Americans Have Lost No Rights
I believe that the author of this article makes some good points, but also has logical errors.
God gave His people rights, which are not merely blessings, but legal rights (that’s what an inheritance is; that’s what ruling with Him is, that’s what a pronouncement of being forgiven is; that’s what every Promise in the Old and New Testaments is; that’s what the Covenants—including the Christic—are). We have no rights, it is true, inherent in ourselves—but as the sons of God (those who are His legitimate sons and who have been redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb) we have all rights that He has invested us.
“All the souls are Mine”, God declared, and “The earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof, the world and all they that dwell therein” and “The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD’S: but the earth hath he given to the children of Adam-men.” However, our enjoyment of that right exists only when we walk in obedience to Him. God dispossessed the Canaanites and gave the land of Canaan to His people. God’s Rights supersede all other. Though they were living in the land that was then called “Canaan”—they were illegitimate squatters and God had other plans for His land.*
[* But in all likelihood, the Canaanites had themselves killed, displaced, or absorbed the Hebrews who lived there before them—for the Canaanites were an inbred Hamitic people; and yet they spoke a (corrupt) dialect of Hebrew, which is a Semitic language. Similarly, their Canaanite descendents again people the land of Israel today, and likewise speak a corrupt form of Hebrew; but they are as illegitimate as their forebearers.]
Kings had the right to the throne when God established them, but if they sinned against God and departed from the morality that He established, they stepped out of their authority. Our rights continue to exist even if we sin, but other rights of a greater nature supersede general rights, that is the Moral Right of God in Judgment and the moral right of our kinsman in judgment against us if we actually violate what God commanded and truly damage him.
God commanded “Thou shalt not steal”. That reveals the right to property in its very command. If something was stolen, God established Judgments of restitution which also reveals right of ownership. God actually deeded the territory of each tribe perpetually and the land was never to pass out of the tribal family. That was a RIGHT! Tell me how else you could describe it. I’ll wait.
God also commanded “Thou shalt not commit adultery” and “Thou shalt not covet*... thy neighbor’s wife”. That reveals the right to and ownership of ones wife. God also explains (Deuteronomy 24:5), “When a man hath taken a new wife” (the wording itself that shows it was not a 50-50 partnership in terms of authority, but that God established Headship in the man) “he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up [rejoice in] his wife which he hath taken”. It being the sacred right of the husband to consummate the marriage and live together with the wife that he had espoused. The same law applied to the building of a new house and the planting of a new tree or vineyard, since it was the sacred right of the householder / husbandman to dedicate and enjoy the fruits of his labor (Deuteronomy 20:5-7). These are rights.
[* As I show in my Ten Commandments for Youth, the Tenth Commandment reveals to us that all sin begins and exists in the heart even if not acted upon.]
Again, property rights were so sacred that God established laws so that the property would not pass out of the family or tribe. However, this does not mean that God’s people possessed the land independently of God. God is still Supreme Owner of all. The custom of inheritance in Bible times and climes was that the father would divy up the inheritance to his sons while he was yet alive so that he could see them enjoy it as well as build upon it. Presumably, the father, yet alive, also retained the right to repossess the inheritance if any son was living disgracefully. So we see that God evicted His people, according to His Promise; and in excercise of His Supreme Right.
“Thou shalt do no murder” reveals the right not to be killed and God established laws to preserve life and declared when and how killing was permissible. The Law of the Kinsman Redeemer / Blood Avenger also reveals the RIGHTS of the nearest family member to bring to justice and even put to death the one guilty of murder, manslaughter, or negligent homicide. The one guilty of accidental murder also had the RIGHT to flee to a City of Refuge to escape the wrath of the avenger.
If a man or a man’s slave was wounded or killed, God established Judgments of restitution which reveals right of ownership and right to ones own body or those of his wife, children, slave, etc. The very fact that God established laws of ownership of slaves demonstrates the right of the slave-owner. The fact that Judgments payed restitution to the man who was injured, as well as to God (Who is also sinned against) again reveals the rights God invested in man. All sin is ultimately against God; but it can also be against His children too. Both wronged parties (God and man) need to be satisfied in Judgment. This is a right.
[That Scripture also informs us that with like measure we mete out judgment, so shall it be measured to us again, and “forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors” etc., do not refer to the demanding of legal right, but continuing to hold a grudge beyond ones right after the Judgment has been satisfied. When there is room for Mercy and forgiveness in the complete waiving of Judgment, then extenuating circumstances can be considered. However, in most all cases of actual crimes (not accidents) God demands Judgment. For a woman to “forgive” a bonafide rapist is not her right, but the right of the father / husband—and if such a person does forgive a rapist and that rapist rapes again, that person who “forgave” the rapist initially shares in the guilt of all subsequent rapes! Forgiveness is not to extend to waiving of criminal judgment or it circumvents the very purpose for which God issued such commands—to preserve the morality of the nation and to protect people from predators.]
These rights are not inherent in ourselves, but in the morality that God established for us and in us as His children and as His legal representatives.
The author also confuses “innocence” (a Catholic notion) with those persons unable to defend themselves (vulnerable). All are born with the sin nature and no one is innocent in God’s Eyes, of their own merit. This does not justify murder; but it is another flaw in this article. Whether the unborn ever get the opportunity to sin does not change their sinfulness. Even as if a pregnant woman was contaminated with radiation, so is her unborn child. “Fairness” in man’s eyes is not an issue that alters reality. This is where humanism / Arminianism and the false doctrine of “free will” blaspheme Scripture. God determined who the elect were before the foundation of the world. It had nothing to do with “who would choose”—no man chooses. God does. God does not merely have a crystal ball. He determines all. The elect never become the non-elect and the non-elect never become the elect.
“The gifts and calling of God are without repentance.” (Romans 11:29)
“It is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of His Good Pleasure.” (Philippians 2:13)
“The wind bloweth where it listeth [determines] ... so is everyone that is born of the Spirit.” (Philippians 2:13)
“10As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. ” (Romans 3)
Those who think that God must operate according to how confused, sinful mortal minds imagine to be “fair” have a “god-complex” and that delusion shall one day be slapped down. God’s Thoughts and Ways are astronomically above our own. God is Omniscient, we are ignorant. God is Holy, we are sinful. What about that is confusing?
He is correct in his indictment in the church’s silence and Christians’ apathy and tolerance of sin while complaining about petty trivialities; though he misunderstands the intent of Isaiah 58:1 in that it is God speaking sarcastically (all the way to v.5) to those dead-hearted of His people who went through the mechanical motions of repentance and obedience as required by law, but their hearts were far from it and they offered sacrifices without turning from their sin, without truly being sorry for it—while still knee deep in it, having no intention of stepping out of it.
The Common Law of England / America derived from the Law of God; as the Dooms (Domas, Laws) Alfred “the Great” clearly show.
[See: The Dooms of King Alfred (laws of England established c.890 A.D. based upon Bible/God’s Law) 58pp., 6.00 + P&H; bilinear Anglo-Saxon (Old English) & English translation.]
The problem is not rights. The problem is demanding rights without responsibility and the problem is thinking that those rights are inherent in man, rather than inherited rights that God has bequeathed to us in Himself. However, sinful men (including most Christians, who are actually humanists) reject the notion of the inheritance of the sin nature, embracing the “basic goodness of man” and that causes a skewed notion of rights. It also causes one to leave God out of the center of the picture, by degrees, until He is not even on the canvas—when in fact He is not only the central theme, but All in all.
The problem is irresponsibility and selfishness (which are extensions of the sin nature). Most every person thinks it is his right to inherit his father’s wealth, but would disagree with the thought that as a matter of responsibility he also inherits his father's debt. “A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.” You can’t have your cake and eat it too. As Job truthfully confessed, “What? shall we receive good [only] at the Hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?” (Job 2:10).
Truth breaks down when selfish man “picks and chooses” which part of God’s Moral Code that he wants to embrace (which I have called “Smorgasbord Theology” for over a quarter of a century) while rejecting the rest. However, one has no legal right choose which laws of God he will obey. They aren’t the 10 “Suggestions” (and there are not merely 10 of them; the 10 Commandments are 10 Categories of law under which each law of God is organized). They are not “multiple choice”; but “yes” (obedience) or “no” (rebellion)—and a “no” answer brings guiltiness and Judgment. Picking which laws of God you will obey is not obedience, but self-service / self-worship.
Man’s rights exists within God’s Rights (which are Ultimate and Supreme in everything). However, man can only enjoy the “pleasant” end of his rights when he walks in obedience with God. When he does not walk in obedience with God, he experiences the “business end” of God’s Rights and others’ rights that he may have violated.