I would rather be chopped to pieces at night; and resurrected in the morning, each day throughout a period of three-score years and ten, than be deprived of speaking freely, or be afraid of doing so. I will speak for my rights.
The prevailing liberal doctrine of rights traces individual rights to membership in various groups—racial, ethnic, gender, class-based, etc.—which are undergoing a continual process of consciousness-raising and empowerment.
At the other extreme, a minority of participants and supporters of these protests and the illegal acts that followed them seem to have forgotten that the protests protected by the Constitution are peaceful protests. Protesters have no right to destroy, deface, or steal property or to undermine the government’s legitimate police powers. The Constitution and laws contain no invitation to revolution or anarchy. All of us—police, protesters, supporters, and spectators—should understand the limits of our rights and the importance of our duties to stay within the boundaries of existing law. Abraham Lincoln was right when he said, “There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law.”12 Redress of grievances by mobs is redress by illegal means. That is anarchy, a condition that has no effective governance and no formal police, which undermines rather than protects individual rights.
Too often, enforcing new rights requires restrictions on the more traditional rights. For instance, calls for addressing “hate speech”—which advocates support as a means for combating what they see as intolerance and racism—nearly always involve restrictions, prohibitions, or punishments that infringe on the freedom of speech or freedom of religion and belief.
This effort to promote the “evolution” of human rights threatens to undermine the great and noble project in fundamental ways. These rights are often in tension—and sometimes in outright conflict. Unlike more traditional rights, which seek to protect the individual from infringements on their freedoms by government, new rights typically seek to guarantee benefits to individuals from governments or to assert rights to categories of people or to a specific community. High-minded assertions of rights to broadband, a clean environment, or development cannot magically be realized. They require regulations, allocation of resources, and financial transfers by government.
The Declaration of Independence was to set forth the moral justification of a rebellion against a long-recognized political tradition—the divine right of kings. At issue was the fundamental question of whether men’s rights were God-given or whether these rights were to be dispensed by governments to their subjects. This document proclaimed that all men have certain inalienable rights. In other words, these rights came from God. Therefore, the colonists were not rebels against political authority, but a free people only exercising their rights before an offending, usurping power. They were thus morally justified to do what they did.
Theirs was a philosophy that neither the world nor the government owes a man his bread. Man is commanded of God to live by the sweat of his brow, not someone else’s. In Thomas Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address, he counseled us toward a wise and frugal government, one which “shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it had earned.”
Those intrepid forebears knew that their righteousness was the indispensable ingredient to liberty, that this was the greatest legacy they could pass on to future generations. They would counsel us to preserve that liberty by alert righteousness. Righteousness is always measured by a nation or an individual keeping the commandments of God.
That picture has stayed in my memory ever since: America on her knees in recognition that all our blessings come from God! America on her knees out of a desire to serve the God of this land by keeping His commandments! America on her knees, not driven there in capitulation to some despotic government, but on her knees freely, willingly, gratefully! This is the sovereign remedy to all of our problems and the preservation of our liberties. Yes, those valiant patriots and pioneers left us a great heritage. Are we prepared to do what they did? Will we pledge our lives, our possessions, our sacred honor for future generations and the upbuilding of God’s kingdom on the earth?
Bill of Rights – of the 20 or so freedoms identified in the first ten amendments to the Constitution, freedom of religion and freedom of speech are most critical to the survival and vibrancy of the nation. ## Religious freedom is under attack as some claim it’s a hide-behind for abusive patriarchy, racism and homophobic bigotry. It ties with freedom of speech as anti-religionists seek to banish from the public square opinions based on religious values. But instead of writing rules to force Catholic nuns to buy contraception coverage or bakers to decorate gay wedding cakes or to punish people who kneel during the national anthem, why not let the free market decide whether they should be rewarded, punished, or ignored? We note also the drive for more censorship of the Internet. Some have called for a reality agency to flag disinformation and root it out. Would such a Truth Czar be impervious to political pressures? Would freedom of speech survive? The right of free speech does not obligate others to listen, but don’t put it past certain types to try to mandate it.
There are no such things as divine, immutable or inalienable rights. Rights are things we get when we are strong enough to make good our claim to them.
By respecting the rights of others, we guarantee our own.
The State of Nature has a Law of Nature to govern it, which obliges everyone: And Reason, which is that Law, teaches all Mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions.
...between an executive power in being, with such a prerogative, and a legislative that depends upon his will for their convening, there can be no judge on earth; as there can be none between the legislative and the people, should either the executive, or the legislative, when they have got the power in their hands, design, or go about to enslave or destroy them. The people have no other remedy in this, as in all other cases where they have no judge on earth, but to appeal to heaven: for the rulers, in such attempts, exercising a power the people never put into their hands, do that which they have not a right to do.
For the rulers, in such attempts, exercising a power the people never put into their hands, do that which they have not a right to do.
And this judgment they cannot part with, it being out of a man's power so to submit himself to another, as to give him a liberty to destroy him; God and nature never allowing a man so to abandon himself, as to neglect his own preservation: and since he cannot take away his own life, neither can he give another power to take it.
As usurpation is the exercise of power which another has a right to, so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which nobody can have a right to...
Wherever Law ends, Tyranny begins.
To this I answer: That force is to be opposed to nothing, but to unjust and unlawful force.
Whensoever therefore the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society; and either by ambition, fear, folly or corruption, endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people; by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty, and, by the establishment of a new legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society.
And then, we will contend for our rights legally, properly, orderly and constitutionally.
Our Constitution gave us a government sufficiently powerful to secure the rights of its citizens, but strictly limited so it would not infringe on those rights.
In the meantime, missionaries had to know the law better than the local magistrates who were often threatening to them. As scholar William Mulder noted, “The Mormons knew their rights better than many local prosecutors, who, while often sincere enough, did not always know what the new religious freedoms were or to whom they might be extended.” Many an uproar around Mormon proselytizing in mid-nineteenth century Denmark was quelled by a missionary who knew the law.
What is religious freedom? Among our First Amendment rights are freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly. Religious freedom means more than just freedom to believe what you want. It is also freedom to talk about and act on your beliefs without coercion or interference, subject to certain narrow limitations.
What is the public square? The “public square” refers to all settings outside private homes and houses of worship. These include public parks and sidewalks, government buildings and meetings, public schools and universities, private property that the owner opens to the general public and many other similar settings. The public square may also include media—books, newspapers, magazines, the Internet—and, in general, anything that is accessible and open to the public.
What laws protect religious freedom? The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects religious freedom in two ways: The “Establishment Clause” prohibits the government from adopting an official religion, and The “Free Exercise Clause” prohibits the government from interfering with people’s practice of religion. The First Amendment applies to all levels of government: federal, state, and local. The government must provide at least as much protection for religious liberty as the Constitution requires, but they can choose to provide more. In fact, state constitutions and laws often provide greater protection for religious freedom than does the U.S. Constitution.
What is “separation of church and state”? “Separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution, nor is it a legal term. Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase to describe religious freedom as including a healthy independence between government and religious organizations to protect the interests of both. However, the phrase is sometimes used to claim, incorrectly, that the Constitution requires government to be religion-free. In reality, government may actively cooperate with religious organizations in common causes, such as public heal or social welfare. The government also has a duty to accommodate religion when necessary to guarantee the right to free exercise of religion. For example, police must protect religious communities or speakers from harassment or persecution, religious organizations must be allowed to use public facilities and government employees must generally be allowed to wear religiously required clothing to work.
Is protecting religious freedom important? Yes. Religious freedom is an essential protection allowing people with strong differences of opinion and belief to live together in peace. The people who wrote the Constitution knew that violent conflicts about religion had plagued Europe for hundreds of years, as rulers tried to control the religion of their subjects. Some of the early colonies also tried to regulate religion and experienced similar problems. The Founders sought to avoid these conflicts in the new nation by forbidding official religions and by protecting all religions from government interference. The Founders also believed that government interference in religion was an assault on human rights. The Constitution protects people from government attempts to deny people’s basic human rights, including the right to have and exercise one’s own religious beliefs.
