Martin Luther King at the 1963 Civil Rights March on Washington, D.C. (from here)

Why the picture above? One of the oddball things about the civil rights movement that Martin Luther King helped to lead is this expression “civil rights”. It was certainly uncivil to deny blacks their rights as Americans, but the expression “civil rights” doesn’t add anything. Some people just used our racial differences as an excuse to deny other people their rights as Americans and as fellow human beings. Nothing new about that.

Ecclesiastes 1:9 New King James Version (NKJV)

That which has been is what will be,
That which is done is what will be done,
And there is nothing new under the sun.

This is the third part in a series designed to inspire debate on the nature of our Rights.

  • Part 1: Here we considered the definition of rights promoted by the Declaration of Independence.
  • Part 2: This part examined whether the Bible affirms whether or not our rights are God-given. In addition this part considered other views on that question.

What’s the topic of this post?

What Is The Argument For Government-given Rights?

Note that I have dealt with topic of government-given rights before, WHY WE DON’T CARE ABOUT THE PROTECTION OF OUR RIGHTS — PART 2 and CORRUPTED BY OUR SUPPOSED GENEROSITY — PART 4. While we may hit some of the same points, we will consider different references to provide a somewhat different perspective. We will also focus on the arguments for government-given rights as opposed to the arguments against government-given rights.

Here, Rights, is a short article provided by the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. Without trying to resolve the issue, the article defines current terminology, provides some history, and identifies the areas of conflict. Since the article is blessed with a high degree of clarity, it is well worth reading. What do the authors call a right?

What is a right? A right is a justified claim on others. For example, if I have a right to freedom, then I have a justified claim to be left alone by others. Turned around, I can say that others have a duty or responsibility to leave me alone. If I have a right to an education, then I have a justified claim to be provided with an education by society. (from here (scu.edu))

Keep in mind we are talking about “legal” rights. Leaving others in peace is fairly easy, but some people still won’t do it. What is the solution? We create a government that makes everyone leave everyone else in peace.

Does everyone want to pay for a government? No, but such a limited government is a relatively small expense, and everyone benefits. So the majority makes everyone pay. On the other hand, giving someone an education can be a costly affair. Who are we talking about educating? The whole world? How extensive an education? Just the 3 R’s or several doctorates?

Because the term “right” is often only vaguely defined, that is why the claim to a right has to be justified. Even when a right just requires us to leave our fellow citizens in peace, it cost us something: judges, lawyers, policemen, and juries. If we have external enemies, then we have to pay for military forces.

As the expenses go up, people begin to resist. Military forces are costly, and their job requires them to kill people and break things. That’s quite unpleasant. Still, most people have relatively little problem with government providing protection for their life, liberty, property rights, and religious choices. Many more balk when government forces them to redistribute their property to others for the sake of the “rights” of those others. That seem to be a different kind of rights. Here is how To Secure These Rights (from the Public Broadcasting Corporation) explains the difference.

All of the rights in the Bill of Rights are designed as limits on government. They say what government cannot do, not what it must do. Such limits are known as negative rights, versus the positive rights of requiring government to provide jobs and healthcare. For instance, the First Amendment forbids the government to ban freedom of speech in the public square. It does not say the government has to buy everyone a microphone so they can be heard. Similarly, the Bill of Rights protects freedom of petition so that citizens can lobby their legislatures for better schools, but it does not guarantee the right to public education. But in other countries, and in the United Nations, there are legal mandates for jobs, education, and healthcare. Nonetheless, these mandates are often difficult to enforce. (from here)

The Declaration of Independence speaks of what the “educated” now call negative rights. Positive or “welfare rights” followed the success of American Revolution. The Manifesto of the Communist Party (published1888) by Karl Marx eventually proved to be the most formidable document in favor of “welfare rights”. Marx’s philosophical attitude towards rights took off most strongly in the United States during the Great Depression. Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) stated it formally in his 1944 State of the Union Message to Congress address when he spoke of an “economic” or Second Bill of Rights. Of course, since Americans were still hardworking at this point, FDR did not peddle Communism or a list of welfare programs. Instead, he spoke of such things as government guarantees to a good paying job, fair competition for businessmen, a decent home, adequate medical care, a retirement income, and good education.

After FDR, the camel’s nose was in the tent. A less violent form of Communism, Socialism, now had a grip on the United States. Those posts I mentioned before, especially WHY WE DON’T CARE ABOUT THE PROTECTION OF OUR RIGHTS — PART 2, argues that when our government starts redistributing the wealth — giving us other people’s property as a positive rights — that leads to trouble. It confuses our obligation to be charitable with a legal “right” to receive the charity of others whether others want to provide that charity or not. Those who want “charity” will be tempted to vote for those politicians who offer them such “charity”. That is why most of the Federal Budget now involves such “charity”. Contrary to what some would like to believe, our defense budget, large though it may be, is not responsible for the Federal deficit.

Other Views

Arguments For Government-Given Rights

Obviously, I have my biases in this matter, and I don’t see much point in hiding those biases. So here are some other sources.

Human Rights (un.org) gives the United Nations viewpoint.  Since it was passed just after World War II, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights looks a lot like something FDR would have liked. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) seems to be the primary vehicle the UN uses to promote its views on human rights. Curiously, the UN calls human rights universal and inalienable.

Columbia University (www.columbia.edu) has a website devoted to the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/udhr/index.html). The discussion is where the meat is located. Of course, you have to be a little crazy to read all of it, but it is worth sampling.

The Advocates For Human Rights promote a Human Rights Approach to Social Justice. The expression “social justice” is part of the secularist’s lexicon for wealth redistribution. Their training manual, DISCOVER HUMAN RIGHTS: A Human Rights Approach to Social Justice, explains their approach. Consider this extract.

Why Are Human Rights Important?

Human rights reflect the minimum standards necessary for people to live with dignity. Human rights give people the freedom to choose how they live, how they express themselves, and what kind of government they want to support, among many other things. Human rights also guarantee people the means necessary to satisfy their basic needs, such as food, housing, and education, so they can take full advantage of all opportunities. Finally, by guaranteeing life, liberty, equality, and security, human rights protect people against abuse by those who are more powerful. According to the United Nations, human rights: “Ensure that a human being will be able to fully develop and use human qualities such as intelligence, talent, and conscience and satisfy his or her spiritual and other needs.” (from here)

When Advocates For Human Rights explains the role of government, it becomes obvious they see government as the guarantor of basic needs such as food, housing, and education.

Responsibility of the State, part of SOCIAL PROTECTION & HUMAN RIGHTS website and a United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) project, lists the things government supposedly must do to protect our human rights. Here is how that page begins.

States have the legal obligation to protect and promote human rights, including the right to social security, and ensure that people can realize their rights without discrimination. The overall responsibility of the State includes ensuring the due provision of benefits according to clear and transparent eligibility criteria and entitlements, and the proper administration of the institutions and services. Where benefits and services are not provided directly by public institutions, the effective enforcement of the legislative frameworks is particularly important for the provision of benefits and services. (from here)

What are human rights? (equalityhumanrights.com) provides the view on human rights from The Equality and Human Rights Commission, Great Britain’s national equality body.

Our Rights Do Not Come From God (dailycaller.com) by David Benkof uses the Bible to refute the idea that our rights come from God.

HISTORY OF HUMAN RIGHTS (lincoln.edu) summarizes the history of human rights. This includes a putdown on John Locke and natural rights.

A Brief History of Human Rights (humanrights.com) begins by claiming Cyrus Cylinder was the world’s first charter of human rights. That was a hoax, UN Treasure Honors Persian Despot (spiegel.de) and Cyrus cylinder’s ancient bill of rights ‘is just propaganda’ (telegraph.co.ukl). Trusting the UN on matters related to human rights is kind of stupid.

A Short History of Human Rights (hrlibrary.umn.edu) is another website that focuses on the role of government in creating “rights”.

Arguments For God-Given Rights

There are lots of articles on the web that argue for God-given rights, but this is a post about government-given rights. So that is where I put the focus. Still, here are some interesting ones.

The Source Of Rights (fee.org) takes issue with majoritarian tyranny by expounding upon the ideas of Frederic Bastiat.

The Paradox of Rights ‘Granted’ Us by Government (forbes.com) by Lawrence Hunter considers the source of the government’s powers with respect to the People.

The Source of Law, Rights, and Martin Luther King Jr. (theamericanview.com) discusses Martin Luther King’s views. Consider.

In his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, he stated “there are two types of laws: just and unjust.” And that “one has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” (from here)

If the government gives us our rights, how do we know a law is unjust?


  1. Look.. um.. seems to me you’awl are making the idea that “humans have rights” a bit too complex and “divine”.
    Humans by nature appreciate “doing my own thing” to survive. But then you add to that mix man needing his fellow man because we are also communal creatures and we’ve learned to survive easier that way. But one person’s perception of freedom can easily be another person’s perception of the other guy’s freedom as being a trespass. Therein is the reason for government; a universal entity to set the rules for the common good. From there you simply pick your “…ocracy” and hope for the best. The only thing you might assign as “God-given” is human existence and our instinctual abilities (assuming Darwin is not your thing). “Rights” are there for the taking.. and defending and there’s nothing really “individual” about it. The fact that “individual rights” has to be defined is a basic acknowledgement that man does not entirely exist as an individual.

    1. @Doug

      Consider the difference between sins of commission and sins of omission. Do you really think it is realistic to trust government officials with the power to tell you how to love your neighbor? What limit would you put on the power of government?

      1. I wasn’t in the least suggesting any outside influences, such as religion, determining the extent any selected form of government would be accepted by the masses. I was just trying to explain the concept to start wasn’t as complicated as you and others were making it out to be. That is not to suggest forming a government would not be complex.

        1. @Doug

          Glad you agree the problem is complex. The framers of the Constitution had a solution. To keep things simple and manageable by the People, they put strict limits on Federal power.
          1. Would you like to explain what you think was their solution?
          2. Are we still adhering to the solution the framers of the Constitution contrived?
          3. Is there something wrong with the solution the framers of the Constitution contrived?
          4. Starting from scratch, what limit would you put on the power of government?

          You can answer here, or you can do a post on your blog, but I would appreciate something specific. Can’t debate generalized statements of disapproval. There is not enough substance to debate. In your first comment, I am making it too complex. In your next it is complex? That’s a bit complicated for simple me to understand.

          1. Tom.. I know you are a proponent of less government.. and quite honestly I think that’s a good stance to take for any American… if for nothing else than to keep spending down. Although I think your angle is to keep government influence in our lives down, thus enhancing our personal freedoms. I admit I do not read every nook & cranny of the Constitution (outside of the Bill of Rights) to engage in a Constitutional discourse with you with any kind of the limitations of power as expressed or intended by the Founding Fathers. Although I appreciate your interest with me in doing so. Now.. I personally think if you want to explore the limitations of governmental power you truly need to go back in history to determine the how and why when power has been exceeded in your view. None of the social programs we have were created in some vacuum; there were reasons. Even the educational system.. public education… was created for a specific reason. Someone in power one day did not just wake up one day and say “We have to control these people.. and control them OUR way.” I’ve mentioned often enough that a growing population will definitely put a strain on power and our Constitution… because as population increases so does the need to limit our excesses and exercising freedoms. The Second Amendment is an absolute perfect example of this. I feel you are thinking of this as a one dimensional problem… less government and we live free. It goes way beyond that, my friend.

          2. Just to expand my comment a bit… the Founding Fathers, in the Bill of Rights, expressed a number of power limitations by indicating variants of “There shall be no law that infringes….., and that establishes what government can’t do. Public education, welfare, levying taxes, Medicare… admittedly are government programs but they were instituted through representative government, were they not?

          3. @Doug

            Read this =>https://citizentom.com/2008/04/22/the-advantage-of-a-republic-over-a-democracy/

            For most of history half of the human race has used the power of government to enslave the other half. Slavery was the norm, and that has not much changed. Look around the world. Most of the world’s population is poor because most people don’t know how to keep greedy people from abusing government power.

            What is different about America? Personally, I think we had enough Christians among our elites that they were willing and able to set up a republic. Those people did a good enough job that what they set up still sort of works. Unfortunately, not enough Americans understand what the founders did any more. Our schools are that bad.

            Did you read part 4 in this series? It is posted.

          4. I’ll tell you what was different in America over the other poor countries back then and now around the world. Two very important things. The first is that there was an actual means in which to fight back against the then greatest power on earth. The so-called “colonies” was a huge area and basically united as one huge colony… by trade, common borders, and British influence… and fairly self-sufficient in all aspects. It was its own society and in spite of Brit control politically the colonies were already forming their own sub-politics. In an odd way one might say the Brits created their own “Frankenstein” in allowing the colonies to grow and prosper as they did. Breaking away was totally inevitable.

            The second important thing… they had a WILL to do the deed… willing at all costs. You simply can’t slam democracy down some Third World throat if the population hasn’t evolved into wanting it. That’s been the problem with the idiotic administrations who got into “nation building”.. and duh.. it doesn’t work unless the people are into it. The American colonies had an educated elite class, primarily business people.. and could assert principle for rallying the public, and they had the means for financing the affair… to fight in parody with the occupying Brits; no one had a military arms advantage over the other.

            There is NO comparison in modern history to Third World nations desiring freedom.

            Anyway.. now that is out of the way…
            Another advantage of a republic is more simply a pure democracy not as efficient. Too many people having to vote for the price of buying paper clips.. A representative democratic government is more practical..

          5. @Doug

            Curious. Everything you said is
            at least part true. What do I think you are missing?
            1. 1700’s Americans were not just wealthy and educated. The People were accustomed to working together and helping each other. Compare the French Revolution with the American. The Americans sought a modest reform. The French wanted to burn down everything

            2. To James Madison a republic involved the protection of individual rights. He and the other Framers of the Constitution feared majoratarian tyranny.

          6. 1. The French Revolution was essentially a civil war; they were overthrowing their monarch for reasons of personal oppression, class struggle, and just pure killing via the guillotine for political differences. Civil wars are like family squabbles.. they are vicious. We were a colony of Britain fighting for political and economic independence. A bit different… in spite of the French populace saying it was similar in that they were fighting for freedom, equality, and fraternity like we were.

            2. What was agreed on as our Constitution was a compromise of many of the Founders.. signatories. These guys didn’t just all sit down on some afternoon and wrote up the Bill of Rights in total agreement. Madison was eloquent in his discourse but is what he promoted totally accepted by the others.. or did Madison himself agree on the perception of the others? Of course not. So to assume the Founding Fathers all feared a majoritarian tyranny in the same way and with the same priority is simply not being realistic. See.. that’s what I mean… all too often we relegate our “Founding Fathers” as some near-sainthood ambiguous group who all believed in the same things. Life isn’t like that. They believed in the spirit of freedom and developed from compromise a final product called the Constitution. Even to this day every person has their own idea of what freedom is.

          7. @Doug

            The American Revolution was a civil war. There were essentially three groups: the rebels, the loyalists, and the indifferent. Many of the loyalists fled persecution by escaping to Canada.

            Keep in mind that the Bill of Rights are amendments. The were added afterwards. Originally James Madison did not think they were needed. Read the 10th Amendment. If the Constitution does say the Federal Government can do something, it is not suppose to do it, but people wanted certain rights spelled out. That included the 10th Amendment. So in order to get the Constitution approved, the advocates promised a Bill of Rights, and Madison was good to his word.

            Was majoratarian tyranny a real concern? Yes. Senators were originally appointed by state legislatures. That was partly done to protect the rights of the elites. Changing that has proven disastrous. The direct election of senators has allowed the Federal Government to acquire power it has no business having. The Electoral College was created for similar reasons.

          8. Ok.. so what you are saying is that the Old Guys created the Constitution and since then no one has paid any attention to it and we’ve been living in a country with a willy-nilly chain of abusive administrations?

