In our current Life On the Vine series in Ambassadors ABF this weekend, we discussed how our culture encourages us to defend our rights as individuals as opposed to living with a more outward view that places others first. I find it interesting that the author of our book, Philip Kenneson, takes the stance that "the assumption behind 'rights' language is that we need to be protected from one another" and that creates "a culture that thrives on adversarial relationships." He argues that this manifests itself in an "obsession with lawsuits" and "cultivates habits of noninvolvement" for fear of lawsuits.
While I understand his frustration with everyone looking out for number one, I believe that his placing blame on the system is a bit overboard as even he admits that the "language of rights is likely essential in a soceity like ours." I would say that it is more than likely essential - it's absolutely necessary. However, we humans have corrupted the system. Our system of rights, when created by our founding fathers, looked nothing like it does today. As they wrote in 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." What does this phrase mean - in particular the phrase "pursuit of Happiness?"
We have the right to life. Yes, most people link this phrase with the anti-abortion movement today. However, the signers of the Declaration were simply restating Biblical law. Stated in the negative, "King George, You do not have the right to take my life without a fair and just cause." You see, listed in the Declaration are 27 injustices that the signers listed as reasons for declaring their independence. Number 15 states, "For protecting them (British soldiers), by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States." Number 18 states, "For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury." Number 19 states, "For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences." Number 24 states, "He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People."
Number 25 states, "He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation." And number 27 states, "He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions." What did the signers mean by the right to life? They meant that their king did not have the authority on this earth to take their lives from them. Their life was given to them by a Creator and only He could determine, through the Bible, who was and wasn't worthy of life.
We have the right to liberty. This word liberty, in my opinion, is the most preserved word of the Declaration in that it's meaning hasn't really changed in the last 250 years. The signers wanted freedom from the British government. Plain and simple. The British army was increasing its presence in the colonies. The king believed that he had unlimited power over the colonies and if the colonies wouldn't willfully obey the opressive laws and taxation that had been placed on them, the British army would bring them into obedience by force. The signers believed that our liberty was a right given to all men by God and any king or ruler that infringed upon that right was not a king that had to be obeyed. Thus, the war cry that was carried by the Committee for Intercolonial Correspondence during the Revolution was "No King but King Jesus!" Likewise, the men of Marlborough, MA unanimously proclaimed in January 1773 that "Death is more eligible than slavery. A free-born people are not required by the religion of Jesus Christ to submit to tyranny." And in March of 1775, Patrick Henry gave his speech before Congress in which he concluded with the words, "I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
Lastly, we have the right to the pursuit of Happiness. Did our founding fathers really believe that we had the right to pursue happiness? Happiness seems to be such a subjective word. How could the framers believe that Almighty God gave us the right to be happy? The Bible doesn't say anything about being happy. How many Christians have you met lately that seem to have it as a life-goal to remain unhappy and bring you down with them with all of their rules that make life boring and dull? It does seem that our society today has taken this right and run with it. "I have the right to pursue happiness as I see fit and you can't stop me." That's how we deal with every issue isn't it? The right for a mother to choose, the right to marry the same sex, or the right to not have to look at the 10 commandments. All these arguments essentially come down to legislating the things that make people happy. I will be happier if I get an abortion. I will be happier if I can marry my partner. I will be happier if my government doesn't show preference for one religion or another. So we legislate happiness.
But that's not what our founders intended and they spoke very clearly on this issue. First, you must understand that our founders were for the most part Christians. They had a very strong belief in a Creator God and they believed that He revealed himself to man through the Bible. The Bible contains the 10 Commandments, among other things, which they founders beleived are the simplest statements of God's laws of right and wrong. Thus when they framed our Bill of Rights, many of our rights can be summed up with one of God's commandments. For example, the right to life is protected by the commandment against murder. The right to property is protected by the commandments against theft and covetousness. Our founders believed that the last six commandments of God's law exist to protect man's rights.
Second, you must understand that our founding fathers were all very aware of the writings of Sir William Blackstone. Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England grew out of his lectures as a professor at Oxford, and were published in four volumes from 1765-1769. Blackstone's commentary was virtually the only law book in the colonies at the time of the Declaration. In short, Blackstone believed that obeying God's "eternal immutable principles of good and evil" is what leads to our "own true and substantial happiness." Blackstone wrote extensively on man's right to the Pursuit of Happiness. So what the founders were saying when they gave us the right to the Pursuit of Happiness is that we have the right to be free from a government that forbids us from doing what God commands or a governement that commands even allows what God forbids. If our government forbids us from doing what God commands, it would be blocking our path to true happiness which is following God's will. Or if our government allowed us to do what God's law forbids, it would be allowing someone else's rights to be violated. Thus the Declaration of Independence establishes that God's moral rules are the true source of human rights. And the purpose of our government - or any government - is to enforce God's rules so that our rights are protected.
All that being said, it is not fair for Philip Kenneson to place blame on our system of "rights" because he feels that it leads everyone down the path of looking out for number one and being inwardly focused. God is the one that set up our system of human rights. It's simply our government's obligation to protect those rights. If we humans have taken God's laws which are outwardly focused and turned them around so that they are self-serving, then blame the humans not the laws.
