So the teacher has the kids write down, “I am willing to give up some of my constitutional rights in order to be safer or more secure.”
LOL. As if a tyrannical government has ever made anybody more secure! Do you think the people in Venezuela feel more secure than we do? Would you rather live in China? Lots of security there! Just don’t you dare step out of line.
Once upon a time, a “teacher” who engaged in such an exercise would be fired as quick as boiled asparagus. The community wouldn’t stand for such lessons.
But we have let them take away the community’s authority over the schools. Now Far Left Crazy owns the schools.
According to the Declaration of Independence, we are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights. That means our rights come from God and may not be taken away by man.
This idea has never been very popular with ruling classes anywhere.
In the discussion leading up to the Supreme Court’s hearing of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Human Rights Commission, in which the government claims the power to dictate the content of works of art, a wicked and pernicious idea has been seeping in from Canada–the notion that the government is here “to balance rights.”
What does that mean? Well, say its proponents, very often, the rights of two or more groups–and right there they’re slipping it in that groups have rights, as opposed to individuals: a highly dubious point–may conflict; and when they do, it’s up to the government to decide which group’s rights must prevail.
Ta-dah! Presto! As if by magic, our rights are removed from our Creator’s province and have suddenly become very alienable indeed, with the government deciding from day to day, case to case, who has what rights at any given moment. First they swallow up individual rights in amorphous rights possessed by groups which may or may not be real–but all individuals are real–and then they demonstrate that the rights you had yesterday, you might not have today: it all depends on what the government decides, as it “balances” your rights against someone else’s. Governments do love to decide who wins and who loses.
Understanding the inherent evil of governments, a natural consequence of Original Sin, our country’s founders–uniquely!–did everything they could to limit the power of the government and hem it in with laws, checks, and balances.
Their vision has never been popular with ruling classes anywhere.
So now the United States Supreme Court is girding up its loins to say, “Well, sure, you have religious freedom, you have artistic freedom–except when gays feel offended by your freedom, in which case you don’t have it anymore.”
Pray hard, and entreat the Lord to save our country.
He made this grotesque remark in an interview with Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, in which he tried to overthrow Moore’s argument that marriage is ordained by God to consist of a man and a woman. Judge Moore is a great man. Chris, the brother of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the son of former Gov. Mario Cuomo–who famously postulated that a Christian politician need not, in his public policy, be guided by Christian morality–is a noozie, which these days is a shameful thing to be. He is also an ignoramus, running straight up against Thomas Jefferson: who wrote, in The Declaration of Independence,
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights…
“Inalienable,” for those who can’t do adult crossword puzzles, means not for sale, cannot be given away, cannot be taken away: these are rights that are inherent in our status as human beings.
I leave it to you whether this noozie is a pagan. But if he isn’t, I daresay there’s something very deficient in his grasp of Christian doctrine.
What man can give, man can take away. The noozies are comfortable with that now because their favorite progs and libs control the state. They ought to bear in mind Plutarch’s observation that tyranny is a nice, high perch, but there’s no safe way down from it.