Tim Kaine’s Controversy Over Rights

Senator Tim Kaine has recently voiced his frustration during a Congressional hearing regarding Trump’s assertion that our rights stem from God, not the government.

Kaine expressed concerns about the implications of this claim, citing the Iranian regime’s persecution of religious minorities in the name of such beliefs. “They do that,” he elaborated, emphasizing the dangers of theocratic interpretations.

In looking for examples more aligned with American values, one might consider notable figures from Virginia who appreciate architecture and fine wine. It’s a thought, maybe a bit odd, but you get the picture.

Thomas Jefferson, for instance, chose to memorialize three significant accomplishments on his gravestone: the Virginia Law for Religious Freedom, founding the University of Virginia, and authoring the Declaration of Independence.

Kaine could just as easily raise the same concerns he has about Riley Barnes, a candidate facing violations, to the Declaration itself, which asserts that all individuals are “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights,” a truth that is, well, apparent, I suppose.

Jefferson didn’t have to get Senate approval for his role as a French ambassador, especially since the U.S. Senate didn’t even exist back then.

Kaine seems to believe he has sworn an oath to uphold a constitutional framework grounded in the idea that our rights predate government intervention.

As Jefferson pointed out, the notion of inherent rights was a common belief during the 18th century. His rival, Alexander Hamilton, even claimed that “the sacred rights of mankind” were inscribed by divinity within human nature.

This sentiment echoed among other founders like John Adams and James Wilson, all reflecting a similar perspective.

Kaine likely thinks about how the phrase “our rights come from God” might inspire people to think and create.

John Locke’s philosophies underscore the belief in inherent, God-given rights and the dignity of humanity.

The power inherent in this idea suggests that laws must yield when they conflict with our natural rights.

Kaine’s assertion that rights are granted by the government implies that the state has the ability to dictate their extent.

However, American principles rest on the idea that it’s the government’s responsibility to safeguard pre-existing rights, failing which, it becomes illegitimate.

Historical abolitionists utilized this belief powerfully in the 19th century. While the government accepted that some individuals could enslave others, abolitionists viewed it as a crime against divine law.

Those enslaved possessed a natural right to freedom that could not be extinguished.

Thus, Kaine might want to consider the perspectives of figures like William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass, and Abraham Lincoln.

He might be irate about Garrison’s assertion that “the right to enjoy freedom is inalienable” — suggesting that it’s an extraction of divine privilege.

In contrast to a theocratic stance, Garrison’s beliefs encouraged a broader understanding of rights. He famously claimed, “Where there is a man, I see God-given rights inherent in his existence.”

Kaine’s outburst highlights how progressives often struggle with discussions about God in contexts outside of personal belief, revealing a general ignorance about both historical and governmental systems.

Is it too much to ask our senators to be knowledgeable about our legacy?