"Rights are special privileges the government gives you."

[Skylar]

We have to protect them so the government's we establish don't violate them. You would be wrong, of course. Don't confuse something that governments have taken away with something not existing. Because someone can't use those inalienable right because the government they live under doesn't allow isn't the same as those rights not existing.

Rights are freedoms. If the freedom can't be exercised, the right for all practical purposes doesn't exist. The distinction you're drawing is semantic. The practical results between suppression and non-existence are identical.

 

[Kosh]

Another thread that proves the far left does not understand what a "right" is. Except if defined by the far left..

They also prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they do not understand the Constitution.

This is what they called a “Right” in those days, and “Inalienable” Rights are somewhat different from legal rights. You have a right to sue, but the King can suspend it. That's a legal right. On the other hand, you have an “Inalienable Right” to TRY to sue. No one has yet found a way to remove one's internal desire. Thus these rights predate civilization and have absolute precedence over legal rights.

 

[bripat9643]

The first ten Amendments to the Constitution aka "The Bill of Rights" aren't bestowed by the government. The Bill of Rights are limitations on government power.

The Bill of Rights were put in place by the government not to grant rights but restrict the government from violating the ones people had to start with. That those who created our system of government put restrictions on what they could do in relation to those rights, being that many of them placing the restrictions served as members of government subject to the limits, says a lot about where rights come from and where they don't.

The Bill of Rights grants rights. The Constitution grants rights.

If not, why do we so often hear conservative 'constitutionalists' denying that something is a right because it's not in the Constitution?

Not so. An educated reading instead of a bend over grab our ankles mentality like you Liberal constitutionalists have would show that. The Bill of Rights is what the federal government can't do to the rights you already have. Those thing you bleeding hearts want to call rights are things you already have the availability to. Your problem is you want to call them rights so you can get one person to fund them for another person. Healthcare is something you call right so idiots like your President can propose laws that subsidize one person at the expense of another. Not one person is being denied healthcare because of their inability to pay. To say so would be saying I am being denied the right to work a job I want despite not having the educational level and training required to do so.

The conception of rights as understood by the founders was that the existence of rights predates their enumeration. The Bill of Rights was merely an enumeration of rights that already existed. Just as the all the rights under the 9th amendment still exist despite a lack of explicit enumeration.

The founders were wrong, of course. Rights are a notional concept that we invented. They exist because we say they do. If they were 'inalienable', then we wouldn't have to protect them. The fact that we do demonstrates they are something that can be taken away.

Your presumption that you're smarter than the Founding Fathers is laughable, of course. You just proved what a dumbass you are. If rights were whatever the law says, the Congress could pass an Amendment to the Constitution tomorrow legalizing slavery and there wouldn't be a thing you could argue against it. You certainly couldn't argue against it on moral grounds.

And how about those countries in the Middle East that treat women like cattle? They have determined that women don't have the right to a clitoris. Who are you to tell them they are wrong? You certainly can't based on the concept that rights are whatever society says they are.

 

[NYcarbineer]

My post was about states approving the marriages, not churches. Whom you're allowed to marry is treated like a right, because some grant it and some forbid it. Equal rights assumes that all should be able to marry whomever they want, as long as age or incest aren't a barrier.

Nobody -- NOBODY - grants rights.

Nonsense. If nobody grants rights, how do you know what is or isn't a right, and more importantly,

how then do you get a say, by your vote, on what will or won't be a right?

Your question is rooted in your lack of understanding of 'your rights' - you have been given free will. You can do ANYTHING you want to ... nothing is off-limits ... unless, society, with your agreement, chooses to restrict your rights for the greater good.

There is NOTHING - other than your societal contracts - that says you can't kill. Your bible says you can't, and your laws say you can't. You have entered into an agreement with your fellow citizens, or your God, to restrict some of your actions.

The government does not grant you rights - it can only restrict your rights. Think about it - you don't vote for a right - you vote for a voluntary restriction of your rights, as part of a larger contract.

The government decides which rights you have free exercise of, that is the government granting you a right. You're making a mockery of the word 'right' in a twisted attempt to defend an indefensible position.

The Founders weren't talking about murder when they claimed we have certain inalienable rights.

Of course they weren't. That was the whole point of writing "certain" inalienable rights, rather than "all" inalienable rights. Murder IS an inalienable right, but not one that government would protect because it fundamentally violates the rights of others.

Most people miss the point of the "inalienable" descriptor. It doesn't mean "sacrosanct" or "off-limits", as many on both sides of the political divide seem to believe. Inalienable rights are an extension of free will. They're a byproduct of a person's ability to think for themselves.

The point of calling out inalienable rights, was to distinguish them from manufactured rights. Jefferson was saying that we are born with basic freedom, and we create government to protect it. This was a radical rejection of the prevailing notion of the time, which held that rights were privileges handed down from authority (the king). Liberals today, in their insistence that rights are gifts from government are basically parroting King George.

That's a crackpot conservative interpretation of what the D of I means. Murder is an inalienable right. lol, now you have heard everything...

 

[NYcarbineer]

The first ten Amendments to the Constitution aka "The Bill of Rights" aren't bestowed by the government. The Bill of Rights are limitations on government power.

The Bill of Rights were put in place by the government not to grant rights but restrict the government from violating the ones people had to start with. That those who created our system of government put restrictions on what they could do in relation to those rights, being that many of them placing the restrictions served as members of government subject to the limits, says a lot about where rights come from and where they don't.

The Bill of Rights grants rights. The Constitution grants rights.

If not, why do we so often hear conservative 'constitutionalists' denying that something is a right because it's not in the Constitution?

Not so. An educated reading instead of a bend over grab our ankles mentality like you Liberal constitutionalists have would show that. The Bill of Rights is what the federal government can't do to the rights you already have. Those thing you bleeding hearts want to call rights are things you already have the availability to. Your problem is you want to call them rights so you can get one person to fund them for another person. Healthcare is something you call right so idiots like your President can propose laws that subsidize one person at the expense of another. Not one person is being denied healthcare because of their inability to pay. To say so would be saying I am being denied the right to work a job I want despite not having the educational level and training required to do so.

The conception of rights as understood by the founders was that the existence of rights predates their enumeration. The Bill of Rights was merely an enumeration of rights that already existed. Just as the all the rights under the 9th amendment still exist despite a lack of explicit enumeration.

The founders were wrong, of course. Rights are a notional concept that we invented. They exist because we say they do. If they were 'inalienable', then we wouldn't have to protect them. The fact that we do demonstrates they are something that can be taken away.

Funny how these certain conservative 'rights nuts' want to claim the pre-existence of inalienable, God given rights,

but then these people want to claim that they and they alone know what these rights are, or are not, and they will tell us which are and aren't rights,

and their list just happens, in a miraculous coincidence, to mirror exactly the core agenda of modern conservatism.

Amazing!

 

[Dante]

I

dblack....I'm just being realistic. You're right in that the rights as understood by the founders predate their articulation. But the founders were wrong. Rights are a social construct that we invent, define and maintain. All the talk 'inalienable' and 'inherent' is mere subjective philosophy. In all ways that matter, rights exist for exactly as long as we carefully protect them.

Which makes them more precious. Not less.

No, you're missing the point, in exactly the way I explained in earlier posts. Inalienable doesn't mean inviolable, or sacrosanct. The point of identifying "inalienable rights" is to recognize that they are a natural by-products of volition, and not special powers granted by authority.

The reason this is so important, is that it draws a distinction between fundamental freedoms and special privilege. It's the reason sane people balk at the idea that things like health care or education should be considered rights .

I'm amazed at the torturous twisting of words and concepts in order to arrive a preconceived notion ... inalienable, by definition, means "incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred" (Merriam-Webster) or "not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated" (Dictionary.com).

By definition, rights cannot be assigned, revoked, repudiated, or transferred. Nothing more needs to be said.

The problem is actually very simple ... by calling them 'inalienable rights', the founding fathers recognize the existence of a greater being. This is anathema to leftists who believe in relativism, recognition of human as the highest order of life, and the concordant belief that government is the ultimate mechanism of control of lesser humanity by the elites who constitute the highest of the highest.

The founding fathers recognized that government must answer to the people, and the people must answer to God.

Makes ya squirm just thinking about it, don't it?

Yet if you asked them to describe this god you would be horrified

 

[hazlnut]

do people in north korea have the right to vote?

Point? Oh, you have none.

the point is that rights are given by governments. we have a right to free speech. not everyone country has that. freedom of religion/press/assembly? that's not universal. right to bear arms? nope. equal protection? please.

so what's the problem again?

Nope. The founding Fathers said it, our rights are given by God. Whether or not libtards socialists say otherwise makes no difference.

Yes, they sometimes used flowery language to add some sort of divine validation to their cause.

The reality -- God didn't write the Constitution, men did. At its best, it may have been inspired by a Higher Power. But God doesn't choose sides.

 

[Plasmaball]

great another moronic thread created by a complete and utter waste of human life. Rights are granted by man and nothing more.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SPARE_CHANGE SAID:

“The problem is actually very simple ... by calling them 'inalienable rights', the founding fathers recognize the existence of a greater being. This is anathema to leftists who believe in relativism, recognition of human as the highest order of life, and the concordant belief that government is the ultimate mechanism of control of lesser humanity by the elites who constitute the highest of the highest.”

Nonsense.

The problem is this sort of ignorance and arrogance common to most on the right.

The vast majority of 'leftists' are Christian, and an even larger number are persons of faith. What you mistake as “relativism” is in fact respect for other faiths and those free from faith, and respect for the rule of law, as there are no greater defenders of citizens' inalienable rights than those on 'the left,' because liberals correctly recognize the rule of law is the ultimate authority, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly.

Liberals also correctly understand that inalienable right manifest as a consequence of one's humanity, independent of religious doctrine and dogma, dependent upon no 'deities,' where respect for human dignity and the right of individuals to exist and express themselves as individuals absent unwarranted interference by the state is paramount.

 

[Spare_change]

SPARE_CHANGE SAID:

“The problem is actually very simple ... by calling them 'inalienable rights', the founding fathers recognize the existence of a greater being. This is anathema to leftists who believe in relativism, recognition of human as the highest order of life, and the concordant belief that government is the ultimate mechanism of control of lesser humanity by the elites who constitute the highest of the highest.”

Nonsense.

The problem is this sort of ignorance and arrogance common to most on the right.

The vast majority of 'leftists' are Christian, and an even larger number are persons of faith. What you mistake as “relativism” is in fact respect for other faiths and those free from faith, and respect for the rule of law, as there are no greater defenders of citizens' inalienable rights than those on 'the left,' because liberals correctly recognize the rule of law is the ultimate authority, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly.

Liberals also correctly understand that inalienable right manifest as a consequence of one's humanity, independent of religious doctrine and dogma, dependent upon no 'deities,' where respect for human dignity and the right of individuals to exist and express themselves as individuals absent unwarranted interference by the state is paramount.

Once again, we come to the crux of the problem ... is man the ultimate arbiter?

The problem I have with claims that man decides what is right and wrong is very simple ... the answers are relative. There are no absolutes. Once the government thinks they grant you a right, they also believe they can take it away. Today, murder is forbidden by the government. Tomorrow, murder is ok in certain cases ... abortions, for example. Without an absolute moral base, the target is always moving, dependent on the whims of the controlling entity. Without a consistent moral base, the rules are manipulated, based on the needs of the ruling class.

While the poster 'claims' that liberals understand that inalienable rights allow a citizen to "express themselves as individuals absent unwarranted interference by the state", reality demonstrates a completely different dogma. The interference of the liberal government in the lives of the citizenry give the lie to the professed liberal support for individual freedom. When our liberal government decides to whom laws will apply, or not apply, we have an arbitrary cabal not concerned with the freedom of citizens, but rather the control and management of the people. The liberal government espouses governmental control of the people, rather than the people controlling the government.

We don't need relativism ... we need absolutism. We don't need people deciding what's good for us, we need people constrained by a inviolate moral structure.

 

[dblack]

Liberals also correctly understand that inalienable right manifest as a consequence of one's humanity, independent of religious doctrine and dogma, dependent upon no 'deities,' where respect for human dignity and the right of individuals to exist and express themselves as individuals absent unwarranted interference by the state is paramount.

Some do. But, as this thread shows, many don't.

