A mistake is often made when people quote the Constitution of the United States of America. That historic document declares that all Americans have certain UNALIENABLE rights among which are listed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately, the word often used when people quote the Constitution is the word INALIENABLE, which is incorrect but seldom realized as so.
Before someone says they mean the same thing and so the using of one or the other is insignificant, I would like to point out the difference that is ever so slight but essential to language being used correctly.
The word "unalienable" refers to rights that are inherent in man and are not rights that can be surrendered, bought, or transferred. Unalienable rights are a gift from the Creator to each individual and as such, cannot be taken away for any reason.
The word "unalienable" refers to rights that are inherent in man and are not rights that can be surrendered, bought, or transferred. Unalienable rights are a gift from the Creator to each individual and as such, cannot be taken away for any reason.
The government cannot take them as the government did not provide them. In fact, the only responsibility the government has toward unalienable rights is to secure them or to create an environment that protects them.
This point was clearly stated in a court ruling in 1892 entitled Budd vs People of the State of New York. That ruling said, " Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and it is to 'secure,' not grant or create these rights, for which governments are instituted."
The list in the Constitution can be expanded since it says "among which are" and then lists life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We could add such things as self-government, self defense, nature's necessities of air, food, water, clothing and shelter as well as worship. Such rights are absolutely incapable of being transferred lawfully, unlawfully, privately or by implication or operation of law.
That which is your unalienable right is a part of you in an absolute sense and could no more be removed from you than could your blood be removed and you live without it.
INALIENABLE rights, on the other hand, can be surrendered, sold, or transferred with the consent of the individual because they are NOT inherent [unalienable] and the government CAN alienate these from an individual, if a person consents, either actually or constructively, since the government may be the source of these individual rights.
Most State Constitutions refer to only inalienable rights it is true. But it is our UNALIENABLE RIGHTS to which our Constitution addresses itself and recognizes them as given to us by our Creator. It could be the loss of recognition of our Creator is what is leading to the mistaken general use of these two words in our modern day language.
People do have both but they are not the same at all. So, clearly, the words are not to be used as synonyms though often are among otherwise intelligent people.
This point was clearly stated in a court ruling in 1892 entitled Budd vs People of the State of New York. That ruling said, " Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and it is to 'secure,' not grant or create these rights, for which governments are instituted."
The list in the Constitution can be expanded since it says "among which are" and then lists life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We could add such things as self-government, self defense, nature's necessities of air, food, water, clothing and shelter as well as worship. Such rights are absolutely incapable of being transferred lawfully, unlawfully, privately or by implication or operation of law.
That which is your unalienable right is a part of you in an absolute sense and could no more be removed from you than could your blood be removed and you live without it.
INALIENABLE rights, on the other hand, can be surrendered, sold, or transferred with the consent of the individual because they are NOT inherent [unalienable] and the government CAN alienate these from an individual, if a person consents, either actually or constructively, since the government may be the source of these individual rights.
Most State Constitutions refer to only inalienable rights it is true. But it is our UNALIENABLE RIGHTS to which our Constitution addresses itself and recognizes them as given to us by our Creator. It could be the loss of recognition of our Creator is what is leading to the mistaken general use of these two words in our modern day language.
People do have both but they are not the same at all. So, clearly, the words are not to be used as synonyms though often are among otherwise intelligent people.
Paul B.
22 comments:
Paul,
How can say that the importance of that slight, but very important, difference, may be very convenient for some, without seeming cynical? :)
Aussie J,
How right you are..and..I may, in fact, be a tad bit cynical about it. [No seeming to it] ;)
Paul,
I like the definition of “unalienable” - “inherent in man...a gift from the Creator to each individual...cannot be taken away for any reason.”
Reminds me of the BFM 1963 that says: “Baptists emphasize the ...priesthood of the believer.”
That means each individual priesthood cannot be taken away.
The word “inalienable' sounds close to “unalienable”, but like you have pointed out, there is a big big difference.
The word “believers” sounds close to “believer” and “believers” was used by the BFM 2000 in saying: “We honor...priesthood of believers.”
But oh, the big big difference. To honor the group of believers the individual has to submit to the group. They said freedom of individual priesthood was too dangerous, so what was born at Calvary was pronounced dead in 2000.
The old conventions of Texas and Virginia, the CBF and Baptist World Alliance will not accept the BFM 2000. Once a pastor told us he would lead us to accept the 2000.
Rex
Rex,
I completely agree with your assessment of the word "Believers" instead of the word "believer."
Paul,
You said,
“...the words are not to be used as synonyms though often are among otherwise intelligent people.”
For a discussion on the meaning of words by intelligent people (trying to stay on topic) what would be the meaning of the third choice in this church music survey ballot?
1.A traditional service (traditional hymns and piano.)
2.A contemporary service (praise and worship chorus, several instruments.)
3.A blended service (a balance of traditional hymns, some done with multiple instruments done in upbeat style, some praise and worship choruses.)
I believe your wisdom would be very appreciated.
Rex
Rex,
I'm not sure what you're asking here but..I'll take a stab at giving my definition of the third.. in context with the first two.
One---The old fashioned method or style.
Two---The contemporary method or style.
Three--The mixture of both with neither dominate
nor lost completely.
The third is generally a wise thing as it keeps methods progressive without losing the text of the old hymns.
The third defines the method our church uses as well as most of the churches I go to for meetings in our day although, for me personally, either the second or third would be satisfactory.
I'm hoping this covers what you've requested of me.
Thanks Paul,
The majority of our church chose #3, but to nail down what you think, I'll be specific.
What does “...without losing the text of the old hymns” mean?
Does that mean the old hymns are to be sung as written in the hymnal, or does that mean parts of the old are to be sung to a new tune with new words added?
Does “with neither dominate” mean that the 'old' and the 'new' are to be about 50/50?
If I'm not being too nosy, about how often is your congregating asked to sing a new song they've never heard?
Maybe I should have asked this question first.
Should the congregation be asked what they want to hear, or should that be left up to what God or some Team wants them to hear?
Thanks again.
Rex
Rex,
I'm not sure of your purpose in asking but I'll assume it to be a genuine interest in what I might think. But I'll make this my last comment and leave it at that if you don't mind.
"Without losing the text of the old hymns" means the text can be used as is, altered, sung to a new tune or whatever might be decided by whomever is responsible for leading or whatever method of deciding is the established one for the congregation.
"With neither dominate" [should be dominating] could not mean "about 50/50" since I used the phrase "without either being lost." How much each is being used I personally would leave to be decided by whomever is responsible for leading or whatever method of deciding is the established one for the congregation.
"How often is your congregating asked to sing a new song they've never heard?" Just about every Sunday a new one is introduced or at least every other Sunday. How often a new one is introduced I would also leave to decided by whomever is responsible for leading or whatever method of deciding is the established one for the congregation.
My personal answer to your final question..."Should the congregation be asked what they want to hear, or should that be left up to what God or some Team wants them to hear?"...is that I don't believe there is an "ought" to it. I would leave that up to be decided by whomever is responsible for leading or whatever method of deciding is the established one for the congregation.
I hope this helps establish my view of things like this. Remember my view is no better than anyone else's and on matters about which you've asked the scriptures are silent. So I'm comfortable with leaving such things to whomever is responsible or whatever method of deciding is the established one for the congregation.
Paul,
Interesting conversation. Can I be rude and butt in?
Rex, I would simply ask two questions:
1. Why songs of any kind,traditional or contemporary, are sung, and,
2. Do they accomplish their purpose?
The question is genuinely for my own elucidation.
At the time of its conception, the "unalienable rights" described in the constitution were only referring to white property owning males.
I find that its important to remember this fact when exploring the rhetoric in the preamble of the US constitution, or else we might take too much stock in supposed "unalienable rights" that women, african american slaves, and the white working poor were not recognized to have at the time of its construction.
If it is in fact a loss of recognition in the Creator that lead to a modern misuse in language, I would argue that the state of the rights of the majority of Americans circa 1780 would lead one to believe there was virtually no recognition in the Creator then.
Anon,
Thanks for stopping by. I appreciate your insights.
I'm thinking they got it right with the "unalienable" concept but got it wrong with the "other persons" concept. Slavery was a sad and despicable reality in 1789 when the Constitution was officially adopted on March 4th of that year.
That Constitution, remember, was a political document not a religious one. In fact, someone has called it "A living tribute to the art of compromise."
Sad to say slavery was one of those compromises. This was what was behind the debate leading up to the Enumeration Clause, for example, where representatives for the states were decided and I quote a Constitutional scholar...
"Each state was given a number of representatives based on its population - in that population, slaves, called "other persons," were counted as three-fifths of a whole person. This compromise was hard-fought, with Northerners [Ironically those opposed to slavery basically] wishing that slaves, legally seen as property, be uncounted."
"Southerners, however, well aware of the high proportion of slaves to the total population in their states, wanted them counted as whole persons despite their legal status. The three-fifths number was a ratio used by the Congress in contemporary legislation and was agreed upon with great debate."
But it eventually came out as the finest document ever for the establishment of a government for the people and by the people.
It was not perfect as seen by the amendments and, thank goodness, it was corrected in many ways including slavery and women.
Even some of it's signers saw the struggle, which resulted in the war between the sates eventually, and spoke about slavery. I'll quote a couple.
John Jay, a great supporter of the Constitution after its creation and an author of 'The Federalist' wrote in 1786, "It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused."
Oliver Ellsworth, one of the signers of the Constitution wrote, a few months after the Convention adjourned, "All good men wish the entire abolition of slavery, as soon as it can take place with safety to the public, and for the lasting good of the present wretched race of slaves."
I'm a history major and a Christian, so I would never want to see our American history through rose-colored glasses. Call me on what I say anytime.
But, I AM grateful for our historical struggles to create a just and honorable society. [Eventually for all our citizens.] I'd like to keep it just and honorable as well and make it even more so.
Aussie John,
Hey! On a blog, how can someone be rude by butting in since popular blogs encourage precipitation.
Oops, I just butted in myself. :)
To answer why songs are sung in church, I believe the purpose is to prepare our hearts to hear God's Word by clearing our minds of all our cares that are forever upon us.
A few minutes of singing can raise out 'spiritual level' faster than many minutes of preaching.
I believe songs accomplish their purpose if they touch the heart more than the ear.
Paul,
Note how I've written #3:
A BLENDED SERVICE (a balance of traditional hymns, some done with multiple instruments done in upbeat style, some praise and worship choruses.)
Its been said: “The bold print giveth and the fine print taketh away.”
The powers that be said they could be quoted that #3 does not guarantee the church would ever hear a song like it is written in the hymnal.
If #3 was written that way on purpose, then I believe it's an example of politics at its best.
Rex
P.S.
The questionnaire below was suggested but not used.
Check the ones you enjoy.
1. ___ Traditional service (traditional hymns with piano only.)
2. ___Traditional service (traditional hymns with multiply instruments only.)
3. ___ Traditional service (traditional hymns with multiply instruments and a piano.)
4. ___Traditional hymns as written.
5. ___Traditional hymns with an ‘upbeat style’.
6. ___Some traditional hymns as written and some with an ‘upbeat style.’
7. ___ A contemporary service (praise and worship chorus with piano only.)
8. ___A contemporary service (praise and worship chorus with multiply instruments only.)
9. ___A contemporary service (praise and worship chorus with multiply instruments and a piano.)
10. ___A blended service (a balance of traditional hymns, praise and worship choruses with piano only.
11. ___A blended service (a balance of traditional hymns, praise and worship choruses with multiple instruments only.)
12 ___A blended service (a balance of traditional hymns, praise and worship choruses with piano and multiple instruments.)
13. ___Choir.
14. ___No choir.
15. ___Song leader. (Sings soft enough congregation can be heard.)
16. ___Song performer. (Sings so loud or mike so loud, congregation cannot be heard.
17. ___Special music.
18. ___No special music.
Rex
Rex,
My thinking is that we've spoken enough about styles of worship as it may have little to do with the post. I'll leave up what has been posted but, if you would please, let's allow that subject to be closed until a post comes that needs that kind of discussion. Thanks.
My point was to say that if we as Christians recognize unalienable rights inherent from our Creator, we must admit the United States of America did NOT recognize those rights for a very long time. Despite the inspiring language in our constitution.
