“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…”
These are the profound words of the U.S. Declaration of
Independence. The founders of the United States
recognized some of the most important principles ever to be understood. These
words show their understanding that all men (male and female) are created (Gen.
1). Mankind is not some perchance, randomly evolved race. But this recognition
carries with it a deeper understanding that because we are created, we have
been given, by our Creator, “certain unalienable rights.” That is, these rights
are ours by virtue of the fact that we are humans created by God in His image,
and no one can take them away from us but God alone. Human rights are ours because
of our created nature and thus unalterable.
People like to talk about their rights. We have a right to
free speech, a right to engage in religious assembly, a right to a free press,
a right to bear arms, a right to privacy, etc. etc. We are quick to point out
when our rights have been violated; think of the cases that go before the
Supreme Court that are based upon these rights.
But why do we have rights? To answer this question, let’s
look at a couple other points that are necessarily tied to this. First, when it
comes to having rights, there are really only two possibilities*: either
everyone has rights or only some have them. The fact is that at least some do
have rights (i.e., it is not true that no one has rights – this is also
self-evident). The question is, why do these “some”
have their rights? Is it merely because they have been placed in a position of
power? Are they somehow superior to everyone else in a way that they deserve
rights while no one else does? Or do they have rights because they are human?
If these “some” have rights merely due to some other human’s
power and will, then those rights are not inherent in being human. It would be
nonsense, then, to try to argue about our rights, for they would be solely at
the whim of those in power. There would be no such thing as “certain unalienable
rights” endowed by a Creator. They would be endowed only by lawmakers and
tyrants who could just as easily take them away and decide who gets the
privilege of “personhood.”
However, if these “some” have rights because they are human,
then logically every human has the same rights because they are also human. To
argue that only some have rights is to dehumanize everyone else. And the
criteria for establishing why only some have rights would become quite
arbitrary and subjective. But if the criterion for having human rights is that
one is human, then every human has those same unalienable rights regardless of
status.
The point is that humans have human rights because they are
human. But why does this matter? The problem is that some apparently think that
people have rights only because they have been given those rights by other
humans who are in power. That is, might makes right,
and might bestows rights on those whom the empowered ones choose (usually
themselves). The founding fathers of the United
States were fighting against this very
abuse. They recognized that humans have rights because they are human, and when
a government begins to abuse those rights, then that government becomes
illegitimate.
The founders recognized that the purpose of the government
was to secure human rights, not to grant them. In other words, the purpose of
those in power is not to decide who should and who should not have rights. The
purpose is for those in power to protect the God-given rights that belong to
all people on the grounds that they are humans created by God with those rights
already in place. Government is not the giver of rights, and if those in power
think that’s what government is about, then they have misunderstood their role
and should not be in that position. A government established with this in mind
is in a position to fight tyranny. A government that forgets this will
deteriorate into a tyranny.
What happens when people lose their bearings regarding who
they are? What happens when God is pushed out of the public picture? Our
country is now coming face to face with this very problem. The problem is that,
while trying to argue for our rights, people are denying the source of their
rights (God). They essentially want to turn the granting of rights over to the
government, and this will increasingly turn us into a “might makes
right” society. Then our rights will be at the whim of those in power. They
will decide what “rights” are and
what “rights” mean. And those rights
can change once the powers change hands. By then we will have become the image
of the country from which the founders were trying to break free. People cannot
consistently argue for their rights when they fail to establish the source of
their rights and the purpose of government. In this country, we are in grave
danger of failing on both counts.
The founders said that these truths are “self-evident.” This
means that these truths need no further proof; they prove themselves. That we
are created by an Invisible Maker is self-evident (cf. Rom. 1). That we have
human rights because we are human is self-evident. That a government should
seek to protect those rights (not impose their own arbitrary ones) is
self-evident.
Paul argued that a government’s purpose is to recognize the
difference between good and evil (as defined by God), punish the evil-doers,
and reward those who do well (Rom. 13). What better reward can we have from a
government than a protection of the rights with which we are endowed by our
Creator? Government is to serve the purposes of God, not usurp them.
This basic point has serious implications for several other
issues. For example, how does this position affect an issue like abortion?
Basically, abortion is performed by those who are exerting their power over the
helpless (in this case, the infant). Abortionists do not recognize that the
fetus is human, and therefore do not “bestow” human rights on “it,” as if such
rights are theirs to bestow. This is really no different from a super-power
government exercising itself over the will of the people and deciding which
people have rights. Abortion is a conspicuous example of the “might makes right” mentality. “Right to privacy” is a cop-out
because an inherent right to privacy does not include being able to exert power
over the helpless and failing to respect their inherent rights as humans. Yet
if the fetus is not human, then what is it?
The point is that if we are going to continue to enjoy the
rights we have, then we need to get back to biblical foundations recognized in
the Declaration that all men are created equal and endowed by the Creator with
their rights. Once we get away from this principle, we will fall headlong into
a mentality that neither we nor our fathers could bear. May God help us to
remember who we are!
__________
*Peter Kreeft makes a case for this in his Apple Argument against Abortion.
