PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL LAW: Rights MUST Come From God Or They Are NOT Rights

Did you see or hear about the CNN debate between Chris Cuomo and the Alabama Chief Justice, Roy Moore?  In that interview, Cuomo boldly asserts that rights come from government, and that the definition of words — and by extension, the laws — change over time.  Before I address this, in case you did not see or hear about this story, please take a moment to watch the video in this link:

CNN Anchor: ‘Our Rights do not come from God’

OK, I am going to confess right now: I am completely hostile to Christ Cuomo’s assertions, but not on political grounds.  I object to Cuomo’s claim based on logic and right reasoning.  If you will give me a few minutes of your time, I will explain why Cuomo is wrong based on logic, but I will also explain why I believe Cuomo is irrational to the point of bordering on delusion.

First, Chris Cuomo claims that the definition or words changes over time, and implies that this can and does change the laws over time as a result of the changes in what words mean.  This is a classic Progressive argument.  It was specifically designed to get around the restrictions written into the U.S. Constitution.  This doctrine even has a name.  You may have heard of it referred to as “the living document” doctrine.  In short, it is the assertion that one can “re-interpret” the law according to the prevailing whims of one’s times.  But this is lawlessness!

The meaning of words does not change.  Additional meanings may be added to a list of definitions attached to a given word, but the previous meaning does not change.  If it did, then you could never know what I mean by the words I am writing now.  I could be trying to tell you that there is a two-foot tall martian with a funny helmet on the moon getting ready to disintegrate the Earth because it is blocking his view of Venus.  What’s more, you couldn’t tell me otherwise.  If the meaning of words can change, then you can’t pull out your dictionary and tell me that the symbols I am typing do not convey the idea that Marvin the Martian is going to blow up the earth.  The best you could do is say they mean something different to you, but you would have to accept that they mean something entirely different for me.  If this were reality — that words can change meaning over time — then there would be no reason to write or even speak, as we could never know what anyone meant.

This principle applies to the law.  If a law can change over time simply because we claim the meaning of the words has changed, then it was never a law to begin with because it carried no force.  The force in the law is in its certainty.  If we cannot be sure what it means, then there can be no law.  In fact, there can be no such thing as justice.  Justice depends on a known, fixed meaning of the law which then facilitates the even and unbiased application of that law.  However, if the meaning of the words in a law changes, then the law cannot be known because it can never be fixed; and if the law can never be fixed, then it can never be applied evenly and without bias.  You may read a law that says it is illegal to murder.  Well, what if — to me — the meaning of murder only applies to those deemed rational? What could Cuomo do then if I were to kill him?

Since Chris Cuomo is asserting an irrational argument, then the notion of murder would not apply to killing him.  According to Cuomo, I can kill him and, if anyone tries to charge me with murder, they would be perverting justice.  I already explained how ‘murder’ means something different to me than what Cuomo probably thinks it means, therefore, I would not be committing murder if I killed him.  What’s more, he would have no grounds to argue the law still applies to me as I have already shown the meaning of the word murder has changed, and he — Cuomo — just argued to allow this very sort of reasoning.  To then force his understanding of the law on me is not justice, it is the law of “might-makes-right,” otherwise known as the law of the jungle (or a state of war).

I trust you see the arbitrary nature of Cuomo’s position.  It is totally dependent upon the whim of whomever is in power at a given time.  This is not the rule of law, it is lawlessness and no society can survive lawlessness.  The very reason governments are created is to prevent lawlessness, which is why even bad governments are preferable to anarchy.  The American Revolution was based on international law.  The Declaration of Independence is a legal document, complete with charges and a declaration as to which Judge our founding fathers were appealing for a verdict in their cause.  This is why this nation succeeded: because the Supreme Judge of the world ruled in favor of our founders.  There was no other reason the Colonies could have defeated the world’s leading superpower. And the Supreme Judge of the world ruled in their favor because they recognized Him as the source of their rights as well as His Sovereignty over them.

At the same time, the French Revolution is the perfect illustration of what happens when men define the rights of other men.  The French Revolution was not one but many revolutions, and they were all lawless and bloody.  In the end, they were even beheading children.  But, if men are the ones who decide what rights we have and who has them, then men can change them or even take them away.  In other words, society reverts back to a state of war, to the law of “might-makes-right.”  When justice is defined by the biggest bully on the block, then the only way you can call that justice is by changing the meaning of thew word — which is why men like Chris Cuomo claim that words changer meaning over time: so they can be the biggest bully on their block.

