Are “Natural Rights” Natural or Right?

There has been a lot of talk about “natural rights” recently. Someone in a comment stated quite graciously (or not) that I had no idea what I was talking about concerning natural law, and that there was a difference between natural law and natural rights. So I decided since I had already displayed my vast ignorance of natural law, it’s only fair and balanced of me to pontificate quite vapidly on natural rights as well.

The most convenient place to start is with Thomas Jefferson’s now immortal, and quite cliché, declaration: “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.”

The idea of natural rights certainly existed before 1776, but the Declaration and the successful “Revolution” that followed it has all but emblazoned this concept on the universal human consciousness. There are a number of things that need to be addressed concerning the philosophical foundation of the Declaration’s first declaration:

  1. When is a truth “self-evident”?
  2. What does “unalienable” really mean?
  3. Is a Creator necessary for the concept of rights, natural or otherwise?

We’ll start with the idea of a “self-evident” truth. Notice the first words of the Declaration: “We hold these truths to be self-evident . . .” In other words, “In our opinion, these truths are self-evident . . .” And there, from the beginning, is the rub. What if someone else doesn’t agree that these truths are self-evident? What about people who deny that there are any self-evident truths? And this was certainly the case then, as it is today. An appeal to a “self-evident truth” is an appeal to a transcendent and objective standard. Most Americans do not believe such a standard exists. Which is just one more reason why the most recent touting of “natural rights” is so humorous to me.

Then there is that word “unalienable,” which means “unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.” Hmm. Is it not rather strange then to set up a civil government to secure rights that are “unable to be taken away”? How could such rights ever be in jeopardy? Paradoxically, the Declaration starts off by proclaiming truths that are purportedly “self-evident” to secure rights that are purportedly “unalienable.” Very odd indeed.

But the next issue is the most problematic. We have already seen that the Founders were comfortable with transcendent concepts, but now they bring in a transcendent God: the Creator. Of extraordinary import for this study, Jefferson’s original wording for the Declaration was that men derived their rights “from that equal creation”—in other words, from our common humanity and the inherent ontological nature of being human (whatever that means). He intended at first to leave the Creator out of it—at least explicitly. He eventually changed the wording, possibly to avoid any conflict with Deists or Christians.

But even mentioning the commonality of our creation implies a Creator. And that is the crucial component of the American understanding of rights that sets it in opposition to the later French Declaration of the Rights of Man or the even later declaration by the United Nations.

Notice Article 1 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It reads similarly to Jefferson’s, but there are profound differences: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

The UN’s declaration leaves a Creator out of it altogether, implicitly and explicitly. People aren’t even “created” in the UN’s wording. They are “born.” Notice that this means that people, before they are born, do not have equal rights. Sound familiar?

The UN declaration is actually much closer to the original concept of “natural rights.” As such, it goes down with the sunk ship of the failed Enlightenment project. Once you remove a Creator from the equation, holding to “self-evident” or “universal” truths and “unalienable” anything becomes completely untenable. In a world that has no transcendent God, there is really no basis for transcendent truths. All consistent atheists understand this: “Without God, everything is permissible.” The very basis of evolutionary thought is the destruction of fixed categories and the obliteration of ontology. This could not and did not stay confined to biology. Its implications have completely revolutionized philosophy, theology, and every other metaphysical arena. For believers in Darwinism, that is.

It is odd to me that people don’t understand this. If something is given by God, men are not allowed to take it away. But without a transcendent God, where do rights come from? Are they bestowed upon us by a temporarily benevolent civil government? This would put those rights in constant jeopardy. (Sound familiar?) These rights would not be “unalienable” in any sense.

Or perhaps rights come from nature? Then why should we have rights that cows or plants don’t have? Why should humans be the sole beneficiaries of nature’s “rights”? Nature does not give out rights. In case you hadn’t noticed, nature doesn’t give a dung-beetle’s lunch what happens to you or anything else. If evolution is true and God doesn’t exist, then there are no “unalienable” rights or “self-evident” truths. That is the flat fact. Sorry if that level of consistency makes you uncomfortable. But you can’t have “unalienable rights” and moral relativism at the same time. You can’t reject God and still cling to universal truths.

Some people seem to be okay with this consistency. It would mean that the most powerful institution on earth—the State—is then the only giver, definer, and protector of rights—including life, liberty, etc. It would mean that might is right. This was why many Anti-Federalists didn’t like the Bill of Rights (and it is one of the reasons the Tenth Amendment was included). They thought that, if the civil government were to define rights, American citizens would assume the civil government had given (and, therefore, could restrict or remove) those rights. They recognized that civil governments do not have the right to give rights, if there is in fact such a thing as a right. But many of them also understood that rights cannot be inherent to our nature or our common “brotherhood.” Rights must be given by someone. Either God gives them, or someone else does. And whoever gives them can take them away.

That is why, even though the Founders were obviously very influenced by the natural rights theories of their contemporaries (e.g., Locke and Paine), they knew better than to found American rights on thin air. So they appealed to a fixed and unchangeable (“self-evident”) Truth and a transcendent Creator. This is why America is still here (for a limited time I’m afraid), whereas France’s Republic went up in the steam of its bloodbath and capitulated to a complete tyranny within a mere generation or so. It is also why I find it so very stupid that people who have denied God and any transcendent truth should appeal to their natural right to anything. And to whom do they make their appeal? To their only god: the State. How ironic that they should go hat in hand to the State to “gain” rights that, purportedly, cannot be given and cannot be taken away. And how ironic that, at that moment when they succeed in getting the State to play God concerning their “rights,” and they are most intoxicated by the “victory” they have won for all humankind; at that very moment, human rights will, in actuality, have suffered another grave defeat.


  • http://www.facebook.com/bob.coffey.908 Bob Coffey

    Whatever laws or rights exist are laws and rights that come from GOD. Anything man cooks up is subjective and subject to interpretation; therefore cannot be true.

    • vet

      This is why they want to take God out of everything.If it happens then our rights would no longer be there.What I don't understand is in all religions there is a God.It doesn't matter what God you believe in,it is still God that gives you that right not the government.Even if your an atheist you still get those rights whether you believe in God or not.That's why our constitution stands as the greatest constitution ever written.You have the right to believe in what ever religion you want,unless of course your a Christian.This is why its so insane for people that want to exclude God from everything.Do democraps go to church and worship God?Then why are they so against his name?If as a society we rid God from our laws then we have chaos and the tyranny that comes with it.Does God give you the right to kill the most innocent? No but the liberal laws that were passed does.Then who is the blame for the genocide of the innocent?Think about that when your sitting in church the next time liberals.

