A Good Discussion About the Foundation of Rights

A good and productive discussion about the foundation of rights has broken out in the comments section of my last post. The following is a comment that was left by Chris that sparked the discussion:

"I don't think it's surprising that, at least in primary and secondary schools, the Schoolmen are "forgotten." They have two things going against them: 1.) They were writing within a fairly narrow context (everything was Christian and Paripatetic, and not necessarily in that order since their Christianity was so distinctly Greek), making their work somewhat esoteric to contemporary readers and 2.) While they were undoubtedly influential among the early moderns, the early moderns either altered their ideas or expressed them in a way that is much easier for non-experts today to make sense of; certainly easier than it is for them to make sense of Scotus or Bonaventure directly.

Does it Really Matter if Washington Took Communion or Not?

The following was left by D.G. in the comments section of one of Jon Rowe's previous posts on Lilliback and "Sacred Fire" that seems to echo the question that Brad Hart recently asked in his post about Gordon Wood:

"Not to take issue with my friends, Mark David Hall or David Hall (should they form band, Hall & Hall?), I'm not sure what the point of this work of historical excavation. So, what if the American Revolution was Calvinist? What does that prove? That somehow America was Christian, or that liberals or secularists have no legitimate place in the U.S.? Or does it mean, as Barry Shain might argue, American liberalism is different from its 20th century version? I have no trouble telling the difference between John Adams and FDR. Do I need to know the Calvinist resistance literature to spot that difference?

This is what I don't get. There seems to be an agenda -- that if we get the founding right with its respect for religion, then we'll get X right today. What is the X?"

What we get wrong about the founding is highlighted in this statement from Ed Brayton yesterday at Dispatches From the Culture Wars:

"There isn't a single provision in the Bill of Rights that has any concept even remotely analogous in the Bible. The Bible does not say a word about political liberty or political rights."

Ed stated this in the context of Cynthia Dunbar's clever use of a prayer offered by Chief Justice Earl Warren that implied that the Bill of Rights came from the Bible. Ed is correct in that the Bill of Rights is not found in the Bible. What he ignores is that the chief concept that Western Christian thought ties inalienable rights to, imago dei, is in the Bible.

Keeping it Real, the Teeter-Totter, and Rand's Larger Point

Here is a link to a Rand Paul interview with a home state network. I think he explains himself rather well. Most of all I agree whole heartedly that we want and need more authentic and "flawed" people that have the guts to do a live interview on a hostile network leading our nation. I for one have had enough of the actor-like career politicians, their contrived sound bites and handlers. It is not real.

I would also add that if you piece together Dr. Paul's statements that it would go something like this:

Most matters are best solved outside the influence of government. If this does not work the next best thing is a local solution to the problem. This is the rule. If something cannot be solved in the first two venues and is injurious to individual rights then as a last resort the federal government should intervene. This is the exception. The lunch counters at Woolworths are that exception.  Butttttttttt.....   Be very careful when you allow this exception because who knows how many other worms will get out when you open the can. Like when racial quotas become so common place in society that the teeter-totter tips suddenly to the other side and your neighbor falls off.

Lieberman, Beck, and Inalienable Rights

Sandy Levinson's post at Balkinization brings to light the need for a national debate on the meaning of Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights in the wake of the "Times Square Bomber." It brings up two very interesting questions:

1. Should the rights of citizens be stripped for joining enemy forces?
2. Do only U.S. citizens accused of acts of terror have a right to a fair trial?

Levinson cites of the opposing positions of Glen Beck and Joe Lieberman. Lieberman says yes to number 1. Beck says no to number 1 and yes to number 2. This is where the Declaration and Bill of Rights come into play. The Declaration says that the rights to life, liberty, and property are God given and thus inalienable. In other words, they cannot be taken away. To some the Bill of Rights only pertains to "We the People" and thus only to citizens. Lieberman and Beck are involved in an interesting debate. Nonetheless, I think something important is being overlooked in this post.