ENGAGING IN JUSTICE: IS HUMAN RIGHTS TALK THE WRONG TALK?
ALVIN ESAU
March 1, 2011
The discourse of human rights has become the dominant moral rhetoric of our time, even claiming universal application above all cultural particularity.[1] At my university we now have an Institute for Human Rights Research, and in my city we are building a National Museum of Human Rights. The Chief Justice of Canada repeatedly speaks about “Charter values” as the sovereign foundation of our law, a “secular religion” which will overrule other competing religions claiming sovereignty over Canadian members.[2] Charles Taylor suggests that we can affirm at least some universal standards of human rights, even though various people may disagree fundamentally as to what the foundations for such rights are. He suggests that we can have an overlapping consensus despite deriving the conclusions from different worldviews.[3] In the wake of the horrors of the Holocaust and the subsequent evils of Rwanda, Bosnia, and Darfur, just to mention a few, we have at minimum a sentiment that such gross wrongs are violations of basic human rights. As Christians we may also adopt the human rights framework to engage in justice mission partly because of our own shame at the human rights abuses perpetrated by others in Christ’s name in history.
But should Christians adopt the language of human rights in our engagement with issues of peace and justice in the world? This little note will outline some negative and some positive factors in a kind of teeter-totter structure. My tentative conclusion is that Christian faith validates human rights discourse, but also provides a cautionary, corrective, and critical perspective on that discourse.
What are some of the “negative” factors to consider as we sit on one side of the teeter-totter? As a lawyer I can immediately note the difference between the abstract rhetoric of rights, and the actual reality of the application of rights discourse and charter provisions to specific cases. Here we find that rights are never absolute, and they often conflict with each other. While anti-torture provisions may be close to an absolute norm, rights are usually limited by some kind of general clause that allows them to be overridden when considered necessary by the good order of society. So free speech is balanced against prohibitions against hate speech. Freedom of religion is balanced against other interests of welfare and safety. As recently decided by our Supreme Court, Hutterites have no right to freedom of religion to be exempt from having their pictures taken for driver’s license requirements, because that right is overridden by social concerns about identity fraud! Then we have the conflicts when one right comes up against another. The equality of women or gays, for example, may conflict with the right of freedom of association of a religious group.[4]
Because rights do not apply themselves, but require human judgements in terms of where to draw the boundaries for each right, and require decisions about which right has priority over another one, my experience has been that rights discourse collapses into power politics, because we have widespread disagreement over these judgments as various interest groups are engaged in a war of litigation to establish their own interests over that of other groups. In making these decisions we cannot simply appeal to rights, but must move to some other discourse of justice to justify the limitation or hierarchy of rights. The overlapping consensus is now gone as we debate what human dignity, equality and freedom should mean. My experience has been that “illiberal” religious citizens, who simply want religious freedom within their own communities, will generally be disfavoured by the judiciary.[5]
Another factor that should at least cause us to reflect on our adoption of the language of rights is the apparent absence of such rhetoric in both the biblical narrative and the early Christian tradition. It has been argued that the discourse in these earlier traditions dealt with the language of justice as the doing of what was right as commanded by God, not the idea that we have subjective rights that reside in us as individuals.[6] The shift from doing what is right, to having subjective rights, is also connected with a frequent criticism that human rights discourse is based on the radical autonomy of individuals at the expense of a more communitarian view of justice.[7] This is exacerbated by rights inflation, where virtually every human wish or need is translated into a right. Last year during the Olympics I visited a pavilion called the “Right to Play.” The provision of sports equipment and coaches to third world children is a good cause indeed, but notice the appropriation of rights rhetoric to boost the cause. Children do not just have a right not to starve to death, but also a right to play.
