Most human beings alive in this year of our Lord 2013 freely and fully accept the evidence that the human race wasn’t a special creation by God. Our ancestors were knuckle-draggers who rose from that position to one we consider, with some prejudice perhaps, to be more noble.
Remarkably, many who have accepted our biological situation continue to believe that human `rights’, political and other, did somehow come all at once, fully mature and fully belonging to our ancestors and most certainly to us. One question would be: which ancestors? Was it men born in the Enlightenment who had full possession of those Lockean rights to life, liberty, and property or perhaps the Jeffersonian rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or was it men lucky enough to have been alive when Hobbes published Leviathan and political individualism of a modern sort came into existence? Or maybe we should look at periods of Roman order or Greek experiments with democracy? How about the age of the ancient Hebrew judges when we are told by the Biblical writers that there was true order but of a generally bottom-up sort favored by libertarians and anarcho-capitalists.
And so it is that we have one of the most interesting and most courageous legal and political commentators of this period, Andrew P. Napolitano, joining Jefferson in his noble confusion: Jefferson Weeping. I’m in strong agreement with what might be called the `feeling’ side of the argument: freedom is a great good and one all human beings with a Biblical faith should accept. Yet, I see serious confusion in some of Judge Napolitano’s claims in this quotation:
When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he used language that has become iconic. He wrote that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not only did he write those words, but the first Congress adopted them unanimously, and they are still the law of the land today. By acknowledging that our rights are inalienable, Jefferson’s words and the first federal statute recognize that our rights come from our humanity—from within us—and not from the government.
The government the Framers gave us was not one that had the power and ability to decide how much freedom each of us should have, but rather one in which we individually and then collectively decided how much power the government should have. That, of course, is also recognized in the Declaration, wherein Jefferson wrote that the government derives its powers from the consent of the governed.
At The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash, we can read in a commentary on the Talmud and ultimately on the Pentateuch: “The slave who rejects freedom believes that he has discovered an easier mode of service. However, static obedience is not what God desires. That person ultimately remains a slave.” It’s part of a discussion of the reason for mutilating the ears of a man who voluntarily takes on slavery, perhaps when offered freedom. There is good reason to believe the ancient Hebrews, and some modern Jews and Christians such as myself, would say that one who voluntarily takes on slavery, as opposed to a conquered and captured man, has placed himself outside the people of salvation, the People of Israel or the Body of Christ or both in some of my speculations. One who favors security over freedom “ultimately remains a slave,” and cannot share the life of that only truly free Being, God. He has condemned himself.
So I’m a strong supporter of Judge Napolitano’s advocation of freedom, but I also can see clearly that much which is promised to us by God, and in some way becomes an obligation upon us, isn’t realized, at least not completely or perfectly, in this vale of tears, in this mortal realm. More exactly, we are born into a realm dominated by evolutionary and developmental processes, as was the point of the beginning paragraphs of this essay. If human beings evolved and if they can develop into different creatures as they respond within their personal capabilities to a complex and changing world, why would we think that the biologically mythical Adam and Eve become suddenly real when it comes to human rights? Where is the evidence that ancient communities were fallen versions of communities free by God-created nature?
Often, I repeat earlier claims and speculations, sometimes as part of a general effort to refine my own ways of understanding and stating them. In this context, it seems more appropriate to recommend that any interested readers download my recently released book about human nature, A More Exact Understanding of Human Being, or one of my earlier books which specifically addresses human rights in the context of a world dominated by evolutionary and development processes, Human Rights: An Evolutionary and Christian Perspective. You may also wish to download a catalog of my writings, including my collection of essays from my blogs which is updated once a year: Catalog of Major Writings by Loyd Fueston.