Do Human Rights Extend to Liberals? Not if You Ask Them
Politico journalist Heidi Pryzbyla recently found herself in hot water after making some bizarre statements on live television in an attempt to besmirch what she identifies as “Christian nationalism.”
“Christian nationalists — not Christians, by the way … believe that our rights as Americans — as all human beings — don’t come from any earthly authority. … They come from God,” Pryzbyla said.
— Heidi Przybyla 🌺 (@HeidiReports) February 23, 2024
This obviously ignores some very concise statements from America’s Founding Fathers, such as the definitive line from the Declaration of Independence — “All men are created equal, [and] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”
Whether or not Pryzbyla intended to accuse the Founders of being Christian nationalists (which is certainly possible in this age of chronological snobbery), and whether or not the Founders actually were Christian nationalists, the underlying ethical quandary raised by her statements needs close examination.
Defining Morality
When we discern right from wrong, we’re making what’s called a moral judgment. In our society, there are certain behaviors that we all seem to agree are either good or evil.
There is prescriptive morality — treat strangers with courtesy and charity, for example. Then there is proscriptive morality — don’t murder, steal or rape. These boil down to positive “do” statements and negative “don’t” statements.
This is the foundation of what we call “human rights.” Rights are, generally speaking, the guarantee that no person or entity will either fail to behave toward you with proper prescriptive morality, or violate proper proscriptive morality in debilitating actions against you.
But where do these ideas come from? What council gathered to determine the list of good and evil actions? And why are they intrinsically, instinctively hardwired into the human makeup, to the extent that when we watch a movie or read a novel, we can immediately identify the antagonist?
Why is it that when someone doesn’t share these ideas of right and wrong, we condemn him as morally deficient, and incarcerate him against his will if he acts upon his deficient morality?
God-Given Rights
The philosophers of the so-called “Age of Enlightenment” attempted to answer these questions in their characteristically secular manner.
John Locke wrote of a mysterious law of nature that binds all humans, leading us to form governments that defend the order that this law calls for.
But where does the law of nature come from? Well, nowhere in particular. It isn’t a cognizant, sentient entity ruling and reigning from the clouds. It’s merely a collection of statements.
Thomas Hobbes got a lot closer to the truth by making the case that the natural state of humanity is chaos, and that morality can only be found when individuals submit to a higher, sovereign power, over which there is no authority.
This is what later came to be known as the “social contract,” in which individuals trade some amount of agency in return for civil order and peace.
What secular philosophers couldn’t seem to explain was where exactly the motive for this civil order originates. Philosophy crumbles upon itself once the cornerstone of deity is removed.
Moral Law-Giver
Immanuel Kant, whom history recalls as no friend to Christianity, still managed to come to a humiliatingly logical conclusion: There exists a pervasive, universal moral law that all rational creatures should obey.
The existence of this moral law, Kant argued, points toward a moral law-giver, i.e., God — for, as Thomas Aquinas said, “nothing is caused by itself.”
Human rights are preceded by morality. Morality is preceded by God. This is the crux of every ethical debate, and it confounds many committed atheists.
Famous atheist Richard Rorty, for example, admitted that he had no secular foundation for his belief in universal human dignity:
“It is part of [our tradition] that the human stranger from whom all dignity has been stripped is to be taken in, to be reclothed with dignity. This Jewish and Christian element in our tradition is gratefully invoked by freeloading atheists like myself who think that metaphysical debates are futile.”
Even though some of our most famous Founding Fathers were themselves irreligious deists, and even though they all were products of the so-called Enlightenment, they still managed to draft declarations and governing documents that recognized, in no uncertain terms, a supreme moral law-giver.
Modern Moral Conundrum
How do these heady philosophical conversations manifest in practical reality?
We have all heard for many years, and with intensified volume since the Dobbs decision, of the “reproductive rights” that are apparently being denied to “birthing people” (to be en vogue). We hear all about the human rights denied to “transgender” individuals, homosexual couples, and so on.
But a problem quickly arises when someone appeals to human rights to make these various arguments. As we’ve established, human rights come from moral laws, and moral laws come from God.
When you deny God as the source of all this, or at the very least deny Him lordship over your lifestyle and decisions, who then are you appealing to with your cry for human rights?
Perhaps one could appeal to that nebulous social contract? According to those who espouse this intangible form of morality, however, the civil order it offers is at the pleasure of the sovereign state — meaning that if the state decides that it’s not your right, it simply isn’t, and you have no recourse, no higher power to appeal to.
If you hold to the left’s denial of God-given rights, then you’ve effectively eliminated the concept of morality that supersedes government. That means that, by their own logic, human rights would not extend to liberals.
Claiming Christian Ethics
There is a reason why Pryzbyla made a distinction between, in her view, the “real” Christians and the “fake” Christian nationalists.
“The problem with [God-given rights] is that [men] are determining what God is telling them,” she said.
“Has God really said?” (Genesis 3:1) The serpent in the Garden of Eden used similar logic on Eve, not by attempting to convince her that God isn’t authoritative, but that our interpretation of His laws is flawed.
Realizing that morality and human rights cannot exist outside of a world ordered by God, the game plan of the left has now shifted. The new strategy is to cast those who hold to biblical Christian ethics as “Christian nationalists.” Some will call them “fundamentalists.” Still others call them “MAGA Christians.”
The goal of the left here is a clear and present danger.
If orthodox Christian ethics, theology and lifestyles can be recast as “extreme,” then the title of Christianity can be appropriated by the left, which has already been making loud attempts at undermining Christian doctrinal purity.
Lord knows they’ve conquered the rainbow, which was originally a sign of God’s covenant with Noah. And back in 2016, they successfully branded young Trump conservatives as the “alt-right,” a phrase that nowadays is synonymous with white supremacy and neo-fascism.
Those newer to the political scene might not remember that it wasn’t always this way.
Satan Is in the PR Business
Lucifer has been an envious opponent of God since before time began.
In his attempt to undermine God, he seeks to counterfeit authentic spirituality everywhere it exists. The Apostle Paul speaks of demons masquerading as angels to deceive God’s elect.
The so-called Enlightenment was yet another one of Satan’s attempts to counterfeit God by replacing His laws with secular “natural laws.” What we’re seeing now is a more sinister move, one that poses a far greater threat to Christians.
This time, Satan isn’t just attempting to replace God’s laws; he’s attempting to replace Him altogether.
If biblical Christianity gets the alt-right treatment and is branded and exiled, then what will remain is a world of Christians, pastors and churches that will gladly bend the knee to their new, counterfeit moral law-giver.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
