God given rights?

[PratchettFan]

During the Civil War, the Confederates POW camp experienced an act of God when the stream which fed through the prison had dried up and a spring appeared in the middle of the camp, which they named Providence Spring. I bet there was a lot of prayers answered during that period of time.

Yes. That was Andersonville in GA. I am certain the fact that it was built in a swamp had nothing at all to do with a spring opening up.

Yes, right after the stream went dry.

Oi vey. They were sitting in the middle of a swamp and, considering the time, a large portion of the prisoners had been farmers. Do you actually think that none of them thought to dig?

Believe as you like.

 

[onecut39]

Actually. God was quite active in preserving the Revolutionaries during the war. There were Miracles at the Battles of Boston, Long Island, Trenton, Princeton, and Yorktown (just to mention some of the biggest battles). Without the intervention of Divine Providence, the Continental army would have been crushed the First few months.

What people fail to realize is that God will only intervene if we keep our end of the covenant with Him. If we are Proud, dishonest, corrupt, apathetic, and violate His commands and counsels, we have no promise for His intervention. If we live ungodly lives, we are going to be brought into bondage. It's the truth that sets us free. It's by living the Truth that we can obtain the promises God has made to us.

So true !
George Washington was one of the biggest of believers from the experiences he encountered during his battles. How many times did he say he was saved from bullets and that he would not have survived without divine intervention?
Every single one of them believed we won the war with God's help.

Some miracles! Were God really interested in our winning the revolutionary war he could have shortened it immensely. Come to think of it there would have been no need to fight it at all with god suppressing the evil ones.

But god seems not to choose sides. The strong (occasionally the lucky) win and the weak lose. Simple as that.

 

[onecut39]

other atheists make me a believer in god, his wording kills me

Being an atheist god and I have a tenuous relationship and if Ryan does not mind I prefer a rule of law to a theocracy




heres my quesdtion to other atheists, if you dont believe in something, why do u get offended if people are doing something u dont beleive exists?

You can believe whatever you wish. Not your beliefs that offend me it is just your actions. Having a congressman tell me that my rights are in the hands of a god..........now that offends me.

I wrongly referred to Ryan as a senator. My bad. I apologize.

 

[PratchettFan]

Then would you agree you have the right to abandon or terminate your child of any age if you just feel you don't want to feed or take care of them anymore?? Would you also agree that taking money in child support is taking from your body since you body is what is being used to earn the $$, and that persons have no right to that child support then??

It is not my fault that your conditional reasoning and subjective (and arbitrary) starting points are weak

After birth the mother can turn over the child for adoption. For that matter, the state can step in and take the child away if they think it is in the child's best interest. However, after birth the child is no longer dependent upon the body of the mother.

I do not apply subjective morality. I accept the consequences of a moral position, even if it is inconvenient. Forcing one person to place their body into the service of another against their will is involuntary servitude. There is no other way for it to be. I am opposed to that. No human being has the right to the body of another human being against their will. Therefore, no woman should be forced to carry a fetus if it is agains her will.

This is a conflict between two rights. If you think the right to life supercedes the right to personal sovereignty then your body belongs to my need. If you think it doesn't, then the fetus exists within the mother only with her consent. If you think you have the right to personal sovereignty but a pregnant woman does not, then it is you that is using conditional reasoning and subjective standards.

That is right.. after birth, you can turn it over for adoption... but you can't arbitrarily kill the child because you do not want to take care of it...

Before birth, you can sign it away for adoption... and if the technology were in place to raise the developing fetus/child without a womb, I am sure you would geta lot less arguments from us pro-lifers about raising the developing child in an outside environment to be adopted away

And it is not involuntary servitude.... the mother made the choice to have sex with the risk of being impregnated, even if using precautions.... just as you don't have the right to back out of other responsibilities that stem from the consequences of your choices and actions

If there was a way to remove the fetus, you would have no argument from me on that as well. As I said, it is a conflict between two rights. I do not deny the fetus' right to life, I only deny that it supercedes the woman's right to personal sovereignty.

However, if the woman is being forced it is involuntary. That is the definition of involuntary.

As to other responsibilities, please point out one in this country that you can't back out of. As a parent, you can give up your kids. Financially, you can declare bankruptcy. If I offer you my kidney to save your life, I can change my mind on the day of surgery and there is nothing to force me to go through with it even if it means you die. If I sign an employment contract, I can quit any time I like. So what other responsibility is there where you are forced to go through with it regardless of your desires?

