Freedoms are best defined as designed personal capabilities of human beings that are necessary to facilitate the exercise of our basic rights. Each individual possesses an inherent range of interconnected freedoms that allow for the harmonious intelligent function of exercising one's rights. As human rights constitute our basic humanity so personal freedoms are essential constituents of our being that if any of them are interfered with, the exercise of our rights are so hindered as to negatively affect in some way our sustainability. Every individual therefore has a personal behavioral domain that has limits that are determined by the fundamental rights of another. Thus personal freedoms are limited to facilitating the exercise of one's personal rights; and not the violation of that of another. The following is a listing of personal freedoms:
1. Freedom of thought
2. Freedom of belief
3. Freedom of opinion
4. Freedom of choice
5. Freedom of conscience
6. Freedom of speech
7. Freedom of expression
8. Freedom of movement
What is religious freedom?
Religious freedom identifies the religious aspect of the aforementioned personal capabilities, but given the circumstances of our multi-religious globe it is the capacity to worship in the religion of one's choice, and to assemble and observe the teachings and practices of that religion/s without interference from government or anyone else except in circumstances of crimes being practiced in the name of God or religion. Once the religious practices of an adherent of some religion/s doesn't violate the rights of others that person's religious freedom ought not to be interfered with by anyone but on the contrary protected by government.
Why are human rights called inalienable rights?
Let us look at a couple dictionary definitions. "Unalienable: Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable". Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition.
"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law
Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523.
Human rights are inalienable because they were endowed to us by our Creator at the point of our creation. The nature of human rights renders it totally impossible for them to have been products of human origin or source i.e., social conventions, social contracts, international agencies, legislative authorities, etc. They are too inextricably interwoven into our beings' design to have been post-creation endowments, or unintentionally evolved acquisitions without any predetermined purpose of an extra creation source. Human rights constitute our very humanity so much so that to destroy them is to destroy one's existence.
Embedded in the concept of rights is the scientific reality that they could only have been given to mankind via the act of human creation by some super-intelligent creatorial Being. Careful analysis of these said rights indicate in the affirmative that they just could not have become human rights through any other method than by creational endowment. It is self evident that basic rights like our right to life is beyond human origin, and any non-intelligent source. Which of us, and by what means can we possibly endow the right to property or life to another human being, and since each human being is in need of these rights from birth, who was there to bestow them on our first parents. Could the right to life or property then be given to us any other way than by design?
Rights are genetically ours, and are sometimes referred to as natural rights which in the truest sense are by virtue of this fact. By no means then would it be an overstatement to say that human beings have a design of a rights sort, that our genetic blue print is inherently rights structured; which is contrary to Marxist and Evolutionary thought. Creational endowment also radically limits rights-giving to be a function and responsibility exclusive to our Creator. With all certainty God is the giver and commander of human rights.
What really are the basic rights of human beings?
Human beings have three basic rights. Below they are listed in their natural logical order specifying the rank of each.
1. The Right to Serve God/Religious Liberty,
2. The Right to Life, and
3. The Right to Private Property
Starting from the last right i.e. the right to private property and working back to the first right to justify the coherence of the layout follows. The right to private property finds its value as a right in context to the second right, and the right to life in turn finds its value in context to the first right, which encapsulates the purpose of the second and third rights. A person just cannot have a right to private property if he/she does not exist. Thus existence or the right to life must precede in order to justify the right to private property and its enjoyment. For without private property the right to life cannot be sustained and enjoyed. And without the second and third rights it becomes impossible to enjoy the first right; the chief of all rights.
The first right is first because it supersedes in value and significance over the second and third rights since it holds the key to the non-violation of the second and third rights. This is so because the exercise of the first right consist of respecting the rights of God i.e. as follows:
1. The Right to be worshipped as God alone,
2. The Right to be only source of revelation to all, and
3. The Right to be the judge of all.
The purpose of true Christianity is to institute and perpetuate in its followers the respect of both the rights of God and the rights of man.
Does religious proselytizing interfere with the religious freedoms of the persons being proselytized?
No. The principle of proselytization in no way interferes with a person's freedom to believe and practice the religion/s of his/her choice. The issue of proselytism is the advancement of one's religion to other persons that may become interested upon hearing. In other words the individual that proselytizes another person seeks to persuade his/her listeners with alleged evidence that his/her religion is the better one to follow to attain salvation. The proselytizer's religion is recommended to its hearers to be freely followed not commanded to with threats. Thus freedom of choice is not interfered with at all. Without proselytism established religions would not have been established at all or even become sects in the first place. Any proselytism that is not in keeping with the practice but infringes upon the rights and freedoms of others is an abuse of the principle.
Is religious criticism religious intolerance?
No. Whilst it is now commonplace for certain established religions to label religious criticism as intolerance nothing could be further from the truth. Usually it is due to their fear of losing their members to other religions, inter alia. On the contrary criticism in general and particularly religious criticism is indispensable to free societies sustaining their free status. However scientifically speaking criticism is a blessing to a world of fallible beings. Our moral and physical imperfections demand that our beliefs and practices be subject to the test of criticism which tends to prove their validity to the human family. Criticism by no means can bring hurt to truthful views and actions, but in the case of their falsehood it tends to put checks on flawed views to prevent them from becoming established practice to cause untold damage to persons and societies. History has proven over and over again the value of criticism even religious criticism to human society. Since human beings are liable to mistakes, flaws, deceptions, corruptions, etc. such a reality renders it impossible for our views and actions, particularly those of institutions and religions to be given an uncriticizeable status. Criticism is a pivotal practice of human rights.