What is a “human right?” In several Western nations, it is no longer considered a human right for parents to raise their children in the way they want. Instead, the State has usurped that right. A Christian couple had recently found an uneasy asylum in the USA, lest their children be taken away by the German State:
- The Christian couple [Uwe and Hannelore Romeike] faced increasing fines and the threat of losing custody of their children after they decided to homeschool in 2006. The family settled here in Morristown, Tenn., where they knew another German family. They soon applied for asylum, arguing that they couldn’t return to Germany because they feared persecution for their religious-based determination to homeschool. An immigration judge granted the family’s asylum request in 2010…But the Obama administration appealed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed the Romeikes’ asylum win. The case is set to continue on April 23 in another hearing at the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Ohio.
Clearly, our administration doesn’t regard parental rights as unalienable human rights. Meanwhile, they have invented a broad array of their own “human rights.” Our former Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton had consistently proclaimed that “gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights.” Consequently, homosexuals are all guaranteed asylum here.
Ironically, the same secular thinking declares that it’s a human right to murder the pre-born, but it’s not a human right to raise and instruct the post-born.
What then is a human right? Here are several considerations:
“Human rights are commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being” (Wikipedia). However, there must be an Agent that establishes these “inalienable fundamental rights,” as rights that trump whatever the State might determine. Without the authority of God, human rights would be no more authoritative than a herd of cows universally thinking that they have a right to not be eaten, however understandable such thinking might be.
Everything in this world is alienable – a mere matter of molecules in motion. It is only the Transcendent that can give and enforce human rights. It is noteworthy that all of the major world religions recognize parental rights, while they don’t recognize abortive or homosexual rights.
The Bill of Rights – the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution – grants parental rights through its “free exercise” of religion clause: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” However, the Constitution contains not even a whisper about abortive or homosexual rights!
States Rights. Only nine states out of our fifty have passed SSM. The other 41 have rejected SSM. Furthermore, “Pro-abortion forces by the end of 1972 had won in only four states the virtually unrestricted abortion that Roe v. Wade would soon mandate for the nation [in 1973]” (World, May 4, 2013, 80). Clearly, these “rights” were not deemed rights by either the majority of the states or by popular vote.
Rights Based on Nature. There is nothing natural about abortion or homosexuality. However, all nature testifies to the self-sacrificial behavior of parents for their children. They know how to love them better than the State or unnatural and temporary modern couplings. Besides, gays have a much lower lifespan and higher incidents of depression, substance abuse, domestic violence, and suicide, even in countries that are far more accepting of their lifestyle than the Christian lifestyle. Therefore, the gay lifestyle is not conducive to child-rearing.
Rights based on Historical Considerations. Homosexuality has often been tried, but it has never survived for long. Historically, it seems to be a suicidal, lacking any historical continuity, suggesting that it is endemically flawed. What lifestyle then promotes a nation? John J. Davis (Evangelical Ethics) wrote of the work of British Anthropologist, J.D. Unwin:
- After a comprehensive study of both Western and non-Western cultures throughout human history, Unwin concluded that the record of mankind “does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it had been absolutely [heterosexually] monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs.” Unwin observed that a society’s adoption and maintenance of heterosexual monogamy as a social standard “has preceded all manifestations of social energy, whether that energy be reflected in conquest, in art and sciences, in extension of the social vision, or in the substitution of monotheism for polytheism.” (p. 116)
On what then are abortive and gay rights based? Militant demands alone! While our administration is aggressively pushing abortive and homosexual rights – even internationally – it is attacking human rights. Just this past week, the Pentagon announced that Christians who evangelize could now be court-marshaled.
Similarly, chaplains who continue to call homosexuality “sin” are being threatened with disciplinary action. So much for our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech! Clearly, the Pentagon has no problem with evangelizing in favor of its own agenda - homosexuality.
Why the hostility towards the Christian faith? Jesus claimed that “The world…hates me because I testify that what it does is evil” (John 7:7). Why should it matter what we have to say? To the world we are just narrow-minded fundamentalists. What if we do call homosexuality and abortion “sins”? Why should it bother them so much? I think it’s because they know that we’re right!