    • Marty

      Since you are (presumably) a human man, your forgoing statement is something which you "cooked up" and, since it is "subject to interpretation", it therefore "cannot be true."

  • ICorps

    Although "verbiage" is commonly, and erroneously, used today to mean the phrasing of a thought, writer Minkoff gives an example of the true meaning of verbiage: a superfluity, or excess, of words. And an excess of words, as demonstrated here, tends to confuse rather than clarify.

    First, what people believe or don't believe (such as the flat Earth) is irrelevant to reality.
    Second, although he correctly understands Jefferson's, "WE HOLD these truths to be self-evident

    • http://twitter.com/JaycenRigger Jaycen Rigger

      Aw, ICorps. I'm actually really interested in the rest of what you had to say. I actually agreed with you right up the cutoff. Please come back and re-post. Thanks!

    • http://www.facebook.com/michael.minkoff.14 Michael Minkoff

      I'm interested too. Post the rest. Hope that was succinct enough.

    • http://www.facebook.com/michael.minkoff.14 Michael Minkoff

      If you are not familiar with the philosophies of Deleuze and Guattari, I recommend you read them. Their understanding of rhizomatic information and viral organization is I think crucial to a contemporary understanding of the influence of evolutionary thought on philosophy and epistemology. It is the fixed "arboreal/hierarchical categories" of Aristotelian thought to which I was referring. I'm sorry if the reference wasn't clear. I have limited space. You could also read Karl Popper, W. V. Quine, and Thomas Kuhn. All of these have written on the dynamism of philosophical categories.
      Evolutionary theory is not empirical, by the way. No theory is. The scientific data that attempts to support the theory may be empirical, but it has ever been the rhetoric of scientists to pretend that science needs no philosophical underpinnings. This is stupid. But for some reason, most people believe it.
      Consistent atheists may follow social mores and laws, but it is not because they believe these mores and laws have objective, transcendent value. It is because they want to survive and thrive in society. This is pragmatism. Therefore, in a natural system, everything is *permissible*. There is no transcendent objective reason why one person killing another is not the same as a lion killing a gazelle. They're all just atoms right, and none of it means anything. You live, you die. That's it. Maybe not every desire we have is convenient. Not every desire we have is possible. Maybe it isn't conducive to our other ends. But you get my point.
      In the case of the Declaration's self-evident truths, it was actually very important whether or not other people held the same opinion. This was a document meant for the eyes of the British government, and it did in fact convince the world (and the French). Without this fact, the U.S. wouldn't exist. What is odd to me, and it should be to you, is that they opened their statement of objective fact with a subjective modifier.
      On a side, though related, note, it is odd that your first objection should be "What people believe (such as a flat Earth) or don't believe is irrelevant to reality," while at the same believing, "Further, it is society, not God, that determines what is permissible and what is not." Which is it? Are their objective truths and morals transcendent of people's opinions? Or are we dependent on society to let us know what is and isn't permissible? How could such pragmatism on one hand reconcile itself with such idealism on the other?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Carol-Fryer/100000156546455 Carol Fryer

    You can ask a question with a key word or idea. But it always depends on who has defined that word or idea in the first place as to what the result will be. The left is always very busy trying to change the meaning of words, especially media. Say they put out a survey about illegals. Do Americans want the border secure? Do they want the visa overstays fixed. They will overwhelmingly say yes. Then the questions go on... After this is done, should they then have some kind of avenue to become citizens....Now they are talking about the children that have been here for years since childhood, but they dont say that. When the survey results are in.....you find out all they wanted in the first place was to justify amnesty because thats all the results state. Headlines read....."THE MAJORATY OF AMERICANS WANT AMNESTY". They are devious and sneaky and they know how to lie with your permission. Both sides do this.

  • DrZarkov99

    The misconception is to equate "natural" rights with religious belief, and particularly with Christian belief in those rights being granted by God. In fact, Greek philosophers first explored this concept as a point of science, and the Roman philosopher, Cicero, best spelled out the concepts that found their way into Locke's discussions.

    Think of it this way: is there any natural force or element preventing any words you choose to tumble from your mouth? Since there is no such preventive force, the "right" to speak as you see fit is in fact natural. Likewise, nothing that inhibits you from defending yourself exists in the absence of an outside element, so such a "right" can also be assumed natural. Nothing prevents you from having your own beliefs, which are the source of religion, so such a "right" can also be considered natural.

    The whole intent of the Constitution was to remind everyone of the desirable limits on government power, and the Bill of Rights was meant to be a "line in the sand" beyond which government should not trespass. Protection of individual freedom was seen as absolutely vital to the health of the republic.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Carl-Stevenson/100002324175685 Carl Stevenson

      Not only the Founders, but many important and influential figures throughout history recognized the rights of man.

      “A tyrannical rule cannot in any reasonable construction be accounted lawful, and therefore the disturbance of such a government cannot be esteemed seditious, much less traitorous.” – Thomas Aquinas

    • http://www.facebook.com/michael.minkoff.14 Michael Minkoff

      Nature doesn't actually stop me from murdering either. Or raping. Or doing a countless number of things. These actions do not then become "natural rights."

      • DrZarkov99

        You need to read Cicero for a detailed philosophical explanation, but the short answer is that nothing inherent in your biological system stops you from those things that involve your body. The minute you start to infringe on the natural rights of others, it's no longer an individual concern, and society has a right to stop you.

        • http://www.facebook.com/michael.minkoff.14 Michael Minkoff

          I infringe on everyone else's maximum natural liberties simply by existing. And what does or does not infringe on another person's liberty to any "criminal" degree is completely up for interpretation. Different societies have different ideas of all this. Since your natural liberties are constrained and modified by the arbitrary whim of society, it is useless to speak of natural rights in the way you've defined them. It is really the societal limitations that matter in Cicero's system, since they exist in a more restricted sphere than your natural liberty.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Carl-Stevenson/100002324175685 Carl Stevenson

    Neither the government or some atheist can take from us the rights given by G-d. (Unless we allow it)
    The "social contract" with government (of man) is not irrevocable. The Founders knew that, and acted on it in throwing off the tyranny of the British crown. They also recognized that all men, everywhere, at all times, have the right to throw off an oppressive government and restore their liberty.
    When Injustice becomes Law, Resistance becomes Duty – Thomas Jefferson
    Our government crossed the line long ago. As the Founders suffered long and exercised great patience, so have we. The difference is that while they had to break free of a monarchy and establish a republic, we don't have to "reinvent the wheel". All we need to do is to purge our government gone wild of the tyrants who have exceeded their authority and RESTORE our constitutional republic.