How do we know what is constitutional in specific situations? The U.S. Supreme Court and other courts decide cases in which someone claims that a government action is unconstitutional.
Does religious freedom include more than belief? Yes. The Constitution protects not only people’s right to believe as they choose, but also to worship, to share their beliefs, and to act according to their beliefs. All these rights apply to both individuals and groups.
Does religion have to be a private matter? No. The Constitution protects religious liberty both in private and in the public square. The right to religious freedom does not disappear when a person enters a public setting such as a school or a government buildings, when he or she accepts government office or employment, or when he or she operates a business open to the public. In fact, the government is obliged to protect religious liberty in all these settings, with only very limited exceptions.
Are there limits on the free exercise of religion? Yes. As with any right, religious freedom is not absolute. While the government may never tell people or communities what to believe, in a few circumstances it may restrict the way they exercise those beliefs, such as to protect public safety or the fundamental rights of others. To take an obvious example, the government could forbid human sacrifice even if a religion’s teaching approved of or required it. The Supreme Court has developed a test for when the government is allowed to restrict religious practices under the Constitution.
May religious groups and people of faith participate in politics? Yes. Religious groups and individuals have the right to take positions and influence public opinion on all public and political matters. Religious leaders and organizations frequently do so. Some types of political involvement, while constitutional, may affect a religious organization’s ability to keep its federal tax-exempt status.
May religious beliefs influence public policy? Yes. All kinds of beliefs influence the policy preferences of voters and legislators, including religious ones. The simple fact that a policy coincides with a religious teaching or grows out of religious values concerning right and wrong does not make it unconstitutional so long as the policy itself has a secular purpose, does not advance or inhibit religion, and avoids excessive government involvement with religion. For example, just because many religious teachings oppose violence does not mean that laws prohibiting assault are unconstitutional. To take a more controversial example, some types of laws restricting abortion are constitutional even though they coincide with certain religious beliefs, because they have secular justifications, are neutral regarding religion, and don’t unduly involve the government in religion.
May elected officials speak about God? Yes. Elected officials have a First Amendment right to express their religious beliefs. However, they may not use their official capacity to establish religion, such as by favoring, promoting, or discriminating against a particular religion.
May government meetings open with prayer? Yes. So long as the prayers are not used to proselytize or advance any particular faith or belief. Good practice is to invite chaplains or representatives of various faiths, including non-Christian denominations, to take turns offering prayers and to make the prayers generic in content.
May the government require that government officials or employees belong to a certain religion or believe in God? No. The government cannot require any kind of religious test as a condition for public office or employment. The government may require people to take an oath of office or make a similar affirmation, but it may not require them to place their hand on the Bible or any other religious book or to use the phrase “so help me God,” although the person can do these things if they wish
May local governments use zoning laws or other means to keep religious groups out of their communities? No. Local land use laws, such as zoning ordinances, may not target religious organizations for exclusion, discriminate against them, or place unreasonable burdens on them. An example of a government action that would not be allowed is a zoning ordinance that prohibits places of worship, while allowing non-religious places of assembly for clubs or other associations.
Do tax exemptions for religious organizations violate the Constitution? No. Religious organizations are tax-exempt under all state and federal tax codes, Ub fact, the Constitution may require this, as the Supreme Court has suggested that taxing churches would cause excessive involvement between church and state.
May the government favor on religion over another? No. The government may not give special privileges or place special penalties on any specific religion or religious group, or show preference for one religion or religious group, or show preference for one religion over another or for atheism.
Does government property have to religion-free? No. Government property need no be free of religious references, symbols, or messages, so long as the government does not appear to endorse any specific religion. Whether a particular display is constitutional depends heavily on the particular circumstances. Temporary displays (such as holiday displays), may contain religious elements if the display, taken as a whole, does not promote a religious message or indicate government endorsement of religion. For example, a Nativity scene together with non-religious holiday symbols, such as Santa Claus and candy canes, would probably be allowed, but not a Nativity scene standing alone would not be. Permanent displays (such as monuments) may contain religious element if the purpose and primary effects of the display are secular—in other words, if a reasonable observer would not believe the government means to endorse a particular religion.
May individuals and religious organizations use government property for religious expressions and activities? Yes. In general, the government must provide religious groups the same access to public facilities that it provides for other types of groups. For example, a state university that hosts a variety of student activities may not exclude a religious student group simply because it is religious, although certain other restrictions may apply.
May government employees wear religious dress or symbols to work? Yes. All employees generally have the ability believe and act consistently with deeply-held religious beliefs while in the workplace, subject to some narrow limitations. Government employees may enjoy these rights as well.
Do public schools have to religion free? No. Public schools and universities must be neutral toward religion; they can’t favor it or be hostile to it. Schools have a duty to accommodate a student’s exercise of religion, unless it is disruptive to discipline or interferes with the rights of others. Schools may teach about religion in an academic, neutral, non-denominational way. Schools may not sponsor “religious speech.” For example, school-sponsored prayers or devotional scripture readings during the school day or at school events are inappropriate.
What laws protect religious speech? The First Amendment provides extremely broad protection for freedom of speech of all kinds, including religious speech. The government cannot forbid speech because of its content, religious or otherwise, even it if is extremely offensive to others. This is subject only to very narrow exceptions, such as speech that poses a clear and present danger by inciting imminent violence. This strong protection of speech safeguards the free public exchange of ideas that is essential in a democracy.
Does freedom of speech include more than speaking? Yes. Freedom of speech, religious or otherwise includes not only speech, but other forms of expression such as displaying, publishing and distributing signs, banners, pamphlets, books, magazines, websites, or other materials. The government may regulate some aspects of these activities, such as solicitation of donations or commercial agreements between religious groups and publishers or distributors, but it may not control the content.
May privately owned newspapers, magazines, television stations, and other media outlets publish religious (or anti-religious) speech? Yes. The First Amendment guarantees the right to freedom of the press. With very limited exceptions, people and groups have the right to publish any views in any media available to them. These views may be religious, non-religious, or even anti-religious. For example, laws against blasphemy would be unconstitutional. However, the government does not have to provide the means for publishing these messages.
May a privately owned media outlet such as a newspaper, magazine, or television station refuse to publish religious speech? Yes. Private media outlets have the right to decide whether to publish or broadcast any materials. Individuals or groups may not demand that a private media outlet publish or broadcast their speech, religious or otherwise.
May the government forbid religious speech or expression on government property? No. The government may not forbid or restrict speech on government property simply because it is religious or because of its particular religious content. In fact the government has a duty to accommodate such speech, for example by providing police protection, if needed.
May the government prohibit religious speech because if offends others? No. The government cannot restrict speech because it is unpopular or offensive, even if it is extremely offensive or likely to provoke protests. On the contrary, police have a duty to protect speakers by controlling crowds and hecklers.
May the government prohibit religious speech on private property? No. Individuals and organizations have the right to express their religious faith or views on their own property, including displaying religious symbols or messages. Certain land use or zoning restrictions may limit religious and non-religious displays alike, but they may not single out religious speech or unreasonably limit it.
Is there a constitutional right to religious speech on the private property of others? No. Even if the private property is open to the public, such as retails stores or shopping centers, permission must be obtained from the owner.
Can the government require permits for door-to-door proselytizing or advocacy? No. However, the government may impose reasonable regulations on the time, place, and manner of door-to-door advocacy, so long as they apply equally to everyone who engages in kind of activity.
May the government control the content of religious sermons? No. Even if anti-discrimination laws were to prohibit messages that might offend certain groups of people, applying these laws to church sermons, would be unconstitutional, as would any law prohibiting churches from preaching their own views on social and moral issues.
