Human Rights Blight
It’s December 10: Human Rights Day.
Are you celebrating yet?
It’s a good thing, right?
Well, maybe… perhaps at some point in history and in some places, it has done more good than harm. But we’re not examining the history of its applications, just some fundamentals.
It is important to first understand the philosophy of “humanism”. It had different forms throughout history but it is the modern (current) form that is of concern. The definition will vary depending on which textbook or website you look up. For the purposes of this article, we provide the below.
Humanism is a philosophy which values the human intellect above all else.
Many sources will not word it like this but this is in effect what it is. When one values the human intellect above all else, and this includes what said intellect can come up with, it follows that there is no higher standard to judge what we come up with as good or bad. There is no objective good. At this stage, anyone who admits something like “objective goodness” even if they don’t believe in a higher power or judge may frown upon the implications. Perhaps that is why “above all else” is often conveniently not stated but rather implied. It’s more palatable.
If one applies this philosophy consistently (and people generally don’t) and if the human population is greater than one, then it also follows that there is no meaningful differentiation between what one human can come up with compared to another—everyone is “right”. And so, from humanism is derived “universal tolerance” and “universal respect”. It sounds nice, humane, decent… and that is why it is so insidious.
To word it differently, if humanism is applied consistently, then moral relativism follows. Anything goes. This humanistic mentality is not always overt. It does not always show itself in the liberal-minded who want to do whatever they want or the libtards who scream tolerance. The latter, of course, illustrates the logical self-contradiction of the position since those who claim to adopt “universal tolerance” often do not tolerate those who disagree with that stance.
The mentality is pervasive but often more subtle—sayings like “If you got nothing nice to say, then don’t say it” is a reflection of that. The goodie-two-shoes attitude of authority figures who avoid responsibility in conflict resolution is also a reflection of that. Instead of making a decision, they take the let’s-all-sit-down-and-talk-about-our-feelings approach. Even in the so-called Christian circles, “Don’t be judgmental” is popular. What does that mean anyway? Don’t we use our intellect to make judgments every day? Isn’t accusing someone of being “judgmental” also judgmental?
The modern form of “human rights” is another derivative of humanism. The word “right” on its own has various definitions. From a Christian perspective, we have God-given human rights in the sense that we have free will and are allowed to use it. We can use it to do right. We can also use it to do wrong but we shouldn’t. In this case, “right” is more to do with the ability and we don’t need any declaration or charter to affirm that.
However, “human rights” as we know it takes it further. It is something like the following: “I can do XYZ and it is guaranteed by the charter or law so no one can stop me.” That is no longer a “right”, it is “license”. And by the way, XYZ can be anything. What is taboo today may not be tomorrow or vice versa. Notice the deliberate ambiguity in the terminology? It is, as already stated, insidious.
The modern form of human rights was first adopted in France on 26 August 1789. The history behind the French Revolution can be complicated but, even at a glance, one can see how enlightened and humane it was: kill a bunch of priests, nuns, the Catholic monarchs, and anyone who gets in the way, loot a few churches, then conveniently kill those who facilitated the movement (to tie up loose ends); in short, militant dechristianization, then replace it with liberalism. To those who know their history regarding secret societies, the all-seeing eye at the top of the painting is no surprise, but that is another discussion.
Be sure to subscribe to our mailing list so you get each new Opinyun that comes out!
Follow us on Farcebook, Twitterpated, MeWe, Gab, Parler and Truth Social.