Does Senator Kaine’s Rejection of Natural Rights Undermine America’s Core Freedoms?

In a startling moment during a recent committee meeting, Senator Tim Kaine declared it “extremely troubling” to believe our rights don’t “come from our laws and our government but from a Creator.” His words, meant to defend the state’s authority, instead reveal a profound misunderstanding that shakes the very foundation of American liberty.

 

Far more troubling, however, is how a sitting U.S. senator fails to grasp the concept of natural rights; the very principles that shaped the founding of this great nation.

 

These timeless ideals, woven into the fabric of our republic, stand as a testament to a truth Kaine seems to overlook: our rights are not mere gifts of government but sacred endowments that define who we are as a free people.

Senator Kaine argued that, “The notion that rights don’t come from laws and don’t come from the government, but come from the Creator—that’s what the Iranian government believes. It’s a theocratic regime that bases its rule on Sharia law and targets Sunnis, Bahá’ís, Jews, Christians, and other religious minorities. And they do it because they believe that they understand what natural rights are from their Creator. So the statement that our rights do not come from our laws or our governments is extremely troubling.”

 

In reality, it is the observance and protection of natural rights in the United States that makes this country exceptional compared to governments worldwide. These rights, rooted in the nation’s founding, are what set it apart.

 

But what exactly are natural rights? They are inherent, inalienable entitlements individuals possess simply by being human, independent of government or societal constructs.

 

Whilst some historians say these ideas are grounded in Enlightenment philosophy, such as John Locke’s ideas, others state they are the expression of natural law of which consists of natural rights which include life, liberty, and property, existing in a “state of nature” before any social contract. These universal, self-evident rights, derived from reason or a higher moral order, are not granted by laws or rulers. They form the foundation of modern concepts of individual freedom and human rights, profoundly influencing documents like the U.S. Declaration of Independence.

 

From this understanding, we recognize that natural rights are first observed by government and then meant to be protected by it. The moment a government believes rights originate with itself, however, society faces serious trouble.

 

A significant problem arises with the expansion of natural rights into what has been popularized as “human rights.”

 

The statement, whilst enormously controversial, raises both legal and philosophical concerns. It’s accuracy, however, depends on how we define and interpret “natural rights” and “human rights.” As such, here’s my break down:

• Natural Rights vs. Human Rights: Natural rights, as articulated by thinkers like John Locke, are considered universal, inalienable, and derived from reason or a natural moral order (e.g., life, liberty, property). They are seen as pre-existing any legal system.

 

Human rights, as codified in modern frameworks like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), often build on natural rights but are expressed through legal instruments and can reflect cultural, political, or social influences. Whilst human rights aim for universality, their application can vary across cultures due to differing interpretations or priorities (e.g., collective vs. individual rights in some societies).

 

• Concern with Expansion: The expansion of human rights into broader, sometimes culturally specific categories (e.g., rights to internet access, cultural expression, or specific social protections) create tension.

 

Meanwhile, natural rights are typically narrow and foundational, whilst human rights frameworks may incorporate evolving societal values, which can appear subjective or culturally contingent. For example, some argue that expanding human rights to include socioeconomic entitlements (e.g., right to education or healthcare) dilutes the universality of natural rights, as these depend on state capacity and cultural context.

 

• Legal Perspective: Legally, natural rights are not enforceable unless codified into positive law (e.g., constitutional protections). Human rights, as recognized in international law, are binding to varying degrees (e.g., treaties like the ICCPR) but face inconsistent enforcement due to cultural differences or state sovereignty.

 

It is this variability which undermines the “universal” nature of rights, introducing subjectivity.

 

• Is the Concern “Legally Correct”?: The concern is legally and philosophically coherent but not absolute.

 

Natural rights are universal and pre-legal, whilst human rights, as applied, can reflect cultural or political subjectivity. However, this distinction is not universally accepted, as many human rights (e.g., freedom from torture) are widely seen as universal and closely tied to natural rights. The tension arises when human rights frameworks expand into areas requiring cultural or economic context, which can seem less “natural” and more negotiated.

 

Therefore, this shift away from natural rights towards an expanded version of human rights is a relatively recent development in human history.

 

Another key distinction of natural rights is that they do not impose a burden on others to fulfill them. For example, freedom of thought and freedom of speech originate solely with the individual and rely entirely on the person exercising them (we legal terms, we categorize this as a “negative right”).

 

In contrast, the so-called human right to food, whilst a noble ideal, requires others to provide it. Thus, it cannot be a natural right (in legal terms, we categorize this as a “positive right”). Similarly, the right to clean water, though desirable, is not a natural right but a human ideal. The same logic applies to the desire for sex and the ideal of every person having the opportunity to create a family: it is not a natural right, as it involves another person in the act of procreation.

 

Human desires and ideals, however worthy, cannot equate to natural rights. When governments label these ideals as human rights, however, they risk overreach, leading to expansion and perversion of their role.

 

Natural rights, by contrast, are rooted in absolute truths, making them easier for governments to defend. And yes, even in 2025, absolute rights and wrongs do exist, and societies benefit greatly from their recognition.

 

In fact, it is one of the primary roles of government to promote those who do good and to punish those who do wrong. But this too raises a critical question: who determines what is right and wrong, good and bad, righteous and evil, beautiful and ugly?

 

Exploring this question reveals that there is one Creator whose moral rights and wrongs are observable and known to humanity. This innate knowledge underpins laws such as those prohibiting murder, with severe consequences for violators, acknowledging the natural right to life every person possesses.

 

An additional factor is how all natural rights are interconnected; for instance, stifling the right to self-defense undermines the right to life, or when restricting the right to free speech undermines the right to liberty. Ultimately, when one natural right is attacked, all others are threatened.

 

I would be amiss not to clearly outlines the role of government in this discussion and that is to promote what is good and those who do good, whilst punishing those who do wrong. This principle, rooted in the Christian worldview, distinguishes America from other nations. And this is also why we do, in fact, legislate morality, an substantiative subject for us to all ponder.

 

Going deeper we see that it is from these natural laws, grounded in biblical principles, that freedom and prosperity have flourished, making the United States the envy of the world, thus making it deeply disturbing, then, that government leaders and citizens alike proclaim that rights should originate from the government and its laws, rather than from a Creator.

 

The biases that could arise from government-created rights are vast, and I could write an entire booklet on the benefits of legislating based on one Creator God, but that is a topic for another day. The core issue today is this: if a government creates and protects rights, it can also take them away and demonize them.

 

In the American context, this is particularly significant.

 

The United States was founded under God’s guidance, from the Pilgrims who were in search of religious freedom, to the nation’s liberation from British rule accredited to people of faith like the pastors of the Black Robed Regiment: the denial of natural law and natural rights, as given to us by a Creator, in governing this nation is a recipe for disaster.

 

So what is truly concerning and deeply troubling is not the belief in natural rights which stem from a Creator, but the lack of understanding of natural law and the promotion of humanistic ideals that elevate government above God.

Thank you for your support.

If you appreciate the work we do to spread the good news of Jesus Christ, please consider giving a gift to help us continue this work. Maranatha!