If the recognition of these rights is a barometer for a nation's appreciation of their Creator, I would then conclude we live in a time when the USA was the most God fearing in its history.
There seems to be a conservative nostalgic sentiment permeating through the country now, that seems to think the constitution was magic created by God fearing men and that weve some how gotten away from those ideals. Which is kind of what I picked up on from
"It could be the loss of recognition in our Creator is what is leading to the mistaken general use of these two words in our modern language.
The founders may have used "unalienable" instead of "inalienable", but if you were a beaten wife, a slave, or sitting in debtors prison cause the landlord stopped taking your crops as payment, they were just words anyway.
Anon,
I could not agree more with your words here...."The founders may have used "unalienable" instead of "inalienable", but if you were a beaten wife, a slave, or sitting in debtors prison cause the landlord stopped taking your crops as payment, they were just words anyway."
I think our forefathers DID speak above their own time with the use of "unalienable." This would be much as men and women of literature often speak above their time for which future generations are the benefactors.
Future generations of Americans have certainly benefited from" their word "unalienable." You said as much here..."we must admit the United States of America did NOT recognize those rights for a very long time." I think you're correct in this too. But we have benefitted from their labors.
Finally, upon reflection, challenged by your clear words, not all of which I would personally agree with, it is only fair to say I DO think that in my statement..."It could be the loss of recognition in our Creator is what is leading to the mistaken general use of these two words in our modern language...there is likely found a bit of hyperbole, which I rather doubt added to the point of the post. Thank you for calling my attention to it. I think you may be right on that point also.
Your comments are appreciated and stop by often.
Paul,
I guess you're right as my dad would say, “All the taters are dug in that field.”
On the other hand the topic is the importance of “unalienable rights”.
While pushing 80, I've been a member of churches far longer than I've been a deacon who (in Baptist circles) seem to be in a group that have more influence on what goes on in lifting up Jesus.
I remember liking your post how your church made decisions. You wrote more important than what decision was made was the importance that every member felt they had a part.
I believe that's unalienable rights in action, or individual priesthood.
Some may think I'm a grumpy old man, but unalienable rights is what I want the man in the pew to have.
Rex
Rex,
I hear you and I agree that every person is to be heard. I think that sometimes people get confused and equate being heard with having their way. I don't think those are the same thing at all.
I'm not saying you confuse the two as only you can know that for sure, but I've had to deal with people that did confuse them so much I may occasionally over react. I have to watch myself there.
But for what it's worth...I like grumpy old men. LOL
interestingly, I was just thinking about this exact issue yeaterday. Thanks for the clarification, the difference is profound. I wanted to link to this on FB, but had to just add the link to the site cause I don't know how to do otherwise...
Paul,
"sometimes people get confused and equate being heard with having their way. I don't think those are the same thing at all."
Seems like you have had to sit through some of the "business meetings" I've had to. :)
Kate,
Thanks for stopping by and commenting. I appreciate your thoughts on it all.
Aussie J,
Yep...I was at those business meeting, and a few other interesting situations that would be hard for some to believe. But you and I could fill a book about them couldn't we my friend!!
I know I am late to the party on this discussion but I have been in Mexico and just got back into the office today (had hospital visits to make yesterday).
I think that your distinction between unalienable rights and inalienable rights is a vital distinction to make.
And as US citizens, I think we often underestimate the importance of this distinction.
As Global Citizens (who happen to be Americans) I think we often undersell this distinction.
However, the hunger to experience what is "unalienable" is universal...
To secure these unalienable rights is a function of our government as you and others have stated.
To assume that government can grant, create, or remove them (politically, materially, socially, legally) is political hubris...though they may try.
In the kingdom of God is there such a thing as unalienable rights? I do not think so but I do believe that there is unalienable freedom.(Maybe it is just semantics)
Therefore, I believe, that believers should rarely seek their own rights (The Apostle Paul appealed to them on occasion.) But believers should always champion freedom (but with others in mind)
Maybe while living in unalienable freedom and with an awareness of unalienable rights, we choose to be champions for the unalienable rights of others while not necessarily demanding to experience them for ourselves...in the hope that they will also experience unalienable freedom that is available through the finished work of Christ.
Just a thought.
Post a Comment