Clue you, Chief Justice John Roberts!
Please Contribute, Monthly if you can!
Very Generous FReeper Sponsors are donating $10 for every New Monthly Donor!
Posted on 02/23/2013 9:05:51 AM PST by Kaslin
Recently a discussion of this story about DC Comics being pressured by homosexual activists to fire one of its writers because he’s on the board of the National Organization of Marriage prompted vigorous debate on my Facebook wall. While perusing through the various comments, it was obvious there still exists much confusion in our country today about the term “rights.”
There are two types of rights: unalienable and contractual.
Sometimes referred to as a natural right (i.e. “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” reference from The Declaration of Independence), an unalienable right is a right that comes from God and thus can be accessed in your natural state without consent from another party because it existed before you were born, and will still exist in nature after you die. It’s inherent to being made in the image of God.
Should another party attempt to stop you from accessing your unalienable (or natural) rights they are guilty of a crime, oppression, tyranny, or all of the above. For example, I do not require anyone’s consent to breathe air for it is foundational to my natural state of being. However, should you attempt to stop me from breathing then you are guilty of assault, battery, manslaughter, or murder if you’re ultimately successful.
If it requires consent from another party to access it then it is not an unalienable (aka natural) right, because you have to impose upon someone else’s unalienable (aka natural) rights in the process. Taking someone else’s person or property without their consent is what we call a crime.
Nowadays some are claiming unalienable (or natural) rights that don’t exist.
For example, you do not have an unalienable (or natural) right to marry or have sex with whomever you want, because partaking of each of those activities requires consent from another party. We call people who believe they can have sex (aka “physical intimacy”) with whomever they want rapists and put them in prison whenever we can. We call people who believe they can marry whomever they want cult leaders, sultans, kings, and tyrants because they’re acquiring harems and concubines.
Likewise, you also don’t have a natural right to live where you want as I’ve heard some claim on issues like immigration. To believe that requires you to believe that private property doesn’t exist. You can’t have it both ways. If you believe I have the right to defend my own property (which our founders absolutely did), then you also have to believe that “we the people” have the right to defend our own property as well. In a “government by the consent of the governed” that property in this case are the borders and lands of these United States of America. We own them and they are our private property. Therefore, we have a right to possess and police them accordingly.
Rights that require the consent of another party are contractual rights.
A good example of contractual rights would be the U.S. Constitution, which begins with the words, “We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union.” Immediately the parties involved in the contract are established: the people, the states, and the federal government (or union). From there each party states in the contract the terms, jurisdictions, and liabilities each are responsible for and permitted to perform. Some of the rights in the Constitution are unalienable (natural) rights like the freedom of speech and the freedom of worship, because you don’t require consent to access them. That’s why the Constitution says “Congress shall make no law” prohibiting or establishing those things, because Congress has no power to either establish or take away that which “the Law of Nature and Nature’s God” alone bestows.
However, other rights in the Constitution are purely contractual, but where people get confused here is they fail to understand this language is intended to bind the government and not the individual. For example, the government consents to saying it has no right for “unlawful search and seizure” as other governments in human history have indulged. It is not saying you as a private person have a right to therefore store crack cocaine in your locker or illicit pictures of children on your computer. This is the government contracting with its citizens to limit its own means, not the other way around. In fact, that is the theme of the entire Bill of Rights. Just because the state promises not to exceed its authority over the individual does not give the individual the right to exceed his authority over “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.”
That is always the highest authority.
For example, should the U.S. Federal Court hear a civil suit between two murderous drug cartels because one failed to deliver the promised narcotics to the other and thus violated the contract? Of course not, because their very activity violates “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” therefore the proper response is to arrest them as criminals instead.
Similarly, just because someone consents to having sex with you doesn’t mean that suddenly you have a contractual right to have sex with them. Is the person just a child and therefore unable to make a mature decision? Is that person mentally unstable or disabled, and thus unsure of what it is they’re really consenting to? Is that person married to someone else?
In conclusion it comes down to this, if our rights first and foremost come from “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” then anything we do to indulge or claim those rights that violates that law isn’t a right. It’s a transgression—even if the other party(s) consents to it. That simply means they’re just as guilty as you are.
You have no right to do that which God says is wrong. Never have, never will, and should an earthly authority contradict this and permit your fallen nature to manifest itself, the God the “father of the Constitution” James Madison referred to as “the Governor of the universe” will ultimately adjudicate your case in eternity.
I’d say the author has won the debate. But it certainly won’t save the country.
Or does he really think that “not having the right” will stop this wickedness?
Does he think that these perverts with sexual disorientation waited for someone to shout “It’s your right!” before engaging in their unspeakable acts?
Does he think that explaining the concept of natural rights will sway voters who were never swayed to their present viewpoint by reasoned argument in the first place?
Yes, the author makes a very good case. The only trouble is that it ignores the problem. And what’s worse, it distracts from it. He needs to go back to the agora or the courtroom, where such high-falutin’ debates are considered worthwhile.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (John Adams, October 11, 1798.)
Thanks very much for the ping to the excellent article/column posted by Kaslin.
