Please Comment: Principles of Reflective Centrism

[emilynghiem]

The principle of unalienable rights is grounded in the concept that rights are God given and exist prior to formal government. It is the principle that liberty can exist only when people can be who and what they are with impunity short of infringement on the rights of others. It is the right to think, to believe, to profess, to imagine, to envision, to breathe. The Declaration of Independence described it as, among other things, as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the Constitution condensed that into 'blessings of liberty'.

And it is the concept that an unalienable right is whatever we think, say, want, or do that requires no participation or contribution by any other.

And what if the population has a large segment who does not believe in a Creator? Or that Fate determines what happens to us and what we do is irrelevant?

Could we establish a system of thinking about political/legal ideas that does not make an appeal to a Creator?

I think it is plausible, though I have talked to a number of reasonable atheists on the topic, they don't usually go much further than the 'one shouldn't harm one's neighbor' argument which is too much a matter of convenience, IMO.

I found that even nontheist people who believe in "laws of nature" or "justice"
can agree on how to establish agreement on truth, justice and principles/standards
without referring to the SOURCE of where these laws/truth come from as a
"personified Creator"

You can do as well believing that the laws of science, nature including human nature, and truth were "always self-existent" and look at the world that way. Many Eastern or Earth-based followers of natural laws see the Creator and Creation as one. Where God/Life is "eternal" with "no beginning and no end" or infinite and undefinable by man's limited perception, language and timelines.

We can agree that some people personify the source of creation or universal laws
as a personal God, and some do not see the world that way. Does not have to be
a condition or sticking point.

And everyone is going to have their own languages and terms anyway!

So why insist on one language for all? leave that part to their subgroups when
they work on local interests or issues. Does not have to be a requirement for the
whole group.

Again if we agree on religious freedom and equal inclusion, then ask those
groups to respect and understand that each other has different ways of
talking about the universal laws and principles. we can still agree on what is central.

 

[emilynghiem]

But what is the principle of unalienable rights based on? What axiomatic Truths does one have to accept before the concept of unalienable rights naturally flow as an obvious truth?

That is the level at which I would like to keep these things and leave room for further action giving most of our fellow human beings credit for being rational and beneficient until they demonstrate themselves to be otherwise.

If we agree that by our human nature, we all agree we want basic
"democratic principles" such as:
free speech
consent or free will to be respected
due process to petition to redress grievances
right of defense and representation
right of assembly and association
(but not to abuse any of these to defy, deprive or defraud the same rights of others)

we can basically agree these are inherent in how the "human conscience" works
we don't have to agree where these come from
or what causes the conscience to fail
we may call that process by different terms
especially if some people are religious and use the Bible
but it is still the same universal process for all humanity
like a "rose by any other name" is still the same rose
you can disagree how that rose came to grow in the garden
but you are still talking about the same thing
(and the same process of plants growing from seeds, etc.
no matter which came first the seed or the plant, etc. it's the same process)

(I had a discussion online where the same way Christians blame the introduction of "sin" for the downfall of humanity, the nontheists blamed the "development of the ego." so what is the difference, it is selfishness and imposing what one person wants against the interest of others instead of equal respect that causes imbalance and disruption in civil relations.)

 

[Foxfyre]

The principle of unalienable rights is grounded in the concept that rights are God given and exist prior to formal government. It is the principle that liberty can exist only when people can be who and what they are with impunity short of infringement on the rights of others. It is the right to think, to believe, to profess, to imagine, to envision, to breathe. The Declaration of Independence described it as, among other things, as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the Constitution condensed that into 'blessings of liberty'.

And it is the concept that an unalienable right is whatever we think, say, want, or do that requires no participation or contribution by any other.

And what if the population has a large segment who does not believe in a Creator? Or that Fate determines what happens to us and what we do is irrelevant?

Could we establish a system of thinking about political/legal ideas that does not make an appeal to a Creator?

I think it is plausible, though I have talked to a number of reasonable atheists on the topic, they don't usually go much further than the 'one shouldn't harm one's neighbor' argument which is too much a matter of convenience, IMO.

Some of the proponents of God given or 'natural' rights did not subscribe to a Creator theory. But they nevertheless subscribed to the concept of rights preceding government or a concept of liberty requiring that government not assign us the rights we will be allowed to have.

The signers of the Declaration acknowledged God as the source of our unalienable rights. In the Constitution, in deference to including all, believers and agnostics and atheists alike, the Founders used the term 'blessings' to reflect their belief in that matter.

 

[emilynghiem]

When it is reduced to sound bites, slogans, and high minded sounding platitudes, with no real understanding or conviction behind them, it is useless and mostly divisive.

Ideas can only speak to a person to the extent that their life experience has made them able to comprehend the matter fully. I could talk till I drop to the floor with exhaustion about the value of saving money, but to some children it is an utter waste of time if they have never been without money and the difficulties that brings.

One cannot see some things as more than trite if one doesn't first perceive the horrors that come from their want. For example, to talk of the infinite value of human life, that may seem trite to some, but to some who have lost their own children, seen friends die, read of millions that have died due to bad policies and laws, then it seems not so trite.

One shortcut to this, which we can now do with the advantage of the internet,
is to include a link to a 'real life' example of principle in addition to spelling it out.

For example.
you can spell out the difference between retributive and restorative justice.
of "restitution" between the wrongdoers and the wronged in order to restore peace.

And this will mean different things to different people, and not make sense
until they experience it themselves the difference it makes in healing relations
and solving problems!

But if you add links to real examples of successful people applying it for visible impact:
Rachel's Challenge

versus sites that focus on negative punitive responses or retribution for killings or crime:
Crime victims of illegal aliens

Both are about petitioning for change; but one takes a compassionate approach to include all people in solving the conflicts before they lead to crime abuse and violence
while the other segregates off a certain group to blame by label and rallies against them
instead of INCLUDING that population in the call for changing the situation causing crimes.

Using links to real life examples online, especially with images of real people really making a difference, then you can have both: the summary of the principles and real experiences.

 

[JimBowie1958]

When it is reduced to sound bites, slogans, and high minded sounding platitudes, with no real understanding or conviction behind them, it is useless and mostly divisive.

Ideas can only speak to a person to the extent that their life experience has made them able to comprehend the matter fully. I could talk till I drop to the floor with exhaustion about the value of saving money, but to some children it is an utter waste of time if they have never been without money and the difficulties that brings.

One cannot see some things as more than trite if one doesn't first perceive the horrors that come from their want. For example, to talk of the infinite value of human life, that may seem trite to some, but to some who have lost their own children, seen friends die, read of millions that have died due to bad policies and laws, then it seems not so trite.

One shortcut to this, which we can now do with the advantage of the internet,
is to include a link to a 'real life' example of principle in addition to spelling it out.

For example.
you can spell out the difference between retributive and restorative justice.
of "restitution" between the wrongdoers and the wronged in order to restore peace.

And this will mean different things to different people, and not make sense
until they experience it themselves the difference it makes in healing relations
and solving problems!

But if you add links to real examples of successful people applying it for visible impact:
Rachel's Challenge

versus sites that focus on negative punitive responses or retribution for killings or crime:
Crime victims of illegal aliens

Both are about petitioning for change; but one takes a compassionate approach to include all people in solving the conflicts before they lead to crime abuse and violence
while the other segregates off a certain group to blame by label and rallies against them
instead of INCLUDING that population in the call for changing the situation causing crimes.

Using links to real life examples online, especially with images of real people really making a difference, then you can have both: the summary of the principles and real experiences.

Love the post, but I have one caveat, links can help but nothing replaces actual personal experience.

With the example of saving money, it became much easier for me after I lived from month to month on the last paycheck.

Not knowing where the money would come from if I got sick or lost my job was a real motivator.