I’ve been thinking about the nature of rights in the context of current political conditions. I doubt that it’s anything original but the matter keeps rolling around in my brain anyway.
Let’s take civil rights for example. I think they are understood in far different ways by two camps. Civil rights are understood by one camp to have been granted by the dominant culture out of their benevolent generosity to those who have earned approval of worthiness after a long period of testing. There are some in the dominant culture who believe the granting of rights was a mistake, so they must be restricted, closely monitored, and perhaps taken away.
This camp, taking its cue from the unamended Constitution, tends to build its understanding on property rights as the foundation for all other rights. Most founding fathers believed owning property was the key to dismantling the authority of the monarch. They had reason. The Medieval monarch was owner of all and bestowed tenancy on those he chose in exchange for their loyalty. The scheme had been modified by the time of the revolution so that only the landed had secure rights. Therefore, property rights had to be secured if property owners were to live freely in a republican democracy. Land was the most important property, followed closely by personal property including slaves. It created an interesting class structure unlike any in Europe. Westward migration made it possible for any white man to join the ranks of property owners with rights if they could get hold of a piece of land and make use of it. It could be done by daring the frontier, hard work, perseverance and not much money.
The other camp takes its cue from the amendments to the Constitution and believes civil rights granted by law are simply the legitimization of rights others always had but were denied by the dominant culture as a way to retain power and status exclusive to themselves. The rights that had been denied to them are human rights and belong to everyone by virtue of their humanity. The foundation for their claim is ancient, finding expression in Greek, Hebrew and Christian thought. It is based on relationships, not property. What ensured true freedom was one’s relationship to God and to each other. It was a freedom that imposed duties on each to do their part in sustaining and protecting the well being of the community however community was defined. It was the dominant understanding through the Middle Ages until the modern era. The feudal system was cruel in many ways but everyone understood the importance of relationships and the duties they imposed. It was a different kind of freedom that seems strange to modern ears.
The two camps can exist in any society, but only in democracies can they keep the question of rights in the public eye, moving toward a deeper understanding of the public good that has to accommodate both camps without resorting to violent revolution. Our democracy has been sometimes robust and sometimes fragile. Its health depends on an informed electorate and we have not done a good job of ensuring there is one. The MAGA movement has gained enough momentum in a neofascist direction to make it appear fragile. The election this November will let us know whether the nation will survive as a robust democracy in the face of the most serious challenge since the Civil War.
Where does our shared Christian faith fit into all of this? I must say first that Christian nationalism is not Christian and must be set aside. Today’s more secular world may pay scant attention to God but it is central for Christians. Everything Jesus said and did was to restore right relationships with God and each other. There is no higher authority than the record of what Jesus said and did. The early church struggled with how to live into Jesus’ way, and we struggle too, guided in part by two thousand years of wisdom from our struggling ancestors. Rights defined by relationships and associated duties must take precedence. Property rights, however important, must be subordinate to them.
That will be hard to swallow for many faithful Christians because the myth of rugged individualism and the American dream are predicated on property rights. It’s not easy to redefine an entrenched life long belief with a more orthodox conformation to God’s commandment. It’s hard to convince someone they are not giving up rights, just putting them in the correct place. What baffles many is that the right place is discerned through prayerful debate. It changes with new conditions, new knowledge and new understanding of what God is saying now. Moreover, it is not beholding in any way to accepted social norms. The task is made more difficult by the MAGA crowd insanely screaming Communism without the slightest idea of what they are talking about.