A new, ethical, church proposal

[Gdjjr]

In your case, whatever the created thing that your life revolves around. It could be any number of things but it’s the thing that you obsess over.

That's pretty ambiguous- the only thing I obsess over is the Truth- all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights- I do enjoy a lot of things though like those mentioned above- but I don't worship anything- I have a great deal of admiration for men who have a talent I don't have- does that count? I express a love of sunshine and a strong southwest wind- does that count? Love? I love Outlaw Sprint Car racing- does that count? I envy a good story teller- is that a sin? But, I obsess over only one thing as stated above- is that worship? Because I believe that is everyone held it as I do the world would be a better place? Nah- I don't have reverence for it- I simply have a great deal of respect for it-

 

[Gdjjr]

Right. Words like lip service have meaning.

You mean like the lesser of two evils you vote for? That kind of lip service- I do at least have the courage of my convictions to address your thoughts yet you keep disrespecting me by not answering my question- is that christian charity? Or is christianity merely lip service paid?

 

[ding]

In your case, whatever the created thing that your life revolves around. It could be any number of things but it’s the thing that you obsess over.

That's pretty ambiguous- the only thing I obsess over is the Truth- all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights- I do enjoy a lot of things though like those mentioned above- but I don't worship anything- I have a great deal of admiration for men who have a talent I don't have- does that count? I express a love of sunshine and a strong southwest wind- does that count? Love? I love Outlaw Sprint Car racing- does that count? I envy a good story teller- is that a sin? But, I obsess over only one thing as stated above- is that worship? Because I believe that is everyone held it as I do the world would be a better place? Nah- I don't have reverence for it- I simply have a great deal of respect for it-

There’s nothing ambiguous about it. It’s whatever you obsess over. Could be drugs or booze or money or sex or power or pleasure or yourself. The only way I will know would be to watch what you do.

But don’t kid yourself. You worship something. You’re a materialist for crying out loud.

 

[ding]

Right. Words like lip service have meaning.

You mean like the lesser of two evils you vote for? That kind of lip service- I do at least have the courage of my convictions to address your thoughts yet you keep disrespecting me by not answering my question- is that christian charity? Or is christianity merely lip service paid?

That’s not lip service. Lip service rationalizes doing wrong as a right.

When Truman dropped two nukes on Japan he didn’t argue he was doing good. He argued it was the lesser of two evils but evil nonetheless.

 

[ding]

I don't worship him, but he was one smart Individual- I only learned about the below lately- he also penned the words, all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights- the Truth- it was true yesterday, it's true to day and will be true tomorrow- while knowledge will evolve- as does religious dogma and is the cause of conflict because many take it seriously enough to kill just to show their morally superior belief is, well, morally superior- (think the only good Indian is a dead Indian for example) and that, my friends, is from an alleged Christian nation who believes it's god is superior to others gods- yet, defend with their life jews, whose beliefs don't align with christianity = confusion on my part- but, I digress

Jefferson's Religious Beliefs | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello

Thomas Jefferson’s religious beliefs have long been a subject of public discussion, and were a critical topic in several of his important political campaigns as he was viciously and unfairly attacked for alleged atheism.

Jefferson took the issue of religion very seriously. A man of the Enlightenment, he certainly applied to himself the advice which he gave to his nephew Peter Carr in 1787: "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."1 Jefferson read broadly on the topic, including studying different religions, and while he often claimed that religion was a private matter “between Man & his God,” he frequently discussed religion.2

If he were alive to day, I wonder which God he's subscribe to? Christian, Jewish, Islamic?
Oh wait!

Jefferson and Christianity
While Jefferson was a firm theist, the God in which he believed was not the traditional Christian divinity. Jefferson rejected the notion of the Trinity and Jesus’ divinity. He rejected Biblical miracles, the resurrection, the atonement, and original sin (believing that God could not fault or condemn all humanity for the sins of others, a gross injustice).10 In neither the eighteenth century nor today would most people consider a person with those views a “Christian.”

Given these views, Jefferson’s relationship with Christianity was complicated. He believed that Jesus was the “first of human sages,” noting that his philosophy, “freed from the corruptions of later times” – including Jesus’ divinity, resurrection, and miracles – “is far superior” to others because Jesus preached “universal philanthropy, not only to kindred and friends, to neighbors and countrymen, but to all mankind….”11 With this in mind, Jefferson said that Christianity would be the best religion in a republic, especially one like the United States with a broad diversity of ethnicities and religions. “[T]he Christian religion when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy] have inveloped it, and brought to the original purity & simplicity of its benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, & the freest expression of the human mind,” he explained.12

It was a “benign religion … inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude and love of man, acknowledging and adoring an overruling providence.”13 Based on these understandings, Jefferson demonstrated a deep, even devout, admiration of Jesus, “the purity & sublimity of his moral precepts, the eloquence of his inculcations, the beauty of the apologues in which he conveys them...”14 At times, Jefferson described these moral and ethical teachings of Jesus as “primitive christianity” before its perversion by church leaders seeking temporal power.15

It was in this context that Jefferson said that “I am a Christian,” a quote which is often repeated or referred to without context. What he said was “I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he [Jesus] wished anyone to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other.”16 What he embraced was Jesus’ moral and ethical philosophy, a “rational creed . . . universal & eternal,” what he elsewhere terms “Christianism.”17 Similarly, at one point he seemed to endorse “deism,” but only after defining the term as simply a belief in one god, more accurately “monotheism.”18

Interesting story but the Founding Fathers believed that virtue and religion were necessary to maintain freedom and liberty. Even Thomas Jefferson.

 

[Gdjjr]

OMFG you didn't read it.
They dont believe in a satan or a god of any type except themselves.
Iy is about individuality and personal liberty.
Arent you too old to lie?

I read what you wrote, not the links- I don't believe in Satan so how is that lying? I don't necessarily believe in individualism either- I know without Individual effort nothing happens- I know the stories throughout History are about the Individual and the group is but a supporting cast- I know the greater good occurs through Individual effort not because of law or legislation or one group forcing his will on another- I know it can grow exponentially- I know the seed of Liberty when it takes root is a plant of rapid growth- I also know plants need tending- I know it's an arduous task- I know I have internal conflict about being glad I'm the age I am and wishing I was younger knowing what I know today- I know everyone has the right to choose what they do and forcing it serves no meaning, lasting purpose- I know that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction- I know people don't like being told they're wrong in spite of the hard evidence proving what they believe is inaccurate- I know calling someone a liar is a weak attempt to prove something-

 

[ding]

you keep disrespecting me by not answering my question- is that christian charity? Or is christianity merely lip service paid?

It doesn’t take much for you to feel disrespected, does it? Why don’t you call me an asswipe again and maybe you will feel better.

 

[Gdjjr]

Interesting story but the Founding Fathers believed that virtue and religion were necessary to maintain freedom and liberty. Even Thomas Jefferson.

Indeed they did- I simply believe virtue can be achieved without religion- like any other thing in life it's a choice- I also know that religion caused plenty of innocent deaths by creating conflict-

 

[Gdjjr]

It doesn’t take much for you to feel disrespected, does it? Why don’t you call me an asswipe again and maybe you will feel better.

Why don't you answer my questions? Is that not disrespectful? Or since you're religious you don't feel you have to? Is that christian moral superiority? Or just personal arrogance? Or is it possible you can't legitimately answer them?

 

[ding]

Interesting story but the Founding Fathers believed that virtue and religion were necessary to maintain freedom and liberty. Even Thomas Jefferson.

Indeed they did- I simply believe virtue can be achieved without religion- like any other thing in life it's a choice- I also know that religion caused plenty of innocent deaths by creating conflict-

The Founding Fathers would disagree with you that virtue can be maintained without religion. They believed exactly the opposite.

You keep saying that you know religion caused plenty of innocent deaths but I don’t believe you really know that.

 

[RodISHI]

In your case, whatever the created thing that your life revolves around. It could be any number of things but it’s the thing that you obsess over.

That's pretty ambiguous- the only thing I obsess over is the Truth- all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights- I do enjoy a lot of things though like those mentioned above- but I don't worship anything- I have a great deal of admiration for men who have a talent I don't have- does that count? I express a love of sunshine and a strong southwest wind- does that count? Love? I love Outlaw Sprint Car racing- does that count? I envy a good story teller- is that a sin? But, I obsess over only one thing as stated above- is that worship? Because I believe that is everyone held it as I do the world would be a better place? Nah- I don't have reverence for it- I simply have a great deal of respect for it-

Just curious here. Can you clarify for me the obsession you say you have for "Truth". If every human is created equal would this mean in your opinion that all have options for the choices that they make?

 

[ding]

It doesn’t take much for you to feel disrespected, does it? Why don’t you call me an asswipe again and maybe you will feel better.

Why don't you answer my questions? Is that not disrespectful? Or since you're religious you don't feel you have to? Is that christian moral superiority? Or just personal arrogance? Or is it possible you can't legitimately answer them?

No. It’s not disrespectful because you are asking logical fallacy questions. If anything you are being disrespectful by asking questions like that.

Ask honest questions and you’ll get honest answers.

 

[Gdjjr]

That’s not lip service. Lip service rationalizes doing wrong as a right.

When Truman dropped two nukes on Japan he didn’t argue he was doing good. He argued it was the lesser of two evils but evil nonetheless.

Excuse me- how far back do you want to go? How about Lincoln? Washington? The only politician I have respect for besides Jefferson in Davy Crockett- politicians ALL pay lip service- maybe you're to blinded to notice- the constitution has gained nothing but lip service since before the ink was dry- Liberty and Justice for all- shall not be infringed- want more evidence?
We have over 200 years worth- simple because, IMO, a lack of respect for the Individual-

Here- read this essay for starters- then tell me about lip service.

CDZ - Confusion

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

I may be repetitive a couple of times, but it is to put the rulings into their proper context.

Let us define this word unalienable a bit more closely and then talk about it:

Unalienable -Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred. (Blacks Law Dictionary online)

So, let us recap:

You have Rights that preceded the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

Those Rights are natural, inherent, absolute, unalienable, and God given (regardless of whether you acknowledge a God or not)

Those unalienable Rights are not transferable

Now, let me give you another court ruling:

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted..."
BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

That last ruling is from the United States Supreme Court

So, the government did not create those rights NOR do they grant them. Your unalienable Rights do not depend upon the government for their existence. The earliest court decisions confirmed this principle. Let me use the Right to keep and bear Arms as an example. The right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your Liberty AND the Right to Life. Let’s view your Rights in light of court decisions:

According to Wikipedia:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."


Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

So, once again, The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right, but it was not granted by the Constitution, neither is it dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. It is above the law and the lawmaking power and it is absolute. By any and all definitions, the Right to keep and bear Arms is a personal Liberty and it is an extension of your Right to Life. That is another way of saying that the Right is an unalienable Right.

So, your basic unalienable Rights are the Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. These are Rights you gained upon birth and do not owe anyone a duty in order to exercise them. We know, however, that the reality is a bit different, but this Manual will go in depth to explain WHY and WHAT you can do about it. For now, we will focus on these unalienable Rights.

Unalienable Rights are rooted in our foundational principles and first talked about in the Declaration of Independence. Of this document (the Declaration) Thomas Jefferson stated:

“The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and of the rights of man.”

Of course having said that, we must talk a bit about the authority of the Declaration of Independence. Some people will tell you that the Declaration of Independence is not law; they will say it is not binding; some will even tell you it is something other than what the author of the Declaration of Independence claimed it was. So, let’s dispel the myths so that you fully understand your Rights.

The Declaration of Independence is at the head of the United States Code, the official laws of the United States. Okay, so it is not the Constitution, a statute, or court ruling. But, it is part of the organic law of the United States by virtue of its place in the United States Code. It IS the declaratory charter of our Rights and the Rights of man; therefore it is a foundational principle upon which the Republic was founded.

The Declaration of Independence has been used as persuasive authority in court cases all the way up to the United States Supreme Court (in a later chapter, we will examine what persuasive authority means.) In one case the United States Supreme Court ruled:

“The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "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. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."

Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)

The early courts (including the United States Supreme Court) clearly ruled that unalienable Rights predate the Constitution, and so they ruled accordingly.

So, back to the discussion of your Rights…

Having defined unalienable Rights, what happened to them between the ratification of the Declaration of Independence and today?

Patrick Henry refused to sign the Constitution. Since the proceedings were held in secret, Henry became famous for saying he “smelled a rat.” And, while the Constitution did not mention our Rights, the Constitution was opposed by Anti-Federalists until they included the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights is the equivalent of a codification of our declaratory charter (Declaration of Independence) founding principles.

Grammarists and some historians will tell you that unalienable and inalienable are the same thing. In law, this is not true. I suspect that the confusion is what has led the United States Supreme Court to usurp the authority given to the other two branches of government and wage a war against the de jure (that is lawful) Constitution. Let’s define an inalienable right. A court ruling makes an important distinction:


“Inalienable Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights” Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101 (1952)


Courts have the power to define terminology. If you look at the Declaration of Independence, it is specific. The word is unalienable. Today, most people (especially liberals) want to use the word inalienable… and they can point out the fact that the words were interchangeable in Jefferson’s time. They key controlling word there is were. The words were interchangeable, but whether by accident or design, the word inalienable is not used as a synonym for unalienable. Remember that an unalienable Right is absolute, inherent, natural, God given and cannot be aliened.


An inalienable right CAN be aliened. The court rules that you can consent to relinquishing the right. This very point may very well be the greatest takeaway you can get from this. So, if these inalienable rights can be aliened, they are NOT, repeat NOT unalienable Rights and lights, alarms, bells, and whistles ought to be going off every time you hear that word inalienable.


The source of your unalienable Rights, according to the Declaration of Independence, is your Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) They are above the law, so we know today that is not what is practiced at the federal level. For example, in 2008 the famous Heller decision came down from the United States Supreme Court. The Court ruled:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570 (2008)

What??? Wait a minute. What did the founders say?

“Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature” Benjamin Franklin

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” Patrick Henry

“...rightful Liberty is unobstructed action according to our own will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual"
— Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Isaac H. Tiffany - 1819)


"Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824


What happened? After all we looked at relative to unalienable Rights… unchangeable, absolute, natural, inherent, God given Rights, the United States Supreme Court reverses all those precedents we discussed earlier. How? And did they have the authority?

 

[ding]

That’s not lip service. Lip service rationalizes doing wrong as a right.

When Truman dropped two nukes on Japan he didn’t argue he was doing good. He argued it was the lesser of two evils but evil nonetheless.

Excuse me- how far back do you want to go? How about Lincoln? Washington? The only politician I have respect for besides Jefferson in Davy Crockett- politicians ALL pay lip service- maybe you're to blinded to notice- the constitution has gained nothing but lip service since before the ink was dry- Liberty and Justice for all- shall not be infringed- want more evidence?
We have over 200 years worth- simple because, IMO, a lack of respect for the Individual-

Here- read this essay for starters- then tell me about lip service.

CDZ - Confusion

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

I may be repetitive a couple of times, but it is to put the rulings into their proper context.

Let us define this word unalienable a bit more closely and then talk about it:

Unalienable -Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred. (Blacks Law Dictionary online)

So, let us recap:

You have Rights that preceded the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

Those Rights are natural, inherent, absolute, unalienable, and God given (regardless of whether you acknowledge a God or not)

Those unalienable Rights are not transferable

Now, let me give you another court ruling:

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted..."
BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

That last ruling is from the United States Supreme Court

So, the government did not create those rights NOR do they grant them. Your unalienable Rights do not depend upon the government for their existence. The earliest court decisions confirmed this principle. Let me use the Right to keep and bear Arms as an example. The right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your Liberty AND the Right to Life. Let’s view your Rights in light of court decisions:

According to Wikipedia:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."


Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

So, once again, The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right, but it was not granted by the Constitution, neither is it dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. It is above the law and the lawmaking power and it is absolute. By any and all definitions, the Right to keep and bear Arms is a personal Liberty and it is an extension of your Right to Life. That is another way of saying that the Right is an unalienable Right.

So, your basic unalienable Rights are the Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. These are Rights you gained upon birth and do not owe anyone a duty in order to exercise them. We know, however, that the reality is a bit different, but this Manual will go in depth to explain WHY and WHAT you can do about it. For now, we will focus on these unalienable Rights.

Unalienable Rights are rooted in our foundational principles and first talked about in the Declaration of Independence. Of this document (the Declaration) Thomas Jefferson stated:

“The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and of the rights of man.”

Of course having said that, we must talk a bit about the authority of the Declaration of Independence. Some people will tell you that the Declaration of Independence is not law; they will say it is not binding; some will even tell you it is something other than what the author of the Declaration of Independence claimed it was. So, let’s dispel the myths so that you fully understand your Rights.

The Declaration of Independence is at the head of the United States Code, the official laws of the United States. Okay, so it is not the Constitution, a statute, or court ruling. But, it is part of the organic law of the United States by virtue of its place in the United States Code. It IS the declaratory charter of our Rights and the Rights of man; therefore it is a foundational principle upon which the Republic was founded.

The Declaration of Independence has been used as persuasive authority in court cases all the way up to the United States Supreme Court (in a later chapter, we will examine what persuasive authority means.) In one case the United States Supreme Court ruled:

“The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "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. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."

Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)

The early courts (including the United States Supreme Court) clearly ruled that unalienable Rights predate the Constitution, and so they ruled accordingly.

So, back to the discussion of your Rights…

Having defined unalienable Rights, what happened to them between the ratification of the Declaration of Independence and today?

Patrick Henry refused to sign the Constitution. Since the proceedings were held in secret, Henry became famous for saying he “smelled a rat.” And, while the Constitution did not mention our Rights, the Constitution was opposed by Anti-Federalists until they included the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights is the equivalent of a codification of our declaratory charter (Declaration of Independence) founding principles.

Grammarists and some historians will tell you that unalienable and inalienable are the same thing. In law, this is not true. I suspect that the confusion is what has led the United States Supreme Court to usurp the authority given to the other two branches of government and wage a war against the de jure (that is lawful) Constitution. Let’s define an inalienable right. A court ruling makes an important distinction:


“Inalienable Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights” Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101 (1952)


Courts have the power to define terminology. If you look at the Declaration of Independence, it is specific. The word is unalienable. Today, most people (especially liberals) want to use the word inalienable… and they can point out the fact that the words were interchangeable in Jefferson’s time. They key controlling word there is were. The words were interchangeable, but whether by accident or design, the word inalienable is not used as a synonym for unalienable. Remember that an unalienable Right is absolute, inherent, natural, God given and cannot be aliened.


An inalienable right CAN be aliened. The court rules that you can consent to relinquishing the right. This very point may very well be the greatest takeaway you can get from this. So, if these inalienable rights can be aliened, they are NOT, repeat NOT unalienable Rights and lights, alarms, bells, and whistles ought to be going off every time you hear that word inalienable.


The source of your unalienable Rights, according to the Declaration of Independence, is your Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) They are above the law, so we know today that is not what is practiced at the federal level. For example, in 2008 the famous Heller decision came down from the United States Supreme Court. The Court ruled:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570 (2008)

What??? Wait a minute. What did the founders say?

“Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature” Benjamin Franklin

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” Patrick Henry

“...rightful Liberty is unobstructed action according to our own will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual"
— Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Isaac H. Tiffany - 1819)


"Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824


What happened? After all we looked at relative to unalienable Rights… unchangeable, absolute, natural, inherent, God given Rights, the United States Supreme Court reverses all those precedents we discussed earlier. How? And did they have the authority?

I want to go back to the time of ratification and I want to stay on the subject of virtue and religion being necessary to maintain freedom and liberty.

Show me something they said that disproves that.

 

[ding]

You actually have to have something that discusses religion and liberty

 

[Gdjjr]

We seem to have strayed a bit

The church of "I"- non-religious but highly ethical coming together of Individuals, and "I" is not spelled me. No leader, no human authority, no God, no tax, no tithing, no baptizing, no hymns of praise, though zealotry is helpful. It's not dependent on the group dogma or rhetoric for sustainability. In fact "I" will outlive either. The evidence is History.

"I" is the first letter in the word individual. Without Individual effort nothing is accomplished. The stories, songs, etc., are always about an Individual. The group is but a supporting cast.

The only requirement being the taking to heart that all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights- unalienable is not inalienable. No rules or rituals involved, just Individual effort. To take to heart requires Individual effort. Taking it to heart and acting it allows it to perpetuate itself. Perpetuation can gain orders of magnitude.
................

I don't understand why the reluctance- is it because the word church is used? Does the above imply something amiss?
Is there something that a particular sect finds unacceptable? Nowhere is religion demeaned- questioning in further threads leads to questioning religious beliefs- personal preference on dogma is immaterial for this concept-

Honestly I get tired of the political rhetoric in the news attacking christianity and propagandizing jewry- but that's not what this is about. I don't understand how any religion can look inward and outward without some sort of recognition that something somewhere is amiss- is it because it's my idea and not a religious leaders? Take the ball and run with it- see if I care. It's not about fame and/or fortune- it's a very simple concept that doesn't require a lot of memorizing quotes said to be from some form of whatever- all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights- btw, endowed by their Creator- it's been brought up that the founders believed men had to be religious and of virtue to make this gov't succeed- I think all it really requires is to recognize a Creator endowed choice- and, I'm not necessarily trying to make this gov't succeed- it's already an epic failure (based on it's original intent) and to keep doing the same thing over and over expecting different results isn't exactly a promising path- it's what's been done over and over, as has religious dogma that requires adherence to different rules for different sects to appease a particular theology-

There is but one requirement to belong to this union- take to heart what was endowed at birth and act accordingly- oh, and belonging is optional. I prefer not belonging to a group since the group will be disrespectful to the Individual- it will happen, it's not a matter of if, but when. However, when you hold dear a belief it will guide you in all you do- one belief over many makes it not only easy to recall it makes it easier to testify to- and doesn't christianity require witnessing? Isn't the best witnessing program setting an example that has a positive effect?

This is similar to my dispatches in the political forums- and in those forums I respond, when opportunity allows, with the idea that all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights and it applies to ALL situations, but especially political. And as with my politics I'm simply putting out information to encourage thinking- what the Individual does with it is, well, their choice- to which they have an endowed and unalienable right to until/unless they violate anothers right-

 

[Gdjjr]

to continue- typically I try to refrain from being verbose- it causes eyes to glaze over and minds to turn off- I attempt to be succinct and choose my words carefully because I have the belief that words mean things- I'm nether eloquent nor prosaic, but I do have a pretty good handle on simple English- running on inevitably comes full circle which is often called a circular argument- well, duh- arguments should come full circle- my argument, in this case, and most others, is; all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights (in spite of what the law says since rights pre date the constitution and are unaleinable as pointed out in the essay Porter Rockwell gave) - how christians, or any religious sect finds that offensive is beyond me - I am, however, open to evidence to the contrary and will consider it-

What I'm offering is a simple philosophy on life- that some, if not most, find it offensive is baffling.

 

[ding]

Right. Secular humanism isn’t a new thing.

 

[ding]

It’s just a dangerous thing. It naturally leads to communism.

 

[Gdjjr]

It’s just a dangerous thing. It naturally leads to communism.

It's pretty obvious you find being a humanitarian unacceptable- I had no idea communism was considered humanitarian- in fact it is grouping forced to accept a political/economic dogma which is the exact opposite of what I'm saying, so it's also pretty obvious you chose not to read what was written- it could, arguably, show you don't believe christianity will solve anything- since christianity is supposed to be charitable, right?

I've read that an Islamic tenet is to be charitable- like I said the reluctance to accept the Truth is baffling- add to that the reluctance or refusal to witness in a positive effort is baffling as well- but, like I said, I'm simply providing information, what one does with it is their choice-

It is also a choice to be intentionally obstinate in the face of evidence presented factually-

You pretend you have a moral high ground but the actions of christians proves that not to be the case- you simply, it would seem, are quite comfortable with the hypocrisy of double standards- so be it- it will change nothing- now you're down to one liners, pretentiously- that must mean you have no valid, solid argument- you are simply paying lip service to what end only you know for sure, I guess-