Should rights be granted by God or by men?

Autumnleaf said:

The US Constitution says our rights come from God, not men.

Click to expand...

Where does the Constitution say that?

Our rights come from man and are enforced by either the government or the people rallying together if the government doesn't grant people their rights.

Our rights come not from God or man, though God would concur. I think our rights are a natural consequences of our nature; namely reason,empathy and our consciousness.

This protects our rights for as long as we are human (our whole lives), but can also be applies to all people without appeal to God. When you tie rights to God it becomes theology and therefore very messy and hard for many to agree with.

"The US Constitution says our rights come from God, not men. This distinction seems trite but I think there is a good reason why it should be said that rights come from God and not men."

1. I believe you are thinking of the Declaration of Independence, which is NOT the supreme law of the land. Which Biblical verses account for the Bill of Rights? Which say that gov't will not establish nor infringe upon the freedom to express the religion of your choice? Which says that their is due process?

"If rights come from God then those rights are protected eternally. If they come from men, well, then they can be taken away by men."

2. You mean like they have been for thousands of years? Often by kings or oligarchies who'd swear on a stack of the religious text of their choosing that THEY get their authority from a god?


"Since most people are theists of one kind or another, isn't it a good idea for us to make human rights a God-granted issue rather than a secular humanist area?"
I'm all for making rights god-given if a god were to appear and tell us this was the case. This has NOT been the case. Every tyrant that has ever been overthrown as been overthrown by other people. Every democracy that has ever been established has been by the people, for the people.
To say rights are god-given, especially with the reasoning that you use, is just pandering to religious folk who need yet another reason to think that their religion is special.

jayem said:

Where does the Constitution say that?

Click to expand...

I have to agree, there is no mention of God in the Constitution.

That said, I would go with man. Mainly because what is a 'right' changes over time.

Autumnleaf said:

If rights come from God then those rights are protected eternally.

Click to expand...

They don't and they're not.

Autumnleaf said:

If they come from men, well, then they can be taken away by men.

Click to expand...

They do and they can be.

And pretending otherwise can't protect you. The only thing you can do is acknowledge that danger and be on guard for it.

Perhaps Autumnleaf is confusing some of the language of the U.S. Constitution with that of the Declaration of Independence, the latter of which reads in part, "...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights ... [and so on]." By contrast, the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution includes, "We the people of the United States, in order to ... establish justice ... [and so on]."

I draw attention to the purpose of "we the people" establishing justice in the Constitution because I am thinking of rights as a kind of flip side of obligations, duties, and whatever it takes to establish justice.

The Bill of Rights is a kind of appendage to the Constitution, and it primarily at first seems to be concerned with claiming the rights of individuals (and states) against intrusions and demands of Congress and the central government. Thus obligations and duties are placed on Congress. Later articles (XIII and following) in stark contrast claim congressional power in enforcing (!) individual and central government rights in opposition to state intrusions and demands. States have certain obligations and duties in order to enable individual (and central government) rights.

When we the people of the present United States think of "rights," we probably think primarily of corresponding restrictions and obligations placed upon one level of government or another (or vaguely conceived government) that ought to grant us certain claimed civil liberties. Or we think of restrictions on the power of certain individuals (particularly those in authority such as employers and teachers, but also in egalitarian relationships) with respect to us as individuals.

In other words, rights in the legal sphere of the United States are largely enabled by contrasting restrictions placed on jurisdiction or by duties placed on the powers of various authorities or of individuals. And I agree with Nababolis in that the means of enforcement is variously conceived as by the governing authorities or, following the tradition of John Locke, the people (though for Locke and for theists generally, Deity stands in some relationship or other behind human activity)--and in this connection I cannot help but think also of Benjamin Franklin's caution in defining democracy as one sheep and two wolves voting on what to have for lunch.

The Bible, by way of contrast and comparison, shows some interest in rights (e.g., of an unloved wife with respect to her husband viz-a-viz the husband's love for another wife), but it seems primarily more interested in laws, obligations, and duties God places on individuals or on those in authority. And rights, such as they are, are derived from said duties. That is to say by way of example, I have a right not to be murdered by an individual because that individual has an obligation to God not to murder me.

While the Mosaic Covenant was made with a specific nation and not others, and while there are obligations the Bible places on Christians alone, yet the Bible also assumes or states that there are certain ethical obligations that God places on all persons whatsoever, such as prohibition against murder (cf. Isaiah 24:5, Amos 1-2, Romans 1:18-32). Insofar as those ethical absolutes place obligations on all persons, they imply certain corresponding universal human rights.

And as Paradoxum more or less pointed out, in some measure and degree, certain ethical principles are broadly confessed or adopted by the human race as history shows (not that the record is entirely uniform), sometimes without respect to God.

Thus what the Constitution (especially its Bill of Rights) labels as "rights" probably overlaps with what may at least be inferred as "rights" from universally applicable ethical demands according to the Bible. But equivalence may be absent in certain areas, or partial, or obvious, or murky.

And perhaps thus also, the hue and cry for "rights" in the United States and abroad seems mixed between legitimate demands for justice against egregious violations on the one hand and self-centered, partisan-favoring, short-sighted or counter-productive ones on the other. Liberty is one thing. License is another. Both in some sense may accord with rights bound in law or popular opinion.

