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

[Kosh]

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.

See the far left narrative being run by the drones...

Who says government has to be present for "rights" to exist?

 

[Kosh]

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.

Another far left drone that does not add any thing to the thread..

 

[Kosh]

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.

And another far left drone attack that does not really contribute to the thread!

You mean like FDR lied to America to get the US into WWII?

 

[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?

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.

Well that made no real sense...

So it is not a true "right" if it can be taken away...

 

[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.

Well that made no real sense...

So it is not a true "right" if it can be taken away...

I realize it made no sense to you, but frankly you're being nonsensical. The definition of right is different depending upon whether its used in a moral, religious or legal sense.

Rights - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
The simple fact is had the Founders actually had their liberty rights, there'd been no reason to rebel. The definition you choose, chooses to ignore that reality to reach the conclusion you want to reach.

 

[Kosh]

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.

Well that made no real sense...

So it is not a true "right" if it can be taken away...

I realize it made no sense to you, but frankly you're being nonsensical. The definition of right is different depending upon whether its used in a moral, religious or legal sense.

Rights - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
The simple fact is had the Founders actually had their liberty rights, there'd been no reason to rebel. The definition you choose, chooses to ignore that reality to reach the conclusion you want to reach.

So "rights" are not really "rights" because they can be taken away. That is what I have been saying!

From your link:

There is considerable disagreement about what is meant precisely by the term rights. It has been used by different groups and thinkers for different purposes, with different and sometimes opposing definitions, and the precise definition of this principle, beyond having something to do with normative rules of some sort or another, is controversial.

So we can agree that the far left using the term "rights" is for purely for political gain to enslave others to their religion.

Instead of enforcing the true "Natural" rights..

 

[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.

Another far left drone that does not add any thing to the thread..

So the only thing you consider to be adding to the thread is agreeing with your stupid beliefs? You're an idiot.

 

[Kosh]

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.

Another far left drone that does not add any thing to the thread..

So the only thing you consider to be adding to the thread is agreeing with your stupid beliefs? You're an idiot.

The irony impaired far left drones and their comments!

Yet the far left drones love to push their religion on others..

 

[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.

Another far left drone that does not add any thing to the thread..

So the only thing you consider to be adding to the thread is agreeing with your stupid beliefs? You're an idiot.

The irony impaired far left drones and their comments!

Yet the far left drones love to push their religion on others..

And what religion do you think that might be?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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?

That's your call because you have that right. See, in muslim countries they don't have that right.

 

[mikegriffith1]

So has this CNN "anchor" just not read the Declaration of Independence, where it says that men are "endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" and that to secure these rights we establish government? Government's job, according to our core founding document, is to secure our God-given rights. I mean, this is American History 001.

 

[Iceweasel]

Judge Moore is correct about the Declaration of Independence being organic law, and that our rights are endowed by our Creator.

Cuomo is correct that you cannot deny those rights to anyone without a rational basis.

Judge Moore is allowing his brand of religion to be conflated with the Creator in organic law.

How so? His point is the the feds can't pretend laws exist that don't exist. There's no federal definition of marriage.

 

[bendog]

Judge Moore is correct about the Declaration of Independence being organic law, and that our rights are endowed by our Creator.

Cuomo is correct that you cannot deny those rights to anyone without a rational basis.

Judge Moore is allowing his brand of religion to be conflated with the Creator in organic law.

How so? His point is the the feds can't pretend laws exist that don't exist. There's no federal definition of marriage.

You have natural rights, which are the inalienable kind. And you have legal rights. Natural rights are unenforceable without legal rights being created by societies to enforce the natural rights. Focusing on God, or creator, is not helpful because inputting some view of a specific religion allows one to claim some higher power to their particular view of what a legal right should be, or should not be.

In the gay marriage sense, the federal judge is not defining what marriage is. She's defining the equal protection rights of gay people who want to get married. Unless Ala can point to a rational, provable reason to let straights marry while not letting gays/lesbians marry, then the state must either let all, OR NONE, marry.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm often asked why I cite the Moderator of this very Site who recently noted:

THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!​

Asking further if I agree... At which time I inform them that of course I agree... given that God prohibits the possibility for someone to simultaneously adhere to both the thesis and the antithesis.

They then usually ask why I feel that Leftists can't or don't adhere to the American thesis and I point out that that is because they wouldn't be Leftist if they did.

But every now and again a jack-ass Liberal gets honest in public and provides a WONDERFUL example of what Anti-Americanism IS, what it looks like and how pitiful they are trying to sell it.

So here's another New York Leftist runs to misinform the Intellectually Less Fortunate, that they have no inalienable rights:

CNN Anchor Our Rights Do Not Come From God CNS News

(The video is embedded in that article I could not find an independent link to the video, so you can watch it there.)

You can get a fantastic discussion of it here, with the most relevant context included:

Mark Levin Chris Cuomo is WRONG Our rights do not come from man and HERE 8217 S WHY The Right Scoop -

In truth, absent God, Inalienable human rights cannot exist.

It cannot be a fact the rights come from God because God is not a fact.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Judge Moore is correct about the Declaration of Independence being organic law, and that our rights are endowed by our Creator.

Cuomo is correct that you cannot deny those rights to anyone without a rational basis.

Judge Moore is allowing his brand of religion to be conflated with the Creator in organic law.

How so? His point is the the feds can't pretend laws exist that don't exist. There's no federal definition of marriage.

There's a federal definition of equal protection under the law which is all same sex couples need to assert their rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What would anyone expect from a brainwashed lefty who actually referred to the black terrorist in the Paris shooting as an 'African-American' because he's too brainwashed to say black, as though that's offensive. His colleague had to correct him and inform him that the black terrorist wasn't American.
What a lefty dope!

Is that true? He refers to all black humans as African American?
Wow. Talk about being truly brainwashed.
Its pathetic.

If you spend any time around white lefties you'll notice that the word 'black' is avoided regardless of context or discussion and when it is used it's 'mouthed' or whispered like it's in parenthesis.

Asshole

Search Results for Query blacks US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Clementine]

I'm often asked why I cite the Moderator of this very Site who recently noted:

THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!​

Asking further if I agree... At which time I inform them that of course I agree... given that God prohibits the possibility for someone to simultaneously adhere to both the thesis and the antithesis.

They then usually ask why I feel that Leftists can't or don't adhere to the American thesis and I point out that that is because they wouldn't be Leftist if they did.

But every now and again a jack-ass Liberal gets honest in public and provides a WONDERFUL example of what Anti-Americanism IS, what it looks like and how pitiful they are trying to sell it.

So here's another New York Leftist runs to misinform the Intellectually Less Fortunate, that they have no inalienable rights:

CNN Anchor Our Rights Do Not Come From God CNS News

(The video is embedded in that article I could not find an independent link to the video, so you can watch it there.)

You can get a fantastic discussion of it here, with the most relevant context included:

Mark Levin Chris Cuomo is WRONG Our rights do not come from man and HERE 8217 S WHY The Right Scoop -

In truth, absent God, Inalienable human rights cannot exist.

They don't come from government, either. If someone gives you something, they can take it away.

Our constitution says we are born with rights and it is the responsibility of the U.S. government to ensure that nothing comes between us and our rights.

 

[Iceweasel]

Judge Moore is correct about the Declaration of Independence being organic law, and that our rights are endowed by our Creator.

Cuomo is correct that you cannot deny those rights to anyone without a rational basis.

Judge Moore is allowing his brand of religion to be conflated with the Creator in organic law.

How so? His point is the the feds can't pretend laws exist that don't exist. There's no federal definition of marriage.

You have natural rights, which are the inalienable kind. And you have legal rights. Natural rights are unenforceable without legal rights being created by societies to enforce the natural rights. Focusing on God, or creator, is not helpful because inputting some view of a specific religion allows one to claim some higher power to their particular view of what a legal right should be, or should not be.

In the gay marriage sense, the federal judge is not defining what marriage is. She's defining the equal protection rights of gay people who want to get married. Unless Ala can point to a rational, provable reason to let straights marry while not letting gays/lesbians marry, then the state must either let all, OR NONE, marry.

The problem is, as I've said MANY times, if that is the train of thought then you must extend it to anyone that feels it's their right to marry. There's no basis for two people. The gay marriage side simply wants to define things to include them.

How can you say there is a right for anyone to marry anyone but you must limit it to two people and they cannot be related, etc? It is inconsistent and any LAW that is inconsistent is BAD law and will likely be over turned eventually. And even the Supremes have had to back peddle with their separate but equal bullshit. They were making law based on a public opinion bias. Roe v Wade, same thing.

 

[Iceweasel]

Judge Moore is correct about the Declaration of Independence being organic law, and that our rights are endowed by our Creator.

Cuomo is correct that you cannot deny those rights to anyone without a rational basis.

Judge Moore is allowing his brand of religion to be conflated with the Creator in organic law.

How so? His point is the the feds can't pretend laws exist that don't exist. There's no federal definition of marriage.

There's a federal definition of equal protection under the law which is all same sex couples need to assert their rights.

Yes, gays should be protected but we are discussing marriage. Marriage isn't a person.

 

[Kosh]

What would anyone expect from a brainwashed lefty who actually referred to the black terrorist in the Paris shooting as an 'African-American' because he's too brainwashed to say black, as though that's offensive. His colleague had to correct him and inform him that the black terrorist wasn't American.
What a lefty dope!

Is that true? He refers to all black humans as African American?
Wow. Talk about being truly brainwashed.
Its pathetic.

If you spend any time around white lefties you'll notice that the word 'black' is avoided regardless of context or discussion and when it is used it's 'mouthed' or whispered like it's in parenthesis.

Asshole

Search Results for Query blacks US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Look at how the far left will retort! A prime example of a far left drone..