Oregon Senatorial Race 2004,Oregon Senator
Home Page
Correspondence & CommentaryFair TradeMoral Superiority of ChristianityBible & HomosexualityPro Life PositionsNRA CorrespondenceSupport LetterTerri Schaivo & the Right to DieFreedom of SpeechSocial Security 1Depleted Uranium WeaponsIraq DiscussionFaith vs WorksGenetically Modified Seeds Religion and TyrannyPatriot ActPatriotism & Military ServiceWorld Situation & Islamic AttacksCheneys DaughterHigh Stakes -- Kerry vs. BushGarrison Keillor v. RepublicansBook OutlineEuthanasiaCulture WarGlobal WarmingAbuse AllegedVision for AmericaSupreme Court and Religion
  Right to Privacy  
 

dscn68811.png

Please go to updated essay at: http://www.drsenator.com/TheRightToPrivacy.html

Grounded: Millionaire John Gilmore stays close to home while making a point about privacy
He's unable to travel because he refuses to present a government-approved ID

http://www.postgazette.com/pg/05058/462446.stm
Sunday, February 27, 2005
By Dennis Roddy, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

SAN FRANCISCO -- John Gilmore's splendid isolation began July 4, 2002, when, with defiance aforethought, he strolled to the Southwest Airlines counter at Oakland Airport and presented his ticket. The gate agent asked for his ID.  Gilmore asked her why.   It is the law, she said.  Gilmore asked to see the law.  Nobody could produce a copy. To date, nobody has. The regulation that mandates ID at airports is "Sensitive Security Information." The law, as it turns out, is unavailable for inspection. What started out as a weekend trip to Washington became a crawl through the courts in search of an answer to Gilmore's question: Why? 

Summary of Article:
The Silicon Valley millionaire, John Gilmore, has refused to comply with the airline industry’s requirement to show his ID prior to traveling, calling it an invasion of his “Right to Privacy”.  On top of that, he has not been allowed to even see the rules that require and authorize the airlines to check every passenger’s identity.  His protest calls attention to a government that he believes has trampled on the rights of its citizens in the pursuit of security.

 

Commentary on the Right to Privacy

By: Thomas Lee Abshier, ND

03/02/2005

 

The world changed on 9/11; America was again warned that Militant Islam wants to destroy us.  Increasing security throughout the society was an obvious response to the threats of a sworn enemy.  Still, some people believe that a government conspiracy allowed so that the public would embrace a reduction of our rights and freedoms.  The cynics (e.g. www.democracynow.org etc.) believe that the Administration has no real commitment to security, the Muslim threat is not serious, the War in Iraq was for oil only, and that only power and profits drive our foreign and domestic policy. 

 

Underneath this cacophony of accusations and counteraccusations, I believe we find a desire on both sides to legislate their morality.  And since only one side is right, and both sides believe they are Right, the battle is fierce and the stakes are high.  The “out of power” party, the Democrats, are attributing evil motives to their opposition in an attempt to sway opinion and votes.  They attribute a lust for power and profits to the Republicans and offer examples such as Halliburton, no found WMDs, thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, Enron, the Oil Cartel, etc. to provide an air of validation to their claims of naked avarice and power-hunger.

 

I believe the Democratic Party who us shouting about the “right to privacy” is using this issue as a tool to advance their own anti-Christ agenda and to distract attention from the real battle.  In this country we are facing a spiritual fight between Godliness and rebellion against submission to His Will and Way.  The Democrats have largely positioned themselves in alliance with the ACLU/humanist agenda, and the Republicans have largely allied with Christian principles.  (Although, we can assume there are those with pure and impure hearts, right and wrong platform stands, and deceitful and truthful lips in both parties.  But, on the issues of Traditional Marriage and Abortion, the Republicans have attempted to submit their platform to a Christian worldview, and the Democrats have flagrantly supported a right to kill unborn children and disabled adults, and normalize homosexual “marriage”.) 

 

Thus, because of our deference to those among us with a humanist philosophy and worldview, our nation cannot declare a war on Militant Islam.  We must instead pretend no religion is evil and declare war on their tactic so as to not offend the humanist’s politically correct sensibilities.  But we cannot afford to capitulate to the mandates of the PC book of etiquette.  Our very survival as a nation of people who live under the liberty of Christ is at stake.  No other philosophy, religion, or worldview affords the fullness of liberty given to a nation and people who have bowed their knees to the will and Way of the Lord. 

 

There are spiritual forces operating to distract us from naming, recognizing, and fighting evil.  In this particular day, we face the evil of Militant Islam attempting to do damage to our infrastructure, to weaken us, to bring down our economic might.  We face the threat of regular Islam infiltrating our society by conversion, immigration, and conception.  Given enough time, and a sufficient growth rate, within the next century or two, the Islamic population could attain a voting majority and legislate an Islamic state in America.   

 

But, a more insidious threat is operating within the homeland.  The educated intellectual aristocracy, the city-bound metro-culture, the peace religionists, the pagan and atheistic humanists, the homosexual-adulterer-feminists, and the hip self-validated evolutionist relativist philosophers are banding together to remove every vestige of Christianity from our society.  This group believes in the supreme wisdom of humanity, nature, and intuition.  They believe the rules of behavior are not absolute, but relative to the circumstance and one’s own sense of truth.  This human centered religion has created a loose alliance with almost anyone of an anti-Christian bent or non-Christian worldview, and they have penetrated every social institution.  They are using the tools and tactics of public persuasion to legislate and judge the law according to humanistic principles, while they proselytize captive converts in the schools and media.  They are driven by their god, the unHoly Spirit, who seeks to throw off the restrictive bonds of Judeo-Christian morality that reminds them of their error and coming judgment. 

 

The humanist virtues include: choice, tolerance, equality, privacy, and the specious concept of Separation of Church and State.  By framing these principles as absolute virtues, the humanists on the Supreme Court have ruled that unGodly behaviors are protected under the color of Constitutional law.  Abortion and homosexual sodomy are two of the notable examples of private behaviors that are now “Constitutionally” protected as per the Supreme Court’s judgment.  In particular, the “right to privacy” as referenced in the 14th Amendment was cited in the landmark Roe v. Wade, and Lawrence v. Texas cases, which then served as legal precedent to legitimize these practices. 

 

14th Amendment: Section 1.  All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.  No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

A quick perusal of the 14th Amendment reveals no overt reference to a “right to privacy”, just as it does not mention a right to die, a right control one’s own body absolutely, the right to perform every sexual act, or any of a number of other modern day notions of ad hoc “rights” the court has invented to justify every form of personal and social moral degradation.  The Court has inferred a right to privacy from the phrases, “Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” and “No state shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”  Basing the right to privacy on these phrases implies that privacy is a privilege, or an aspect of life, liberty, or property.

 

If privacy is a privilege, then the privilege is given because the person engaging in the private behavior can be trusted to follow Godly principles even when outside of the eyes of those who would hold him accountable to his obligation to Godliness.

 

If privacy is a constituent principle within the more general rubrics of life, liberty and property, then privacy must be exercised in proper balance and hierarchy with the other principles that are applicable to a given circumstance (e.g. kindness, justice, temperance, patience, loving neighbor as self, and loving the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul).  But, regardless of the circumstance, Godliness is always the preeminent standard by which we as individuals and as a society should govern our thought, speech and actions.

 

Sodomy and abortion are not addressed in the Constitution in a sufficiently specific manner to assert that the Framers intended to place these acts within the set of inalienable human rights.  Thus, the modern legal advocates of such rights have done so on the basis of a personal worldview of moral-social conduct.  The Founders, and subsequent legislators, used terse verbiage to codify the underlying social moral code in the Constitution.  The Supreme Court (1892) and Congressional Committees (1864) examined the culture, history, and laws of the nation, and declared that “we are a Christian Nation.”  Thus we can properly deduce that the intended underlying moral code of the majority of our Founders and forefathers for a significant portion of our history was Biblical.  And, the fact that our culture based its Constitutional foundation on Biblical principles implies that we in later day America should likewise judge the Constitutionality of our various laws and rulings on this same basis.  Until We the People have rejected the God of Abraham from our hearts, bowed to another god, and rewritten or amended our Constitution, we should continue to base our moral foundation upon the intent of the Founders, and base our legislation and legal judgments on Biblical Godliness.  See Founders’ quotes.

 

When the modern Supreme Court judged blatantly anti-Biblical behaviors such as Abortion and Homosexual Sodomy as protected “Rights”, they failed in their mandate to properly judge Constitutionality.  They have followed the modern mantra of “separating church and state,” and refused to consider Biblical reference and parable in their judgment of the Constitutionality of legislation and rulings.  They have instead given priority to humanistic, multicultural, and globalist principles in judging the propriety of laws.

 

As a tertiary implicit reference, we can extrapolate that the 14th Amendment implies that we should honor a person’s privacy.  There is certainly a time for privacy as we all feel the desire for privacy around sexual issues and elimination functions.  The word “vulgar” means “common” in Latin; and it is the public display and speech about such functions that we instinctively declare as vulgar.  I believe the desire for modesty is one of the drives of the soul God has placed within our hearts.  Thus, the right to privacy has a natural resonance in our hearts with relation to abortion and sodomy since they are typically private acts, and inherently sexual and shameful in nature.  The Supreme Court has appealed to this natural desire to honor the private intimate nature of the sexual encounter and blended it with the modern day appeal for tolerance of all perversions.  From this confusion of natural function and wrong judgment of values, the Supremes have attributed Constitutional imprimatur to private shameful acts.  Thus, under the guise of properly judging the implicit intent of the Constitutional Founders, the modern day anti-Christ Judiciary has ruled that the repugnant and disgraceful acts of homosexual sodomy and abortion are protected by our Constitution.

