Human rights do not have adequate justification under a secular government.

Below, I have summarized my opponent's main argument, earnestly trying to keep true to what he's saying: 1. Rights are the consensus of the desires of society. 2. If God made us, our wills should conform to God's, and our desires would be the same. But our desires aren't all the same, so we can't rely on God for our rights. 3. Government is the next authority to go to. They define rights through consensus or fiat. 4. Democratic states that derive their power from the will of the people would necessarily give the people their desires/rights. Can a democratic government be relied on to provide and enforce rights? Yes. “But for how long?” Would these rights by consensus be fair? In the L.A. Riots, a consensus was reached among enough people that people with things should be looted. What'd that truck driver have to do with it? But that's not democratic government in the strict sense. Kenya, 2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk...Keep in mind the article mentioned several issues, not just the redistribution of colonial-seized land. Limits were set on land ownership and land that is “idle” can be seized.Those that lean socialist would probably see this as absolutely fair. Those who claim property rights see this as a massive injustice. Who's got the right to the right rights? Without an authority above majority rules, how can that be determined? French Revolution. http://theonomyresources.blogspot.com...Secularism is at the core of the French Revolution. They became a Republic, but without recognition of the moral laws of God, the revolution turned into what we now call the Reign of Terror. Reason supposedly became their god, but without absolute morality from an immutable authority, many things can be called reasonable. Russia. http://theonomyresources.blogspot.com... Much the same happened in the USSR as happened in France, and for much the same reasons. The will of the masses was met, but the results were disastrous for the economy and society. Is there no authority worth paying attention to greater than the most forceful mob? In R1, my resolution was: “An orderly list of rights, logical in scope and limitation, can only be derived from Biblical principals for the fair, equitable, healthy, and orderly function of a society.” What would an orderly list of rights look like under god-less democracy? How could that be determined? My opponent agrees that no such list can be made, as any list of rights arising from the fickle desires of people would just be an exercise in whim. We've never seen a fair, equitable, and healthy society arise from god-less principals, because without God, there are no real principals. What happens when two societies are forced to live near or with eachother, when they don't agree upon what rights are? We get the massive revolt of Spartacus. There will be no possibility of order unless they can look to an authority higher than both their governments. But it can't just be another shifting body of people, it has to be an immutable, lasting source of authority. Even a constitution only has power as long as people pay attention to it. In the wreckage of a failed government, where can people look to for a new list of rights? My opponent has put forth some very good questions, but so far has not shown that humanistic democracy can provide human rights adequately for us. In fact, he's even proclaimed that no real rights exist, but that democracy can somehow make them up to provide order. Other arguments. “The bible supports the contention that no inalienable right can exist because the right of salvation to believers can be taken away by it's giver.” God is immutable, and though he could, he will not take away salvation from believers. John chapter 17 is Jesus' prayer before his arrest. “I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word...None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled...My prayer is not that take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth...My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one...” 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 Paul talks about the closest thing a believer can experience to losing one's salvation. Salvation is a right that God does not take away. My opponent's argument is that that right from God is not inalienable because the highest possible authority COULD take it away. But God's immutability precludes him from being willing to take it away. It is effectively inalienable, and only applies to the elect, not all humans. But this debate is more about human rights. Equality and Liberty. My examples of equality and liberty in Rome were given only to show that the concepts existed long before the US. You're correct in pointing out the inequity given to non-citizens and slaves. Remember Rome was a pagan government with sanctioned idol and Emperor worship, and was not meant to be an example of rights being taken directly from the Bible. So where is God in this world with all these violations of rights given by him? In Eden, Adam and Eve chose to un-conform their wills from God's. We, as their descendants, continue to go our own way, apart from God, and deny others the rights God gave them, as well as apply to ourselves rights that have no basis in reality. “Leviticus 19:!5, on the hand, does not confer any right upon any one. Literally, the phrase teaches one how to behavior in a socially approved manner, but one is not obligated to follow the suggestion nor shall the violation entail any consequence.” This passage is a rule for judges. If you didn't follow the rules of the judgeship you were charged with, you were breaking the Law, and in dereliction of duty. People that are derelict in their duty are supposed to be removed from their jobs. Job loss is a consequence. Even if you're not an official judge, and two parties ask you to mediate, you were to remember that God will judge even the secret things in the end.