Misinformation needs to be culled.
Bishop Robert Barron has recently addressed and criticized statements made by journalist Heidi Przybyla, cautioning against the implications of her views on the origin of rights and their connection to Christian nationalism. Przybyla had sparked a viral conversation by asserting on MSNBC that while Christians and Christian nationalists differ, they both share a belief that rights derive from a divine source rather than earthly institutions.
In response, Barron vehemently contested this assertion, emphasizing the fundamental importance of acknowledging rights as originating from a higher power. He highlighted the Declaration of Independence, which explicitly recognizes the divine endowment of certain unalienable rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Barron argued that removing God as the source of rights creates a perilous situation, laying the groundwork for totalitarianism.
Central to Barron’s argument is the concept that grounding rights in a transcendent authority provides a safeguard against their arbitrary revocation by governmental bodies. He cautioned against the erosion of this principle, warning of the potential consequences for democratic governance. Barron underscored that this perspective is not a form of religious nationalism but rather a cornerstone of democratic principles, asserting that government exists to protect these inherent rights rather than bestow them.
Moreover, Barron criticized the dismissal of this viewpoint by some factions, particularly on the Left, as indicative of an underlying hostility towards religion and a lack of understanding of the foundational principles of American democracy. He emphasized the importance of recognizing the divine foundation of rights as a bulwark against the encroachment of totalitarianism.
While Przybyla did not directly respond to Barron’s remarks, she shared perspectives from others who supported her initial stance. These perspectives echoed concerns about the potential for abuse when rights are perceived as derived from a divine source and emphasized the importance of secular governance in protecting individual liberties.
In essence, Barron’s critique underscores the ongoing debate surrounding the philosophical underpinnings of rights and the implications of different worldviews on governance and individual freedoms. It reflects broader discussions within society about the role of religion in shaping political ideologies and the balance between religious beliefs and secular governance.