Perhaps the biggest negative factor is the danger that contemporary human rights rhetoric is hostile to the norms of conservative Christian groups who sincerely wish to apply what they conceive as Biblical morality within their community. The application of a certain conception of human rights not just to the actions of governments, but to the actions of religious communities with respect to their own members creates various problems. If violations of human rights are considered as violations of human dignity, some commentators obviously argue that the Church itself must uphold human rights within its own organizations.[8] If we want to model what justice should look like, surely we must live by those standards within our own community. At first blush it would seem obvious that the church itself should not be a place where human dignity is violated. But we should be aware that very different conceptions of human dignity are being debated and enforced in court against religious organizations. Freedom of religion is now twisted into freedom within religion.
Shifting to the other seat on the teeter-totter, we may note that even the Roman Catholic Church has finally incorporated a rich human rights doctrine as fundamental to Catholic social ethics.[9] There is also widespread support for human rights doctrines in various branches of Protestant thought.[10] Human rights rhetoric is a new “natural law” language that we can use to talk about justice along with other members of the community who do not share our metaphysics. In this sense, with some of the cautions mentioned earlier, the use of human rights language can be validated by Christian faith. The theme of justice is central in the Biblical tradition as part of the covenant obligations of a redeemed people. As the prophet Micah asserted, “What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” (6:8, NRSV). Since human rights presuppose duties not to violate them, we can take various commands in the Bible about doing right and turn them into paradigms for human rights.[11] The justice implications of Christ’s teaching can also be seen as paradigmatic for certain conceptions of human rights, particularly in terms of the poor and marginalized.[12]
But rather than looking at specific commands in the Biblical tradition, another promising avenue is to look at the overall narrative of creation, fall, and redemption.[13] The foundation for human rights is the dignity, freedom, and responsibility of human beings and the cultural mandate of humans to look after creation. We believe that this dignity is imperilled when human beings are reduced to hydrocarbon and neural impulses. The Biblical tradition affirms that humans are created in the image of God. Indeed this means that humans are a unique creature, separated out from other living things. Furthermore we believe that God grants freedom to humans, as well as capacities to respond, a freedom and “response-ability” that again does not exist in any other part of creation. God does not compel humans, but invites humans into a chosen relationship with Him. This is the very freedom and capacity for agency that humans have used to rebel against God, but also the freedom that continues in the very process of God’s salvation. The very notion of the incarnation, of God becoming humanity, is the ultimate affirmation of human value. Dignity, autonomy and responsibility as foundations for human rights can be grounded in this basic Biblical narrative. However as we sing in the human rights choir, there are many added notes that Christians bring to the tune. Notes on sacrificial love as more important than liberty. Notes on relational responsibility as more important that autonomy. Notions of the primacy of freedom for service, rather than freedom from interference by others.
Furthermore, there is considerable scholarship which finds the roots of modern human rights rhetoric in some of the Christian thought in the Medieval and Reformation periods, especially linked to developments around freedom of religion.[14] We do not need to see human rights as the product of a sceptical Enlightenment. Secularization as a structural movement of placing the state outside of the formal control of the church may itself be a Christian idea. This Christian idea of secularization is different from the sceptical ideology of secularism which discounts the rights of religious citizens to an equal say in those issues that pertain to the public square.[15] There is also a tradition that feeds into the development of human rights by not just separating the state from the church, but also limiting the state by the claim that Christ is Lord.
In our embrace of the language of human rights, I believe that we should insist on making a distinction between a diverse political community of citizens where we make law for everybody, and an ecclesiastical community of believers where we make law for only the members of that community.[16] I might not agree with some of the lifestyle norms required by some Christian groups, but subject to ensuring rights to exit, I do not think we should apply human rights provisions to force the Catholic Church to have female priests, or force the Mennonite College to hire practicing gays, to take just two examples.[17] Liberalism (the new secular Christendom) can itself become illiberal when it permeates every area of society, rather than being a structure of state pluralism that allows diverse groups to coexist with each other under a structure of peace and reciprocal tolerance.[18] We admit that there must be a minimum standard of behaviour required of all citizens, and we admit fierce debates about the boundaries of those common standards, but we also need to get back to the original liberal idea that the state should not dictate what we are to believe and how we are to live, but rather provide generous reciprocal freedom for diverse ways of life.
My tentative conclusion is that Christians should engage the rhetoric of human rights as a secondary language to the main language of justice. Christians are divided over how justice ministry should proceed, particularly on the issue of the resort to violence to enforce compliance with human rights standards.[19] But this is a different topic for a different day.
[1] Micheline R. Ishay, The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalization Era (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004).
[2] Beverley McLachlin, “Freedom of Religion and the Rule of Law,” in Recognizing Religion in Secular Society: Essays in Pluralism, Religion and Public Policy, ed. Douglas Farrow (Montreal: McGill-Queens Press, 2004), 12.
[3] Charles Taylor, Dilemmas and Connections: Selected Essays (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U. Press, 2011), 105-123.
[4] Alvin J. Esau, “Islands of Exclusivity: Religious Organizations and Employment Discrimination” U.B.C. Law Review 33 (2000): 719-827; Alvin J, Esau, “Islands of Exclusivity Revisited: Religious Organizations, Employment Discrimination and Heintz v. Christian Horizons” Canadian Labour and Employment Law Journal 15 (2009-2010): 389-434.
[5] Alvin J. Esau, The Courts and the Colonies: The Litigation of Hutterite Church Disputes (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2004).
[6] Esther D. Reed, The Ethics of Human Rights: Contested Doctrinal and Moral Issues (Wacco, Tex.: Baylor U. Press, 2007).
[7] M. Glendon, Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse (New York: Macmillan, 1991).
[8] John Witte Jr., “A Dickensian Era of Religious Rights,” and Johannes A. Van der Ven, “Religious Freedom: A Challenge for the Church,” in Christianity and Human Rights: Christians and the Struggle for Global Justice, ed. Frederick M. Shepherd (Plymouth, U.K.: Lexington Books, 2009), 21-44, 47-63.
[9] David Hollenbach, Claims in Conflict: Retrieving and Renewing the Catholic Human Rights Tradition (New York: Paulist Press, 1979).
[10] Frances S. Adeney, “Human Rights and Responsibilities: Christian Perspectives,” in Christianity and Human Rights: Influences and Issues, eds. Frances S. Adeney and Arvind Sharma (New York: S.U.N.Y. Press, 2007), 19-39; Michael J, Perry, Toward a Theory of Human Rights (Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 2007); George Newlands, Christianity and Human Rights (Hampshire, U.K.: Ashgate, 2006).
[11] For example, Christopher J. H. Wright, An Eye for An Eye: The Place of Old Testament Ethics Today (Downers Grove: I.V.P., 1983); Christopher J. H. Wright, Walking in the Ways of the Lord (Downers Grove: I.V.P., 1995); Walter Harrelson, The Ten Commandments and Human Rights (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980).
[12] Ronald J. Sider, The Scandal of Evangelical Politics (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2008).
[13] One of the best outlines on the biblical foundations is found in Christopher D. Marshall, Crowned With Glory and Honor: Human Rights in the Biblical Tradition (Telford, PA: Pandora Press, 2001).
[14] Max L. Stackhouse, “The Sources of Human Rights Ideas,” in Frances S. Adeney and Arvind Sharma, Christianity and Human Rights, 41-54; Elizabeth M. Bucar and Barbara Barnett, eds., Does Human Rights Need God? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005); John Witte Jr., “Rights,” and “Religious Liberty (Foundations),” in The Encyclopedia of Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), Vol. 4, 701-709, 597-605.
[15] C. John Summerville, Religious Ideas for Secular Universities (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009); Bruce K. Ward, Redeeming the Enlightenment: Christianity and the Liberal Virtues (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010).
[16] James W. Skillen, “Pluralism as a Matter of Principle,” in Christian Political Ethics, ed., John A. Coleman (Princeton: Princeton U. Press, 2008), 141-152.
[17] Alvin J. Esau, “Living by Different Law: Legal Pluralism, Freedom of Religion, and Illiberal Religious Groups.” in Law and Religious Pluralism in Canada. ed., R. Moon (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2008), 110-139.
