A problem with saying rights are "God-given"?

In connection with the Declaration of Independence. For the moment I am ignoring the rights themselves that are enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, and the question of whether they are subjective passive rights or subjective active rights or both.)

It isn't the case that these rights have been Divinely Revealed to us, not in the form of Christian Tradition at any rate. They must then be discoverable by human reason alone, but nonetheless connected to God in some way. That is, rights [may] have their origin in Divine Law, in the form of the Natural Law, if they can be said to be "God-given."

If rights correlate to duties, then we can say that "God-given" rights correspond to "God-given" duties incumbent upon the individual or the government. But what are these duties, and of which virtues are they precepts? It is not enough to say that they are in some way derived from human nature (like the Natural Law is derived in some way from human nature -- which can be a very questionable way to explain the Natural Law)--one must talk about what goods are involved.

If the precept that is involved is one of charity, love of God and neighbor, then how can one possibly legislate concerning God-given rights, when one cannot legislate charity, which requires grace and cannot be induced through human law? One the other hand, if the rights that are spoken of are connected to justice (and thus can be an object of human legislation), is it not a bit misleading to connect them directly with God? Do we need to have the virtue of charity in order to have the virtue of justice? Perfect justice, yes, but not imperfect justice.

It is true that both human nature and its goods are given by God. Man is made in the image of God, having a spiritual side that other animals lack. But as I have written before, this principle is insufficient to explain the foundation of rights as being in justice, rather than charity. One must show how they are derived from the precepts of particular justice and legal justice. Legal justice is especially important, since it is the virtue that directly pertains to the common good of a political community. In so far as rights can be derived from the precepts of justice, which are a part of the Natural Law (or an extension of it, in human law), then they can be said to be "God-given."

We must then ask, what conception of legal justice and the common good do we find in Jefferson? How about the Anglo-American political tradition in general? Does the Anglo-American political tradition accept a more traditional notion of the common good, or does it get it from the Enlightenment or liberalism? It does not matter so much if the Natural Law in itself is ignored or even denied in this tradition, so long as the precepts and the goods they involved can be reconciled with a proper understanding of the Natural Law.

Human Rights (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Rights (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Jefferson on Politics & Government: Inalienable Rights
John Locke Foundation | John Locke: His American and Carolinian Legacy
Principle 3. Unalienable Rights From God
wiki

What is this? The Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisdiction

Rebuilt 1-22
Princeton - News - Jurists demand end to impunity
Equipo Nizkor - The Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisdiction.
Google Books: Universal Jurisdiction in Modern International Law: Expansion of National Jurisdiction for Prosecuting Serious Crimes under International Law

The International Law of Responsibility for Economic Crimes: Holding State Officials Individually Liable for Acts of Fraudulent Enrichment, by Ndiva Kofele-Kale
(Google Books)