Skip to main content

I began writing this Diary Entry after hearing that Federal Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that California Proposition 8 banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. Others here will write about the legal and political strategies to come. I will explain some of the hypocritical coded language used to oppose gay marriage, particularly in this case.

The Religious Right has been pretending to believe that human rights are given solely by God, and cannot be granted by governments. Without any context, this could sound like a high principle, but it isn't clear what it could mean in practice. OK, God gives us rights, but how do we assert them? What protects us from improper laws?

It takes no great insight, however, to understand this talking point when you have the context of gay marriage and abortion. It isn't our rights we are talking about. It's Them. It's Their wrongs.

The Theory of the Code-Speaking Class

Most of the bigoted and racist Southern Strategy code that I have been documenting

has some degree of Plausible Deniability. For example, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison argued for States Rights and Nullification in cases not having to do with slavery. However, "Human rights come from God. Governments can't give them." is utterly transparent as soon as you see the connection. If only God can grant Free Speech, and so on, then government can't grant unChristian rights, or as we will call them today, taking them at their word, "wrongs".

Again, most Southern Strategy code is supposed to have an undeniable, unimpugnable surface meaning. That way it takes time to explain the difference between the surface and real meanings, and as they say in politics, when you are explaining, you're losing. This one doesn't work that way on its intended victims, the Godless, gritless Secular Humanist Liberal tyrants who are intent on snuffing out our country[TM]. The outright atheist laughs. "What God?" Members of other churches don't buy it, either.

A parson, observing a man working in his garden, smirked, "God and you have made this a beautiful garden."

"Yeah," came the reply. "And you should have seen it before I gave him a hand."

Perhaps you have heard the saying, "God helps those who help themselves"? Of course, that's wrong. God helps those who help each other.

Human and God-Given Rights (and "Wrongs")

Yes, it's true that our sainted Founding Father Thomas Jefferson (not to be confused with the atheist Jacobin Thomas Jefferson currently being removed from Texas schoolbooks) told us that it is self-evident that God endowed us with unalienable rights, meaning that they cannot be taken away from us, that we could not give them away if we wanted to, and that they include Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

How does that work, then, in practice? Humanity has obviously had these rights since the Creation or the split from the ape-human common ancestor, whichever, if not before. And has enjoyed these rights no matter what other humans and their governments get up to. Most of us will have a problem right here with the history of governments killing people, imprisoning them, torturing them, and so on. Or just ordinary murder.

Theological Rights

Well, it turns out that for some Christians these rights have a different interpretation. We have, for life, liberty, and happiness

  • Eternal Life
  • Free Will (but see Calvinism, below)
  • The Hope of Heaven

none of which have anything to do with governments, even such nasty governments as in Nero's Rome, with its lions in the arena, or early Tokugawa Japan, which crucified Japanese Christians along a great length of the Tokaido after it found out that Spain was planning to take over. Although we might not be able to talk about God or our rights publicly under such tyrannies.

But I get the idea that Jefferson had something quite different in mind. Taxation without Representation, for example, which God had been allowing for millennia, except just recently in England, probably Cornwall, and maybe Scotland and Wales. Certainly not Ireland. Clearly governments can give citizens voting rights or withhold them. They can give or withhold citizenship itself. And curiously, some who claim that human rights are from God alone are also claiming that we need to repeal the birthright citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Now, lest you accuse these Good Christians of inconsistency or even hypocrisy, let us note that the God-given human rights that such Christians believe in are available (according to some) only to Christians, and possibly not all Christians outside of their particular church. Maybe only to American Christians. The rest of us Liberal Commie Nazis and furriners, and especially baby murderers and GayswhoareanabominationuntoGodwiththeirevilagenda are obviously all going to Hell, and with that in the offing, mere government-guaranteed rights count for almost nothing. Possibly less than nothing. And we shouldn't have them anyway.

