CNN Anchor: ‘Our Rights Do Not Come From God’

[RoshawnMarkwees]

If you have a natural law right to something, but live in a country that doesn't allow you to exercise the right, do you have a right at all?

Yes... you do. You simply lack the means to exercise that right.

As a practical matter, what's the difference in not having a right and having a right but no way to exercise it?

If you're sitting at a light and I walk up and bust you in your head and drag you out the window of your car and drive off, do you lose your right to the property, the means to utilize such, I just stripped from you?

If you're sitting at a light you are not on your own property so you don't have rights you think you do.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yes... you were. And I was telling you that if you can't find a means to post your opinion cogently, to get lost. As such is idiocy and life is too short for such.

I'm afraid I don't see you as an arbiter of what's cogent. ...

Ya don't?

how about Webster's Dictionary, do ya see that as such an arbiter?

Cogent: clear, logical, and convincing.

Last chance jackass.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If your rights are violated, do you just pray or go to court? There should be no need for courts, if the OP is correct.

The OP is of course wrong.

 

[Kosh]

First the Tea Party went on a political purge. they labeled Republicans as "RINOs" and set about purging them from the party (Richard Lugar we hardly knew ye). They are still hell bent to get the candidates who fit their narrow template of ideological purity and will soon enough control the Republican Party. These are the same folks, incidentally, who shout about the Democrat Party being hijacked by the Left Wing.

But politics aren't a wide enough canvass for the Right Wingers to be content with. Now they are arbitrating who is ecumenically pure as well. They will purge with the same zeal any heretics, blasphemers or any other citizen who does not conform to their interpretation of scripture. This in spite of the fact that American society is secular and not encouraged to believe in any faith established by the state, no matter what that pesky 1st amendment says.

So, like the Taliban, the far Right wants to establish a religious litmus test. They want to label anyone not in line with that test as anti-American, the same label the Taliban imposes on those who disagree with them.

And like the Taliban, the far Right leans on an extremely Conservative interpretation of true faith.

The only differences between Right Wingers who seek the base alloy of their ideology and the Taliban is tactical. So far, Conservatives have not been violently attacking apostates, with the exception of doctors providing abortions (why haven't Conservatives stepped up to, and I'll use a Right Winger's term here, refudiate the actions of those evil zealots?)

But, just as the McCarthy era witch hunts did, Conservatives will deem an American citizen who does not fall into line with their narrow template as anti-American.

It's a weird wonderful world for the Far Right. Since the end of the Cold War, they floundered around looking for another enemy, because without an enemy, their ideology falls flat. Well, they have met the enemy, and they are us.

And another far left drone post that does not contribute to the tread other than pushing the far left religious dogma.

 

[bendog]

If you have a natural law right to something, but live in a country that doesn't allow you to exercise the right, do you have a right at all?

Yes... you do. You simply lack the means to exercise that right.

As a practical matter, what's the difference in not having a right and having a right but no way to exercise it?

If you're sitting at a light and I walk up and bust you in your head and drag you out the window of your car and drive off, do you lose your right to the property, the means to utilize such, I just stripped from you?

yep, I'd lose my property, and if I live in Russia or Syria, I just lost some "rights."

In short the whole "story" is simply semantics with no real meaning. RW news: I must be outraged because someone said something that was .... outrageous, even though it's not really outrageous. The politics of RW victimhood.

 

[Nosmo King]

First the Tea Party went on a political purge. they labeled Republicans as "RINOs" and set about purging them from the party (Richard Lugar we hardly knew ye). They are still hell bent to get the candidates who fit their narrow template of ideological purity and will soon enough control the Republican Party. These are the same folks, incidentally, who shout about the Democrat Party being hijacked by the Left Wing.

But politics aren't a wide enough canvass for the Right Wingers to be content with. Now they are arbitrating who is ecumenically pure as well. They will purge with the same zeal any heretics, blasphemers or any other citizen who does not conform to their interpretation of scripture. This in spite of the fact that American society is secular and not encouraged to believe in any faith established by the state, no matter what that pesky 1st amendment says.

