There is a widely held belief in the secular world that human rights are a kind of social invention. The theory goes that as we evolved, we collectively decided that society runs more smoothly if we treat each other with respect. We realized it is "better" to have rights than not to have them.

This is the Utilitarian view of rights. It is based on calculation. It suggests that rights are a useful fiction we agree upon for the sake of survival and comfort.

But this view is a house built on sand. If rights are based on what we think is "better," then rights are subject to the cost-benefit analysis of the moment. If a crisis arises where it seems "better" for the safety of the majority to lock up a minority, the Utilitarian has no solid ground to say "No." He can only say, "I prefer we didn't."

To find a sturdy foundation for the rights of man, we must look to the text that the critic questions: the Bible.

The Ontology of Dignity: Genesis

The critic asks, "Where in the Bible do rights come from?"

They come from the first chapter of the first book. Genesis 1:26-27 declares: "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness."

This is the most radical political sentence ever written. In the ancient world, only the King was considered to be the "image of god." The King had rights; the people were subjects. Genesis democratized this dignity. It declared that every human being -- the King and the peasant, the man and the woman -- bears the royal stamp of the Creator.

This creates an ontological barrier. If a man is the Image of God, he is not a tool. He is not a resource. He is a sacred vessel. To violate the person is to commit sacrilege. This is the "why" behind human rights that secularism cannot provide. Secularism sees a biological organism; the Bible sees a living icon.

The Protection of the Person: The Decalogue

The critic might argue that the Bible speaks of "commandments," not "rights." This is a linguistic distinction, not a substantive one.

In the legal tradition of the West, every Duty implies a Right. If I have a duty not to hit you, you have a right not to be hit.

Look at the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20. "Thou shalt not murder" establishes the Right to Life. "Thou shalt not steal" establishes the Right to Property. "Thou shalt not bear false witness" establishes the Right to Reputation and Truth. "Thou shalt not commit adultery" establishes the Right to the Integrity of the Family.

When God issues these commands, He is standing between the aggressor and the victim. He is declaring that the neighbor is off-limits. He is erecting a wall of divine law around the individual that the State cannot cross.

The Prophets and the Poor

As we move to the Prophets, the language becomes even more explicit regarding the rights of the marginalized.

The prophets Isaiah and Amos thunder against the rulers who "trample on the heads of the poor" and "deny justice to the oppressed." In Hebrew, the word for justice (mishpat) often refers to the concrete rights of the vulnerable -- the right to a fair trial, the right to not be cheated in the marketplace, the right to rest.

The Bible does not view these rights as "good ideas" that humans came up with. It views them as requirements of God's character. To deny the rights of the poor is to despise their Maker (Proverbs 14:31).

The Danger of the Human Origin

The critic believes we are safer if rights come from "humans thinking it's better." History suggests otherwise.

When the French Revolutionaries tried to base rights on human reason alone, the result was the Terror. When the Soviets tried to base rights on the "scientific" progress of history, the result was the Gulag.

Why? Because when humans are the source of rights, humans are also the judges of who qualifies for them.

If rights come from God, they are antecedent to the State. They exist before the vote is cast. They exist even if 99% of the population thinks it would be "better" to take them away. This is the only shield strong enough to withstand the pressure of the mob or the tyrant. We defend the biblical origin of rights not to impose a religion, but to save the humanity of the atheist.