Return to IndexOne of the most important principles, for a just government, that a person needs to properly understand is the matter of "Rights". What are they, where do they come from, and who defines them? Only when we answer where they come from and who defines them, can we accurately identify what they are. The phrase; "a person's rights end where another person's rights begin" is of no value till the term "rights" is properly defined. A general definition is simply; "that which is right". However, "right" means different things to different people depending on their source of authority, that is, depending on who a person believes has the right to define what is right and wrong. There can only be one right or truth and all else must be wrong or false . There are basically 3 views of "rights" and they are based on these 3 different sources of authority; (1) God, (2) the individual person, or (3) government. These 3 views I will call; (1) Unalienable Rights, (2) Libertarian Rights, and (3) Civil Rights. It is my contention that only those rights that come from God are true rights and that those which come from government and from individual opinion are false rights. Let us examine each view separately.
These rights having come from God, no man can take them from another. Government was instituted among men to protect the exercise of these rights. When government rules contrary to the right of God and takes a man's life, liberty, or property without right, the right itself remains, only the exercise of it is removed. A person forfeits his rights when he violates the rights of others. If God through His word sentences death for taking the life of another, then the person sentenced no longer has the right to life, because God having given that right has the right to take it away. The Lord gives and the Lord takes away. When government takes a life in punishment for murder, God has already removed that persons right to life from him. When that person took another persons life who had the right to life (the shedding of innocent blood) he then forfeited his right to life. God has made it clear in the Scriptures that the guilt for his own blood is on the murderer's head and He declares in Gen.9:6 that "Whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed." This among many other verses gives government the, God sanctioned, right to use the death penalty for punishment of certain crimes. However, government was not instituted to define good and evil, right and wrong, as God has already done that. Government is to protect what God declares is good and to punish what God declares is evil.
Unalienable rights are still part of our fundamental law. The Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights is a perfect example. These rights give man the individual liberty to properly use his property and conduct his life within the bounds of God's law. With the idea of rights goes the right to public exercise of those rights. All have equal rights under God's law and all have equal responsibility for their actions. In other words there is no privileged class with different or special rights, as God does not show partiality.If I were one of our black countrymen, I would be offended when my rights are called civil rights, because this makes my rights inferior to unalienable rights which can not be taken away. The 13th amendment was to have given them the exercise of their unalienable rights, not to establish them with lesser civil rights. This principle of the anti-slavery movement was voiced in the first issue of "The Liberator" in 1831. I quote,"Assenting to the 'self evident truth' maintained in the American Declaration of Independence, 'that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights - among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,' I shall strenuously contend for the immediate enfranchisement [liberation] of our slave population." Likewise, the women's suffrage movement was originally founded upon these words from The Declaration of Independence, "that all men (and women) are created equal."
In 1944 Roosevelt laid down an Economic Bill of Rights, which is a good example of civil rights. (1) The right to a useful and remunerative [rewarding, profitable] job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation; (2) The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; (3) The right of every farmer to rise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living; (4) The right of every bussiness man, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; (5) The right of every family to a decent home; (6) The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; (7) The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and employment; (8) The right to a good education. Clarence Carson sums these rights up this way, "If they are rights at all - which can only be conceived by perverting the language - ,they are rights bestowed by government by taking from the productive and giving to the less or nonproductive. To believe in this way is to believe that one has a right to what others have produced." Unlike unalienable rights, these rights are not stable and can change depending on who is in office and we also do not find them sanctioned in the Scriptures. These rights cannot be enforced without violating a persons right to distribute his own property as he sees fit. It places his trust in the government to provide for his needs, rather than relying on the family and trusting God to provide.
Get your ownFree Home Page