During the ridiculous controversy over flags flying at the house of Justice Samuel Alito, the media and the left went into vapors over the inclusion of the “Free Pine” flag” or “Appeal to Heaven” flag — a flag with origins in the American Revolution. As I wrote at the time, this flag is neither racist nor extremist. Now, the controversy is back after a USA Today article by congressional reporter Zach Schermele, who wrote about how the “controversial Christian nationalist flag is hanging outside the D.C. office of a top Education Department official.”
The article goes on to note that:
“The flag, which was raised by rioters during the Jan. 6 insurrection… is adorning the office of Murray Bessette, principal deputy assistant secretary in the Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.
The “Appeal to Heaven” flag is the same that was flown outside the vacation home of conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in 2023, according to the NYT.”
To make matters worse for many, Schermele links to Wikipedia, which is not generally used by the media as a reliable source and has been criticized for the liberal bias of its editors, including by one of its founders.
The fact that different groups have carried the flag does not change the flag’s history or meaning. The rioters on January 6th also carried American flags, including “Don’t Tread on Me” and other colonial flags. They are symbols of our revolutionary struggle.
As I previously noted, the Pine Tree flag was commissioned by George Washington. The phrase “an appeal to heaven” comes from John Locke’s Second Treatise.
In my forthcoming book, Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution, I explore the foundations of the American Revolution on its 250th anniversary, including the influence of Locke on the framers. The book discusses how one barrier to revolution was the view that citizens could not revolt against a King and owed him a sacred pledge of fealty. This was reinforced by references to biblical provisions such as Romans 13, where Paul the Apostle reminds Christians to obey civil authorities and be loyal subjects.
That view was shattered by Reverend Jonathan Mayhew, in his famous sermon “A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers” on January 30, 1750, from the pulpit of Boston’s Old West Church. Mayhew explained how such claims amounted to virtual blasphemy and that, when a sovereign denied natural rights bestowed upon citizens, they were not defending but defying the will of God by resisting.
Before Mayhew, however, Locke had articulated the same principle in discussing breakdowns in governance where citizens face power “about to enslave, or destroy them.” In such circumstances, they may justify their actions not with an appeal to their oppressors, but to the source of their natural rights: the Almighty. In writing about the right to revolution, Locke wrote the following in his Second Treatise:
“The People have no other remedy in this, as in all other cases where they have no Judge on Earth, but to appeal to Heaven. For the Rulers, in such attempts, exercising a Power the People never put into their hands (who can never be supposed to consent, that any body should rule over them for their harm) do that, which they have not a right to do. And where the Body of the People, or any single Man, is deprived of their Right, or is under the Exercise of a power without right, and have no Appeal on Earth, there they have a liberty to appeal to Heaven, whenever they judge the Cause of sufficient moment.”
Locke goes on to write that the ultimate source of rights rested with God, not the government or “positive laws” created by the government:
“… they have, by a Law antecedent and paramount to all positive Laws of men, reserv’d that ultimate Determination to themselves, which belongs to all Mankind, where there lies no Appeal on Earth, viz. to judge whether they have just Cause to make their Appeal to Heaven. And this Judgment they cannot part with, it being out of a Man’s power so to submit himself to another, as to give him a liberty to destroy him; God and Nature never allowing a Man so to abandon himself, as to neglect his own preservation: And since he cannot take away his own Life, neither can he give another power to take it.”
Locke’s hold on the Framers was evident throughout the Declaration, early writings, and, of course, the Appeal to Heaven flag.
It is not a “Christian nationalist” symbol. Ironically, it is a symbol that shows that natural rights transcend any national government. Natural rights are recognized by other religions. They can also be embraced by the non-religious as human rights that cannot be denied by any government. Locke is considered one of the most important writers of the Enlightenment.
If nationalist is meant to refer to the pride and identification as Americans, the flag is certainly that and legitimately so. It is an American creation and ties us to our common article of faith in natural rights.
The Pine Tree or Appeal to Heaven flag has flown throughout our history, even outside government buildings in San Francisco (hardly a bastion of Christian nationalism). It reflects a core principle of our unique revolution: that our rights preceded government and belong to us as human beings.
The controversy over this article notably follows a similar kerfuffle caused by Sen. Tim Kaine (D. Va.), who denounced a nominee who believed in natural law and the concept of God-given rights. Kaine even called those who believed in such a basis for government as akin to Islamic terrorists. To do so was to effectively lump Alexander Hamilton with Ayatollah Khomeini.
Kaine was upset after a Trump nominee for a State Department position was an extremist, cut from the same cloth as the Iranian mullahs and religious extremists.
Riley Barnes, nominated to serve as assistant secretary of State for democracy, human rights and labor, had said that “all men are created equal because our rights come from God, our creator; not from our laws, not from our governments.”
