Sider on Justice 1

I've been reading Ron Sider's The Scandal of Evangelical Politics. I've recently finished Chapter 5, which is titled "Justice." I think I disagree with much that is in this chapter.

I begin with Sider's basic idea of justice:

"Since the time of Aristotle, political thinkers have agreed that justice exists when persons receive what is due them. Persons, of course, live in groups and institutions, and something is also owed these different societal institutions." (p. 101)

He also explains:

"But what is due to persons and institutions? The most basic theological answer is: the order of creation established by God. 'The rights of man are rights which, so to speak, God gives men at their birth. The rights of communities are rights which go back to a definite relationship between men based on the order of creation. . . .In the last resort all justice means these constants of creation as a basis on which every human being receives his due.'" (p 101-103)

This is a perspective that I'm quite baffled by. I do understand the idea of God given rights, but I don't understand God given rights in terms of something that is due to an individual. I also don't understand the idea that a "societal institution" or that a community can have rights, much less that a "societal institution" or a community is due anything.

My understanding of a person's rights is consistent with the perspective Thomas Jefferson relied on in writing the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Jefferson's ideas of justice and rights seem to me quite different from Sider's ideas. Note first that for Jefferson there are certain unalienable rights. Jefferson's concept is that these certain individual unalienable rights are gifts from God. A person is not due these unalienable rights. These individual rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inherent in the individual because they are given by God, and these unalienable rights are the stuff of personhood and existence.

Second, note that the concept of justice is written about in the same paragraph as these certain unalienable rights. But, note that justice is written about as an attribute of government's power over the lives of individuals. A government can be just or unjust, and an unjust government would be a government that uses power in ways that infringe of the unalienable rights of individuals.

I take it that government is one of the "societal institutions" that Sider writes about as being due something. As such, the third difference of note between what I understand from Sider and from Jefferson is that the societal institution which is government is not due anything. Government is thought by Jefferson to be "instituted" by people in their efforts to secure their God-given unalienable rights against violation by other people. It is important also to understand that for Jefferson it is the individual's liberty that is being used by the people who choose to grant government power over their unalienable rights. Government has no rights, and the powers of government are thought to be granted by people. Not only is government not due anything on Jefferson's view, but when a government is unjust, i.e., government uses it granted powers to infringe on these certain unalienable rights, then the people can choose to take back the powers they granted by abolishing that government. People can take back the powers they granted because an individual always has the unalienable right to liberty which was given to every individual by God.

Sider applies his view of justice and rights to the issue of religious freedom:

"The biblical story tells us that the most important truth about human beings is that the Creator shaped us with the longing to find our ultimate fulfillment in right relationship with God. God also gave each person the freedom to embrace or refuse the divine invitation to fellowship. That means that the single most important thing that all human institutions including the state owe to persons is religious freedom, the space to respond freely to God's call."

It seems to me that Jefferson's view of rights and justice suggests a quite different view on the issue raised here. Government does not owe persons religious freedom because the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness embody religious freedom as a person's unalienable right. It seems to me best not to think of religious freedom as something I am owed by anyone else. To think in this way is to really say that I get whatever religious freedom I come to enjoy because it was given to me by others, and perhaps because that religious freedom was given to me by a government. My religious freedom is mine, and it is unalienable, and any government that infringes on that freedom by using force in a way that goes beyond the power I freely gave government over this unalienable right is a government that is unjust.

I suppose Sider might say that he and I, and Jefferson, are really saying the same thing. But, I think the idea of having something "owed" to me by government or by others is an idea that ultimately infringes on my unalienable rights when it becomes the foundation for the view of the purpose of government. A government like ours makes decisions in a way that might loosely be described as reflecting the "will of the majority." Many people seem to me to think that the "will of the majority" justifiably trumps the will of the individual. If we think of government as owing religious freedom to me, and at the same time we think that the will of the majority trumps my will, then it is a very short conceptual step to the thought that the religious freedom I am owed by government can be determined by the "will of the majority." But, I agree with Jefferson's view that implies religious freedom is part of my unalienable rights, and therefore I am the only one that can choose how much power to allow government to justly exercise over my individual right to religious freedom.

It seems to me that if we think in terms of government owing us a realm of individual freedom, then not only can that conceptual framework lead to the idea that government ultimately defines what the reach of the realm will be, but also that we give up the conceptually defensible view of Jefferson that when government infringes our unalienable rights then we can justly end the existence of the government. Actually I think Jefferson's view is that we can always, and for any reason, take back the power we, conceptually, grant government over our unalienable rights. In contrast, we do not typically assume that a person can justifiably take from another person what they are owed.

I find Jefferson's views on justice and unalienable rights the better perspective, and I think his views are a conceptually better foundation for the idea of government in view of my belief, and apparently Sider's as well, that God doesn't force, but allows, us to use the freedom and liberty he gifted to us as we choose.

I suspect that one reason for taking the perspective that justice means people are owed things is so that Sider can argue that God's justice demands a certain degree of redistribution. Consider the following from his discussion of religious freedom:

". . .Since this creation mandate falls on every person, society owes each person the space, the freedom, and a share in the available resources to exercise this divine mandate. Justice demands that every person enjoy the opportunity to fulfill this creation mandate. . . .Justice demands that every person has the opportunity -- within the limits of every particular historical setting -- to enjoy a generous sufficiency of material necessities." (105)

I will take up my views about such ideas as these in my next post on Sider on Justice 2.