Do our rights come from nature and God as Paul Ryan says?

[courseofhistory]

The question they won't answer is which rights came from God.

God gave you the right to be born and breath, numbnuts.

I realize you Liberhoids think some "Chimp" created everything along the Evolution Highway.

Flaming fucking idiot...

So you have to believe in God not to be a liberhoid? Your way of putting things seems to make you what you say so called liberhoids are. Intolerance and narrow thinking seems to come from many who beilieve in God. What about those of us who are conservative on some issues. Do we have to believe in God and that he gave us these rights? It's nonsensical!

 

[eflatminor]

...rights are established and secured through social consensus.

That is simply not true. Rights may be restricted through the legislative process, but the rights we're talking about, you're born with. We can debate on what is and what isn't an inherent right, but you are very wrong that rights come through democracy or through social consensus. Just flat out wrong.

I am amazed that there is this much ignorance on this subject. It is the very founding principal that differentiated the USA from all previous societies.

Ah the wonders of public education...

 

[eflatminor]

...we decide the rights that government puts foward through our representatives, referendums and so forth.

You could not be more wrong. The ENTIRE idea behind the founding of America, which is codified in the Constitution, is that no government nor any person can grant or take certain rights without due process. You and everyone is born with these rights. It matters not if you believe in God, you get the rights no matter what.

That is what differentiated the USA from previous societies in which some rights could be granted by government and others taken without due process (it's good the be the King!). America was the first to say your rights are yours at birth. Nobody need grant them. And, if a right is to be taken away, it must be through due process (warrants, trial by peers, etc).

Read up on history. You're missing the idea behind the American experiment...the very heart of it.

You are wrong. We the people, not god, not nature decide on rights and freedoms which are implemented by the government through the Constitution, amendments, laws, etc. God has influenced some of this as well as nature (I mentioned limitations nature imposes upon us) but the real determinants are the people!!! I never said government can take away rights or that government is autonomous and can dictate them. It is WE THE PEOPLE!!!!

That would be true in a Democracy. We are not a Democracy, we are a Republic with a law of the land that guarantees certain unalienable rights. It's not up the people to grant these rights...thank God!

Whatever version of history you are reading, if any, is highly suspect. You're simply dead wrong about this as any student of American history could tell you.

 

[eflatminor]

Do we have to believe in God and that he gave us these rights?

No, you get these rights regardless of where you believe they came from. All you have to be is an American citizen and they're yours.

Jefferson in particular made that very clear.

 

[courseofhistory]

I put that forward as an example of how I think Ryan is out of touch and I'm not a liberal. I'm an independent moderate who has voted for a lot of different candidates of different parties. I'm not grasping at straws or anything else. I just wanted to hear discussion on it not one liner talking points!

I think you want to hear what you want to hear, and ignore the rest.

Bingo..... (Independent my ass, CofHist. has gotz to be a Liberal).

I love the way people jump to conclusions based on one thought a person puts forward. Unlike dogmantic libs and repubs, I'm generally in the middle agreeing with some cons. policies and some liberal.

Example:

I'm against the continued futile wars we are involved in now but I am a hawk on some other issues regarding foreign policy (if the war is necessary and justified due to our national defense)

I'm against illegal immigration and think we should build a wall, deport millions, etc. yet give citizenship to children brought here by their parents (between the ages of 0 and 20) through a predetermined date in perhaps 2013. The rest have to go and apply for legal citizenship.

I am pro women't rights but personally would advise against abortion (but would not want it made illegal)

I am for welfare to work for those who can work but I think we go about it wrong and people need more training on how to be self-sufficient

I'm for most social programs such as disablility for those who are truly disabled, social security (I don't object to changes if they are done gradually for future generations only), etc.

I am for getting rid of many departments in the US government but some that Romney wants to eliminate or reduce I disagree with

I think people should take personal responsiblity but I also think many need to be taught these skills since they weren't brought up with them so they can be self sufficient and not dependent on government

There is a lot more on both sides but this is a small example. So quit labeling me as something I'm not!

 

[hortysir]

I put that forward as an example of how I think Ryan is out of touch and I'm not a liberal. I'm an independent moderate who has voted for a lot of different candidates of different parties. I'm not grasping at straws or anything else. I just wanted to hear discussion on it not one liner talking points!

Never mind that your entire premise for the OP was fundamentally flawed.

 

[courseofhistory]

You could not be more wrong. The ENTIRE idea behind the founding of America, which is codified in the Constitution, is that no government nor any person can grant or take certain rights without due process. You and everyone is born with these rights. It matters not if you believe in God, you get the rights no matter what.

That is what differentiated the USA from previous societies in which some rights could be granted by government and others taken without due process (it's good the be the King!). America was the first to say your rights are yours at birth. Nobody need grant them. And, if a right is to be taken away, it must be through due process (warrants, trial by peers, etc).

Read up on history. You're missing the idea behind the American experiment...the very heart of it.

You are wrong. We the people, not god, not nature decide on rights and freedoms which are implemented by the government through the Constitution, amendments, laws, etc. God has influenced some of this as well as nature (I mentioned limitations nature imposes upon us) but the real determinants are the people!!! I never said government can take away rights or that government is autonomous and can dictate them. It is WE THE PEOPLE!!!!

That would be true in a Democracy. We are not a Democracy, we are a Republic with a law of the land that guarantees certain unalienable rights. It's not up the people to grant these rights...thank God!

Whatever version of history you are reading, if any, is highly suspect. You're simply dead wrong about this as any student of American history could tell you.

Whatever! I think you're dead wrong so we cancel each other out!

 

[Greenbeard]

...rights are established and secured through social consensus.

That is simply not true. Rights may be restricted through the legislative process, but the rights we're talking about, you're born with. We can debate on what is and what isn't an inherent right, but you are very wrong that rights come through democracy or through social consensus. Just flat out wrong.

I am amazed that there is this much ignorance on this subject. It is the very founding principal that differentiated the USA from all previous societies.

You're essentially arguing "we all believe this, so it's true."

I'm agreeing with you. That's how rights work.

 

[B. Kidd]

I think you want to hear what you want to hear, and ignore the rest.

Bingo..... (Independent my ass, CofHist. has gotz to be a Liberal).

I love the way people jump to conclusions based on one thought a person puts forward. Unlike dogmantic libs and repubs, I'm generally in the middle agreeing with some cons. policies and some liberal.

Example:

I'm against the continued futile wars we are involved in now but I am a hawk on some other issues regarding foreign policy (if the war is necessary and justified due to our national defense)

I'm against illegal immigration and think we should build a wall, deport millions, etc. yet give citizenship to children brought here by their parents (between the ages of 0 and 20) through a predetermined date in perhaps 2013. The rest have to go and apply for legal citizenship.

I am pro women't rights but personally would advise against abortion (but would not want it made illegal)

I am for welfare to work for those who can work but I think we go about it wrong and people need more training on how to be self-sufficient

I'm for most social programs such as disablility for those who are truly disabled, social security (I don't object to changes if they are done gradually for future generations only), etc.

I am for getting rid of many departments in the US government but some that Romney wants to eliminate or reduce I disagree with

I think people should take personal responsiblity but I also think many need to be taught these skills since they weren't brought up with them so they can be self sufficient and not dependent on government

There is a lot more on both sides but this is a small example. So quit labeling me as something I'm not!

Whether I labeled you right or wrong, either way 'The Declaration of Independence' gave me that right.
Now, go read it!

 

[Lakhota]

Which God? There are thousands.

 

[tjvh]

Which God? There are thousands.

Got a link?

 

[Greenbeard]

Which God? There are thousands.

Got a link?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjzZhTS_xa0]Gozer - YouTube[/ame]

 

[hortysir]

Which God? There are thousands.

Got a link?

Fuck.


Why'd you have to go and ask Lakookoo for a link?


Barrage of MM, TP, KOS and Mother Jones links in

3

2

1

 

[eflatminor]

You are wrong. We the people, not god, not nature decide on rights and freedoms which are implemented by the government through the Constitution, amendments, laws, etc. God has influenced some of this as well as nature (I mentioned limitations nature imposes upon us) but the real determinants are the people!!! I never said government can take away rights or that government is autonomous and can dictate them. It is WE THE PEOPLE!!!!

That would be true in a Democracy. We are not a Democracy, we are a Republic with a law of the land that guarantees certain unalienable rights. It's not up the people to grant these rights...thank God!

Whatever version of history you are reading, if any, is highly suspect. You're simply dead wrong about this as any student of American history could tell you.

Whatever! I think you're dead wrong so we cancel each other out!

What you cannot cancel out is the law of the land, which your position directly contradicts.

 

[LoneLaugher]

There is no god. If not for reasoning and collaboration between men......human beings created by the meeting of sperm and egg........there would be no laws, rights or the institutions needed to secure and protect them.

Yes.....in this nation, citizens are born with the rights that we have come to know and love. But you ought not lose sight of the fact that we....as in human beings....remain responsible for protecting them.

 

[eflatminor]

...rights are established and secured through social consensus.

That is simply not true. Rights may be restricted through the legislative process, but the rights we're talking about, you're born with. We can debate on what is and what isn't an inherent right, but you are very wrong that rights come through democracy or through social consensus. Just flat out wrong.

I am amazed that there is this much ignorance on this subject. It is the very founding principal that differentiated the USA from all previous societies.

You're essentially arguing "we all believe this, so it's true."

I'm agreeing with you. That's how rights work.

That is not what I'm arguing. You need not believe me or the hundreds of years of case law that support the idea of where rights come from. You need only read the law of the land. It's quite clear on the subject.

 

[Greenbeard]

That is not what I'm arguing. You need not believe me or the hundreds of years of case law that support the idea of where rights come from. You need only read the law of the land. It's quite clear on the subject.

Again, if you're going to steer me to legal documents or case law to justify this or that social conception of rights, you're making my point for me.

They're not baked into the metaphysical fabric of reality, they're baked into the social institutions and legal frameworks (as well as public opinion and ideology) that comprise civilization.

 

[G.T.]

I think our rights come from our sentience, we became smart enough to realize the most practical or i.e. self evident if you wish - rights, that come with the freest possible society (to date, in theory).

God doesn't need to be a factor, as the only ones declaring where said rights came from, are men themselves - therefore, the source can be forever scrutinized.

 

[hortysir]

There is no god. If not for reasoning and collaboration between men......human beings created by the meeting of sperm and egg........there would be no laws, rights or the institutions needed to secure and protect them.

Yes.....in this nation, citizens are born with the rights that we have come to know and love. But you ought not lose sight of the fact that we....as in human beings....remain responsible for protecting them.

Except for the very first sentence, I completely agree with your post, LL.

The OP is asserting that government is the provider of these rights.

 

[G.T.]

There is no god. If not for reasoning and collaboration between men......human beings created by the meeting of sperm and egg........there would be no laws, rights or the institutions needed to secure and protect them.

Yes.....in this nation, citizens are born with the rights that we have come to know and love. But you ought not lose sight of the fact that we....as in human beings....remain responsible for protecting them.

Except for the very first sentence, I completely agree with your post, LL.

The OP is asserting that government is the provider of these rights.

Government is we the people.

We the people wrote the founding documents.

The founding documents are what our Justices use to rule, on cases regarding rights.

Anyone can argue that the "Government" provided our rights, if you believe Government is we the people. To suggest otherwise is either being thick, or I guess Religious.