 

[onecut39]

When you're sitting in a concentration camp and experiencing the failings of the "laws of men" --- tell me who YOU are gonna appeal to for your rights....

At that point, you can appeal to God. Appeal and appeal and appeal. However, it takes very little perusal of history to find that does no good at all. God does not intervene.

All of your "rights" exist only so long as your neighbors agree they exist. It isn't any God which bestows them upon you, it is the society in which you live which does. As it can bestow, it can remove. Anyone who thinks otherwise simply is not paying attention.

Sure He does. He certainly intervened a lot during the American Revolution. Ive already pointed out some real events where He was active. If it wasnt for the Hand of Divine Providence Washington and the army would have been crushed within months. The Founders certainly recognized and thanked God for his merciful intervention in the cause of their liberty.

The problem is too many people expect to just ask with out taking any effort on their own. They think talking with God is like ordering a pizza. They say what they want and they expect Him to deliver it with no effort on their part. That's not how God works. It never has been.

A covenant relationship requires action, thought, effort on our part. Not to "save" ourselves. But the preparation to let God work through us is something people completely neglect.

Instead of humbling ourselves, we act with pride. Instead of being grateful, we are covetous. Instead of being honest, we lie when it suits us.

God is bound when we do what He says. He has to bless us with the promises He has promised. But when we dont do what He says we have no promise.

If god wanted us free why did he not make it so? Perhaps god enjoys the hardship and slaughter?

For a being that can do anything he appears to do precious little.

 

[PratchettFan]

That's not what the Declaration says.. So you're whining to the contrary doesn't matter does it? The document was inspired by a realization of the failings of governance by men. It was intended to HUMBLE power and authority into treading gently on liberty.
Brilliant and timeless.. And actually -- not at all religious.. Even an atheist could evoke Natural Rights as a basis for civil disobedience.

There is no such thing as natural rights. There are only rights you obtain and keep by blood.

if what you state is true? WHY are you alive?

Why weren't YOU aborted?

DUMBASS

Because my mother chose to have me. Her decision. I am grateful she decided that way, but I had no right to her.

Your inability to discuss a topic without personal attack is noted. The sign of a weak argument.

 

[onecut39]

Actually. God was quite active in preserving the Revolutionaries during the war. There were Miracles at the Battles of Boston, Long Island, Trenton, Princeton, and Yorktown (just to mention some of the biggest battles). Without the intervention of Divine Providence, the Continental army would have been crushed the First few months.

What people fail to realize is that God will only intervene if we keep our end of the covenant with Him. If we are Proud, dishonest, corrupt, apathetic, and violate His commands and counsels, we have no promise for His intervention. If we live ungodly lives, we are going to be brought into bondage. It's the truth that sets us free. It's by living the Truth that we can obtain the promises God has made to us.

During the Civil War, the Confederates POW camp experienced an act of God when the stream which fed through the prison had dried up and a spring appeared in the middle of the camp, which they named Providence Spring. I bet there was a lot of prayers answered during that period of time.

Odd that the spring did not appear where the prisoners could get at it. Perhaps god was rewarding the guards? Maybe just another example of god's imperfect perfection.?

 

[onecut39]

Senator Paul Ryan. Senator, GOP leader, writer of budgets.

In this little interview he says rights come from god and are not given by governments. That may be true but God is incredibly bad at keeping those rights for his people and never once has he intervened, personally, to lend a hand. It has always been our job to raise the armies, take the casualties and shoulder the burden while God sits idly by without even a muted cheer.

Even the founders knew better. The declaration states that, "to secure these rights governments are instituted among men". I guess there is no need for those first ten amendments to the constitution either. With god on our side who the hell needs a Bill of Rights?

Being an atheist god and I have a tenuous relationship and if Ryan does not mind I prefer a rule of law to a theocracy.

Ryan is here

Paul Ryan: Repeal health law because rights come from God | The Raw Story

The declaration is here. (Although our patriotic and learned rightwingnuts should have no need of verification. This holy text should be burned into their memory if not their soul)

Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

You must've failed comprehensive reading. Here is the sentence right before the one you quoted...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

If we had all these "inalienable rights" we sure wouldn't need governments to secure them....would we?

Inalienable right is an oxymoron. All rights can be taken away therefore there are no inalienable rights.

 

[DiamondDave]

After birth the mother can turn over the child for adoption. For that matter, the state can step in and take the child away if they think it is in the child's best interest. However, after birth the child is no longer dependent upon the body of the mother.

