My comments interspersed in bold.
-----------
In a recent letter, Jack Levitt tied American exceptionalism to liberty (not equality) and to our unique idea of God-given rights. In response, Patrick Hessman cogently argued the case for equality in a letter of Dec. 11, but a few words are in order, I think, about “God-given rights.” (I won't rehash Mr. Hessman's "congent" presentation, for it was anything but. You can review it along with my comments in the before-mentioned link.)
Somehow, God seems to have forgotten to tell mankind about “inalienable rights” to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” until quite recently. (Does Mr. Benert have a particular god in mind, or is he simply tossing out clever talking points? You will note that Mr. Benert's ignorant 23 word statement requires hundreds of words to refute. But so it is with the uninformed whose life philosophy is governed by bumper stickers and glib vacuous phrases.
One might assume from Mr. Benert's letter that the concepts of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were unknown before the enlightenment and suddenly sprang into human consciousness. Of course that is nonsense. But since Mr. Benert is leveling an accusation against God, let's see what the Bible has to say about these topics.
1) Life: God created us according to the Bible:"...from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." Gen 2:7. Genesis then goes on to note a somewhat curious detail. Genesis 2:9 notes that God put the Tree of Life in the garden: "In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." So when God drove Adam and Eve from the garden, He gave the reason why in Genesis 3:22: "He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live for ever.” Adam and Eve had access to eternal life, which was then prevented by their expulsion. But before, they could eat of it any time they wanted.
Revelation 2:7 completes this thought: "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God." As does Revelation 3:5: "He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels." Clearly we have a right to life.
Fast forward many years. The apostle John tells us in John 1:12-13, "Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God — children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God." The true life, the life we receive by right, is eternal life, life in the Spirit, because there is no life without God. "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing." [John 6:63] The fullness of life is what Jesus came to give us (John 10:10), because the only other alternative is to have life stolen from us. We cannot have stolen what we do not possess!
And lest you think I am conflating the right to eternal life with the right to natural life, there is this verse: "And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you." [Romans 8:11]
2) Liberty, synonymous with freedom: Isaiah 61:1 establishes that the work of God is freedom: "He has sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners..." Captivity, bondage, and slavery are all going to fall because of the work of God. This harkens back to the fact that God released the Israelites from the slavery of the Egyptians, and as a result Israel was commanded to set their slaves free: "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: I made a covenant with your forefathers when I brought them out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. I said, ‘Every seventh year each of you must free any fellow Hebrew who has sold himself to you. After he has served you for six years, you must let him go free.’" [Jer. 34:13-14]
We begin to see that though slavery was a common feature of the ancient world, God was moving his people away from it. It is not the purpose of this post to document the biblical issues of slavery. You can find excellent discussions of that here and here. Suffice to say, it is God's highest purpose for mankind to be set free. "...that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God." Paul writes, "For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord’s freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ’s slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men." [1Co. 7:22-23] John writes this in Jn. 8:32: "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
Speaking in the spiritual sense, Paul writes, "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery." [Gal 5:] Interestingly, Paul recognizes that spiritual freedom is linked to physical freedom, freedom that can be abused: "You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature..." [Gal 5:13] Peter writes about true freedom: "They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity — for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him." [2 Peter 2:19]
This freedom is expressed as a law, which of course creates a legal right: "...because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death." And it is quite fair for us to note that the idea of slavery is offensive, because it violates our moral sensibilities. We recognize instinctively that freedom is a right. As we have already seen, God's intention is to give us that right.
3) happiness: We see in Psalm 68:3 that happiness is pronounced as a blessing: "But may the righteous be glad and rejoice before God; may they be happy and joyful." Here, it is not the present state, but rather something to be hoped for, dare I say, pursued? King Solomon writes this: "I know that there is nothing better for men than to be happy and do good while they live." [Ecc 3:12]. Clearly one cannot be happy without pursuing it! " King Solomon cements the deal: "Moreover, when God gives any man wealth and possessions, and enables him to enjoy them, to accept his lot and be happy in his work — this is a gift of God." These possessions, gifts of God, make men happy.
God intends for us to be happy: "This is what the LORD Almighty says: “The fasts of the fourth, fifth, seventh and tenth months will become joyful and glad occasions and happy Festivals for Judah. Therefore love truth and peace.” [Zech 8:19] Ecc. 2:26 says, "To the man who pleases him, God gives wisdom, knowledge and happiness, but to the sinner he gives the task of gathering and storing up wealth to hand it over to the one who pleases God."
Ok, we've had a tour of the Bible, for the sole task of pointing out Mr. Benert's ignorance. This is unfortunate, since Mr. Benert obviously prefers his own template to the detriment of understanding. He probably read something on a leftist website and simply duplicated it in his letter. As we continue below, we will discover that he has made a habit of this.)
