FDR's Second Bill of Rights
FDR's Second Bill of Rights: A Redefinition of Rights
State of the Union Message to Congress - January 11, 1944
Assignment:
FDR’s Second Bill of Rights (State of the Union 1944) speech video
Step 1 - View the video and list all the new “rights” that FDR discusses!
Step 2 - ALSO Write a paragraph or so explaining how these “rights” are not really “rights” at all!
FDR’s Second Bill of Rights (State of the Union 1944) speech video
Step 1 - View the video and list all the new “rights” that FDR discusses!
Step 2 - ALSO Write a paragraph or so explaining how these “rights” are not really “rights” at all!
- What are NATURAL RIGHTS? How do these "rights" listed by FDR differ?
- Address the following: Do people have a “right” to have something provided to them by the government? Do people have a "right" to get something that is taken from someone else with the government serving as the middle man? Why would politicians / oligarchs want to provide things to some people at taxpayers expense? (What do the politicians get out of it?) Discuss this important shift in how Leftists portray the idea of "rights" and discuss why they are making this shift. If you do not understand, please ask me and your parents about this!
I have also provided a text version of the speech that you can read in addition to viewing the shorter video segment.
| 18c_fdr_speech_to_congress_jan_11_1944_2nd_bill_of_rights.pdf |
| 18c_fdr_2nd_bill_of_rights.pdf |
Near the end of World War II, FDR proposed a "Second Bill of Rights" that would fundamentally transform the nature of rights. He believed that people should have rights to have certain things provided to them by the State (the government)! (A right to get something from the government is a "positive right." It means that others are coerced to provide something to you. This is political manipulation and enablement. Mostly, it is way to cull votes.)
This signaled a 180 turn from the Constitutional view of rights as articulated in the Bill of Rights. According the founding principles, people have natural, inherent rights to life, liberty, and property, and the Bill of Rights was designed to protect people from the government encroaching upon these pre-existing, inherent rights. (A right to be protected from encroachment is a "negative right." It means that others have a duty to refrain from infringing on your life, liberty, or property. This idea was the foundation of our nation.)
FDR was proposing a new definition of rights that coerces some individuals to provide something to other individuals. Thus, FDR's approach involved a perspective toward rights that would deny some people their natural rights while providing nice things to others in exchange for votes.
This signaled a 180 turn from the Constitutional view of rights as articulated in the Bill of Rights. According the founding principles, people have natural, inherent rights to life, liberty, and property, and the Bill of Rights was designed to protect people from the government encroaching upon these pre-existing, inherent rights. (A right to be protected from encroachment is a "negative right." It means that others have a duty to refrain from infringing on your life, liberty, or property. This idea was the foundation of our nation.)
FDR was proposing a new definition of rights that coerces some individuals to provide something to other individuals. Thus, FDR's approach involved a perspective toward rights that would deny some people their natural rights while providing nice things to others in exchange for votes.
The redefinition of rights is at the core of the social justice movement.
- Self proclaimed social justice warriors first convince people that something is a right.
- Then they protest for the government to provide that thing to everyone - using tax payer's money.
- This is nothing more than a redistribution scheme using favorable "nice-sounding" terminology.
FDR's Four Freedoms Speech
FDR also attempted to redefine the concept of freedom!
| fdr_4_freedoms.pdf |
Francis Schaeffer - A Christian Manifesto
Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church 1982
Schaeffer wonders, "Where have all the Bible believing Christians been the past 40 years?" He claims that this country was founded on a Christian moral base, but the Christian worldview is being lost.
"The bottom line...is the realization that if there is no place for disobeying the government, that government has been put in the place of the living God. In such a case, the government has been made a false god. If there is no place for disobeying a human government, that government has been made god. Caesar ... has been put upon the final throne. The Bible's answer is 'no.' Caesar is not to be put in the place of God... Christ must be the final Lord and not Caesar and not society."
Schaeffer wonders, "Where have all the Bible believing Christians been the past 40 years?" He claims that this country was founded on a Christian moral base, but the Christian worldview is being lost.
"The bottom line...is the realization that if there is no place for disobeying the government, that government has been put in the place of the living God. In such a case, the government has been made a false god. If there is no place for disobeying a human government, that government has been made god. Caesar ... has been put upon the final throne. The Bible's answer is 'no.' Caesar is not to be put in the place of God... Christ must be the final Lord and not Caesar and not society."
Francis Schaeffer always understood - and tried to teach us - how important a Christian worldview is and how it impacts all aspects of life. Sadly, the churches have abdicated their responsibility to teach about how Biblical principles are connected to the civic realm. Undoubtedly because of Lyndon B. Johnson's 501(c)(3) status making churches tax exempt if they remained apolitical, churches stopped teaching fundamental principles of liberty and identity.
Christians have not been taught about their identity as natural rights holders. Even church-going people now believe that a person's rights are granted by The State where the government decides which rights a person is allowed to have. Yet Thomas Jefferson declared that Man has God-given inherent rights of life and liberty along with the liberty to pursue personal happiness. John Locke declared that man has natural, God- given inherent rights of life, liberty, and property.
Natural rights are not granted from without. Natural rights are an inherent part of each individual's identity from within. That simple reality is a revolutionary truth and is fundamental to a Christian worldview.
Christians have not been taught about their identity as natural rights holders. Even church-going people now believe that a person's rights are granted by The State where the government decides which rights a person is allowed to have. Yet Thomas Jefferson declared that Man has God-given inherent rights of life and liberty along with the liberty to pursue personal happiness. John Locke declared that man has natural, God- given inherent rights of life, liberty, and property.
Natural rights are not granted from without. Natural rights are an inherent part of each individual's identity from within. That simple reality is a revolutionary truth and is fundamental to a Christian worldview.
- Those withOUT the Christian understanding of natural rights believe they need to petition and protest to get The State to give them things they believe they have a right to, and this attitude is the foundation of the social justice movement and Marxism. Thus, for a Leftist to get his or her rights, The State (the taxpayer) has to provide them with something.
- On the other hand, for a person with a Christian worldview, they understand that they already possess their rights just by virtue of being a person created by God. No one needs to give them anything. Instead, they work toward protecting the rights they possess inherently by limiting the power of government to encroach upon anyone's natural rights!
Once again, it is a Time for Choosing!
|
"I hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here
that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts."
| ||||