It is a line virtually ripped from the Declaration of Independence, our founding document that is about to celebrate its 250th anniversary. Yet, the line set off Kaine, who furiously labeled Barnes as an extremist:
“The notion that rights don’t come from laws and don’t come from the government, but come from the Creator — that’s what the Iranian government believes,” he said. “It’s a theocratic regime that bases its rule on Shia (sic) law and targets Sunnis, Bahá’ís, Jews, Christians, and other religious minorities. They do it because they believe that they understand what natural rights are from their Creator. So, the statement that our rights do not come from our laws or our governments is extremely troubling.”
After a torrent of criticism, Kaine later backpedaled on his attack on claims of natural rights.
Underlying both controversies is a modern resistance to the notion of natural rights as bestowed by God on all of humanity, rights that preexist any government. The “appeal to heaven” is a call for the protection of those rights that belong to all human beings as part of being fully human. Ours was the first true revolution of the Enlightenment based on those very natural rights. That is why this flag should be flown proudly by all Americans as the embodiment of the values that laid the foundation of this Republic.
I’ve got to get me one of those flags
Yes! and the appeal to heaven worked!
We ended up with the freedoms any god would want for mankind.
” This was reinforced by references to biblical provisions such as Romans 13, where Paul the Apostle reminds Christians to obey civil authorities and be loyal subjects.” -JT
Today’s civil authorities have been hijacked (De facto). What is billed as Our Constitutional Democracy in not a Democracy at all. It is now controlled by a Kabbala, that has saturated the Legislative Branch, the Judicial Branch, and parts of the current Executive Branch.
The current Case in Point:
Clinton Judge Orders Destruction Of Key Evidence In Case Against James Comey
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/clinton-judge-orders-destruction-key-evidence-case-against-james-comey
There it is – Israeli Intelligence is telling the Clintons (Comey, Senior Members of The List et.al.) Defense Teams of Pan Bondi’s and Kash Patel’s every prosecutorial move. Probably the whole Trump administration’s every move one-by-one. The Kabbala have control of the Judiciary.
The U.S. Government has been compromised[.]
All in All the evidence is overwhelming that the Clintons used everything in the book, The Intelligence Agencies (CIA, FBI, DHS, etc. every Agency…) , Foreign Powers of State, Epstein, PACs, the Press, the Courts, various State Attys, any and all to keep an eye on the Trumps and contain the GOP, to keep a stronghold on Our Government and run it. And now in the Cover Up of the HRC Manchurian Candidacy run and the Biden Manchurian Presidency, all the same players are coming to the defense of the Clinton, and to cover their own culpability in their acts from within and around the Trumps to overthrow an Election by subversion.
(Trump has threatened this Kabbala and it has yet to be seen in the remainder of this Administration if Trump will cave-to or be swallowed-by the Kabbala. The earth is shifting under his feet.)
Doesn’t matter if is never “legally proven”, it’s obvious, completely obvious. That WE are under the control of a Kabbala that must be protected and never revealed.
Question the🌲(Government) when it is not a Government at all but a Kabbala.
Christmas night, 1776 “🌲appeal to heaven” or Christmas night, 2025 “🌲appeal to your own common sense” (This is not a Government)
George Washington famously crossed the Delaware River on Christmas night, 1776, to launch a surprise attack on Hessian troops in Trenton, New Jersey, a pivotal moment in the Revolutionary War that boosted American morale and led to significant victories. This daring feat involved navigating dangerous ice-choked waters in a severe storm, culminating in the successful surprise attack and capture of Hessian soldiers, ensuring the survival of the American cause.
https://tinyurl.com/4ta4u89s
!!! RELEASE THE BURN BAGS NOW !!!
!!! RELEASE THE BURN BAGS NOW !!!
!!! RELEASE THE BURN BAGS NOW !!!
“There it is – Israeli Intelligence is telling the Clintons … Defense Teams … every prosecutorial move… The Kabbala have control of the Judiciary.”
Absolutely nothing in the article you linked says this. Not one word. This piece is about U.S. judges, U.S. courts, and U.S. procedural law. Israel and Jews are never mentioned. You like to add things never said.
Here is the question you have to answer.
Where does the article say Israeli intelligence is involved? Give us the quote.
If you can’t quote a single sentence, document, or fact, then this isn’t analysis. Instead, it is a fantasy. Blaming Israel for American judges making American rulings isn’t insight. It’s a way to avoid dealing with the facts of the case.
Extraordinary accusations are never revealed because you repeat them. They become foolish when they’re “unhinged” from the source you cite.
Mr. Meyer, with all due respect, The Intelligence Agencies (Communities) do not ‘publish’ their activities. Epstein was closely aligned with Israel’s inner intel community (aside from Ghislaine Maxwell’s own Father’s direct connection). I beg to differ that Israel would not be interested in the outcome of U.S. political affairs (Elections), they indeed would be. Epstein was working both sides He was feeding Israel’s Intel as much as he was getting Intel to feed the Clinton’s. That now appears to be the obvious relationship.