In fact, this concept was a product of the secularizing Rationalism of the European Enlightenment, when men began to talk about rights in the abstract, as a product of nature and natural law. Meanwhile, in America, individual rights had tough sledding in those theocratic colonies. Yes, Jefferson’s Declaration speaks of a creator who endows us with these rights, but, true to his European mentors, he refers in the preceding sentence to this creator as “nature’s God.” The rights he allegedly gave were built into the rational workings of nature, as men of that day saw it, understandable not through revelation but by reason, and subject to rational discourse (This is a misrepresentation. Nature, natural law, and nature's God were central related concepts descending from a philosophy that acknowledged the Creator God who made all things and was involved in His creation. The Declaration makes it plain that the founders were relying on God: "We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions..." They viewed God as their guide and protector: "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." It is clear just from the Declaration that God was more than an ambiguous "something." If we were to examine the writings of the founders, we would see this concept celebrated, and Mr. Benert's assertion would be demolished by the testimony of the founders themselves.).
The Federalist Papers, that Bible of today’s conservatives, make no mention of God-given rights (Do you notice that Mr. Bernet cites a source that ostensibly buttresses his position, one of thousands that could be cited, but does so solely because of the position he is trying to prove? And by the way, why is it the "Bible of today's conservatives," especially in light of him quoting it as authoritative himself? Indeed, what is his position regarding the Federalist papers? Do they have value or not?
But crucially, we need to note that the Federalist Papers were written to explain and defend the proposed Constitution, not to elucidate the nature or source of our rights. This would be like consulting a cookbook to discover how to change oil in your car.).
On the contrary, Hamilton says in #84 that rights “depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government.” (As we will discover, his source doesn't support his argument after all. He misrepresents the quote by neglecting the context. Hamilton is in the midst of a lengthy explanation of the problems of attaching a "bill of rights" to the proposed constitution. Prior to Mr. Benert's quote, he writes: "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?"
Hmm. Hamilton is arguing that putting a bill of rights in the Constitution would lead us into a government that plays games with its meaning, which is ironic considering that it appears that Hamilton was correct. We have that very situation today.
After making this statement, Hamilton then focuses on the specific example, freedom of the press. He questions the meaning of the expression, how it can be dissected and reinterpreted, ultimately rendering it meaningless. Then he concludes that enumerating rights is a dangerous thing and makes this statement: "...from this I infer, that its security, whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government. And here, after all, as is intimated upon another occasion, must we seek for the only solid basis of all our rights." Whoops. We discover that Hamilton's point is that public opinion determines what ought to be inserted into the Constitution! Mr. Benert obviously didn't read any part of the Federalist papers.
Property rights (#10) originate in “diversity in the faculties of men.” (So having established that Mr. Benert is simply repeating something he read somewhere without having consulted the actual source in context, we can be reasonably assured he will continue in this same mode. Our suspicions are borne out.
In this passage James Madison is discussing how factions manifest in society, and how that impacts rights. He writes: "As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties."
Notice that because the reasoning of man is fallible, and as a result there will be a variety of opinions, from that we find the "diversity in the faculties of men" from which property rights originate. Is Madison saying that the mind of man creates property rights? No, he is saying that there are a lot of opinions of what property rights are! Government is charged with protecting of these faculties of acquiring property! Well, this is quite different from Mr. Benert's assertions. Clearly these are natural, human sources, producing rights through the natural processes established by “nature’s God.” (So, his conclusion is wrong.)
It’s good that our rights are not thought to be granted by a king or a cabal, but that doesn’t mean that they are determined by every individual’s personal idea of God and therefore not subject to reasoned analysis and rational limitations (This is typical for the Left. No one has argued for a personal idea of God which is then not subject to reason. In fact, we can see by Madison's statement above that reason is fallible. The plain statements of the founders as to the nature and source of rights is not a personal version of everyone's idea of God. Because if rights descend from God, there are no personal ideas about it. It negates the idea of human agency.).
Question after Newtown, Conn.: What would nature’s God think about our current belief in the “God-given right” to own guns? (*Sigh* Mr. Benert goes to great lengths to attempt to demonstrate that "nature's God" is not much different than nature. Now wants to breathe life into his defanged God to suggest that God is all conflicted about gun rights. Really? Does Mr. Benert's new god oppose people defending themselves with guns, but is ok with knives? Or is Mr. Benert suggesting that because rights can be abused they are negated or forfeited? Or perhaps that because a horrific act was perpetrated it negates the whole concept of unalienable rights?
Apparently, Mr. Benert does not realize that the possession of rights is a risky endeavor, for which the only mitigating power is government violating those rights. So Mr. Benert needs to choose. Will it be a free society, or tyranny?)
Somehow, God seems to have forgotten to tell mankind about “inalienable rights” to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” until quite recently. (Does Mr. Benert have a particular god in mind, or is he simply tossing out clever talking points? You will note that Mr. Benert's ignorant 23 word statement requires hundreds of words to refute. But so it is with the uninformed whose life philosophy is governed by bumper stickers and glib vacuous phrases.
One might assume from Mr. Benert's letter that the concepts of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were unknown before the enlightenment and suddenly sprang into human consciousness. Of course that is nonsense. But since Mr. Benert is leveling an accusation against God, let's see what the Bible has to say about these topics.
1) Life: God created us according to the Bible:"...from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." Gen 2:7. Genesis then goes on to note a somewhat curious detail. Genesis 2:9 notes that God put the Tree of Life in the garden: "In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." So when God drove Adam and Eve from the garden, He gave the reason why in Genesis 3:22: "He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live for ever.” Adam and Eve had access to eternal life, which was then prevented by their expulsion. But before, they could eat of it any time they wanted.
Revelation 2:7 completes this thought: "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God." As does Revelation 3:5: "He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels." Clearly we have a right to life.
Fast forward many years. The apostle John tells us in John 1:12-13, "Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God — children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God." The true life, the life we receive by right, is eternal life, life in the Spirit, because there is no life without God. "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing." [John 6:63] The fullness of life is what Jesus came to give us (John 10:10), because the only other alternative is to have life stolen from us. We cannot have stolen what we do not possess!
And lest you think I am conflating the right to eternal life with the right to natural life, there is this verse: "And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you." [Romans 8:11]
2) Liberty, synonymous with freedom: Isaiah 61:1 establishes that the work of God is freedom: "He has sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners..." Captivity, bondage, and slavery are all going to fall because of the work of God. This harkens back to the fact that God released the Israelites from the slavery of the Egyptians, and as a result Israel was commanded to set their slaves free: "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: I made a covenant with your forefathers when I brought them out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. I said, ‘Every seventh year each of you must free any fellow Hebrew who has sold himself to you. After he has served you for six years, you must let him go free.’" [Jer. 34:13-14]
We begin to see that though slavery was a common feature of the ancient world, God was moving his people away from it. It is not the purpose of this post to document the biblical issues of slavery. You can find excellent discussions of that here and here. Suffice to say, it is God's highest purpose for mankind to be set free. "...that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God." Paul writes, "For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord’s freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ’s slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men." [1Co. 7:22-23] John writes this in Jn. 8:32: "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
Speaking in the spiritual sense, Paul writes, "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery." [Gal 5:] Interestingly, Paul recognizes that spiritual freedom is linked to physical freedom, freedom that can be abused: "You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature..." [Gal 5:13] Peter writes about true freedom: "They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity — for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him." [2 Peter 2:19]
This freedom is expressed as a law, which of course creates a legal right: "...because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death." And it is quite fair for us to note that the idea of slavery is offensive, because it violates our moral sensibilities. We recognize instinctively that freedom is a right. As we have already seen, God's intention is to give us that right.
3) happiness: We see in Psalm 68:3 that happiness is pronounced as a blessing: "But may the righteous be glad and rejoice before God; may they be happy and joyful." Here, it is not the present state, but rather something to be hoped for, dare I say, pursued? King Solomon writes this: "I know that there is nothing better for men than to be happy and do good while they live." [Ecc 3:12]. Clearly one cannot be happy without pursuing it! " King Solomon cements the deal: "Moreover, when God gives any man wealth and possessions, and enables him to enjoy them, to accept his lot and be happy in his work — this is a gift of God." These possessions, gifts of God, make men happy.
God intends for us to be happy: "This is what the LORD Almighty says: “The fasts of the fourth, fifth, seventh and tenth months will become joyful and glad occasions and happy Festivals for Judah. Therefore love truth and peace.” [Zech 8:19] Ecc. 2:26 says, "To the man who pleases him, God gives wisdom, knowledge and happiness, but to the sinner he gives the task of gathering and storing up wealth to hand it over to the one who pleases God."
Ok, we've had a tour of the Bible, for the sole task of pointing out Mr. Benert's ignorance. This is unfortunate, since Mr. Benert obviously prefers his own template to the detriment of understanding. He probably read something on a leftist website and simply duplicated it in his letter. As we continue below, we will discover that he has made a habit of this.)
