Alienable/Inalienable/Unalienable

I have decided to post a new blog to continue the ongoing conversation on the so-called “myth” of “inalienable” rights—and hopefully bring a few more folks into the discussion.

• The conversation began last Thursday with this blog post by my friend and pastor, Jeff Ling. Note the comments on this page as well.
• It continued a bit on Jeff’s Facebook Page.
• Then I posted my thoughts on The Famished Patriot blog. More comments followed on this page as well.
• My Facebook Page likewise garnered a couple of responses.
• Then Jeff posted a second blog, placing the short, controversial quote into context from its original source. A few more comments followed.

So, that’s where we are.

First, I want to thank my friend Jeff for bringing this idea to the floor, for starting this conversation.

Second, I want to say right up front here that I am being schooled. And that is why I titled today’s blog as I did.

Our Declaration of Independence uses the word “unalienable,” not “inalienable.” Is there a difference? The dictionary says no. But I am coming to believe that the dictionary is wrong. Let’s look at the three words above. After some research, here is what I have come to understand. But bear with me, I am not a legal expert and this is a work in progress.

Alienable Rights. Alienable rights are specific rights that one possesses that can be surrendered if not exercised.

Inalienable Rights. Inalienable rights are those rights that can be legally surrendered by the one possessing those rights, but only if the same consents to a surrender.

Unalienable Rights. Unalienable rights cannot, under any circumstance, even the consent of the holder of those rights, be surrendered.

So, I stand corrected. Will Metzger, in the original quote linked above, was referencing “inalienable” not “unalienable” rights. In one sense, he is correct – such rights can be surrendered. But, on the other hand, to label our “inalienable” rights as a “myth” is not only a poor way of characterizing them, but actually quite incorrect.

Here is Metzger’s original quote, once again:

“Grace uproots three myths – my inalienable rights, my human goodness, my free will – that act as barriers, shielding people from the full impact of the gospel. These barriers are penetrated by the scandal of grace. Only a grace-centered gospel saves and gives response-ability, which solves the nonbeliever’s main problem. This results in passionate worship, which is the goal of evangelism – not just decisions but fervent disciples.”

Our “inalienable” rights are not a myth, they are very real – both for the totally surrendered Christian as well as the unredeemed. If we, as servants of Christ, choose to surrender our “inalienable rights” to Christ, it isn’t because they were a “myth” to begin with, but because we elect or choose to give Christ possession of those rights. I think this is the clearer way of expressing, perhaps, what Metzger was driving at.

As noted above, our “un” alienable rights cannot be surrendered. They are God-given and are ours from birth to death. Let’s take the “right to life” for example. We all remember crazy Dr. Jack Kevorkian who went to prison for assisting in a suicide. Taking ones own life, with or without assistance, is still a crime in most places. Suicide as a crime seems like an odd law. But if we drill down, we can get to the core principle underneath that law. And if we do, we can begin to understand that our laws still recognize that our “life” is technically not ours to surrender – it belongs to God. He can take it when He chooses. That choice is not ours. And so there is still, thankfully, some of the original Judeo-Christian thinking at work in our state codes.

I, like several others I suspect, stumbled wildly over Metzger’s choice of the word “myth” and completely missed the “in” vs. “un” alienable distinction. Years ago, I cannot now remember specifically where or when, I was schooled in this distinction, and had I been more careful a couple of days ago when this all came up, I would have paused and red-educated myself before I took off on what is now my momentary, latest crusade. For those of you unfamiliar with me, these “crusades” are a regular occurrence.

With all of this said, I still think this is a worthwhile conversation to have. Jefferson, in his crafting of our charter document, took great care to choose every word only after much thought and consideration. He chose “un” and not “in” for a reason. We should understand that reason. Words and their meanings are critical and we certainly – all of us, myself included – have gotten rather careless in our talk and understanding of the core principles of our freedom. One example is the “sloppy” replacement of the word “republic” with the word “democracy.” That is just one of many examples that could be given.

On the whole, we Americans, even many of my own baby-boomer generation, are woefully ignorant of the ideas – and the history behind the ideas – that went into our nation’s founding documents. In these days of encroaching tyranny, days when many are calling for the casting aside of our Constitution and many in positions of political power are simply ignoring it, we would do well to circle back and begin to grasp again the thinking of our nation’s brilliant founder-architects

I have some additional thoughts on “unalienable" rights and will post them soon.