The Democratic Party appointed Judges (Many Clinton & Obama appointed) have been proactive in their bias to the ongoing exposure of the cases involving the Clinton Inner Circle which includes ties to Israel.
I do not hold the average Citizen of Israel accountable to the actions of its Intelligence ‘meddling’ anymore than one could hold the average Citizen of the United States for the CIA’s ‘meddling’ in the affairs of Other countries. The issue is that the defenses of Comey, the Clinton’s abject refusal to come forward under subpoena, the actions of the FBI under Christopher Wray and Comey, the DOJ under Merrick Garland, the CIA under Brennen, … … points to a nefarious control (Kabbala) beyond the boarder of the/this Nation State (Outside Intel about domestic activities, that would not have been derived from secure internal operations).
The Intelligence Community is a Globalized industry that exchanges intel secretively amongst themselves. To say the the Clinton’s were not ‘in the loop’ and that there is no ‘Surface or Undercover’ association to Israel’s Intel community is foolish to believe (naive), They are one of Our closest friends.
The Protection of this (undercover, covert, undisclosed) relationship is essential to the Community and to the Kabbala that directs the Community.
In short: The Clintons were in the thick of it and their Friends are being exposed by the Epstein disclosures, every measure is being taken to protect the Kabbala relationship and intel community.
Epstein left a mountain of fakakta the size of Everest, he was cornered and it’s know wounder he died. From what I see the same media forces are mounting the same blitz as his first presidency, It’s Dangerous to keep pushing him, 1. because he’s Trump and has proven his resolve, and 2. because he’s a Lame Duck President and can do whatever he wishes to do as this is his last command.
“The Intelligence Agencies (Communiti es) do not ‘publish’ their activities.”
That means you don’t know. The question is, “Where does the article say Israeli intelligence is involved? Give us the quote.” The article didn’t even match your narrative. Your present narrative is much the same. You provide no documentation, so you are simply wasting time providing meaningless words.
Epstein was closely aligned with Israel’s inner intel community
With all due respect, whatever “alignment” Epstein had with Israel’s inner intel community, it doesn’t come even remotely close to his far tighter alignment with Democrat politicians and presidents.
And that “Kabbala relationship”… when do you get to the part where you tell us how those filthy Jews kidnap newborns in order to drink their blood at perverted Jewish mystical ceremonies?
If the filthy Jews have all that control over all those Democrats, it’s really weird they didn’t have the FBI out rounding up the Democrats New Hitler Youth Movement – at least since the Oct. 7th massacre.
If Professor Turley wants to use history as a defense of this flag against the idea that it is a Christian nationalist symbol, perhaps he should reconsider.
The flag’s modern association with Christian nationalism began around 2013 when a Pentecostal cleric named Dutch Sheets received the flag as a gift and prophesied it would be a “symbol of a campaign to restore America to the Christian nation God intended”. Sheets organized a national tour, wrote a book, and actively urged politicians to display the flag to signal their Christian nationalist sympathies, which has been successful in promoting the symbol within the movement.
To make it more obvious, the same flag was used by many Jan 6 rioters for the same reason, symbolizing Christian Nationalist aspirations. So when, allegedly, Alito’s wife put up an American upside-down flag and the pine tree flag, the message was pretty straightforward. “She” was expressing her support (wink, wink), not Alito, but the damage was done before Alito could muster the flimsy excuse that it was his wife’s idea, not his.
The confirmation bias is strong with this one.
Has anything I said in my post untrue?
Yes, X, “the flimsy excuse” is untrue among others…
I am guilty of responding to X … now the flies will gather. 😔
Didn’t read it, but by now I just assume with your track record.
George Svelaz, plenty is untrue, and the rest is misleading.
You falsely implied the Appeal to Heaven flag is a Christian nationalist symbol rather than a historically secular Revolutionary-era flag that some Christian nationalists appropriated later. You also falsely claim its modern meaning started in 2013, ignoring decades of non-religious use. You say that “many” Jan 6 rioters used it for the same Christian nationalist reason, a claim for which you provide no evidence. You present speculation about Alito’s wife’s intent as straightforward, which is not fact, but inference.
Your entire post like most others you write was entirely wrong.
SM, good comment. The Appeal to Heaven flag is a Revolutionary-era political symbol rooted in Locke’s theory of resistance, not a Christian nationalist emblem. That some modern groups have appropriated it does not redefine its historical meaning. Claims that its “modern meaning” began in 2013 or that “many” Jan 6 rioters used it for the same ideological purpose are asserted without evidence. Likewise, speculation about Justice Alito’s wife’s intent is presented as fact when it is inference. If we’re going to debate symbols and judicial ethics seriously, we should at least adhere to basic historical accuracy and evidentiary standards.
