Family Security Matters
“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…” Thomas Jefferson
This Judeo-Christian concept provides for unalienable human rights that are distributed equally among all people because, from before birth, God views all individuals as His equally loved and valued children, made in His image. Since all individuals possess infinite and therefore equal value in the eyes of their Creator, all equally possess Divine human rights. Divine human rights are also Natural human rights – self-evident, rational and moral – and thus represent both the law of nature and nature’s God.
“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another’s pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another’s uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for ours.” John Locke
Although the Judeo-Christian concept of human value and human rights is found in the Bible, one does not have to be a religious Jew or Christian to understand and agree with it – an Atheist, Hindu or Muslim can be just as good as a Presbyterian in this respect if he honors the equal Natural human rights of all others. Cicero, for example, was not a Jew or a Christian, yet he believed in God and was supremely rational; he understood the concept of a convergence between the rational law of nature and the sacred law of nature’s God.
“There is a true law, a right reason, conformable to nature, universal, unchangeable, eternal, whose commands urge us to duty, and whose prohibitions restrain us from evil. Whether it enjoins or forbids, the good respect its injunctions, and the wicked treat them with indifference. This law cannot be contradicted by any other law, and is not liable either to derogation or abrogation. Neither the senate nor the people can give us any dispensation for not obeying this universal law of justice. It needs no other expositor and interpreter than our own conscience. It is not one thing at Rome and another at Athens; one thing today and another tomorrow; but in all times and nations this universal law must for ever reign, eternal and imperishable. It is the sovereign master and emperor of all beings. God himself is its author, its promulgator, its enforcer. He who obeys it not, flies from himself, and does violence to the very nature of man.” Cicero
Life is a Divine and Natural human right which all people equally possess. It is irrational to suppose that some people are so superior in value to others that, although they seek preservation of their own life, they would deny this sacred human right to others, and thereby commit or authorize murder. Rightful human liberty and the product of one’s labor in creative pursuit of happiness are Divine and Natural human rights which all equally possess – where each man may do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor. It is irrational to suppose that some people are so superior in value to others that they may do as they please with other men and the product of other men’s labor, thereby stealing or authorizing the theft of other people’s property, reducing their brothers and sisters to slavery to one degree or another. Freedom of speech, press and faith are differentiated expressions of one’s Divine and Natural right to liberty. It is irrational to suppose that some people are so superior in value to others that they may speak and write freely without fear, and express their faith [religious or atheistic] without fear, but would deny the same freedom to others.
Unfortunately there are some Americans who adhere to a tyrannical anti-American Marxist concept of man-made human rights, where some men [the Marxists] may do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor – this for the supposed purpose of providing “human rights” to the downtrodden – but always in such a way that advances their own interest – and always at the expense of others against their will.
“With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name – liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names – liberty and tyranny.” Abraham Lincoln
Marxists believe that some men (themselves) possess a collectivist man-made right to take the property, via the theft of excessive taxation, of the hard-working American middle class (the so-called bourgeoisie), and redistribute it to the non-disabled non-working poor (the so-called proletariat) – in return for votes – after first lining their own pockets. This government re-distribution of property – economic Marxism – can take the form of direct welfare payments, government food stamps or debit cards, healthcare benefits, and loan or mortgage forgiveness. The laboring American taxpayer foots the bill, and is thus reduced into a Marxist form of serfdom. Our so-called national debt is created by this Marxist economic class struggle, and is not a national debt at all, but rather a class debt from worker to non-worker – about half of all Americans are in debt to the other half.
“When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half get the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation.” Dr. Adrian Rogers
The Marxist man-made “human right” to the product of other men’s labor is self-serving and it violates the Divine and Natural human right for each man to do as he pleases with himself and the product of his labor, and once incorporated into law becomes tyranny.
