Andrew L. Seidel

Guest Columnist

Andrew L. Seidel is the director of strategic response at the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

A famously pious legislator is once again trying to inject God into the Tennessee Constitution.

State Rep. Micah Van Huss, R-Jonesborough, wants to tag a new line on to Article 1, Section 2 so that at the end it will read: “... and that liberties do not come from government, but from Almighty God.”

This amendment is wholly unnecessary — and doubly wrong.

First, it sets up a straw man. No serious person claims that our liberties “come from government.” The freedoms protected in our Constitution and Bill of Rights are put there specifically to say that the government does not grant and cannot violate those rights.

Human rights are universal, unlike God-given rights

Van Huss’ second error is even more problematic: Our rights do not come from God. In fact, the claim that our rights are God-given is dangerous, as I explain in my upcoming book.

We possess natural rights simply because we are human — hence the phrase, “human rights.” Human rights are founded on reason, not religion, according to Thomas Jefferson: “Questions of natural right are triable by their conformity with the moral sense & reason of man.”

The Founders understood that human rights are more powerful, absolute and universal than God-given rights. God-given rights depend on geography, varying drastically for residents of Indiana, India or Iran. Such rights can also be extinguished by those claiming to speak from divine authority.

Women and LGBT individuals have fewer rights in almost every religion because of human interpretations of God’s will. The abolition of slavery, women’s rights, the end of segregation, marriage equality — progress on each of these fronts was opposed by those claiming to know God’s mind and executing his will.

Human or natural rights are far less susceptible to the whim of preachers. Simply by virtue of being human — of being born — you have certain inherent, inalienable rights.

Fallible humans should not claim divine sanction

God-given rights are problematic because they depend solely on a particular individual’s interpretation. Perhaps the interpreter adheres to some higher authority, such as a pope or an author of the Bible.

But at the end of that line of spiritual authority, a human being is claiming to know “God’s will.” One person’s belief is suddenly given the weight of divine law. A fallible human like Van Huss is claiming divine sanction.

This is moral relativism — often maligned by religious leaders — masquerading as moral absolutism. It is far better to premise human rights on the simple fact of being human, than to put them into the hands of one person claiming to speak for a supernatural being that does not exist.

God-given rights are not sacred, self-evident or inherent: They are fragile, exclusive — and used to favor the chosen few.

Tennesseans deserve better.

Andrew L. Seidel, an attorney and author, is the director of strategic response at the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the nation’s largest organization of nontheists. His first book, “The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism Is Un-American,” hits shelves in May. Follow Seidel on social media: @AndrewLSeidel