I have been amazed at the proliferation of ‘rights’ that individuals claim: marriage, restroom access and abortion to name a few. These ‘rights’ are claimed under the ‘Equality Card’. When one self-identifies as a member of the opposite sex, gender-non-binary or gender-whatever, does it mean that the person’s identity has changed? Consider the following anecdote:
As a student, I could not grasp that 1 plus 1 equals 2 (1+1=2). I exhibited such confusion over the matter that I became distraught. Because I insisted that 1+1=3, I could receive no further teaching in math. I was ridiculed and called all sorts of names. The math teacher, trying in vain, could find no way to get this fact through to me. My life seemed doomed because I could not identify a single truth in that statement: 1+1=2.
Out of desperation, I went to the school counselor for help. Instead of helping me to correct my confusion, I was told, “It’s okay. I won’t try to change what you think is true. If you cannot identify the equation to be true as your teacher explained it, then you’re not confused; instead you have defined a new form of math.” From that day on, I self-identified as a math-fluid and insisted that banks adhere to my math because I had a right to my self-identity.
The hypothetical situation above is rather extreme but demonstrates what liberal logic has done to the minds of our children. To shed further light on this ‘identity crisis”, let’s resolve the meaning of identity: 1) the fact of being who or what a person or thing is; 2) a close similarity or affinity.
There are certain markers, or traits, that identify individual characteristics – fingerprints, footprints and blood type. To further enable identification as male or female, God, in His wisdom, created certain physiological differences. Otherwise, we would have had to use DNA and chromosomes to eventually determine the gender of an infant.
Regardless of a claim of self-identification, close inspection of DNA and chromosomes will provide evidence of truth or deception in the claim. Identity cannot be changed regardless of one’s confusion or misunderstanding. Having tattoos inscribed on my body does not change my identity. Becoming a Christian did not change my earthly identity – I am still David Boarman, caucasian, male, age 48. And, regardless of how confused I am about 1 plus 1, the truth remains that 1+1=2. And certainly, going under the knife does not change the DNA and chromosomes in my body that serve as identity markers.
Transgenders and gender-non-conformists have used ‘equality’ as the banner by which certain rights are attained. And this is simply wrong. Rights are a measure of equality. Therefore, equality must be based wholly on every individual having the same enumerated list of basic Natural Rights. The Natural Rights were created in such a way that gender, skin color and disability could not alter the possession of, or power over assertion of, the same by every individual. Not coincidentally gender, skin color and disability are characteristics which cannot be chosen at birth. Nor are our Natural Rights affected by the family we are born into or our citizenship.
A great inequality is manufactured between people when we let Civil (of or pertaining to man; man-ordained) Rights define what makes us equal. When we allow Civil jurisprudence to act on our behalf to outline individual rights, no one will be equal. Someone will always have a “what about me” scenario and, most assuredly, the powerful elites reserve the greatest ‘rights’ for themselves.
Rights do not have requirements. On the other hand, a privilege will always impose some requirement – for example, obtaining a driver’s license, even voting is a privilege. Privileges are man-ordained and because these privileges are under the authority of man, they can be changed, revoked or modified at the whim of the authority by which the same is granted.
But the Natural Rights were ordained by God and man has no place in altering what He has ordained. And God did not impose any requirements to assert the Natural Rights He ordained. Simply stated, we were endowed with the right to:
- Choose not to assert any of the following
- Pursue the worship of God
- A life unharmed by another
- A livelihood
- Own property
- Convey thoughts, beliefs, ideals and motivations
- Know truth
The first is evident in our ability to choose – also called the Right of Free Will. The primary reason for these rights is to protect and preserve life. The secondary purpose is to provide an equality framework. As long as we live within this framework, we are all equal. However, as soon as one makes claim to and granted some additional right, then there is no equality. In order for equality to exist, all individuals must have the same rights.
What differentiates people beyond these rights are certain privileges. If it is privileges people want then they need to identify that what they seek is a privilege. If transgenders asked for the privilege of using the wrong restroom, it is much easier to say, “No.” But when framed as a right to achieve equality, then it becomes a matter of Civil Rights. No privileges are ever guaranteed. Some are granted privilege automatically at a certain age and upon certain conditions. A prime example is the right to vote: you must be 18 and a citizen of the United States.
One good test would be to imagine what ‘rights’ would be available to us if, say, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights were obliterated. Indeed, we are granted certain privileges because we are Americans. But the Natural Rights are sovereign in that they are unaffected by any civil decrees.
Unfortunately, our legal system retains “Freedom of Speech” and “Freedom of Religion” as Civil Rights. Note that these rights were never given to Americans by the Bill of Rights. It was affirmed that these rights already existed and it is the federal government’s duty to protect them. However, by moving the pursuit of the worship of God and the freedom to convey thoughts and beliefs under the domain of man, every form of Christian worship and every oral or written word is held liable for damages to another’s sensitivity. The right to pursue the worship of God is not a Civil Right and neither is the right to convey our thoughts and beliefs.
So, the next time someone lays claim to a ‘right’, ask yourself, “What are the requirements to assert said right? What if our Constitutional liberties were gone tomorrow, would you still have the same right? Can the right be applied to all persons regardless of gender, skin color or disability?”