Photo used with permission (C) DepositPhotos.com
Tom Sheppard
11/18/2021
Unalienable Rights
The Declaration of Independence declares that all people are
“endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Please note, although The Declaration of Independence lists some
specific rights, it expressly states that this list is not exhaustive.
What does unalienable mean?
Dictionary.com gives one definition for inalienable as: “not
transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied.”[1]
The Declaration of Independence goes on to assert that legitimate
governments exist only to preserve these rights. When a government becomes “destructive of these
ends” it is the right of the people to abolish that government and form a new
one. This latter point is effectively
calling out another inalienable right, the right to rebel against any
government that is seeking to deprive the people of their inalienable
rights. This has been called “the right
of revolution.” Jefferson actually list
this as a responsibility. One author
pointed out that citizens of the United States of America exercise this right
of revolution every time they vote.
The earliest reference I could find to unalienable rights
comes from John Locke. In 1689, Locke
argued in Two Treatises of Government that political society existed for the
sake of protecting "property", which he defined as a person's
"life, liberty, and estate".[2]
In A Letter Concerning Toleration, he wrote that the magistrate's power was
limited to preserving a person's "civil interest", which he described
as "life, liberty, health, and indolency[3]
of body; and the possession of outward things".[4]
He declared in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding that "the highest
perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of
true and solid happiness".[5]
In Section 134 of The Doctrine and Covenants[6],
Joseph Smith, Jr. sets forth the lawful purposes of governments and what they
must do to retain the loyalty of the governed.
He begins by asserting that governments are not an invention
of humanity, rather they are instituted by God for the benefit of humanity. He further states that God holds us
accountable for our actions relating to both making and administering
laws. This places a solemn and eternal responsibility
on those in government to use their offices “for the good and safety of
society.”[7]
In the second verse of this section, Joseph, speaking on behalf
of the Saints and according to the will of God goes on to define what
governments must do to merit the allegiance of the governed.
“We believe that no government can
exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure
to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of
property, and the protection of life.”[8]
Joseph lists as inviolate, the rights to free exercise of
conscience, control of property, and protection of life. These are entirely consistent with the views
expressed in The Declaration of Independence and by John Locke. We further see these rights explicitly
defended in The Bill of Rights which amended the US Constitution for the
express purpose of clarifying exactly what the people were expecting from the
government defined by the US Constitution.
The First Amendment directly addresses the importance of the
free exercise of conscience:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and
to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”[9]
The Founders of our nation encapsulated this right in the freedom
of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petitioning the government over grievances. Their language is clear in prohibiting the
government from making any laws in these areas.
Joseph Smith elaborated and clarified the freedom of
religion.
“We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men
are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their
religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of
others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in
prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms
for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain
crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress
the freedom of the soul.”[10]
Some key points are worthy of call outs.
- Men are accountable only to God for their
exercise of religion.
- Government can only interfere with religion when
religion is infringing on the rights and liberties of others.
This latter point helps to clarify further the proper relationship
between religions and government.
It also serves to highlight the fact that government exists
to protect the rights and liberties of each individual against all forces seeking
to deprive them of their rights and liberties. These forces may be foreign governments,
corporations, individuals, or even domestic governments. This latter point is one of the rare
instances where the Federal Government, usually after a ruling from the US
Supreme Court, is authorized to interfere with actions or ordinances enacted by
the sovereign governments of our state and local governments.
An additional right:
·
The right to self-defense: “…all men are
justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the
government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in
times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and
relief afforded.”[11]
The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights speaks directly
to this point. It reads:
“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of
a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed.”[12]
Many people have gotten themselves so wrapped up in the word
“militia” in this amendment that they often ignore the mandate that this right “shall
not be infringed.” The facts are that a posse which consisted of deputized citizens acting under the leadership and
authority of law enforcement, have often been referred to a militia. A militia is simply a group of citizens
organized to defend their rights against one or more individuals threatening to
deprive them of their unalienable rights.
The Second Amendment asserts that the right of the people to
defend their inalienable rights by the use of deadly force, if necessary, is
not negotiable. No sane person doubts
the right of one nation to defend itself against the unlawful aggression of
another nation. This sovereign right to self-defense
is not one of the rights ceded by the sovereign people of the United States of
America as part of our social compact.
Joseph’s teachings curtail this right to “…times of
exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief
afforded.”[13]
Unavoidable Responsibilities
Unavoidable means: “unable to be avoided; inevitable.”
In verse 5 of Section 133 Joseph notes responsibilities that
people have whose rights are protected by their government.
“We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the
respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent
and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion
are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished
accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in
their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the
same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.”[14]
He notes that we are “bound to sustain and uphold” our
governments. What binds us is often
referred to as a social compact. In our
case the social compact is our Constitution.
It is a bilateral contract. The sovereign
individuals cede specific portions of their individual sovereignty to the
government in exchange for the commitment that the government will protect and preserve
the rights of the individuals against all enemies, foreign and domestic. To make the bilateral nature of this contract
clear, Joseph notes that the individuals are bound to support the government “while
protected in their inherent and inalienable rights.”
He goes on to point out that sedition and rebellion, seeking
to destroy the government, is a violation of this contract as long as the
government is doing its part.
In verse 6 he addresses an issue which is currently rocking
our nation. Today, many are calling for
the defunding of police departments and the abolition of them. Many people vilify the police and the courts,
regardless of their diligence while enforcing the law equally on all.
“We believe that every man should be honored in his station,
rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent
and the punishment of the guilty;”[15]
Can any rational person deny that our police departments fall
within the broad category of “magistrates?”
While they are not judges, without police to investigate crimes and
apprehend criminals, magistrates would be a title without function.
Joseph goes on to explain why we need civil laws and civil
governments.
“…human laws being instituted for the express purpose of
regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man;”[16]
Our civil laws, rightfully regulate interests and actions
between people, one to another, and nations one to another. He goes on to note that religious laws govern
our interests and actions between us and God, and that God holds us accountable
for our obedience to both civil and religious laws. However, he notes that religion has no right
to deprive people of their property, opinions, or lives and their lawful
punishments extend only to withdraw their fellowship and excommunicate them
from their society.[17]
In verse 9 the issue of the appropriate separation of church
and state is plainly addressed.
“We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with
civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another
proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its
members, as citizens, denied.”[18]
This is clarified by a portion of verse 4:
“…we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere
in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate
forms for public or private devotion;”[19]
This makes clear that religion is not to be banished from the
public square. Rather, government means
should not be used to curtail the rights of one religion versus another. All have equal right to be heard and to
influence, as long as they are not preaching sedition or infringing on the
rights of individuals.
I note that these principles stand in sharp contrast to Sharia
Law promulgated by Islam. Sharia asserts
that religious government is the only legitimate government and that the ruler
has the obligation to kill those who do not believe in Islam.
Likewise what Joseph is teaching is sharply contrasting to
the current “Cancel Culture” which seeks to deprive people of their rights
because their views are not acceptable to a certain segment of society. They seek to force individual and collective conformance
with their views by threatening to deprive those who dissent of the safety of
their homes and their ability to provide for themselves and their family.
A few other responsibilities called out in Section 133 are:
- All men should step forward and use their
ability in bringing offenders against good laws to punishment.[20]
- Vigilantism is condemned, “…men should appeal to
the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is
inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws
exist as will protect the same;”[21]
Invented Rights
Today, the words rights and entitlements are often used interchangeably,
and perhaps incorrectly. Too often our political
leaders speak only of entitlements and not of responsibilities. We are told today that we have a right to affordable
health care. We have a right to a dignified
retirement. We have a right to choose
our gender. These are invented rights,
not inalienable ones. As evidence, note
how many governments have existed in relative peace when these so-called rights
didn’t exist. Regardless, if these
invented rights done come with commensurate responsibilities, they are not real
rights. Instead, they are issues used by power-mongers to enhance their power
and wealth at the expense of others.
Rights are wonderful things.
A right bespeaks of an entitlement.
Something which should not be abridged or denied. It is also an often-misused word today. Rights or entitlements are used to justify
massive transfers of wealth from the hands of those who worked to earn the wealth
into the hands of those who want to administer these entitlements.
Throughout history healthcare has often been unavailable no
matter how much you were willing to pay for it.
Sometimes, what passed for healthcare, bought by the wealthy, was horrible
and counterproductive. Hospitals in the
USA are not allowed to refuse basic, emergency health care to anyone, without
regard to their ability to pay for it. In
the past, these treatments were often paid for by charitable organizations or
reserve funds of the hospitals set up specifically for this purpose.
Affordable healthcare is a mantra designed to disguise
forcing doctors and medical institutions to give up their compensation for the
services they provide.