[18] John Gray, Two Faces of Liberalism. (New York: New Press, 2000). See also, William Galston, Liberal Pluralism: The Implications of Value Pluralism for Political Theory and Practice (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002).
[19] Compare, for example, Gary A. Haugen, Good News About Injustice (Downers Grove: I.V.P., 1999) and Ethna Regan, Theology and the Boundary Discourse of Human Rights (Washington D.C.: Georgetown U. Press, 2010) with Ronald J. Sider, The Scandal of Evangelical Politics.
References:
Adeney, Frances S. and Arvind Sharma, eds. Christianity and Human Rights: Influences and Issues. New York: S.U.N.Y. Press, 2007.
Bucar, Elizabeth M. and Barbara Barnett, eds. Does Human Rights Need God? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.
Esau, Alvin J. “Islands of Exclusivity: Religious Organizations and Employment Discrimination” U.B.C. Law Review 33 (2000) 719-827.
Esau, Alvin J. The Courts and the Colonies: The Litigation of Hutterite Church Disputes. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2004.
Esau, Alvin J. “Living by Different Law: Legal Pluralism, Freedom of Religion, and Illiberal Religious Groups” in R. Moon, ed. Law and Religious Pluralism in Canada. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2008: 110-139.
Esau, Alvin J. “Islands of Exclusivity Revisited: Religious Organizations, Employment Discrimination and Heintz v. Christian Horizons” Canadian Labour and Employment Law Journal 15 (2009-2010) 389-434.
Farrow, Douglas, ed. Recognizing Religion in Secular Society: Essays in Pluralism, Religion and Public Policy. Montreal: McGill-Queens Press, 2004.
Galston, William Liberal Pluralism: The Implications of Value Pluralism for Political Theory and Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Glendon, M. Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse. New York: Macmillan, 1991.
Gray, John Two Faces of Liberalism. New York: New Press, 2000.
Haugen, Gary A. Good News About Injustice. Downers Grove: I.V.P., 1999.
Hollenbach, David Claims in Conflict: Retrieving and Renewing the Catholic Human Rights Tradition. New York: Paulist Press, 1979.
Ishay, Micheline R. The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalization Era. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004.
Marshall, Christopher D. Crowned With Glory and Honor: Human Rights in the Biblical Tradition. Telford, PA: Pandora Press, 2001.
Newlands, George. Christianity and Human Rights. Hampshire, U.K.: Ashgate, 2006.
Perry, Michael J. Toward a Theory of Human Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 2007.
Reed, Esther D. The Ethics of Human Rights: Contested Doctrinal and Moral Issues. Waco, Texas: Baylor U. Press, 2007.
Regan, Ethna. Theology and the Boundary Discourse of Human Rights. Washington D.C.: Georgetown U. Press, 2010.
Shepard, Frederick M. ed. Christianity and Human Rights: Christians and the Struggle for Global Justice. Plymouth, U.K.: Lexington Books, 2009.
Sider, Ronald J. The Scandal of Evangelical Politics. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2008.
Skillen, James W. “Pluralism as a Matter of Principle” in John A. Coleman, ed. Christian Political Ethics. Princeton: Princeton U. Press, 2008: 141-152.
Stackhouse, Max L. “The Sources of Human Rights Ideas” in Frances S. Adeney and Arvind Sharma, eds. Christianity and Human Rights: Influences and Issues. New York: S.U.N.Y. Press, 2007: 41-54.
Summerville, C. John. Religious Ideas for Secular Universities. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.
Taylor, Charles. Dilemmas and Connections: Selected Essays. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U. Press. 2011.
Ward, Bruce K. Redeeming the Enlightenment: Christianity and the Liberal Virtues Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.
Witte, John Jr., “Rights” and “Religious Liberty (Foundations)” in The Encyclopedia of Christianity Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005, Vol. 4, 701-709, 597-605.
Wright, Christopher J. H. An Eye for An Eye: The Place of Old Testament Ethics Today Downers Grove: I.V.P., 1983.
Wright, Christopher J. H. Walking in the Ways of the Lord Downers Grove: I.V.P., 1995.
ALVIN ESAU
March 1, 2011
The discourse of human rights has become the dominant moral rhetoric of our time, even claiming universal application above all cultural particularity.[1] At my university we now have an Institute for Human Rights Research, and in my city we are building a National Museum of Human Rights. The Chief Justice of Canada repeatedly speaks about “Charter values” as the sovereign foundation of our law, a “secular religion” which will overrule other competing religions claiming sovereignty over Canadian members.[2] Charles Taylor suggests that we can affirm at least some universal standards of human rights, even though various people may disagree fundamentally as to what the foundations for such rights are. He suggests that we can have an overlapping consensus despite deriving the conclusions from different worldviews.[3] In the wake of the horrors of the Holocaust and the subsequent evils of Rwanda, Bosnia, and Darfur, just to mention a few, we have at minimum a sentiment that such gross wrongs are violations of basic human rights. As Christians we may also adopt the human rights framework to engage in justice mission partly because of our own shame at the human rights abuses perpetrated by others in Christ’s name in history.
But should Christians adopt the language of human rights in our engagement with issues of peace and justice in the world? This little note will outline some negative and some positive factors in a kind of teeter-totter structure. My tentative conclusion is that Christian faith validates human rights discourse, but also provides a cautionary, corrective, and critical perspective on that discourse.
What are some of the “negative” factors to consider as we sit on one side of the teeter-totter? As a lawyer I can immediately note the difference between the abstract rhetoric of rights, and the actual reality of the application of rights discourse and charter provisions to specific cases. Here we find that rights are never absolute, and they often conflict with each other. While anti-torture provisions may be close to an absolute norm, rights are usually limited by some kind of general clause that allows them to be overridden when considered necessary by the good order of society. So free speech is balanced against prohibitions against hate speech. Freedom of religion is balanced against other interests of welfare and safety. As recently decided by our Supreme Court, Hutterites have no right to freedom of religion to be exempt from having their pictures taken for driver’s license requirements, because that right is overridden by social concerns about identity fraud! Then we have the conflicts when one right comes up against another. The equality of women or gays, for example, may conflict with the right of freedom of association of a religious group.[4]
Because rights do not apply themselves, but require human judgements in terms of where to draw the boundaries for each right, and require decisions about which right has priority over another one, my experience has been that rights discourse collapses into power politics, because we have widespread disagreement over these judgments as various interest groups are engaged in a war of litigation to establish their own interests over that of other groups. In making these decisions we cannot simply appeal to rights, but must move to some other discourse of justice to justify the limitation or hierarchy of rights. The overlapping consensus is now gone as we debate what human dignity, equality and freedom should mean. My experience has been that “illiberal” religious citizens, who simply want religious freedom within their own communities, will generally be disfavoured by the judiciary.[5]
Another factor that should at least cause us to reflect on our adoption of the language of rights is the apparent absence of such rhetoric in both the biblical narrative and the early Christian tradition. It has been argued that the discourse in these earlier traditions dealt with the language of justice as the doing of what was right as commanded by God, not the idea that we have subjective rights that reside in us as individuals.[6] The shift from doing what is right, to having subjective rights, is also connected with a frequent criticism that human rights discourse is based on the radical autonomy of individuals at the expense of a more communitarian view of justice.[7] This is exacerbated by rights inflation, where virtually every human wish or need is translated into a right. Last year during the Olympics I visited a pavilion called the “Right to Play.” The provision of sports equipment and coaches to third world children is a good cause indeed, but notice the appropriation of rights rhetoric to boost the cause. Children do not just have a right not to starve to death, but also a right to play.
Perhaps the biggest negative factor is the danger that contemporary human rights rhetoric is hostile to the norms of conservative Christian groups who sincerely wish to apply what they conceive as Biblical morality within their community. The application of a certain conception of human rights not just to the actions of governments, but to the actions of religious communities with respect to their own members creates various problems. If violations of human rights are considered as violations of human dignity, some commentators obviously argue that the Church itself must uphold human rights within its own organizations.[8] If we want to model what justice should look like, surely we must live by those standards within our own community. At first blush it would seem obvious that the church itself should not be a place where human dignity is violated. But we should be aware that very different conceptions of human dignity are being debated and enforced in court against religious organizations. Freedom of religion is now twisted into freedom within religion.
