A Christian libertarian will say that “you must be willing to give liberty to your neighbor if you wish to have liberty for yourself”. The right to religious freedom itself is exactly the type of right and liberty that is being alluded to in this statement. Others, such as if I want to have the right to a heterosexual marriage, must I give the right to a homosexual to marry? Is it not merely just a contract under man’s law? If you wish to use herbs and other natural remedies to heal your body, should we give others the right to enjoy the various drugs and herbs available to people, as long as they do not harm others? Should a prostitute and john be able to enjoy this profession, as long as they do not coerce or harm others, without being harassed and arrested by government agents? Do I own my own body and therefore do I have the right to commit suicide if I know longer want to live? These are some of the rights that are called “inalienable rights” yet we as a society use various malum prohibitum legislation to usurp the rights of those who differ from their religious beliefs.

However, it seems to be, that once we give government the right to usurp even one law, it opens up the door for any of the others to be usurps. We end up compromising in our rule of law to such a great extent that one day we finally wake up with little rights left and a tyrannical government as our masters, financially broken by the very laws we thought would help our world.      

All religious people must honestly conclude that they believe they have a special relationship with God that is superior/more truthful/more righteous then those that do not believe as they do. Christians believe that they have a superior religion to Muslims. Jews believe that they are Gods chosen ones and therefore, they are superior to other religions and Muslins believe that their belief in Allah gives them the right to even kill others that do not believe as they do. I only assume that the other prominent religions of the world believe in a similar self righteousness, as the conflicts/wars/crime/corruption in their cultures appear no less violent or more compassionate then the ones we are familiar with.

This overly self righteousness appears to be causing human hardship on our world as each religion vies for control over the rule of law and the land under its jurisdiction, rather than providing us with a better, more peaceful and prosperous world.  

Rather than give our religious neighbors to right to live as they see fit, so we can attempt to discourage the their behavior we disagree with, we give government the privileges that end up often times usurping our own rights. Of course, each religion in their own glory believe that since they are the chosen ones, their philosophies will eventually prevail and life will be perfect once that happens, so therefore they must push on with their religious promotions, so as to save the world from the other inferior religions. Each generation of believers are enlisted into this erroneous concept that they can save the world and each day just as many wars, violence and conflict go on as the decade, century or millennium before it.

Perhaps the acceptance or tolerance of others activities, however unconscionable to one group, is really an essential component to the functional realities of our world. The protection of individual rights as our founders attempted to promote sure does seem to be a fundamental element for peace and prosperity.  I think so, and as long as you do not usurp (take away) the rights of others, we must allow those who do not agree with our beliefs to live the life as they choose, once again as long as they do not take way your or the rights of others.

If we are to ever have true peace and prosperity for the majority, both tolerance and a thick skin/psychological strength must also be components of the protection of inalienable rights, if we are to make it work. If somebody calls me a white ass honky, that is not taking away my rights. I can call them an infidel or jerk and that is not taking away their rights. You also have the right to ignore your neighbor, if he’s an idiot, but if he aggresses on you or your lawfully acquired property and even “attempts” harm, that is an issue of self defense and that is what we must all protect, even when it is from government. It cannot however be because you are offended by the actions or statement of others. Remember the riddle we were taught as kids, that sticks and stones may break our bones but names will never hurt me. I do not want to go into some of the positive legal principles that have forged our world but it is an interesting study in of itself. Things like when someone does say something about you that is fraudulent, and it causes a economic or physical harm, that is called a libel and is a crime, but you must prove the economic damage. It can’t be because you are psychologically distraught because someone called you a whop. As John Adams stated "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments: rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws: rights derived from the Great Legislator of the universe." Protect them people, protect them with your lives.