How did the Left gain control of the discussion and definition of “Civil Rights?” They did it because those in leadership on the Right have been either too cowardly to advance a biblical, constitutional and conservative definition or they agree with the Left. Either way the discussion has been placed squarely in the hands of the MSM, the liberal Democrats, and various activist to the detriment of our societal evolution and constitutional government.
I agree with Mark Levin that I it is disgusting to have the likes of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Luis Farrakhan, LBGT, NAACP, Media Matters, Planned Parenthood, etc. tell us what a civil right is. My blood boils when I hear people like the sitting president tell the world that “Climate Change” , “Amnesty” or “Income Equality” is a civil right. Everything that the liberal left advances camouflages their agenda as a “civil right” packaging and selling it to their followers who heartily echo AMEN!
Civil Rights properly understood is about liberty, faith, family, freedom, national sovereignty and a constitutional republic. In simple terms, it is about “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” A civil right is a right in which everyone receives ‘equal’ treatment without discrimination. There is a confusion of ‘civil rights’ and ‘civil liberties’ and most of the left incorporate both as Civil Rights.
The sad thing that in today’s politically correct world if one is a homosexual the charge is their civil rights are violated if any person or business does not accommodate their preferences. Their civil right trumps the constitutional right (civil right and liberty) under the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of Religious Liberty and Freedom. The government’s mandate that a business, service a person in an act that violates their conscience and usurps their religious convictions. If a homosexual has a ‘civil right’ to practice their lifestyle, marry, etc. why is it not a ‘civil right’ for another to practice their faith and beliefs without interference from the government?
The Declaration of Independence mandates that we recognize all men as being created equal and that assertion is backed up by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Have we failed, at times? Most assuredly and we will in the future but when the definitions become so corrupted and politicized as they are we can never have a serious discussion on “civil rights” or “civil liberties.”
Civil Rights or Unalienable Rights should be understood as rights fixed by the Creator rather than the government. That makes them permanent not at the disposal or whim of elected officials. They are absolute rights which we have been ‘endowed’ meaning they are cannot be separated from us and are part of our humanity. Simply, the government did not grant them only recognized them and therefore has no right to diminish, rescind or suppress them.
The Bill of Rights issued a guarantee to protect every citizen’s God-given unalienable right to Freedom of Speech, Religion, Press, Conscience and Self-Defense to name a few. If a right us unalienable or inalienable it is “incapable of being alienated, sold or transferred.” Those rights are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing the right. The government can “secure” not “grant” or “create” those rights. In the guarantee that we can “Pursue Happiness” is implication of the right to pursue the vocation of our choice, lawful business in a manner consistent with the equal rights of others not subservient to them but equal to them.
We have allowed the discussion of “civil rights” to become a leftist weapon for the advancement of a socialist, Marxist, liberal ideology and the very claim of a violation in that arena sends politicians into the shadows looking for cover. I will defend your “civil rights” and “civil liberties” but will never consent to having mine tossed on the trash heap to accommodate what you perceive as yours. I support everyone being treated equal but not that you have a “civil right” to redistribute that which another has worked for and earned distributing to others in the name of equality or civil rights. If you adopt a lifestyle that is contrary to my beliefs I will defend your right to pursue it but never consent to forcing others to accommodate or facilitate it. If you believe it is okay to abort a baby that is between you and God it is your right to believe what you believe but I will not consent to spending taxpayer dollars to fund the process and my beliefs find it reprehensible and even murderous. I cannot agree that it is the right of a woman to make the decision when there is no representation for the child, yet unborn. Leftist will vehemently disagree for they do not believe that a fetus is a living human being until birth and even then some stretch the definition of life to allow the murder of a baby born alive.
Civil Rights? I am totally supportive of the “civil rights” of all people but totally opposed to the politicized definitions and activism of today. I agree with Mr. Levin that we need a New Civil Rights Movement that has not been coopted by the leftist and politicized to the point it is virtually non-existent and meaningless.
God help us return to the constitutional definitions and pursue the constitutional republic our founding fathers sought to establish. God bless you and God bless America!