B
BobObob
Guest
I somewhat agree with you here. Some of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution were slave owners, so I don’t think the religiosity of many of these signers can be tied to human rights (even though many Christians, including myself, are champions of human rights). George Washington was a slave owner. The founding fathers were for limited government, and although many of them were more anti-slavery than the general population, I don’t think all the Christian founding fathers were for human rights as it is understood today.BobObob;6925008:
But I think this is more like “union rights” or “proletariat rights”, not human rights.I wasn’t trying to say that Rome was championing human rights. My point was rather that when human rights is protected by government in history, it’s usually because of a conflict between the commoners and elite, in which the commoners benefit from human rights being guaranteed. That seems to be a trend in history.
Christian theology does strongly pushes for human rights (at least recently), but that doesn’t mean that without Christian theology there would be no human rights. Even though popes were ahead of their time concerning condemning slavery, Christianity seemed to have taken at least a few centuries to condemn slavery (in fact, parts of the Bible tell slaves to obey their masters and not flee). Also, many parts of the Old Testament are virtually impossible to reconcile ethically with today’s standards regarding slavery and other things.Christianity allows for the innovation of real equality among men (and women!). But without Christian theology, we cannot sensibly claim that people should be treated equally – except as an exertion of political power.
Without Christian theology there would still be ethical philosophies to tell us how to treat others. Confucius, as well as Jesus, taught “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” To my knowledge, Christian theology had not spread to Confucius at that time.