Welcome to Blogster!
1,488,147 Blogster Users  |  364,642 Posts



Blog Traffic: 6901

Posts: 140

My Comments: 503

User Comments: 596

Photos: 3

Friends: 5

Following: 0

Followers: 3

Points: 2697

Last Online: 24 hours ago



No Recent Visitors

Civil Rights verses Inalienable Rights

Added: Saturday, May 18th 2019 at 6:45am by tjdonegan

         In dealing with Civil Rights, we think it best to discuss the nature of rights in general, before we address civil rights, and we therefore assert: "Rights - in the most general meaning/sense - are claims of entitlement which an entity possesses by virtue of being a particular type of entity (note that businesses, organizations and nations may possess rights…)." What is particular to the type of entity which may possess rights? That the entity is constituted in such a manner that he/she/it may claim – potentially - those said rights to which they are entitled; which is to say they are rational/moral beings. Such beings are presupposed specifically in the opening lines (a.k.a. the Preamble) of the Constitution of the United States of America, and generally vis-à-vis any Government whatsoever…

"An inalienable right is a moral claim of entitlement, made by a rational agent/being, to which they are entitled due to their nature as rational; note that “rational” is essentially equivalent in meaning with “moral.1”” Now since inalienable rights are concomitant conveyances to rational beings by their Creator i.e., by God, in the act of creation, then necessarily inalienable Rights precede the establishment of any Government (which goes to Jefferson’s understanding “equality” in “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” ), and may be acknowledged and protected - by Government; as such rights were - formerly - acknowledged and protected, by logical implication, the Constitution of the United States - but they cannot be conveyed by any Government sans fortheGovernment of Divine Provenance; it follows then that if one denies God, one denies the possibility of inalienable rights. A corollary to inalienable rights and relevant to state at this juncture is the Natural Law, as Jefferson references in the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence: "...which the Laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them..."

1 From our blog piece titled: "Inalienable Rights and Abortion."

In regards to Civil rights we assert that they - by definition - presuppose civilization (Civil Rights do not originate in a jungle, they do not attend to humans by virtue of their humanness; they are derived/conferred through/by Government...), while as we have previously stated, inalienable rights exist prior to, and are concomitant of human essence. Inalienable Rights – for the Founding Fathers – allowed the establishment of a Government grounded in the immutable ‘Laws of Nature, and Nature’s God,’ thus, upon a ground not susceptible to vacillating sentiments (Note that those which deny the ‘Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,’ knowingly - or unknowingly - assert inalienable rights are fictitious and absurd, irrespective of whether they avow such rights, or not e.g., Obama, Biden, Hoyer, Pelosi, Clinton each have avowed and claim to aver inalienable rights,butthey do so because either they are too stupid to register contradictions, or they are manipulating their supporters with their carefully crafted facades); a logical necessary restriction is therefore imposed on civil right advocacy, viz: those advocacies for "civil-rights" which attenuate or negate inalienable rights are inimical to civilization, and dissolve the ground upon which Civil rights are erected i.e., "civil right legislation which contravenes inalienable rights, dissolves the indelible character of the rule of law, and reduces all rights to the caprice and fiat of malleable human whim; the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision is such an instance of evisceration of inalienable rights, which consequentially negates/vacates the linchpin inalienable right to Life; all other rights a contingencies of the inalienable right to life, and thus all other rights are rendered equally tenuous. In effect, the Courts and Legislatures which have promoted abortion, replace the rule-of-law (theruleof Right) with the rule-of-might (i.e., Will).

The Civil rights movement has symptomatically addressed societal injustice e.g., racial discrimination – through Court action and Legislation, rather than addressing discrimination systematically through social Institutions e.g., secondary education, Universities, Churches and the entertainment industry et al, which could attempt to inculcate objective principles of morality - as a foundation and context of all future experience, to include learning - into those being educated; if objective principles of morality are assimilated – and we note that by assimilation, we mean embraced not only intellectually, but sentimentally, as well – then laws which attempt to coerce behaviors – such as, the acceptance of what one holds to be impalatable, with what resentmentattendsuch coercion – would not be necessary. Just individuals presuppose knowledge of what is just, those which advocate the symptomatic Civil Right approach (which is the approach which has been utilized all along) so as to realize a "just," society, place their "foot on the scale," or if you will, have Lady Justice peek, so as to promote their interest; thus, they (consciously, or otherwise) are not about justice; their end/goal is self-interest, and power, although they may – as egoists – manage to delude their selves into believing they objectively seek moral amelioration ....

What do I mean by Institutions inculcating objective moral principles? I mean, for example Civics courses which should begin with speaking specifically as to why humans are capable of conforming their actions to principles of Law (those very principles implicit in, and presupposed by, the six goals in the U.S. Constitution’s Preamble), the concept of Equality prior to the law i.e., a concept of equality all humans share as a birthright i.e., mortality and moral capacity (see my article - on my blog – by the title: “Equality”); in teaching such principles, children may begin to grasp the unique and potentially noble character which attends to human nature. As it is, too often social advocacies have demonstrated - in their zeal to obtain lifestyle validation (e.g., homosexual advocates) through Court action – a willingness to “throw the baby out with the bathwater,” i.e., denying the philosophical underpinnings ofWesternjurisprudence; we note that such efforts have enjoyed their success as a result of Courts setting aside consistent reasoning i.e., precedent in Law, but also in the history of rational thought, in favor of ideological sentiment… Scientism (The inconsistent2 application of the methods of science to area's of knowledge not amenable to quantification e.g., to moral philosophy; this results in severely restricting - if not outright prescinding - such area's of knowledge, often rendering them absurd, or reducing to the physical/material and/or to tautologies...) - not to be confused with Science - has insidiously insinuated (Note as corollary i.e., an organic intellectual entropic process, following schools of nihilism manifest from Kant's epistemology; we note Kant likely anticipated nihilism; thus, the publishing of the Foundations oftheMetaphysics of Morality wherein he unveils the Categorical Imperative, but Kant did not anticipate its range and depth of human depravity unbound from dispassionate reason...) itself into Academia, which allows such Academicians - specifically Jurists - to feel comfortable in setting aside the precedents of consistent rational thought as irrelevancies of the erstwhile age of superstition...

2 The inconsistency is because, for example, the methods of science are not subjected to the criteria of scientism.

Let us note that racial discrimination i.e., denying another equal access due solely because the accident of “race” is a particular form of injustice, and any judgment -predicated upon objective moral principles – would find such discrimination abhorrent, for objective moral principles cannot be reconciled with injustice, thus the morally disposed would not abide such discrimination… Additionally, one may not balance the scales of past injustices perpetrated against groups A & B, by denying justice to groups C & D in the future. Those which desire social justice should henceforth (going forward) advocate justice for all.

Regarding abortion, the Court in the Roe vs. Wade decision did not claim abortion was a right, but instead made the claim that humans have an implied right to Privacy, and this implied Right allows a woman to confer with her physician regarding what best serves her good health; however, in practical fact the Courts, and the Government of the United States has treated the Roe decision as a license for the wholesale slaughter of over 60 million babies… If the Right to Privacy exists, it exists as a Civil right, and therefore as a contingency of the inalienable Rights to Life, to Right of Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, and – as we have already stated, but repeat again - abortion eviscerates the inalienable Right to life, and reduces the Law to absurd capricious fiat; such Civil Right advocacies lay the ground-work for despotic Government, for they deny the inviolableness of humanlife...Recovering respect the United States Constitution requires recovering the weltanschauung - worldview - from whence it was derived; one of the ways which think-tanks, academicians & University's which argue for the original intent, may begin such a recovery is to argue consistently that civil rights are as ephemeral, and as tenuous, as the inalienable rights, and objective morality which they presuppose. Thus, those individuals, and Institutions, should make it their business to consistently argue classical/scholastic metaphysics while impugning arguments predicated not upon science, but upon the "lab-coated" ideologies which have come to attend to science.

Thomas J. Donegan


User Comments

Wow, this reads like a legal brief. "Rights" are what the government allows us. Inalienable rights are God given. Is that about right?

And it took all those words to explain what you just said. That's the trouble with academics. They don't know how focus and extract what's important. 

ha!!! My eyes glaze over with that much reading material. 

My eyes glaze over so much I skip it altogether. 

I pretty much took the title and ran with it once I saw how much font there was. 


Hi, Amala!


