The Declaration of Independence and Unalienable Rights

[JonC]

On another thread I wanted to discuss the idea that we have God hiven entitlements in the form of unalienable rights (to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) in context of Scripture.

@Revmitchell rightly showed that most cannot divorce these "entitlements" from the Declaration of Independence (the reason that these "unalienable rights" are so known).

I think this could be an interesting discussion (and a different discussion from looking at God given human rights from Scripture). Thse rights are absent from Scripture but human rights - and more importantly the rights of a people- are central to our nation's conception and development.

So here is that thread.

The DOI has a specific context for these rights in line with a specific purpose (declaring and justifying the nation's independence).

My insistence is that the DOI deals with these rights within the context of a people (within a society). So let's explore the idea.

 

[JonC]

Ok....so thise few who wanted to hijack the other thread cannot be bothered for a discussion on their supposed interest?

 

[Revmitchell]

Since the author of the DOI and John lock himself believe they pulled their understanding of those rights from God and you have no where shown otherwise there is little to nothing to discuss

 

[JonC]

Since the author of the DOI and John lock himself believe they pulled their understanding of those rights from God and you have no where shown otherwise there is little to nothing to discuss

That is intellectually dishonest.

If it is God given then you have to prove it (it is illogical to demand I prove a negative).

And this is a different context

Unalienable rights in the DOI can be taken away in the Constitution (try reading the Constitution). They pertain (per Constitution scholars) to rights within society.

You obviously do not understand the DOI.

 

[Revmitchell]

That is intellectually dishonest.

If it is God given then you have to prove it (it is illogical to demand I prove a negative).

And this is a different context

Unalienable rights in the DOI can be taken away in the Constitution (try reading the Constitution). They pertain (per Constitution scholars) to rights within society.

You obviously do not understand the DOI.

since you brought it up and made the assertion the onus is on you. Inaliable rights cannot be taken away. To say that means you do not understand not only the DOI but the constitution. )which I already knew)

you need to go back to school and learn the basics

 

[JonC]

since you brought it up and made the assertion the onus is on you. Inaliable rights cannot be taken away. To say that means you do not understand not only the DOI but the constitution. )which I already knew)

you need to go back to school and learn the basics

Wrong.

You can't even say unalienable.

You claim there are no provisions to deprive people the right to life and liberty BUT The 5th Ammendment provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. (You can also read the 14th Ammendment).

So yea, hero, the government CAN deprive people of those UNALIENABLE rights.

Once again you are wrong. Let me guess...you "studied" the Constitution in high school.

You have absolutely no clue when it comes to the US Constitution, do you? Have you bothered to read it? To study it? Or do you just make assumptions like you do here?

 

[JonC]

Not being familiar with th U.S. Constitution (or at least ammendments to the Constitution) @Revmitchell unwittingly brought up a point I was making regarding the nature of "unalienable rights" in the DOI.

The DOI uses language to express reasons a people (specifically the US) can rightfully (not biblically, but perhaps necessarily for the people) declare its independence from a parent nation.

But the context is a people (the DOI is not a declaration of rights. It is not, in fact, a legally bining document). But it expresses the concept upon which our nation is built and laws established.

Contrary to @Revmitchell 's insistence that the U.S. Constitution does not permit depriving people of the "God endowed unalienable right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness", the 5th Ammendment specifically states that persons will not be deprived those rights without the due process of the law.

A man can be deprived the right to property (even without criminal action). A man can be deprived liberty under the law (not only for crimes but for national security issues). And of course a man can be deprived of life.

The context is society as a whole. People have been involuntary held for mental issues, health issues, and national security issues. Convicted murders (whether truly guilty of the offense) have been deprived of life.

I cannot exercise my "unalienable rights" at the expense of another's "unalienable rights".

And the criteria is not "God's Law" but the nation's laws.

@Revmitchell has made the common mistake of treating the U.S. Constitution as a religious document.

 

[Revmitchell]

Not being familiar with th U.S. Constitution (or at least ammendments to the Constitution) @Revmitchell unwittingly brought up a point I was making regarding the nature of "unalienable rights" in the DOI.

The DOI uses language to express reasons a people (specifically the US) can rightfully (not biblically, but perhaps necessarily for the people) declare its independence from a parent nation.

But the context is a people (the DOI is not a declaration of rights. It is not, in fact, a legally bining document). But it expresses the concept upon which our nation is built and laws established.

Contrary to @Revmitchell 's insistence that the U.S. Constitution does not permit depriving people of the "God endowed unalienable right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness", the 5th Ammendment specifically states that persons will not be deprived those rights without the due process of the law.

A man can be deprived the right to property (even without criminal action). A man can be deprived liberty under the law (not only for crimes but for national security issues). And of course a man can be deprived of life.

The context is society as a whole. People have been involuntary held for mental issues, health issues, and national security issues. Convicted murders (whether truly guilty of the offense) have been deprived of life.

I cannot exercise my "unalienable rights" at the expense of another's "unalienable rights".

And the criteria is not "God's Law" but the nation's laws.

@Revmitchell has made the common mistake of treating the U.S. Constitution as a religious document.

Once again you have lied about me. This is getting to be a habit of yours. I never said that.

 

[JonC]

Once again you have lied about me. This is getting to be a habit of yours. I never said that.

The only thing I said you said is inalienable rights cannot be taken away. And that IS what you said -

Inaliable rights cannot be taken away. To say that means you do not understand not only the DOI but the constitution. )which I already knew)

you need to go back to school and learn the basics

You have no clue, brother. Stick to topics with which you are familiar and you will be fine. But here you are a reed in the wind. You literally just posted that inalienable rights cannot be taken away. Now you lie and say you never said that. You are being dishonest and you know it.

 

[canadyjd]

The founders wanted to declare independence from England. Many people in the colonies were loyal to England.

Many Christians who opposed rebellion would have used scripture (Romans 13) to demonstrate it was wrong biblically to rebel because the King had been put into place by God.

The founders appealed to the highest authority, (God), to justify rebellion. They laid out the argument that God gives all mankind inalienable rights (DOI) that have been trampled by the king.

Under the theory that “government at its best is a necessary evil” the new country wrestled with how to protect those rights from government while realizing the government has a role in the stability of the nation.

The compromise was the amendments where the citizens themselves decided under what circumstances their God given rights might be taken by the government.

peace to you

 

[Revmitchell]

The only thing I said you said is inalienable rights cannot be taken away. And that IS what you said -



You have no clue, brother. Stick to topics with which you are familiar and you will be fine. But here you are a reed in the wind. You literally just posted that inalienable rights cannot be taken away. Now you lie and say you never said that. You are being dishonest and you know it.

ummmm where did I say the constitution was a religious document. Never said that. Once again you obsfucate to deflect your dishonesty.

 

[JonC]

Look, @Revmitchell , you do not like my opinion that you are treating the Constitution (and the DOI) as religious documents. That is fine. You do not have to like or agree with my opinions.

But do not lie and say that I claimed you called the Constitution a religious document. That is dishonest and unbecoming a Christian.

So point taken. You disagree with my opinion of how you interact with the Constitution. Big whop.

More to the point (and what I DID say you claimed) -

You did that these inalienable rights cannot be taken from a person. You said that I did not understand the US Constitution because I said people can be deprived these rights.

The 5th Ammndment specifically states that people cannot be deprived the right to life or liberty or property without the due process of law.

How do you reconcile your belief that these inalienable rights cannot be taken with the 5th Ammendment which allows for them to be taken?

 

[Revmitchell]

Look, @Revmitchell , you do not like my opinion that you are treating the Constitution (and the DOI) as religious documents. That is fine. You do not have to like or agree with my opinions.

But do not lie and say that I claimed you called the Constitution a religious document. That is dishonest and unbecoming a Christian.

So point taken. You disagree with my opinion of how you interact with the Constitution. Big whop.

More to the point (and what I DID say you claimed) -

You did that these inalienable rights cannot be taken from a person. You said that I did not understand the US Constitution because I said people can be deprived these rights.

The 5th Ammndment specifically states that people cannot be deprived the right to life or liberty or property without the due process of law.

How do you reconcile your belief that these inalienable rights cannot be taken with the 5th Ammendment which allows for them to be taken?

Nope I said you don’t understand the constitution because you don’t understand the DOI. You do not understand it’s foundation. Until you can fully communicate an understanding of the phrase “ natures law and natures God”, why it was included and where The men who wrote the DOI got it from? Do you even know who John Lock is?

The foundation for the DOI and the constitution is in fact biblical principles. The job of the constitution is not to give rights but to limit government from unnecessarily infringing on those inalienable rights.

You, in your hyper pedantic state of just wanting to argue and trying to find some reason to be right has pulled out of your hat an extreme example of one of the necessary actions of government that, again, in a limited fashion performs a necessary evil. It doesn’t prove your point.

Not sure why that needs to be explained

 

[JonC]

Nope I said you don’t understand the constitution because you don’t understand the DOI. You do not understand it’s foundation. Until you can fully communicate an understanding of the phrase “ natures law and natures God”, why it was included and where The men who wrote the DOI got it from? Do you even know who John Lock is?

The foundation for the DOI and the constitution is in fact biblical principles. The job of the constitution is not to give rights but to limit government from unnecessarily infringing on those inalienable rights.

You, in your hyper pedantic state of just wanting to argue and trying to find some reason to be right has pulled out of your hat an extreme example of one of the necessary actions of government that, again, in a limited fashion performs a necessary evil. It doesn’t prove your point.

Not sure why that needs to be explained

You claim I do not understand the DOI or Constitution - which is an ignorant claim (it is, frankly, stupid). You do not know what I believe about the DOI or the U.S. Constitution. You do not know to what level I have studied those documents. I have not even discussed the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution except to say that the DOI is not a legally binding document and it explains the context under which a people would be justified in declaring their independence (hence the name), and that the 5th amendment provides that men shall not be deprived of the right to life or liberty without the due process of law (something you strongly deny).

I discussed the concept of men having the unalienable entitlement to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as misunderstood by many from the Declaration of Independence and explored the concept in general against Scripture. We disagreed there (you believe life, liberty and seeking happiness is a God given entitlement while I believe it a gift from God and based on God Himself (to include the prohibition of killing). But that was a theological discussion.

This is what I mean about you treating the Declaration of Independence as a religious document. When I discuss whether or not the principles are in Scripture (on the other thread) you could only discuss the DOI. As a Christian you should have been able to discuss Scripture as that was the topic and context.

But even here you fail. You denied that the 5th amendment allows room for the right to life and liberty to be deprived men except without due process of law.

Apparently it is you who have not understood (or read) the Constitution to include the 5th and 14th Amendments. The 5th Amendment specifically states that none of those rights we discussed (the right to life and liberty) will be taken away without the due process of law.

I ask again, Constitutional Expert, how do you reconcile the fact that the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that men can not be deprived of the right to life or liberty without the due process of law with your claim (your misunderstanding) that men cannot be deprived those unalienable rights under the Constitution?

 

[JonC]

My argument - the 5th and 14th amendment provides that men cannot be deprived of the right to life or liberty (or property) without the due process of law.

@Revmitchell 's argument -

since you brought it up and made the assertion the onus is on you. Inaliable rights cannot be taken away. To say that means you do not understand not only the DOI but the constitution. )which I already knew)

you need to go back to school and learn the basics

The 5th Amendment's statement: nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The 14th Amendment's statement: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Go back to school, Rev, or stick to discussing something you know. You are way over your head discussing even the most basic aspects of the DOI and U.S. Constitution.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

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; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
...

That's how the DOI starts out. A basic hangup seems to be its concept of "unalienable rights."

It would be useful to understand what alienable rights would be for contrast. Such are transferable, for example, property or labor. The essential meaning of "unalienable rights" is that, unlike property, they cannot be properly transferred; they are of a much different nature.

What “unalienable rights” does not mean is that they cannot be lost or violated. The DOI expressly notes that “governments are instituted among men” “to secure these rights.”

The DOI does not say that governments can guarantee “unalienable rights" won’t be violated, nor does it imply that one who violates the rights of another won’t lose his own. The point is “to secure these rights.” How that will be done is not established within the DOI, but it does point out some egregious violations by government itself, that is, doing the exact opposite of its intended function, namely “to secure these rights.”

Here are some useful links bearing on this matter.

The philosophers that influenced our Founding Fathers
Sparks Commentary: The philosophers that influenced our Founding Fathers

Why 'Unalienable'?
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/03/why_unalienable.html

Inalienable Rights
Inalienable Rights - Definition, Examples, Cases

Virginia Declaration of Rights – 1776 The Virginia Declaration of Rights
https://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/academics/founders/VirginiaDeclaration.pdf

 

[JonC]

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; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
...

That's how the DOI starts out. A basic hangup seems to be its concept of "unalienable rights."

It would be useful to understand what alienable rights would be for contrast. Such are transferable, for example, property or labor. The essential meaning of "unalienable rights" is that, unlike property, they cannot be properly transferred; they are of a much different nature.

