If Scott Cost thinks that Ted Cruz is scary because he declared in a speech, “our rights don’t come from man. They come from God Almighty,” then he would really be frightened of the Founding Fathers.
Enshrined in our Declaration of Independence are terms such as the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” referring to God’s law written on the heart and God’s law revealed in the Bible, and “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” referring to rights bestowed by God and non-transferable to anyone else.
Cost would be absolutely terrified of Martin Luther King, Jr. who wrote in his famous “Letter From a Birmingham Jail”: “How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law”.
Scott may self identify as a Christian, but he certainly doesn’t have a Christian worldview or he would know that our rights come from God and not man. The Founders and King drew their view on rights from the Bible and great Christian thinkers such as Augustine, Aquinas and William Blackstone whose “Commentaries on the Laws of England” were the basis for our system of law for the first 150 years of the nation’s history until objective law was replaced by the subjective system that we have in place today.
Our rights can’t come from society, or Cost would have no argument against slavery in the antebellum South. They can’t come from government, or he would have no argument against the Holocaust. They can’t come from majority opinion or there is no protection for the minority and tyranny of the majority is just as bad as tyranny of one dictator. The only sure guarantee of liberty is, as the Founder’s stated, that rights must come from our Creator.
One has to look no further than Indiana to see the end result of Scott’s apparent worldview that rights come from man. The “free exercise of religion” is the first right guaranteed under the Constitution. This is a “freedom from”, not a “freedom to”, meaning that the freedom already exist. It is an “unalienable” right and it cannot be taken away by government. Yet the hue and cry from liberals and the press (there I go repeating myself again) over a law that reiterates that freedom, and who want the government to be the determinant of “free exercise”, is deafening.
Think about the alternative, if the ultimate source of our rights comes from man, then the only thing we have is the opinions of individuals. How would we then settle a difference of opinion? If there is no ultimate source outside of man to which we can appeal, then the only recourse we are left with is might makes right. That is exactly where we are today, with men and women in black robes granting and withholding rights at their whim. Now that is scary.
Austin G. Abercrombie