I do not apply subjective morality. I accept the consequences of a moral position, even if it is inconvenient. Forcing one person to place their body into the service of another against their will is involuntary servitude. There is no other way for it to be. I am opposed to that. No human being has the right to the body of another human being against their will. Therefore, no woman should be forced to carry a fetus if it is agains her will.

This is a conflict between two rights. If you think the right to life supercedes the right to personal sovereignty then your body belongs to my need. If you think it doesn't, then the fetus exists within the mother only with her consent. If you think you have the right to personal sovereignty but a pregnant woman does not, then it is you that is using conditional reasoning and subjective standards.

That is right.. after birth, you can turn it over for adoption... but you can't arbitrarily kill the child because you do not want to take care of it...

Before birth, you can sign it away for adoption... and if the technology were in place to raise the developing fetus/child without a womb, I am sure you would geta lot less arguments from us pro-lifers about raising the developing child in an outside environment to be adopted away

And it is not involuntary servitude.... the mother made the choice to have sex with the risk of being impregnated, even if using precautions.... just as you don't have the right to back out of other responsibilities that stem from the consequences of your choices and actions

If there was a way to remove the fetus, you would have no argument from me on that as well. As I said, it is a conflict between two rights. I do not deny the fetus' right to life, I only deny that it supercedes the woman's right to personal sovereignty.

However, if the woman is being forced it is involuntary. That is the definition of involuntary.

As to other responsibilities, please point out one in this country that you can't back out of. As a parent, you can give up your kids. Financially, you can declare bankruptcy. If I offer you my kidney to save your life, I can change my mind on the day of surgery and there is nothing to force me to go through with it even if it means you die. If I sign an employment contract, I can quit any time I like. So what other responsibility is there where you are forced to go through with it regardless of your desires?

I don't WANT to pay for the damages I do to your property

I don't WANT to be convicted of manslaughter for the actions that I took that cost you your life

I don't WANT to pay for that which I signed a legal and binding contract to purchase

And sorry, you are still responsible for your kids until they are relieved from you and put into the care of another or made a ward of the state... and if you do not, you may not WANT to be held responsible for what happens to them, but you are indeed held responsible.... regardless of whether that child is 4 months from birth or 4 months after birth

And if the woman involuntarily was forced to commit the act that led to her pregnancy, you would have a point.. a point that I would concede as a real head scratcher in the decision to terminate a pregnancy...

But in this world, you live with the consequences to your actions, even if it is a burden to you and even if you don't WANT to

 

[DiamondDave]

Senator Paul Ryan. Senator, GOP leader, writer of budgets.

In this little interview he says rights come from god and are not given by governments. That may be true but God is incredibly bad at keeping those rights for his people and never once has he intervened, personally, to lend a hand. It has always been our job to raise the armies, take the casualties and shoulder the burden while God sits idly by without even a muted cheer.

Even the founders knew better. The declaration states that, "to secure these rights governments are instituted among men". I guess there is no need for those first ten amendments to the constitution either. With god on our side who the hell needs a Bill of Rights?

Being an atheist god and I have a tenuous relationship and if Ryan does not mind I prefer a rule of law to a theocracy.

Ryan is here

Paul Ryan: Repeal health law because rights come from God | The Raw Story

The declaration is here. (Although our patriotic and learned rightwingnuts should have no need of verification. This holy text should be burned into their memory if not their soul)

Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

You must've failed comprehensive reading. Here is the sentence right before the one you quoted...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

If we had all these "inalienable rights" we sure wouldn't need governments to secure them....would we?

Inalienable right is an oxymoron. All rights can be taken away therefore there are no inalienable rights.

Again

A right given only by man or the created government of man could subsequently be taken away.... when you deem a right as inalienable and given by a power or authority higher than man, you are basically saying that no matter what man may do, deep down all of mankind still should have that right

 

[onecut39]

That's a pissy view of where your rights come from.. First we're told by the Atheists that they come from elite political leadership and now you tell us they come from our neighbors. We know that's not true.. Largely because we write down our beliefs, our morals and our conscience, atheists just make this stuff up by asking their "neighbors".

If MLK believed that -- he probably wouldn't have tried..

What MLK did was organize people to change the minds of other people. All of the prayers to God made not a whit of difference.

If your neighbors don't think you have a right to your home, they can come over, put a bullet behind your ear and take it. That has been happening since the beginning of human history and never once has God intervened to stop it. If you get robbed, you don't call God. You call the police. The police operate under the authority of the law. The law exists because men create it. If your neighbors decide it is legal to rob, beat and kill you - then that is what will happen no matter how hard you pray.

No.. See the Alan Keyes quotes in my last post above for what what happens when POWER to rob, beat and kill me has it's boot on my neck.. You don't DEFEAT righteousness and moral superiority with power. And perhaps -- had you been in Selma with MLK -- those prayers to a higher authority than the law might have done YOU some good in that cause as well...

You're simply a defeatist who believes in capitulation in the face of evil...

Reminds me why I'll NEVER march with you in any civil disobedience cause...

Are you saying that before the civil rights movement, before MLK, there were no prayers issued for redemption from the grip of discrimination and subjugation? You are saying that MLK somehow corralled the lord's attention where all else failed.

The civil rights act was won by the power of public opinion, fueled by the sacrifices of brave and dedicated people. The lord had nothin to do with it.

For a hundred years the lord's name was invoked in defense of slavery. You would think the lord would have taken some offense but apparently not.

 

[onecut39]

This country was founded on the principle of God given rights. If there are no God given rights, then just dissolve the country right now, it has no more reason to exist than cotton candy.

Better get on with it then as there are no god given rights, and no rights gained in blood that god is willing to protect.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I don't believe in God, and "rights" are nothing more than what the government allows you to do.

 

[PratchettFan]

That is right.. after birth, you can turn it over for adoption... but you can't arbitrarily kill the child because you do not want to take care of it...

Before birth, you can sign it away for adoption... and if the technology were in place to raise the developing fetus/child without a womb, I am sure you would geta lot less arguments from us pro-lifers about raising the developing child in an outside environment to be adopted away

And it is not involuntary servitude.... the mother made the choice to have sex with the risk of being impregnated, even if using precautions.... just as you don't have the right to back out of other responsibilities that stem from the consequences of your choices and actions

If there was a way to remove the fetus, you would have no argument from me on that as well. As I said, it is a conflict between two rights. I do not deny the fetus' right to life, I only deny that it supercedes the woman's right to personal sovereignty.

However, if the woman is being forced it is involuntary. That is the definition of involuntary.

As to other responsibilities, please point out one in this country that you can't back out of. As a parent, you can give up your kids. Financially, you can declare bankruptcy. If I offer you my kidney to save your life, I can change my mind on the day of surgery and there is nothing to force me to go through with it even if it means you die. If I sign an employment contract, I can quit any time I like. So what other responsibility is there where you are forced to go through with it regardless of your desires?

I don't WANT to pay for the damages I do to your property

I don't WANT to be convicted of manslaughter for the actions that I took that cost you your life

I don't WANT to pay for that which I signed a legal and binding contract to purchase

And sorry, you are still responsible for your kids until they are relieved from you and put into the care of another or made a ward of the state... and if you do not, you may not WANT to be held responsible for what happens to them, but you are indeed held responsible.... regardless of whether that child is 4 months from birth or 4 months after birth

And if the woman involuntarily was forced to commit the act that led to her pregnancy, you would have a point.. a point that I would concede as a real head scratcher in the decision to terminate a pregnancy...

But in this world, you live with the consequences to your actions, even if it is a burden to you and even if you don't WANT to

Again, if you file bankruptcy then you don't have to pay for the first and third example you gave.

As to the second, do you really equate sex with crime and pregnancy as punishment?

Forcing someone to place their person in the service of another is involuntary servitude. That is the definition. Perhaps you are able to justify that in your own mind, but I cannot in mine.

 

[PratchettFan]

You must've failed comprehensive reading. Here is the sentence right before the one you quoted...

If we had all these "inalienable rights" we sure wouldn't need governments to secure them....would we?

Inalienable right is an oxymoron. All rights can be taken away therefore there are no inalienable rights.

Again

A right given only by man or the created government of man could subsequently be taken away.... when you deem a right as inalienable and given by a power or authority higher than man, you are basically saying that no matter what man may do, deep down all of mankind still should have that right

Every child should have a warm bed, a solid roof and three hot meals a day. Every child should have an education as far as they can go. Every child should have adequate medical care. Every human being should have shelter and food. There are all sorts of shoulds. Any of those you could say are inalienable rights. But none of them exist unless human beings provide them. You have no rights unless the society in which you live acknowledges them. You can say you should as much as you like, but it matters not at all.

 

[flacaltenn]

The Delcaration was written by man, not God. It was fought for and defended by men, not God. You retain your rights by the will of men, not God. Where that will does not exist, freedom does not exist.

That's not what the Declaration says.. So you're whining to the contrary doesn't matter does it? The document was inspired by a realization of the failings of governance by men. It was intended to HUMBLE power and authority into treading gently on liberty.
Brilliant and timeless.. And actually -- not at all religious.. Even an atheist could evoke Natural Rights as a basis for civil disobedience.

There is no such thing as natural rights. There are only rights you obtain and keep by blood.

Wow -- I thought only free-market defending, knuckle dragging Cons believed in the law of the Jungle and "Might makes Right". Another reason I wouldn't want to march with you in civil disobedience..

I didn't know it was that easy to dismiss a concept like Natural Rights.. Here -- lemme try.

There's no such thing as The Social Compact.. I never signed up... Wow -- I feel better now..

 

[onecut39]

[
No. There was no slavery in England at the time. It was illegal there. Only here were there slave owners. But it was England that held the tyrants? I think not.

You should crack a history book, you sound like a complete moron. Nooo... You ARE a complete moron.

Less than half of the delegates to the constitutional convention were slave owners, and many of those divested themselves shortly thereafter.

The 3/5's compromise was not to reduce slavery, but to give more votes to the slave holding states without extending any rights to the slaves.

Break out the history book again, you need a little help. The 3/5 Compromise was used to LIMIT the power of the Southern States.

Strike one... strike two... strike three, you're out!!

Dead accurate. The Founders in oder to get the Southern States onboard came up with it to get the Constitution passed.

I am always amused by folks who think the founders sat around a table drinking tea and politely discussing the intellectual niceties of liberty.

It was more like a catfight, often bitter, with compromises made on all sides. The revolution was founded on economic issues and slavery was just another such issue. There was a compromise. Some got rid of their slaves, some did not.

For certain the institution lasted another hundred years and we still bear the scars.

 

[PratchettFan]

That's not what the Declaration says.. So you're whining to the contrary doesn't matter does it? The document was inspired by a realization of the failings of governance by men. It was intended to HUMBLE power and authority into treading gently on liberty.
Brilliant and timeless.. And actually -- not at all religious.. Even an atheist could evoke Natural Rights as a basis for civil disobedience.

There is no such thing as natural rights. There are only rights you obtain and keep by blood.

Wow -- I thought only free-market defending, knuckle dragging Cons believed in the law of the Jungle and "Might makes Right". Another reason I wouldn't want to march with you in civil disobedience..

I didn't know it was that easy to dismiss a concept like Natural Rights.. Here -- lemme try.

There's no such thing as The Social Compact.. I never signed up... Wow -- I feel better now..

Sorry. You didn't have to sign. It's imprinted in your genes. Tough luck.

 

[Dr Grump]

Senator Paul Ryan. Senator, GOP leader, writer of budgets.

In this little interview he says rights come from god and are not given by governments. That may be true but God is incredibly bad at keeping those rights for his people and never once has he intervened, personally, to lend a hand. It has always been our job to raise the armies, take the casualties and shoulder the burden while God sits idly by without even a muted cheer.

Even the founders knew better. The declaration states that, "to secure these rights governments are instituted among men". I guess there is no need for those first ten amendments to the constitution either. With god on our side who the hell needs a Bill of Rights?

Being an atheist god and I have a tenuous relationship and if Ryan does not mind I prefer a rule of law to a theocracy.

Ryan is here

Paul Ryan: Repeal health law because rights come from God | The Raw Story

The declaration is here. (Although our patriotic and learned rightwingnuts should have no need of verification. This holy text should be burned into their memory if not their soul)

Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

Anybody who thinks like Ryan is an idealogue. God given rights is a nice way of saying "I can do what I like without any consequences"...

 

[flacaltenn]

When you're sitting in a concentration camp and experiencing the failings of the "laws of men" --- tell me who YOU are gonna appeal to for your rights....

Are you suggesting prayer? Absolutely nothing has a higher documented failure rate than prayer.

No --- prayer not required.. Just as Alan Keyes noted in the debate I posted, as you have your jackboot on my neck -- I know that POWER doesn't make right. Because what you decide to do to me today by law violates intrinsic laws of behaviour and morals. And an appeal to other REASONABLE believers in those things would vindicate me.

The concept is there to acknowledge that OUR govt was designed by HUMBLE men, not by the egomanical politicians of today who have been poisoned by Power.. Are you also a believer that it all boils down to blood and power? That's sad..