Carried into the modern world by the French and American revolutions, individual rights became the foundation of liberal democracy, clearly the most robust and equitable of all systems of government yet conceived. And although it happened more slowly than many people would have liked, the concept of individual rights brought about great goods like ending government-backed slavery, women's suffrage, and the civil rights movement.
But as he points out, it goes further than that. We who call ourselves Christians are called to go further than be concerned with our own individual rights, we are called to be concerned with the individual rights of others. Part of me thinks that is easier for a middle-aged (or approaching it) middle-class guy like me who isn't worried about if I'll have anything to eat tonight or whether my kids have jackets and socks and underwear and a roof over their heads. On the other hand, I'm constantly reminded of those who have practically nothing who still seem to find it in their hearts to be more concerned about others than themselves. I wonder if I could do the same. I'd like to think so, but I honestly don't know. Sherry just got back from El Salvador and the stories she tells of the people they worked with there (and in Ukraine where she is going again in April) are gut-wrenching. The stories she tells of some of the people who went down to "help" are sickening (maybe I'll expound on that later). Anyway, I'll be interested to see what he says in part 2.
The second article was this one by Becky Garrison. She writes about discovering she is directly descended from Rev. Roger Williams who founded Rhode Island. He had some very strong views on the separation of church and state based on the very real persecution that he was fleeing. As far as her question about whether religious leaders should be endorsing candidates, they are human beings, too. As individuals they have every right to support the candidate of their choice, but as she points out, they must be careful not to become "political pawns." To borrow a phrase from the Quakers (see also this) religious leaders have an obligation to "speak truth to power." When they cease to be able to take their chosen leader to task for his/her failure to do the right thing (like torturing prisoners to name just one example), then they lose their moral authority. The other extreme though, and something that bothers me a little about this year's election, is the apparent requirement that candidates have to have some strongly held religious beliefs. While I don't think that is necessarily a detriment, it also certainly isn't a requirement to be able to govern and I'd rather the politicians be going to church for reasons other than political expediency.