What “unalienable rights” does not mean is that they cannot be lost or violated. The DOI expressly notes that “governments are instituted among men” “to secure these rights.”

The DOI does not say that governments can guarantee “unalienable rights" won’t be violated, nor does it imply that one who violates the rights of another won’t lose his own. The point is “to secure these rights.” How that will be done is not established within the DOI, but it does point out some egregious violations by government itself, that is, doing the exact opposite of its intended function, namely “to secure these rights.”

Here are some useful links bearing on this matter.

The philosophers that influenced our Founding Fathers
Sparks Commentary: The philosophers that influenced our Founding Fathers

Why 'Unalienable'?
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/03/why_unalienable.html

Inalienable Rights
Inalienable Rights - Definition, Examples, Cases

Virginia Declaration of Rights – 1776 The Virginia Declaration of Rights
https://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/academics/founders/VirginiaDeclaration.pdf

I agree in regard to the DOI. While I disagree with the idea God has actually given men the right to life (I do not believe salvation God's plan to protect our entitlements) the context of the DOI is government and society. The said, @Revmitchell is correct about the definition of unalienable (it does mean that it cannot be taken) but the context of the DOI and Constitution is different (it speaks of rights of a people under a government).

There is a lot written about the "pursuit of happiness", the "right to life", "liberty", and owing property.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I agree in regard to the DOI. While I disagree with the idea God has actually given men the right to life (I do not believe salvation God's plan to protect our entitlements) the context of the DOI is government and society. The said, @Revmitchell is correct about the definition of unalienable (it does mean that it cannot be taken) but the context of the DOI and Constitution is different (it speaks of rights of a people under a government).

There is a lot written about the "pursuit of happiness", the "right to life", "liberty", and owing property.

Did you mean that the contexts of the DOI and Constitution are different? Did the parenthetical statement refer to the latter only?

Your response skips over the important concept of needing to secure “unalienable rights.” The meaning of “unalienable rights” is what we are after, not a dictionary meaning of “unalienable” divorced from context. Needing to secure these rights indicates they can indeed be violated. If they could not be violated, there would be no need to secure them. The DOI in fact focuses on numerous rights violations, the guilty party being the British government, or rather its King.

Certainly much has been written about specific rights, including the unalienable ones highlighted in the DOI. But it’s that categorization of alienable vs. unalienable that seems to be a sticking point. The concept of being legally tranferrable or not is inherent in the DOI meaning. “Everywhere I go, there I am.”

 

[JonC]

Did you mean that the contexts of the DOI and Constitution are different? Did the parenthetical statement refer to the latter only?

Your response skips over the important concept of needing to secure “unalienable rights.” The meaning of “unalienable rights” is what we are after, not a dictionary meaning of “unalienable” divorced from context. Needing to secure these rights indicates they can indeed be violated. If they could not be violated, there would be no need to secure them. The DOI in fact focuses on numerous rights violations, the guilty party being the British government, or rather its King.

Certainly much has been written about specific rights, including the unalienable ones highlighted in the DOI. But it’s that categorization of alienable vs. unalienable that seems to be a sticking point. The concept of being legally tranferrable or not is inherent in the DOI meaning. “Everywhere I go, there I am.”

No. I do not mean the context of the DOI and Constitution are different. Both deal with these "unalienable rights", but the DOI is not (nor was it meant to be) legally binding.

Unalienable and inalienable mean the sane thing. The only difference I have read is some take unalienable to be rights by virtue of being human and inalienable to be rights that could be imoarted....but I do not think there us a difference.

That said, we have to deal with the fact that the 5th and 14th Ammendments provide that the right to life, liberty, and property can be deprived a person by the federal government (or in the case of the 14th Ammendment, a State government).

I am saying this is the sane type of rights offered in the DOI. There is a specific context related to the rights and governance of a people.

@Revmitchell flatly denies that men can be deprived the right to life and liberty because they are inalienable which (per the Constitution and history of our nation) is simply not true.

The 5th and 14th Ammendments not only speak of transferring the right to property but also if depriving men the right to life and liberty under the due process of law.

A thief can go to jail. A murderer can be executed. The sick can be quarantined. The unstable can be held for a period of time. All of this removes certain unalienable Rights, but it is within the scope of the law.

I am saying it is wrong to treat the DOI and the Constitution as a religious document describing divinely given human entitlements. That is the context of neither document.

 

[Revmitchell]

Jonc still ignores the phrase “laws of nature and natures God” it’s etymology and why the authors of the DOI put it in there.