Do we have ‘rights’? Part Two

In my last post, I posited a question: though we might have rights to life, liberty, and property/pursuit of happiness as understood through a Christian worldview, do we have sacred rights to such things as freedom of speech, a jury trial, and the bearing of arms?

Answer: no.

Granted, these rights are of extreme importance, but only because they are the fulfillment of a thousand years of the Ango-Saxon political tradition. Since the signing of the Magna Carta, Anglo-Saxon people and their governments have used rights as valuable protections against governmental tyranny.

Nevertheless, these rights are not sacred. Though not necessarily immoral in and of themselves, no guarantees of ‘rights’ such as these are found in the Bible. God does not give us the freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights – the government permits them to exist, due to the power of the national psyche. Indeed, the First Congress was extremely generous to the libertarian wing of the Revolution for guaranteeing these rights in the first place.

While the rights contained within the first ten amendments have served as a bulwark against tyrannical overreach through most of American history, their meaning has become distorted and broken in the past several decades, thanks to (of course) the influence of the Left. This distortion has been accomplished in three ways: through the rise of ‘human rights’; through radical new interpretations of the First Amendment; and through mass immigration.

Human rights. Since the end of the Second World War, and as a reaction to the atrocities committed therein, human rights became a new fad, pushed by the international liberal-Left. To life, liberty, and property, as well as the Bill of Rights, was added a plethora of others: education, shelter, healthcare, etc. Rather than being protections from government overreach, they functioned as justifications for it.

The countries that enshrined these rights in their constitutions (such as the Soviet Union, post-1990s South Africa, and North Korea) were/are of an extremely socialist nature. Because these noble-sounding concepts actually justify increased tyranny, nothing that these rights promised, were, or have been, fulfilled by these countries’ governments.

The ideological merger of human rights, and those enumerated in the Bill of Rights, has been accomplished with so little effort in recent decades, even in America, that it seems the latter has contained within it the seeds of its own destruction all along.

The distortion of the First Amendment. Unlike many on the Right, I am not a free speech absolutist. The recent Colin Kaepernick drama exemplifies this point perfectly.

When Kaepernick, an obnoxious football player, refused to rise for the National Anthem before a game, and was soon after found to be a sympathizer with the Marxist terrorist organization Black Lives Matter, the Left cheered and cuckservatives shrugged. “I don’t agree with him, but he has a right to free speech!”

Saying “I don’t agree with, but…” has become the new form of cultural cowardice. At some point, a line must be drawn.

The Founders intended the First Amendment to protect one’s legitimate criticism of the government, as well as to promote a free marketplace of ideas. They did not intend the First Amendment to be used as justification for flag burning, for instance (which was not legal for the first 200 years of America’s existence, by the way). Nor did they intend for it to be an excuse to lie about others. If Donald Trump opens libel suits against the dishonest media and wins, such an incident will go down in history as one of the greatest victories in American cultural life.

So many on the Right now consider themselves ‘free speech absolutists’ because the Left adopts the other extreme of totalitarianism. Non-cucked Rightists must realize that the cultural battle cannot be won if ‘anything goes.’

What would an ideal interpretation of the First Amendment look like? The moment that dissent becomes treason, it would be punished as such. Communism and related ideologies that subvert the national character would be banned. Modes of dress that conflict with the surrounding culture would be strongly discouraged. (Unlike cuckservatives, I support France’s burkini ban.)

Lack of respect for national institutions would also be punished. Offenders such as Kaepernick could be deported, for example. English would be the official language of the country, and speaking other languages would be discouraged outside the home or classroom.

Because America is (was?) a Christian nation, radical Islam, militant atheism, and bizarre cults such as Satanism and Scientology would be banned. If one were not Christian, one would have to accept living peacefully in a Christian society. Qualified white Protestants, who founded America, would be well-represented at the nation’s highest institutions, such as the Supreme Court.

Another solution to the free speech quandary, which would also eliminate the need to make so many laws qualifying the First Amendment, would be to ban immigration from outside of Europe and East Asia. This leads to my final point:

Mass immigration. As mentioned earlier, the concept of rights as protection against governmental tyranny is a uniquely Anglo-Saxon concept. In most cases, it is unsuited to be used by any other ethnicity.

In an earlier age when Americans were more ethnically united, a common conception of rights could be held by all. The philosophy of rights (which can lead to selfishness) was balanced by a need to help one’s fellow neighbor. Ethnic and cultural homogeneity brings unity and harmony.

Waves of 20th-century immigration, however, disrupted this cultural cohesion. Today, extreme diversity, which creates distrust among neighbors; coupled with an ever-larger government, which discourages independence, has likely contributed to our flawed understanding of the meaning of rights. Banning immigration and aggressive assimilation might help solve this problem.

John Adams, perhaps the wisest of the Founders, once remarked that our Constitution was suited only for a religious and moral people, and no other. If we are to recover our rights which were so dearly prized in the past, we must return to our religious, ethnic, and cultural roots. Otherwise, the work that our ancestors labored for has been in vain.

To see Mr. Talour’s original article and my comment, click HERE.

Photo from ACLU.org

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Do we have ‘rights’? Part Two

  1. If I remember correctly, Franklin Roosevelt tried to add amendments to the Constitution including a “right” to housing and a job.

    I think part of the problem with “liberty” is that it inevitably leads to pluralism. No functional society can long endure much diversity. At the least, there has to be religious and ethnic homogeneity for a society to survive. Throughout the Old Testament God condemned religious and ethnic pluralism. Liberty can only go so far.

    I think it would be interesting to study how the idea of rights become semi-sacred among Americans. I have no problem with the idea of rights if their taken as a kind of general Anglo-Saxon agreement, but I think the problem is that as America has evolved its become more of a religious concept. The idea of violating rights is taken as a dreadful sin. “Human rights” are held to the level of universal ethical code. I don’t think I can agree with that. It’s like their trying to replace Christian morality with a transcendent cross-religions syncretistic moral standard.

    Like

    1. I’m absolutely unsurprised FDR tried to include rights in the Constitution to housing and jobs. The Left never changes.

      I think Americans always have held their rights as sacred or semi-divine. It’s part of our national psyche, or civic religion, or something. I don’t think our admiration for our rights has changed at all since 1776 – but our demographics and our overlords have.

      However, am I ready to throw our Bill of Rights out the window just yet? Not quite. It’s interesting how in this election, Trump supporters cite his defense of the Second Amendment (for instance) as a protection against the ‘rights’ which would be forced on us by Hillary Clinton.

      As for universal human rights, they are complete nonsense. For better or worse, they are Western values. Other cultures don’t care about them, a fact which clueless Leftists and conservatives still have not grasped.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s