Sen. Kaine compares God-given rights to Islamic theocracy in Iran
Just when you thought the democrats couldn't get any more detached from the reality of being an American Sen. Tim Kaine puts it on display. The concept of God-Given rights has been around since the start of the United States. It's stated in the Bill of rights. He made himself look really ridiculous. I'm almost numb to being shocked by what those of the left say.
"Tim Kaine needs to report to a remedial civics class as soon as possible.
The Virginia senator and former vice-presidential candidate expressed outrage at a congressional hearing that a Trump nominee said our rights come from God, not government.
Kaine suspected incipient theocracy, warning that the Iranian regime persecutes religious minorities on exactly this basis. “They do it,” he explained, “because they believe that they understand what natural rights are from their creator.”
In searching for an example more relevant to the American experience, Kaine might cast his mind back to a fellow Virginian — a tall, sandy-haired, Charlottesville-area gentleman with an interest in architecture, a taste for fine wine and knack for writing. Ring any bells?
Thomas Jefferson had three things inscribed on his tombstone: drafter of the Virginia statute for religious freedom, founder of the University of Virginia and author of the Declaration Independence.
Kaine could lodge all the same complaints he made about the offending nominee, Riley Barnes, against the Declaration of Independence that shockingly maintains that all persons are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” and calls this proposition — with arrogant certitude — a “self-evident” truth.
Luckily for the Sage of Monticello, he didn’t have to get confirmed as ambassador to France by a Senate Foreign Relations Committee including Tim Kaine (as it happened, the US Senate didn’t exist yet).
Kaine might consider that, in taking his oath of office, he actually pledged to defend a constitutional system that is founded on the idea that our rights exist prior to government.
As Jefferson noted later, the sentiments of the Declaration were commonplace in 18th-century America. Jefferson’s nemesis, Alexander Hamilton, stated that “the sacred rights of mankind” are “written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”
John Adams, James Wilson and John Dickinson, among other Founding figures, said exactly the same thing.
Whereas Tim Kaine hears someone say our rights come from God and thinks of the writings and thought of, say, the Aytollah Khomeini, the philosophical basis of the idea is found in the work of John Locke, one of the greatest Enlightenment thinkers.
Locke grounded his liberalism in an understanding of mankind as possessing inherent God-given rights and dignity.
The power of this idea is that in a conflict between our rights and laws impinging on them, the laws must give way.
Kaine’s view that rights come from the government implies that the state gets to decide whether or not and to what extent we have rights.
The American project, though, is based on the belief that it is duty of government to respect pre-existing rights, and if a government tramples on them, it has failed and is illegitimate.
The abolitionists used this view to great effect in the 19th century. Even though the government had decided that it was permissible for one class of people to enslave another, the abolitionists believed that this was an offense against God.
Enslaved people had a natural right to liberty that couldn’t be erased.
So, Kaine must have a beef with the likes of William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln.
https://nypost.com/2025/09/05/opinion/s … en-rights/I really appreciate the article—reading through your historical context reminded me how often the left seems to overlook the foundations of our country. I agree the concept of God-given rights is not some obscure relic; it’s central to the American experiment. Tim Kaine’s reaction really highlights how detached some politicians have become from the principles the Founders built into our system.
I also think it’s worth emphasizing that this isn’t just historical theory; it’s still incredibly relevant today. From debates on free speech to technology policy and even AI, understanding that rights exist prior to government is crucial. Without that recognition, the government’s role shifts from protector to arbiter of what freedoms people actually get, which is exactly the risk the Founders warned about.
The point about Locke and the abolitionists really hit home. The courage of those like Frederick Douglass and Lincoln came from an unshakable belief in inherent rights. That same principle still underpins why many of us advocate for policies that empower Americans, rather than the state, to lead, innovate, and make choices about their lives and industries.
This was a good read; it’s a strong reminder that the ideas behind our Constitution aren’t abstract, they are living principles that need defenders today just as much as back then.
In the US, the declaration of Independence is not a legal document. It cannot be used in a court of law and it has no bearing on the laws of the nation. Conversely, The US Constitution very specifically established a secular Republic under enlightenment values, regardless of any kind of language in the declaration of independence. The Constitution is the legally binding document that opens with "We the people.."
And of course the first amendment guarantees "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" so we are a bona fide secular Nation where the legal authority of government is derived from the people and not from any religion or God(s)This has NOTHING to do with religion. Nothing.
The Declaration of Independence is the basis for the US Constitution.
It is where do we get our rights from as American citizens.
Again....
"The abolitionists used this view to great effect in the 19th century. Even though the government had decided that it was permissible for one class of people to enslave another, the abolitionists believed that this was an offense against God.
Enslaved people had a natural right to liberty that couldn’t be erased."
Do those on the left actually believe that our rights as citizens come from government? If the government give you rights, it can also take them away. It can change them depending on shifts in those serving in the government.
"John Locke, one of the greatest Enlightenment thinkers.
Locke grounded his liberalism in an understanding of mankind as possessing inherent God-given rights and dignity.
The power of this idea is that in a conflict between our rights and laws impinging on them, the laws must give way."
From the Deceleration of Independence
"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.The founding fathers wouldn't recognize the mess this bunch of incompetents has made of this country...
For what? He misinterprets the whole thing...
Where do you think that Americans derive their rights?
No, it didn't.
Do you believe Americans derive their rights from the government?
The Declaration of Independence explains it clearly and doesn't mention how the government can bestow any rights on its citizens.In the US, the declaration of Independence is not a legal document. It cannot be used in a court of law and it has no bearing on the laws of the nation. Conversely, The US Constitution very specifically established a secular Republic under enlightenment values, regardless of any kind of language in the declaration of independence. The Constitution is the legally binding document that opens with "We the people.."
And of course the first amendment guarantees "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" so we are a bona fide secular Nation where the legal authority of government is derived from the people and not from any religion or God(s)Having rights bestowed from the creator has NOTHING to do with religion.
Is this a difficult concept to grasp?
A guy in the peanut gallery thinks a giver of Rights would also be the defender of those Rights.
Who defends our 'naturally given' Rights?
The guy sitting beside me in the gallery says the answer is us. We defend them, so we must be the givers of them.
GAAre you saying that people are able to bestow naturally given rights?
Nope, I'm saying the giver of Rights must also be the defender. If you can't keep a gift, it isn't much of a gift.
Sure people can bestow a "natural Right." Anyone can. Giving a Right is only an act of words. Anybody can do it. All the religions, probably, do it, but I bet they're not all the same. They're just words. What turns them into actions? We do.
As silly as that sounds, it will lead back to the claim that only God can do it. Since we are the ones who 'force' our government to protect our natural rights, then it is us who defend our Rights.
This isn't a semantics game Mike. Each side's argument boils down to the only proof being who defends those Rights.
I could bestow you a 'natural' Right, but I couldn't defend your keeping it. So it's a worthless Right. Government's promise 'natural Rights, but they can also execute you. How natural is that?
How does God protect your natural Right to life?
There are no natural Rights in nature, and we're still part of that. If you can't keep it, it ain't yours and it ain't natural.
GA"Sure people can bestow a "natural Right." Anyone can."
I don't agree with that statement at all.
"If you can't keep it, it ain't yours and it ain't natural."
So, when people were enslaved, did they have no natural rights to freedom?
Since the laws at the time made it legal to enslave another person, did those enslaved have no natural rights to be free?
I would argue they did, like all people, have a natural right to be free.
Humans did not give that right to them. I would also argue this right has been given people by the creator.I was trying to skip a few steps. This topic has had several threads over the years; you were probably in as many as I was.
The 'who gives them' question always (almost always?) includes the description as "natural" Rights.
For me, Natural Rights mean Nature's Rights; the proven Laws of Nature. For others, like yourself, it means God-given Rights. Plus, there are the different religious gods that may not speak of the same natural Rights.
There's no common starting point. Nowhere to go.
Also, specifically, what are natural Rights? The Right to vote is clearly a man-made Right. Is the Right to be free (or Liberty) a natural Right? Etc. etc. Again, no common starting point.
To your slave question, we're back to my original one; Who defends natural Rights? The reality of the enslavement situation is that the slave is not free to be free. There is no force to ensure his Natural Right. He does not have it.
One can say he has it because God says so, but God didn't enforce the Right, so the slave didn't have it. That's reality.
Words, intentions, beliefs, and motives are all intangibles. Nature doesn't recognize intangibles. If one can't defend a Right he doesn't have it unless someone lets him have it.
*Some of those old threads coming back to you now?
GA ;-)"One can say he has it because God says so, but God didn't enforce the Right, so the slave didn't have it. That's reality."
This goes to another thread about God giving people free will. They can follow God's law or disobey God's law and that is their choice. In my mind, God's law was enforced by the creation of the Civil War. Do I believe it was God who created such an event to end slavery. I believe so. In my mind, humans created slavery and people who were obeying God's law ended it.
So, as far as I'm concerned, the Natural Law to be free from enslavement was enforced.
Now, let me tie this in to the Declaration of Independence
"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."AGAIN the declaration of Independence is not a legal document.
Whether the Declaration of Independence is a legal document or not is not the issue.
Where do Americans get their rights?
I know what the founding fathers believed.
"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."
Your response amounted to saying God works his will through man. That's a religious belief that isn't arguable. I can't prove it's wrong, and you can't prove it's right.
That's one of the steps I was trying to skip. ;-)
A "Right" seems to be universally seen as something that is guaranteed; God (and man, using God's word) says you have a Right to life.
Who guarantees that Right in the real physical world?
Except for the religious belief mentioned, no one does; only punishment for violating it is guaranteed.
The Declaration quote sounds great. But the "unalienable" part leads to the same original question: Who guarantees that they are unalienable — God or man? I was trying to skip that part too. ;-(
*I'm not knocking religious belief, but belief and reality aren't the same. If you can't keep something, then it isn't guaranteed. It isn't natural. Nature's laws are guaranteed; that's as natural as it gets.
GA"Who guarantees that Right in the real physical world?
Who guarantees that they are unalienable"
The answer to this is earlier in your post.
"God works his will through man"Yep, now you see why I wanted to skip those steps.
They always end the same way: Because God says so. And that always puts the reality of nature on the scales: belief against reality.
Belief says God gives Rights, reality says man does.
GA"Belief says God gives Rights, reality says man does"
The counter argument to that is if men give rights, then men can take them away and therefore there is no such thing as unalienable rights.
The founders believed in unalienable rights, they can't be taken away no matter what the will of men. Right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. No matter what man does, people will always have these unalienable rights. They can't be taken away by men. These rights can be ignored but they will always exist.
I'm sure we could get pretty deep into this.We're deep enough. It's turning (innocently) into a semantics thing.
The belief that we have a natural Right to life agrees with nature: it's in our DNA, our fight or flight instinct. That's nature's version of a Natural Right. But it isn't unalienable; nature doesn't guarantee it. That part came from man himself.
The semantics confusion comes in with the 'having even when you don't have because you are supposed to have and that supposed to have can't be taken away, so you do still have it even though you're dead because somebody just ununalienated your Right.' ;-)
Words and thoughts versus the reality of actions. I'm sticking with Rights coming from man (they could be doing God's will) and guaranteed by man."Words and thoughts versus the reality of actions. I'm sticking with Rights coming from man (they could be doing God's will) and guaranteed by man."
Okay, I disagree, but believe that God is guiding men to do his will. I think that is where we get natural rights and why the founders mentioned "by their creator."
The founders were people who believed man is not all powerful in this world.Again agree, I think your perspective is closer to how the Founding Fathers saw things, and they created the Constitution with that premise.
"The semantics confusion comes in with the 'having even when you don't have because you are supposed to have and that supposed to have can't be taken away, so you do still have it even though you're dead because somebody just ununalienated your Right.' ;-)"
Sounds like someone just resurrected your Right from the grave and gave it a second life—zombie liberty at its finest. Ahh . . . liberty, yet a different discussion. Are they connected?I don't get the first part, but I'd say Liberty and Life are not connected.
*We've had the freedom vs. liberty discussion, remember?
GA ;-)
Yep, that is in tune with what I just posted... the creators of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc. came from a Christian background that took some things for fact, that today we call faith.
Gus, your argument that reality is one thing and faith is another is not what the majority of Founders necessarily believed, our 21st century perspective on things is different... much like it was regarding slavery, women's rights, etc. compared to us, the civilization they were part of was still climbing out of the stone age.They haven't changed, just our interpretation of them.
Hah, this one is just for kicks. It's been a 'hot one' for a couple of hundred years.
Prompted by your most recent adoption of Grok, I asked him. He says God never said we have a Right to Life. It is man's interpretation of scripture that says so.
So there. God inspired them but man did the declaring and doing. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. ;-)
GA
And that is why the West is in the pickle it is in...
Our Country was founded on Christian morals and beliefs... when you throw away "One Nation Under God, Indivisible and with Liberty" ... it all goes to crap because what commonality are you basing rights and laws on other than force... might makes right.
The Declaration of Independence invokes God several times to justify the revolution and secure rights, where it all began.
While the Constitution is a secular document that establishes a republican government... its underlying ideas include the reign of law, Creator-endowed rights, just trials, self-government, religious freedom, private property rights, all flowing from the Christian backgrounds each person involved in its creation heralded from.
[edit] sorry for coming late to the discussion, I was sidelined, which was most appreciated actually... diverted my attention to Stablecoins and the Genius Act which in turn diverted me to doing some investing... most fortunate, so thank you to whoever did me the favor.Except for the "pickle" part.
Yep, your explanation works for me too. It echoes Mike's. A belief in God inspired their (the quoted authors) description of the rights as unalienable.
That didn't make them so. That's simply the reason for man's creation of them. And the reason man creates laws to try to guarantee their 'unalienability.'
This is still sounding like a semantics thing, but it isn't intended to be.
GAIsn't that the 'pickle' tho?
The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and whether their legitimacy depends on Christian values, morals, or a belief in God?
Christianity was the cultural framework of the time... don't think Islam or Buddhism played into anyone's beliefs... but they also drew from Enlightenment principles, France's Revolution, which emphasized reason, individual liberty, and natural rights independent of any specific religion.
You are arguing, based on what I am seeing and have seen from you before, John Locke's beliefs, natural rights based on reason, or Kantian ethics, values like fairness or individual dignity being maintained without requiring a divine authority.
I counter that removing a shared moral foundation, like Christianity, erodes the cultural cohesion that supports these documents’ ideals. The majority no longer has a common foundation on which they agree.
If "unalienable rights" lose their anchor in a transcendent source, they become subjective, open to reinterpretation or dismissal.
Which is exactly what we see in society today... from crimes being a crime based on whether you are considered a victim or oppessor class... to sex identification being a choice... to feelings trumping facts and there being no truths.This one is a yes and a no, with a clear line between them.
Yep, you nailed me with Locke. Kant, maybe some. That's the yes. The 'No' is that I don't disagree with your thought of a human need for a transcendent authority. That's as built-in as our fight or flight instinct is. It's a hierarchy thing, also a built-in need.
GAThank you for the clarification. Also glad my insight was correct.
“To love truth for truth's sake is the principal part of human perfection in this world, and the seed-plot of all other virtues.”
As to the point of debate:
"The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."That Locke quote felt like hearing an anthem. Good pick.
And coincidentally, considering this exchange, Locke's use of the word "ought" sure looks like what I was saying.
GAYou are a good sorts Gus, you are like the canary in the coal mine, if I find you harping on an opinion I share, I know it's due for some reflection and consideration.
You clearly missed the whole point of the post you copy and pasted...
I GIVE UP.I think it is you who missed of the entire point of the post I copy and pasted.
You giving up is absolutely understandable and makes sense.
- tsmogposted 2 weeks ago
0You either get the world to fit according to your views, or you need to change your views to fit the world
~ Daryl Van Tongeren
Related Discussions
- 21
Natural Rights: Who gives us these rights?
by Kathryn L Hill 7 years ago
The government or God?Hint: Its not the government.
- 5
Natural/liberty rights VS. Legal/claim rights
by James Smith 13 years ago
"Natural rights are rights which are "natural" in the sense of "not artificial, not man-made", as in rights deriving from deontic logic, from human nature, or from the edicts of a god. They are universal; that is, they apply to all people, and do not derive from the laws of...
- 32
Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war
by Doug Hughes 14 years ago
I was thinking about a web site that needs to be written. “WHERE-TO-RIOT.COM”. Consider history. Back in the 60s angry disenfranchised urban blacks rioted, stupidly burning their own neighborhoods as a response to the rage and sense of futility they felt.Contrast that to the revolutions of...
- 11
Some things are self-evident as in the declaration of independence...
by Jack Lee 7 years ago
“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...”In 2018, there are some self-evident truths...Here is my list. Feel free to add to...
- 49
Where in the Constitution is a women's right to birth control?
by cjhunsinger 11 years ago
Where in the Constitution is a women's right to birth control?In The United States of America our Rights are enumerated within the Bill of Rights and to my understanding such a Right does not exist.
- 76
"A Republic, if You Can Keep It"
by Poppa Blues 15 years ago
America is NOT a democracy! To understand the difference between a democracy and a REPUBLIC, read on, and you'll realize why the health care bill is unconstitutional!"A Republic, if You Can Keep It" Written by John F. McManus Monday, 06 November 2000 11:31 The...