Monday, November 07, 2005
Analysis of Global Transformations
Section 1.3.2
"International law recognizes powers and constraints, and rights and duties, which have qualified the principel of sovereignty in a number of important aspects; sovereignty per se is no longer a straightforward guarantee of international legitimacy. Entrenched in certaint legal instruments is the view that a legitimate state must be a democratic state that upholds certaint common values..."
I have always found the Human Rights issue fascinating. We certaintly didn't have any concept of this historically before the 20th Century. Noone cared how Rome treated those they subjugated through warfare. However, we live in a time where there are actually organizations that cross politic boundaries to speak on behalf of prisoners of war. I do believe there are some boundaries meant to be broken down. The Apostle Paul talks a few times in his letters about "no slave nor free... Jew nor Gentile" and he was a part of the most powerful superpower in the world: Rome. His words were definately subversive. But he didn't talk directly about power structures. He spoke about the interpersonal relationships within the house churches he wrote to. He wanted them to realize that the barriers that had kept them apart were now no longer as powerful. Jews and Gentiles could be unified in love. That seems to be a high value of Paul's in respect to church life. And in my study of the O.T. profits as it looks at money issues for our Economics group it seems often times God was the most upset at how we treated one another. How we treat God's creation is how we treat God. I find human rights to be a secular idea that has its roots in the good news of a reversal of power as found in the Kingdom of God. People valued despite the differences between "us" and "them." I think this is an affront to the United States of America. We have a huge entitlement complex. We talk about human rights but then we, to, commit crimes that go nearly unpunished at both Abu Ghraib and in Guatanamo. I mean how outraged is the "Christian nation" of the U.S. when people from other countries are being abused, some by our own hands? During the Vietnam War Jane Fonda was villified, called a traitor and not an American because she dared to care about and speak out for the women and children of Vietnam. We valued our American soldiers more and so we didn't care what they did to the people of Vietnam, ultimately. Now, atrocities were perpetrated on our soldiers. And I am not saying we should not value American lives. So this seems like a dilemna. Nations have self interest at heart. We have power love at our core. We go to war to "win" something. There are no self-less acts between nations in this global power structure. How do we value eveyone? How do we participate in the most powerful nation in the world and still value those around the world who are trampled on by its power and the power of others daily?
"International law recognizes powers and constraints, and rights and duties, which have qualified the principel of sovereignty in a number of important aspects; sovereignty per se is no longer a straightforward guarantee of international legitimacy. Entrenched in certaint legal instruments is the view that a legitimate state must be a democratic state that upholds certaint common values..."
I have always found the Human Rights issue fascinating. We certaintly didn't have any concept of this historically before the 20th Century. Noone cared how Rome treated those they subjugated through warfare. However, we live in a time where there are actually organizations that cross politic boundaries to speak on behalf of prisoners of war. I do believe there are some boundaries meant to be broken down. The Apostle Paul talks a few times in his letters about "no slave nor free... Jew nor Gentile" and he was a part of the most powerful superpower in the world: Rome. His words were definately subversive. But he didn't talk directly about power structures. He spoke about the interpersonal relationships within the house churches he wrote to. He wanted them to realize that the barriers that had kept them apart were now no longer as powerful. Jews and Gentiles could be unified in love. That seems to be a high value of Paul's in respect to church life. And in my study of the O.T. profits as it looks at money issues for our Economics group it seems often times God was the most upset at how we treated one another. How we treat God's creation is how we treat God. I find human rights to be a secular idea that has its roots in the good news of a reversal of power as found in the Kingdom of God. People valued despite the differences between "us" and "them." I think this is an affront to the United States of America. We have a huge entitlement complex. We talk about human rights but then we, to, commit crimes that go nearly unpunished at both Abu Ghraib and in Guatanamo. I mean how outraged is the "Christian nation" of the U.S. when people from other countries are being abused, some by our own hands? During the Vietnam War Jane Fonda was villified, called a traitor and not an American because she dared to care about and speak out for the women and children of Vietnam. We valued our American soldiers more and so we didn't care what they did to the people of Vietnam, ultimately. Now, atrocities were perpetrated on our soldiers. And I am not saying we should not value American lives. So this seems like a dilemna. Nations have self interest at heart. We have power love at our core. We go to war to "win" something. There are no self-less acts between nations in this global power structure. How do we value eveyone? How do we participate in the most powerful nation in the world and still value those around the world who are trampled on by its power and the power of others daily?
# posted by ErinW @ 8:00 AM 
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