  • ezekiel22

    Natural rights are given by God to man for man to exercise in his relation with God. How those rights a used is up to the individual. The history of government up to that time and even in a majority of governments today is that the rights of a man are granted by the government. Man like governments are transient in nature and as man changes his decisions change. By basing the rights of man on the Bible or according to some the Judeo-Christian ethic rights were established on an unmovable base that could be built upon. That is one of the main reasons our republic has lasted so long.
    The school of thought that states that the government is the grantor of rights to man is the same school of politics that considers tax breaks to really be expenditures. They consider the money you earn to be theirs to spend for the good of all and themselves and the tax rate to be the amount of their money they allow you to keep. This is a good analogy as money has often been equated with freedom which happens to be our right.

  • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

    Michael, thank you for a thought-provoking article. You've provided issues, I'm sure, most people have never considered. If I might, let me add a couple of more.

    1) Thomas Jefferson cut the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and ascension of Christ – what he described as a “dunghill” – out of his cut-and-paste New Testament. According the Apostle John (2 John 1:7-11), this makes Jefferson an antichrist and his god, and therefore the god of the Declaration of Independence, another god than the One found in the Bible. How could such a god grant rights to anyone?

    2) Furthermore, even if it were the God of the Bible, how can Constitutional rights be God-given when, except perhaps as the piece's timekeeper, God can't be found in the Constitution, and rights cannot be found in the Bible? The Bible knows of only responsibilities. Even life and liberty are not rights but
    responsibilities.

    For more, see "Rights, Rights, Everyone Wants Their Rights." Click on my name, then our website. Go to our blog and scroll down to this article.

    • http://twitter.com/JaycenRigger Jaycen Rigger

      Hi, Ted.

      Respectfully, your issues are with the New Testament and your ignorance of the founder's interest in Moses and the Old Testament.

      In fact, our natural rights can be found in the Bible, but you must look to the Old Testament. The New Testament, which I personally agree is a bit of a dunghill, takes one much closer to socialism. I've heard arguments to the contrary, but I've also gone through and read Jesus' words. Any time he speaks, he sounds like a socialist agitator.

      Compare this to the Old Testament and the stories of Moses. There are several. Moses spans well past Exodus, and it's critical that any student then read through the rest of the stories. Moses was the example msot of the founders tried to follow.
      To be fair, I have not clicked on your name and looked at your website, and perhaps you deal with these issues there. Though, based on your 2 points, I think it's unlikely.

      • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

        Jaycen Rigger: "The New Testament, which I personally agree is a bit of a dunghill..."

        Then sadly, you're an antichrist as well. I hope the day will come when you can be reconciled with God in Christ. It's too late for Jefferson.

        And, no, natural rights cannot be found in the Old Testament.

        Yes, I do deal with these issues and many more in the book "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective," in which you'll find a chapter devoted to every article and amendment, comparing what's found therein with the Scriptures, much of which comes from Yahweh's morals as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments as related to us in the Old Testament. Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page and click on the top entry.

        • http://twitter.com/JaycenRigger Jaycen Rigger

          LOL
          So, right after you say that Natural Rights (the Bill of Rights as we know them) cannot be found in the Bible, you then state that you have a book that points people at the same place I pointed at to find where the Bible does support our Natural Rights.
          You should really consider your philosophy carefully.
          You might also very carefully consider your words to people. Bible thumpers always push people away. It's too bad, really, because even though I disagree strongly with your take on God, I support your right to believe what you believe.
          I really dislike the fact that people worship Jesus as if he is God. To me, this is in direct contradiction to the first commandment. Still, I defend Christians at every turn.
          I am not an anti-Christ, because I don't oppose Christ. I just don't support it. There's a huge difference, but your sloppy use of the term makes you come off as sanctimonious.
          Good luck with that.

        • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

          Jaycen, you've read into my statements something I did not say. Neither natural rights nor the Bill of Rights cannot be found in the Bible. I pointed you to the book in support of this statement. Neither the Old nor the New Testaments say anything about rights, only responsibilities.

          As for being antichrist, what I think does not matter. It's your own testimony in light of the Apostle John's description of an antichrist (2 John 1:7-9, especially when coupled with 1 Timothy 3:16, KJV) that identifies you as such. Again, I hope the day comes when you find yourself reconciled with God in Christ.

        • http://twitter.com/JaycenRigger Jaycen Rigger

          Yeah...this is the typical problem I have talking to people who constantly quote the New Testament to me - you think you've got a lock on what God thinks. How unfortunate and presumptuous of you.
          You're technically accurate that the Bill of Rights is not found in the Bible. However, you're ignoring my context in that I didn't say the actual Bill of Rights can be found there. The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, for the most part, trace their origins to the commandments and laws given to the Israelites from God via Moses and Aaron.
          If you're having a hard time following me, try re-reading Exodus through Numbers. You can skip over all the really repetitive stuff, and the construction of the Tabernacle, etc. I'm only talking about the laws and commandments. There are many. In fact, there are a lot of very explicit rules on how to deal with day-to-day life.
          Some things don't necessarily apply, but there's a consistency across all the laws. Those laws, and the consistent logic behind them form the basis for all the rights enumerated in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.
          Look at that, I didn't even quote a bunch of scripture at you. Then again, I don't presume to know the mind of God by way of my misinterpretation of what he or other Biblical figures said, so there's that.

        • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

          I understood what you were saying and the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are not found anywhere in the entire Bible. Most of which is found in the the first ten Amendments are antithetical, if not hostile, to Yahweh's sovereignty and morality as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments. See Chapters 11-19 of "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective." Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page and click on the top entry.

        • Davy Crockett

          The argument of inalienable rights vs. duties and responsibilities is both false and hollow. It is solely based on the straw man that rights are optional while these God given duties and responsibilities are not optional. One; this concept would nullify the well excepted Christian doctrine of Freewill. God is not going to tie us up and drag us screaming into heaven. Each day we must make a choice whether to obey God or not. Over and over in the Bible God has said “choose this day whom you will serve” (Josh. 24:14-15). Second; those who espouse this idea put forth no scripture showing the concept of inalienable rights as being unbiblical. Third; the very scripture they put forth refutes their own argument. Rightly they say they show us our God given duties and responsibilities, but it is in these very scriptures that we are granted our inalienable rights.

          Additionally if we come together to pool our resources in order to fulfill our obligations such as to provide safety and protection through our local police, militia, and neighborhood watch. If these were to became so proficient as to lower the crime rate to Mayberry standards. And then gun fatalities are primarily accidental shootings the question will be asked why are we allowing such deaths, it is irresponsible to have private gun ownership. At this point what argument do you have, since your duties and responsibilities have and are being fulfilled? None. But thankfully God did not set things up this way, for all institutions whether government, public or private, are made with men's imperfect minds and hands. Thus they will succumb to corruption and the use of tyranny, no matter how much scriptures they codify into their laws. The only safe guard for society, for our liberty, prosperity, and welfare, is that citizen practice their inalienable rights in fulfillment of their God given duties and responsibilities in accordance with their convictions of faith in Jesus Christ and nothing else save for God above.

          “Rights” as in such as those recognized and guaranteed in the Bill of Rights are real and Biblical in our horizontal relationship with men. These are God given, inalienable rights granted by the duties and responsibilities God has given us in Scripture. Some examples are Gen. 1:26 were we are given dominion over the earth and all that is in it and “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” (1st Tim. 5:8). Providing means such things as security, food, shelter, etc, so from these passages we see our right to self defense and to bear arms, property rights and security of property etc. Everyone of our true rights can be found in Scripture like this.

          Before God, in our vertical relationship what we call “rights” are necessary parts of duties and responsibilities He has given us. Yet before Him, we do have rights, but a different type of rights. As sons of the living God and “co-heirs with Christ” (Rom. 8:17) we have the right to pension Him in prayer (John 14:14, Mat. 7:7-8). We have all the covenants, birthrights, and promises we can claim as ours with the rights and privileges they include. Yes, God reserves His right as Sovereign over all, but He still grants us these rights as Christians and as applicable, as immortal beings “created in His image”. So it is incorrect to say we do not have rights.

        • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

          Any rights as sons of God (I prefer to look at them at gifts, which puts the emphasis on God instead of ourselves) has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights, which, for the most part, are both antithetical and hostile to Yahweh's sovereignty and morality, as I demonstrate by comparing the two in "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective." Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Book Page and click on the top entry.

        • Davy Crockett

          There you go folks, when presented with a detailed, scripture backed argument, the white flag goes up because false doctrines cannot stand before the Truth

        • T. Edward Price

          There you go folks. "Davy" has proven, beyond ANY deniability, that he will jump in bed with one who agrees that the miraculous, virgin birth of Christ, His resurrection, and His very Deity, is a pile of DUNG, as long as said antichrist does not agree with Ted Weiland on ANY point. If by false doctrines, you mean teaching salvation by grace, through faith, the Divinity of Christ, the commands of belief, faith, confession, repentance, and baptism, please prove where YOUR doctrines are superior to those of scripture.

          David, you once again prove yourself a HYPOCRITE

        • http://www.facebook.com/RobertAlexander.Salvage Robert Alexander

          Jaycen, if you understood the biblical story of salvation from the OT & Law of Yahweh, you'd see it was Yahweh who was required to come in the flesh as Messiah jesus to die ie to be obedient unto death by his very own morality and divine Promises it was required. You owe yourself a duty to find out WHY from the OT alone it can be found, and ask yourself why do you think you don't already see this Bible truth...

          Romans 14.4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

    • psychicbloodbrother

      I fell for your subtle advertisement to go to your site a while back only to be dismissed by your fellow mythmakers. How you doing Ted? Here are my thoughts on this article with some of my own logical conclusions and examples Looking forward to your response to my response, regarding what a right is, in the context of the founding of the U.S. which is, in opinion, the REAL enlightenment.

      There are some very good points in the
      article but the premise as was not stressed enough. The premise is key to support the self evident truth that whatever the cause, we have all bean created. The declaration
      that Jefferson so eloquently penned is based on this premise. This
      premise, whatever unknowable thing that creation is, is the premise of
      natural rights. What the founders did that was so important to our
      American republic, was to render this principle vague enough that any
      causation for nature is not a reason for or against any specific belief
      or religion because that is something that is unknowable. The creation
      of nature itself is the observable self evident truth in which to
      establish a foundation outside that of man that separates faith in a way
      that does not diminish existence of belief of the creation itself, even
      for the unfaithful. It was written in a way to recognize human nature,
      in relation to nature itself, and its inherent shortcomings when man is
      in charge, so as to have a clear separation.This is one of the most
      important aspects of this most outstanding and timeless documents, that
      became one of the most important to freedom and western civilization
      ever penned. The constitutional Mythmakers that seem to be hanging
      around here seem to dismiss this and to conflate this primacy, and our
      American constitution with a theocracy, which is NOT morally equivalent.
      These are founding principles, not people. Mythmakers tend to
      diminish this and use smear tactics to say that our founders were this,
      or that, as if it makes these principles less true. No reasonable person
      can argue that men are governed by regulations, men govern themselves
      by principle, and sadly not always the right principle, as this is the
      nature of man. This is the essence of a need for some government but a
      very limited one, that keeps sovereignty outside of the power structure
      to guard against our nature for power and control. Without these
      absolutes found in nature and natural law, that remain as true today as
      they ever were, we would not have a foundation in our free society to
      build/stand on. The way I relate this to Christian faith is simple, but
      not exclusive to, Mathew 7:12-16. Example regarding equality over
      liberty and its connection to natural rights: If man gets to decide that
      homosexuality can be made natural, despite the self evident truths
      found in nature regarding procreation, we set up a conflict in our free
      society. If you have a right to free speech then you can speak all you
      want and it does not diminish others. A right as our founders have
      defined and written about in the federalist papers, has value and leads
      to like advantage of others, and requires a certain obedience. If you
      make homosexuality equivalent to heterosexuality, in some perverse
      equality scheme for example, sexuality takes on an unnatural meaning,
      and it then follows that this new meaning can be used to redefine other
      things. Furthermore if this is forced on society through the power and
      force of government (regulation), not a self evident truth found in
      nature (principle), by definition homosexuality is not a natural right
      and cannot be made one by force of man. Here is the test: Does a right
      defined by man, requiring obedience to it, lead to like advantage for
      everyone? We as people do not get to choose our own biology, if i am
      born a man i am a man. Its very simple. If I neglect my obedience to my
      own biology have I made myself a god? It is unnatural to reject your
      own biology. The Mythmakers that advocate for the "broadway" must
      diminish this premise because they have an agenda, or in other cases
      have fallen victim to group think, and even conflate that nature
      (biology) itself must be wrong. This false conclusion is then
      transferred to politics and projected on people that believe in natural
      rights as people that are trying to constrain the rights of others. The
      reality is that we all know what is natural and what is un-natural that
      is the beauty of these self evident truths. When you delude yourself
      arguing against nature itself, promoting sex in all forms, is some
      perverse freedom argument, you have given into temptation and your are
      no longer supporting nature, nor are you supporting our free civil
      society, and you must argue against its very foundations, despite the
      self evident truths. In short the article is pretty good but I think
      it would hold more weight if more time were spent on the premise and the
      foundation of the argument. I will stand with all that is good right and just in support of Christian Morality & Virtue that support our most excellent Constitution
      which will not function naturally without them. In the end it is simply
      an unending pursuit of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
      truth.

      • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

        Suffice it to say that your entire premise rests upon the assumption that the Constitution is Biblically compatible. It is anything but Biblically compatible. There is hardly an article or amendment that, in some fashion, is not antithetical, if not seditious, to Yahweh's sovereignty and morality. See "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective," in which I devote a chapter to every article and amendment, examining them by the Bible.

        If you choose to promote the Constitution on its own merit, that is your prerogative. However, if you choose to promote the Constitution as a Biblically based document, that is deception and subterfuge. Anyone who chooses the former becomes an idolater; anyone who chooses the latter attempts to provide Biblical sanction for his idolatry and make Yahweh a partner in his idolatry.

        • Edward Mc Kervey

          Well, We will have to agree to disagree. You have not presented any evidence here and have not made the case to support your claim. Simply pointing to articles that others have written without providing evidence falls flat. The constitution is a document that recognizes the inherent nature of man and sets up a system to protect the individual which is completely parallel with Christianity since freedom and salvation are about the individual. As individuals it is up to each of us pursue happiness and free will which is entirely compatible with Christianity as it is a choice. To take things too literally dismissing reason and principle are tactics of the great deluder to diminish the constitution and the bible. We all know the truth as it is written on our hearts and when we are honest and faithful it will be revealed to us in our own time. Nobody can force us to think like another, and we should encourage one another to find the truth for ourselves. God Bless You Ted.

        • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

          Edward, thank you for joining the dialogue at this late date.

          The blog article "Rights, Rights, Everyone Wants Their Right," I refer to in my original post, I wrote.

          The 565-page book "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective," I refer to in a followup post, I also wrote. In it, I devote a chapter to examining every article and amendment by the Bible.

          Obviously, on a blog such as this, space doesn't provide the opportunity to provide much evidence. However, the book is all online for free for anyone who wants to pursue the evidence. Just click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page and click on the top entry. Also, don't miss our Constitution Survey in the right-hand sidebar by which you can receive a free copy of the 85-page "Primer" of the same book.

        • T. Edward Price

          "The constitution is a document that recognizes the inherent nature of man and sets up a system to protect the individual..."

          The inherent nature of man is to be found in his heart. If you really mean what you said, then you might want to compare it with Scripture:

          "The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done." (Genesis 8:21)

          "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)

          "This is the evil in everything that happens under the sun: The same destiny overtakes all. The hearts of people, moreover, are full of evil and there is madness in their hearts while they live, and afterward they join the dead." (Ecclesiastes 9:3)

          "For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them." (Matthew 13:15)

          "[W]hich is completely parallel with Christianity since freedom and salvation are about the individual."

          What you appear to be saying is that the Constitution recognizes the evil nature of man's heart, and sets out to protect man's "right" to his individual heart's desire. This is the same as granting license to sin. Then you make the outrageous claim that this parallels Christianity. Please cite one example where Scripture protects the freedom of man to follow the desires of his own deceitful heart. And although we do have the leeway to follow or shun Yahweh, Christianity is not about the liberty of the individual and his heart. It is, first and foremost, about Yahweh (God) and His heart!

          '

    • Marty

      With respect to rights: a right can either be respected or it can be violated. This exhausts the possibilities. Right are not created by government. What many people ignorantly refer to as "rights" are either powers, privileges or immunites. The police have no "right" to search you: they have only the power to do so.

  • EnemyoftheState

    No one has any INHERENT or INALIENABLE rights at all. Rights come from man enthroning himself as the arbiter of truth and government. As rights (let's be honest, they are priveleges) can be taken away from a man by force or coercion they can not be described as rights. With these rights come responsibilities. I just moved to America and my State Department of Motor Vehicles states something on the lines of "Having a driving license is not a right". Amen.

    Also the idea that men have the right to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness does rather diminish if one were a Native American or a black slave at the time of these sentiments being written.

    As for the UN, it is a wicked and vile organization which is more attuned to the humanist manifesto and the culture of Babylon. I went to Babel between the first and last Gulf War and I think God made pretty clear to man what He thinks of socialism and world government. As for homosexual "marriage" well, one need look no further than Sodom.

    As a final warning to you in America please be aware we are locked in a titanic struggle with the forces of darkness. We have two weapons which will help us win; prayer and exposure of the enemy. Now go expose the enemy with this: Written in 1993 it explains how we are descending to barbarism

    http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/PragerHomosexuality.php

    • http://twitter.com/JaycenRigger Jaycen Rigger

      Hey man, please restrict yourself to one thought per comment, then people can argue your points without facing a mountian of disparate concepts.
      Men do have inherent and inalienable rights. They are inherent in your existence and no one but God can take them from you. Other men can try. They can cage you. They can put a gun to your head, but you still possess those rights, regardless.
      This is why the State hates religion, because religious men who understand what I've just said to you will never bend to the will of the State. They will die, instead, and do so without fear. The State loathes this and fears it greatly, as that attitude/mindset/mentality is what brings down the State and leashes it and makes us its master.

      • EnemyoftheState

        I apologise, I am extremely busy and don't enjoy the luxury of leisured debate. I think we will simply disagree about rights. I note that despite your protest that men possess these rights you don't name them. The Bible only mentions the word once - "the right to be called the children of God" 1 John : 12 That's your lot.

        The State hates religion because it wishes to replace god both in provision and authority.

        • http://twitter.com/JaycenRigger Jaycen Rigger

          Maybe we will have to agree to disagree. In terms of the Bible, you're correct that there is no consolidated Bill of Rights in the Bible, yet I assert you can find the reasoning behind each of our Natural Rights in the Old Testament.
          Everyone who's ever told me our rights aren't found in the Bible always quotes the New Testament. You must look to Moses.

        • EnemyoftheState

          I would look to Paul as opposed to Moses. We are under Grace and not Law. Any "rights" (privileges) given to the Children of Israel were given under a true Theocracy. The USA was never a Theocracy, the architects of the Declaration of Independence were mainly Deists and Freemasons, and whilst this may grate with a number of you, while Christianity was once taken for granted as the religion of the nation, it has been far from government policy to agree to the Biblical rules (Old OR New Testament) since Roe vs Wade, secularism in schools, etc. I think we will have to leave the discussion at this point as we will simply never agree on the issue of rights.

        • gray_man

          "the architects of the Declaration of Independence were mainly Deists and Freemasons," false.

