"Concept" or God-Given Right?

"It's time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense..."

These words were spoken by USAG Eric Holder during his address to the NAACP following the George Zimmerman verdict, and they vividly illustrate the mindset to which the leaders of the Danbury Baptists referred in their letter to then-President Thomas Jefferson:

"...and such had been our laws and usages, and such still     are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as       inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the            expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are           inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be             wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and     gain under the pretense of government and religion should    reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order         magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order..."

In the views of such people, we have no inalienable rights; we have privileges that have been granted by a magnanimous government - privileges that are as easily taken away as given.   And as was acknowledged by the leaders of the Danbury Baptists, such a view is inconsistent with our status as FREEMEN.

Mr. Holder needs to reacquaint himself with the Bill of Rights.  Its name is exactly what it seems to be, a list of rights - HUMAN RIGHTS - granted as inalienable rights by the God who created us in His image.  The Second Amendment of the Constitution, as delineated by the Bill of Rights, provides for our defense against a government that has escaped the chains of the Constitution.

Frederic Bastiat, in his manuscript, The Law (Copyright © 2007 by the Ludwig von Mises Institute), explains it this way:

"It is not because men have made laws, that personality, liberty, and property exist. On the contrary, it is because personality, liberty, and property exist beforehand, that men make laws. What, then, is law? As I have said elsewhere, it is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Nature, or rather God, has bestowed upon every one of us the right to defend his person, his liberty, and his property, since these are the three constituent or preserving elements of life; elements, each of which is rendered complete by the others, and that cannot be understood without them. For what are our faculties, but the extension of our personality? and what is property, but an extension of our faculties?

If every man has the right of defending, even by force, his person, his liberty, and his property, a number of men have the right to combine together to extend, to organize a common force to provide regularly for this defense.

Collective right, then, has its principle, its reason for existing, its lawfulness, in individual right..."

Collective rights are the corporate expression of God-given individual rights.  And as they are God-given, they reflect the very nature of God.  This is of the utmost importance, because, in reflecting the unchangeable nature of God (Malachi 3:6, "For I the Lord do not change..."), the rights themselves are also unchangeable - inalienable.  If, then, we collectively have the right to defend ourselves from our own government (as guaranteed by the Second Amendment), it follows that we have the individual right to defend ourselves from other individuals as well. 

Self-defense, then, is not a concept.  It is a God-given, inalienable right granted to us as the image bearers of God by virtue of the fact that we are created in His image.  In numerous verses throughout the scriptures, God tells us that He will defend His name and His character.  God has the right to His own defense; as image bearers, we share that right.

The right to self-defense is one of the foundational principles upon which our country was founded.  It is one of the chief differentiating factors that separates American law, with its protection of the rights of the individual, from British common law, which subjugates the rights of the individual to the rights and claims of the crown.  It is common law that delineates the so-called duty to retreat.  It is American law that upholds the right of the individual to stand his or her ground when they are where they have a legal right to be and they are committing no crime.

Concept?  No.

Inalienable, God-given RIGHT.

Privileges and Favors, or Inalienable Rights?

"Just because you have a right does not mean that the state or local government cannot constrain that right…"  B.H. Obama

"I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom..." Michael Bloomberg 

At every turn, we are witnessing an all-out attack on the freedoms guaranteed us by the Bill of Rights. It's amazing that the words "unalienable" or "shall not be infringed" could ever be interpreted as, "at the government's whim."

If one looks at our rights only as amendments to the Constitution, it is easy to dismiss their importance. When you put them back into their original context of the Bill of Rights, however, one is confronted with the critical nature of those amendments. The States that created the federal government with the ratification of the Constitution DEMANDED the addition of the first 10 amendments, and ratified them with a 3/4 supermajority. Those amendments to the Constitution made this country what it was. Our government's penchant to disregard them has made us what we are today.

The Danbury Baptists nailed the basic issue when they wrote their historic (and abused) letter to then-president Thomas Jefferson:

"[A]nd such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ."

Our rights are not privileges or favors granted to us by a beneficent government; they are INALIENABLE RIGHTS, recognized by our Founders as having been granted to us by God by virtue of having been created in His image. Therefore, the attacks and slanders we endure at the hand of our government for the exercise and defense of those rights are "inconsistent with the rights of freemen." But as was the case already in Jefferson's time, those of us who believe and defend that position are instead looked upon as the enemy by those who seek absolute power.

That Offensive Nativity Scene....

Kristin Terheqes, "Pro-Life Illustrator", recently published the following picture on Facebook:

As one might expect, the picture generated a few responses, including the following:

"Misses the point completely.  Whether the nativity scene is offensive is behind the point - in the US, governments granting public space for religious displays is a violation of the first amendment..."

To which I replied, 

No, SCOTUS missed the point entirely. This is exactly what happens when something is lifted out of its context and made to say something it was never intended to communicate. I offer the following excerpt from Thomas Jefferson's reply to the Danbury Baptists, from which the now-infamous quote originates - with one major exception: I have put it back into its original context, in which Thomas Jefferson explains the true nature of the "wall of separation."

'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the executive authorised only to execute their acts...' (bolding added).

The "wall of eternal separation" prevents Congress from passing any legislation interfering with religious practices, and the president, who is only authorized by the Constitution to execute acts passed by the legislature, is powerless to execute any law of his own initiative that would have the effect of infringing the right to - and free exercise thereof - religion guaranteed in the first amendment of the constitution.

As an example, THE ABORTIFACIENT MANDATE ISSUED EXCLUSIVELY ON "PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY" IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACCORDING TO THE EXPLANATION PROVIDED BY PRES. THOMAS JEFFERSON, MAIN AUTHOR OF BOTH THE US CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS.