"My estimable co-blogger King of Ireland has taken issue with my claim (along with Ed Brayton, Gregg Frazer, Robert Kraynak and others) that the Bible nowhere speaks to the concept of unalienable rights, especially an unalienable right to religious and political liberty.
I think the problem between us is one of semantics, that is we need to clarify concepts and premises underlying our claims. There is a certain "literal" interpretation of the Bible which looks at what the text says on its face and cites verses and chapters of scripture as specific proof texts. The specific/literal approach, one many evangelicals are fond of following. In that sense, the Bible does not speak to unalienable rights, political or religious liberty. I've read the parts that supposedly do from cover to cover. It's an open and shut case."
I just want to ask Jon if literalism is the only valid method then where do Frazer and others get the Trinity and Original Sin from? They are concepts some see in the Bible. Just like rights based on imago dei. They whine when people do it and come up with interpretations they do not like but do the same themselves. The only thing that really matters for our purposes is that both approaches are historically Christian. Augustine was open to Genesis being an allegory for crying out loud.
Now is this being a tar baby? Or is this a valid critique of a weak argument? So as not to be accused of the former I do not "demand" that you respond unless you want to and think it will add to the discussion.
*Update- Jon has said that he did not mean this "tar baby" thing personally and I think I understand what he was saying. The problem is that the genie is out of the bottom and some others have taken it to mean that the argument for rights from the Bible is equlivalent to an absurd argument made only by fools. Here is my response down in the comments section here. I think we might need some clarification*
*The tar baby discussion continues at Best One Way*