What do Democrats in Congress have against unalienable rights?

Depending on whom you ask, a new State Department advisory group on human rights will either save lives or put more of them at risk.

Return To Article

Commenting has temporarily been suspended in preparation for our new website launch, which is planned for the week of August 12th. When the new site goes live, we will also launch our new commenting platform. Thank you for your patience while we make these changes.


  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    July 19, 2019 12:14 p.m.

    Individuals may have inalienable rights to hate, racism, or other self held feelings of believe as long as they do not act on them. But then when they group and incorporate these rights into organized religion, then it is contrary to man and God's law. And that is why corporate organized religion must be kept out of government and politics.

  • EscherEnigma Ridgecrest, CA
    July 18, 2019 1:01 p.m.

    This groups explicit invocation of "natural law" is obviously a source of concern because the long history of "natural law" being used to justify discrimination and bigotry. Slavery, eugenics, treatment of women, sodomy laws... all backed by proponents of "natural law".

    And then decades later, whataya know. Once those views become sufficiently unfashionable, suddenly "natural law" has a revelation.

    It's just a way to justify your own biases. There's nothing "natural" about it, and no "law" either. Just a pile of sophistic nonsense.

    So yes. That Pompeo's group made the explicit choice to invoke it is very worrisome.

  • search diligently Lehi, UT
    July 18, 2019 11:26 a.m.

    The Democrats and liberals claim they are for unalienable rights but in practice try to censor free speech and do not include religious liberties as an unalienable right. Go figure.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    July 15, 2019 8:35 a.m.

    Is there a difference between unalienable and inalienable rights? All you deep thinkers out there let me know.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    July 15, 2019 7:12 a.m.

    Red shirt, I know you mean well, but you are way off the path in your generalizations.

    The reasons democrats don't like unalienable rights is because it has the word alien in it. There, how's that for a generalization?

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    July 14, 2019 5:32 p.m.

    @Light and Liberty

    "The Constitution states that 'all men are created equal'."

    Where, exactly?

  • Furry1993 MSC, UT
    July 14, 2019 11:42 a.m.

    @SFSteveS -July 13, 2019 2:14 p.m.
    Furry1993

    Wrong, my friend ... The concept of in liable rights comes from the Constitution which states these rights belong to ALL men and flow from their creator …
    -----

    You recognize, don't you, that the reference you cite concerning inalienable rights comes from the Declaration of Independence--a very radical document by which the colonies separated themselves from England--and not the Constitution, which is a structure setting forth the way the government of the United States was established. There is nothing in the Constitution that references "inalienable rights." There is nothing in the Constitution that allows people to claim that "inalienable rights" enables them to force their particular prejudices and beliefs on the general public as a whole. That was clearly established in Loving v Virginia, 388 US 1 (1967) which established that a claim of religion could not be used to deny a mixed-race couple the right to marry regardless what the plaintiffs claimed God required. While people have the "inalienable right" to believe as they choose and follow their beliefs in their private lives; they do not have the right to impose it on society.

  • Light and Liberty St George, UT
    July 14, 2019 9:05 a.m.

    Louie: The Constitution states that 'all men are created equal'. The constitutional convention did not address slavery and the Constitution would not have passed had it been addressed. The United States and its people were not ready to outlaw slavery, but they were ready to put into words that 'all men are created equal.' That is why it is the greatest document for freedom the world has ever known. It guaranteed rights that even they weren't ready to live up to at the time. There were both white and black slaveowners when the Constitution was written! It would take time before they would eradicate this from their thinking. It is still the model for the rest of the world and needs to be defended and upheld at any cost.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    July 13, 2019 11:57 p.m.

    I'm a Dem and am very much in favor of unalienable rights.

    Whoever wrote this headline is very much mistaken.

  • New to Utah Provo, UT
    July 13, 2019 10:47 p.m.

    Eliot Engel and Bob Menendez are two obstructionist libs from very blue states so ieven reasonable pieces of legislation will be opposed just because it’s from Trump
    Administration.

  • mrjj69 Bountiful, UT
    July 13, 2019 9:02 p.m.

    I feel this country needs some lessons on human rights. We have the "patriot act" which allows warrant-less searches, warrant-less wiretaps, and of course incarceration without a trial, or being allowed to face ones accusers. And lastly the Democrats want to take our guns away. "shall NOT be infringed"?

  • louie Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 13, 2019 7:58 p.m.

    RIDial
    Your understanding is wrong,

    The French Revolution was about overthrowing the Monarchy as well as taking away the economic advantage of the wealthy including slavery. It started in 1789 and the new government actually did not formally abolished slavery until 1794. it eventually abolished it in the French colonies. Other European countries acted to abolish slavery during the first half of the 19th century.

    You must be naive if you think the Constitution did not enable slavery, In the Dred Scott Case the Supreme Court ruled, using the Fugitive Slave Clause in the Constitution as its guide, that one state could not free a man who was a slave in another state and they were required to send him back . The Thirteenth Amendment is what changed our Constitution after the Civil War and much bloodshed.

    We also know how resistant the South was in recognizing the freedom of their former slaves.

  • military mom Herriman, UT
    July 13, 2019 7:02 p.m.

    @light
    I was under the impression that this article dealt with President Trump's Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, and his launching of " a new advisory committee on unalienable rights condemning widespread human rights violations around the world and promising bold action to build a better world." Therefore, my remarks were directed toward the current administration and its hypocrisy as Trump continues to defend and embrace murderous leaders around the world who have no regard for the unalienable rights of the human family. I fail to see how actions of previous administrations excuse the President's current behavior.

  • VisiGuest Mancos, CO
    July 13, 2019 6:30 p.m.

    Religious Freedom is a polite way to insist that belief(s) be given equal weight to facts, reality & data

    Mutual respect requires mutuality
    Loudly proclaiming your "Belief" puts you at a credibility deficit, a deficit for you to overcome
    When you tell people who you are, don't be surprised or act like the victim when we believe you
    Again your problem to overcome

    We'll be right here to cheer you on & help, but not until you show any sign of recognition in the absurdity of insisting on we accommodate your sincerely held delusions...

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    July 13, 2019 6:09 p.m.

    @ Vermonter

    "If there is no God, then men and women have no logical claim on any inalienable Rights because rights are not inalienable."

    Even if a god of inalienable rights exists, our history books suggest that it either doesn't care if the rights aren't enforced, doesn't want them to be uniformly enforced, or is powerless to enforce them. Whatever the case may be, when it comes down to it, it's clearly humans who decide who gets them AND what they are. To me, this makes the god superfluous.

    I think a more plausible explanation for the existence of the concept of inalienable rights is moral evolution in humans. That would make the uneven application of it over time make more sense. Whereas if an ostensibly loving god were responsible for this kind of rollout, that would raise serious doubts about its moral and ethical judgment.

  • What!? Saratoga Springs, UT
    July 13, 2019 3:47 p.m.

    But... to avoid being too wordy (I've entered twice already)... What do Democrats in Congress have against unalienable rights?
    It seems They're against these rights because Trump and conservatives in general seem to be FOR them.

  • MacD slc, UT
    July 13, 2019 3:31 p.m.

    I want my politicians to protect our constitution not try to find ways to work around it or change it.
    When a baby in the womb can survive outside the womb shouldn’t that baby be protected by our Constitution,
    including the right to
    Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness ?

  • Vermonter Plymouth, MI
    July 13, 2019 3:18 p.m.

    @unrepentant. Hutterite.
    Great points about God-given Rights.

    If there is no God, then men and women have no logical claim on any inalienable Rights because rights are not inalienable. They can only claim those rights given by those in power.

    Thanks for sharing.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 13, 2019 3:06 p.m.

    Look At wealth and income distributions the last forty years if you dare.

  • Rick for Truth Provo, UT
    July 13, 2019 2:53 p.m.

    Democrats see the constitution as a document that restricts them as the government from doing what they feel they want or need to do. They got this absolutely right. The constitution guarantees our rights, while restricting the government from infringing on them.

    Obama when President wanted to rewrite the constitution so as it would require the government to do things, things that the liberal left wanted the government to do. When the constitution restricted him, he just went around it, and congress never stopped him.

  • What!? Saratoga Springs, UT
    July 13, 2019 2:24 p.m.

    Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights.

    Freedom of religion, freedom of speech/ the press, freedom of peaceful assembly and the ability to petition the government for redress of grievances are the first in the bill of rights (listed in order).
    Beyond anyone getting in my face and screaming for abortion rights or LGBTQ rights or women's rights or whatever stylized right is happening at the time is demanding that I support some kind of lifestyle (in my humble opinion).
    Personally I don't care who or what you are in love with/marry, it's entirely who/what you believe in and or worship.
    Say what you want in private or in public (that way I'll know who/what you are) and complain to the government about what ever is bugging you.
    But please note that I'm free whether or not to support your point of view.

  • ERB Eagle Mountain, UT
    July 13, 2019 2:17 p.m.

    Just read Animal Farm. That is the current Democratic Party.

  • SFSteveS SF, CA
    July 13, 2019 2:14 p.m.

    Furry1993

    Wrong, my friend ... The concept of in liable rights comes from the Constitution which states these rights belong to ALL men and flow from their creator ...

    Dems, on the other hand, increasingly take the point of view that rights are granted by an ever increasing government and are to be doled out in small doses to a limited number of special interest groups.

  • ColoradoCouger Parker, CO
    July 13, 2019 2:12 p.m.

    The article should be titled "selective human rights are being promoted by liberals". Rights of illegal aliens are more important than citizens and rights of non-Christians are more important than Christians, and drugs should be made legal over the rights of families to protect their children from drugs, and the right to prosper and achieve wealth is trumped by the right to take the rich's money and make everyone equally poor as in most places in the world who love socialism, is all the theme of many liberals. Take away charitable contributions, promote pot, no moral foundation, etc. What is the next illegal drug the liberals will promote in all 50 states - just wait and normalize in our society? Its all on many liberal's bucket lists. The rest of the liberals promote such stuff when the vote for the OAC's of the world.

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    July 13, 2019 1:35 p.m.

    Lots of talk about "God given" rights.

    If you don't believe in a particular God, or god(s), then do you still have rights? Or are believers the only one with rights?

    I only ask because it appears that differing religions and sects of said religions seem to grant differing rights. And prohibitions.

    It seems to me that either rights are universal or highly subject to the religion of choice of the power elite in any given situation.

  • Elsleuth Valencia, Ca
    July 13, 2019 1:00 p.m.

    The United States presidents in the last 100 years have felt the need to force other countries toward democracy. From Teddy Roosevelt and the rough riders to President Bush and his "weapons of mass destruction," they have taken the progressive approach that they can change the world.

    Condoleezza Rice said, "We reject the cultural condescension which alleges that Arabs or Muslims are somehow not interested in freedom, or aren't ready for freedom's responsibilities." There is a great difference between being interested and being ready for freedom's responsibilities.

    President Bush said, "It is cultural condescension to claim that some peoples or some cultures or some religions are destined to despotism and unsuited for self-government.

    They tried and failed at promoting democratic ideals in the near east. And telling someone they need to honor "human rights," doesn't change their thinking or culture.

    Forcing your values on another nation does not work. It took many years and a culture and desire for freedom for the founders to come up with the idea of inalienable rights.

  • Furry1993 MSC, UT
    July 13, 2019 12:58 p.m.

    Democrats have nothing against "inalienable rights". They just try to make sure that those rights are protected for everyone, not just the people the far right extreme authoritarians deem eligible by their standards to enjoy them.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    July 13, 2019 12:23 p.m.

    @ridal

    I disagree. You want your god to define rights that others may or may not have. If you want others to stay out of your life stay out of theirs.

    Perfect example is gay marriage. Christian’s should of live and let live but now the tides have turned they don’t like it.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 13, 2019 12:19 p.m.

    "Pompeo says yes, but in a positive sense. During a press conference, he described the Commission on Unalienable Rights as an exciting opportunity to help world leaders speak with a unified voice on human rights once again."

    Says nothing about the economic system - contemporary capitalism - which is stripping the vast majority of any rights whatsoever.

  • majmajor Layton, UT
    July 13, 2019 11:56 a.m.

    Problem, the UN has more “despot” governments then governments which share our values.
    - China’s one-child laws encourages female and handicapped murder
    - Russia’s history of human rights includes millions dead
    - Africa continues to have a huge human trafficking problems as well as other humanitarian problems
    - Asia has more people ruled by despots then Democratic Governments
    - central/South America is much improved, but to many governments still support the actions of Cuba and Venezuela

    The most effective way to implement human rights remains through business interactions, bilateral diplomacy, and personal one-on-one contacts. It is slow but allows the economies to improve while supporting human rights.

  • JaneB , 00
    July 13, 2019 11:38 a.m.

    This article did not give any info on why some people are worried that the commission will not address LGBT issues or access to abortion. And it would also be helpful to know if any advocates for these things are being invited to be on the commission.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 13, 2019 11:31 a.m.

    The very fact that rights are not inalienable, as is the case demonstrated all over the world every day, suggests that they are not god given and indeed calls into question the existence of a god at all.
    Rights are manmade concepts, part of our evolved morality we've found we should owe ourselves and everyone else.
    The problem with this initiative that the democrats or whatever bogeyman might see of it is that we've seen that people like Pompeo and so many others are in it for the long game. Religious freedom and inalienable rights are just ideas being pushed as the early harbingers of a slow but relentless push against same sex marriage and gay people in general. Look how they chipped away at abortion rights for years, piece by piece. Democrats are very right to see this happening here, too.

  • Independent Henderson, NV
    July 13, 2019 10:54 a.m.

    It’s good for the government to talk about rights, but probably equally important for the people to talk about responsibilities. Do people who don’t take care of their bodies deserve free health care? Do religious hypocrites deserve freedom of religion? Do people who don’t value life deserve the right ro bear arms or have an abortion? Do people who never bothered to learn how our constitutional democratic republic works deserve the right to petition, assemble, or vote? Do people who don’t listen to one another and call each other bigots any time there is a disagreement deserve due process?

  • RiDal Sandy, UT
    July 13, 2019 10:49 a.m.

    louie: "Where did you get those facts. France abolished slavery 1791."

    I wasn't talking about France. I was noting the world's historical context, and how abolition came about in the USA. Maybe I should have been clearer, but there are limits on post size.T o address that issue: abolition in all countries was driven by Christian activists. (Google "Wilberforce"). France revoked its abolition, and did not finally abolish slavery until 1848.
    The fact that some countries eliminated slavery a decade or so before the USA seems trivial in comparison to the millenia of human history in which slavery was standard.

    " Our Constitution perpetuated slavery and that's a fact."

    No, it isn't a fact. Study "The Great Compromise". The USA was almost never formed at all due to the fight over slavery. The Constitution included a compromise. It obviously wasn't "perpetuated", because it was abolished :)

    (1 of 2)

  • Nonewtaxes Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 13, 2019 10:40 a.m.

    LOL
    EX,CIA DIrector lacks some credibility
    Torture
    Rendition/Kidnapoing Worlwide
    BlackSites
    Assassinations
    Drone strikes worldwide
    Aggressive Non Judicial killings
    War in Syria

  • Light and Liberty St George, UT
    July 13, 2019 10:38 a.m.

    Red Shirt and Military Mom: I don't think you want me to list all the things Obama 'allowed' to happen across the world, if you want to start placing blame on something or someone. The irrationality of this argument is beyond reason. Of course, Red shirt forgot to mention how the LDS were run from state to state, denied their rights, including the right to their religious practice, polygamy. In this day and age, I can't believe that anyone who believes that marriage can be between a man and a man would disown and show their own hypocrisy by not including this. As far as everything else, your ancestors lived in America during all those times that you named as denying rights, so you must also be accepting the blame for that as well. Right? Honestly, how do you lump all the world's ills into one pile, blame everyone living present (mostly white males) as the reason, tear down the very structure (the constitution) that has the world knocking at our doors, and say it all with a straight face, as if you have another system that will quickly bring all injustices to an end and forever stamp out all human emotions, by government fiat, of course! Not down with that!

  • Utah_Happyman Orem, UT
    July 13, 2019 10:21 a.m.

    Myths, biases, and stereotypes are driving this divide.. Education and knowledge is the key to halt the mayhem promoted by zellats.

  • MikeFife Salt Lake City, UT
    July 13, 2019 10:13 a.m.

    Everyone is for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for themselves, but we don't always want those rights for other people. Take for example transsexual women, who want to live their lives unhindered like anyone else, but are murdered at a higher rate than almost any other population as they go about trying to pursue what life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness means for them. When you look at the efforts of the EPA, DOE, HUD, Interior, Labor, FCC, etc. under the Trump administration, you can see how people might think that a commission reportedly set up to preserve rights is actually a cover for trying to take rights away.

  • What!? Saratoga Springs, UT
    July 13, 2019 10:11 a.m.

    @RiDal
    I like the way you spelled out "fantasy rights."

    The original "inalienable rights" as spelled out in the Declaration of Independence are simply but eloquently stated as being "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... "
    It should be noted, by those who don't, or can't, that we can pursue that happiness. It isn't going to just be handed to us by the tax-fattened bureaucracy in DC or SLC, as much as they'd like to do it that way.

  • louie Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 13, 2019 9:08 a.m.

    @redial

    "The entire world, and every culture in human history, accepted slavery as standard operating procedure....until the Republican Party was formed, demanding abolition,"

    Where did you get those facts. France abolished slavery 1791. Almost all of Europe did it decades before we did. We were not the leader in this effort. Our Constitution perpetuated slavery and that's a fact.

    By the way, the South turned republican, as Johnson predicted, right after passage of Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Acts. What does that say about white christians. The Country moved to pass civil rights legislation as part of JFK's , a democrat, legacy.

  • RedRockUte St George, UT
    July 13, 2019 9:02 a.m.

    The Trump Administration wanting to study "unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is kinda like the fox wanting to study hen house safety.

  • RiDal Sandy, UT
    July 13, 2019 8:46 a.m.

    @RedShirt:"White folks did until 1863 (and tried hard to continue to until 1964)."

    Let's put this into the proper historical context:

    The entire world, and every culture in human history, accepted slavery as standard operating procedure....until the Republican Party was formed, demanding abolition, and 300,000 of its mostly White Christian men fought and died to end that institution.

    Then, Southern Democrats continued to try to suppress the rights of Black people through KKK intimidation and Jim Crowe laws. When anti-racist people (of both parties) tried to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Democrats staged a 54 day filibuster, trying to block its passage. Eventually, it was passed and signed by Lyndon Johnson, but with more Republican votes than Democrat.
    (You can look this all up.)

  • RiDal Sandy, UT
    July 13, 2019 8:34 a.m.

    Everyone claims they support human rights.
    Republicans strongly support all human rights, exactly as enunciated by the Founders: The right to free speech, the right to free expression of religion, the right to defend oneself through gun ownership; the right to life....the right to pursue happiness.

    The problem is that Democrats have invented fantasy-rights that simply don't exist: the right to kill your fetus; the right to change the definition of marriage; the right to immigrate to the USA, the right to a safe space; the right to free health care; the right to suppress speech that makes you uncomfortable; the right to never hear about religion; the right to have government guarantee your happiness no matter how worthless and aberrant you are.

    When viewed from the standpoint of "God-given rights" vs. "fantasy-rights that are merely wants" the divisions become crystal clear.

  • tsobserver Mapleton, UT
    July 13, 2019 8:32 a.m.

    At the core of the problem is partisanship. Democrats want Trump to fail. Republicans wanted Obama to fail. Nether side is capable of giving the other the benefit of the doubt. Each party will twist the same actions into vilification or high praise all based on partisanship. Principles whither behind the hypocrisy of partisanship. Hate and envy thrive under partisanship. The poor and downtrodden are forgotten under partisanship. Both sides sicken me.

  • Vermonter Plymouth, MI
    July 13, 2019 8:28 a.m.

    Mark Bromley cites “an attempt to create a new hierarchy of rights.”

    But what is the current hierarchy? The most important rights are embodied in the First Amendment, because they rights to individual conscience.

    But, in our current popular culture, there is a different hierarchy. The PC hierarchy first and foremost values the right to “dignity” of victims of society. If an individual is not a “certified” victim, popular culture says their rights must be curtailed and yield to the rights of the generic, but popularly recognized victim.

    And what is “dignity?” Conveniently, it is whatever the given victim says it is.

    Below this, there is a new popular hierarchy of the old rights. First Amendment Rights are now largely conditional on victimhood status.

    And, Freedom of Religion and the Right to Bear Arms are now near the bottom of the list and may be eliminated in coming years as no longer necessary. Oh, they may still be on the books. But, they are already being significantly restricted on the basis that they are inconvenient, and no right is absolute.

  • JustGordon Salt Lake City, UT
    July 13, 2019 8:21 a.m.

    The headline question assumes that Democrats must have "something against unalienable rights" because they question this administration's formation of yet another do-nothing commission.

    Sadly the author of this piece did not recognize the hypocrisy of establishing such a commission when this administration is violating the inalienable rights of tens of thousands on our southern border. Trump's admiration of and support for despotic leaders also make such a commission a mere mouthing of words.

    This is more fluff, another bone thrown to those who have yet to realize that Trump is this Nation's greatest danger to our unalienable rights that our Founding Fathers so masterfully enumerated.

    BTW...the word "unalienable" is most correctly used when speaking about enumerated rights as part of a discussion of the Declaration of Independence. The word "inalienable," meaning the same thing as unalienable, is the more accepted version when one talks about those same rights outside of the Declaration of Independence. Obviously, the Trump administration was blind to that nuance, which is hardly surprising.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    July 13, 2019 8:22 a.m.

    The following comment pointedly illustrates just how out of touch the democrats and these liberal rights defenders are: "It feels like this administration is trying to put religious freedom work on steroids," Bromley said, noting that, while he's not against efforts to address religious persecution, he fears that the Trump administration overlooks how protecting gay people also benefits people of faith".

    How hypocritical for him to say "he's not against efforts to address religious persecution" but yet he champions protecting gay rights and conveniently ignores the LGBTQ activists are one of the of main persecutors of religious freedoms and rights!

  • Marshall MacTavish NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    July 13, 2019 8:03 a.m.

    The trend I've observed is that a lot of Democrats tend to be for positive rights and against negative rights. That may be why they don't appreciate what the Trump administration has proposed.

    Negative rights require no legislation. They are natural and inalienable, as stated in the Declaration of Independence. Free speech, for example, is an unalienable right. It requires no action on the part of either government or others to enable you to speak your mind. The United States federal government was created for the purpose of protecting negative rights - "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed".

    Positive rights require legislation and enforcement, and aren't really rights in the traditional sense because they infringe on negative rights. For instance, if health care is a right, it requires that health care personnel be coerced to provide free services, or that property be taken from someone else to pay for it, or some combination of the two. Those who refuse to provide or pay are coerced at gunpoint to provide care or surrender property. So-called positive rights are antithetical to freedom.

  • Herbert Gravy Salinas, CA
    July 13, 2019 7:56 a.m.

    @Redshirt

    Oh, please.

    Not ALL "white folks" did until 1863.

    Many were staunch abolitionists.

    Can we just give credit where credit is due?

    Of course we could have done better but let's be forward-looking and try our best to avoid the mistakes of the past.

  • Say No to BO Springville, UT
    July 13, 2019 7:55 a.m.

    Come the revolution, you will do as you are told.

    Tolerance from the Left is exposed daily. You can't even wear a MAGA hat around town without someone busting your chops for it.

    Progressives today are a far cry from classic liberalism.

  • 1hemlock Tooele, Utah
    July 13, 2019 7:52 a.m.

    @redshirt
    You have lumped huge groups together and have presumed they all believe (believed) the same thing. That is the definition of prejudice and bigotry.
    Not all white people believed in slavery and 600,000 people died fighting to free them. And my people didn’t live here yet.

    White folk , only some and these were in Democrat states in the south until the 1960s

    Men. I guess you refer to the 19th amendment granting voting rights to women. Voting rights for women were granted in 1870 in Utah.
    As for the world;
    UK 1918
    Brazil 1932
    France 1944
    Japan 1945
    China 1953
    Mexico 1953
    Canada 1960 for all
    Switzerland 1971
    Saudi Arabia 2015

    Western settlers . Very few

    US government in west? Makes no sense as the “Federal Government “ is for the entire US

    Straight Christians have their bible centered beliefs. Our paradigm is that certain actions are a sin and have consequences. It seems that most animosity is against Christians for believing that.

    Facts are stubborn things

  • Birdman1990 Mapleton, UT
    July 13, 2019 7:45 a.m.

    What do republicans have against rights? Utah is boarder line theocracy where everyone is expected to be the same. I know, I’m from here, I grew up in the culture.. where you’re not welcome to question everything. Maybe the D-NEWS can run an article on the definition of liberal vs conservative and how no one is really either or, but falls into a spectrum of the two instead of continuing the misinformation that’s driving so much divisions.

  • dski Herriman, UT
    July 13, 2019 7:42 a.m.

    Unalienable or inalienable? Because God gave us that right. Democrats think The Government gives or removes rights from people as it sees fit, driven by their political winds. Democrats want to remove any mention of God in anything regarding this country.

    An then the UN Human Rights Council? Where most of the member countries persecute, execute or send LBGTQ folks and Christians to imprisonments? And we don’t hear any efforts from the Democrats to oppose such atrocities?

    Don’t forget how President Obama fiercely opposed those governments during his apology tour. Wait! He only drew an imaginary red line in the sand. Then when the government who committed genocide against its people crossed that famous red line, he moved it down further. That’s how Democrats think of unalienable rights. The government can move it up and down to favor political friends.

  • military mom Herriman, UT
    July 13, 2019 7:36 a.m.

    @light

    Instead of creating yet another commission, why doesn't the Trump administration attempt to do the right thing? Condemn the Saudi crown prince for the horrific murder of Jamaal Khashoggi and the slaughter of Yemeni civilians, condemn the Russians for the wanton bombing of civilians in Syria, condemn Kim Jung-un for starving his people and for brutally murdering his rivals, condemn Philippine President Duterte for state sponsored murders of supposed drug addicts and dealers....I could go on. As has been evidenced throughout the current administration, Trump is outraged by assaults on unalienable rights as long as such acts play into his political agenda and pays only lip service to others (please list the ways he has aggressively fought to secure the unalienable rights of Muslims, for example). No wonder many will view the creation of another commission with a jaundiced eye.

  • stevo123 Driggs, ID
    July 13, 2019 7:28 a.m.

    @ Red Shirt, How right you are.

  • dmacpherson Salt Lake City, UT
    July 13, 2019 7:26 a.m.

    "The Trump administration continues to support despotic governments abroad while simultaneously ignoring the abuses and rights of children and families on our border,"

    The Dems do have a point.

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    July 13, 2019 6:53 a.m.

    "What do Democrats in Congress have against unalienable rights?"

    Nothing. Quite the opposite, in fact. What they do have a problem with is committees that say they are out to preserve rights when what they're really about is taking rights away.

    This is a poorly-named committee and and even more poorly-written headline.

  • rlynn Brandon, FL
    July 13, 2019 6:26 a.m.

    The title of the article is miss leading. I know of no Democrat who is against unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Just because one question the need for a commission to advice the secreatry of state, does not mean they against these rights. While the Republicans have always stopped me from my pursuit of happiness and liberty. The reality is this attempt for his re-election to show he "cares" about these rights. The commission is just for show. This really does not have anything to do with Congress so why bring them in either Republican or Democrat? So the title of headline is miss leading and in my opinion is click bait.

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    July 13, 2019 6:08 a.m.

    Unalienable rights.

    First of all Lincoln called them inalienable, but I digress. Lincoln defined them thusly: "among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". I don't see some of the "rights" that our Conservative brethren claim as "unalienable" enumerated in his Gettysburg address. These right ring favored rights had to be defined, which have proved somewhat elastic over time.

    Lincoln was speaking of lofty goals, and the inspirations of a better nation. I doubt Lincoln was even considering some of the social issue hot buttons that engulf the conservative blogosphere with outrage.

    Rather than using lofty goals to perpetuate nationalistic myths, I hope this committee (if it does anything more than mollify the fundamentalist Christian base of the GOP) will pursue extension of this ideal to those countries that Trump has cuddled up to.

    But I don't have much hope.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    July 13, 2019 6:00 a.m.

    Yeah, I think people like Pompeo and Pence have earned the skepticism that many of us feel. Their personal and governmental histories support rather than contradict the view that what they want is to narrow who qualifies for human rights so that it lines up better with their religious views - ignoring the fact that rigid, authoritarian and patriarchal views like theirs is among the reasons Human Rights councils are necessary.

    Allowing such people to define what rights qualify as inalienable is like appointing the fox to guard the hen house.

  • THEREALND Mishawaka, IN
    July 13, 2019 5:50 a.m.

    "Nature and Purpose: The Commission will provide the Secretary of State advice and recommendations concerning international human rights matters. The Commission will provide fresh thinking about human rights discourse where such discourse has departed from our nation's founding principles of natural law and natural rights."

    This commission is to provide advice and recommendations concerning international human rights matters injecting our nation's founding principles of natural law and natural rights.

    A noble cause, but haven't we been down this road before? Which country are we going to start with? I bet they will jump at the opportunity to adopt US principles. I apologize for skepticism.

    @Light and Liberty - I would point out to you that this committees mission, as well as the duties of the Secretary of State, are focused on international and foreign policies and not domestic matters.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    July 13, 2019 5:34 a.m.

    "We need this president and this secretary to actually champion human rights by standing up for America's values."

    Yes, that is correct. They are hypocritical. So did Obama, and so did Clinton. In fact, Clinton had Chinese businessmen sleeping in the Lincoln Bedroom only a few years after the Tiananmen massacre, and he gave most favored nation status to China despite their oppression of Tibet. Clinton cozied up the Indonesia despite their oppression of East Timor. The Clinton administration's foreign policy seems to follow Jocelyn Elders' view, "Everyone has different morals so we should not force our morals on others." (She was the surgeon general not the secretary of state.)

    Criticism of Trump lacks moral authority. because since the early 1990's the Democrat have been asleep at the wheel about human rights. So I suspect that criticism of Trump (and it is warranted) is only because he's a Republican.

    One develops moral authority by standing for human rights when it isn't convenient.

  • conservative lady Ramona, CA
    July 13, 2019 5:25 a.m.

    We see this trampling of unalienable rights every day in the news and yet the liberal view is represented in the DN as the most important to point out. No, Trump isn't the bad guy here, he is maintaining relationships with foreign leaders to maintain what has been built in the past. The unalienable rights of each of us are being exploited and redefined to be what the liberal world wants it to be. While disrespect of anyone's rights is wrong, the disrespect shown to the Christian world has grown to devalue most of what has been in the past a part of unalienable rights. Religious freedom is denied, free speech is denied on college campuses and on social media. The rights of the LGBTQ have expanded while those who are biblically based are scoffed and scorned. No, this is not an empty play on correcting the wrongs done to so many. LGBTQ should not be ridiculed or given less to allow religious freedom and free speech to the whole of man-kind the same rights.

  • RedShirt_CDLofWY Montezuma Creek, UT
    July 13, 2019 4:21 a.m.

    @Light and Liberty

    “No policy or group Trumps unalienable rights. “

    White folks did until 1863 (and tried hard to continue to until 1964).

    Men did until 1920.

    Western settlers did until 1924.

    Non-Chinese citizens did until 1943

    The Federal Government in Western states did until 1945

    Straight, Christians still do.

  • JCfromSLC Salt Lake City, UT
    July 13, 2019 1:11 a.m.

    I know the Dnews is not exactly unbiased or middle of the road, but the headline/article is even a little too far political for a “faith” “reporter”.

    I would suggest NOT becoming like Fox News and maybe maintain a higher level of professionalism.

  • Light and Liberty St George, UT
    July 12, 2019 11:05 p.m.

    No policy or group Trumps unalienable rights. Although I admire Trump and will vote for him next election, my fear is not Trump at all, but a future incoming Democrat using it as a means to define the word 'unalienable'. You can't take away or grant 'unalienable' rights. They existed before the Constitution was written! It is here, Democrat or Republican, the denying of religious freedom, free speech, right to bear arms, and assemble. Just look on most college campuses now, the broader society, and the nonsense of those who think all of those rights are hindering and hurting them. God bless America and Donald Trump (I can hear the torrent of rage and intolerance just for mentioning Trump or those 'unalienable' rights).