Thanks, Olly. GSX is unable to provide rational thought or the truth. He is worthless, but he provides the opportunity to refute them so that others can listen and learn. You do a great job.
As do you SM. Check out this book on Amazon and let me know what you think. Awakening a Forgotten Republic: Restoring the Soul of Liberty and the Duty of Self-Government.
S. Meyer and OLLY,
Great comments, and interesting discussion. Seems there is an attempt by leftists to pin a flag that has association with Revolutionary-era to Christian nationalist emblem. Kinda like how they claim all Trump supporters are white supremacists, when the reality is some Trump supporters might be white supremacists, the rest are not. Be a neat trick for me to be a white supremacist, as I am not white.
Well said Upstate. Reality has a way of refusing to cooperate with broad stereotypes. 😉
Anyway, back to your point. That’s exactly the pattern at work. Taking an entire group or symbol and defining it by its most extreme outliers is not analysis, it’s flattening. Some people may misuse a symbol or attach it to an ideology, but that doesn’t retroactively redefine its meaning for everyone else who invokes it for very different reasons. That’s true for flags, political movements, and people alike. Once distinctions disappear, reason gives way to caricature, and demonization becomes easier than debate. The more important question is always intent and purpose, not guilt by association.
Has anything I said in my post untrue?
How often do you actually say something that in fact is true? And, have you cleansed yourself of your Systemic White Racism? You DID vote for Obama informing you that you were consumed with racism – as he learned at the alter of the racist Democrat Black Nationalist Reverend Jeremiah Write during the 20 years he soaked up sermons of black racism and anti-Semitism.
Who tf is Dutch Sheets?
Ppl I’ve never heard of have no significance to me. That goes for their opinions as well.
Thank you professor for pointing out historical facts.
Fly whatever flag you like. If someone complains tell them: “Bugger off and go fly your own flag. If you mess with my flag you’re compost”
Or just ignore them because they are insignificant.
“ The fact that different groups have carried the flag does not change the flag’s history or meaning.”
I agree that a flag’s history does not change, but I disagree about the meaning. It can change over time. For example, the Confederate flag’s meaning changed over time to represent racism instead of just the southern states. Mississippi removed its’ Confederate battle flag emblem from the state flag for this reason. The rainbow flag representing the gay community, which Christians have criticized as being robbed from them as a symbol of the covenant of god with Noah, and causing some ‘challenging’ debates among the faithful.
Flags can change meaning over time depending on the context in which they are used and by whom.
The meaning of ‘X/George’ on this blog sure has changed over time
There were no “rioters” on January 6, 2021. Professor Turley understands the importance of words, and I am disappointed that he chose this one in his article.
There were rioters. Trump supporters were committing violent acts, including the destruction of government property, assaulting law enforcement, and defecating on hallways. There was plenty of rioting.
Do you mean like the BLM demonstrations?
OK george, now tell the rest of the story.
There was NO riot until the Capital fired gas into the protesters. For no reason, then came the rubber bullets.
They didn’t use rubber bullets during the Capitol riots. Pepper balls and mace were used.
The rioting started before any capitol police got involved. The rioters were being goaded by Proud Boys members among the crowd. Once they got the ball rolling the crowd just started getting more aggressive and violent. It’s all on video. Lots, and lots of video.
They didn’t use rubber bullets during the Capitol riots. Pepper balls and mace were used. It’s all on video. Lots, and lots of video.
Predictable that George X always claims he has never seen any video from a few months earlier when the Democrats street stormtroopers in Black Liars & Marxists and Antifa were attempting to murder police officers with Molotov Cocktails while they were storming the White House, trying to get in to murder Trump and his family. that’s all on video as well – LOTS of video. But like rubber bullets, with George X that never happened either.
Lyin’ Like A Proud Biden gets even worse since the release of hidden video held by Pelosi’s police state fascist J6 committee a few months ago. Lots of video, like the video showing a MPD sergeant shooting a protester on the other side of the bike racks outside the senate shot point blank in the leg with a rubber bullet, causing multiple commuted fractures that took a year of several surgeries to repair.
Bodycam evidence strongly suggested that Sgt. Edwards fired the shot, but no publicly available video was conclusive. A U.S. Department of Justice trial exhibit — overhead video shot by a journalist — later showed that Edwards was most likely the MPD officer who fired the shot.
Well, if anyone would understand disappointment, you seem to be an expert at it.
An Appeal to Heaven in its historical sense is not an American symbol but Christian nationalism! Another example of the “know nothing” attitude that a degree in Journalism brings you these days.
Kaine is also in the same class. I don’t deny him his right to speak because most of the time it shows him for the fool that he is.
Maybe we should go full religious and all start flying the flag of the Knights Templar in front of of every house.
“Onward Christian Soldiers” should be our march as we make our way to the Capital.
“A Mighty Fortress is Our God” should be our anthem.
There would probably be spontaneous combustion at the DNC. Hollywood might burn down, again! People would start writhing in the streets as the demons leave them.
Hilary Clinton would literally be struck dumb and have nothing to say. Oh the glory of it all!!.
I mean that is the way the DNC and the press think of us. Let’s make it come true.
GEB,
Thank you for the laugh!
Honest to God, no one in the whole wide world has better job titles than the US Government, “principal deputy assistant secretary”??? What the hell is that? The guy who fetches the coffee?
Crispy
What the hell is that?
That is probably about $180K a year with full healthcare and a 85% of best 5 years salary pension after 20 years of service.
$38 Trillion and counting…
No, the one who writes arrest warrants for clueless commenters.
🤡
Many of us who believe that government can neither grant nor deny our natural rights are rapidly losing any semblance of obedience or respect for anyone or anything that might attempt to deny us our rights. But we are at a point in history where it may be better to let the pressure grow. When it bursts, the result will be absolutely beautiful!
Clarke
During the lead up to the first Civil War (second Revolution) people were found murdered in their homes and in their fields. Men carried their pistols even to Church suspicious of their neighbors as the mole hill grew daily into a boiling mountain of hatred.
Field, Fleet and Fort a chronicle of Civil War battles written by the men that fought them. Published 1867, if you can find it.
“Field, Fleet and Fort a chronicle of Civil War battles written by the men that fought them. Published 1867, if you can find it.”
Done:
“Field, fort and fleet; being a series of brilliant and authentic sketches of the most notable battles of the late Civil War”
https://archive.org/details/fieldfortfleetbe00quad
I don’t believe Mr Kaine or any of his buddies ever pitch a bi*^h about the illegals carrying their homeland flags while attacking our LE’s.
Believe huh? So slander Kaine huh? Prove it big mouth.
Your the proof, you poof
To a communist every other flag is a Nazi flag. Though both Socialist ideals, but they hate each other.
Germany – The Nazis were part of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP)
USSR – United Soviet Socialist Republic – Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP)
Workers party, Labour party, both repressed the workers in favor of the state.
Repressed. That’s what socialism and communism is.
“ It is not a “Christian nationalist” symbol. Ironically, it is a symbol that shows that natural rights transcend any national government. Natural rights are recognized by other religions.”
Professor Turley is correct. The pine tree flag is not a Christian nationalist flag. But….you knew this was coming, But, It is fast becoming one based on the fact that it represents a growing Evangelical belief about natural rights. Many believe these natural rights supersede Constitutional rights. That’s just how it is in any extreme fringe of Christianity or any other religion.
The flag being flown at Justice Alito’s home in itself shouldn’t be an issue, but…….he’s also a Supreme Court justice who is supposed to maintain an appearance of impartiality. The pine tree flag was not the only flag flown at his house that caused controversy. At the time flying an American flag upside down was associated with the “stop the steal” movement and the appeal to heaven flag at another. The point of the controversy was not the flags themselves but who was presenting them. Alito’s wife. However it also showed poor judgment at a time when it shouldn’t have been. Alito basically threw his wife under the bus to try to alleviate any concerns about impartiality issues. That didn’t help much.
The problem here is the misuse of the word “supersede.” Natural rights do not override or compete with constitutional rights. They ground them. The Constitution does not create rights; it recognizes and secures preexisting ones. Without natural rights, constitutional rights are just permissions granted by the state. Without constitutional structure, natural rights lack legal protection. The American system requires both. Calling this view a “fringe evangelical belief” ignores that it is the explicit philosophy of the Declaration of Independence and the very reason a Constitution was necessary in the first place.
“Natural rights do not override or compete with constitutional rights. They ground them. The Constitution does not create rights; it recognizes and secures preexisting ones.”
Who determines what these pre-existing rights are? We, as a people, have decided. Initially, only white people claimed rights over others, such as enslaved people, It wasn’t until after the Civil War that we had to amend the Constitution to add the rights of slaves, and nearly a century later, during the civil rights movement, we expanded those rights to include everyone besides the wealthy and privileged. We had to change these so-called “natural” rights when dealing with the issue of slavery. Naturally, everyone should have the same rights. Isn’t that right?
Black and Asian people didn’t have the same “natural” rights as everyone else. Women, too, didn’t enjoy the same rights until the government, acting on the people’s will, created rights like the right to vote and the right to liberty for all—access for everyone, not just a privileged few. Correct?
Some Christians believe that certain “natural” rights, which they determine themselves, can override what’s enshrined in the Constitution, giving them the right to dictate those rights to everyone else. This has been an ongoing struggle throughout the country’s history.
There is no right to vote in our Constitution. But if anybody CAN vote, every citizen over 18 must be allowed to, without paying a tax.
Only those who own property should be able to vote. You have to have some skin in the game
If you pay taxes, you should have the right to vote. A car is property. So, should anyone who owns a vehicle have the right to vote? It is registered with the government, and you pay taxes on it every year.
