Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Our rights are those that we give ourselves, through our government and our conscience. Our basic civil rights are those given by our constitution and laws. Those rights deprived are those limited by law.
Religion has nothing to do with it, in a secular society. Our rights are greater, since we rid ourselves of religions deciding them for us.
Wrong again.
Tell me something, if rights are something we give ourselves why do other primates have an innate sense of fair play, of right and wrong? I really don't want to rehash the same arguments again, so I will just point you to the thread where I already showed that right and wrong are not something we made up.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...me-from-nature-and-god-as-paul-ryan-says.html
Primates have a sense of fair play? You're an idiot. Rights are certainly manufactured, hopefully using logic and secular ethics. They're not something that God gave us. If I believe the bible thumpers, God takes away rights, and has done so since Adam and Eve sought out knowledge.
Using wiki for an apt description:
"The divine right of kings, or divine-right theory of kingship, is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people...."
So what made the believers of that religious source of right(s) wrong?
Where in the Bible, if we use the Bible as a reference source of what we are led to believe God believes,
does God favor the democratic over the autocratic? Where does God endorse the Bill of Rights, or any such equivalent or similarity?
No, because no one is saying religion is a source of rights. What we are saying is that government is not the source of rights. That, as usual, makes you wrong.
Our rights are those that we give ourselves, through our government and our conscience. Our basic civil rights are those given by our constitution and laws. Those rights deprived are those limited by law.
Religion has nothing to do with it, in a secular society. Our rights are greater, since we rid ourselves of religions deciding them for us.
Was the divine right of kings an inalienable right? It came from God...
Self-determination is not removable from a person, inherently. The unalienable construct refers to this.
Jefferson says this is from our creator, pointing out that it is part of the human condition, and goes on to describe how government is given mandate by the governed to standardize and sort out rights.
Using wiki for an apt description:
"The divine right of kings, or divine-right theory of kingship, is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people...."
So what made the believers of that religious source of right(s) wrong?
Where in the Bible, if we use the Bible as a reference source of what we are led to believe God believes,
does God favor the democratic over the autocratic? Where does God endorse the Bill of Rights, or any such equivalent or similarity?
Another take on this is that all of these freedoms boil down to one freedom. The freedom of thought. In other words "Free will". Before any action we take we think and decide on a path to take and then we take it. If there is a law against speaking on street corner, then we have a choice to either speak or not speak. If we speak we may go to jail but we have that option. This is what unalienable means in practical terms. It does not mean that there won't be repercussions for exercising that right. Government can never take away that freedom of choice no matter what laws they enact. Even the most oppressive regimes have political dissidents that are willing to lay down their lives for liberty. One could argue that free will comes from God but in the end it doesn't matter because it is a fact that we have it. You can either agree with me or disagree with me but the fact is that either way you are making a choice and I can't stop you.
Interesting. You must also believe committing murder is an unalienable right as we can choose to commit murder and pay the penalty.Another take on this is that all of these freedoms boil down to one freedom. The freedom of thought. In other words "Free will". Before any action we take we think and decide on a path to take and then we take it. If there is a law against speaking on street corner, then we have a choice to either speak or not speak. If we speak we may go to jail but we have that option. This is what unalienable means in practical terms. It does not mean that there won't be repercussions for exercising that right. Government can never take away that freedom of choice no matter what laws they enact. Even the most oppressive regimes have political dissidents that are willing to lay down their lives for liberty. One could argue that free will comes from God but in the end it doesn't matter because it is a fact that we have it. You can either agree with me or disagree with me but the fact is that either way you are making a choice and I can't stop you.
What does "God-Given Rights" mean?
What does "God-Given Rights" mean?
"Thou shalt nots" aren't rights, when the punishment is community rock throwing, until you kill someone who told his dad he's full of shit.
How is that any different than if God gave us "rights"? He would still have to enforce that somehow.
I challenge you to explain how God is going to enforce the entitlements He gave us, and you respond that He has to enforce them. That is circular logic, and only proves you can't debate.
I didn't "step in it." And yes, I maintain that "God" in the Abrahamic sense does not exist, because I have a different belief. But that is pretty irrelevant here. The question is no whether such God exists. The question regards the nature of rights, under the assumption that they are "God" given.
I am not constrained to argue within your flawed world view. You actually have to prove that God given rights are an entitlement before I have to deal with how that works in the real world. Since that would require that you prove that God exists and that He actively interferes in the world, something you cannot do, your question is not valid.
Mate, you're talking to a Hispanic! Live in South Texas for a while, and see how many Hispanics are lined up at social services looking for food stamps. See how many Mexicans are coming into the US illegally because they think that the fact that they want to be here automatically entitles them to be here, to get free medical treatment at hospitals, have the entire country speak THEIR language, etc. You think the reason illegals want citizenship is because they want to actually become Americans? HAAA! It's because they want a slice of all the benefits they think they're already entitled to.
Your claim of being Hispanic does not automatically negate you being a racist. I personally know one black man that hates blacks because they are all drug addicts and live on welfare.
By the way, I grew up in El Paso, the largest border crossing in the country, there is nothing you can tell me about Hispanics I do not already know.You are a racist, get over it.
Interesting. You must also believe committing murder is an unalienable right as we can choose to commit murder and pay the penalty.Another take on this is that all of these freedoms boil down to one freedom. The freedom of thought. In other words "Free will". Before any action we take we think and decide on a path to take and then we take it. If there is a law against speaking on street corner, then we have a choice to either speak or not speak. If we speak we may go to jail but we have that option. This is what unalienable means in practical terms. It does not mean that there won't be repercussions for exercising that right. Government can never take away that freedom of choice no matter what laws they enact. Even the most oppressive regimes have political dissidents that are willing to lay down their lives for liberty. One could argue that free will comes from God but in the end it doesn't matter because it is a fact that we have it. You can either agree with me or disagree with me but the fact is that either way you are making a choice and I can't stop you.
Interesting. You must also believe committing murder is an unalienable right as we can choose to commit murder and pay the penalty.Another take on this is that all of these freedoms boil down to one freedom. The freedom of thought. In other words "Free will". Before any action we take we think and decide on a path to take and then we take it. If there is a law against speaking on street corner, then we have a choice to either speak or not speak. If we speak we may go to jail but we have that option. This is what unalienable means in practical terms. It does not mean that there won't be repercussions for exercising that right. Government can never take away that freedom of choice no matter what laws they enact. Even the most oppressive regimes have political dissidents that are willing to lay down their lives for liberty. One could argue that free will comes from God but in the end it doesn't matter because it is a fact that we have it. You can either agree with me or disagree with me but the fact is that either way you are making a choice and I can't stop you.
Exactly! It's just not a freedom we'd protect because it directly conflicts with the freedom of others. This gets right at the core of the thread. Most of us are misunderstanding what 'unalienable' or 'god-given' means in context.
We've all grown up hearing 'unlienable rights' as something akin to 'sacrosanct' or, as someone else said, 'untouchable'. But I don't think that is what Jefferson meant at all in using the phrase. Unalienable freedom is the natural state of human existence (Free Will, as LfA points out). He is assigning government the task of, as much as possible, securing that state of freedom. Again, the point in calling out freedom as 'unalienable' was to emphasize that it wasn't a grant from authority - it's something we have before we even bother with government. We create government to enhance and secure the freedoms we already have.
You could have a misunderstanding of Jefferson's use of Creator. Natural rights are not by any edict from a god, paper or person.. That's just the way it is. We are able to contemplate and act at our own pleasure, whether we like it or not, and we cant transfer that around. A good christian would attribute that to God. i don't think that describes Jefferson though.Was the divine right of kings an inalienable right? It came from God...
Self-determination is not removable from a person, inherently. The unalienable construct refers to this.
Jefferson says this is from our creator, pointing out that it is part of the human condition, and goes on to describe how government is given mandate by the governed to standardize and sort out rights.
Using wiki for an apt description:
"The divine right of kings, or divine-right theory of kingship, is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people...."
So what made the believers of that religious source of right(s) wrong?
Where in the Bible, if we use the Bible as a reference source of what we are led to believe God believes,
does God favor the democratic over the autocratic? Where does God endorse the Bill of Rights, or any such equivalent or similarity?
Interesting. You must also believe committing murder is an unalienable right as we can choose to commit murder and pay the penalty.Another take on this is that all of these freedoms boil down to one freedom. The freedom of thought. In other words "Free will". Before any action we take we think and decide on a path to take and then we take it. If there is a law against speaking on street corner, then we have a choice to either speak or not speak. If we speak we may go to jail but we have that option. This is what unalienable means in practical terms. It does not mean that there won't be repercussions for exercising that right. Government can never take away that freedom of choice no matter what laws they enact. Even the most oppressive regimes have political dissidents that are willing to lay down their lives for liberty. One could argue that free will comes from God but in the end it doesn't matter because it is a fact that we have it. You can either agree with me or disagree with me but the fact is that either way you are making a choice and I can't stop you.
For our purposes though, and in the context of creating a harmonious society... your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. We can't look at unalienable rights and the government's responsibility to secure them without thinking about what it is that we're trying to accomplish. If we were all alone on a desert island with no other nose in proximity of our fist, then yeah.. our rights are unlimited, swing away. But that's not the reality of the situation. The reality of the situation is that we ALL are possessed of the same rights, but in the context of civil society, we can't exercise them at the expense of another. Hence the limits.
So yeah, the guy who is slandered does have a right to be left alone, just as the guy who does the slandering has the right to free speech. But it's the aggressor who actively abrogates the rights of another who gets into trouble when the rights of two people come into conflict. The slanderer's swing has met with someone else's nose.
Well, yes of course but I dont think you have to view it in the resect that you have a right to not be bothered because then the list of rights that you have would be never ending. Do I also have a right to not have a plane land on my head? How about a right to not have your dog defecates on my lawn? Sure, these are things that I should not be subject to but not because I have a RIGHT for those things to not happen. In the context of unalienable rights, the entire concept is lost as unalienable rights are a construct of the individual alone without a second party. Essentally, I am saying that you do NOT have a right to not be slanders but another also does not have the right to use their right to speech to harm you.
Put another way, I can, in fact, legally slander you as long as it causes no harm (apart from the semantics argument). For instance, I can call you a moronic sycophant that likes to eat small children for breakfast. None of it is true but none of that actually causes you harm. You have no right to not be slandered. What I lack is the right to harm you with my rights a la the fist and nose analogy that you used.
Wrong again.
Tell me something, if rights are something we give ourselves why do other primates have an innate sense of fair play, of right and wrong? I really don't want to rehash the same arguments again, so I will just point you to the thread where I already showed that right and wrong are not something we made up.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...me-from-nature-and-god-as-paul-ryan-says.html
Primates have a sense of fair play? You're an idiot. Rights are certainly manufactured, hopefully using logic and secular ethics. They're not something that God gave us. If I believe the bible thumpers, God takes away rights, and has done so since Adam and Eve sought out knowledge.
I am an idiot because two separate scientific studies on two different species of primates have proven that they have an innate sense of right and wrong? Yet you, who reject the science without even looking, are a genius.
Damn, I love being an right wing anti science nut, it makes it so much easier when someone posts something I disagree with, I don't have to pretend than science actually works.
No, because no one is saying religion is a source of rights. What we are saying is that government is not the source of rights. That, as usual, makes you wrong.
Our rights are those that we give ourselves, through our government and our conscience. Our basic civil rights are those given by our constitution and laws. Those rights deprived are those limited by law.
Religion has nothing to do with it, in a secular society. Our rights are greater, since we rid ourselves of religions deciding them for us.
That is backward thought. Absent government, your rights still exist though they are in danger of infringement by those that are stronger or in greater number. All government does is ensure that those rights are protected or not. As others have said in this thread, those rights that are unalienable are so because they exist as a condition of being human.
If government or society gave those rights to you then you would have no such rights if you were stranded alone on an island. That is clearly not the case.
Interesting. You must also believe committing murder is an unalienable right as we can choose to commit murder and pay the penalty.Another take on this is that all of these freedoms boil down to one freedom. The freedom of thought. In other words "Free will". Before any action we take we think and decide on a path to take and then we take it. If there is a law against speaking on street corner, then we have a choice to either speak or not speak. If we speak we may go to jail but we have that option. This is what unalienable means in practical terms. It does not mean that there won't be repercussions for exercising that right. Government can never take away that freedom of choice no matter what laws they enact. Even the most oppressive regimes have political dissidents that are willing to lay down their lives for liberty. One could argue that free will comes from God but in the end it doesn't matter because it is a fact that we have it. You can either agree with me or disagree with me but the fact is that either way you are making a choice and I can't stop you.
Correct.
But (as I see it) you are both looking at this backward. It has nothing do with the right to not be slandered at all. It has to do with your right to free speech. You have that right, it is inherent and it cant be taken away but it CAN, and in fact is, limited when you use that right in such a way as it harms others. I think that was the point. Speech is an unalienable right yet is limited anyway and there is little to no opposition to this. Whether or not you are from the god camp or not.
For our purposes though, and in the context of creating a harmonious society... your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. We can't look at unalienable rights and the government's responsibility to secure them without thinking about what it is that we're trying to accomplish. If we were all alone on a desert island with no other nose in proximity of our fist, then yeah.. our rights are unlimited, swing away. But that's not the reality of the situation. The reality of the situation is that we ALL are possessed of the same rights, but in the context of civil society, we can't exercise them at the expense of another. Hence the limits.
So yeah, the guy who is slandered does have a right to be left alone, just as the guy who does the slandering has the right to free speech. But it's the aggressor who actively abrogates the rights of another who gets into trouble when the rights of two people come into conflict. The slanderer's swing has met with someone else's nose.
Why do people think that legal rights and natural rights are the same fracking thing?
Slander is a legal concept, not a natural one. It involves one person saying something that the legal system says is unlawful. That cannot happen outside of a society that has a government structure that makes slander actionable.