Retirement, dignified or otherwise, has never been a
right. Throughout history, most people
were compelled by necessity to work for their food and shelter until death
claimed them. Retirement was a term used
to refer to one force leaving a battlefield, usually in defeat. Pensions from industry or for military
service were typically more of a token payment than anything that could keep people
housed and fed. Personal retirement required
prudent and successful financial management throughout life. In most cases retirement plans consisted of
having many children who would continue to work the land or business and
support their infirm parents and their own children.
During The Great Depression images of aged and infirm people
unable to support themselves were used to motivate lawmakers in the USA to shift
the responsibility of planning for retirement from individuals to the
government. Wise individuals can look at
the Social Security system of the USA and see through the words “Trust Fund” to
realize it for the Ponzi Scheme it is.
At some point, such a system will inevitably collapse because it is not
built on honest and sustainable financial principles or practices.
Individuals have a responsibility to take measures to
provide for their own retirement. While
it is arguable that their children may owe them support in their retirement,
their neighbors certainly have no such legal obligation to impoverish
themselves to any degree for the benefit of others. Only the laws of God can, and should, drive
us to sacrifice our own means to assist the poor among us, so that they can
have the food, shelter, and clothing they need.
Government exists to protect our inalienable rights from predators, not
to provide for our shelter and feeding.
The right to choose your gender is something very recent and
utterly unscientific. This notion,
concocted for the sole purpose of destroying the nuclear family and societies
built on that family, purports that the genetic dictates of biology can somehow
be obviated simply by an act of will.
While we all have our rights of conscience, those who believe in things
which are demonstrably and invariably false have always been considered irrational
and insane. To believe we can choose our
gender, in the face of biological facts to the contrary, is akin to believing
we can choose for the world around us to be dark at mid-day simply because we believe
it should be nighttime.
These invented rights all have the commonality that they are
presented devoid of any responsibilities.
Affordable healthcare is presented as a right without the responsibility
to pay for it. Dignified retirement is
presented as a right without the responsibility to manage your own resources and
appetites to provide for it. Gender-preference
is presented as a right without the responsibility to acknowledge and
accommodate biological reality.
Another current trend is the notion that the needs of the
many outweigh the rights of the few, or the one. Progressives today are touting a social doctrine
call intersectionality to identify new minorities. Proponents of Intersectionality push the notion
that the rights of those within the categories which overlap must be protected
even if it destroys the rights of the individual. They posit that these group rights are more
important than individual rights.
The dictionary defines intersectionality as “the
interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender
as they apply to a given individual or group, regarded as creating overlapping
and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage.”
As noted in the definition, each category is assumed to
carry with it some elements of discrimination or disadvantage. Advantages which
may come from any category, or categories, are discounted, except when
attempting to broadly paint another categorical intersection as inherently and
uniformly oppressive to others. Oppression
is another way of expressing the notion that someone is interfering with the
inalienable rights of another.
The irony of intersectionality is that if you apply enough categories,
you eventually will reduce the size of the minority down to a group of one
individual[22]. Carrying through their logic to its inevitable conclusion brings us full circle to the notion that government
exists to protect the rights of the individual. In fact,
the only meaningful protection of our inalienable rights must be carried out at
the individual level, because within any group there are some individuals who
suffer from oppression and other individuals who oppress.
An examination of the rights enumerated in this category as
unalienable will reveal that they support the underlying, eternal principle of the
sacrosanct moral agency of every individual.
The Atoning Sacrifice of Jesus Christ was done for the sole
purpose of preserving our agency and making it both real and worthwhile. When Adam fell, he and all his descendants were
forever cut off from the ability to return to God because the justice of God
says that no unclean thing can dwell in His presence. There is nothing any of
us can do to subvert the justice of that law.
Uncleanliness would be burnt up in the presence of God. It would be a never-ending torment to be
unclean in the presence of God.
The Atonement of Jesus Christ opened an avenue whereby, if
we heed the Savior, he will make us clean before we are presented to the
Father. In that cleaned condition, we
can dwell with Him forever in happiness and joy.
Every truly inalienable right inevitably brings with it unavoidable
responsibilities.
Our unalienable rights to life, liberty, property, and the
pursuit of happiness bring with them the unavoidable responsibilities. Our rights may be gifted to us by God, but as
with any gift they bring with them a responsibility to preserve and defend
them. To preserve and protect our rights
we must:
Joseph Smith, and the Founding Fathers both spoke of
unalienable rights which come to us from God, meaning we own them and are responsible
for our use and preservation of them.
They do not come to us from other men, or from our governments. Therefore, we cannot utterly delegate our responsibilities
for these rights either to our neighbors or our government. If we accept the rights, we must also own the
ultimate responsibility to maintain them.