[Added later] And that goes double for Blacks, according to the Curse of Ham theory. The extreme version of this in the Southern Baptist Church is not only that Blacks are Black because of the curse, but also morally and intellectually inferior, suitable only for slavery, and better off as slaves. A similar doctrine was taught by Brigham Young in the LDS/Mormon Church, but was rejected by a much later revalation.

Rights (and Wrongs) under Predestination

The Augustinian or Calvinist God of some churches [with the Apartheid Dutch Reformed Church as the extreme case, but not Southern Baptists, contrary to a misapprehension of mine] has preordained from eternity which souls will be saved and which will fall into sin (or rather, never get the signal from God to climb out) and be condemned. This is strictly a matter of God's Free Will, which we sinners (at least, those of us who are going to be saved, whenever God wants that to happen) can do nothing but praise. The sinners who are condemned before their births to sin and death, to everlasting torment, may choose to reject God and rebel against him—sorry, may do so because God chose that for them, but they don't count. And it doesn't matter whether God chose to give them any rights. Except that we have free will anyway, in some way that is literally not explained, and must be taken on faith.

Those who don't go for Predestination can't wrap their minds around all of this. Some conclude that such Christians are victims of excessive logic, of Aristotelianism, or of puffing up God's powers absurdly. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then predestination becomes a logical conclusion, and human Free Will a delusion. (Calvinists deny this last.) Only God has Free Will, but that's freedom enough for us here below, at least for those he chooses to reward in this way. Maintaining omnibenevolence is then impossible, but one can still pretend to oneself that God being benevolent to his chosen followers is good enough, and pray (Luke 18:11, my updates from the English of King James)

God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, baby murderers, Liberals, Gays, or even like this here Revenooer.

even though Jesus said not to do so when

he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others...I tell you, this man [the Revenooer] went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

Harsh. Not as harsh as "whitewashed tombs" or "sons of snakes". But right up there with the Good Samaritan.

It is almost impossible to convey to a modern, non-Jewish audience the revulsion of Jews of that time against Samaritans, who followed all of the commandments but one: They kept and ate pigs. Even today, Orthodox Jews can be put into a state of nausea and vomiting if they find out that they have eaten something seriously non-Kosher through accident or ignorance, as when it came out that McDonald's had been frying potatoes in a mix containing beef fat. (Beef can be kosher. Beef and a milkshake, no way.) And among the Orthodox are some who regard Reform Jews, who don't keep Kosher, as the Samaritans, or even, God forbid, as Christians. But almost all Jews will concede that God made Goyim, and commanded Jews to treat them properly, granting them actual rights.

The point here, however, is that as the Good Samaritan was to Jews of old, so are any helpful and public-spirited Gayim today to the kind of Christian we are talking about, the kind who pretend that Gays by their very nature are incapable of having Human Rights, only Human Wrongs.

Originally posted to Mokurai on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 12:12 PM PDT.

Poll

The only possible source of human rights is

5%3 votes
3%2 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
28%16 votes
26%15 votes
16%9 votes
0%0 votes
1%1 votes
3%2 votes
1%1 votes
12%7 votes

| 56 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  God has a shitty human rights record (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mas Gaviota, coquiero, Apost8

    read the old testament.

    Down with Prop H8! Jerry Brown for CA_GOV 2010

    by GlowNZ on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 12:31:45 PM PDT

  •  Speaking of that.... (6+ / 0-)

    If God is the granter and guaranteer of all human rights, then why do humans insist on denying them and removing them from others? Certainly, the one that grants rights is the only one that can remove them...?

    "Ridicule may lawfully be employed where reason has no hope of success." -7.75/-6.05

    by QuestionAuthority on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 12:48:45 PM PDT

    •  ssshhhhhh (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      True North, coquiero

      Logic. Work of Satan.

    •  You confuse Rights with the abililty to enjoy 'em (0+ / 0-)

      If I can run over you with my car, then your Right to Life must come from me (since I can remove it).

      This interpretation of Rights causes them to evaporate completely.