If you pay taxes, you should have the right to vote.
Roughly 50% of Americans filing federal tax returns pay ZERO in taxes. A disgusting number of those actually get a tax refund for credits.
What percentage of that 50% are Democrat Welfare Kings And Queens, or other Identity Politics government dependent groups?
Only those who own property should be able to vote. You have to have some skin in the game
The Constitution makes no mention of “skin in the game to vote”. If we get to define what “skin in the game” actually looks like, then I think it is better to go with earlier Hellenic ideas of having skin in the game:
Never served in one of the combat trades in the military? Especially if of military age during the 20 years your nation was at war following 9/11?
No? Then you don’t have any skin in the game like those of us who repeatedly deployed do, cupcake.
In fact, you don’t even know what “skin in the game” is, when it has to be backed by your blood and your life.
Every citizen 18 AND over.
You’re conflating the denial of rights with their nonexistence. Enslaved people, women, and minorities did not lack natural rights. Their rights were violated. That is precisely why slavery and exclusion were condemned as unjust even when legal. The Reconstruction Amendments and women’s suffrage did not create new human rights. They forced government to recognize rights it had been denying. If rights only exist when government grants them, then slavery was not unjust until repealed, and women had no legitimate claim until permission was given. That position destroys the moral basis of civil rights itself. Natural rights do not empower Christians, governments, or majorities to impose beliefs. They limit all of them.
“ Enslaved people, women, and minorities did not lack natural rights.”
That is an oversimplification. During that era, many white people believed that only those deemed worthy by societal standards possessed natural rights. They also held the conviction that the so-called “natural order” justified their ownership of people they could own people inferior to them as property, as well as women and other marginalized groups.
Our founders did not claim that “natural rights” applied universally to all individuals. Instead, they explicitly endorsed the idea that such rights were reserved for the just and righteous—specifically landowners, wealthy elites, and those wielding political or economic power.
IIt wasn’t until much later that those who believed solely in “their” natural rights were challenged by individuals who viewed slavery as fundamentally wrong and morally unjustifiable. However, proponents of slavery relied heavily on the Bible to justify their stance, as the scriptures contain no explicit recognition of natural rights for slaves or for those considered unbelievers. Additionally, free speech is not regarded as a natural right either, since the Bible does not mention it or God affirming such a right. This is why blasphemy was still considered a crime even when our founding fathers drafted the Constitution. Laws criminalizing blasphemy remain on the statutes of many states, with the most recent repeal occurring in 2010.
Natural rights do empower Christians, as they often cite divine edicts as definitive proof that their interpretation of what constitutes a natural right is correct. The diverse landscape of religious sects across the country leads to different groups espousing varying versions of what they consider to be natural rights, depending on their doctrines and cultural contexts. This theological patchwork underscores the importance of a unifying legal framework, which is why the Constitution was established— to create a national standard and framework that all citizens, regardless of religious or sectarian differences, agree to uphold as the foundation of our shared governance.
You’re confusing belief and abuse with truth and principle. The fact that many people once denied rights to slaves, women, and minorities does not mean those people lacked natural rights. It means their rights were violated. That is precisely why slavery and exclusion were condemned as unjust even when legal. If rights only exist when society recognizes them, then slavery was morally legitimate until repealed, and civil rights had no claim until power shifted. That position destroys the very moral logic used to oppose slavery and segregation. The Constitution does not replace natural rights; it presupposes them. Without preexisting rights, law becomes nothing more than permission granted by power.
That is an oversimplification.
Deliberate obfuscation and deflection, George X. Is it your abysmal lack of reading comprehension? Or your lack of a developed prefrontal cortex? Or both.
X what were the populations of free blacks, Asians and women in America at the time of establishing the Constitution?
“Who determines what these pre-existing rights are?”
“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.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, “ _The Declaration of Independence
In your follow-up statements, all you do is provide worthless spinning with a lot of words, none of which contain worthwhile ideas. Olly takes you down, but you lack the intellectual ability to know it.
The “who decides?” question reflects a legitimate concern about human error. The Founders addressed that by claiming not to invent rights, but to recognize them as self-evident. “Self-evident” doesn’t mean everyone accepts them automatically. It means they don’t depend on authority to exist. Like all discovered truths, they require recognition, argument, and acceptance over time. Writing them down didn’t create them. It acknowledged moral limits on power that exist regardless of who holds the pen.
Excellent way of looking at things.
Appreciate that. The book I cited frames the Declaration as guiding principles and the Constitution as execution, but shows how history repeats when fear overrides reason. What we’re seeing now is fear and demonization being deployed to bypass first principles rather than debate them.