 

While privacy is an aspect or privilege of life, and it is certainly a privilege of liberty, it cannot be taken as the supreme consideration under which all others must submit.  There is a time for privacy, and there is a time to rend the veils of privacy and expose private acts.  If privacy is the highest principle in the hierarchy of human relationship, then any act, murder, rape, theft, and abuse of all sorts is protected.

 

The common man knows that such an extension of logic is absurd, but the arcane world of judicial rulings is far removed from the ability of the citizenry to comment or combat it effectively.  The Judiciary has simply chosen to elevate the principle of privacy to the highest level to forward the cause of instituting sexual immorality as a right, and prevent dismantling the activities of terrorist religions.  If a Christian judge were to righteously and proactively legislate morality based on Christian principles, the Left would mobilize the political-media establishment to oppose what they would call social engineering to promote a Church-State agenda.  This is evidenced by the Democrats in the US Senate prohibiting any fully qualified candidate from serving on the Federal bench if they embrace Christian values.  We see evidence of the Left’s agenda as they attempt to legislate their own humanistic morality, and pretend that there is no church-state violation in so doing.  The behavior of the humanist in their legislation of morality is hypocritical.  When Christians use moral principle to justify a law, the Left objects.  In its place the humanist legislates or rules based on his humanistic principles and hides under the appearance of totally neutral secularism.  In fact, no such values-free ruling can be made; someone’s values will prevail in every culture and nation.  It is simply a matter of whether we choose a Judeo-Christian ethic which promotes life and liberty or a secular religion whose end result is slavery and death.  I believe we should simply acknowledge our Christian heritage and declare ourselves a Christian Nation.

 

The word most often used in justifying an involvement by the state in private affairs is the principle of a “compelling interest.”  And to be sure, there are private human activities where the state has no compelling interest in monitoring.  To date, no one has threatened the general welfare of the state by engaging in the normal intimate activities of husband and wife.  But, according to Scripture, prostitution, adultery, homosexuality, and abortion threaten our survival as a culture.  Biblical text reports the judgment God passed on Jerusalem when they turned to other gods, sacrificed their children, and when the society had degraded to the point where it was common for men to lay with men.  Such behavior was sufficiently egregious against their relationship to God that He allowed their enemies to breach their walled cities and take His people into captivity.  In effect, God wants relationship with His people; and given that we cannot see God, the way that we engage relationship with Him is by listening to His voice.  He is always speaking to us through the Holy Spirit.  To reject His voice, and to violate His leading, is to lose relationship.  In turn, God moves in the hearts of a man’s enemies, and the proud man is cast low.  God will not be mocked, His judgment cannot be avoided, and the unrighteous will fall.

 

A casual examination of one’s own experience of life reveals privacy as a need of the psyche, a commonly felt desire embedded deep within our human nature.  We innately experience shame or embarrassment when engaging in public intimate behavior, and we likewise experience shame as we violate God’s laws.  We each know that privacy has an important place in our lives, and as a nation, we must pass laws to protect the privilege of the good and Godly to private sacred practice.  Likewise we must pass laws which properly judge and expose the shameful.

 

The Libertarian Godless Left has taken our sense of God-given modesty about sexual behavior as a validation of the right to privately engage in any cause de jour sexual behavior.  The reasoning turns Godly morality on its head, justifying homosexual sodomy because it is private.  As a nation we should instead recognize the shameful nature of homosexual acts, and use our justice system to provide help and alternatives to the people who are possessed by this spirit.

 

Justifying homosexual sodomy in Lawrence v. Texas was merely the most recent example of wrongly using a privilege of Godliness to justify the violation of Godliness.  If the pattern holds, there will soon be claims of “Rights” violation by polygamists and prostitutes.  People are naturally driven to perform shameful deeds in private.  The Left has taken this illicit desire for privacy, ignored the shameful deed, and mandated that acts done in private must be protected.  The appropriateness of privacy being the primary principle in some situations need not be debated, just as the principles of choice, tolerance, and equality are likewise the primary virtue in some circumstances.  But, none of these principles are supreme virtues to be applied to all arenas of life.  Placing privacy on the altar as the highest of all sacred rights allows one to justify every immoral act, as long as it is done in secret.  But, murder, rape, and theft committed in private do not become justifiable because of their secret commission. 

 

In short, privacy is an important human privilege to be exercised by those who are Godly and trusted to follow His ways.  There is an inherent standard of judgment against which we must compare all principles involved in any given situation.  The problem is that Privacy has been used as a Trojan Horse to bring ungodliness into our society under the guise of honoring the intended Constitutional protections of every citizen.  In fact, the unHoly Spirit is using this pretense as a tool to fool the naïve.  The real battle is for the hearts of God’s people and the possession of His nations.  We were established as a Christian Nation, and that Righteous heritage is being stolen piece by piece.  In its place we are building a nation based on tertiary virtues, disregarding our obligation to judge everything in society by its conformity to Godliness.  Such wrongheaded legal precedent will serve as the legal precursor to slavery.  As a nation which has turned from Godliness, and worshipped the idols of choice, tolerance, equality, and privacy, we deserve the coming chastening in exile.

 

There appears to be two issues that John Gilmore is confronting: 1) He is challenging the underlying right of anyone to require identity disclosure prior to traveling, and 2) He is challenging the existence of secret laws, in particular the undisclosed law that requires airlines to validate identity.

 

As mentioned above, the right to privacy extends only to the sacred.  Privacy cannot be exalted to the status of a supreme right.  The assumption that all people will behave rightly in their private affairs is blatantly false.  As a result, we cannot absolutely remove the government’s right examine and judge the private acts of the citizenry.  The government is God’s surrogate agent on earth. 

 

Ideally America would be totally free in all its aspects such as the information transmission system, the transportation system, and the financial system.  A society of total Godliness in all its citizens would require no examination or restrictions on travel, banking, or relationships.  This will be appropriate when everyone is trustworthy and deserves such unrestricted freedom.  The problem is that we have been invaded by people who are not trustworthy, they hate the True God, and they are trying to kill people who want to live Righteous lives.  And yes, it's awful that the rebels, renegades, and degenerates are spoiling the beautiful trusting society that is the promise of a nation under Christ.  

 

Our nation has established rules because of lawbreakers.  Laws would be unnecessary if we were each faithful to the Laws of Life written on our hearts.  There are those who wish to transform society by using the principle of “privacy” for justifying their standing for "Freedoms".  They believe they have a right to perversion of every form because of Constitutional protections to privacy.  Such naiveté is shocking.  Freedom comes only as a reward for the very difficult task of creating a society of near uniform Godliness.  To oppose the enforcement of a law that facilitates the identification of violators puts us in a place of blindness.  Future problems will arise as as  result of suppressing symptoms that indicate the presence of deeper problems.  Removing the laws, and the associated discomfort with compliance and punishment, does not remove the violation, it only removes our indicators of error.  God's standard still remains supreme and the consequences of violating His law remain in effect.

 

When Godless people roam the airways, highways, and byways of America with the intent to wreck havoc and kill innocents, we have a deep societal problem.  And the problem is the presence of evil people in a nation which has in the past declared itself a Christian nation.  Trying to stop the killers them by monitoring the movement of every person in the world is inconvenient, expensive, and only somewhat effective.  But, simply enforcing everyone’s "Right" to travel freely in the country without any restriction is to ignore the fact that Freedom is the fruit of Righteousness.  As long as we have violators in the country, a government of righteous men will make rules to provide for the general welfare of the citizenry.  As a people we will impose laws restricting various "Rights" because of the fraction of the population who violate the rights of others.  The result is a collateral damage to the freedoms of those who are non-violators.  Such is the nature of law.  We could protest against every law passed by every legislature and court on this same basis.  But the fact is that until man turns his heart over in submission to the perfect leading of the Holy Spirit, we will continue to impose law and enforcement upon ourselves in an effort to subdue those who threaten life, limb, and property.  If you want to solve the problem, then contribute in the effort to change men's hearts to Godliness.  Such action will do more good than protesting against laws that contribute to the detection of violators.

 

The issue of enforcing private laws is an entirely different consideration.  The airlines and the government should publish the laws that require identity verification.  I can think of no situation where a law should be secret. 

 

When the Court adjudicates in favor of unGodly conduct, they put the nation in jeopardy of God’s judgment.  As long as we judge ourselves rightly, we will not be judged by God in eternity.  The motivation of those who judge wrongly may be in rebellion against the God, may be worshiping another god, or may simply misunderstand the proper priorities of life.  But regardless, the land will not be blessed by God while its people are governed by wrong principles and worship false gods.

 

Email comments on essay to Dr. Abshier:

 


Correspondence | Home Page | Fair Trade  | Moral Superiority of Christianity | Bible & Homosexualty | Pro Life Positions | NRA Correspondence | Support Letter | Judicial System & Godliness | Freedom of Speech | Social Security, The Problem | Depleted Uranium Weapons | Iraq News  | Faith versus Works | Responsible Technology | Religion and Tyranny | Patriot Act | Patriotism | World Situation | Cheneys Daughter | High Stakes | Lake Woebegon | Book Outline | Euthanasia | Culture War | Global Warming | Abuse Alleged | Vision for America | Supreme Court and Religion