I've never read something that so succinctly explained what I feel about the Holocaust, and why it just represents the extent to which men can be evil.
"One of the most important outcomes of the experience of World War II is the scale of human atrocity. The most visible, if not morally paralyzing, aspect of the atrocities of this period is capsulated in the term 'the Holocast.' The Holocaust, seen in the context of the World War II experience, provoked serious reappraisal of the adequacy and morality of the forms of human governance on a global basis. The Holocaust was an event involving a self-conscious policy on the part of the Nazi Herrenvolk to use the apparatus of state power to systematically extinguish whole groups of human beings on the basis of group labels of identity. It was a process facilitated by the technological capacity of an industrial state waging an industrial form of total war. Hidden under the veil of political and judicial sovereignty, the Holocaust represented complete denial of people's right to existence, subject to Nazi dominance. A form of governance based on apparently limitless sovereignty it raised a profound question about the fundamental rights of persons caught in the web of sovereign omnipotence."
-Winston P. Nagan & Vivile F. Rodin
Racism, Genocide, and Mass Murder: Toward a Legal Theory About Group Deprivations
Friday, March 30, 2007
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
It's About Time!
So this is my preacher back in Abilene. This video is HILARIOUS for those of you who get the CoC jokes :-)
What Would A Human RIghts Theorist Do?
In God and the Constitution I read that politics is actually far more entrenched in a Christian ethic now than we realize, and that there is a place for a human rights theology within that ethic. This leads me to wonder, what exactly a foreign policy guided by this ethic would look like.
The analysis is made, when discussing the Cain & Able story, that all injustices that go unanswered appeal directly to God. However, as an intermediate step to this appeal, after the covenant with Noah and all creation, men were to exercise a judicial function and to protect rights. So what happens when the judicial system of a state fails? What exactly does the role of the Christian government to intervene and protect look like? Is this theology mean to imply that the existence of a judicial system of any kind, no matter how ill-equipped, represents the human responsibility to maintain justice? So for example, if a country like say the Philippines, is incapable of providing a higher level of justice then their current infrastructure allows, do we just chalk that up to human development and allow their justice system to develop as it will? Do we, in other words, accept this lacking justice system as a good faith effort toward intervening on behalf of the oppressed? Or, do we assume that it is our duty to ENSURE that all cries of oppression are met with justice?
Or, do we say that the unsuccessful efforts of other nations to fight injustice represent an example of a cry to God, and that God’s intervention and answer is the use of human servants to carry the day [much like the people in Egypt cried out, God speaks to Moses, Moses and Aaron go with God’s protection]?
And if we decide that we must intervene when justice systems fail to meet a specific standard of justice, how do we determine what standard will govern our interventions? Do all justice systems which persecute Christians require intervention? What about those which persecute women? Homosexuals? Are all justice systems which allow detention without access to a lawyer to be condemned, unless they are American military tribunals? From what text shall we draw this standard?
Additionally, if we have an obligation to fight back against unrighteous treatment, where does that belong in a hierarchy of rights? Do we intervene to provide justice as a foreign policy? Can that be allowed to trump other foreign policy objectives?
What about a situation like the Darfur or the situation in Northern Uganda? If I am a Christian subscribing to a human rights ethic somewhat like the one we’ve discussed in this class [as for instance seen in God and the Constitution] what do I do about the Darfur? Do I say, for instance, that I have a duty as a Christian to use the resources at my disposal to answer cries of injustice? Does this obligation trump, for instance any domestic obligations I may have to my constituents?
The analysis is made, when discussing the Cain & Able story, that all injustices that go unanswered appeal directly to God. However, as an intermediate step to this appeal, after the covenant with Noah and all creation, men were to exercise a judicial function and to protect rights. So what happens when the judicial system of a state fails? What exactly does the role of the Christian government to intervene and protect look like? Is this theology mean to imply that the existence of a judicial system of any kind, no matter how ill-equipped, represents the human responsibility to maintain justice? So for example, if a country like say the Philippines, is incapable of providing a higher level of justice then their current infrastructure allows, do we just chalk that up to human development and allow their justice system to develop as it will? Do we, in other words, accept this lacking justice system as a good faith effort toward intervening on behalf of the oppressed? Or, do we assume that it is our duty to ENSURE that all cries of oppression are met with justice?
Or, do we say that the unsuccessful efforts of other nations to fight injustice represent an example of a cry to God, and that God’s intervention and answer is the use of human servants to carry the day [much like the people in Egypt cried out, God speaks to Moses, Moses and Aaron go with God’s protection]?
And if we decide that we must intervene when justice systems fail to meet a specific standard of justice, how do we determine what standard will govern our interventions? Do all justice systems which persecute Christians require intervention? What about those which persecute women? Homosexuals? Are all justice systems which allow detention without access to a lawyer to be condemned, unless they are American military tribunals? From what text shall we draw this standard?
Additionally, if we have an obligation to fight back against unrighteous treatment, where does that belong in a hierarchy of rights? Do we intervene to provide justice as a foreign policy? Can that be allowed to trump other foreign policy objectives?
What about a situation like the Darfur or the situation in Northern Uganda? If I am a Christian subscribing to a human rights ethic somewhat like the one we’ve discussed in this class [as for instance seen in God and the Constitution] what do I do about the Darfur? Do I say, for instance, that I have a duty as a Christian to use the resources at my disposal to answer cries of injustice? Does this obligation trump, for instance any domestic obligations I may have to my constituents?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)