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.
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.
"Humans can of course call anything an unalienable right.
I have the unalienable right to all of your money.
PM me and I will tell you where to send the check after you liquidate."
We do not share the same concept of the right to that, and mine trumps yours.
It does appear that way.So only Americans have the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
You're a fucking idiot.
I'm quietly confident that other countries can decide for themselves. It is nothing more than American arrogance to think we can decide what other people's rights are. They are not us and we are not them. We don't call their shots any more than they call ours.
The idiot here is you... unfortunately your idiocy is colored by arrogance. Ask the rest of the world if they think our Declaration of Independence applies to them. Fucking fool.
Clearly CG sees rights as a construct of the government.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abstract"In fact, rights are abstract."
Co - rekto - mon - do -!!!!
Totally!
The Declaration clearly is addressed to all humanity.
The Declaration clearly is addressed to all humanity.
And its meat and potatoes was the list of grievances against the King. The preamble was considered of little import to the authors.
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.
it merely means rights as a human being by virtue of being alive.
God given rights means an entitlement from God.
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?
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.
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.
Rights are unalienable even if God does not exist.
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.
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.
The problem with your proposition is you calling it an entitlement. If God entitled us to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness He would have to enforce that entitlement somehow. I await your explanation of how God guarantees is access to these rights you want to say we are divinely entitled to.
Alternatively, you could just admit you stepped into it here, and attempt to rephrase your position in a way that doesn't end up requiring God to enforce something when you are also arguing that He does not actually exist.
My personal experience with Hispanics is that they are generally more likely to agree with Republicans about entitlement programs. They tend to vote Democratic for other reasons. Learning why they do that might teach you to think of them as individuals. That might cure you of your racism.
it should be obvious that "we the people" have created our rights through the Constitution and many processes such as the American Revolution and people giving their lives for freedom in various conflicts and struggeles in this country and elsewhere. If God is the one who gave us our rights, then I'd say the framers wanting to separate from England and the church indicates the opposite because the church told people what their rights were. Our founders did exactly the opposite, separating church from state and making our rights secular. Creator could mean many things and it doesn't automatically men God.
Countries around the world are also proof that God didn't give people rights because there is so much oppression and dictate from MEN in countries where freedoms are rare. Enlightened citizens are the ones who create the environments and the conditions conducive to our freedoms and rights and it quite obviously has been an evolutionary process over centuries--from slavery to more freedoms for all.
Preamble to the US Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
