During a Senate committee hearing this week, a stark ideological divide emerged over the origins of human rights, drawing sharp words between two high-profile lawmakers.

According to The Christian Post, Sen. Ted Cruz condemned Sen. Tim Kaine for characterizing the concept that rights are derived from God as deeply troubling during a confirmation hearing for a State Department nominee.

The exchange occurred during a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing held to consider Riley Barnes’ nomination for assistant secretary of state for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Barnes emphasized America’s founding principles by referencing the Declaration of Independence in his opening remarks, highlighting a belief that rights are derived from a Creator rather than from governments or legal systems.

Declaration ideals spark senator disagreement

Barnes, a former advisor to Ambassador Sam Brownback and a State Department official, echoed language from the founding documents to support his stance. He stated that human rights predate legal codes and stem from inherent human dignity. Barnes noted that this perspective does not conflict with legal equality guaranteed by the Constitution.

“That all men are created equal because our rights come from God, our Creator,” Barnes said, paraphrasing the Declaration, “not from our laws, not from our governments.” He later clarified that while he personally believes in this principle, his statement reflected the historical foundations of American democracy.

In response, Sen. Tim Kaine, a Democrat from Virginia and a practicing Catholic, voiced strong concerns. He warned that emphasizing divine sources of rights can empower dangerous theocratic ideologies, citing Iran’s use of divine law to justify persecution of religious minorities.

Kaine compares the view to the Iranian theocracy

Kaine said the idea that rights are not grounded in man-made law but rather in divine authority reminded him of regimes like Iran, where religious interpretation governs state policy. He called the idea “very, very troubling,” warning it could lead to serious implications if adopted without legal restraint.

“The notion that rights don't come from laws and don't come from the government, but come from the Creator — that's what the Iranian government believes,” Kaine said. “They target Sunnis, Bahá'ís, Jews, Christians, and other religious minorities,” he added in explaining his concern.

The Virginia senator emphasized that rights should be defined and safeguarded by legal systems within democratic institutions. Kaine pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court’s inscribed principle of “equal justice under law” as a framework that ensures fairness, regardless of religious belief.

Cruz responds with founding principles defense

After Kaine left the hearing room, Cruz, a Republican from Texas, responded forcefully. He expressed astonishment that a foundational American ideal could be challenged in such a forum, calling it “stunning.” He argued that this concept, rather than being radical, is essential to American identity.

“I just walked into the hearing as he was saying that, and I almost fell out of my chair,” Cruz said. He added that the idea of rights being granted by a Creator is not only from the Declaration of Independence but is mirrored in the philosophy that shaped the United States.

Quoting Thomas Jefferson, Cruz reiterated that human beings are “endowed by their Creator” with inalienable rights, such as life and liberty. He contrasted this belief with what he described as a troublesome trend within the Democratic Party to shift away from this foundational view.

Barnes emphasizes historical meaning, not theology

Barnes took time to clarify that his reference was not meant to impose religious doctrine on the law. Instead, he explained, it was a restatement of principles enshrined in America’s founding texts. He asserted that placing value on God-given rights affirms universal dignity, not theological supremacy.

“These rights that are inherent in human dignity predate the law,” Barnes said. He emphasized that this view supports the notion of equal rights for all, under both divine and legal authority.

Despite the disagreement, all participants acknowledged the importance of protecting human rights, though they diverged sharply on how to define their origin. Kaine remained adamant that allowing policies to be governed by varied divine interpretations could lead to inconsistent or harmful outcomes.

Broader debate reflects deep philosophical divide

The exchange underscored a broader issue in American discourse: how the country’s founding ideals should be interpreted in contemporary governance. While some see references to “God-given rights” as affirming historical principles, others worry they may invite misuse when detached from legal frameworks.

Cruz’s defense highlights a conservative view that emphasizes the moral certainty provided by rooting rights in a divine source. In contrast, Kaine’s argument prioritizes the rule of law as a safeguard against subjective or potentially oppressive interpretations of morality.

As the committee continues its confirmation considerations, the debate serves as a reminder of how the nation's foundational language can still ignite passionate responses and reveal deep ideological beliefs about liberty, justice, and faith.