“Law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the [Natural God-given] rights of the individual.” Thomas Jefferson
We are also now confronted with the Cultural Marxism concept of homosexual marriage, where same sex couples demand government enforcement of this new man-made “human right.” First of all the concept of homosexual marriage is an oxymoron – an internal contradiction requiring us to exercise the insanity of Orwellian Doublethink – since the word “marriage” has universally referred to heterosexual unions dating back to ancient times, and likewise in the Bible. Homosexuals already possess a Natural right to liberty in the United States, so they can and should be able to associate in public and private just like married heterosexual couples, but to call homosexual unions “marriage” violates both the law of nature and nature’s God. Homosexuals possess a Natural right to liberty – to do as they please with themselves – but they do not have a right to do as they please with the heterosexual majority by re-defining the word “marriage” against their will.
“Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government. They receive it with their being from the hand of nature. Individuals exercise it by their single will; collections of men by that of their majority; for the law of the majority is the natural law of every society of men.” Thomas Jefferson
Homosexuals do not have a Divine or Natural right to re-define the meaning of words against the will of the majority, but they do possess a Natural right to liberty, and thus freedom of association, just like heterosexuals. The American heterosexual majority should and does defend the homosexual minority’s Natural rights to life, faith, free speech, free association, and property.
“Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights [to do as they please with themselves and the product of their labor], which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression.” Thomas Jefferson
Natural homosexual freedom of association, without calling it marriage, would not violate the freedom of the heterosexual majority, but man-made “homosexual rights” wrongly come at their expense and against their will. Christian heterosexuals are being denied their Divine and Natural rights to freedom of speech, press and faith (otherwise known as rightful human liberty) under the Cultural Marxism of man-made “homosexual rights.” Under an increasingly tyrannical legal system American heterosexual Christians may now fear to speak or write about the Old and New Testament moral prohibitions of homosexual acts, in violation of the Declaration of Independence and the First Amendment in our Bill of Rights. American heterosexual Christians are also being denied their Natural and Divine human right to do as they please with themselves and the product of their labor in their creative pursuit of happiness, also a violation of the Declaration of Independence and the First Amendment, since some unjust State legal systems burden or close down their businesses upon expression of Christian faith and free speech. Apparently these homosexual puritans believe they have a right not to have their feeling hurt – never mind that this contrived man-made “human right” shuts down their neighbor’s God-given Natural human right to faith and free speech – and to run an honest business to support their family – what about these people’s feelings? Real human rights don’t destroy human rights – but it is clear that Marxist man-made “human rights” destroy Natural God-given human rights. Today’s “homosexual rights” movement is tyrannical since its leaders seek the wrongful liberty of unobstructed action according to their will within limits drawn around them by the inferior rights of others.
“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal [Natural God-given] rights of others.” Thomas Jefferson
The “Homosexual Rights” movement is not just about the right of homosexuals to call their interpersonal relationships “marriage,” it is about coercing Christians into calling homosexual unions “marriage” against their will, and using government to force their family businesses to comply with all “Homosexual Rights” demands – or be put out of business. The “Homosexual Rights” movement seeks government enforcement of a Cultural Marxist one way street of unequal man-made human rights – favoring themselves and their allies – but not their Christian heterosexual neighbors – a totalitarian dystopia where some may do as they please with themselves and the product of their labor – but not others. The “Homosexual Rights” movement is a tyrannical Leftist ploy to destroy real human rights – in violation of the American Bill of Rights:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
American Christians have a God-given right – freedom of speech – to call homosexual unions by a name other than “marriage,” and to refuse a business contract which violates the free exercise of their Christian religion.
Human rights derived from the law of nature and nature’s God – those enumerated in our Declaration of Independence – are superior to man-made Marxist human rights because the former are equal to all people whereas the latter are unequally allocated. Natural God-given human rights also possess the property of internal non-violability – a man’s right to life does not by its nature violate the right to life of others, and the same is true for rightful liberty and the product of one’s labor. When a man rightfully does as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor, he does not by those actions violate the right of his neighbor to do likewise – true for homosexuals and heterosexuals – true for Red, Yellow, Black and White. The same cannot be said for the tyranny of Marxist “human rights” which invariably come down with a heavy hand – at the expense of real human rights. Which version of human rights do you believe in?
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution