Looks like the Media—short for Mainstream Media or MSM—are at it again, this time getting hot and bothered over Ted Cruz’s speechifying about our God-given rights, exceptionalism, and all that.  The so-called “God-made” Constitution left several of the MSM hooting with ridicule.  Their reaction of course was (predictably) to say that the Constitution and the Declaration were both written by humans, men to be precise.  The rights mentioned in them therefore were man-made.  Now let’s take a closer look at this.

In one sense the MSM are technically correct.  The Founding documents were drawn up by a relatively few men meeting in Philadelphia in 1776 and 1787.  Their ideas were derived in part from commonly circulating Enlightenment ideas about rights.  But in part their ideas were also drawn from along Judeo-Christian tradition of rights, to be more technical, what were called “subjective rights.”  Subjective rights are those claims or entitlements that “belong” to each individual person by virtue of being human.  They imply a duty on others’ part not to interfere with that claim and even to support it.  It so happens that this idea of rights goes back formally at least to the 13^th century in Europe and was rooted the Christian ideas (see Frances Oakley, Brian Tierney, Richard Tuck and Harold Berman as scholars who have investigated this development).  Informally one sees rights-talk like this much further back in Christian history and in fact, arguably, the Bible itself (implied for example in some of the Ten Commandments).  We can see this concept also in the Reformation, Post-Reformation and Early Modern periods, all way forward to John Locke.  In their view rights ultimately come from God, if they are to be considered legitimate.  Now of course they must be expressed in positive laws of government, but that is only an articulation or recognition of what already exists.  The Founders drew in large part on that Christian tradition.

We can of course argue over whether, regardless of what the Founders thought or what those before them believed, rights come from God.  That is a theological issue that I frankly would not trust to the MSM or even to most politicians.  I am a Christian who is inclined to see some rights coming from God in their origin.  But if I were not a believer, I think it might be a good idea to believe that too.  Why?  Because in theory if rights are given by God they are more or less fixed and “inalienable.”  But if one believes they are simply granted by the state, they can in theory (and sometimes have been in practice) be taken away by the state.  That doesn’t make for a very stable theory of rights and that makes me uncomfortable.

One more point.  One can also argue that as Christians, we should not claim our rights, but be willing to give them up for the sake of the Gospel.  That is a good argument.  But is applies only to individuals as individual Christians—their personal and conscience-driven decisions.  This ought never to be forced by the state by virtue of simply taking away rights in a legal sense.  There is a difference between rights voluntarily not claimed and legally (or illegally) abolished.

But to sum up, Ted Cruz, might be dismissed as just another politician spouting sloppy rhetoric to support his cause and draw voters.  But we should take his main point seriously or we end up allowing governments to arbitrarily decide what rights we ought to have and which ones we don’t need.  Fixed and objectively defined legal rights are an essential for any nation.  If God is their origin then we can be pretty sure those criteria are met.