In the United States, it would be a mistake to omit or underestimate the underlying value of the Declaration of Independence and its conception of God as Sovereign over law-making nations for the U.S. Constitution. And propagation of the idea that humans are under obligation to keep God's ethical principles is preferred in my opinion to the idea of law denuded of divine purpose, though as history shows also, claim of divine authority does not in itself make it so.

But in any event, historical convolution suggests clarification would be a better start than unrecognized ambiguity.

Paradoxum said:

When you tie rights to God it becomes theology and therefore very messy and hard for many to agree with.

Click to expand...

I do not think one can avoid "messiness" where God is censured either unless you favor secularist totalitarianism. Rights in practice are always tied to power plays (of which theology serves as only one milieu), and the only place where power plays abate is where conflicting opinions (and hence someone's rights) are sufficiently suppressed.

Anything that I say here will basically just be repeating George Carlin but without his charm, so let me instead just link you to his video which expresses my views way better than I can: (Warning: Contains adult language)

EDIT: Relevant portion beings at the 4:24 min mark.

George Carlin -Rights and Privileges - YouTube

Autumnleaf said:

The basic idea though, is do we want to appeal to a higher authority than men for what are basic human rights.

Click to expand...

The problem, as was noted, is that dictators can also appeal to the same higher authority to obliterate basic human rights.

jayem said:

The problem, as was noted, is that dictators can also appeal to the same higher authority to obliterate basic human rights.

Click to expand...

Yes. What benefits can we expect to see from saying our rights are god-given? And I'd really like some input from other Christians on this subject.

Autumnleaf said:

The basic idea though, is do we want to appeal to a higher authority than men for what are basic human rights.

Click to expand...

Why appeal to a higher authority when interpritation of that authorities will changes with the times. Slavery is a good case of this.

Besides, what would this higher authority do to inforce and protect these right that we are not already doing?

God granted rights, interpretted by men?

I don't exactly follow. How are you supposed to know what God-granted rights there are when its simply men telling you that they are God-granted rights? Aren't those just rights granted by men?

Doesn't that just mean people will say "Hey!, these are your rights, granted by God! Take my, a man's, word for it!"

Wrong on the first sentance, the Constiution dosen't assert that rights are God given.

To the rest of the argument I already replied in this thread.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7623941-12/#post59752752

me said:

It's a convenient fiction that God gives us rights.

In reality rights are enforced by power, the genius idea of our system is to try to rest that power with the people themselves, rather than some God ordained government like a monarchy or theocracy (which gets it's legitimacy only from the idea of God).

In reality societies have rights because society will stand up and defend them in solidarity, the government can either be a tool of the enforcement of rights or it can be a tool to take them away but it is merely a tool regardless.

In the end though God is only what is used to try to convince the people to stand up and defend what people think are their rights, it dosen't grant them directly.

Look at what Thomas Jefferson claimed were his rights if you don't believe me and then go show me where in the Bible you derive them.

Freedom of conscience and religion? Seriously?

Freedom to persue happyness?

Consent to be taxed?

Government by consent of the governed?

Protection against tyrrany?

Click to expand...

No rights do not come from god. Yes, rights are given, protected, and abolished through governments.

Autumnleaf said:

The basic idea though, is do we want to appeal to a higher authority than men for what are basic human rights.

Click to expand...

There seems a certain logic, as has been suggested on this thread, to the idea that rights stand or fall on the authority of the legal system behind them. History suggests the "fall" part has happened before, or in lesser ways in the US by the rising and falling of interest groups.

In a sense at least, the Bible seems to concur. The Ten Commandments begin with a demand to recognize the authority of the God of the patriarchs and of the Exodus events. And Jesus tells His disciples to tell their disciples to "observe everything I have commanded you." Law, and hence any rights derived from law, is only as good as the law-giver and the "social contract" with the law-giver.

What I tried to argue in part in a previous post to this thread is that despite confusion, there exists certain universal and absolute ethical principles (and hence rights) based on the authority of the God who created and sustains everything. These principles, because universal in God's world, may be recognized by and written into the legal systems of the nations, so that appeal to these laws and rights without respect to God is sometimes made.

But note that appeal to such rights would be unnecessary if there were no violations of God's universal laws. Then what might appeal to those rights as coming from God accomplish (assuming those rights are correctly defined and do come from God)? And what would be the intent?

Such appeal will not, for example, change human nature and human violations of absolute ethical principle--will not even change all distortions of claims of right and wrong. God has revealed Himself and what is right and wrong to all persons, yet often we "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (Rom. 1). We humans often deceive ourselves to the point of not acknowledging God and His laws.

Thus appeal to rights as coming from God may or may not have the (presumably) desired effect of correcting behavior in human court or elsewhere. Such appeal may nonetheless serve as witness against wrong-doers that in His own time and way, God will enforce His law. Such appeal may be particularly warranted where pressure is brought to bear for doing wrong, "I have a right not to do wrong." At other times it may be advisable not to insist on one's rights at all, such as to exercise patience or submit to unjust suffering for the sake of the gospel.

I would close again with caution, however, that right and wrong be carefully defined and identified with God. As has been said on this thread already, there are claims to divine origin of "rights" which ain't so. Other rights are specific to a human legal system, but bear perhaps at most only tangential relationship to absolute and universal ethical principle.

As other's have said, there is no way to determine God given rights, as all rights claimed to be God given are interpreted by man and everyone's interpretations are different on who should have what rights.

I don't see what difference it makes if God does grant rights since He doesn't enforce them (in this world).