THIS PAGE
TO A FRIEND
Unalienable vs. Inalienable Rights, the Alito Nomination and China
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
By Mary Mostert
Over Christmas and New Year’s I have not written my usual weekly article, not from lack of interest, but from lack of time. As most of you readers know, in 2004 and 2005 my most recent books were published and were introduced at the New York Book Expo in 2005. In September 2005 my books, entitled
The Threat of Anarchy Leads to the Constitution of the United States of America, were displayed at the Beijing Book Fair in China.
A few weeks later a book publisher in Beijing contacted me about the books, which were not sold but merely on display at the Book Fair. He wanted know if I would be interested in selling him the rights for a Chinese edition of my books. I said I would be interested and that was followed by a flurry of e-mails back and forth, and my mailing a set of the books to Beijing for them to read.
A couple of days after they received the books in Beijing they e-mailed me saying they could see that they were “academic books” and that they would like to publish them, although they did not expect them to have a large readership.
I had been having somewhat the same discussion in the United States. People have wanted to list them as “textbooks” because they directly quote the writings of George Washington and other founding fathers, including those who WROTE the documents and delegates of the 1776 Continental Congress and the 1787 Constitutional Convention that adopted the documents.
I wrote back to tell them I did not consider them “academic” books and made a suggestion that they translate the last two chapters of the second book into Chinese and have several people read them before making the decision to purchase the publishing rights of the book. Teachers have told me that my books cannot be used in the schools in the United States – because of the major point I make in those chapters concerning the difference between “unalienable” and “inalienable” rights, as understood when the documents were written in the 18th century that involve “our Creator.” Yet, a publisher in Beijing was interested in translating it so people in China could read it! I wanted to make sure they understood that point since it is major issue today even in a country that believes it has freedom of speech.
I also suggested, that if all they wanted was an academic book, that they take a look at the CD Study Guide which contains not only the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, but the Articles of Confederation, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, John Locke’s 2nd Treatise on Civil Government, my 850 questions and answers pertaining to the history and the documents and my research in 684 footnotes. I offered as a friendship gesture towards the people of China to GIVE them the right to duplicate my CD without paying me a royalty.
The last two chapters of my books are entitled “Defending Freedom in the 21st Century Reign of Terror” and “God and Government in the 21st Century.” Those chapters explain the difference in Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration, which read, “We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable; that all mean are created equal and independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Thomas Jefferson’s wording used later when he and Lafayette wrote the French Declaration of Rights reflected his Deist philosophy. He did not believe in a loving, caring Heavenly Father.
However, members of the Declaration committee of the Continental Congress that had been selected to write the document included Benjamin Franklin and John Adams who had different beliefs. The word “inalienable” was changed to “unalienable” and read “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.” In effect, it was the 18th century version of the 21st century argument about “intelligent design” versus “evolution.” I wanted to make certain that the Beijing publisher understood what he was getting into so I phrased the issue using Chinese philosophy, which I had studied in my youth, as follows:
“Laotse told Confucius ‘What gives life to all creation and is itself inexhaustible – that is Tao.’ While there is no mention of Tao in my books, the essence of the founding of America is in the Declaration of Independence, which states, “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 and that among these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
“Tao and Our Creator appear, to me, to be the same – the source of life which is the source of energy, truth and light. There is much confusion in America and the rest o f the world about what those ‘unalienable’ rights are, given by Tao, or our Creator or God, and what “inalienable’ rights that are created by governments are. My books deal with this difference.” An “unalienable” right cannot be transferred. You cannot transfer your life to someone else – or your liberty or happiness. An “inalienable” right, such as ownership of property or a title or a degree, can be transferred and governments can decide who owns property or has a title.
Then I didn’t hear from them for awhile. When I did hear from them, they had actually translated those chapters and had several people, one of them a man who received his PhD from Oxford and who had lived in Britain and were more enthusiastic about my books.
Via e-mail we negotiated a contract, which was signed on Christmas Eve and I have received my first payment of royalties and they are translating the books into Chinese. Since I don’t speak or read Chinese, I also have made arrangements to have the books, once translated, read by a Chinese speaking professor in my city, who told me that there is much concern in China these days about the direction many of the young people are going as they are exposed to Western movies and customs. As the Beijing publisher put it:
“American culture permeates into China like air and water, we can find them everywhere. MacDonald’s Kentucky Fried Chicken, Hollywood, Yuppie, Street Dance Drugs, Gambling House Red-light district and so on--- like symbols of The United States. They are extremely worshipped by Chinese young people without knowing that there are many restrictions for young people under 18 years old in America. Anyway, western culture has greatly impacted Chinese culture; it brings good aspects and also bad effects.”
I have learned from other sources that after years of prohibiting the teaching of Confucius in China’s public schools, there now is an effort to reintroduce “traditional culture” into Chinese schools because of the cultural decay in China. It is not just in America that many people are concerned about cultural decline that has come about from the efforts of socialism and communism to eliminate “our Creator.”
The current Senate hearings on the nomination of Samuel Alito is a dramatic 21st century replay of “unalienable” vs. “inalienable” rights argument. . Is life, especially the life of the unborn, an unalienable right endowed by “our Creator” or merely an inalienable right that can be “preserved” by government, provided the government chooses to preserve it?
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For further information please refer to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
