I rarely write about religious topics unless they have to do with politics and politicians, or terrorism, which is intrinsically intertwined with religious dogma of a sinister kind.
Yet from time to time writing about religious beliefs is unavoidable, particularly when it comes to understanding the founding of our Republic and the views of the persons who founded it.
True, not all of the Founders where Christian, but most were officially affiliated with a Christian congregation. And they wrote at length about their views, including references to Jesus Christ.
The authors of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were clearly convinced that human rights are not the invention of men and women, nor are these rights 'granted' by government.
Rather, they saw liberty as God-given. And all human beings are endowed with these liberties by their Creator, no matter what governments say. Governments may recognize and protect these God-given rights, or they may detest them and refuse to recognize them, much to the peril of the citizens.
Thus, the U.S. Government does not and cannot 'grant' the right to bear firearms, the right to speak freely without government restriction, and the like. These are pre-existing rights granted to human beings by God. The only thing the U.S. Government can do is recognize and protect these God-given rights, IF it chooses to do so.
The Founders believed that our form of government is unique in that it has chosen to recognize and protect these God-given rights.
But each succeeding generation is charged with the responsibility to make sure that the vision of the Founders is preserved and protected from tyrants and despots, wolves in sheep's clothing, who incessantly attempt to rob the citizens of these rights.
As a Christian, therefore, I believe that my rights are given by Christ Himself. As the Bible states, 'If the Son makes you free, you are free indeed.' And, I believe that it is incumbent upon me to fight to protect these rights from those within our own country who apparently have no more regard for the Constitution than they do for Hitler's Mein Kampf.
Further, I believe it is my responsibility as a Christian to fight for the rights of non-Christians every bit as fervently as I do for that of Christians. All of those who believe in human liberty that is unfettered and unrestricted by oppressive government has been enlightened to that truth whether they are Christian or not.
This means that Jews, Buddhists, moderate Muslims, and those with no religious beliefs are part of the same team if they believe that basic human rights are inherent and not 'created,' 'given,' or 'granted' by government. Rights stand totally apart from and outside government.
Thus, on this Easter Sunday, I can celebrate the fact that Christ lives and has made it possible for the entire human race to be truly free.
It is to that end that The Liberty Sphere is dedicated...just so you know where we stand.
Happy Easter!
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Great post!
Thank-you much.
I have to disagree on a technicality. God (or nature) did not grant a right to bear arms. The right is one of self-defense (life, really). Arms are the natural way in which our species defends itself.
But if the right to bear arms is an outgrowth of the right to self-defense, isn't the specific manner in which we do so part and parcel of that right?
In other words, the right to life or self-defense would be entirely meaningless without the right to bear arms. Thus, that right is also inherent.
If we take the view that the right to bear arms is no natural, God-given right, would it then not play right into the hands of the rights-bashers and anti-gunners?
After all, they could then come back and say that since the 2nd Amendment refers to no natural, God-given right, then they can simply change it, restrict it, and work to remove that right from the Constitution entirely?
I am not attempting to bait you or be argumentative. I truly want to read your opinion on my questions.
First, it is arms not firearms, which is a technicality, true, but goes to the intent.
We have a right to self-defense regardless of the 2d Amendment.
The 2d was designed to prevent tyranny of the government.
I agree 100% with your last statement, but the 'arms' spoken of within the context of the 2nd Amendment cannot be construed as meaning anything but firearms, if one considers the views of the Framers at the time.
And I never suggested that we need the 2nd Amendment to grant the right to self-defense, but it certain protects that right, as well as protects us from government tyranny.
You are right that self-defense is inherent, but I maintain that right is totally meaningless unless it is recognized and accepted that self-defense will involve firearms.
They said arms so that the language didn't limit to any particular arms. Firearms are included, as will be phasers.
Our natural (unalienable) right to life relies, at this time, on being able to defend ourselves with firearms. This was not true 1000 years ago and it may not be true in 1000 years. Firearms are a tool of the moment.
I guess I'm just being picky here, but this isn't really about firearms, in my opinion.
You make an excellent point. I suppose my point of contention is that our right to self-defense must include weapons...even those that are used that, if there should come a day when firearms are rendered obsolete, we have a right to whatever the standard means of self-defense may be.
Thus, my point is that the right of self-defense must, by necessity, include protections for the weapons that are used to that end.
Post a Comment