Inalienable Individual Liberty
=
God's Gift to All
God endows the human race with this most glorious of gifts so that we all naturally have the free will to individually choose whether we long to love him as he inalienably loves each one of us.
Is not love more true when freely given than when in any way bought or coerced or connived? How many of us already despise the Creator even with his glorious gift of individual free will? Imagine how much more hateful some humans would be if God forced us to love him. No sounder proofs exist that God loves us than that he gives us all his only begotten Son as our only Way to abide with him eternally and that he gives us all the absolute free will to individually choose whether to believe, or not. Hallelujah.
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
John 8:32 (KJV)
John 8:32 (KJV)
Once an individual is blessed with discernment of that truth, and then freely accepts and believes it as the holy truth it is, s/he naturally becomes a child of God, a new person lovingly subject to God's natural laws, far above mere law made by mortal man (secular law). Now, if you're not a mature spiritual person and more of a secular one, those last ten words will no doubt rankle your favor for collectively man-made, secular law, so it is vital I be clear on this point.
For an example, let's use the collectively man-made, secular law of driving under the influence: if I am a loving and maturing child of God, chances are my need to drink alcohol will wither and wither away the longer I walk with him, to the point that I won't drink at all; not because of some religious need to promote myself as righteous, but simply because the love I experience with him itself fills me up so much more. So, because of his righteous love for me and me desiring to walk righteously in his presence more and more and more, I no longer drink alcohol at all - and that puts me totally above all collectively man-made, secular laws relating to driving under the influence.
You see, it's in no way a matter of arrogantly seeing oneself above anything; it's simply humbly revering God's ways as naturally superior to collective laws of mere man (natural law over secular law).
For an example, let's use the collectively man-made, secular law of driving under the influence: if I am a loving and maturing child of God, chances are my need to drink alcohol will wither and wither away the longer I walk with him, to the point that I won't drink at all; not because of some religious need to promote myself as righteous, but simply because the love I experience with him itself fills me up so much more. So, because of his righteous love for me and me desiring to walk righteously in his presence more and more and more, I no longer drink alcohol at all - and that puts me totally above all collectively man-made, secular laws relating to driving under the influence.
You see, it's in no way a matter of arrogantly seeing oneself above anything; it's simply humbly revering God's ways as naturally superior to collective laws of mere man (natural law over secular law).
From the Spiritual to the Political
The point of God-fearing, inalienable individual liberty-loving humans living naturally above secular law is the declarative founding political principle of the United States of America:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Secular politics, at its base, is simply the art of how two or more individuals choose to govern themselves as the group they've freely chosen to become. But, whenever individuals join together, their natural individual differences - whether spiritual, cultural, economical, and/or political - will always stress the union (collective) to some degree, and the greater that degree, the more the stress. So the act of compromise must take place if that union is to succeed. Conflict usually begins when compromise is hard to reach.
The unanimous Declaration of of the thirteen united States of America established for the first time in world political history that no matter the union/collective, certain individual rights are inalienable, in other words, they naturally exist above the power of all/any secular government that may already exist or be established, and they cannot be compromised to any degree because they are endowed to all individuals not by any other individual, or by any majority of individuals, or by any government, but inalienably - and only - from every individual's Creator. It also declared the primary purpose of America's republican form of government is to secure these rights for all individuals.
In the inevitable case that any government deems itself a compromiser of those inalienable individual liberties instead of their securer, or worse, the dictator over them in total, the Declaration also wisely proclaims the following standard as another inherent, natural right all free individuals are endowed by their Creator with:
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
But what happens when a majority of individuals who've freely agreed to enter a political union together no longer hold the same foundational political beliefs to which the union was agreed to in the first place? What happens when one faction ceases to reverently cherish the God-given, inalienable individual liberty of others? What happens when a majority believes the union itself is the supreme decider of all rights, regardless of declarative and constitutional words written upon pieces of parchment so long ago? What happens when government deems itself - not God - to be the endower and definer of any so-called rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Boston, we have a problem.