  2. You have a point about smoker fools don’t live long.

    But you would be amazed how expense lung cancer and other smoker diseases cost to treat.

    The big cigarette taxes they pay will never compensate for costs to treat them while they are still alive.

  3. Tom
    I started reading your liink and gave up, Too much for me to comprehend or attempt to make any sense out of it. However the writer has a good point in stating a need for responsibility be attached to Rights, in my opinion.

    Regards and good will blogging.

    1. @Scatterwisdom

      True enough, but there is an important relationship. With rights come responsibilities. No rights. No choice. Then it is someone else’s responsibility.

      1. Not sure government understands your statement.

        For example, I if someone has z right to choose to smoke, why must I pay taxes to subsidize his medical costs according to Obamacare to cover all medical bills even though there is medical proof that a smoker has anoth higher probability risk of getting cancer than a non smoker.

        1. You have a point, but it really just about control. It is not even about solving a problem.

          Because of their addiction, smokers pay plenty of taxes. Because their bad habit kills so many of them, they don’t live long, and they don’t rack up huge medical bills.

  4. It seems to me that nowhere, in this post or in your previous posts have you shown, either by logic or by scripture, that such things as God given rights actually exists. I don’t think that your contrast between positive verses negative rights really is any sort of perfect formula, just as a government forcing you to pay taxes to provide to you and everyone else the right to military protection is easily defined in either category. Nothing really new to say on this that has not been said in other posts. None of these topics fit into the perfect ideologies that idealists on either side of this debate desires that they do.

    Ultimately, pride in our own goodness and the goodness of our human ideologies may be our greatest form of blindness. In keeping with that thought, here again for your consideration is a rather lengthy quote from Niebuhr:

    “Religious idealists usually insist that the primary contribution of religion to democratic life’s the cultivation of a moral idealism which inculcates concern for the other rather than the self. But this is only part of the contribution which a profound religion can make. Consistent egoists would, of course, wreck an democratic process; for it requires some decent consideration of the needs of others. But some of the greatest perils to democracy arise from the fanaticism of moral idealists who are not conscious of the corruption of self-interest in their professed ideals. Democracy therefore requires something more than a religious devotion to moral ideals. It requires religious humility. Every absolute devotion to relative political ends (and all political ends are relative) is a threat to communal peace. But religious humility is no simple moral or political achievement. It springs only from the depth of a religion which confronts the individual with more ultimate majesty and purity than all human majesties and values, and persuades him to confess: ‘Why calmest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.’

    “The real point of contact between democracy and profound religion is in the spirit of humility which democracy requires and which must be one of the fruits of religion. Democratic life requires a spirit of tolerant cooperation between individuals and groups which can be achieved by neither moral cynics, who know no law beyond their own interests, nor by moral idealists, who acknowledge such a law but are unconscious of the corruption which insinuates itself into the statement of it by even the most disinterested idealists. Democracy may be challenged from without by the force of barbarism and the creed of cynicism. But its internal peril lies in the conflict of various schools and classes of idealists, who profess different ideals but exhibit a common conviction that their own ideals are perfect.”

    It seems to me that this whole concept of “God given rights” is just such well meaning idealists being far too proud of their own creation that they wish to ascribe God as its author.

    1. @tsalmon

      How curiously ironic. My proof that the Bible implies that we have God-given rights is insufficient to convince you. That provides you proof that I am insufficiently humble?

      We have three major sources of information about God.

      There is what we know about His Creation, all that we know of. Does that speak of the fact we have God-given rights? Perhaps! At least it tells us that life is precious and rare in a largely empty universe. What is certain is that majesty and beauty of creation speaks of a Creator. What is the character and power of a Being the made such a universe?

      There is what resides in our hearts. Because we were made in the image of God, we know something His character because we share a small part of it.

      Romans 2:12-16 English Standard Version (ESV)

      12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

      How do you know when a law is unjust? If like Martin Luther King you refused to obey an unjust law, how would you know?

      The third major source of information about God is the Bible. Why do we have it? Why did Jesus die on the cross? Why did God choose to save us that way and reveal His story in the Bible? I don’t know. I just know the Bible explains so much that without it so many things make no sense.

      You say the Bible speaks of responsibilities, not rights. Yet there is this thing about responsibilities. There is an unavoidable correspondence with rights. With rights come responsibilities. No rights. No choice. Then it is someone else’s responsibility.

      1. Funny, and I mean that literally because an element of irony is always comedy. And it is indeed funny that since you appear to presume that it is “you” that is capable of proving the 16th Century invention of God given rights. Irony indeed.

        I can only guess that any hope of finding knowledge of God and any presumption that we have found such knowledge should start and, yes, end with greatest humility that we can muster. It is notable that in your listing of the “three major sources of information about God”, it seems to me at least, you may have left out the most “major” one, that is the grace that can only come from a merciful Holy Spirit to a pleading and contrite heart.

        This is my favorite quote from Niebuhr:

        “Hypocrisy and pretension are the inevitable concomitants of the engagement between morals and politics.”

        I guess we are both guilty of these sins from time to time, but I can only really speak for myself. 😉

        1. @tsalmon

          Is ridicule is the best you can do? Why bother? You know as well I do I did not claim credit for what John Locke did.

          Consider the source of your ridicule. You are upset because I reject Socialism as ungodly abuse of government power. Which requires more modesty? A view of government that does not require your fellow citizens to pay for other people’s abortions and “mercy killings” or one that does?

          Contemplate what Romans 2:12-16 actually means. None of us invented or proved anything. All Locke did was to help to put into words something that has always been true of men.

          You say I left something out. Well, there is no doubt I could have expressed myself with more clarity, but read Romans 2:12-16 again. Read the Book of Romans. Then tell me what it means when work of the law is written on our hearts? Unless he asks God, the Holy Spirit, to work through him, no man does what is right.

          1. Sorry, I must have hurt your feelings if you’v e trotted out the “everyone who honestly disagrees with me must be a rapid Socialist” one trick pony to perform once again. Strange how it is unfair ridicule only when when we perceive it is happening to us. In any event, lighten up. We both take ourselves way too seriously. That is a form of pride to you know.

          2. @Tsalmon

            If you check out Romans 3, you will discover a passage that explains no one is good. No. Not one. As you pointed out earlier, Jesus said only God is good.

            The Bible moves quickly to explain the problem. Genesis tells the story of Adam’s and Eve’s fall grace. He gave them the responsibility to obey a simple command, the right to choose to obey. When they failed to choose rightly, God mercifully promised them a savior and redemption.

            Because of this story and what the Bible shows us about ourselves, if we believe the Bible we know we are sinners.

            So how is it we are to do what is right, what we should do? What hope do we have?

            Should we surrender our choices, our rights, to the “best” among us (those who clamor most loudly for high office) and depend upon the self-proclaimed greats, people we already know to be sinners just like us? Or should we understand that each must make his own choice? When none is good, how can either of these choices be good?

            We cannot choose salvation for someone else. We cannot even save ourselves from sin. So each of us must on our own surrender our hearts to Jesus. Only then will we begin to start doing what is right.

    1. @Scatterwisdom

      Think you are on to something. I think the notion of subjective human rights complicates matters. If an ingenious busybody wants people to feel helpless and dependent, he complicates the simple with a profusion of rules.

      In order to be understood and enforceable, a law must be written so it can be objectively understood. Because they are subjective, we cannot objectively explain all our rights, but does not have to be a huge problem.

      Consider. “Do not murder” is an objective prohibition. “Love your neighbor” is subjective command.

      The founders wrote our laws as objective prohibitions. That is, if it was not against the law, we have a right to do it. Since doing it might upset our neighbors or cost too much we might not want to do it, but that was our problem.

      The busybodies want more control. So they want to change our laws from prohibitions to loving, caring commands. They want to tell us exactly how we are suppose to love our neighbors. That is, if the law does not say we can do it, we can’t. Whatever we want to do would not be the government approved method of loving our neighbors.