 

[Dante]

Why

Liberals also correctly understand that inalienable right manifest as a consequence of one's humanity, independent of religious doctrine and dogma, dependent upon no 'deities,' where respect for human dignity and the right of individuals to exist and express themselves as individuals absent unwarranted interference by the state is paramount.

Some do. But, as this thread shows, many don't.

do you always equate progressives with liberals? Oh yeah, so you can dismiss a greater number of people.

ok

 

[Dante]

SPARE_CHANGE SAID:

“The problem is actually very simple ... by calling them 'inalienable rights', the founding fathers recognize the existence of a greater being. This is anathema to leftists who believe in relativism, recognition of human as the highest order of life, and the concordant belief that government is the ultimate mechanism of control of lesser humanity by the elites who constitute the highest of the highest.”

Nonsense.

The problem is this sort of ignorance and arrogance common to most on the right.

The vast majority of 'leftists' are Christian, and an even larger number are persons of faith. What you mistake as “relativism” is in fact respect for other faiths and those free from faith, and respect for the rule of law, as there are no greater defenders of citizens' inalienable rights than those on 'the left,' because liberals correctly recognize the rule of law is the ultimate authority, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly.

Liberals also correctly understand that inalienable right manifest as a consequence of one's humanity, independent of religious doctrine and dogma, dependent upon no 'deities,' where respect for human dignity and the right of individuals to exist and express themselves as individuals absent unwarranted interference by the state is paramount.

If human beings are not the highest order of life on Earth, what is?

Spare_change C_Clayton_Jones

 

[Dante]

SPARE_CHANGE SAID:

“The problem is actually very simple ... by calling them 'inalienable rights', the founding fathers recognize the existence of a greater being. This is anathema to leftists who believe in relativism, recognition of human as the highest order of life, and the concordant belief that government is the ultimate mechanism of control of lesser humanity by the elites who constitute the highest of the highest.”

Nonsense.

The problem is this sort of ignorance and arrogance common to most on the right.

The vast majority of 'leftists' are Christian, and an even larger number are persons of faith. What you mistake as “relativism” is in fact respect for other faiths and those free from faith, and respect for the rule of law, as there are no greater defenders of citizens' inalienable rights than those on 'the left,' because liberals correctly recognize the rule of law is the ultimate authority, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly.

Liberals also correctly understand that inalienable right manifest as a consequence of one's humanity, independent of religious doctrine and dogma, dependent upon no 'deities,' where respect for human dignity and the right of individuals to exist and express themselves as individuals absent unwarranted interference by the state is paramount.

Once again, we come to the crux of the problem ... is man the ultimate arbiter?

The problem I have with claims that man decides what is right and wrong is very simple ... the answers are relative. There are no absolutes. Once the government thinks they grant you a right, they also believe they can take it away. Today, murder is forbidden by the government. Tomorrow, murder is ok in certain cases ... abortions, for example. Without an absolute moral base, the target is always moving, dependent on the whims of the controlling entity. Without a consistent moral base, the rules are manipulated, based on the needs of the ruling class.

While the poster 'claims' that liberals understand that inalienable rights allow a citizen to "express themselves as individuals absent unwarranted interference by the state", reality demonstrates a completely different dogma. The interference of the liberal government in the lives of the citizenry give the lie to the professed liberal support for individual freedom. When our liberal government decides to whom laws will apply, or not apply, we have an arbitrary cabal not concerned with the freedom of citizens, but rather the control and management of the people. The liberal government espouses governmental control of the people, rather than the people controlling the government.

We don't need relativism ... we need absolutism. We don't need people deciding what's good for us, we need people constrained by a inviolate moral structure.

Man has always decided what is right and what is wrong, just as man has always created his own higher power to fear, bow down to, and use as a weapon against other men and their gods.

Yet given the nature of what society one lives in, what is right in one may not be right in another -- and here is where people's 'god' comes in --

Some people want a higher power that no one can question. An ultimate super daddy with powers to strike fear in the hearts of weak men, or make weak men feel brave and 'right'.