Shifting to the other seat on the teeter-totter, we may note that even the Roman Catholic Church has finally incorporated a rich human rights doctrine as fundamental to Catholic social ethics.[9] There is also widespread support for human rights doctrines in various branches of Protestant thought.[10] Human rights rhetoric is a new “natural law” language that we can use to talk about justice along with other members of the community who do not share our metaphysics. In this sense, with some of the cautions mentioned earlier, the use of human rights language can be validated by Christian faith. The theme of justice is central in the Biblical tradition as part of the covenant obligations of a redeemed people. As the prophet Micah asserted, “What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” (6:8, NRSV). Since human rights presuppose duties not to violate them, we can take various commands in the Bible about doing right and turn them into paradigms for human rights.[11] The justice implications of Christ’s teaching can also be seen as paradigmatic for certain conceptions of human rights, particularly in terms of the poor and marginalized.[12]
But rather than looking at specific commands in the Biblical tradition, another promising avenue is to look at the overall narrative of creation, fall, and redemption.[13] The foundation for human rights is the dignity, freedom, and responsibility of human beings and the cultural mandate of humans to look after creation. We believe that this dignity is imperilled when human beings are reduced to hydrocarbon and neural impulses. The Biblical tradition affirms that humans are created in the image of God. Indeed this means that humans are a unique creature, separated out from other living things. Furthermore we believe that God grants freedom to humans, as well as capacities to respond, a freedom and “response-ability” that again does not exist in any other part of creation. God does not compel humans, but invites humans into a chosen relationship with Him. This is the very freedom and capacity for agency that humans have used to rebel against God, but also the freedom that continues in the very process of God’s salvation. The very notion of the incarnation, of God becoming humanity, is the ultimate affirmation of human value. Dignity, autonomy and responsibility as foundations for human rights can be grounded in this basic Biblical narrative. However as we sing in the human rights choir, there are many added notes that Christians bring to the tune. Notes on sacrificial love as more important than liberty. Notes on relational responsibility as more important that autonomy. Notions of the primacy of freedom for service, rather than freedom from interference by others.
Furthermore, there is considerable scholarship which finds the roots of modern human rights rhetoric in some of the Christian thought in the Medieval and Reformation periods, especially linked to developments around freedom of religion.[14] We do not need to see human rights as the product of a sceptical Enlightenment. Secularization as a structural movement of placing the state outside of the formal control of the church may itself be a Christian idea. This Christian idea of secularization is different from the sceptical ideology of secularism which discounts the rights of religious citizens to an equal say in those issues that pertain to the public square.[15] There is also a tradition that feeds into the development of human rights by not just separating the state from the church, but also limiting the state by the claim that Christ is Lord.
In our embrace of the language of human rights, I believe that we should insist on making a distinction between a diverse political community of citizens where we make law for everybody, and an ecclesiastical community of believers where we make law for only the members of that community.[16] I might not agree with some of the lifestyle norms required by some Christian groups, but subject to ensuring rights to exit, I do not think we should apply human rights provisions to force the Catholic Church to have female priests, or force the Mennonite College to hire practicing gays, to take just two examples.[17] Liberalism (the new secular Christendom) can itself become illiberal when it permeates every area of society, rather than being a structure of state pluralism that allows diverse groups to coexist with each other under a structure of peace and reciprocal tolerance.[18] We admit that there must be a minimum standard of behaviour required of all citizens, and we admit fierce debates about the boundaries of those common standards, but we also need to get back to the original liberal idea that the state should not dictate what we are to believe and how we are to live, but rather provide generous reciprocal freedom for diverse ways of life.
My tentative conclusion is that Christians should engage the rhetoric of human rights as a secondary language to the main language of justice. Christians are divided over how justice ministry should proceed, particularly on the issue of the resort to violence to enforce compliance with human rights standards.[19] But this is a different topic for a different day.
[1] Micheline R. Ishay, The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalization Era (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004).
[2] Beverley McLachlin, “Freedom of Religion and the Rule of Law,” in Recognizing Religion in Secular Society: Essays in Pluralism, Religion and Public Policy, ed. Douglas Farrow (Montreal: McGill-Queens Press, 2004), 12.
[3] Charles Taylor, Dilemmas and Connections: Selected Essays (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U. Press, 2011), 105-123.
[4] Alvin J. Esau, “Islands of Exclusivity: Religious Organizations and Employment Discrimination” U.B.C. Law Review 33 (2000): 719-827; Alvin J, Esau, “Islands of Exclusivity Revisited: Religious Organizations, Employment Discrimination and Heintz v. Christian Horizons” Canadian Labour and Employment Law Journal 15 (2009-2010): 389-434.
[5] Alvin J. Esau, The Courts and the Colonies: The Litigation of Hutterite Church Disputes (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2004).
[6] Esther D. Reed, The Ethics of Human Rights: Contested Doctrinal and Moral Issues (Wacco, Tex.: Baylor U. Press, 2007).
[7] M. Glendon, Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse (New York: Macmillan, 1991).
[8] John Witte Jr., “A Dickensian Era of Religious Rights,” and Johannes A. Van der Ven, “Religious Freedom: A Challenge for the Church,” in Christianity and Human Rights: Christians and the Struggle for Global Justice, ed. Frederick M. Shepherd (Plymouth, U.K.: Lexington Books, 2009), 21-44, 47-63.
[9] David Hollenbach, Claims in Conflict: Retrieving and Renewing the Catholic Human Rights Tradition (New York: Paulist Press, 1979).
[10] Frances S. Adeney, “Human Rights and Responsibilities: Christian Perspectives,” in Christianity and Human Rights: Influences and Issues, eds. Frances S. Adeney and Arvind Sharma (New York: S.U.N.Y. Press, 2007), 19-39; Michael J, Perry, Toward a Theory of Human Rights (Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 2007); George Newlands, Christianity and Human Rights (Hampshire, U.K.: Ashgate, 2006).
[11] For example, Christopher J. H. Wright, An Eye for An Eye: The Place of Old Testament Ethics Today (Downers Grove: I.V.P., 1983); Christopher J. H. Wright, Walking in the Ways of the Lord (Downers Grove: I.V.P., 1995); Walter Harrelson, The Ten Commandments and Human Rights (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980).
[12] Ronald J. Sider, The Scandal of Evangelical Politics (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2008).
[13] One of the best outlines on the biblical foundations is found in Christopher D. Marshall, Crowned With Glory and Honor: Human Rights in the Biblical Tradition (Telford, PA: Pandora Press, 2001).
[14] Max L. Stackhouse, “The Sources of Human Rights Ideas,” in Frances S. Adeney and Arvind Sharma, Christianity and Human Rights, 41-54; Elizabeth M. Bucar and Barbara Barnett, eds., Does Human Rights Need God? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005); John Witte Jr., “Rights,” and “Religious Liberty (Foundations),” in The Encyclopedia of Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), Vol. 4, 701-709, 597-605.
[15] C. John Summerville, Religious Ideas for Secular Universities (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009); Bruce K. Ward, Redeeming the Enlightenment: Christianity and the Liberal Virtues (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010).
[16] James W. Skillen, “Pluralism as a Matter of Principle,” in Christian Political Ethics, ed., John A. Coleman (Princeton: Princeton U. Press, 2008), 141-152.
[17] Alvin J. Esau, “Living by Different Law: Legal Pluralism, Freedom of Religion, and Illiberal Religious Groups.” in Law and Religious Pluralism in Canada. ed., R. Moon (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2008), 110-139.