Can professionals (such as bakers, florists, and doctors) refuse to provide services that violate their conscience or religious beliefs? It depends. Each state has its own anti-discrimination laws applying to businesses and professionals providing goods or services to the public. Some of these explicitly allow exemptions when providing a service that would violate a provider’s religious beliefs. Others do not. Similarly, some states have conscience laws that affirm the right of doctors or other professionals to refuse to provide services they oppose. While it is clear that government enforcement of anti-discrimination laws must not be hostile to religion or to religious believers, this area of the law is still in development. Cases will depend on the law in question and a variety of other circumstances. When considering the constitutionality of such laws, courts may seek to balance the government’s interest in limiting discrimination against individual freedoms of speech and religion.
Can a religious organization that rents its facilities to the public for events refuse certain types of events? It depends. Some states have laws that specifically protect religious organizations’ right to refuse to rent their facilities for events contrary to their beliefs. But as with the issue of businesses or professionals refusing to provide services, the answer is not always clear.
Can employers discriminate based on religion? Generally, no. Most employers may not hire or fire employees on the basis of their religion or their need for religious accommodations in the workplace (such as an exception to a dress code for a religious head covering, or reasonable excuse for religious holiday observances), and must general accommodate their employees’ religious practices, unless doing so would place an undue burden on the business or other employees. One major exception is that a religious organization has the right to require its ministers and many other kinds of employees to be members of that religion and to live by the religion’s standards of conduct even outside the workplace.
May religious organizations receive federal funding for social programs and services, such as health care or education? Yes. Religious organizations may apply for and receive federal funding for such programs on the same basis as non-religious organizations, and often do so.
These rights both entitle us and obligate us — we deserve dignity for ourselves and owe respect toward others. We cannot talk about rights without talking about responsibilities.
My plea today is that all religions join together to defend faith and religious freedom in a manner that protects people of diverse faith as well as those of no faith. We must not only protect our ability to profess our own religion, but also protect the right of each religion to administer its own doctrines and laws.
I would suggest that for people of your capability and training, engagement to defend religious liberty is essential... Please do this on your own volition, understanding that you will not always get things exactly right. But also understanding, that the far bigger mistake would be to sit silently by.
America was built on the eternal principle that all men are created equal and they have certain rights given to them by God. Because these rights are God-given, they cannot be taken away by man. This was a completely new concept in the world at that time. In every other society, the citizens’ rights came from men, such as a king or dictator.
America’s founding has always been about its ambitions. The founders did not claim the country would be perfect, only that through freedom it may encourage greatness among its citizens. Yes, ugly things took place in our history by flawed and dishonest men. But if one looks at history fairly we see that the great leaders of our founding succeeded in creating a nation in which individual freedom became the pathway for unparalleled levels of achievement by its citizens.
American exceptionalism does not mean that people here are better than in other countries. It means our Constitution is exceptional. It gives all who live here the opportunity to succeed or fail in what they choose to do in life. This enlightened document inspires, uplifts, and encourages American citizens, both native-born and immigrant, to live better lives, dream bigger dreams, and work hard for themselves, their families, and their fellow citizens.
In every civilized society property rights must be carefully safeguarded; ordinarily, and in the great majority of cases, human rights and property rights are fundamentally and in the long run identical; but when it clearly appears that there is a real conflict between them, human rights must have the upper hand, for property belongs to man and not man to property
This country will not be a permanently good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a reasonably good place for all of us to live in.
In new and wild communities where there is violence, an honest man must protect himself; and until other means of securing his safety are devised, it is both foolish and wicked to persuade him to surrender his arms while the men who are dangerous to the community retain theirs.
We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable; that all men are created equal and independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
“those men who laid the foundation of this American government and signed the Declaration of Independence were the best spirits the God of heaven could find on the face of the earth. They were choice spirits, not wicked men. General Washington and all the men who labored for the purpose were inspired of the Lord.”
Never exceed your rights, and they will soon become unlimited.
The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.
I would rather be chopped to pieces at night; and resurrected in the morning, each day throughout a period of three-score years and ten, than be deprived of speaking freely, or be afraid of doing so. I will speak for my rights.
Missing Reference