I was trying to show - perhaps unsuccessfully - that the Founders conception of Government begins with the worldview which informed their judgment; consequentially, Jefferson - in the Declaration of Independence’s opening paragraphs (1st and 2nd specifically) –delineates the view, as he circumscribes an axiomatic limitation for the Government they would eventually establish – in the 1787 Convention in Philadelphia where of course they drafted the Constitution of the United States. Their worldview was that of Christendom (a philosophical synthesis of Greek, Hebrew and Roman cultures rendered consonant with Christianity), which is from whence Jefferson asserts that view as he justifies their ‘dissolving the political bands connecting’ the Colonies to the British Empire, and King George III invoking the ‘Laws of Nature and Nature’s God’ as he claims why they are entitled to that separation. Continuing Jefferson then addresses the Founder’s understanding of humans and their relation to Government (2nd paragraph), anticipating that the Government would require ‘taking-the-measure’ of human nature, as he delineates a description of that nature, viz: rational/moral beings created by God, and analytically possessing the inalienable Rights as inseparable from that nature/form/essence. Now as soon as one denies the Founder’s worldview, one – by logical implication – renders inalienable Rights absurd (consciously or otherwise) which renders any discussion of ‘civil-rights’ (as derivations from the Government established upon that worldview) become equally absurd; civil rights then become issuances of capricious fiat by a regent/king/ruler/despot, but what ‘rights’ may be assigned, may be un-assigned. The Founder’s worldview – post the University assimilation of the Kantian Copernican Revolution – was gradually/organically synthesized (with its antithesis), corrupted and rejected/abandoned – has been supplanted with a pragmatic nihilism coming in a plethora of varieties/flavors (ideological extensions and sentimental leanings) e.g., hedonism, egoism,  each attributable to the mien of the individual…


Cordially, tjd

The bottom line is the Founding Fathers were as messed up as we are and were as hypocritical and odd as any nerd out there. Did you know Andrew Jackson owned slaves or that Ben Franklin was such an oddball he wanted the turkey to be our national bird?


Hello, Amala!


My view is that the Founders were not saints, but rather fallible human beings and each capable of human weakness; they wouldn’t disagree; they wrote the Constitution - the manner they did, (divided Government) so as to minimize, or negate, our moral weakness, and so as to overcome those weaknesses…  Because there were such division on the issue of slavery, they accepted that practice so as to establish a Constitutional government, and it is often noted, that they expected – via Amendment – to eventually abolish the immorally heinous activity; it required the Civil War for slavery’s abolishment to be realized. As it is, I don’t think there was an abundance of hypocrisy among the Founding Fathers, they existed in an intellectual/moral milieu through which their actions seemed reasonable to themselves and others, but their views were in the process of changing to see slavery as an abhorrent practice, and so many slave-owners e.g., Jefferson, came to be opposed to slavery, but it is claimed that he would have sought (during the Constitutional Convention; yes, it true he was in France during the convention, but he could have made himself present…) to bring blacks under the full protection of the U.S. Constitution if he thought such an advocacy had a chance of being realized; as it is, the Founder’s – during the drafting of the Constitution had to make concessions to a number of the Southern States representatives – in order that they finish the drafting… But, my knowledge of that age – as my knowledge of everything else – is limited, and prone to error…


Take care, Amala!


Cordially, tjd

Good interesting post.

It seems like the Civil Rights movement handle discrimination through the courts it probably is the best way to handle it otherwise those institutions you mentioned will be screaming that rights are being violated. Reminds me ofthe gun debate.

On abortion and its privacy, it probably will remain that way although we know there are those institutions that will abuse the issue. Can't imagine how we would have manged if 60 million babies were allowed to be born? I kind of see chaos. 

Were "ALLOWED" to be born? That denies those babies their "inalienable right" to life! What gives any citizen the right to deprive another of their inalienable right to life?

That's the way it should be with Right to life, but then again we have murders, wars, killings, and a lot of other things that deny the right to live. It makes for a complicated issue and a complicated world.


Hi, writer! And thank you!


 It is my view that Dr Martin Luther King – if back from the grave – would not be pleased with the civil-rights movement; my guess is that he’s think power-brokers had high-jacked his advocacy, turning it from its goals of a moral common-ground among all humans, to divisive groups seeking Governmental action to promote their balkanized interests…

Regarding the 60 million babies aborted, and the possibility that they had not been aborted, would imply many social-changes, which have taken place, had not taken place e.g., that husbands would faithfully ‘clung-to-their-wives’ and women – generally – would have gladly embraced their dominant social-role as mother and wife, and many more children – than the 60 + million which we have slaughtered – would likely have been born; we’d – each – have more brothers, sisters, cousins, nieces and nephews, as well as, aunts and uncles. We’d be a different Nation in immeasurably different ways, but our Nation is what it is, because it’s view of existence changed – largely without conscious human decision (i.e., we each gradually assimilated a changed set of values; largely to society’s detriment, although some changes have been ameliorative…) – although some politicians, academicians and social-activists understand the “game” of societal change and are doing all they may to re-make society so as to reflect their particular views…


Take care, writer!


Cordially, tjd

Verrry interesting....

I had a feeling rape and incest were insufficient moral justifications to abort.  The difficulty lies in what becomes of the child. This country has resources to deal well enough with that question - not that it does, but that it is capable .Also, some small concern about genetics of offspring, particulaly amongst hypothetical communities of habitual rapists/inbreeders, though I'd suppose that is relatively  inconsequential going forward so long as we adhear to(Or revive) Constitutional principles.

Question: Abortion is a subset of the larger issue of reproductive rights, practices and possibilities. (Artificial wombs as in Huxley's Brave new world for example - porcine wombs could be availble next decade if passed by "ethics panels"- and probably practically regardless of ethics)

On racial discrimination - this seems self-evident at present, though there will likely be severe challenge In the future if/ when Humanity differentiates. (Technically, it's already begun) I suppose if "Homo Florensis"  was still around, they'd pose a quandary.

Love your posts and comments, Tj...

Hello, 1derlander! And thank you!

Rape and incest do happen, but the baby - in those very, very, rare instances where a pregnancy results (statistics - the last time I read an article regarding such - places such pregnancies in the almost never category... of course we may be wrong regarding the incidents of pregnancy...?), has done nothing to warrant death; perhaps, the women would bring the babies to gestation if they were financially compensated (and the baby was put up for adoption, if by birth the woman does not want to care for the child as hers)? My guess is that the rare number of pregnancies resulting would be easier for the women to bare if those women had both society's acknowledgment that they were not pregnant as a result of loose mores (once-upon-a-time pregnancy was socially embarrassing), and were sufficiently compensated (maybe several hundred thousand dollars, and as much as a million...?). Church groups, and organizations like the American Life League may utilize such an expenditure as a fund-raiser, but they would need to make good if/when women are found pregnant from rape or incest... And we acknowledge that such a suggestion may be rather course - to those which choose to demagogue the issue. As it is, nearly all arguments for abortion's necessary because of harm befalling a woman, if she doesn't obtain an abortion, are claims to advance abortion, so if a woman can be 'bought-off' (as a result of pregnancy due to rape and/or incest), another specious justification for the need for abortion is removed; leaving the reality - abortion is a convenient way to avoid the consequences of one's insouciant sexual actions...

Now if we - as a society - were truthful about what abortion is, viz: the murder of an intrauterine human baby, but allowed abortion legal protection (advertizing two facts: 1.) Abortion is legally permitted and 2.) Abortion is undoubtedly destroying a innocent human being) my guess is that next to no abortions would be obtained (or performed by doctors), because the ubiquitous fact (truth) of what occurs during an abortion would be an impediment which neither the woman or the medical professional could subsequently bare to live with... Of course, I may be wrong...?

Cordially, tjd

Civil rights vs. inalienable? Let's remember this, the "Bill of Rights" does not give us rights, but protects those rights from government! So, to me, those right)s are, in fact inalienable! (Congress shall make no law, The rights to keep and bear....shall not be infringed) Goverrnment cannot alter or change them because those freedoms CANNOT be changed or removed by the government. The civil rights ( from government) can be changed or removed.( even by 9 unelected people!)


Hi, nomads!


Wasn't aware of anything which I have written which intimated that rights are derived from, or conferred by, Government? I think I have explained - either here, or on your blog with my tête-à-têtes with Killer - that inalienable rights attend to human nature, a nature obtained by God's creating us. Naturally the Bill of Rights include logical extensions of what a rational being is entitled (hence the right to free speech flows from the inalienable rights; similarly with the other Rights contained the Bill of Rights), but the Founders articulated those Rights - in the manner which they did - so as to provide additional checks/limits upon the tendency for Governments to turn despotic; again I believe I explained such - at length to Killer - but such explanations - given his mien - have proven wasted efforts...


Cordially, tjd 



Post A Comment

This user has disabled anonymous commenting.