Well said, Olly. Tim Kaine typifies today’s Democratic party who regurgitate the everyone who disagrees with them is an extremist, a racist, a white nationalist, and a Nazi. It’s all they have really, but they’re warming up for the upcoming midterms with more of the same. That of course, and “make the rich pay”. Greg
Thanks Greg. The reflex to label disagreement as “extremism” is what happens when first principles are no longer taught or defended. The claim that rights come from government, not nature, cannot withstand serious scrutiny, so it’s dismissed with insults instead. That’s not politics warming up for elections; it’s civic illiteracy on display.
Alito can’t express his opinion with a pretty flag (BTW they also flew the Starts & Stripes), but all the impartial libs can go on public screeds against on the POTUS?
Alito can hoist any flag he wants. But….he’s also a Supreme Court justice who is obligated to maintain the appearance of impartiality. Hoisting an upsidedown American flag in middle of a movement is not only a bad idea, it’s poor judgment.
Hmmmm the progressive left published SCJs addressing, the Biden AG failed to address the criminality issues of protestors acts of intimidation of our highest court judges. Let’s recall this followed the Blaisey-Ford smear attempts against Kavanaugh ss well as the failed assassination attempt against him.
If that doesn’t support flying the flag upside down as the international signal of distress then what does?
Bad taste? Another pathetic attempt X keep them coming, you’re the best tool in the box.
There were no issues with criminality. Protesters are permitted to demonstrate in front of a judge’s residence on public property. This does not constitute intimidation; it is an exercise of free speech. Ironically, the Supreme Court has deemed these forms of protest to be constitutionally protected.
A Supreme Court justice must uphold the appearance of impartiality, even when faced with minor annoyances such as protests outside their homes.
It is a federal offense to protest and harass at the private home of a Supreme Court justice.
X says There were no issues with criminality.
George X at his best; Lyin’ Like Joe Biden. It is a crime to use bullhorns while screaming death threats, harassing, etc. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1507, it is a criminal violation of federal law to picket or parade “near a building or residence occupied or used by [a federal] judge, with intent to intimidate, horass, or otherwise influence their judicial decisions and activities.
And that law has already been tested and passed constitutional muster.
Not that anyone would think of a moment that George X cares about law or the Constitution. Communists hate both.
Tell that to the newest Court Justice. (Jackson)
She can’t keep her mouth shut.
SC Justice Alito didn’t hoist that flag. Get your facts straight.
Alito can hoist any flag he wants. But….he’s also a Supreme Court justice who is obligated to maintain the appearance of impartiality.
Meanwhile, aside from the flag Alito’s WIFE put up, long before Alito joined SCOTUS, that old communist Democrat Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg was taking advantage of major mainstream media to tell Americans that in her SCOTUS judicial opinion, Republican candidate Trump was not qualified to be elected president.
And X (using another screen name at the time) cheered in a sickeningly almost orgasmic fashion watching her demonstrate George X’s example of “Democrat judicial impartiality”.
Interview July 8, 2016 with New York Times:
“I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president.”
Interview July 11, 2016 with CNN
“He is a faker. He has no consistency about him… How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns?
But for the Demented Mad King George X: BBBBUUUTTTT…. MUH ALITO’S WIFE’S FLAGGG!!!!!!!
Flying a flag upside down is a distress signal, and surely our nation was in peril when she flew it.
Not at the time. Flying the flag upside-down at the time was symbol of support for the “stop the steal” movement.
To put it succinctly: you are full of shit.
And was Thomas Jefferson a Christian nationalist? That great champion of the separation of Church and State was the one who wrote we were endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, rights that could not be bought or sold. Spelling out such rights in the Constitution was at first thought unnecessary — surely they were self-evident.
Wow X, right over your head!
Natural rights DO supercede the constitution, and the constitution humbly admits it. Those rights are enshrined ENSHRINED! in Amendment 10.
We trust SCOTUS not to be idiots and be without political views, like any normal person, but to decide DESPITE those views, based on..get this… the constitution! reading is fundamental. RIF.
I defend what critics deride as “Christian nationalism” because it is nothing more than the belief that rights preexist government and that no ruler is sovereign over conscience. That belief does not impose religion; it restrains power. A theocracy claims God speaks through rulers. America was founded on the opposite idea: that God endows individuals with rights that rulers must respect. Even for those who reject God, it is madness to argue that government should have the authority to give or take every right you claim. A right that comes from government is not a right at all.
OLLY,
Great comment.
Seems Mr. Kaine could learn a thing or two from you and the good professor.
Upstate, I bet if you asked them if they would oppose natural rights theory if conservatives held all positions of power, they would be the biggest supporters of the theory. That question is big part of this book that was recently released.
https://a.co/d/5yqhH5e
Olly,
“ That belief does not impose religion; it restrains power. A theocracy claims God speaks through rulers.”
Evangelical Christians and far-right Christian nationalists believe that God communicates His will through political rulers. They often justify Donald Trump’s behavior by claiming that God is working through him, even when his actions are clearly un-Christian. Essentially, this reasoning serves as a way to absolve Trump of moral or spiritual accountability, using divine endorsement as a shield.
“ America was founded on the opposite idea: that God endows individuals with rights that rulers must respect.”
Is it though? It depends on who says God endows these individual rights that rulers must respect. How does that square with what Jesus said about government? Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.
Obviously, the word God is nowhere in the Constitution.
“ A right that comes from government is not a right at all.”
But far-right Christian nationalists and Evangelical Christians assert God rules through government. Therefore, the government granting those rights comes from god. But, not those they don’t like, such as abolishing slavery or letting women vote. Things like that.
You’re still arguing against a caricature. Natural rights theory does not say God speaks through rulers. That is theocracy, and it is explicitly rejected by the idea that rights are endowed to individuals and rulers are bound by law. Some people may foolishly excuse politicians by invoking God, but that abuse does not define the principle. “Render unto Caesar” actually supports limited government by distinguishing political authority from ultimate moral authority. The Constitution intentionally avoids theology because it presupposes, rather than creates, rights articulated in the Declaration. If rights come from government, then no injustice is unjust until power changes. Slavery and women’s suffrage were corrected by appealing to higher principles, not by inventing new ones.
Evangelical Christians and far-right Christian nationalists believe that God communicates His will through political rulers.
And black Evangelical Christian racist Black Nationalists like Jeremiah Wright spent 20 years preaching black racism to a young Barack Obama, telling them that they were oppressed by Systemic White Racism and that he could do God’s will through political power.
You know, the things like. Things which George X hopes that at least people here will forget, even if the Internet never does. The Democrat Black Racist Movement as demonstrated by Obama – who abandoned his mulatto earlier life of Rich White Privilege to run as a po’ black chil’ from the ghetto – Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton, etc prefer to call it Black Liberation Theology.
Sounds much better than Marxist Democrat Black Christian Racist Nationalism.
So what is wrong with being White and being a Nationalist? You have had BLM, NAACP, LaRaza, CAIR and every other ethnic based organization telling White people how bad we are. I am White, I am a Christian and I am a Nationalist that believes in my country and am proud of our heritage. I think what is going on is crazy and evil abounds.
Fascists like Zach Schermele and Tim Kaine can’t bear the thought that Americans have “rights” independent of those “granted” by their dreamt-of authoritarian government. These leftwing extremists shred the Constitution, tear up the Bill of Rights, and ignore history, all in their insatiable quest for power. Shame on them.
Senator Tim Kaine is either an idiot or ignorant of the English language.
Declaration of Independence: All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, which include Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
Unalienable (adjective): Referring to rights that cannot be taken away, transferred, or surrendered; intrinsic and inherent.
Rights given by the government can always be taken away by the government which means they can never be unalienable.
‘endowed by their Creator ‘ The government did not create men, men created the government. The government never creates anything , it only steals, represses and destroys.
Kaine can’t have an opinion? Whatabout the 1st A?
My grandmother’s opinion was that playing with frogs caused warts. The First Amendment recognized her right to express her opinion, but that would not make her opinion correct.
A Senator like Kaine should be familiar wirh the fundamental principles of our nation, because he must propose and vote on proposed laws in accordance. Having rogue opinions should disqualify him.
Idiots can have opinions. If anyone should know that, it’s you.
To those who obsess over flags hanging at Alito’s home and / or office: get a life and get a job (a real job, that provides goods and /or services beneficial to others). If you have to search for obscure and hidden reasons to declare that a patriot is somehow a traitor in disguise, perhaps you are seeking something that is just a figment of your own imagination.
So its a economic thing now, is it? What childish nonsense.
Great. It’s come to the point where if a SCOTUS judge is reported to turn the car ignition with his/her right hand, this is a “tell” of his/her politics. Crazy.
Another example of why JT should be required reading for all!
Required reading? How easily you’re impressed with a 3rd rate opinionist.
Obviously Mr. Kaine is unfit for his position. All too many, these days forget the wise words which justified our revolt against the mad English King. By Kaine’s logic, our revolution was pure treason, as our rights would have been defined by the King and his Parliament.
Also, he is clearly an atheist.
Who are you to judge him?
And then reference king George III.
You write nonsense.
Now do the Moultrie flag
Why, when it’s not germane to the specific issue at hand, which is the comments of Mr. Schermele on this particular flag, and Senator Kaine’s rejection of the American Revolution’s justifying document, the Declaration of Independence, and our cardinal law, the Constitution, which implicitly acknowledges natural rights upon which government is not to infringe, nor which they may abridge?
I have also heard progresive priests talking about getting away from natural law presumably because it undergirds much of Catholic sexual ethics.
Justifying document?
Cardinal law? Natural rights cannot infringe? Then why is it all presidents and congresses do? I guess it ain’t that natural.