Sad
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Sen. Tim Kaine Denies God-Given Rights, Calls Them “Radical and Dangerous”

Senator Tim Kaine has ignited criticism after suggesting that Americans’ rights come not from God or nature but from government itself. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, the Virginia Democrat dismissed the belief in God-given rights as “radical and dangerous,” even comparing it to the ideology of Iran’s theocracy.

The remark immediately drew a strong rebuke from Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who reminded Kaine that the very foundation of the United States rests on the opposite principle. The Declaration of Independence, drafted in 1776 by Thomas Jefferson, states clearly that people “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” In other words, rights exist before any government and are only secured by the state, not granted by the state.

The logic behind Cruz’s rebuttal is straightforward: if government is the source of rights, then government can take them away whenever it chooses. That view, conservatives argue, is not only historically false but also deeply dangerous to liberty. It replaces the American idea of limited government with a model where the state decides who is free and who is not.

Virginia’s own history makes Kaine’s claim even harder to square. Just weeks before Jefferson wrote the Declaration, George Mason authored the Virginia Declaration of Rights. That document established that people are “by nature” free and independent, possessing inherent rights that cannot be surrendered. It was a direct rejection of the notion that rulers or governments could decide who deserved liberty.

Kaine’s remarks ignore this history and erode the very reason the United States broke away from Britain in the first place. The American Revolution was not fought so that politicians could hand out rights like favors. It was fought on the belief that rights belong to every person by virtue of being human, and that government exists only to protect them.

By framing natural rights as a “radical” idea, Kaine has placed himself against more than two centuries of American tradition, which is a place Democrats like vacationing. In fact, the entire Democratic Party platform is made up almost entirely of policies that oppose centuries of American tradition and God’s natural law.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
SunshineGirl · 36-40, F
Irrespective of where those rights emanate from, neither God nor Nature have proven very effective at defending them or ensuring that they are applied universally and fairly. Hence the need for government.
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@SunshineGirl

"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, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security....."

Wonder where that came from....
SunshineGirl · 36-40, F
@sunsporter1649 There is nothing in that declaration that I disagree with or that contradicts what I wrote above.