Christian Values and Human Rights in Bush World
On the Nascent Christian Origins of Jefferson's Human Rights
Dr. Gerry Lower< Keysone, South Dakota
Bush Watch, www.bushwatch.com
Like it or not, American Democracy was built from a basis in human rights, under
the law of man and not the law of a supernatural external authority. Indeed,
rejection of the notion of external authority was necessarily a clarion call
during the American Revolution, simply because the British and European
monarchies and the Papacy were using religious authority to oppress and exploit
the people of the
So to hell with them all, chuck their tea in
We take these rights to be self-evident. That means if you think about it
honestly, you will come to the same conclusions as Jefferson and Franklin. We
take these human rights as the basis for all civil rights, the operational
extensions we provide ourselves in order to guarantee that human rights are
honored in the living world.
Two centuries later, we have come full circle to have
Given that George has openly proclaimed his belief in Billy Graham's JudeoRoman
god and his deep admiration of the first Christian, it is only appropriate to
begin this discussion with a Biblical story that demonstrates Christian
concepts of human values, laws and rights.
More importantly, historians trace the entire notion of universal human rights
back to the 17th century and the EuroAmerican enlightenment which rediscovered
and implemented Democracy in the
"And the scribes and the Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in
adultery ... in the very act."
[Nowadays, of course, life is not nearly so self-righteously egocentric, and
most people would be more prone to wonder what these "men of law"
were doing, sneaking around and peeking in people's windows?]
"Now, Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what
sayest thou?"
"This they said, tempting him, that they might
have to accuse him."
[As one might expect from self-righteous "men of law," they wanted to
see if Jesus would dare ignore Abraham's god and Mosaic law.
If so, you know, he might be a terrorist in the name of love.]
"But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as
though he heard them not."
[So much for the first Christian's notion of political
correctness. He simply dissed the men of god's law.]
"So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto
them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at
her."
"And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground."
[Two overt snubs in a row. The men of god's law are
not doing so well, are they?]
"And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went
out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left
alone, and the woman standing in the midst."
[Wherein the first Christian clearly demonstrates the
difference in response when honesty, as opposed to self-righteousness, is
employed as a basis for judging others. He did not let the lady off the
hook. She knew that she had gotten herself into trouble. But, it was the
"men of law" whom the first Christian saw as far mor
troublesome. So, he removed them from the discussion with one simply brilliant
directive.]
"When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said
unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath
no man condemned thee?"
"She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither
do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."
Now, what do we have here, people? Do we see here a man obssessed with
religious law as the word of god? No. Do we see here a man dedicated to
preserving the rule of the men who claimed to know god's law? No. Do we see
here a man who was hot to implement Moses' command to bloody such women with
rocks? No. Do we see here a man getting his rocks off on other people's
mistakes and misfortunes in order to make himself feel
morally superior? No. Does this man's words and
actions have anything to do with religious law and vengeance-based morality?
No.
So, what exactly do we have here, people? Do we see a man whose chosen bottom
line in thought is compassion instead of vengeance? Yes. Do we see a man in
love with his fellow humans and dedicated to human honesty? Yes. Do we see a
man who has little time or interest in a posteriori law and punishment? Yes. Do
we see a man whose primary objective is to level the playing field in the
interest of fairness and equality? Yes. Do we see a man who actually trusts
people to make their own decisions? Yes.
Do we not see in the first Christian a man with an overwhelming passion for
human rights? Yes. Is there any doubt in your mind why
Nascent Christian morality was based solidly in human rights from the very
start. It is not the first Christian's fault that Roman emperors from
Constantine on merely talked about his values in order to justify
self-righteous conquest and control. It is not the first Christian's fault that
JudeoRoman mis-interpretations and outright fabrications drove imperialism,
colonialism and crony capitalism, in his name. The problem is clearly with
JudeoRoman religion which never has very much honored nascent Christian values.
Jefferson and Franklin were Deists who recognized the self-evident truth that
nascent Christian values and JudeoRoman values are mutually exclusive. One can
choose to be vengeful or compassionate, but one simply cannot be both. The
JudeoRoman religions had always talked the latter and acted on the former.
Cristianity was, from the beginning, a rejection of vengeance, a rejection of
legal/penal moralities and a rejection of marketplace values. The west had been
doing it wrong for millennia and
As a result, Jefferson's Declaration is certainly one of the most Christian
documents yet written, and his "Jefferson Bible" is certainly the
most honest version of western scripture yet edited (all versions are edits,
folks, that's why the British call theirs the KJV), the product of Christian
Deism, no religious law in sight, as the first Christian would have it.
Today, with
Accordingly, Bush's values have no Christian content whatsoever. Rather, Bush
upholds the values of our European and Papal oppressers. Accordingly, Bush sees
law as his to define, which is precisely the equivalent of
lawlessness. Accordingly, Bush sees human rights as something to be
taken away from the people in the name of national security and a
"controlled society." Every western tyrant since
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but
inwardly they are ravening wolves." Matthew, VII, 15
Those who still admire the first Christian's ethical
morality could provide an immense service to their country and their countrymen
if they would only reconsider, for themselves, the values to which they would
freely subscribe. The values of nascent Christianity provide for universal
human rights. The values of right wing religion provide for human oppression
and despotism. It is a tragedy for good people to be lemminged right over the
edge by the Bush administration's employment of fear and religious coercion.
"And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers, for ye lade men with burdens
grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your
fingers." Luke XI, 46 --06.23.03