Thanks very much, dearest Kaslin! This one is a keeper and one I’m sending to several friends with children and grandchildren and to my own family members too, (of course).
BTTT.
I would disagree with the author on one point.
If we cannot convince them, we don’t loose the country.
The question will then have to be settled by force of arms.
In that war, we win.
“You have no right to do that which God says is wrong. Never have, never will, and should an earthly authority contradict this and permit your fallen nature to manifest itself, the God the “father of the Constitution” James Madison referred to as “the Governor of the universe” will ultimately adjudicate your case in eternity.”
If there is no God, or God is politically denied, then the above sentence is meaningless; effectively voiding inalienable rights, making all rights contractual & subject to state approval.
SFL
Absolutely! Just printed it off for my two sons (16, 14) to read. The oldest is in an AP Course (college prep)in his Sophmore Year in High School. His teacher is a flaming liberal. Bet this column will set him off and knowing my oldest son, he’s going to enjoy watching his teacher go nuts. :-)
"I KNOW BUT ONE CODE OF MORALITY FOR MEN WHETHER ACTING SINGLY OR COLLECTIVELY"
--Thomas Jefferson
Bump,
Thanks. I will see if I can order it through our library.
Perhaps this is a good time to highlight the Framers' true intent and significance of an Oath. Clearly, such an Oath presupposes a Sovereign whose law is above human law. That is an important concept for rising generations to consider and to understand.
In the Year 1876, a Black Minister, historian, and Ohio State Legislator was invited to speak on the occasion of a celebration of the 100th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
In that "Centennial Thanksgiving Sermon" delivered by the Rev. Benjamin W. Arnett at St. Paul A.M.E. Church in Urbana, Ohio, Arnett traced the histories of nations and the ideas history underlying our Declaration and Constitution, documenting his remarks about America's Christian foundations with quotations from Founders, Presidents, and Supreme Court Justices, as well as the Constitutions of the States.
Of the Oath of Office, he said:
"Oaths and affirmations are appeals to God, by him who makes them, that what he has said, or what he shall say, is the truth. It is the most solemn form under which one can assert or pronounce anything, and its violation is a crime of the darkest hue; one which God has declared he will punish; one that is made infamous and punishable by fine and imprisonment, by the laws of the land. Thus Christian obligation is required of every officer of the general Government, who fills any position of trust, honor or emolument. Many reports are required in the form and shape of affidavits."
Every lover of liberty should read all of this remarkable Sermon whose theme is "Righteousness Exalteth a Nation, but Sin is a Reproach to Any Nation."
Here is a link through which, by clicking on Arnett's name, anyone may access and read a full text version.
We license marriage as we license the privilege of driving a vehicle: to those we socially deem responsible and mature. For many thousands of years the purpose of marriage is to preserve the procreative ability to produce a family, and the family has been the foundation of social structure since before recorded history.
The fascinating thing about those advocating same-sex marriage is that they wish to overturn the popular will of the people. The present case in California is a perfect example; over 60% of Californians voted to prevent same-sex marriage; the activists celebrate when they get one judge to overturn the will of the people. What is the chance for freedom and the will of the majority in a society that celebrates one tyrant who is willing to overthrow that will?
Let each state deal with such issues as they will on the basis of a popular foundation... there should be no room for judicial fiat!
Marriage was first taxed by the King of England as a way to increase his coffers. That was the introduction of Government interference in what was considered to that point to be a religious, or church sanctioned institution only.
In modern times, Marriage Licenses are both a way for Government to "tax" an activity to increase its coffers and a contract between those who marry and the State.
The contract is the license, which is governed by State Laws (which vary state to state) which defines what happens when the marriage is dissolved. Think alimony, child support, division of assets, etc..
The word "marriage" therefore has been corrupted by the State (think: Government) which incorrectly leads people to believe that the Government can regulate or specify who can/cannot get married.
The reality is, marriage is a religious ceremony performed within the constructs of a church. Yes, it is possible to get married in a church without a license (in some, not all states) the issue is the State (Government) will not recognize the marriage w/o the marriage LICENSE which the state requires if a couple is to take advantage of specific benefits such as tax advantages, ability to speak for the other in the event of serious illness or death and the like.
Now, if we Christians were to seriously revolt against the Government on this topic, we could simply do it by getting married in the church and rejecting the "marriage license" and all it entails by the State. This of course also means refusing the 'tax breaks and benefits' which means giving up several financial advantages the State's "Marriage license" provides.
This would put marriage firmly back in the churches where it belogs, and get Government "out of the marriage business" where it's never belonged.
The other benefit would be gays could no longer claim the term "marriage" since any God fearing, bible believing church would never perform a "gay marriage." That reduces the gay agenda to simple "civil unions" (which in effect, is what every marriage is at the State level.)
I've always argued the core issue isn't anything to do with creating "civil unions" and including the same "benefits' as heterosexual couples enjoy today.
For the gay agenda it's really all about corrupting the institution of marriage, and by extension the Church and Christianity.
That's their real intent.
Please keep the USSS away from me ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... FRegards
"Rev. Benjamin W. Arnett ... Of the Oath of Office, he said:
When the public man omits to put himself in a situation of doing his duty with effectsave fore later read
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