The Truth in this matter is simple.  If you have a right, it must come from God.  Otherwise, it is not a right, it is a privilege or entitlement.  A right is something that can never be taken.  It can be trampled, but you can still lay claim to it.  This is how and why the American Revolution was just: because the founders were laying claim to something other men had trampled, but to which they still had just claim.  However, if government is recognized as the only source of rights, then you can never claim anything — not even your life.  That is correct: when men grant rights, then you never have a just claim to your own life.  Your life becomes the property of the government and it allows you to keep it only so long as you obey the government’s commands (and you remain useful to the government — as in ‘productive’).  Even slavery becomes open to legalization, which is how all socialized systems survive: by redefining slavery.  It is unavoidable: the moment society accepts the argument that the meaning of words change over time, and that this changes the law, that society becomes lawless.

Thomas Jefferson did not choose the words of the Declaration carelessly.  When he said our rights come from God, Jefferson knew what he was saying — and he meant it.  He also warned that any nation which forgets this will be ruined.  In short, Jefferson warned that anyone who listens to men like Chris Cuomo will destroy their society:

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.”

–Thomas Jefferson, [Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, p. 237.]

Sadly, before the Progressives were able to destroy the Constitution through the doctrine of “living document,” they had to deal with the nation’s belief that our rights come from God.  They did this by divorcing the Declaration from the Constitution, which is why they can claim that our Constitution is ‘secular.’  It isn’t, but few know or understand why it isn’t.  Yous ee, without the Declaration to point to the source of our rights, then the path is open for others to claim the Constitution grants us our rights, and since the Constitution does not clearly point to God, they can also claim that men grant us our rights.  From there, tyranny follows — every time.  But the founders were very clear about this, too.  The Declaration was never meant to be divorced from the Constitution.  In fact, it cannot be, we only ignore the connection.  But don’t take my word for it, listen to someone who was there from start to finish and who spent his entire life in service to this nation, but more than that, to liberty and the principle of self-government:

“Before the formation of this Constitution…[t]his Declaration of Independence was received and ratified by all the States in the Union and has never been disannulled.”

–John Quincy Adams

So, if logic remains fixed and it does not change over time, then Chris Cuomo is asserting an irrational argument.  It is irrational because it is absurd; and it is absurd because it is self-contradicting.  One cannot argue an ‘ought’ when one is — at the same time — arguing that that ‘ought’ can never be known or evenly applied.  This means that Cuomo is in contradiction with reality, and there are medical terms and definitions describing a person who is out of touch with reality and does not know it.  Cuomo — and those like him — should be treated accordingly — before they destroy what is left of our society.

By the way: self-defense is a Natural Right given to us by God.

[NOTE: there is more to this.  If Cuomo is correct, and the meaning of words change with time, and that changes the law, then science is impossible.  After all, language is a form of logic.  This means logic must also change over time.  Math is also a form of logic, so it, too, must change over time.  If all these things change over time, then there can be no such thing as science — or the laws of physics.  If the laws governing logic change, then why don’t the laws governing physics?  Why doesn’t gravity repel by now instead of attracting?  The answer should be obvious: the laws do not change.  They should be just as obvious with Cuomo and those like him — if we were not living in our times.  But alas, only a precious few ever see the connection between their times and history.  If all of us could see it, then we would all understand that people like Cuomo are literally destroying Western civilization with their postmodernism and deconstructionist ideas.  But make no mistake: the meaning of words does not change and neither does the law — any law.  This is why, unless we change and push people like Cuomo out of any and all positions of leadership, it is a certainty that the Western world will collapse.  It has to: it’s Natural Law.]

19 thoughts on “PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL LAW: Rights MUST Come From God Or They Are NOT Rights

  1. Pingback: Spang Nation
  2. It’s simple Cuomo’s view is not compatible with the concept of liberty. It explains the state of New York very well.

    1. phadde2,

      Agreed — except it explains more than just the State of New York. It explains the majority of those who have seized control over this nation, and I say ‘seized’ because their position is in a decided minority among Americans. That is the negation of ‘democracy’ and self-government. In fact, it is antithetical to liberty, just as you said. That means these people are tyrants, pure and simple. But then, if we ever tried to explain that to them, they would think they can actually dodge their own guilt by claiming our words have changed and the laws with them 😉

  3. Just to add to the logic if Chris does not believe in God… The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable. Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356.