      To see what I mean, take a good look at the 9th and 10th amendments. Clearly the framers intended that government officials would only be allowed to do what the Constitution said they can do. If the Constitution does not say they can do it, they are not suppose to do it. The People, on the other hand, are only suppose to be prohibited from doing what the law says they cannot do. The busybodies want that situation reversed.

      You looking for an excuse to pull your hair out? Read this.

  5. Tom,

    What I believe needs to be considered about Rights is whether the Rights are Objective or Subjective.

    In my opinion, the subject of Human Rights, just and unjust law, is so vast and varying in scope and subjected to Human perceptions or conceptions.

    Here is a link on the subject to ponder.

    Click to access Cornescu_Adrian-Vasile_(4712).pdf

    Your bringing up the subject helps promote understanding of the complexity. I wrote a post series about my opinion with the problem of misunderstanding Amendment Rights, is the need for a list of Wrongs to be attached to the Amendments.

    I doubt it will anything will be done in that regard because law experts probably believe the concept is probably too simple a solution.

    In other words, if people would just obey the morality of the Ten Commandments, and doing to others what they want to be done to them, the issue of Rights would not be so complex and mind-boggling to understand by the “average Joe.”

    Sad, that the reality of something so simple and upright has been made so complicated by man’s schemes as King Solomon observed 3000 years ago.

    “This only have I found: God created mankind upright, but they have gone in search of many schemes.” (Ecclesiastes 7:29)

    Regards and good will blogging.


    1. The schools and the mass media have made it seem so reasonable, but majoritarian tyranny is still tyranny, and it eventually becomes just plain tyranny under a tyrant.

      What astonishes me is people cannot see the problem. Nobody trusts politicians, but so many still want to give them so much power. How obvious does stupid have to be?

Comments are closed.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

Mark 1:1

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; (NIV)

Jill Domschot

Joy in the Southwest


Here are some of the things I have learned from studying the Bible

BUNKERVILLE | God, Guns and Guts Comrades!

God, Guns and Guts Comrades!

Liming's Links

Blatant - Over-Exposure

Insightful Geopolitics

Impartial Informative Always

Libertas and Latte

Ramblings of a Disgruntled Patriot and Coffee Slave

A Blog About Healing From PTSD

Healing After Narcissistic Abuse & Multiple Traumas

Silence of Mind

Where God Speaks and Creation Listens


Wandering Towards Faith Am I

The Stories In Between

Author River Dixon


From A Garden To A City - The Prophetic Journey


Philosophy is all about being curious, asking basic questions. And it can be fun!

Faithful Steward Ministries and FSM Women's Outreach

Christian Outreach Ministry to those Incarcerated, with Addictions and our Military

Jesus Quotes and God Thoughts

“God’s wisdom is something mysterious that goes deep into the interior of his purposes.” ~Apostle Paul

The Lions Den

"Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture, while adding some gracious ferocity.”


Life through the eyes of "cookie"

Rudy u Martinka

What the world needs now in addition to love is wisdom. We are the masters of our own disasters.


Supplying the Light of Love

The Recovering Legalist

Living a Life of Grace

Write Side of the Road

writing my way through motherhood

Freedom Through Empowerment

Taking ownership of your life brings power to make needed changes. True freedom begins with reliance on God to guide this process and provide what you need.

John Branyan

the funny thing about the truth

Victory Girls Blog

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Conservative Government

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Night Wind

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

In Saner Thought

"It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error"..Thomas Paine

Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Dr. Luis C. Almeida

Dr. A's Website

He Hath Said

is the source of all wisdom, and the fountain of all comfort; let it dwell in you richly, as a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life

quotes and notes and opinions

from a Biblical perspective




The view from the Anglosphere

bluebird of bitterness

The opinions expressed are those of the author. You go get your own opinions.

Pacific Paratrooper

This WordPress.com site is Pacific War era information


Daily Thoughts and Meditations as we journey together with our Lord.


My Walk, His Way - daily inspiration

Kingdom Pastor

Living Freely In God's Kingdom

%d bloggers like this: