What Are Unalienable Rights & Where Do They Come From?

Posted by Dobrien 1 year ago to Government
9 comments | Share | Flag


March 28, 2019
What are the “unalienable rights” discussed so fervently in the Declaration of Independence? According to the writings of the forefathers and founders of our nation, these “Unalienable Rights” are the rights that are rightfully, permanently and non-negotiably handed down to us by the One God of our Creation referred to in the bible. The unique aspect of the rights is that they make the United States the only country that welcomes and extends freedom of belief to other religions whose doctrine does not impede upon those of another.

As written in the Declaration of Independence which was a document written out of pure bravery knowing without any doubt this document would ultimately lead to a violent revolution with Great Britain, I quote the founders verbatim:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
SOURCE URL: https://kevinwolter.com/articles/what-are-unalienable-rights-where-do-they-come-from/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ blarman 1 year ago
    Why is it so important that the Founders recognized the source of rights as coming from our Creator? Simply, it is because whether one believes in the same Christian God referred to or not, any other claim on the origins of these rights gives an inroad for government to claim original authority and send us down the road of tyranny. One can certainly argue that these rights are individual and human and be right, but the issue of authority remains both separate and of higher order.

    This is the reason why elitists tend to eschew the notion of God. The recognition of any power higher than that of man-made authority - even higher than kings or emperors - is a distinctly chilling thought to the would-be tyrant: it reminds him/her that their reign is temporary and that ultimately they will be hauled before a tribunal as a mere peasant to be judged. For someone who disdains the notion of equality as is pre-requisite for assuming an elitist mindset, this reminder grates on their senses and directly conflicts with their internal justifications underpinning their rationalized actions.

    Take away God and now you are free to marginalize and assault the remaining two prongs of individuality and humanity - and we've already seen the ways. Communism/socialism is deftly cloaked as communalism where "the need of the many outweigh the needs of the few - or the one" (Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan) thus undermining the notion of individuality being key. Further assaulting this notion is the segmenting of society into intersectional groups where it isn't one's individuality which matters but their presence in a protected status or group which is worthy of societal approbation/license even while - perversely - the individuals comprising the group are marginalized to the point of being meaningless in the eyes of elitists. They are tools rather than fellows.

    Which leads directly to the second avenue of attack: the attack on humanity itself. When one is free to massage the definition of a human being, one can suddenly justify literally ANY behavior on the grounds that the other individual isn't really a "person" at all. Everything from abortion to slavery to the Holocaust can be carried out simply by devaluing or redefining "human" to be something which can be ascertained only by the discerning eye of the self-appointed "expert."

    "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance recognizes that one can not have "liberty and justice for all" without first setting the definition of humanity and the worth of the individual as inalienable truths set forth not by a mortal, finite human - well-intentioned or not. Such notions are foundational to a free society and their overthrow will necessarily result in tyranny not only of the individual, but of humanity at the hands of the self-appointed oppressor: the tyrant.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by LibertyBelle 1 year ago
      Ayn Rand (who invented John Galt) said (this is a memory quote) "Whether one ascribes man's creation to nature or to God, the issue of man's origin does not alter the fact that he is a specific being of a specific nature..." She said that man's rights were part of his nature and were not a gift of the state or "society".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 1 year ago
        While I don't argue any of that - or Rand's intentions - she gives up the stronger, underpinning argument in order to rely on the other two. She saw the results in her own mother country when God was removed from the conversation: the other justifications (humanity + individuality) quickly fell; the resulting tyranny lasted decades and cost tens of millions of lives in Russia alone. Add to that Germany, China, Vietnam, Cuba... Estimated costs in human lives is between 100 and 200 million - killed by their own governments.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by LibertyBelle 1 year ago
          One does not need to accept mysticism or a supernatural notion to believe in the natural rights of man. And to place their defense on "faith" can be very dangerous, causing their defense to be lost.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ blarman 1 year ago
            It isn't a defense based on faith, but on a recognition - as the Founding Fathers did - that rights and humanity itself are immutable definitions not subject to human purview. But the only way one can make that argument is to assert that something higher than mortal humanity does exist. One may debate the characteristics and motivations for that god, but as soon as one takes God out of the equation, one simultaneously erases any notion of rights which exist outside the authority of man.

            If you can make an argument to the contrary, I'd love to hear it. Hundreds of millions of lives lost to socialist governments who denounced the existence of God are more than enough proof for me - not for the existence of God, but for the necessity of recognizing God as the source of all rights.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 25n56il4 1 year ago
    I read a cute article a couple of days ago that gave me food for thought. The article mentioned that drivers licenses were not required until the 20th century. A license wasn't required for a horse and buggy on a road, why are cars?. The right to a drivers license is stupid when some little girl playing games is doing the testing of the drivers. I have been a safe driver for all the years I've had my license. Only one ticket for 35 in a 30 passing thru Podunk, Texas (one cop). I've never even bumped someone else's vehicle. I FAILED the parallel parking. We don't parallel park in my city. I have driven to Los Angeles, California, Goldsboro, N.C. Kentucky, and Nebraska. Duh! now you are supposed to stop in front of a stop sign. Try that in Alvin, Texas 150+ years old. The buildings are up to the curb and trees and bushes grow (don't dare cut down a tree). I was taught to stop all wheels on your car and proceed with caution after full stop! The little squirrel had the audacity to tell me I could come over to their place and practice my parallel parking. Oh yeah, a 42 mile round trip and I am taking care of my disabled veteran son on oxygen 7/24 and 2 little dogs. Also, and you are going to love this one. She told me to stop, back up and hold my speed on 25 mph while backing up! My Ford SUV Explorer doesn't register your speed in reverse and can you watch the odometer and back up at the same time? Help! This world gets crazier all the time.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mccannon01 1 year ago
    Good article. I only have one exception with it and that is the Church of England is the British official religion and is not Catholic. Close, but no papacy.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 1 year ago
      Very true. In fact, Catholics were almost a persecuted religion in the United States prior to WW I - primarily owing to their rule over Europe for centuries and their opposition to the Enlightenment. In the first century of this nation, it wasn't unheard of that Catholics would be prohibited from holding public office simply on account of their religion. The early American pioneers wanted a clean break not only from England but from the political chains emanating from the Vatican.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo