Wealth is Unlimited
Rights Have Boundaries

Strange how the same folks who think there are limitless human rights in the world also believe that only a finite amount of wealth is on the planet.

Here's what they mean by the latter belief:

Earth's wealth is like a sack of valuables strewn across the continents. Each affluent person has gathered a share of the total wealth. Their bad news is that too many have now become rich. For the next person's net worth to greatly increase, someone else's share of the pie has to shrink.

This error refuses to accede that new wealth can be created by hard work, or, even better, by smart work. Although dishonest scales bolster the crook's finances there are still many legitimate ways to increase the world population's wealth.

Having disagreed with the limited wealth philosophy; I now wish to counter the limitless rights idea.

Whatever your position on abortion we all understand that it's a clash of rights.

The right of the mother to a life without the added responsibilities of another child, is weighed against whatever that is within her womb - person, protoplasm or benign growth. Only in childbirth and, if needs be, adoption, can the rights of both mother and baby be upheld. Our courts have granted a woman the right to take away the rights of her unborn infant.

It's not a win-win situation.

Most of us value the right to own property. People have bought all kinds of land.

Some live in the flood plane of major rivers. After recent NJ floods there's a call upon the federal government to buy homes that keep getting soaked. To force the state or the union to buy these homes is bending the right of the government to keep out of private property matters.

Mind you there's a dangerous trend in our national politics where a government official can cast a greedy eye on your property, force you to sell it and then hand what's yours to a favored developer.

In this transaction your property rights and the rights of government to muscle you out of what you don't want to sell can't both stand.

A private high school run by the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod in California, thought they had the right to rule that homosexual behavior would be considered worthy of expulsion. They suspended 2 students.

"The 142 student school" said their San Diego lawyer "has no right to discriminate against lesbians because it operates as a business and falls under California civil-rights laws. It also allows non-Christians to attend who may not follow Lutheran teachings."

The state of California has conferred rights that the school doesn't recognize.

Both can't win.

My friend Ken is the principal of a Church of the Nazarene high school in Miami, Florida. He and the board thought they had the right to expel kids who were caught smoking pot. The use of marijuana is forbidden in the school rules. Parents sign acceptance of these. Recently a judge ruled that a boy so expelled had his rights disrespected. They were ordered to take the boy back.

Don't be too reliant on what you consider your rights. They are not limitless.

This is an old debate.

The king of England believed he had the right to harsh taxation of the American colonies. The settlers believed they had the right to representation in the British parliament. This clash escalated into war because both sides stood resolute.

Pastors are going to jail in western countries for hate speech. These humble people of conviction have been cajoled by their governments to stop calling homosexual acts deviant behavior.

While there's no room for zealous relish in using the pulpit to denounce people, I stand by those who quietly and with inspired reason speak the tenets of the Bible.

Be bold. Be loving. Know the scripture. Speak clearly.

Only weigh the cost of such speech. Don't expect to hide behind your rights. Ultimately your only rights are in heaven.

Only what God calls valid will eventually matter.