In fact, this concept was a product of the secularizing Rationalism of the European Enlightenment, when men began to talk about rights in the abstract, as a product of nature and natural law. Meanwhile, in America, individual rights had tough sledding in those theocratic colonies. Yes, Jefferson’s Declaration speaks of a creator who endows us with these rights, but, true to his European mentors, he refers in the preceding sentence to this creator as “nature’s God.” The rights he allegedly gave were built into the rational workings of nature, as men of that day saw it, understandable not through revelation but by reason, and subject to rational discourse (This is a misrepresentation. Nature, natural law, and nature's God were central related concepts descending from a philosophy that acknowledged the Creator God who made all things and was involved in His creation. The Declaration makes it plain that the founders were relying on God: "We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions..." They viewed God as their guide and protector: "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." It is clear just from the Declaration that God was more than an ambiguous "something." If we were to examine the writings of the founders, we would see this concept celebrated, and Mr. Benert's assertion would be demolished by the testimony of the founders themselves.).
The Federalist Papers, that Bible of today’s conservatives, make no mention of God-given rights (Do you notice that Mr. Bernet cites a source that ostensibly buttresses his position, one of thousands that could be cited, but does so solely because of the position he is trying to prove? And by the way, why is it the "Bible of today's conservatives," especially in light of him quoting it as authoritative himself? Indeed, what is his position regarding the Federalist papers? Do they have value or not?
But crucially, we need to note that the Federalist Papers were written to explain and defend the proposed Constitution, not to elucidate the nature or source of our rights. This would be like consulting a cookbook to discover how to change oil in your car.).
On the contrary, Hamilton says in #84 that rights “depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government.” (As we will discover, his source doesn't support his argument after all. He misrepresents the quote by neglecting the context. Hamilton is in the midst of a lengthy explanation of the problems of attaching a "bill of rights" to the proposed constitution. Prior to Mr. Benert's quote, he writes: "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?"
Hmm. Hamilton is arguing that putting a bill of rights in the Constitution would lead us into a government that plays games with its meaning, which is ironic considering that it appears that Hamilton was correct. We have that very situation today.
After making this statement, Hamilton then focuses on the specific example, freedom of the press. He questions the meaning of the expression, how it can be dissected and reinterpreted, ultimately rendering it meaningless. Then he concludes that enumerating rights is a dangerous thing and makes this statement: "...from this I infer, that its security, whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government. And here, after all, as is intimated upon another occasion, must we seek for the only solid basis of all our rights." Whoops. We discover that Hamilton's point is that public opinion determines what ought to be inserted into the Constitution! Mr. Benert obviously didn't read any part of the Federalist papers.
Property rights (#10) originate in “diversity in the faculties of men.” (So having established that Mr. Benert is simply repeating something he read somewhere without having consulted the actual source in context, we can be reasonably assured he will continue in this same mode. Our suspicions are borne out.
In this passage James Madison is discussing how factions manifest in society, and how that impacts rights. He writes: "As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties."
Notice that because the reasoning of man is fallible, and as a result there will be a variety of opinions, from that we find the "diversity in the faculties of men" from which property rights originate. Is Madison saying that the mind of man creates property rights? No, he is saying that there are a lot of opinions of what property rights are! Government is charged with protecting of these faculties of acquiring property! Well, this is quite different from Mr. Benert's assertions. Clearly these are natural, human sources, producing rights through the natural processes established by “nature’s God.” (So, his conclusion is wrong.)
It’s good that our rights are not thought to be granted by a king or a cabal, but that doesn’t mean that they are determined by every individual’s personal idea of God and therefore not subject to reasoned analysis and rational limitations (This is typical for the Left. No one has argued for a personal idea of God which is then not subject to reason. In fact, we can see by Madison's statement above that reason is fallible. The plain statements of the founders as to the nature and source of rights is not a personal version of everyone's idea of God. Because if rights descend from God, there are no personal ideas about it. It negates the idea of human agency.).
Question after Newtown, Conn.: What would nature’s God think about our current belief in the “God-given right” to own guns? (*Sigh* Mr. Benert goes to great lengths to attempt to demonstrate that "nature's God" is not much different than nature. Now wants to breathe life into his defanged God to suggest that God is all conflicted about gun rights. Really? Does Mr. Benert's new god oppose people defending themselves with guns, but is ok with knives? Or is Mr. Benert suggesting that because rights can be abused they are negated or forfeited? Or perhaps that because a horrific act was perpetrated it negates the whole concept of unalienable rights?
Apparently, Mr. Benert does not realize that the possession of rights is a risky endeavor, for which the only mitigating power is government violating those rights. So Mr. Benert needs to choose. Will it be a free society, or tyranny?)
No comments:
Post a Comment