The ACLU, in its long war against Christianity, pretends that it is trying to protect the American people from religion. Its drive to get the Ten Amendments removed from all public places is supposedly based on its concept of the separation of church and state. In time it will try to get “In God We Trust” removed from all forms of American currency.
Liberals buy this separation idea because they believe in freedom from religion, not in freedom of religion. The latter freedom is protected by our Constitution, the former is not. What this conflict over rights ignores is that the most dynamic political idea in the world today is that of “unalienable” individual rights derived from God who is the ultimate sovereign.
It is very important not to confuse unalienable rights with the secular notion of “human rights.” For example, to the followers of Ayn Rand, human rights are “inherent,” that is, they are a natural concomitant of being human. In that formulation, “sovereignty” resides in the individual who in turn delegates to freely elected and appointed representatives a portion of that sovereignty to carry out the “legitimate” functions of government delineated by the Constitution of the United States.
But since the Constitution can be amended for good or evil, what is lawful today may be unlawful tomorrow. Thus, in the Randian scheme, man is sovereign, man is king, man is God. If a woman believes abortion is legal, she is simply exercising her sovereignty. Man may not use force or fraud, but this concept of “human rights” can easily become subject to human whim.
However, the concept of “unalienable” rights derived from God rests on the immutable foundation of God’s law as articulated in the Bible. It is a concept peculiar to that biblical worldview, for no other religion has ever given birth to the notion of “unalienable” individual rights.
It is therefore no accident that the Founding Fathers, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, conceived this republic, and wrote its Constitution, were Christians with an intimate knowledge of the Bible. In the context of what the Founding Fathers believed, sovereignty resides in God, not man, and man may amend his civil laws only within the parameters of Biblical law.
Nor should human rights be confused with the notion of natural rights. The latter are a derivative of the notion of natural law, best summed up in the words of English jurist, William Blackstone, who wrote:
“The Law of Nature dictated by God himself is Superior to any other. It is binding over all the Globe, in all Countries and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this, and such of them as are valid derive all of their force and all their authority mediately and immediately from this Original. Upon these two foundations, the Law of Nature and the Law of Revelation depend all human laws. Human laws are only declaratory of an act in subordination to Divine Law.”
The men who wrote the Declaration understood Blackstone. They wrote: “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.”
Clearly, human life begins at its creation, and therefore these unalienable rights apply to the human being from the moment of conception until death in old age. Yet, the secular believers in “human rights” or “women’s rights” disregard the unalienable right to life of the unborn infant, and murder him or her on the basis of the mother’s sovereignty, which is acknowledged and upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. Thus, the whim of the sovereign mother becomes the highest law in the land, for in the world of “women’s rights” unalienable rights do not exist.
What the ACLU and the Supreme Court have done is caused great confusion over the whole concept of rights. Feminists clamor for “women’s rights,” lovers of animals agitate for “animal rights,” illegal immigrants demonstate for “civil rights,” and Amnesty International agonizes over “human rights.”
The sovereignty of God is neither recognized by the public schools nor the judiciary, and the media pontificates over this philosophical anarchy and calls it “our democratic heritage.”
Some years ago, when Barbara Walters was in China, she interviewed a group of Chinese students from Peking University who spoke some English. The interview took place in the American embassy where the students were encouraged to speak freely before the TV cameras. Walters asked the students about their recent demonstrations. What did the students want, she asked. “We want more freedom,” they replied. Then, one of the students, a girl, said that the demonstration had been about rights. “We have rights,” she said. “They do not come from government.” Rather than pick up on this remarkable comment, Walters than went on to inquire about the students’ sex lives.
But what that young girl revealed is that the notion of inherent rights and this direct challenge to the communist government’s sovereignty are ideas now in the heads of Chinese students.
Now if only someone had been there to open up a discussion on unalienable rights derived from God! One got the impression that the students would have listened very carefully.