In a striking moment during a congressional hearing, Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., ignited controversy by labeling the belief that natural rights originate from God as "extremely troubling."
According to Breitbart, during a Wednesday committee hearing, Kaine's rejection of the idea that rights come from a Creator, as opposed to laws or government, drew sharp criticism from Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who defended the foundational American principle enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.
The discussion unfolded on Wednesday when a Senate committee convened to address various issues, including the philosophical underpinnings of human rights. Sen. Kaine took the floor to express his concerns about the source of natural rights. He argued against the perspective that rights are inherent and bestowed by a divine power rather than established through legal or governmental systems.
Kaine described this viewpoint as deeply problematic, suggesting it aligns with ideologies held by certain authoritarian regimes. He specifically pointed to Iran, which he characterized as a theocratic state that governs based on Sharia law. According to Kaine, such a system in Iran leads to the persecution of religious minorities, including Sunnis, Bahá’ís, Jews, and Christians.
In his remarks, Kaine did not address the distinction that the United States operates as a representative republic, not a theocracy. The U.S. was established on principles articulated in the Declaration of Independence, which asserts that individuals are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights. This foundational document, authored by Thomas Jefferson, emphasizes equality and inherent freedoms as a core American belief.
Kaine, however, explicitly rejected this traditional Jeffersonian perspective during the hearing. He maintained that attributing rights to a divine source, rather than human-made laws, poses significant issues. "The notion that rights don’t come from laws and don’t come from the government, but come from the Creator — that’s what the Iranian government believes," Kaine stated.
"It’s a theocratic regime that bases its rule on Sharia law and targets Sunnis, Bahá’ís, Jews, Christians and other religious minorities," he continued. In a separate statement, Kaine reiterated his concern, saying, "So the statement that our rights do not come from our laws or our governments is extremely troubling." His comments suggested a preference for rights to be seen as products of legislative or governmental action rather than inherent endowments.
If rights were to be viewed as deriving solely from government or laws, their stability could be at risk. Such a framework might mean that freedoms could shift with changing political tides or majority opinions. For instance, rights like gun ownership could be affirmed one day and rescinded shortly after through a vote.
Similarly, the right to free speech could face the same vulnerability under such a system. Privacy protections, as outlined in the Fourth Amendment regarding personal security and property, could also be subject to fluctuating legislative decisions. This potential instability highlights a significant difference in perspective on the nature of rights and their protection.
In response to Kaine’s position, Sen. Ted Cruz offered a strong rebuttal during the same hearing. Cruz expressed astonishment at the dismissal of a core tenet of American philosophy regarding the origin of rights. "I have to say, it is stunning to me that the principle that God has given us natural rights is now deemed by Democrats some radical and dangerous notion," Cruz declared.
Cruz’s defense underscored the historical and ideological significance of the belief in divinely endowed rights. This principle, rooted in the Declaration of Independence, has long been a cornerstone of American identity and governance. The clash between Kaine and Cruz reflects a broader debate about the foundation of rights in the United States.
Kaine’s remarks have brought to the forefront questions about how rights are perceived and protected in a modern context. While he emphasized the risks of linking rights to divine authority, he did not elaborate on how a government-centric view might ensure stability. The comparison to Iran’s theocratic governance added a layer of complexity to his argument, raising questions about intent and interpretation.
Cruz, on the other hand, positioned his argument within the historical framework of American values. His response highlighted a commitment to preserving the traditional understanding of rights as inherent and unchangeable by human whims. This exchange in the Senate committee is likely to fuel further discussions on the philosophical underpinnings of American freedoms.
The debate between Kaine and Cruz is emblematic of a deeper ideological divide on the nature of rights and governance. As the U.S. continues to grapple with evolving social and political challenges, such discussions are critical to shaping policy. The outcome of this debate could influence how future generations understand and defend their fundamental freedoms.