Countries enforcing race or gender diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies will now be at risk of the Trump administration deeming them as infringing on human rights. The new instructions also deem countries that subsidise abortion or facilitate mass migration as infringing on human rights. The senior official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said: "The United States remains committed to the Declaration of Independence's recognition that all men are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights."
The official added that rights were "given to us by God, our creator, not by governments".
Surely, if rights are given to us by God, then government should not impose any interpretation of God's will as to how those rights are lived out in their own country, let alone any other place?
Does he (or she) mean that government is the only authorized body that can interpret the manner in which the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are applied in (say) the USA. And in the case of Trump, the entire universe?
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
"all men [not just rich white guys]. . . Certain inalienable Rights, that among these are life [governments cannot execute criminals] liberty [governments cannot put people in jail] and the pursuit of happiness [ governments cannot interfere with people who like to have sex with goats or little girls}
Does anybody REALLY believe the Declaration of Independence was anything more than war time propaganda to emotionally affect opinion?
'The official added that rights were "given to us by God, our creator, not by governments".' That official does not actually believe that either or they would be calling the current president of the USofA a demon from Hell, defying G-d. (just saying, you know. Could very well be that last phrase is true)
Does anybody REALLY believe the Declaration of Independence was anything more than war time propaganda to emotionally affect opinion?
Sure, it was that; but it was all a finger in the eye of the king. At the time, it was thought that people would rail like hell against parliament, but, when push came to shove, they would not defy the monarch (hell, Gilbert and Sullivan wrote the same 100+ years later in Pirates of Penzance "Because with all their faults, they love their queen"); writing an accusatory document calling the king a criminal and pointing out his crimes was much more than just calling the prime minister names--it was attacking the very basis of the government (since parliament took solace in the fact that people would not defy the king, and the king believed that acts of parliament would not be attributed to him). This was quit an incendiary document.
I can't imagine they believed England would back away and say they are no longer"Englishmen", but it also gave the FRench more encouragement to give King George a bloody nose, and maybe even raised the price England had to pay for the Hessian mercenaries.