      The notion that God grants Rights allows us to argue that a given Right already exists, and that government merely recognizes or refuses to recognize an existing Right, which it has no power to grant or remove.

      neca politicos omnes; deus suos agnoscet.

      by khereva on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 02:20:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  we need to separate the notion of civil (0+ / 0-)

        rights, rights agreed upon or granted in civil society (depending on how the society is constructed) and human rights. Human rights exist whether they are recogised or not by a government, they are inalienable, non-transferable, rights that we have simply because we are human beings. They cannot be taken away from us and we cannot sell them or give them away. Civil rights as they are rights recognised by a gov't can be taken away in certain circumstances (e.g., the declaration of martial law) or suspended by the gov't (see the Patriot acts).

        Rights derived from god's creation were known as natural rights. These rights were initially determined by scripture. However, at the time of the enlightenment, these rights were deemed to be ascertained by reason (see John Locke's Two Treatises) and were defined clearly. So, for example, as god gave us life, we had the right to live and sustain our lives, for Aquinas and the Scholastics, that meant that we had the right to steal to sustain lives; however, this was never recognised in Spain as a civil right. For Locke, as the earth was the common property of mankind (given to us by god), although we had the right to use it to ensure our subsistence, we did not have the right to deny another person their subsistence. This formed the idea of the right of subsistence to ensure the preservation of life; while denying accumulation of property so that others could not do the same.

        No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable (Adam Smith, 1776, I, p. 96).

        by NY brit expat on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 04:04:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  my right is more equal than your right (0+ / 0-)
  •  Um, Baptists NOT Calvinists. And Orwell! (3+ / 0-)

    Calvinist: predestination.

    Southern Baptist: free will (of humans).

    Trust me, I'm a lifelong Presbyterian (Calvinist heritage) who's lived his entire life among the southern Baptist majority here.

    But you're right about the code thing. Orwell, in "Politics and the English Language" (which every Kossack should read if he or she hasn't already):

    Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Pétain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive.

    "Human rights come from God" is a modern equivalent.

    "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

    by HeyMikey on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 01:20:11 PM PDT

  •  Actually Jefferson (5+ / 0-)

    was pretty non religious about where these rights came from. endowed by their creator secured by governments among men. Our sacred documents have some references to god but are very clear that our contracts while lofty, derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.  

    'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,...'   The Declaration of Independence

    I think human rights are self evident and unalienable that humans have fought for them for ever. Hammurabi? the Magna Carta? Religion seems anti-human rights, antidemocratic and authoritarian. It derives it's power from an authority that is not human but divine. Usually implemented by men but that another story.

    The Bill of Rights was written to assure that these individual rights were protected by law. I also think that our government was set up as a nation of laws, not men. The Law is king said Thomas Paine. Our founders were products of the enlightenment and strongly believed in the separation of church and state. the preamble states

    'THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.'

    Human rights are inalienable.

    inalienable
    . untransferable, nonnegotiable, inviolable, sacrosanct, unchallengeable, absolute.

    I read the judges opinion and think he has a good grasp of both human rights and what constitutes equal under the law. Our founding documents are humanist and deal with human right established by law, not God. The religious right is to me the antithesis of our what our government and laws are about. To call this judge biased or ideological or any other ass backward interpretation of our inalienable rights, is not only ignorant it's literally against the Law. They do not believe in human rights or self governance or democracy or equality.        

         

    •  "self-evident" was Franklin's edit of J's "sacred (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shaharazade, NY brit expat, Dbug

      and undeniable":

      Self-evident

      Franklin made only a few small changes, but one of them was resounding. Using heavy backslashes, he crossed out the last three words of Jefferson’s phrase, "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable" and changed it to read: "We hold these truths to be self-evident."

      ...When he chose the word "sacred," Jefferson had suggested intentionally or unintentionally that the principle in question—the equality of men and their endowment by their creator with inalienable rights—was an assertion of religion. By changing it to "self-evident," Franklin made it an assertion of rationality.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site