NO ONE in the United States government says (as we cannot really know what other men think, can we?), they believe the government grants US citizen's rights.

and here we go with the 'abortion is murder' crap

I should have never taken you seriously Spare_change but I am replying as I read along

I apologize for thinking you could be serious and not load comments with bait so divisive

 

[Spare_change]

SPARE_CHANGE SAID:

“The problem is actually very simple ... by calling them 'inalienable rights', the founding fathers recognize the existence of a greater being. This is anathema to leftists who believe in relativism, recognition of human as the highest order of life, and the concordant belief that government is the ultimate mechanism of control of lesser humanity by the elites who constitute the highest of the highest.”

Nonsense.

The problem is this sort of ignorance and arrogance common to most on the right.

The vast majority of 'leftists' are Christian, and an even larger number are persons of faith. What you mistake as “relativism” is in fact respect for other faiths and those free from faith, and respect for the rule of law, as there are no greater defenders of citizens' inalienable rights than those on 'the left,' because liberals correctly recognize the rule of law is the ultimate authority, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly.

Liberals also correctly understand that inalienable right manifest as a consequence of one's humanity, independent of religious doctrine and dogma, dependent upon no 'deities,' where respect for human dignity and the right of individuals to exist and express themselves as individuals absent unwarranted interference by the state is paramount.

If human beings are not the highest order of life on Earth, what is?

Spare_change C_Clayton_Jones

Your intentional qualifier - "on earth" - makes the question a moot one. What makes you think 'earth' is the all encompassing environment? Now, if you want to talk on a larger scale .....

 

[Spare_change]

SPARE_CHANGE SAID:

“The problem is actually very simple ... by calling them 'inalienable rights', the founding fathers recognize the existence of a greater being. This is anathema to leftists who believe in relativism, recognition of human as the highest order of life, and the concordant belief that government is the ultimate mechanism of control of lesser humanity by the elites who constitute the highest of the highest.”

Nonsense.

The problem is this sort of ignorance and arrogance common to most on the right.

The vast majority of 'leftists' are Christian, and an even larger number are persons of faith. What you mistake as “relativism” is in fact respect for other faiths and those free from faith, and respect for the rule of law, as there are no greater defenders of citizens' inalienable rights than those on 'the left,' because liberals correctly recognize the rule of law is the ultimate authority, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly.

Liberals also correctly understand that inalienable right manifest as a consequence of one's humanity, independent of religious doctrine and dogma, dependent upon no 'deities,' where respect for human dignity and the right of individuals to exist and express themselves as individuals absent unwarranted interference by the state is paramount.

Once again, we come to the crux of the problem ... is man the ultimate arbiter?

The problem I have with claims that man decides what is right and wrong is very simple ... the answers are relative. There are no absolutes. Once the government thinks they grant you a right, they also believe they can take it away. Today, murder is forbidden by the government. Tomorrow, murder is ok in certain cases ... abortions, for example. Without an absolute moral base, the target is always moving, dependent on the whims of the controlling entity. Without a consistent moral base, the rules are manipulated, based on the needs of the ruling class.

While the poster 'claims' that liberals understand that inalienable rights allow a citizen to "express themselves as individuals absent unwarranted interference by the state", reality demonstrates a completely different dogma. The interference of the liberal government in the lives of the citizenry give the lie to the professed liberal support for individual freedom. When our liberal government decides to whom laws will apply, or not apply, we have an arbitrary cabal not concerned with the freedom of citizens, but rather the control and management of the people. The liberal government espouses governmental control of the people, rather than the people controlling the government.

We don't need relativism ... we need absolutism. We don't need people deciding what's good for us, we need people constrained by a inviolate moral structure.

Man has always decided what is right and what is wrong, just as man has always created his own higher power to fear, bow down to, and use as a weapon against other men and their gods.

Yet given the nature of what society one lives in, what is right in one may not be right in another -- and here is where people's 'god' comes in --

Some people want a higher power that no one can question. An ultimate super daddy with powers to strike fear in the hearts of weak men, or make weak men feel brave and 'right'.

NO ONE in the United States government says (as we cannot really know what other men think, can we?), they believe the government grants US citizen's rights.

and here we go with the 'abortion is murder' crap

I should have never taken you seriously Spare_change but I am replying as I read along

I apologize for thinking you could be serious and not load comments with bait so divisive

"Man has always decided what is right and what is wrong" ... false. They have relied on their religion, or lack of, to give them a moral structure by which to operate.

