Now Why Doesn’t This Surprise Me? “Bitter” Isn’t Obama’s Only Verbal Gaffe (Bumped)

Benedict XVI at the UN

April 19th, 2008 at 12:01am Mark Noonan

Bringing a bit of Truth to a body which doesn’t hear it too often:

The life of the community, both domestically and internationally, clearly demonstrates that respect for rights, and the guarantees that follow from them, are measures of the common good that serve to evaluate the relationship between justice and injustice, development and poverty, security and conflict. The promotion of human rights remains the most effective strategy for eliminating inequalities between countries and social groups, and for increasing security. Indeed, the victims of hardship and despair, whose human dignity is violated with impunity, become easy prey to the call to violence, and they can then become violators of peace. The common good that human rights help to accomplish cannot, however, be attained merely by applying correct procedures, nor even less by achieving a balance between competing rights. The merit of the Universal Declaration is that it has enabled different cultures, juridical expressions and institutional models to converge around a fundamental nucleus of values, and hence of rights. Today, though, efforts need to be redoubled in the face of pressure to reinterpret the foundations of the Declaration and to compromise its inner unity so as to facilitate a move away from the protection of human dignity towards the satisfaction of simple interests, often particular interests.

For the liberals in the audience, what the Holy Father was pointing out is the absolute and self-evident truth that it is human beings who have rights, not groups of human beings. There is no such thing, really, as “women’s rights”, “black rights” or “gay rights” - there are human rights, and humans hold them inherent to their being. All of these efforts to try and redress alleged imbalances and cross-groups injustices will always fail because they seek to deal with human beings in groups, rather than as people - and thus we see things such as affirmative action in America giving most of its benefits not to poor people who may actually have suffered injustice, but to upper class and rich people who are best able to take advantage of the group benefits offered. If you want to ameliorate injustice, then you will have to take the trouble to do it case by case, human by human. The Pope went on:

Human rights, of course, must include the right to religious freedom, understood as the expression of a dimension that is at once individual and communitarian - a vision that brings out the unity of the person while clearly distinguishing between the dimension of the citizen and that of the believer. The activity of the United Nations in recent years has ensured that public debate gives space to viewpoints inspired by a religious vision in all its dimensions, including ritual, worship, education, dissemination of information and the freedom to profess and choose religion. It is inconceivable, then, that believers should have to suppress a part of themselves - their faith - in order to be active citizens. It should never be necessary to deny God in order to enjoy one’s rights. The rights associated with religion are all the more in need of protection if they are considered to clash with a prevailing secular ideology or with majority religious positions of an exclusive nature. The full guarantee of religious liberty cannot be limited to the free exercise of worship, but has to give due consideration to the public dimension of religion, and hence to the possibility of believers playing their part in building the social order.

In a just society, the human beings who believe in God must be allowed to bring this belief in to the public square and use such belief in their efforts to help build the society. To say there is a “wall of separation” between Church and State which precludes believers from attempting to enact their moral views into law really means there is a wall of separation between justice and people. A society cannot be free unless all who are contained within it are allowed to argue their point, and attempt to convince the legitimate law-making bodies that their views should prevail - any attempt to force religion out of the public square or, more absurdly, to claim that an expression of religion is said square is an illegitimate “establishment” of religion is really an attempt to deny liberty, and deny justice to individual human beings who believe in God.

The illness in our society fundamentally stems from the deliberate attempt to expunge the transcendent; from the attempt to try and construct a society where justice is considered secondary in the quest to build a good society. Pope Benedict’s words are a timely reminder of what we really need to do - seek justice first, and the good society will flow from that.

del.icio.us Reddit Digg Facebook Technorati Google StumbleUpon Yahoo Ask Newsvine

Entry Filed under: Social Issues


Similar Posts

7 Comments

  • 1. Freedom1  |  April 19th, 2008 at 3:11 am

    I’m really glad that Pope Benedict XVI is here in America! He is like a breath of fresh air. He’s bringing a message of God, love, hope.

    God bless, Pope Benedict XVI! :)

  • 2. congressive  |  April 19th, 2008 at 3:18 am

    Deleted - mentions scandal in the Church.

  • 3. congressive  |  April 19th, 2008 at 5:29 am

    Ok, I’ll try not to mention what the Pope mentioned.

    Religions cannot self-censure, therefore cannot provide moral guidance. Claiming divine knowledge prevents all religions from admitting fault. Only government of laws above all men AND religions can provide an effective moral framework.

    Thanks to the enlightenment of our forefathers, we have that now. We must not lose it.

    I thought you’d be flattered by the Catholic News Network (CNN) comment.

    Guess not.

  • 4. Macker  |  April 19th, 2008 at 10:48 am

    “I thought you’d be flattered by the Catholic News Network (CNN) comment.”

    Um…that’s Caliphate News Network, congressive.

  • 5. Brian (Boston)  |  April 19th, 2008 at 1:00 pm

    There is no such thing, really, as “women’s rights”, “black rights” or “gay rights” - there are human rights, and humans hold them inherent to their being - Mark

    I agree with this statement. Okay, so as humans, why cannot two people who love each other marry?

    In a just society, the human beings who believe in God must be allowed to bring this belief in to the public square and use such belief in their efforts to help build the society. - Mark

    Don’t you mean the God you believe in? I am sure you would feel much different if a group of Muslims wanted the country to honor their values. If you want a non secular State, then move to one of those successful ones, most which lie in the Middle East.

    And frankly, I do not like your values of hatred towards others. Or your rigidness to helping others by collectively pitching in to help society. Or your unwillingness to listen to other’s point of view. If this is what the church brings to our society, then it should be kept out of the public square.

  • 6. congressive  |  April 20th, 2008 at 5:48 am

    Deleted - complains about comment policy.

  • 7. Mark Noonan  |  April 21st, 2008 at 2:53 am

    Brian,

    Moslem Americans are free to bring their Moslem morality into the public square and attempt to convince the American people that all or part of it should be enacted into law. Given that only about 1% of Americans are Moslem, they probably won’t be too successful at this, but I’ll be the very last person to say that some proposal is out of order merely because it is in accord with Moslem morals.

    As for why two persons who love each other can’t marry - well, they can; if both are agreeable and they are a single male and a single female. Of course, you meant why can’t gay people marry each other…because marriage isn’t about forming couples, but about forming families for the procreation of the next generation and raising it up in accordance with the Judeo-Christian underpinnings of our civilization (that you may want to underpin us with something other than Judeo-Christian morality is an interesting concept, but not practical, and is also something I’ll fight very hard to prevent). If a gay person wishes to participate in this vital activity - the most important human beings undertake - then he or she may…but only in a real marriage, which requires members of the opposite sex.

    You see, marriage isn’t a right - it can’t be, as it takes two people to do it. A right is only something that a person can at least potentially do entirely on their own - marriage is a privilege, and we have set it up for the propagation not just of our species, but of our way of life. Any gay person who wants to join in is quite welcome to do so - but we’re not going to modify it into something its not.


Prime Sponsor

Advertisements

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

RSS Blogs For John McCain's Victory

RSS GOP Bloggers

Archives


Blogroll

Meta

Tags

Mark Noonan on Twitter

Matt Margolis on Twitter

    Advertisements

    Buttons For Your Blog

    Disclaimer

    Blogs For Victory is privately owned and maintained. All contributors are volunteers unaffiliated with any campaign or political party.

    Material published and opinions expressed herein are solely the responsibility of the individual authors of this site.