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.
Wow.... so the same nitwit gallery is going to rush into this thread and turn it into another idiotic debate on religion???
Unless you have another definition for the "Creator", you are the one attempting to create another debate on religion.
Why do left wingers always seem to feel that they must rewrite plain language in historical documents? Who are you trying to confuse, yourself or others?
Wow.... so the same nitwit gallery is going to rush into this thread and turn it into another idiotic debate on religion???
Unless you have another definition for the "Creator", you are the one attempting to create another debate on religion.
Why do left wingers always seem to feel that they must rewrite plain language in historical documents? Who are you trying to confuse, yourself or others?
Did you just call dblack a left winger
Creator may be considered from the divine but it has nothing to do with the OP or the concept that he is trying to put forth. Essentially, whatever you want to call the creator or whatever you want to attribute natural or God given rights to, it does not matter. The debate is what, specifically, the founders meant when referring to those rights.
god = none
given = well, thats like answer above.
rights = a concept, with options
I would debate you about this, but I don't like getting into a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
How can 'rights' be inherit to a fairly random assortment of carbon atoms?
Could you be any more absurd or illogical?
How can gravitation be inherent to a fairly random assortment of carbon atoms? You've repeatedly asked me whether inalienable rights are an abstract. I evaded the question as a false dichotomy, exactly because I knew where you would try to lead with it, and I knew exactly how wrong and backwards you were. So, I gave you a length of rope, and now you've hung yourself with it.
Inalienable rights are not an abstract. They are inherent to the existence of the being, just like gravitation is inherent to the existence of matter. You thought that I might answer that they were an abstract, and thought that you could argue that the only way for them to not be an abstract was to appeal to Divinity. However, that position is entirely absurd, because such appeal to divinity actually makes inalienable rights into an abstract. If inalienable rights are divine providence, then they can be revoked by the Divine as well. They are, therefore, creations of some being, and can be destroyed by some being.
Gravitation exists, and is an inherent quality of matter. This is true without appeal to the Divine. So too do inalienable rights, as an inherent quality of the being.
That is completely absurd and illogical.
It means our Heavenly Father is the source of our rights and freedom.
Seriously. I challenge you to explain it in any way that does not amount to exactly that. If rights are "inalienable" and "God" given, then how are they anything more than an entitlement you are redeeming from whatever god you believe in?
Rights are unalienable even if God does not exist.
Our founders recognized that virtually all men and women possess an inate sense that they, personally, have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Since it is inate, it had to be put there by our Creator. Notice that liberty is not defined, and various people, even of the time, had different opinions of what liberty entailed. In addition, all men and women did not believe that these rights extended to all. Slaves obviously did not have those rights, and noblemen did not believe that serfs had those rights.
god = none
given = well, thats like answer above.
rights = a concept, with options
I would debate you about this, but I don't like getting into a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
Having a debate with individuals who can't tell the difference between imagination and reality is not much of the contest. But if you feel you can debate reality with an armed man were is that horse corral at? I can imagine you will ever show up
We've seen five or six different threads on this topic over the last week and, in my view, they've been an unproductive mess. Mostly we're talking past each other without a very clear understanding what it is we're really talking about.
So, just what is meant by God-given rights? In most of the debates on here, the discussion breaks down into a debate over the "source" of rights (God, government, neither?) and I think that fundamentally misses the point. When Jefferson wrote that people are ...
..., what did he mean?... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men
His purpose was to lay out a justification for government. Here he's saying that governments are instituted to secure "unalieanable rights". That term is actually very specific and narrow. It's meant to refer only to certain kinds of "rights" - those that are unalienable.
'Unalieanable' means they can't be taken away. It doesn't mean the shouldn't be taken away. It doesn't mean they can't be violated. It means that they are innate to a person's existence, and that, even if you were left on a desert island by yourself, you'd still have them.
So, the key thing here is that he's describing a particular kind of right. Some rights are unalieanable, some aren't. Keep in mind, this isn't by decree - it's just inherent in the nature of the right in question. If the right can't be taken away, if you'd have the freedom to exercise it regardless of whether anyone "gave" it to you or not, then it is, by definition, an unalieanable right.
Freedom of speech, for example, is an unalienable right. It's a freedom that you can exercise without anyone's permission or cooperation. You'd have it whether government existed or not. It's a right that can be violated, to be sure. Someone can pin you down and put their hand over your mouth. But as soon as they leave, you have that right again. It's a freedom of action that doesn't require a grant from anyone, or anything, else.
Contractual rights are not unalienable. They require the active participation of other people or institutions to exist. Many have proposed that government recognize a "right to health care". While we could create this "right" and establish it as an entitlement, it wouldn't be an unalienable right. It depends on the active cooperation of other people. Again, it's not a matter of declaring it to be unalienable, or not. It's inherent in the nature of the right being discussed.
Jefferson wasn't making a statement about where rights come from. He was making a statement about the kinds of rights government should secure. He wanted a government that protected our innate freedoms, not one that granted privilege. Unfortunately, that point seems to get lost as people get preoccupied with debating the supremacy of God vs the supremacy of government.
He meant that we all were born with these rights and Government was instituted to secure those rights. Simple stuff really, nothing to do with the supernatural or supernatural creatures or scientist Jackson Roykirk.
Star Trek Changeling, The
Rights are unalienable even if God does not exist.
Our founders recognized that virtually all men and women possess an inate sense that they, personally, have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Since it is inate, it had to be put there by our Creator. Notice that liberty is not defined, and various people, even of the time, had different opinions of what liberty entailed. In addition, all men and women did not believe that these rights extended to all. Slaves obviously did not have those rights, and noblemen did not believe that serfs had those rights.
It is incredible how stupid some people can be. The fact that I can kill you, or lock you in a cage, does not prove you do not have the right to life or liberty. The fact that not everyone believes something does not make it not true.
Rights are unalienable even if God does not exist.
Our founders recognized that virtually all men and women possess an inate sense that they, personally, have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Since it is inate, it had to be put there by our Creator. Notice that liberty is not defined, and various people, even of the time, had different opinions of what liberty entailed. In addition, all men and women did not believe that these rights extended to all. Slaves obviously did not have those rights, and noblemen did not believe that serfs had those rights.
It is incredible how stupid some people can be. The fact that I can kill you, or lock you in a cage, does not prove you do not have the right to life or liberty. The fact that not everyone believes something does not make it not true.
I must confess I feel incredibly stupid thinking rights as a slogan covering up the fact I only 
We've seen five or six different threads on this topic over the last week and, in my view, they've been an unproductive mess. Mostly we're talking past each other without a very clear understanding what it is we're really talking about.
So, just what is meant by God-given rights? In most of the debates on here, the discussion breaks down into a debate over the "source" of rights (God, government, neither?) and I think that fundamentally misses the point. When Jefferson wrote that people are ...
..., what did he mean?... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men
His purpose was to lay out a justification for government. Here he's saying that governments are instituted to secure "unalieanable rights". That term is actually very specific and narrow. It's meant to refer only to certain kinds of "rights" - those that are unalienable.
'Unalieanable' means they can't be taken away. It doesn't mean the shouldn't be taken away. It doesn't mean they can't be violated. It means that they are innate to a person's existence, and that, even if you were left on a desert island by yourself, you'd still have them.
So, the key thing here is that he's describing a particular kind of right. Some rights are unalieanable, some aren't. Keep in mind, this isn't by decree - it's just inherent in the nature of the right in question. If the right can't be taken away, if you'd have the freedom to exercise it regardless of whether anyone "gave" it to you or not, then it is, by definition, an unalieanable right.
Freedom of speech, for example, is an unalienable right. It's a freedom that you can exercise without anyone's permission or cooperation. You'd have it whether government existed or not. It's a right that can be violated, to be sure. Someone can pin you down and put their hand over your mouth. But as soon as they leave, you have that right again. It's a freedom of action that doesn't require a grant from anyone, or anything, else.
Contractual rights are not unalienable. They require the active participation of other people or institutions to exist. Many have proposed that government recognize a "right to health care". While we could create this "right" and establish it as an entitlement, it wouldn't be an unalienable right. It depends on the active cooperation of other people. Again, it's not a matter of declaring it to be unalienable, or not. It's inherent in the nature of the right being discussed.
Jefferson wasn't making a statement about where rights come from. He was making a statement about the kinds of rights government should secure. He wanted a government that protected our innate freedoms, not one that granted privilege. Unfortunately, that point seems to get lost as people get preoccupied with debating the supremacy of God vs the supremacy of government.
Human Events contributor John Hayward has written an article that addresses this topic after it was addressed in Paul Ryan's speech, and utterly misunderstood by race-card Democrats.
The Declaration of Independence says: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
This is a very important concept. The signatories of the Declaration were saying that certain rights are built directly into each human being. You don’t actually have to believe in God to understand the concept. You enter this world with unalienable rights that are not granted by the government… and cannot be withdrawn at the pleasure of government. No one can pass legislation to take these rights away. Even if every single one of your fellow citizens votes to strip one of your unalienable rights from you, the government cannot do so, without sacrificing its legitimacy.
Unless you have another definition for the "Creator", you are the one attempting to create another debate on religion.
Why do left wingers always seem to feel that they must rewrite plain language in historical documents? Who are you trying to confuse, yourself or others?
Did you just call dblack a left winger
Creator may be considered from the divine but it has nothing to do with the OP or the concept that he is trying to put forth. Essentially, whatever you want to call the creator or whatever you want to attribute natural or God given rights to, it does not matter. The debate is what, specifically, the founders meant when referring to those rights.
I've been called worse. Once I got labeled a "right-winger"!
