Zone1 What are "Rights"? Should we allow them to the other side?

[Mr. Friscus]

Many worldviews have many opinions on what rights are. The communist and leftist often recites that rights are what can be enforced, or what the majority of people believe. Conservatives believe basic human rights (The bill of rights) are above man and are a manifestation of the will of a Creator or higher being (aka God), and thus can't be touched.

This creates an interesting atheist/communist/leftist vs. Christian/Conservative scenario.

If the former thinks rights are based only in what man thinks, and what they can enforce, or at the very least based it on what a majority believes... that really has no base, it's based on nothing.

And if your rights are based on nothing, then they can become anything. They can be given, they can be changed, they can be taken away.. whether it by the latest leftist tyrant or by a misled populace.

Now, as a Christian Conservative, I believe in rights for all people, but it's important to point out that it is the much higher road. My worldview would require me to give rights to people I oppose, when my opposition wouldn't think twice of taking away my rights if they had the power to do so.

My question is this: If Christian populism continues to succeed, and the social movement to not just shape the government how I/we want, but also shame and stigmatize immoral behavior, becomes prominent... How could a leftist/atheist/communist have any problem with that?

They ought to respect it, because they would do the exact same thing.

As much as they don't like to admit it, they would rely on the benevolence of Christians, even though they would offer none back. They would be as cold as necessary to enforce what they want.

 

[progressive hunter]

Many worldviews have many opinions on what rights are. The communist and leftist often recites that rights are what can be enforced, or what the majority of people believe. Conservatives believe basic human rights (The bill of rights) are above man and are a manifestation of the will of a Creator or higher being (aka God), and thus can't be touched.

This creates an interesting atheist/communist/leftist vs. Christian/Conservative scenario.

If the former thinks rights are based only in what man thinks, and what they can enforce, or at the very least based it on what a majority believes... that really has no base, it's based on nothing.

And if your rights are based on nothing, then they can become anything. They can be given, they can be changed, they can be taken away.. whether it by the latest leftist tyrant or by a misled populace.

Now, as a Christian Conservative, I believe in rights for all people, but it's important to point out that it is the much higher road. My worldview would require me to give rights to people I oppose, when my opposition wouldn't think twice of taking away my rights if they had the power to do so.

My question is this: If Christian populism continues to succeed, and the social movement to not just shape the government how I/we want, but also shame and stigmatize immoral behavior, becomes prominent... How could a leftist/atheist/communist have any problem with that?

They ought to respect it, because they would do the exact same thing.

As much as they don't like to admit it, they would rely on the benevolence of Christians, even though they would offer none back. They would be as cold as necessary to enforce what they want.

I like to refer to our rights as also being a resonsibility,,
meaning if I expect to have those rights its on me to defend others rights,,

that being said,
if the other person doesnt believe my rights should be protected then theres no reason for me to honor or protect their "rights"

I disagree with what you claim about christians,,

and why does no one ever bring up islam when slamming religion??

they are mandated to kill or enslave non believers of islam,,

 

[Mr. Friscus]

I like to refer to our rights as also being a resonsibility,,
meaning if I expect to have those rights its on me to defend others rights,,

But what are they based on?

that being said,
if the other person doesnt believe my rights should be protected then theres no reason for me to honor or protect their "rights"

Indeed, yet leftists/progressives always try to lecture Christians on their morality if they dare to try to make rights different than they prefer, don't they.

I disagree with what you claim about christians,,

Which part?

and why does no one ever bring up islam when slamming religion??

they are mandated to kill or enslave non believers of islam,,

Agreed. Most leftists/progressives are too worried about offending brown arabian people than calling out the massive immorality in the religion most of them follow.

 

[progressive hunter]

But what are they based on?

Indeed, yet leftists/progressives always try to lecture Christians on their morality if they dare to try to make rights different than they prefer, don't they.

Which part?

Agreed. Most leftists/progressives are too worried about offending brown arabian people than calling out the massive immorality in the religion most of them follow.

what theyre based on is not easy to explain,,

one part for me is if it doesnt require the input of another person to achieve,

if it requires someone else to give it to you its not a right its a privilege,,

also rights need defended because the only way to lose them is for someone else to violate them,

I think I read a little to fast about the Christianity part so I retract that

 

[Mr. Friscus]

also rights need defended because the only way to lose them is for someone else to violate them

I agree with that completely.. but when your opposition would gladly and excitedly take them from you.. and they benefit from Christian/Conservative benevolence... doesn't that seem obtuse? It's like when people on welfare curse and demonize the people that pay for their entire lives.

If all Christian/conservative and GOP members wake up tomorrow and say they want to implement the 10 commandments into the constitution, and do it.. how could any progressive/leftist have any problem with that? It would simply be imposing a selected groups made-up rights onto the whole, just as leftists would impose their made-up rights onto the whole if they could.

 

[alang1216]

Many worldviews have many opinions on what rights are. The communist and leftist often recites that rights are what can be enforced, or what the majority of people believe. Conservatives believe basic human rights (The bill of rights) are above man and are a manifestation of the will of a Creator or higher being (aka God), and thus can't be touched.

This creates an interesting atheist/communist/leftist vs. Christian/Conservative scenario.

If the former thinks rights are based only in what man thinks, and what they can enforce, or at the very least based it on what a majority believes... that really has no base, it's based on nothing.

And if your rights are based on nothing, then they can become anything. They can be given, they can be changed, they can be taken away.. whether it by the latest leftist tyrant or by a misled populace.

Now, as a Christian Conservative, I believe in rights for all people, but it's important to point out that it is the much higher road. My worldview would require me to give rights to people I oppose, when my opposition wouldn't think twice of taking away my rights if they had the power to do so.

My question is this: If Christian populism continues to succeed, and the social movement to not just shape the government how I/we want, but also shame and stigmatize immoral behavior, becomes prominent... How could a leftist/atheist/communist have any problem with that?

They ought to respect it, because they would do the exact same thing.

As much as they don't like to admit it, they would rely on the benevolence of Christians, even though they would offer none back. They would be as cold as necessary to enforce what they want.

The reality is that rights are granted to us by the laws of the government. In a democracy, our rights are what we grant ourselves. We may claim they come from a higher power but that is mostly untrue and completely irrelevant. Our Bill of Rights, no matter the source, is enshrined in the Constitution and has the force of law. Those are our rights, subject to interpretation of course. There is no us vs. them scenario.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

The reality is that rights are granted to us by the laws of the government. In a democracy, our rights are what we grant ourselves. We may claim they come from a higher power but that is mostly untrue and completely irrelevant. Our Bill of Rights, no matter the source, is enshrined in the Constitution and has the force of law. Those are our rights, subject to interpretation of course. There is no us vs. them scenario.

So just to steelman your position, you think our rights are our rights, because they exist in a document, ones we made up, so that's what makes them our rights.

Well, that's about as weak as you can get as far as having any moral foundation. What if 75% of the nation wakes up and decides as a monolith to make murder legal? On what standing would have to say that's wrong?

 

[progressive hunter]

I agree with that completely.. but when your opposition would gladly and excitedly take them from you.. and they benefit from Christian/Conservative benevolence... doesn't that seem obtuse? It's like when people on welfare curse and demonize the people that pay for their entire lives.

If all Christian/conservative and GOP members wake up tomorrow and say they want to implement the 10 commandments into the constitution, and do it.. how could any progressive/leftist have any problem with that? It would simply be imposing a selected groups made-up rights onto the whole, just as leftists would impose their made-up rights onto the whole if they could.

thats why I said if they arent going to defend my rights then I have no responsibility to defend theirs,,

the 10 commandments for the most part are already in the constitution,,

 

[Mr. Friscus]

thats why I said if they arent going to defend my rights then I have no responsibility to defend theirs,,

Well that's the problem, you kind of do. But that's why Christian/Conservatives have a clear moral high ground, and we keep the Constitution as is and out of the hands of the progressive left, who would revoke so many of your rights if they had the power to do so.

 

[progressive hunter]

Well that's the problem, you kind of do. But that's why Christian/Conservatives have a clear moral high ground, and we keep the Constitution as is and out of the hands of the progressive left, who would revoke so many of your rights if they had the power to do so.

I dont see that I do,,

if someones intent is to kill me my response should always be to kill them before they can succeed,,

 

[Mr. Friscus]

I dont see that I do,,

if someones intent is to kill me my response should always be to kill them before they can succeed,,

I'm talking about the rights themselves.

Like, we don't want to take away the second amendment rights of those on the left, but the left would gladly take away the second amendment rights of the populace.

 

[Zincwarrior]

the 10 commandments for the most part are already in the constitution,,

Name one.

 

[progressive hunter]

I'm talking about the rights themselves.

Like, we don't want to take away the second amendment rights of those on the left, but the left would gladly take away the second amendment rights of the populace.

if they openly call for infringements of any rights without due process,
as per the 5th A a lot of leftist can justifiably have their rights taken away,,

 

[Darkwind]

Name one.

Theft, murder, false witness.

I'm sure if you have someone read it to you, you too will see many of the 10 Commandments in our Constitution and common law.

 

[alang1216]

So just to steelman your position, you think our rights are our rights, because they exist in a document, ones we made up, so that's what makes them our rights.

That's about right.

Well, that's about as weak as you can get as far as having any moral foundation. What if 75% of the nation wakes up and decides as a monolith to make murder legal? On what standing would have to say that's wrong?

It would not be wrong. It would not be smart but it would not be immoral. What if 75% of the nation decides slavery is OK?

 

[Zincwarrior]

Theft, murder, false witness.

I'm sure if you have someone read it to you, you too will see many of the 10 Commandments in our Constitution and common law.

Not in the US Constitution.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

It would not be wrong. It would not be smart but it would not be immoral. What if 75% of the nation decides slavery is OK?

Then by your ideology, you'd have to support slavery. By mine, even if the majority wanted it, it would stay illegal.

Boy, you just stepped in it.

Now's your chance to come to the good side.

 

[norwegen]

The reality is that rights are granted to us by the laws of the government.

No they're not. They're inalienable. They're innate.

The government is supposed to recognize them, not grant them.

 

[Oddball]

Many worldviews have many opinions on what rights are. The communist and leftist often recites that rights are what can be enforced, or what the majority of people believe. Conservatives believe basic human rights (The bill of rights) are above man and are a manifestation of the will of a Creator or higher being (aka God), and thus can't be touched.

This creates an interesting atheist/communist/leftist vs. Christian/Conservative scenario.

If the former thinks rights are based only in what man thinks, and what they can enforce, or at the very least based it on what a majority believes... that really has no base, it's based on nothing.

And if your rights are based on nothing, then they can become anything. They can be given, they can be changed, they can be taken away.. whether it by the latest leftist tyrant or by a misled populace.

Now, as a Christian Conservative, I believe in rights for all people, but it's important to point out that it is the much higher road. My worldview would require me to give rights to people I oppose, when my opposition wouldn't think twice of taking away my rights if they had the power to do so.

My question is this: If Christian populism continues to succeed, and the social movement to not just shape the government how I/we want, but also shame and stigmatize immoral behavior, becomes prominent... How could a leftist/atheist/communist have any problem with that?

They ought to respect it, because they would do the exact same thing.

As much as they don't like to admit it, they would rely on the benevolence of Christians, even though they would offer none back. They would be as cold as necessary to enforce what they want.

If your "right" imposes an obligation upon someone else to perform to deliver it to you, it isn't a right.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

No they're not. They're inalienable. They're innate.

The government is supposed to recognize them, not grant them.

You're right, but this post is mainly pointing out how they (those that view rights as merely human made social constructs) are morally inferior to what you're saying, and they can only exist because of religious and ideological benevolence.