    • http://twitter.com/JaycenRigger Jaycen Rigger

      Regarding American Indians - by definition, there were no "Native Americans" until people started calling the geographic teritory "America". Up to that point, they were native to whatever that group called their little location.
      Since the time of the founding of America, anyone who's born here is automatically "native". So I am a Native American. For you to constantly misuse that word makes you sound stupid.
      Slavery included whites and blacks, to be fair. It also included American Indians. Moreover, the 3/5 Clause in the Constitution was the beginning of the end of slavery. The Constitution already included a mechanism to end slavery. You should study it. I'm sure you'd be surprised.
      Since you haven't studied it, let me ask you this - if you were in charge of trying to get millions of people to consentually agree to a new form of government, would you have dug in your heels over the slavery issue at the expense of the new form of government? Even if it meant that new government never would have formed?
      That same government you're criticising is the same government that finally ended slavery at the expense of half the country in the bloodiest war this country has ever faught. Primarily the blood of people who weren't slaves.

      • EnemyoftheState

        You're a tad tetchy Jaycen lad. I did not constantly misuse the word I used it on occasion to make a point that those who were not in power and had the wrong color skin were not allocated these rights which were given to others. You should have understood this was the point and not gone off on a tangent.

        How do you know I have not studied the Constitution? You have a critical and presumptious spirit. Slavery was an issue at the time of the war of Northern Aggression. I think the war was more about States Rights than slavery although the latter was the issue of the day. But again you go off on a tangent. Persons of color were not afforded these "rights" hence these rights were neither inherent or immutable. That is the subject at hand; the nature of rights. And until you evidence a right or rights I will remain in the dark. I do not have a right to live other than God gives me breath.

        • http://twitter.com/JaycenRigger Jaycen Rigger

          At the time of the writing of the Constitution, the slavery debate was quite contentious. I'm sorry that I insinuated you didn't study the Constitution. I meant you have not studied history, and the timeframe of the construction of the Constitution.
          Honestly, you couldn't have studied the Constitution much, or you'd know the history already. The 3/5 Clause was specifically added to appease abolitionists, and was the mechanism that many thought would eventually end slavery.
          You are incorrect when you state that blacks weren't afforded the rights in the Constitution. Those rights aren't granted by the Constitution. They are granted by God, and even though the men of the time did not recognize the rights that blacks inherently had, those black people still had those rights.
          That is why you and I recognize today how wrongly those people were treated by the white men of their day.

      • EnemyoftheState

        Response Part II

        if you were in charge of trying to get millions of people to
        consentually agree to a new form of government, would you have dug in
        your heels over the slavery issue at the expense of the new form of
        government? Even if it meant that new government never would have
        formed?

        Consensually agree. If I were in charge of trying to change the minds of millions I would be concerned that I had such power to command. I am not sure if you are referring to an hypothetical "now" or an historic event horizon. I hope I would not have sought a solution to a problem which resulted in the spilling of so much blood. I would not have precipitated a war over the issue of slavery in order to implement a Federal Government which would run roughshod over States Rights, much as the present government appears to be doing. Does this help?

        • http://twitter.com/JaycenRigger Jaycen Rigger

          The Constitution laid out a framework for a federalist republic. That government was consensually agreed to by the people of the time. This is the first time in history a government wasn't forced onto a people.
          If you were writing the Constitution in 1789, and trying to get millions of people to agree to the new form of government that came along with it, and you know that half the people affected favored slavery, would you have refused to compromise for the sake of your integrity?
          I ask, because that's exactly what many of the founding fathers had to do. John Adams in particular hated slavery, and fiercely opposed it. Yet, he laid aside that opposition when it became clear to him that if he died on that hill, we could not come together under the new federalist republic.
          The abolitionist's compromise was the 3/5 clause.

        • EnemyoftheState

          Reply re 1789

          I agree, the people agreed to the Constitution. However it was not the first time in history a government was not forced on the people ( King Saul ). I think if I were honest and I had lived at that time I would say that the Constitution must not be allowed to founder on the rock of slavery. The old testament gave laws for the proper treatment of slaves and the New Testament urges slaves to obey their masters. I am not advocating slavery please disabuse yourself of that idea, but in the 18th Century it was not viewed with as much revulsion as it is today.

          I had not realized the 3/5ths clause was added for that reason - it was a poor way of acknowledging that all men are made in the image of God but then it is easy to criticize from 200+ years in the future. Thanks for the comments, this has been a very interesting and thought provoking exchange, thank you.

    • Marty

      You may murder a man, but you cannot take away his right to life. The right is with him; YOU are WRONG.

  • http://twitter.com/JaycenRigger Jaycen Rigger

    Michael, you lost me. I thought you were going to tell us the difference between natural law and natural rights, and you left me scratching my head as to either one.
    You immediately took off on a tangent and never got back to the open paragraph's subject. Easy enough to do as a blogger, but you must be disciplined if you're going to broadcast cogent thoughts.
    I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I don't know that I agree, either. That's my state of mind after reading your article.
    Help?

    • http://www.facebook.com/michael.minkoff.14 Michael Minkoff

      Sure. I wrote an article that touched on "natural law" a few days ago. I talked about "natural rights" in this article. Not natural law. Or the difference between the two. For my discussion on natural rights, I started with the preamble to the Declaration because most people are very familiar with it, and it pertains directly to natural rights and natural rights theory. The article goes on from there using the Declaration as a bouncing board for the main questions that must be asked of any system of "natural rights." I'm sorry that I lost you. The issue of natural rights touches on a lot of different subjects, and in the limited space I have in this format, I must rely on the reader to fill in gaps. All that said, I'm glad you're not sure whether or not you agree with me. My intention was not to consolidate agreement or stir up controversy but to provoke thought. It's something that isn't done enough in the blogosphere, but it's the only way to promote real dialogue.

      • http://twitter.com/JaycenRigger Jaycen Rigger

        Thanks, Michael. I went back and read your article on Natural Law, and completely agree, and this makes more sense.
        I'm still not 100% sure about this particular article. I get that you're trying to get people to think. Still, it'd be nice if you had some more concrete asserstions to use as "jumping off" points.

  • http://www.facebook.com/tony.ibbott Tony Ibbott

    The founders should have left out all suggestions of supernaturalism. The bottom line is that man's only workable method of survival is the exercise of his mind, for which he must be left free. Freedom from coercion is a requirement for survival. That's the meaning of the word inalienable (or unalienable). It is something that cannot be alienated (gotten rid of). It's a requirement, and it's not going to go away. This is referred to as the right to your own life, and all rights in support thereof. To secure them means to protect them from violation (protect you from being forced by others to act against your judgement) and to retaliate appropriately after a violation has already taken place. Alienable rights are more commonly known as property rights. These are the objects you can buy/sell/rent, etc. The two types (alienable and inalienable) work in concert. The only proper function of government is to protect rights. Anything government does beyond the protection of rights will violate rights.

  • http://twitter.com/egbegb Ed Bradford

    If rights don't come from God, what is the atheist logic that gives me
    "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? Is it a social contract that
    can be dissolved with a vote?
    Is there anything immutable -- beyond human law? Are
    "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" 'self-evident'?

    Also, doesn't the "we" in the Constitution refer to all of the signers and
    the majority view of the citizens of states who approved the Constitution?

    Can a majority vote morally take away my life? Have I no right
    to life beyond human laws?

    Here is another "rights" discussion for you, Michael Minkoff, and the rest
    of you might want to consider?

    Natural Law and the Legitimate Authority of the United States
    http://www.shestokas.com/guest-commentary-reflections/natural-law-and-the-legitimate-authority-of-the-united-states/

  • T. Edward Price

    Michael, I enjoyed your insight greatly. The concept of "natural rights" is often talked about, but seldom understood. Although I mostly agree with you, Jefferson is where our paths may diverge. First, it is important for most to know that "natural rights" are not Biblically based, no matter how much one protests to the contrary. The early Church Fathers had substantial debate over the concept of "natural rights", and whether they were truly Divine in origin. For those who assert that they are to be found in the Old Testament, the Church Fathers would have made that argument. Considering Jefferson's rejection of Christ, the Creator he references is certainly not the God of the Christian Bible. Therefore, I'm not sure what substantial difference, if any, is to be found between the two Declarations you mentioned. The idea of "natural rights", though not new, was at the forefront of intellectual exploration during the height of the Age of Enlightenment. Jefferson, being heavily influenced by Enlightenment thinking, was a proponent of "natural rights", which emanate from within the heart of man (Humanism), not the heart of Yahweh(God). It should come as no surprise that Jefferson was a U.S. diplomat in France in 1789, and was believed by some to have even been consulted in the drafting of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man. "Rights" are not to be found in Scripture, but instead, RESPONSIBILITIES. Rights, whether "natural" or not, always contain the option whether or not to exercise said rights. Responsibilities, on the other hand, contain no such OPT-OUT button. A perfect example is the responsibility, not "right", of every Christian man to be armed, and sufficiently trained, in order to defend, if necessary, self, family, community, and country. Not even an eventual appeal of the 2nd Amendment "natural right" could relieve Christian men of such a responsibility. And that's just the way I see it. Again, I really enjoyed reading your thoughts. Thanks.

  • http://www.facebook.com/adrian.vance1 Adrian Vance

    "Natural" is a synonym for "obvious." It is just that simple.

    See The Two Minute Conservative at: http://tinyurl.com/7jgh7wv and when you speak ladies will swoon and liberal gentlemen will weep.

  • inspokane

    follow the 10 commands...natural and right.

  • http://www.facebook.com/brianyoder Brian Yoder

    Perhaps I can clarify things here a little better than Jefferson. It's a tall order but I think I am up to it.

    First, it is unfortunately not self-evident that we have rights. I really wish it were because it would have saved the world a whole lot of suffering and disaster, but it's something that needs to be learned through study of history, of human nature, and moral philosophy. It may have seemed to him obvious that one should not lie to, steal from, and murder one's fellow citizens but some people are a little too thick to realize this is so.

    On the inalienability of rights, a big part of the misunderstanding of how these rights can be inalienable comes from trying to tie religion into it. Rights are a natural requirement of human life, like the fact that we need oxygen to breathe, or food to eat. No legislature can pass a law repealing the human need for oxygen and food, nor could they legislate that rocks are by law nutritious alternatives to food. The requirements of human life he's talking about are ones related to liberty. We need to be free to think and act in order to live. This is the foundation of our ability to make friends, to organize ourselves into groups for projects bigger than we could take on alone, to plan for the future, and in general to live and be happy. If we were subject to theft of our property, assault on our persons, murder, fraud, and so on we wouldn't be able to live well or to live at all. The fact that doing these things (like fraud, theft, assault, and murder) to other people is evil regardless of the fact that a legislature might rule otherwise. Now you might think that you could live better by robbery and extortion than by honest labor and cooperation with your fellow man, but if you do you are just as wrong as someone who believes that you could make a better wagon with square wheels. That's not just my opinion, it's a fact.

    Third, I don't think that there is any need to bring a creator into the notion of morality or individual rights, but the fact that we human beings have particular needs due to our inherent nature is something we are born with and not something that comes from social mores or legislative acts. If we were not human, and instead lived the life of a cabbage then our requirements for living a good life would be very different. We would have no use for reason, choice, autonomy, or anything like that. We would need sunlight, water, and good soil and we would have no ability to choose between alternative courses of action anyway. But we aren't cabbages and we don't become cabbages just because Congress says so.

    How's that? More clear?

  • psychicbloodbrother

    The entire Article is a load of crap. All you new world order humanists comparing the the declaration of independence to the UN have completely lost your mind. I see the usual suspects here writing from the Constitutional myth creators. The mere fact that this drivel has been published here is enough for me to stop coming to this site. Jefferson produced one of the most brilliant things ever written when he penned the declaration of independence, which is necessary to the Constitution, placing rights outside the definition of man, making them of GOD or Natures God, so they cannot be tampered with. Natural rights are rights that we all have and come with responsibility. A right is something that you can have that does not infringe on other people's rights. The fact that in nature there is a male and a female for procreation is a natural right. The right to protect yourself is a natural right (2nd amendment). Anyone trying to diminish or debate natural rights is only interested in deceit and deception to tear down the foundations of the greatest most prosperous freest country on face of the earth. Right to property is a natural right, right to worship is a natural right, the rights of accusers are natural rights. Natural rights are rights that we do not have to memorize or define because they are god given and we live them everyday, they are self evident. A soon as you see some charlatan trying to convince you otherwise you know they have an agenda. People who have an agenda you will find have also given in to a reprobate mind and are marketing evil. Faithful people will stand against this evil and is perpetrators. Only non thinking lemmings will go along with this, and debating those with a reprobate minds may be a waste of your time.

    • http://www.facebook.com/michael.minkoff.14 Michael Minkoff

      You misunderstood my article. My point is that natural rights cannot have a merely natural origin. The Founders considered that rights were given by a Creator. The UN has removed that crucial piece of information, thus assuming that rights spring from our common existence. But cutting God out of it undercuts the basis of rights. I thought this was clear.

      • psychicbloodbrother

        Michael, I went back and re-read your article and i must apologize for calling it a load of crap. There are some very good points in the article but your premise as you have restated here, in my opinion, was not stressed enough. The premise is key to support the self evident truth that whatever the cause, we have all bean created. The declaration that Jefferson so eloquently penned is based on this premise. This premise, whatever unknowable thing that creation is, is the premise of natural rights. What the founders did that was so important to our American republic, was to render this principle vague enough that any causation for nature is not a reason for or against any specific belief or religion because that is something that is unknowable. The creation of nature itself is the observable self evident truth in which to establish a foundation outside that of man that separates faith in a way that does not diminish existence of belief of the creation itself, even for the unfaithful. It was written in a way to recognize human nature, in relation to nature itself, and its inherent shortcomings when man is in charge, so as to have a clear separation.This is one of the most important aspects of this most outstanding and timeless documents, that became one of the most important to freedom and western civilization ever penned. The constitutional Mythmakers that seem to be hanging around here seem to dismiss this and to conflate this primacy, and our American constitution with a theocracy, which is NOT morally equivalent. These are founding principles, not people. The Mythmakers tend to diminish this and use smear tactics to say that our founders were this, or that, as if it makes these principles less true. No reasonable person can argue that men are governed by regulations, men govern themselves by principle, and sadly not always the right principle, as this is the nature of man. This is the essence of a need for some government but a very limited one, that keeps sovereignty outside of the power structure to guard against our nature for power and control. Without these absolutes found in nature and natural law, that remain as true today as they ever were, we would not have a foundation in our free society to build/stand on. The way I relate this to Christian faith is simple, but not exclusive to, Mathew 6:12-16. Example regarding equality over liberty and its connection to natural rights: If man gets to decide that homosexuality can be made natural, despite the self evident truths found in nature regarding procreation, we set up a conflict in our free society. If you have a right to free speech then you can speak all you want and it does not diminish others. A right as our founders have defined and written about in the federalist papers, has value and leads to like advantage of others, and requires a certain obedience. If you make homosexuality equivalent to heterosexuality, in some perverse equality scheme for example, sexuality takes on an unnatural meaning, and it then follows that this new meaning can be used to redefine other things. Furthermore if this is forced on society through the power and force of government (regulation), not a self evident truth found in nature (principle), by definition homosexuality is not a natural right and cannot be made one by force of man. Here is the test: Does a right defined by man, requiring obedience to it, lead to like advantage for everyone? We as people do not get to choose our own biology, if i am born a man i am a man. Its very simple. If I neglect my obedience to my own biology have I made myself a god? It is unnatural to reject your own biology. The Mythmakers that advocate for the "broadway" must diminish this premise because they have an agenda, or in other cases have fallen victim to group think, and even conflate that nature (biology) itself must be wrong. This false conclusion is then transferred to politics and projected on people that believe in natural rights as people that are trying to constrain the rights of others. The reality is that we all know what is natural and what is un-natural that is the beauty of these self evident truths. When you delude yourself arguing against nature itself, promoting sex in all forms, is some perverse freedom argument, you have given into temptation and your are no longer supporting nature, nor are you supporting our free civil society, and you must argue against its very foundations, despite the self evident truths. In short your article is pretty good but I think it would hold more weight if more time were spend on the premise and the foundation of the argument. Please accept my apologies and know that i will stand with all that is good right and just in support of Christian Morality & Virtue that support our most excellent Constitution which will not function naturally without them. In the end it is simply an unending pursuit of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

    • T. Edward Price

      When you align yourself with an antichrist such as Thomas Jefferson, you make yourself complicit in his denial of Christ. It matters not how great you think him to be. By his OWN words he condemned himself as an antichrist. “And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his Father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.” —Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

      He clearly denied the virgin birth of Christ, and refuted the Deity of Christ as God Himself. The "dawn of reason and freedom of thought" he refers to stems directly from the Age of Enlightenment, or the greater Age of Reason. This was where Jefferson beliefs. The Declaration of Independence and France's The Declaration of the Rights of the Citizen are both Humanistic decrees totally void of Biblical foundation. That you are impressed with the spiritual sounding flowery language is meaningless. What ANY of us believe, myself included, is also meaningless.

      "Natural rights" are in absolutey NO WAY Scriptural. They emanate from man's desire to "reason himself as being also god ". This goes all the way back to the Garden. As for agendas, If you claim I have an agenda, simply for wishing that my fellow man be awakened, and gain knowledge, that he not be destroyed (Hosea 4:6), then in the name of Jesus Christ, I am guilty as charged.

      BTW, I believe Michael Minkoff was pretty spot on! You might want to re-read the article with a little more historical background at your side.

      • psychicbloodbrother

        I made another post. Do you really think Jefferson was the anti-christ? WOW. Not that it matters but that's a pretty blatant smear even for a mythmaker....lol

        • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

          Jefferson cut the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and ascension of
          Christ – what he described as a “dunghill” – out of his cut-and-paste
          New Testament ( Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, 24 January 1814, Lester J. Cappon, ed., The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams (Williamsburg, VA: Institute of Early American History and Culture, 1988) p. 384). In light of 2 John 1:7-9, how would you describe him? Be careful--be sure to read the consequences of doing so inaccurately in Verses 10-11.

        • T. Edward Price

          It matters NOTHING AT ALL what I think. I am merely a flawed, imperfect, carnal-minded man. Anything that I think could very likely be wrong. All that matters is what God thinks: "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist." (2 John 1:7)

          That settles the matter decisively. I would rather be a "mythmaker" than a Christ denier any day. I hope you would, too!

        • Edward Mc Kervey

          To support the Constitution and its necessary connection to the Declaration of Independence cannot be conflated with a denial of Christ. This Perfectionism espoused by the "constitutional mythmakers" group is a great delusion. Rock on Mythmakers !!! The Constitution & Christianity are both about the individual and about his own free will to choose to do the right thing. Reason is what separates humans from the animals. You can try to regurgitate the apple but you will not return to the garden. "There is no back door to heaven, just a front door to hell"....Ronnie James Dio. God Bless you on your journey of discovery. We will all be judged by our fruits. Naturally.

        • T. Edward Price

          To support an antichrist such as Thomas Jefferson is to become complicit with him, and a partaker of his denial of Christ. As far as myths go, the enemies of Christ consider Christianity itself nothing but myth, so I'm honored to be persecuted as such.

          "The Constitution & Christianity are both about the individual and about his own free will to choose to do the right thing."

          "And God spake all these words, saying, I am Yahweh thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me." (Exodus 20:3)

          Although individual Christians have the leeway to obey or disobey Yahweh, Christianity is about national salvation as well. We are told repeatedly of the curses that would befall God's people COLLECTIVELY, should they choose (freewill) to disobey His laws.

          And as for the RJD reference, all I have to say is, in order to protect the sheep, it's time to "Lock up The Wolves"!

          Bless all who are are honestly seeking the truth. Biblically.