I don’t think Kaine is very bright or he would see that his position is self-contradictory.
Claiming that inherent and inalienable rights come from government undermines their very nature, as governments, being transient and fallible, can alter or revoke them, or if such government ceases to exist, your inherent and inalienable rights disappear with it.
True inalienable rights, as understood by the Founders, exist independently of any institution, rooted in natural law or a Creator. If rights depend on government, they’re neither inherent nor inalienable—they’re just temporary permissions, subject to the state’s whim.
Claiming that inherent and inalienable rights come from government undermines their very nature, as governments, being transient and fallible, can alter or revoke them, or if such government ceases to exist, your inherent and inalienable rights disappear with it.
Rather, in his view, rights are what governments grant at any particular moment in time, and are by nature, alienable and transitory.
Rights that government gives you can be taken away by government.
I think that there’s another thing going here with Kaine and his friends. Everybody knows we all came from somewhere, both individually and collectively. Their idea of separation of church and state means that the govt has to be based on an atheistic view - that the Creator of mankind is evolution and the Creator of individuals is their mother. That leads to two understandings that are incompatible with what the Founders actually said and that western civilization is founded on, as this article describes.
The first is that people are just like insects - no more, no less. The left throws around the word “Nazi” a lot but they fail to grasp the basic concept that brought forth the holocaust: people are like insects and if we are truly scientific we will “select” the right kind of people to be in the breeding pool, with no more concern for those destroyed than we have for mosquitoes we swat just because they’re uncomfortable to us.
And secondly, at the personal level that means that if the creator/owner of a child is inconvenienced by that child they can swat it to death just as easily. And the child’s “creator” is its mother.
That is the liberal view, and they will never wander from that.
The trouble is that it basically means the law of the jungle. In that view there is no coherent reason to have a law against murder, infanticide, theft, or anything else. Whatever a mosquito or a virus can do, humans can do because we are just overgrown viruses and “Nature” (without “Nature’s God”) says whoever is fittest survives. In this view the only form of government that can exist is tyranny, because there is no rationally-consistent basis for any laws that a government makes because there is no moral reason for a government’s existence.
I remember pro-abort mayor of Minneapolis Sharon Sayles-Belton ironically and totally without self-awareness fuming after a senseless murder: “Why is there no sanctity of human life?”
Sharon, it’s because the whole worldview that your side espouses leaves no room for the sanctity of ANYTHING. Just because you say you value the life of the person who was “senselessly killed” doesn’t mean that life means diddly-squat in reality OR that anybody else has to value it at all. They were obviously weaker than the one who killed them so they deserved to be weeded out of the gene pool, according to Almighty Evolution. And you know that is what you believe because you say the very same thing about the aborted children whose mothers didn’t value their lives. You say it’s nobody else’s business because the mother is stronger than the child and can do what she wants as a sacred “right”. The value of that child’s life is just a matter of opinion, and only the mother’s opinion matters. And what these people will never realize is that in this set-up laws are just another opinion, one group imposing their opinions on everybody else in tyrannical fashion.
Kaine seems to argue that only governments can impose their opinions while not realizing that the very sharia law he decries is just a government imposing its opinions on everybody else. Maybe he thinks that a government is only legitimate when it imposes NON-RELIGION. But that’s exactly what Adolf Hitler did, and the democrat party is fully in line with the worldview of Hitler.
The Constitution forbids the government from engaging in theological controversies. But the Founders very clearly consider the sanctity of human life because of the will of the Creator as totally uncontroversial. It is “self-evident”. If human life is as worthless as a bug, civilization itself has no moral authority to impose any rules. And when it’s all just opinions, the lowly vagabonds know that and will act accordingly. Any crook can justifiably ask the government, “Why does your opinion of this person’s life matter more than my own opinion? Who made you the boss of me?”
These are concepts that the whole dumbed-down, brainwashed society needs to come to terms with. If the child in the womb has no sanctity based on the will of its Creator, then neither does the raped girl, the robbed elites, or the lowest slave. It’s all just the privileged/powerful tyrannically imposing their opinions by use of force.