what are "rights"? (revised)

The pop-goddess Angelina Jolie has the phrase, "know your rights," prominently tattooed on her backside: as if everybody knows what that means . . . .

But what are "rights?"  There are two important aspects related to that question: the first of which has to do with the meaning of the word, "rights," while the other aspect involves a practically limitless variety of applications supposed to be based upon that term.  Reason dictates that it is first needful to define the meaning of words, in order to avoid confusion when attempting to discuss any possible application(s) of those terms.

What does it mean, then, to have a "right?"  You may not be surprised ~ although, most people probably will be greatly surprised, to discover that the meaning of (all) words depends upon whether one believes in Evolution, or in Creation.

According to the theory of Evolution, words can have no inherent meaning, thus, words can have no certain and unchanging meaning.  Evolutionary doctrine insists that "intelligence" is nothing other than a phase in the supposedly infinite and incessant process of change involving random occurrence.  Therefore, it were impossible that any particular word could be supposed to actually "mean" any certain thing, except, for whatever any "intelligent" being may suppose that such a word may mean, at any give time.  And if two or more "intelligent" beings may agree to attribute a certain meaning to a particular "word," then there may possibly (but not necessarily) exist (yet, only for a while) a consensus of "meaning."

(Those who are capable of rational thought should understand, based upon the implications of the above-alluded-to problems related to language, that theories of Evolution are completely untenable.  The fact that communication is even possible, is evidence for the existence of an intelligent Creator.)

But words do have inherent meaning; where "inherent" means: "existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute."  One could thus imagine words as being a kind of "container," as it were, which embody "meaning;" or, as "pointers" each of which is associated with some unique "meaning."  But it is "meaning," as such, which is the essence of language, and thus of thought.  Whereas sounds and symbols called "words" are subject to change and they do in fact change, yet, meaning is that which does not change.  That that is the case, is only possible because of the existence and the nature of God the Creator.

While searching for a suitable image for this essay, I came across a lot of images which, in many different ways, connected the notion of "human rights" with "evolution."  Indeed, the phrase, "evolution of human rights," figured prominently among those images.  According to Evolutionary theory, the very idea of "human rights" has been undergoing its own Evolutionary process, ever since some time after that homo-sapiens first emerged from some mud puddle.  Also, according to Evolutionary theory, EVERY idea, including every idea related to "human rights," must forever continue to undergo continuous change.  Therefore, there can be no "certain" thing called "human rights;" for, whatever that may appear to be or to mean, today, it will necessarily be or mean something else, tomorrow.  "Human rights" is something which, by its very (Evolutionary) nature, must be fluid, ever-changing.  In fact, "human beings" shall also be something else in the future; according to Evolutionary theory.  Thus, in the context of Evolutionary theory, the question of "human rights" can have no certain meaning at any point in time; it must mean something different at every moment.

Unbelievers (all non-Christians) exist in a state of spiritual darkness, blindness and ignorance.  Because they choose to disbelieve in the existence of the God of the Bible, therefore, my whole argument appears as nonsense to them.  Yet, they refuse to acknowledge that their own thinking is irrational, illogical, and inconsistent.  They willingly embrace the Theory of Evolution, because, that seems to provide them with some manner of explanation for the appearance of things.  Yet, they dare not probe too deeply into the meaning and implications of Evolutionary teachings.  For, they do not want to come face-to-face with a holy, all-knowing and all-powerful God.

God is the original Intelligence, who made all other intelligent beings.  (Neither life nor intelligence can possibly arise from any Evolutionary process.)  And because that God made man in his image, therefore, man has the capacity for language.  In the Garden of Eden, man communicated with God, and with each other.  Everything God does is with purpose and, thus, has meaning.  Trees have meaning.  Light has meaning.  Time has meaning.  Man has meaning.  Everything in Creation has meaning, because, everything in Creation was made by that Intelligence which is God.

All of the foregoing discussion was needful, in order to show the necessity of evaluating the meaning of the word, "rights," in its proper context, that is, in the context of the existence and nature of God the Creator.  Given, the existence and nature of the God of the Bible, what does it mean to say that one may have certain "rights?"  I will thus define the word, "right": 

To have a "right" means that one is free to engage in some activity,

without fear of incurring any adverse consequence of such -

in the sight of God.

According to that definition, then, everyone has the "right," for several examples, to: breathe; eat; sleep; work; marry and have children; etc..   But it is self-evident that there are many other examples which could be given, of things which no one has a "right" to be or to do.  No one has a "right" to murder another; but not because that such conduct is against any human law (consider, for instance, that abortion--a form of murder--is "legal").  Rather, no one has the "right" to murder another, because that is contrary to the Word and will of God.  Likewise, no one has a "right" to be sexually involved with another person of the same sex, because that is also contrary to the express Word and will of God.

That definition is radically different, of course, from the popular (worldly) notion of the word, "rights," which is largely associated with the prospect of entitlement.  "People whose income is below a certain level have the right to receive food stamps," is an example of the notion of "rights" as being related to entitlement.  Another example is the statement: "Transexuals have the right to use the public restroom facilities of their choice."  Entitlement.  But that concept is very far from having any relationship to the above definition which I suggested.

People do have a wealth of "rights," in the sight of God.  They have the "right" to throw off the shackles of sin, and come to Jesus Christ to receive eternal life.  They have the "right" to trust in God to keep all of his promises.  They have the "right" to live according to the Word and will of God.  In faithfully so doing, they shall one day have the "right" to live for ever in the very Presence of God.  But no one has the "right" to believe, nor yet to act, in any way contrary to the revealed Word and will of God.  The popular idea, that everyone has the "right" to believe whatever he or she wants to believe, cannot then be true.  For, everyone who chooses to disbelieve in Jesus Christ, shall suffer eternal torments in hell, as the consequence of their wrong believing.  The consequence (hell) is itself the proof that no such "right" (to believe whatever one wants to believe) exists.

The vulgar wrangling of those who want to argue (from a secular perspective) about the supposed "rights," of this class or of that class of people, is not only meaningless but it is wickedness.  Might it be the case that so-and-so, who belongs to such-and-such a class (based upon whatever), may be "entitled" -- according to some cultural or political consensus of opinion?  That may be.  But, then, it should be apparent that all such agreements must be hammered out in the arena of cultural (political) debate -- which, in every case, is ultimately predicated upon the preponderance (and use) of force.  "Might makes right," is not only a well-known truism; but it is a truism, because, that's the way that everything works, in the realm of secular society.

Nevertheless, we who are of the Truth, and for the truth's sake, dare not refer to such a worldly arrangement of affairs as constituting "rights."  Whatsoever "rights" that anyone may have, he or she has such rights in the sight of God.  All else is evil.

I wonder, then, whether Angelina Jolie "knows her rights?"  I wonder, too, whether she understands that all such (worldly) "rights" are only transitory?  That is to say, if "rights" are to be granted according to cultural consensus of opinion (which is always predicated upon the use of force), then, those same "rights," by the same process involving force, may just as easily be taken away.  Where, then, are those "rights," for which people so fervently contend?

America's Founders understood something about the true nature of "rights."  They wrote, in America's Declaration of Independence:

"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 . . . ."

While those days are surely long gone, yet, the truth of God is here to stay.  And Christians should know better than to deal with the world on its terms.  We are the light of the world, through Jesus Christ.  Let's henceforth answer those questions involving "human rights," on the basis of the truth of God; and not, instead, become entangled in webs of darkness.