What does "God-Given Rights" mean?

[dblack]

For purposes of comparison, what to say about an undeserving individual gains the White House but does not believe in free speech...??


Obama nominated a Supreme Court who does not subscribe to free speech as an unalienable right...

Without getting into the specifics of the court case, I don't think Jefferson was saying government should protect all unalienable rights in all cases. Certainly if exercising a right violates someone else's rights it's not protected, or is at least limited to the extent that it does violate others' rights.

If you are referring to speech, outside of the well accorded 'fire in a crowded theatre,' what example do you have in mind where one's speech "violates someone else's rights"?

Slander comes to mind. I was just making the more general point that saying government is created to protect unalienable rights doesn't mean it can, or should, protect all of them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Without getting into the specifics of the court case, I don't think Jefferson was saying government should protect all unalienable rights in all cases. Certainly if exercising a right violates someone else's rights it's not protected, or is at least limited to the extent that it does violate others' rights.

If you are referring to speech, outside of the well accorded 'fire in a crowded theatre,' what example do you have in mind where one's speech "violates someone else's rights"?

Slander comes to mind. I was just making the more general point that saying government is created to protect unalienable rights doesn't mean it can, or should, protect all of them.

Poor example.....and hardly germane.

I'm certain that you wouldn't attempt to make the argument that one has the unalienable right not to be slandered.


Need we reprise your definition of a right?

 

[BlindBoo]

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?

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

Illogical.

God/ Creator was acknowledged are the endower, which is the only possible way to have rights which are 'unalienable - or above the as the whims of mankind.

Not only are you ignoring the direct statement of the origin of our rights, but you also ignore the reason behind it.

Nope the main reason for the statement is that Governments/Men are what secures those rights, not where they came from(which was at best ambiguous).

 

[SniperFire]

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

Illogical.

God/ Creator was acknowledged are the endower, which is the only possible way to have rights which are 'unalienable - or above the as the whims of mankind.

Not only are you ignoring the direct statement of the origin of our rights, but you also ignore the reason behind it.

Nope the main reason for the statement is that Governments/Men are what secures those rights, not where they came from(which was at best ambiguous).

You are simply pretending that the direct statements as to the source of our unalienable rights is ambiguous. Not only do we have the plain language of the Declaration of Independence, but I provided Hamilton's explanation in the Federalist Papers. I am certain I can provide you with many other examples of same.


You have failed.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Sniperfire you are walking on a tightrope with your logic. If you are depending on the founders words to justify our rights through God then you are basically saying that all it would take is a constitutional amendment that would change the wording to nullify those rights. If government can legislate the existence of God then they can legistlate that God doesn't exist and if they do that then what happens to "God given rights"? I would imagine they would disappear with God wouldn't you? That's not true though is it?

If I don't believe in God do I still have rights? This is the only question that need be asked.

You arguethat rights if not supernatural, are the construct of man and yet you use what some would argue is a construct of man as an alternative to prove your point. By your logic you must prove the existence of God in order to have unalienable rights. Sorry but I like my way better because I get them either way.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton:


'The fundamental source of all your errors, sophisms, and false reasonings, is a total ignorance of the natural rights of mankind. Were you once to become acquainted with these, you could never entertain a thought, that all men are not, by nature, entitled to a parity of privileges.

You would be convinced, that natural liberty is a gift of the beneficent Creator, to the whole human race; and that civil liberty is founded in that; and cannot be wrested from any people, without the most manifest violation of justice.'


There is and was no ambiguity as to the source of our rights, and to what makes them unalienable above the whims of man.

The opinion of Alexander Hamilton is no more important than yours or mine.

The argument for equal rights is an argument best supported, as are all arguments, by reason and logic, not by the invented dictates of some imaginary being endowed by Man with special privileges, power, and wisdom.

 

[BlindBoo]

Illogical.

God/ Creator was acknowledged are the endower, which is the only possible way to have rights which are 'unalienable - or above the as the whims of mankind.

Not only are you ignoring the direct statement of the origin of our rights, but you also ignore the reason behind it.

Nope the main reason for the statement is that Governments/Men are what secures those rights, not where they came from(which was at best ambiguous).

You are simply pretending that the direct statements as to the source of our unalienable rights is ambiguous. Not only do we have the plain language of the Declaration of Independence, but I provided Hamilton's explanation in the Federalist Papers. I am certain I can provide you with many other examples of same.


You have failed.

"The Creator" is an ambiguous statement. All it means is that we were all born with these certain rights and the men (governments) are instituted to secure those rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Many a journey to ruin was begun because 'God said so'.

We should not be shamed or intimidated out of using our own best judgment to decide what is right and wrong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Illogical.

God/ Creator was acknowledged are the endower, which is the only possible way to have rights which are 'unalienable - or above the as the whims of mankind.

Not only are you ignoring the direct statement of the origin of our rights, but you also ignore the reason behind it.

That God even exists is nothing more than opinion,

so any proclamations that are dependent on an opinion for their basis can only be opinions themselves.

That is not the issue. The issue is that it is stupid on its face, and absurdly illogical, to pretend that 'unalienable' rights exist if man came up with them using his fertile imagination.

It is illogical to summarily dismiss the possibility that the Founders were simply WRONG on where rights come from.

 

[dblack]

If you are referring to speech, outside of the well accorded 'fire in a crowded theatre,' what example do you have in mind where one's speech "violates someone else's rights"?

Slander comes to mind. I was just making the more general point that saying government is created to protect unalienable rights doesn't mean it can, or should, protect all of them.

Poor example.....and hardly germane.

I'm certain that you wouldn't attempt to make the argument that one has the unalienable right not to be slandered.


Need we reprise your definition of a right?

Not sure what you're getting at. Are you simply saying there are no circumstances where freedom of expression should not be protected? That may be the case, and I'm not necessarily saying that it isn't (thus the 'arguably' in my original comment). My point was just that unalienable rights include every conceivable freedom one might have, and clearly there are limits to protecting those freedoms. We don't create government to protect the "freedom" to beat people up, for example.

 

[SniperFire]

Sniperfire you are walking on a tightrope with your logic.[B] If you are depending on the founders words to justify our rights through God then you are basically saying that all it would take is a constitutional amendment that would change the wording to nullify those rights. [/B]If government can legislate the existence of God then they can legistlate that God doesn't exist and if they do that then what happens to "God given rights"? I would imagine they would disappear with God wouldn't you? That's not true though is it?

If I don't believe in God do I still have rights? This is the only question that need be asked.

You arguethat rights if not supernatural, are the construct of man and yet you use what some would argue is a construct of man as an alternative to prove your point. By your logic you must prove the existence of God in order to have unalienable rights. Sorry but I like my way better because I get them either way.

Wrong.

The Declaration of Independence is the acknowledgment that our rights are unalienable, not the codification of it into law. Notice how Alexander Hamilton pointed out how unalienable rights extend to the entire human race - not just America and by extension not just our own Constitution.

This acknowledgement superseded the Constitution by many years.

 

[SniperFire]

Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton:


'The fundamental source of all your errors, sophisms, and false reasonings, is a total ignorance of the natural rights of mankind. Were you once to become acquainted with these, you could never entertain a thought, that all men are not, by nature, entitled to a parity of privileges.

You would be convinced, that natural liberty is a gift of the beneficent Creator, to the whole human race; and that civil liberty is founded in that; and cannot be wrested from any people, without the most manifest violation of justice.'


There is and was no ambiguity as to the source of our rights, and to what makes them unalienable above the whims of man.

The opinion of Alexander Hamilton is no more important than yours or mine.

The argument for equal rights is an argument best supported, as are all arguments, by reason and logic, not by the invented dictates of some imaginary being endowed by Man with special privileges, power, and wisdom.

Again, you are welcome to your opinion.

What you are not welcome to is pretending our rights are 'unalienable' if they were just dreamed up by mankind in the first place.

That is illogical and stupid on its face.

 

[SniperFire]

That God even exists is nothing more than opinion,

so any proclamations that are dependent on an opinion for their basis can only be opinions themselves.

That is not the issue. The issue is that it is stupid on its face, and absurdly illogical, to pretend that 'unalienable' rights exist if man came up with them using his fertile imagination.

It is illogical to summarily dismiss the possibility that the Founders were simply WRONG on where rights come from.

Thank you for agreeing with my critique of the OP. There is no ambiguity as to what the FF intended.

 

[Murf76]

Do insects have unalienable rights ' inherent to existence of the being,' or do such mystical rights only apply to carbon atoms curiously-arranged as humans?

Do you even think about the stupid shit you post?

Can you study a bug and discover his characteristics? That's what we're talking about. Human characteristics are observable as well. And when we put them in the context of peaceful societies, we can see that when our natural rights are abrogated, the results are not conducive to harmonious living. And so... we secure those rights.

A bug has a right to be a bug. We routinely abrogate that right because often enough, the bug is impeding OUR rights to not be bothered by bugs. It's right of might, pure and simple. But that doesn't mean that from the bug's point of view he has no right to be a bug.

Your argument that God, the Creator, made us all doesn't mean He didn't make bugs too, and dogs, and monkeys, and alligators. They all have certain observable characteristics which identify them as a species. So, do we.

 

[SniperFire]

My 'argument' is not whether or not God created us.

I am pointing out the absurdity and logical fail of any claim that our rights are 'unalienable' if they are just an abstract construct of the fertile imagination of mankind.

That argument is stupid on its face.

 

[Murf76]

If you are referring to speech, outside of the well accorded 'fire in a crowded theatre,' what example do you have in mind where one's speech "violates someone else's rights"?

Slander comes to mind. I was just making the more general point that saying government is created to protect unalienable rights doesn't mean it can, or should, protect all of them.

Poor example.....and hardly germane.

I'm certain that you wouldn't attempt to make the argument that one has the unalienable right not to be slandered.


Need we reprise your definition of a right?

Why wouldn't a person have a right not to be slandered? Certainly, if he's just minding his own business, and someone comes along and tells lies about him, hurting him in such a way that damages can be proved, he'll be able sue that person and win in civil court. If we imagine our unalienable rights as a bubble encircling each person, his bubble-space has been violated. He's pursuing his own happiness, not interfering with anyone else's bubble... doesn't he have a "right" to go in peace, unmolested?

 

[Murf76]

My 'argument' is not whether or not God created us.

I am pointing out the absurdity and logical fail of any claim that our rights are 'unalienable' if they are just an abstract construct of the fertile imagination of mankind.

That argument is stupid on its face.

But they're not imagined. They're observable. Just as we can observe the characteristics of beetle-bugs and alligators.

 

[SniperFire]

My 'argument' is not whether or not God created us.

I am pointing out the absurdity and logical fail of any claim that our rights are 'unalienable' if they are just an abstract construct of the fertile imagination of mankind.

That argument is stupid on its face.

But they're not imagined. They're observable. Just as we can observe the characteristics of beetle-bugs and alligators.

Rights do not have to be observable to exist in absolute terms. In fact, rights are abstract.

 

[dblack]

My 'argument' is not whether or not God created us.

I am pointing out the absurdity and logical fail of any claim that our rights are 'unalienable' if they are just an abstract construct of the fertile imagination of mankind.

That argument is stupid on its face.

You're right. That is an absurd and illogical argument. But its only you who is making it. The rest of us are saying that unalienable freedom is the default state of any being with volition. It's not a 'construct', it's the nature of the existence of a conscious mind.

If you believe that God created us, and the world we live in - then it makes sense for you to believe he is the source of that state of freedom. But even if you don't, freedom is still the default state of being. The question of god, or natural vs. supernatural, is utterly irrelevant to that observation.

 

[Murf76]

My 'argument' is not whether or not God created us.

I am pointing out the absurdity and logical fail of any claim that our rights are 'unalienable' if they are just an abstract construct of the fertile imagination of mankind.

That argument is stupid on its face.

But they're not imagined. They're observable. Just as we can observe the characteristics of beetle-bugs and alligators.

Rights do not have to be observable to exist in absolute terms.

I'd agree with that. Sometimes, we're slow to observe them, merely human as we are. Certainly, early American slaveholders wouldn't have thought of slavery in terms of abrogating the unalienable right of African people not to be slaves. But it was an abrogation of rights just the same. It didn't magically become wrong in the rearview mirror. It was wrong all along.

As I said earlier, I believe that this is why the 9th is open-ended as it is. So that as we grow, we can continue to discover more about ourselves.