A response to Newt Gingrich: America's rights were asserted, not God-given

[sinkingfeeling]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/20/AR2010072005858.html

In his July 9 letter, "Declaring our independence," Newt Gingrich erred on where our basic rights come from. When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, we were a small band of revolutionaries up against the world's most powerful empire. A third of our people supported independence, a third were Tories and a third were indifferent. Jefferson invoked the deity to challenge the prevailing European idea of the divine right of kings.

If our rights come from the Deity, then why was this discovered only in 1776, why were these rights confined to some white men, and why has the Deity been so stingy about spreading rights throughout the world?

We have rights because we conceived them, asserted them, fought for them and created the machinery for protecting them. Our basic document of government, the Constitution, begins with "We the People," not "We the Worshipers."

Edd Doerr, Silver Spring


The writer is president of Americans for Religious Liberty.

[Hosnon]

1. Good letter. The ultimate authority is always the people. If they don't think something is a right,

it's not (in the practical sense).

[bluestateguy]

2. "This country was founded on 'God Bless America'"

Actual remark made by a teabagger I heard on TV last year.

[zipplewrath]

3. Well, it's a tad off

Those rights weren't "discovered" in 1776. There were many philosophers who asserted these rights for decades prior. Jefferson, amongst others, studied these philosophers.

And the Magna Carta is usually considered the first expression of rights OF a king TO the people (okay to the nobles but you get the idea). And really, you can go back to both Greece and Rome to find the underpinnings of democracy in general.

Furthermore, Jefferson was a deist. As such, an expression like "...endowed by their creator..." would have been synonomous with "...endowed by their CREATION..." i.e by the fact of being human (well, white male human anyway).

Our understanding of rights has evolved. Mr. Doerr says we have these rights because we "conceived them". But I prefer his first suggestion which is that it is more a case of "discovering" them. Discoveries take time to be completely understood.

[sinkingfeeling]

4. Newt claimed our rights were God given. I think Mr. Doerr 's saying they come from the human

mind.

[zipplewrath]

7. Strange, since he challenged Jefferson.

Newt was basically echoing Jefferson (with the slight of hand of a shift from Creator to God). I know what Mr. Doerr is saying, but the people who actually did the fighting and creating are crediting another source. It is fundamental to the concept of rights that they are connected to our existence, not a product of our imagination.

[sinkingfeeling]

9. Our rights to life, freedom of religion, speech, and pursuit of happiness are human concepts and

independent of any belief in any gods. Humanity is limited only by what we fail to 'imagine'.

[zipplewrath]

10. Our rights exist

That is the governing concept here, that our rights exist. We did not create them. They exist as an integral part of the universe, and more importantly, of society. If they are just of our imagnination, we can imagine them away. If they exist, they are there whether people know it or not.

[sinkingfeeling]

11. Really, where in the universe are these tangible things? Rights are concepts. They were

conceived by human beings. Thoughts, concepts, and facts are very different than imagination. If these rights simply exist, then they should apply to all living things equally. Then there is no argument about America being far superior in 'human rights' than any other country, since the rights of all exist independently of type of government or the participants.

I think we will never agree. I believe in humankind.

[zipplewrath]

12. I'm sure we won't

But my real point is that you are hung up on the whole "deity" aspect. The philisophical reason for connecting rights to creation, or a creator, or a deity, is to make them as basic as breathing, water, or air. It isn't to connect them to religion or faith. It is to say that a person has rights, even if they don't know it. Which is how you get to a Miranda decision. If people have to know of rights in order for them to exist, then they soon won't exist, or we will have multiple classes of people. Those that know their rights, and those that don't.

[E_Pluribus_Unitarian]

5. Good response, Edd...

But I'd love even more to hear this coming from Pres. Obama's mouth.

[E_Pluribus_Unitarian]

6. I'd also like to hear Newt's spin on this statement by Jefferson...

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." Wonder if we'll be hearing Newt using that one in his speeches?

[DavidDvorkin]

8. Jefferson's version of the Declaration didn't include that Creator bit

He wrote that our rights derive from our being born equal. "Endowed by our Creator" was inserted by others who didn't want to deal with a controversy about atheism.

[Scurrilous]

13. K & R

:thumbsup: