Human Rights Are Not Enough
The Case for Restoring Objective, Existential Rights in the Modern World
In modern discourse, human rights are widely celebrated as universal and inherent. Foundational documents like the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights articulate principles that appear absolute and self-evident. Yet beneath these noble words lies a critical disconnect: the underlying justification for these rights has shifted away from grounding in existence itself, toward political consensus and social convenience. This deeper category, grounding rights solely on the basis of existence, has been largely erased from public consciousness.
Historically, monotheism provided this grounding. At its core, monotheism articulates an objective framework centered on a singular, impartial reference point that transcends individual or collective whims. This transcendent constant is the foundation upon which existence, and therefore rights, are coherently established. It offers a stable, unbiased grounding that allows humanity to reason about what has the right to exist with clarity and rigor, the same rigor used in mathematics and science.
However, during the Enlightenment, the West repackaged the noblest insights of monotheism under the banner of “objectivity,” empowering reason and scientific advancement but simultaneously severing this objectivity from existential rights. Existential rights were reduced to mere “human rights,” subject to shifting political consensus rather than anchored in the impartial framework monotheism once provided.
This fracture of existential grounding had profound consequences. The transatlantic slave trade transformed previous notions of slavery, more akin to indentured servitude or contractual labor, into a system of forced subjugation justified through colorism. The Enlightenment’s manipulation of existential discourse muddled what it meant to exist and possess free will, intertwining these concepts with the economics of forced labor and racial hierarchy. The reduction of existence and free will to political and economic convenience rationalized the dehumanization of millions.
Colonialism further exploited this rupture, denying indigenous peoples their fundamental right to exist through shifting social and political expediency rather than objective dignity. The pseudo-sciences of phrenology and eugenics in the 19th and early 20th centuries entrenched racial hierarchies, using fabricated “scientific” claims to justify inequality and systemic oppression. These tools eroded the understanding of impartial existence and were instrumental in creating and maintaining racial caste systems that persist in various forms today.
The 20th century saw ideological battles between communism and capitalism—two extremes locked in conflict without an impartial, objective framework to mediate between collectivism and individualism. Both sides claimed moral authority, yet neither could establish a universally binding foundation that transcended cultural or political bias. This lack of a stable, transcendent constant allowed societies to swing between extremes, often to the detriment of individual freedoms and social cohesion.
Parallel to these developments, Western discourse has actively promoted the narrative of “religious fascism” as a weapon to sow fear and distrust toward monotheism. While religious fascism is real, it paradoxically serves as a diversion—redirecting attention away from the original purpose of monotheism: to navigate existence objectively and establish impartial rights. Western media, literature, and popular culture frequently depict religion as an archaic, oppressive force, cultivating a widespread aversion that obscures the deeper existential and epistemological foundation religion offers.
Works like The Handmaid’s Tale and other dystopian narratives project fears of religious authoritarianism, often ignoring how secular regimes employ similar or worse forms of control. George Orwell’s 1984 notably negates religion entirely, ironically highlighting how the erasure of transcendence leaves humanity vulnerable to unmitigated dominance and manipulation. For those aware of the ongoing campaigns of religious fascism, 1984 serves as a mirror reflecting the dangers of losing objective grounding, a reminder of why establishing and preserving a transcendent, impartial reference point is crucial.
Secularism excels at practicing objectivity in the realms of science, technology, and empirical reasoning. This is why technological advancement has flourished under secular frameworks, which effectively apply rigorous logic and empirical testing. Yet secularism has simultaneously promoted dissonance by relegating objectivity to purely scientific domains while barring its application in existential and rights discourse. It siphons the original monotheistic grounding of existence into theological debates and personal belief, detaching it from public reason and policy.
Interestingly, secular psychological practices, such as cognitive behavioral therapy, parallel worship as a form of cognitive and emotional discipline. Both aim to condition the individual’s mind toward clarity and equilibrium, helping navigate complex realities and counterbalance internal imbalances. However, secular approaches often fail to explicitly frame this as an exercise in objective grounding of existence. Without recognizing the existential objectivity at play, these practices risk becoming fragmented tools rather than components of a coherent framework for individual and societal sovereignty.
True worship, understood as a discipline fostering objective clarity about existence, is how individuals exercise free will responsibly. It is not about mindless ritual or coercion; rather, it empowers a person to make decisions independent of bias and collective pressure. The freedom to worship, then, is not a frivolous personal liberty but a profound claim to self-governance rooted in universal truth.
In the absence of this understanding, freedom of religion can become a euphemism for freedom to remain willfully ignorant about the responsibility to advocate for existence and coexistence. The urgency to reclaim the original meaning of monotheism and existential objectivity transcends theology; it is essential for surviving and thriving amid the relentless cycles of dominance and submission shaping our world.
Without anchoring our rights and existence on an objective, impartial foundation, we risk living in a reality where existence is a privilege granted by power rather than a universal condition recognized and defended by reason. Restoring this foundation is not just an academic exercise; it is the imperative for justice, freedom, and the future of humanity.