So, like the Taliban, the far Right wants to establish a religious litmus test. They want to label anyone not in line with that test as anti-American, the same label the Taliban imposes on those who disagree with them.

And like the Taliban, the far Right leans on an extremely Conservative interpretation of true faith.

The only differences between Right Wingers who seek the base alloy of their ideology and the Taliban is tactical. So far, Conservatives have not been violently attacking apostates, with the exception of doctors providing abortions (why haven't Conservatives stepped up to, and I'll use a Right Winger's term here, refudiate the actions of those evil zealots?)

But, just as the McCarthy era witch hunts did, Conservatives will deem an American citizen who does not fall into line with their narrow template as anti-American.

It's a weird wonderful world for the Far Right. Since the end of the Cold War, they floundered around looking for another enemy, because without an enemy, their ideology falls flat. Well, they have met the enemy, and they are us.

And another far left drone post that does not contribute to the tread other than pushing the far left religious dogma.

You must see dogma under every bush! I espoused no dogma in my post. There is not a far left religion either. To impose religion on politics seems to be the province of those who want their politics to reflect their religion and vice versa. And I'm guessing that's you.

 

[BlindBoo]

If you're sitting at a light and I walk up and bust you in your head and drag you out the window of your car and drive off, do you lose your right to the property

No, but God isn't going to be the one to turn to to get it back either.

 

[regent]

When Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence he was using it for propaganda purposes. His goal, and the goal of the Declaration, was to get the two thirds of American people that did not support the Revolution to now join ranks.

 

[Kosh]

If you have a natural law right to something, but live in a country that doesn't allow you to exercise the right, do you have a right at all?

Yes... you do. You simply lack the means to exercise that right.

As a practical matter, what's the difference in not having a right and having a right but no way to exercise it? To me, there's no practical difference.

And again, the constitution does not reference god, and Jefferson only said "creator" in the DOI, and that term can encompass a lot of things not related to the Judeo-Christian-Muslim(OMG) god.

I think that's the question, and why any umbrage at what the cnn guy said is sort of ..... not really warranted.

Is a "right" really a "right" if it can be limited or taken away?

 

[konradv]

]I'm afraid I don't see you as an arbiter of what's cogent. ...

Ya don't? how about Webster's Dictionary, do ya see that as such an arbiter?
Cogent: clear, logical, and convincing..

Well, where's your argument? All you've done is mention the dictionary and list a few words. That doesn't prove anything. Now you have to arrange them into meaningful statements, preferably without resorting to invective. I won't be holding my breath.

 

[Kosh]

If your rights are violated, do you just pray or go to court? There should be no need for courts, if the OP is correct.

The OP is of course wrong.

of course the far left will disagree with anything that is not far left!

 

[Ravi]

They don't come from God. They come from us. The only right that God grants is life. If he's in the mood.

The term creator is used essentially as a figurative. Lefty freedom-stiflers and otherwise fascists want to apply it to a specific ideological entity so they have leverage to bitch and deny rights.

What does what you posted have to do with what I posted?

Everything. You assigned a specific realm beyond natural rights to the concept of 'god'.

If you say so. I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say.

You said god gives life and that's it. You made that specific description. The point is god-given rights are necessary to maintain life as well as the freedom to go about that in a way of personal choice and that's what this is about. So it goes beyond your description.

What rights are those?

Let's take freedom of speech as an example. How did God give us that right if taking the Lord's name in vain is a sin and punishable by God?

 

[konradv]

Is a "right" really a "right" if it can be limited or taken away?

Is a right really a right, if it can't be enforced? Absent government, ANYTHING you own or value can be mine, if I'm strong enough to take and hold it.

 

[BULLDOG]

The OP is just ridiculous. Our man made laws are all we are answerable to as citizens. Perhaps your religion imposes other requirements, and you need to go to a spiritual leader or pray to determine what is required for you, but that is an individual decision, and has nothing to do with the man made laws we are all subject to. Only an idiot wouldn't understand that.

 

[Ravi]

When Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence he was using it for propaganda purposes. His goal, and the goal of the Declaration, was to get the two thirds of American people that did not support the Revolution to now join ranks.

Kind of like Dubya and his lies to get support to invade Iraq.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The term creator is used essentially as a figurative. Lefty freedom-stiflers and otherwise fascists want to apply it to a specific ideological entity so they have leverage to bitch and deny rights.

What does what you posted have to do with what I posted?

Everything. You assigned a specific realm beyond natural rights to the concept of 'god'.

If you say so. I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say.

You said god gives life and that's it. You made that specific description. The point is god-given rights are necessary to maintain life as well as the freedom to go about that in a way of personal choice and that's what this is about. So it goes beyond your description.

What rights are those?

Let's take freedom of speech as an example. How did God give us that right if taking the Lord's name in vain is a sin and punishable by God?

You're making Cuomo's inaccurate argument. This isn't about a specific god. The right you have is to believe what you say may be a sin in your god's eyes but no one can be denied the right to say those things nor does anyone have the right to deny you the right to believe that those ones being said violate your believes.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

When Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence he was using it for propaganda purposes. His goal, and the goal of the Declaration, was to get the two thirds of American people that did not support the Revolution to now join ranks.

Kind of like Dubya and his lies to get support to invade Iraq.

Don't forget Hillary and a bunch of other democrats.

 

[bendog]

If you have a natural law right to something, but live in a country that doesn't allow you to exercise the right, do you have a right at all?

Yes... you do. You simply lack the means to exercise that right.

As a practical matter, what's the difference in not having a right and having a right but no way to exercise it? To me, there's no practical difference.

And again, the constitution does not reference god, and Jefferson only said "creator" in the DOI, and that term can encompass a lot of things not related to the Judeo-Christian-Muslim(OMG) god.

I think that's the question, and why any umbrage at what the cnn guy said is sort of ..... not really warranted.

Is a "right" really a "right" if it can be limited or taken away?

Again, we're down to semantics. But OF COURSE rights can be taken away. One can be sold into slavery, be genitally mutilated or even imprisoned for using a non-state sanctioned drug.

According the Founders individuals acquire rights to liberty when they come into existence, and that right gives them the power to make laws to protect that right. But, more to the OP, to the Founders "creator" could just as well have been amino acids leaking out of the primordial ooze coupled with a random lightening strike that the Christian God.

 

[Ravi]

What does what you posted have to do with what I posted?

Everything. You assigned a specific realm beyond natural rights to the concept of 'god'.

If you say so. I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say.

You said god gives life and that's it. You made that specific description. The point is god-given rights are necessary to maintain life as well as the freedom to go about that in a way of personal choice and that's what this is about. So it goes beyond your description.

What rights are those?

Let's take freedom of speech as an example. How did God give us that right if taking the Lord's name in vain is a sin and punishable by God?

You're making Cuomo's inaccurate argument. This isn't about a specific god. The right you have is to believe what you say may be a sin in your god's eyes but no one can be denied the right to say those things nor does anyone have the right to deny you the right to believe that those ones being said violate your believes.

So we have rights but the specific God, whatever the heck that is, can punish us for them? Where the government cannot?

 

[Kosh]

The term creator is used essentially as a figurative. Lefty freedom-stiflers and otherwise fascists want to apply it to a specific ideological entity so they have leverage to bitch and deny rights.

What does what you posted have to do with what I posted?

Everything. You assigned a specific realm beyond natural rights to the concept of 'god'.

If you say so. I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say.

You said god gives life and that's it. You made that specific description. The point is god-given rights are necessary to maintain life as well as the freedom to go about that in a way of personal choice and that's what this is about. So it goes beyond your description.

What rights are those?

Let's take freedom of speech as an example. How did God give us that right if taking the Lord's name in vain is a sin and punishable by God?

And the far left narrative is being run by the drones!