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-rights-and-christian-culture/673231/95 "2013-11-08T03:10:14Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > But the Judeo-Christian name for the Supreme Being is “The Lord God Almighty”. “The Creator” is the _generic_ term. Not all that generic; assuming that there was a single creator god who then remains in charge afterwards is a Judeo-Christian concept. Why else assume that there was one creator and not many? Why else assume that the creator is also the one who endowed those rights, instead of being overthrown and replaced by the endower? That all fits into _Judeo-Christian_ mythology; not, say, Greek. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-rights-and-christian-culture/673231/96 "2013-11-08T04:16:50Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Not all that generic; assuming that there was a single creator god who then remains in charge afterwards is a Judeo-Christian concept. Why else assume that there was one creator and not many? Why else assume that the creator is also the one who endowed those rights, instead of being overthrown and replaced by the endower? > > That all fits into _Judeo-Christian_ mythology; not, say, Greek. But it also fits a thoroughly simplified understanding of existence. There’s one god in the same sense that there’s one internet. It’s an amorphous and unfathomable entity and not the cast of a soda opera. Portraying the forces responsible for us being here as singular does not automatically mandate a strictly biblical or Judeo-christian set of laws. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-rights-and-christian-culture/673231/97 "2013-11-08T04:24:53Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > But it also fits a thoroughly simplified understanding of existence. There’s one god in the same sense that there’s one internet. No; it’s more like claiming there’s only one internet, with only one guy on it, and he’s the only person who made and built it. And doing so when there happens to already be a specific religion that claims that. > [@sqweels](#): > > Portraying the forces responsible for us being here as singular does not automatically mandate a strictly biblical or Judeo-christian set of laws. Sure it does; “Creator” is a Christian term made just vague enough that people can pretend that they aren’t really pushing Christianity. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-rights-and-christian-culture/673231/98 "2013-11-08T13:50:17Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > Is it not true that at the time of the American Revolution the majority of Christians believed in the Divine Right of Kings? Is it? I’m not aware that it was, though I’m also not aware of any opinion polls on the subject. The English had already had a revolution where they chopped off the king’s head and the French would follow suit a few years later. Of course there were many other countries that, tragically, didn’t manage to decapitate their monarchs during the 18th century. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-rights-and-christian-culture/673231/99 "2013-11-08T14:47:47Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Is it? I’m not aware that it was, though I’m also not aware of any opinion polls on the subject. The English had already had a revolution where they chopped off the king’s head and the French would follow suit a few years later. Of course there were many other countries that, tragically, didn’t manage to decapitate their monarchs during the 18th century. Sure, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they didn’t also believe said kings had been ordained by god hisself. I mean, we \*did \*kill him too. Once. For about three days. Hey, it was the naughties, everybody was experimenting back then. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2013, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-rights-and-christian-culture/673231/100 "2013-11-08T23:48:10Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Just because somebody votes for someone, doesn’t make it a democracy; the key element is that the vote should come from the people. Vatican City is an absolute (though elective rather than hereditary) monarchy. Well, kindasorta. I think if the Pope started ordering Swiss Guards to chop people’s heads off, he wouldn’t be Pope any more. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-rights-and-christian-culture/673231.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/human-rights-and-christian-culture/673231.md?page=6)