129
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 168:
Line 168: − + − + − <blockquote>+ − '''Article 29'''+ − </blockquote> + − <blockquote>+ − + − </blockquote> + − <blockquote>+ − + − </blockquote>
no edit summary
== “Human Rights” vs. Unalienable Rights ==
== “Human Rights” vs. Unalienable Rights ==
In the current vernacular, the term “human rights” is often used interchangeably with the term “unalienable rights.”
In the current vernacular, the term “human rights” is often used interchangeably with the term “unalienable rights.” The difference between these two concepts, however, is immense and cannot be reconciled. Unalienable rights are those authored by God. They are thus both irrevocable and nearly unlimited in scope. Man’s role is simply to discover and protect them. On the other hand, human rights are created and sustained by human government. They are thus narrowly drawn and perpetually open to modification, suspension, or rescission at any time. No emergency is required to alter or nullify them. Governments generally promote and exploit “human rights” to advance the power of government.
The most well-known example of human rights is the United Nations 1948 '''Universal Declaration of Human Rights'''. This document contains thirty articles listing about fifty rights authored and approved by the UN. At the time the UN Declaration was ratified by its members, it was hailed by the media as a major advancement in the cause of liberty.
The most well-known example of human rights is the United Nations 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document contains thirty articles listing about fifty rights authored and approved by the UN. At the time the UN Declaration was ratified by its members, it was hailed by the media as a major advancement in the cause of liberty. It is important to remember, however, that the UN recognizes only those rights contained in the Declaration and no others. If a right is not listed in the Declaration, such as the right to keep and bear arms, then as far as the UN is concerned that right does not exist. Moreover and more significantly, any right that does appear in the Declaration is subject to modification or cancellation at the discretion of UN policymakers:
Article 29
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, '''everyone shall be subject''' only '''to such limitations as are determined by law''' solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
(3) '''These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations'''.
Not surprisingly, the majority of governments that promote “human rights” are socialist- or communist-based, and are usually ruled by a dictator, an oligarchy, or a military junta. In these regimes, the concept of “human rights” gives the government wide latitude to control the population by granting certain freedoms and withholding others. Unlike the government instituted by America’s forefathers, governments which promote “human rights” typically are not established to protect the freedoms of the People, but to control and exploit the population, under the guise of providing them with “security.”
== “Inalienable” vs. “Unalienable” ==
== “Inalienable” vs. “Unalienable” ==