A recent flare-up over "God-given rights” caught my eye, sparked by a Politico writer's comical misunderstanding of a fundamental pillar of America. She bemoaned that “Christian nationalists … believe that our rights as Americans, as all human beings, don't come from any earthly authority. They don't come from Congress, they don't come from the Supreme Court. They come from God.”
The greatest constitutional eye opener is to realize the Bill of Rights does not create rights but seeks to protect the people from a government which would try to take them away. A recent “tell” was when Barack Obama proclaimed the Declaration of Independence referred to the people being “endowed” with rights but omitted the pesky phrase “by their Creator”. As if “poof…you have rights”. “Oh, where did they come from?” ….”Don’t ask, we don’t want to talk about that”.
Barry also bitches about the fact that the Constitution is a list of what he derisively terms "negative rights", like that was a bad thing. That is, it defines what the government is NOT to do. He wants it rewritten to define all the things that a government IS to do - provide a guaranteed income, the right to control every aspect of our lives, abortion,....
The point here is not to get hung up on the word "Creator," but to appreciate the larger point that our rights are inherent. They're not bestowed by a government, so any government that oversteps its constitutional ability to curtail those rights is violating natural law.
Natural rights are an Enlightenment-era philosophical concept rooted in -- but separate from -- religious tradition. The Founders were more Deists than Christians in the modern sense, so their use of words like "Creator" has to be understood in that context. (Jefferson wrote that clause. Google "Jefferson Bible" to find out how wide the gulf between Jefferson's Deism and traditional Christianity could get.)
Another problem with emphasizing "God" or "Creator" instead of "natural" rights is possible imposition of Constitutional interpretation based on theological advice. As we see in Iran, this kind of thing can get out of hand. Better to frame policy based on individual rights (enumerated and implicit) and nudge those who think they've got the inside scoop on divine intent back to their private places of worship.
In a way you can understand this Atheist's confusion. How can rights come from something that doesn't exist? My question for her is, "How can you question the existence of a creative source with the absolute wonderment of all that has been created?"
The greatest constitutional eye opener is to realize the Bill of Rights does not create rights but seeks to protect the people from a government which would try to take them away. A recent “tell” was when Barack Obama proclaimed the Declaration of Independence referred to the people being “endowed” with rights but omitted the pesky phrase “by their Creator”. As if “poof…you have rights”. “Oh, where did they come from?” ….”Don’t ask, we don’t want to talk about that”.
Barry also bitches about the fact that the Constitution is a list of what he derisively terms "negative rights", like that was a bad thing. That is, it defines what the government is NOT to do. He wants it rewritten to define all the things that a government IS to do - provide a guaranteed income, the right to control every aspect of our lives, abortion,....
The point here is not to get hung up on the word "Creator," but to appreciate the larger point that our rights are inherent. They're not bestowed by a government, so any government that oversteps its constitutional ability to curtail those rights is violating natural law.
Natural rights are an Enlightenment-era philosophical concept rooted in -- but separate from -- religious tradition. The Founders were more Deists than Christians in the modern sense, so their use of words like "Creator" has to be understood in that context. (Jefferson wrote that clause. Google "Jefferson Bible" to find out how wide the gulf between Jefferson's Deism and traditional Christianity could get.)
Another problem with emphasizing "God" or "Creator" instead of "natural" rights is possible imposition of Constitutional interpretation based on theological advice. As we see in Iran, this kind of thing can get out of hand. Better to frame policy based on individual rights (enumerated and implicit) and nudge those who think they've got the inside scoop on divine intent back to their private places of worship.
Our rights come from God
In a way you can understand this Atheist's confusion. How can rights come from something that doesn't exist? My question for her is, "How can you question the existence of a creative source with the absolute wonderment of all that has been created?"