Back in 1776 or so the colony of Great Britain that resided in the Americas declared its independence. They did so with an oddly named "Declaration of Independence" in which they alluded to God-given rights and the failure of the government to be for the people. It would have been nice if the government had said, "Oh, my, we didn't realize it. We'll fix it." Or "Well, okay, you're on your own." Neither happened and the government that was oppressive and opposed to the people went to war with the colonialists. After defeating the British, America went about establishing their own government, always with this oppressive government in the back of their minds. So the new government was designed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people. But the people were still concerned. In 1787 they set out to rewrite the Articles of Confederation they were working from at that time and worked toward a Constitution. Ratified in September of 1787, there was still this problem with that old oppressive government. The new government was laid out ... but who was going to protect our rights? So, as a safety measure, they required along with the Constitution a ratification of the Bill of Rights. Many thought it was unnecessary; the Constitution provided for limited government. Others were still concerned, so they pushed it through. By 1790 all 13 original colonies-now-states had ratified the Constitution with the proviso that a Bill of Rights would be added. Most of the states ratified the Bill of Rights as amendments to the Constitution by 1791. (Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Georgia did not. They didn't ratify them until 1939.) So the majority won their protection from an oppressive government as amendments to the original Constitution.
It's an interesting thing about those 10 amendments. Most of them are "do nothing" rules. "Congress shall make no law ..." "... shall not be infringed." "... shall not be violated ..." "... shall not be required ..." There is the right to a speedy trial and there is the limit of $20 over which a jury trial is prescribed. Most, however, are blocks to the government doing anything, not demands that the government (or the people or States) do something. I find that interesting. The original idea of freedom in this country and the original concept of human rights endowed by a Creator simply meant "hands off." "These are not your rights," they were saying to the government. "You didn't bestow them and you can't take them away. Just leave us alone."
We no longer operate on those kinds of rights. On one hand, the government (at the behest of a lot of loud voices in the nation) keeps impinging on those freedoms. "No, you can't do that." "But ... it's part of my promised freedoms." "Too bad." On the other hand, they're coming up with new rights that require the government to act and impinge on everyone else's freedoms. Take, for instance, the new right to think you're a different gender than your biology says you are. If it was the kind of right of the old style, it would be, "I'm free to believe this about myself and you can just leave me alone." No longer. Now it's "And you will submit your thoughts, your language, and your support to embrace my belief." The same with "sexual orientation." It's not merely "this is my orientation", but "You must celebrate it." They are piling up new ones every day, it seems. "You have the right to free college education." Really? Who's going to pay for that? "The government, of course." Really? Where's the government going to get the money? "You, of course." So now there is a new requirement that you do something rather than simply leaving them alone. "You have a right to a living wage." Really? Who's paying for that? "Oh, you are." Again. We keep wanting to pile up rights -- free healthcare, free admission to the country, a unicorn in every pot, whatever -- that are not merely "do nothing" rights where the government keeps hands off. They are ... burdensome. These rights require that everyone pay and pay dearly. Sometimes with our rights. "Oh, you thought you had a God-given, constitutionally-protected right to the free exercise of your religious beliefs? Think again. If you offend the wrong class of people, you will pay dearly, not because of any requirements you've laid on them, but because their new rights override your God-given rights."
It's inevitable, then. If rights are bestowed by a Creator, then the government and the people have nothing to say about it except "Okay, we'll keep our hands off." But when the Creator concept is ejected and the nation becomes increasingly secular, rights become a matter of government and personal opinion. The loudest voices win. Too bad for the rest of you. Rights you thought you had may no longer be yours. Rights you never had before, never knew you had, never even wanted become yours at great cost. Historically this approach has not worked out well for people, governments, or rights. But, hey, what do we care? If you can assure me I have the right to take money from your wallets, why complain? (I hope you have an actual answer to that question.)
No comments:
Post a Comment