    Even if Cuomo does not but the idea of a Creator… he makes the dumbest statements… man will screw with you at every chance… without an anchor for the right to anything… it is lawless…

    Another good post Joe…

  4. I appreciate the importance of the fact that the meaning of the words can not change over time, that is certainly an import an fact of law. As well the relation of the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution was a fact I had not recognized.

    1. healinglaw,

      Most of us do not appreciate the relationship between the Declaration and Constitution. I try to explain it this way:

      The Constitution is just the ‘how’ of America; the Declaration is the ‘what’ and the ‘why.’

      The Dclaration is the expression of the idea of America. It expresses our principles and ideals. If a society has that, then they can write many constitutions that will all work equally well in preserving those principles and ideals. HOWEVER, once a society looses its belief in those principles and ideals, then NO constitution can protect its citizens.

      I hope that helps put a finer point on this issue for you. 🙂

  5. Reblogged this on healing law and commented:
    Although there may be multiple names for the creator, this article raises some important issues that should be recognized. Rights deriving from man of government are not rights, rights must come from nature and the creator of nature, or they can not be rights.

    1. Yes HealingLaw,

      I second what Joe has commented and add this. The Bill of Rights EMPHASIZES the What and Why of the Declaration and anchors the Constitution To the How and Why. It is a REMINDER of Natural Rights and states clearly that the Constitution is only the “How”.

      The Constitution is thus “Bookended” by the same concepts., with the Declaration preceding it and the Bill of Rights amending it for strength and unequivocal clarity that our Rights come from God and are NOT to be taken by man or his government(s).

  6. Hey Joe, you should take a crack at this guy, I finally got him to concede ‘maybe’ to the idea of Transubstantiation as an idea that is truly original to Jesus. However, he’s a logical leprechaun, dodging and dancing every logical point thrown at him. I finally just told him his question and refusal of answers is one giant lump of of false equivalence. At any rate you should at least look at the his “simple” question.

    1. phadde,

      I couldn’t find where or how to reply, but it won’t matter. That person is not intellectually honest, nor very well informed. So I doubt anyone can reach him. If he was sincerely looking for an answer to his question, it would be the Sermon on the Mount. The moral code in that sermon was and remains ENTIRELY foreign to human nature which — by definition — makes it transcendent.

      He also expresses archeological SUPPOSITIONS as though they are ‘proof.’ This belies his ignorance of science — especially archeology. At best, science/archeology can guess, but little more. Still, if he actually knew what has been discovered, he would find that his bold assertions about the Hebrews have already been laid waste by recent discoveries — such as a pot with large parts of Job on it going back to 1500 BC or more. That sort of “oop-sies’ his arrogant proclamations about the origins of the Hebrews.

      Finally, he sets out a false premise in his opening statement. The idea that anything not of the 4 dimensions humans can sense means anything outside those dimensions must be ‘supernatural’ is fallacious to the core. I bet he would accept the notion of alternate dimensions if that could solve the problem of how the universe came to be, but — by definition — that is “super-natural.” It has to be, because, if he admits it is not, it is just a part of reality we cannot see, sense or measure, then he has just defeated his own fallacious position. God could have — and probably did — create the universe with many dimensional aspects to which humans have no access. So, f He accesses them, it is in no way “super-natural,” it just means those who argue that point are narrow-minded. And that is exactly why I think you are casting your pearls before swine with this person.

      1. Yeah, he told me that I said Moses was a historical figure, whether I believe that or not, I never made a claim either way. He’s very intellectually dishonest, and of course always ends with “there’s no trick”. I’ve heard that line before from Car salesmen, Infomercials, and folks selling snake oil.

        You’re right about how he claims things as absolute proofs, such as Moses is not a historical figure. As a historian, I have a massive collection of text that says there was a man named Moses. I at least cannot rule it out until there is definitive proof, for instance we have the author of said text commentary claiming the character was purely fictional. Hell! even if there was no written documentation if the oral history existed, there’s no precedent to eliminate the possibility. You could only claim a probability.

        I wish you could have found the place to comment. You have a firm grasp of logic to wade through his pile of BS. I understand he’s not following logical thought, but I know you could trap him in his little game!

        1. There is no honesty or knowledge in this person. Josephus — a widely renowned and reliable historian — records that Moses was a real person. Baring actual proof to the contrary, proper investigative method demands he accept this as just that: truth.

          As for trapping him: those days are behind me, my friend. I am to the point where I realize I can only speak to and for those who acknowledge truth when they hear it. Everything else is not only a waste of time but counter-productive.

          I suspect you will understand 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s