[18] John Gray, Two Faces of Liberalism. (New York: New Press, 2000). See also, William Galston, Liberal Pluralism: The Implications of Value Pluralism for Political Theory and Practice (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002).
[19] Compare, for example, Gary A. Haugen, Good News About Injustice (Downers Grove: I.V.P., 1999) and Ethna Regan, Theology and the Boundary Discourse of Human Rights (Washington D.C.: Georgetown U. Press, 2010) with Ronald J. Sider, The Scandal of Evangelical Politics.
References:
Adeney, Frances S. and Arvind Sharma, eds. Christianity and Human Rights: Influences and Issues. New York: S.U.N.Y. Press, 2007.
Bucar, Elizabeth M. and Barbara Barnett, eds. Does Human Rights Need God? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.
Esau, Alvin J. “Islands of Exclusivity: Religious Organizations and Employment Discrimination” U.B.C. Law Review 33 (2000) 719-827.
Esau, Alvin J. The Courts and the Colonies: The Litigation of Hutterite Church Disputes. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2004.
Esau, Alvin J. “Living by Different Law: Legal Pluralism, Freedom of Religion, and Illiberal Religious Groups” in R. Moon, ed. Law and Religious Pluralism in Canada. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2008: 110-139.
Esau, Alvin J. “Islands of Exclusivity Revisited: Religious Organizations, Employment Discrimination and Heintz v. Christian Horizons” Canadian Labour and Employment Law Journal 15 (2009-2010) 389-434.
Farrow, Douglas, ed. Recognizing Religion in Secular Society: Essays in Pluralism, Religion and Public Policy. Montreal: McGill-Queens Press, 2004.
Galston, William Liberal Pluralism: The Implications of Value Pluralism for Political Theory and Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Glendon, M. Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse. New York: Macmillan, 1991.
Gray, John Two Faces of Liberalism. New York: New Press, 2000.
Haugen, Gary A. Good News About Injustice. Downers Grove: I.V.P., 1999.
Hollenbach, David Claims in Conflict: Retrieving and Renewing the Catholic Human Rights Tradition. New York: Paulist Press, 1979.
Ishay, Micheline R. The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalization Era. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004.
Marshall, Christopher D. Crowned With Glory and Honor: Human Rights in the Biblical Tradition. Telford, PA: Pandora Press, 2001.
Newlands, George. Christianity and Human Rights. Hampshire, U.K.: Ashgate, 2006.
Perry, Michael J. Toward a Theory of Human Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 2007.
Reed, Esther D. The Ethics of Human Rights: Contested Doctrinal and Moral Issues. Waco, Texas: Baylor U. Press, 2007.
Regan, Ethna. Theology and the Boundary Discourse of Human Rights. Washington D.C.: Georgetown U. Press, 2010.
Shepard, Frederick M. ed. Christianity and Human Rights: Christians and the Struggle for Global Justice. Plymouth, U.K.: Lexington Books, 2009.
Sider, Ronald J. The Scandal of Evangelical Politics. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2008.
Skillen, James W. “Pluralism as a Matter of Principle” in John A. Coleman, ed. Christian Political Ethics. Princeton: Princeton U. Press, 2008: 141-152.
Stackhouse, Max L. “The Sources of Human Rights Ideas” in Frances S. Adeney and Arvind Sharma, eds. Christianity and Human Rights: Influences and Issues. New York: S.U.N.Y. Press, 2007: 41-54.
Summerville, C. John. Religious Ideas for Secular Universities. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.
Taylor, Charles. Dilemmas and Connections: Selected Essays. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U. Press. 2011.
Ward, Bruce K. Redeeming the Enlightenment: Christianity and the Liberal Virtues Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.
Witte, John Jr., “Rights” and “Religious Liberty (Foundations)” in The Encyclopedia of Christianity Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005, Vol. 4, 701-709, 597-605.
Wright, Christopher J. H. An Eye for An Eye: The Place of Old Testament Ethics Today Downers Grove: I.V.P., 1983.
Wright, Christopher J. H. Walking in the Ways of the Lord Downers Grove: I.V.P., 1995.
