The Right to Privacy

I will not be the most popular person in the country for this, but I'm going to express some thoughts all the same.

Let's see. What are some of the latest "rights-related" incidents in the news? Well, there are all sorts of events bubbling over (largely because of the healthcare bill) about freedom of religion. Does your religion forbid the use of abortifacients? Well, too bad! You have a company; you pay. That sort of thing. And, of course, the whole rise of gay rights and redefinition of marriage in various states carries similar backlash. You're free to hold your religious views; you're just not free to exercise them. Oh, and then there's the recent gun law hoopla. The president wanted something done and done now. Lots of people were up in arms (little joke there) about it on both sides. "We need to control guns!" "We need to have absolute freedom!" That sort of thing. And "America" (as if such a real person exists) was disappointed/elated that the changes didn't pass. And now there's this whole invasion-of-privacy thing going on. The government is listening. Your emails aren't private. The government accessed a variety of private entities for the sake of national security. Privacy has been violated and we're upset about it.

But, wait. The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution begins with, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Thus, the Bill of Rights to our Constitution assures us that we can not only hold our religious views, but exercise them freely. Any attempt by the government to rule against that is a violation of that document.

And the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights guarantees "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Now, it can and will and certainly should be argued what constitutes infringement. This amendment doesn't say, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms of any caliber or capability ...", for instance. And the reason for the amendment is important -- "a well-regulated militia". What weaponry should the citizen-defenders of our country be allowed to bear? (I mean, if the government is threatening to hit American citizens with, say, Predator drones, wouldn't we potentially need anti-aircraft weaponry, just as a silly example?) Important questions. But the fundamental right is guaranteed and some voices would like to remove it.

And now we look at the whole privacy issue. You know, it's an odd thing, but when I search the Bill of Rights, the U.S. Constitution, and all the Amendments, I can't seem to find anything saying "the right of privacy". Odd, that, eh? I mean, we know that can't be true, right? The Supreme Court in 1973 largely legalized abortion on the basis of the woman's right to privacy. And the ruling by the court this last week on taking DNA question was an question of the right to privacy. We know we have a constitutional right to privacy, don't we? And, as it turns out, no such right exists in our Constitution or its amendments. You can get some sense of it in the Fourth Amendment when you read, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." That's ... close. But not explicit. And no one is saying that the NSA came into their persons or homes to get the data. And, look, how many times have you heard that Facebook and email and, oh, just about anything you might choose to do online is not private? While we understand that we have a right to privacy, we don't actually have said right listed anywhere.

So, why is it that our right to the free exercise of religion and our right to bear arms are not too seriously defended, but violating our right to privacy is an outrage? We already succumbed to many restrictions in the name of security and safety. Why would this one be outlandish? Note that I'm not suggesting it is right for the government to do this stuff. I'm just wondering about the disparity between our guaranteed rights versus our implied rights and the opposite responses to these two sorts of violations. If the right to the free exercise of religion is impinged, explicitly guaranteed in the Bill of rights, shouldn't that produce a stronger response than if our right to privacy is impinged, only potentially implied in the Bill of Rights? It seems like we're getting things turned upside down here. I'm just asking.

And, lest I leave this as a purely political question and nothing beyond constitutional rights to contemplate, remember that the Bible is not unclear on this particular point:

For a man's ways are before the eyes of the LORD, and He ponders all his paths (Prov 5:21).

The eyes of the LORD are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good (Prov 15:3).

Worried about the government reading your emails? You have bigger concerns than that, because God recognizes no right to privacy and all your ways are in His sight. Fear the NSA? Perhaps. But you'd do well to fear God first.