What does "God-Given Rights" mean?

[Inthemiddle]

Wow...

just, wow.

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?

 

[SniperFire]

And if you believe our rights are not supernaturally innate to our existence, then you don't believe in unalienable rights.

False dichotomy.

Not at all.

If man has constructed our rights, then nothing stops him from reconstructing them.

It is common sense.

But obviously, OP is devoid of common sense if he is asking us to ignore the most important statement in all of our foundational documents.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You're simply wrong. Describing the rationale for creating a new government - it's purpose and intent - was what Jefferson was up to. He wasn't out to make a religious claim. The quote you're clinging to was simply a way of referring to man's natural state. It was commonly used in that way. In this debate, it's merely a distraction.



I certainly didn't say rights were 'constructs of man'. Try reading my post again.

No, I did.

And if you believe our rights are not supernaturally innate to our existence, then you don't believe in unalienable rights.

Nevermind. Don't try reading my post again. I'm pretty sure you won't get it.

What's to get? You're wrong. The intent was clear, certain, basic rights are not granted by man or governments. That was the intent... however uncomfortable that may make you.

 

[SniperFire]

You're simply wrong. Describing the rationale for creating a new government - it's purpose and intent - was what Jefferson was up to. He wasn't out to make a religious claim. The quote you're clinging to was simply a way of referring to man's natural state. It was commonly used in that way. In this debate, it's merely a distraction.



I certainly didn't say rights were 'constructs of man'. Try reading my post again.

No, I did.

And if you believe our rights are not supernaturally innate to our existence, then you don't believe in unalienable rights.

Nevermind. Don't try reading my post again. I'm pretty sure you won't get it.

I don't read empty rhetoric.

 

[dblack]

Wow...

just, wow.

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?

I explained just that in my first post. The question isn't whether rights are unalienable or not. As I said, some are, some aren't. An unalienable right is a specific type of right - namely one that you have regardless of whether anyone is around to "give" it to you.

 

[dblack]

No, I did.

And if you believe our rights are not supernaturally innate to our existence, then you don't believe in unalienable rights.

Nevermind. Don't try reading my post again. I'm pretty sure you won't get it.

What's to get? You're wrong. The intent was clear, certain, basic rights are not granted by man or governments. That was the intent... however uncomfortable that may make you.

Huh... maybe I just wasn't clear. I just re-read my post though, and I didn't find anywhere in there were I contradicted what you're saying here. I'm agreeing with it in fact. How am I wrong? Did you read my post?

 

[regent]

Jefferson did not use the word God, it was left to the reader of the Declaration to interpret creator in his own way, maybe God, maybe nature's God, maybe whatever. Maybe naming our own creator was one of our rights.

 

[SniperFire]

Wow...

just, wow.

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?

I explained just that in my first post. The question isn't whether rights are unalienable or not. As I said, some are, some aren't. An unalienable right is a specific type of right - namely one that you have regardless of whether anyone is around to "give" it to you.

What makes a right 'unalienable' if man decides what is alienable and what is not alienable?

 

[Truthmatters]

So little faith in mankind

 

[SniperFire]

Jefferson did not use the word God, it was left to the reader of the Declaration to interpret creator in his own way, maybe God, maybe nature's God, maybe whatever. Maybe naming our own creator was one of our rights.

Bullshit.

'Creator' is capitalized. It is a proper name.

 

[Truthmatters]

And not all American believed then or now in God.

 

[SniperFire]

Of course not, tm. Few of you communists do.

 

[Inthemiddle]

If man has constructed our rights

FALSE DICHOTOMY! Entirely false.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

And not all American believed then or now in God.

Yeah, so? That was then and is now their right. One's acceptance or non-acceptance of this doesn't in any way however negate the intentions of the Founders.

 

[Truthmatters]

The intentions of the founders was NOT to establish religion as the base of our government

 

[NYcarbineer]

Abortion in the first trimester is a RIGHT, according to our Constitution. Our Constitution followed from our Declaration of Independence,

which declared that RIGHTS are God given.

That makes abortion in the first trimester a God given RIGHT.

 

[SniperFire]

If man has constructed our rights

FALSE DICHOTOMY! Entirely false.

Are rights an abstract?

 

[SniperFire]

The intentions of the founders was NOT to establish religion as the base of our government

And yet the linchpin foundational principle of America - the concept that we enjoy supernatural, unalienable rights granted by a Creator - establishes us as a defacto theocracy.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Wow...

just, wow.

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?

I explained just that in my first post. The question isn't whether rights are unalienable or not. As I said, some are, some aren't. An unalienable right is a specific type of right - namely one that you have regardless of whether anyone is around to "give" it to you.

No, I get that, and I'm inclined to somewhat agree that the "source" of the rights in question is not really the meat and potatoes.

But...

My comment was directed toward the supposition of one who is looking at the source of those "inalienable" rights as being of divine origin. If THAT is to be the postulate, then the result is that we are dealing with a divine entitlement program. Now while you might be thinking I'm merely being facetious, hold on just a moment and recognize that in fact I'm opening up a whole new line of exploration.

Were our founders, in their own ways, entitlement "junkies" who were demanding that to which they were entitled by God, particularly an Abrahamic God? Is there, in fact, a nexus between the entitlement mindset and the religious mindset? Some people think that the reason Hispanics are so inclined to be Democrats is because of the immigration issue. I suggest that in fact such an explanation is superficial. Mexico is a very religious culture. Perhaps the same divinely entitled mentality translates into a worldly entitlement mentality.

 

[Murf76]

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?

I explained just that in my first post. The question isn't whether rights are unalienable or not. As I said, some are, some aren't. An unalienable right is a specific type of right - namely one that you have regardless of whether anyone is around to "give" it to you.

What makes a right 'unalienable' if man decides what is alienable and what is not alienable?

Man doesn't get to decide that though. An unalienable right is always inalienable.
People who believe in God, believe that "their Creator" is God, who created Nature. People who don't believe in God, believe that "their Creator" is Nature through evolution. Either way, our unalienable rights stem from our human condition.

I'm a believer, but that doesn't mean that somebody else HAS to agree with me on the existence of God. That's between them and God as far as I'm concerned. The beauty of our Constitution is that both positions are tolerated. What's NOT tolerable is the notion that these unalienable rights don't exist at all, because what that position does is erode the very basis of our ability to tolerate one another in such a vast country with so many disparate opinions. We have to have something to homogenize us. It used to be that we nearly uniformly accepted such ideals as unalienable rights, guaranteed Liberty, and the people as sovereign. Now... not so much. Hence the deep divides in faction.