This thread is replete with those who claim that the government 'grants' rights -

God forbid there might be comments by others that you consider 'divisive' ... I suppose you don't see THAT is the exact problem. Who are you to be the final authority on what is divisive or not? Who are you to force your beliefs on others? You, and the other relativists, are the very definition of tyrants.

 

[Dante]

SPARE_CHANGE SAID:

“The problem is actually very simple ... by calling them 'inalienable rights', the founding fathers recognize the existence of a greater being. This is anathema to leftists who believe in relativism, recognition of human as the highest order of life, and the concordant belief that government is the ultimate mechanism of control of lesser humanity by the elites who constitute the highest of the highest.”

Nonsense.

The problem is this sort of ignorance and arrogance common to most on the right.

The vast majority of 'leftists' are Christian, and an even larger number are persons of faith. What you mistake as “relativism” is in fact respect for other faiths and those free from faith, and respect for the rule of law, as there are no greater defenders of citizens' inalienable rights than those on 'the left,' because liberals correctly recognize the rule of law is the ultimate authority, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly.

Liberals also correctly understand that inalienable right manifest as a consequence of one's humanity, independent of religious doctrine and dogma, dependent upon no 'deities,' where respect for human dignity and the right of individuals to exist and express themselves as individuals absent unwarranted interference by the state is paramount.

If human beings are not the highest order of life on Earth, what is?

Spare_change C_Clayton_Jones

Your intentional qualifier - "on earth" - makes the question a moot one. What makes you think 'earth' is the all encompassing environment? Now, if you want to talk on a larger scale .....

There exists humanity and human rights outside of Earth? Where?

 

[Dante]

SPARE_CHANGE SAID:

“The problem is actually very simple ... by calling them 'inalienable rights', the founding fathers recognize the existence of a greater being. This is anathema to leftists who believe in relativism, recognition of human as the highest order of life, and the concordant belief that government is the ultimate mechanism of control of lesser humanity by the elites who constitute the highest of the highest.”

Nonsense.

The problem is this sort of ignorance and arrogance common to most on the right.

The vast majority of 'leftists' are Christian, and an even larger number are persons of faith. What you mistake as “relativism” is in fact respect for other faiths and those free from faith, and respect for the rule of law, as there are no greater defenders of citizens' inalienable rights than those on 'the left,' because liberals correctly recognize the rule of law is the ultimate authority, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly.

Liberals also correctly understand that inalienable right manifest as a consequence of one's humanity, independent of religious doctrine and dogma, dependent upon no 'deities,' where respect for human dignity and the right of individuals to exist and express themselves as individuals absent unwarranted interference by the state is paramount.

Once again, we come to the crux of the problem ... is man the ultimate arbiter?

The problem I have with claims that man decides what is right and wrong is very simple ... the answers are relative. There are no absolutes. Once the government thinks they grant you a right, they also believe they can take it away. Today, murder is forbidden by the government. Tomorrow, murder is ok in certain cases ... abortions, for example. Without an absolute moral base, the target is always moving, dependent on the whims of the controlling entity. Without a consistent moral base, the rules are manipulated, based on the needs of the ruling class.

While the poster 'claims' that liberals understand that inalienable rights allow a citizen to "express themselves as individuals absent unwarranted interference by the state", reality demonstrates a completely different dogma. The interference of the liberal government in the lives of the citizenry give the lie to the professed liberal support for individual freedom. When our liberal government decides to whom laws will apply, or not apply, we have an arbitrary cabal not concerned with the freedom of citizens, but rather the control and management of the people. The liberal government espouses governmental control of the people, rather than the people controlling the government.

We don't need relativism ... we need absolutism. We don't need people deciding what's good for us, we need people constrained by a inviolate moral structure.

Man has always decided what is right and what is wrong, just as man has always created his own higher power to fear, bow down to, and use as a weapon against other men and their gods.

Yet given the nature of what society one lives in, what is right in one may not be right in another -- and here is where people's 'god' comes in --

Some people want a higher power that no one can question. An ultimate super daddy with powers to strike fear in the hearts of weak men, or make weak men feel brave and 'right'.

NO ONE in the United States government says (as we cannot really know what other men think, can we?), they believe the government grants US citizen's rights.

and here we go with the 'abortion is murder' crap

I should have never taken you seriously Spare_change but I am replying as I read along

I apologize for thinking you could be serious and not load comments with bait so divisive

"Man has always decided what is right and what is wrong" ... false. They have relied on their religion, or lack of, to give them a moral structure by which to operate.

This thread is replete with those who claim that the government 'grants' rights -

God forbid there might be comments by others that you consider 'divisive' ... I suppose you don't see THAT is the exact problem. Who are you to be the final authority on what is divisive or not? Who are you to force your beliefs on others? You, and the other relativists, are the very definition of tyrants.

OK.

People here claiming the government grants rights cannot in any way be conflated or construed to say 'the government thinks it grants rights" or that anyone in government holds that ridiculous view. I imagine what others might be saying is more nuanced than you'd care to admit. After all admitting nuance kills most all of your world view.

If you don't think "abortion is murder" is divisive than you live in another reality than even the most anti abortion protesters who state openly they intend to be divisive.

 

[Roadrunner]

SPARE_CHANGE SAID:

“The problem is actually very simple ... by calling them 'inalienable rights', the founding fathers recognize the existence of a greater being. This is anathema to leftists who believe in relativism, recognition of human as the highest order of life, and the concordant belief that government is the ultimate mechanism of control of lesser humanity by the elites who constitute the highest of the highest.”

Nonsense.

The problem is this sort of ignorance and arrogance common to most on the right.

The vast majority of 'leftists' are Christian, and an even larger number are persons of faith. What you mistake as “relativism” is in fact respect for other faiths and those free from faith, and respect for the rule of law, as there are no greater defenders of citizens' inalienable rights than those on 'the left,' because liberals correctly recognize the rule of law is the ultimate authority, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly.

Liberals also correctly understand that inalienable right manifest as a consequence of one's humanity, independent of religious doctrine and dogma, dependent upon no 'deities,' where respect for human dignity and the right of individuals to exist and express themselves as individuals absent unwarranted interference by the state is paramount.

Once again, we come to the crux of the problem ... is man the ultimate arbiter?

The problem I have with claims that man decides what is right and wrong is very simple ... the answers are relative. There are no absolutes. Once the government thinks they grant you a right, they also believe they can take it away. Today, murder is forbidden by the government. Tomorrow, murder is ok in certain cases ... abortions, for example. Without an absolute moral base, the target is always moving, dependent on the whims of the controlling entity. Without a consistent moral base, the rules are manipulated, based on the needs of the ruling class.

While the poster 'claims' that liberals understand that inalienable rights allow a citizen to "express themselves as individuals absent unwarranted interference by the state", reality demonstrates a completely different dogma. The interference of the liberal government in the lives of the citizenry give the lie to the professed liberal support for individual freedom. When our liberal government decides to whom laws will apply, or not apply, we have an arbitrary cabal not concerned with the freedom of citizens, but rather the control and management of the people. The liberal government espouses governmental control of the people, rather than the people controlling the government.

We don't need relativism ... we need absolutism. We don't need people deciding what's good for us, we need people constrained by a inviolate moral structure.

Man has always decided what is right and what is wrong, just as man has always created his own higher power to fear, bow down to, and use as a weapon against other men and their gods.

Yet given the nature of what society one lives in, what is right in one may not be right in another -- and here is where people's 'god' comes in --

Some people want a higher power that no one can question. An ultimate super daddy with powers to strike fear in the hearts of weak men, or make weak men feel brave and 'right'.

NO ONE in the United States government says (as we cannot really know what other men think, can we?), they believe the government grants US citizen's rights.

and here we go with the 'abortion is murder' crap

I should have never taken you seriously Spare_change but I am replying as I read along

I apologize for thinking you could be serious and not load comments with bait so divisive

"Man has always decided what is right and what is wrong" ... false. They have relied on their religion, or lack of, to give them a moral structure by which to operate.

This thread is replete with those who claim that the government 'grants' rights -

God forbid there might be comments by others that you consider 'divisive' ... I suppose you don't see THAT is the exact problem. Who are you to be the final authority on what is divisive or not? Who are you to force your beliefs on others? You, and the other relativists, are the very definition of tyrants.

OK.

People here claiming the government grants rights cannot in any way be conflated or construed to say 'the government thinks it grants rights" or that anyone in government holds that ridiculous view. I imagine what others might be saying is more nuanced than you'd care to admit. After all admitting nuance kills most all of your world view.

If you don't think "abortion is murder" is divisive than you live in another reality than even the most anti abortion protesters who state openly they intend to be divisive.

The real Dante would put abortionists in the inner circle of Hell.

 

[Dante]

SPARE_CHANGE SAID:

“The problem is actually very simple ... by calling them 'inalienable rights', the founding fathers recognize the existence of a greater being. This is anathema to leftists who believe in relativism, recognition of human as the highest order of life, and the concordant belief that government is the ultimate mechanism of control of lesser humanity by the elites who constitute the highest of the highest.”

Nonsense.

The problem is this sort of ignorance and arrogance common to most on the right.

The vast majority of 'leftists' are Christian, and an even larger number are persons of faith. What you mistake as “relativism” is in fact respect for other faiths and those free from faith, and respect for the rule of law, as there are no greater defenders of citizens' inalienable rights than those on 'the left,' because liberals correctly recognize the rule of law is the ultimate authority, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly.

Liberals also correctly understand that inalienable right manifest as a consequence of one's humanity, independent of religious doctrine and dogma, dependent upon no 'deities,' where respect for human dignity and the right of individuals to exist and express themselves as individuals absent unwarranted interference by the state is paramount.

Once again, we come to the crux of the problem ... is man the ultimate arbiter?

The problem I have with claims that man decides what is right and wrong is very simple ... the answers are relative. There are no absolutes. Once the government thinks they grant you a right, they also believe they can take it away. Today, murder is forbidden by the government. Tomorrow, murder is ok in certain cases ... abortions, for example. Without an absolute moral base, the target is always moving, dependent on the whims of the controlling entity. Without a consistent moral base, the rules are manipulated, based on the needs of the ruling class.

While the poster 'claims' that liberals understand that inalienable rights allow a citizen to "express themselves as individuals absent unwarranted interference by the state", reality demonstrates a completely different dogma. The interference of the liberal government in the lives of the citizenry give the lie to the professed liberal support for individual freedom. When our liberal government decides to whom laws will apply, or not apply, we have an arbitrary cabal not concerned with the freedom of citizens, but rather the control and management of the people. The liberal government espouses governmental control of the people, rather than the people controlling the government.

We don't need relativism ... we need absolutism. We don't need people deciding what's good for us, we need people constrained by a inviolate moral structure.

Man has always decided what is right and what is wrong, just as man has always created his own higher power to fear, bow down to, and use as a weapon against other men and their gods.

Yet given the nature of what society one lives in, what is right in one may not be right in another -- and here is where people's 'god' comes in --

Some people want a higher power that no one can question. An ultimate super daddy with powers to strike fear in the hearts of weak men, or make weak men feel brave and 'right'.

NO ONE in the United States government says (as we cannot really know what other men think, can we?), they believe the government grants US citizen's rights.

and here we go with the 'abortion is murder' crap

I should have never taken you seriously Spare_change but I am replying as I read along

I apologize for thinking you could be serious and not load comments with bait so divisive

"Man has always decided what is right and what is wrong" ... false. They have relied on their religion, or lack of, to give them a moral structure by which to operate.

This thread is replete with those who claim that the government 'grants' rights -

God forbid there might be comments by others that you consider 'divisive' ... I suppose you don't see THAT is the exact problem. Who are you to be the final authority on what is divisive or not? Who are you to force your beliefs on others? You, and the other relativists, are the very definition of tyrants.

OK.

People here claiming the government grants rights cannot in any way be conflated or construed to say 'the government thinks it grants rights" or that anyone in government holds that ridiculous view. I imagine what others might be saying is more nuanced than you'd care to admit. After all admitting nuance kills most all of your world view.

If you don't think "abortion is murder" is divisive than you live in another reality than even the most anti abortion protesters who state openly they intend to be divisive.

The real Dante would put abortionists in the inner circle of Hell.

Dante Alighieri, wrote a fictional account of a fictional hell, so he could go to hell if he messes with this Dante