What does "God-Given Rights" mean?

[Charles_Main]

We've seen five or six different threads on this topic over the last week and, in my view, they've been an unproductive mess. Mostly we're talking past each other without a very clear understanding what it is we're really talking about.

So, just what is meant by God-given rights? In most of the debates on here, the discussion breaks down into a debate over the "source" of rights (God, government, neither?) and I think that fundamentally misses the point. When Jefferson wrote that people are ...

... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men

..., what did he mean?

His purpose was to lay out a justification for government. Here he's saying that governments are instituted to secure "unalieanable rights". That term is actually very specific and narrow. It's meant to refer only to certain kinds of "rights" - those that are unalienable.

'Unalieanable' means they can't be taken away. It doesn't mean the shouldn't be taken away. It doesn't mean they can't be violated. It means that they are innate to a person's existence, and that, even if you were left on a desert island by yourself, you'd still have them.

So, the key thing here is that he's describing a particular kind of right. Some rights are unalieanable, some aren't. Keep in mind, this isn't by decree - it's just inherent in the nature of the right in question. If the right can't be taken away, if you'd have the freedom to exercise it regardless of whether anyone "gave" it to you or not, then it is, by definition, an unalieanable right.

Freedom of speech, for example, is an unalienable right. It's a freedom that you can exercise without anyone's permission or cooperation. You'd have it whether government existed or not. It's a right that can be violated, to be sure. Someone can pin you down and put their hand over your mouth. But as soon as they leave, you have that right again. It's a freedom of action that doesn't require a grant from anyone, or anything, else.

Contractual rights are not unalienable. They require the active participation of other people or institutions to exist. Many have proposed that government recognize a "right to health care". While we could create this "right" and establish it as an entitlement, it wouldn't be an unalienable right. It depends on the active cooperation of other people. Again, it's not a matter of declaring it to be unalienable, or not. It's inherent in the nature of the right being discussed.

Jefferson wasn't making a statement about where rights come from. He was making a statement about the kinds of rights government should secure. He wanted a government that protected our innate freedoms, not one that granted privilege. Unfortunately, that point seems to get lost as people get preoccupied with debating the supremacy of God vs the supremacy of government.

It can mean what ever you want it to. To me it is simple, and it's not about any one god. It's about the Idea that unlike any other Constitution of Government on Earth, Our is suppose to understand the Fact that our Rights are not Granted by them, they come from a Higher Power, and they CAN not be taken away by man, Because man didn't give them to us in the First place.

That is why our Founders Included those words in the Dec of Independence, Even though they were not Huge Fans of Church and State Mixing. They, Unlike Modern Liberals, Were smart enough to understand that GOD is a pretty Generic Word, and Saying our rights come from God, Does not suddenly Make us a Christian Nation. It simply tells everyone that our rights are Untouchable.

 

[Inthemiddle]

You are a racist, get over it.

This is all I need to hear from you to know that anything you have to say is hopelessly stupid and pointless. Calling me racist against Hispanics when I am a Hispanic myself. Even worse, you make such a claim because I made a statement about Mexican American culture, from years of up close observation, and your response was "well all the Hispanics I know...." What an idiot.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wow...

just, wow.

Seriously. I challenge you to explain it in any way that does not amount to exactly that. If rights are "inalienable" and "God" given, then how are they anything more than an entitlement you are redeeming from whatever god you believe in?

Rights are unalienable even if God does not exist.

You should read the definition of unalienable sometime.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are a racist, get over it.

This is all I need to hear from you to know that anything you have to say is hopelessly stupid and pointless. Calling me racist against Hispanics when I am a Hispanic myself. Even worse, you make such a claim because I made a statement about Mexican American culture, from years of up close observation, and your response was "well all the Hispanics I know...." What an idiot.

Elizabeth Warren insists she is a Cherokee despite the fact that there is no evidence anywhere that she is, why should I believe you are Hispanic when you sound like a racist?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Seriously. I challenge you to explain it in any way that does not amount to exactly that. If rights are "inalienable" and "God" given, then how are they anything more than an entitlement you are redeeming from whatever god you believe in?

Rights are unalienable even if God does not exist.

You should read the definition of unalienable sometime.

Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor: "inalienable human rights".

Yep, that proves that you definitely need God to have them.

 

[dblack]

It simply tells everyone that our rights are Untouchable.

I don't quite see where you get that. And it seems like you're making the same mistake a lot of people do when they read something into the phrase "unalienable rights" that really isn't there. It's not a decree, designating certain rights as "Untouchable" or sacrosanct. It's simply a description of a certain class of freedoms that we have innately as a by-product of being conscious and having volition. It's not that they shouldn't be taken away, it's that they literally can't be taken away.

I really think most people aren't getting this distinction. A lot of you seem to be looking at this exactly backwards. It's not that the Declaration of Independence decrees certain rights to be untouchable, or that God has endowed us with special privileges. Jefferson is just pointing out that freedom is the natural state of existence and that we create governments to protect that freedom. Characterizing that basic state of freedom as 'unalienable' or 'God given' was his way of distinguishing it from the viewpoint of the monarchy that he was rejecting, where any rights or freedoms we enjoy were seen as a grant from authority. He wanted to turn the entire thing on it's head and establish the people as the sovereign authority, with the government as our servant - protecting our freedoms rather than granting them to us.

 

[thereisnospoon]

We've seen five or six different threads on this topic over the last week and, in my view, they've been an unproductive mess. Mostly we're talking past each other without a very clear understanding what it is we're really talking about.

So, just what is meant by God-given rights? In most of the debates on here, the discussion breaks down into a debate over the "source" of rights (God, government, neither?) and I think that fundamentally misses the point. When Jefferson wrote that people are ...

... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men

..., what did he mean?

His purpose was to lay out a justification for government. Here he's saying that governments are instituted to secure "unalieanable rights". That term is actually very specific and narrow. It's meant to refer only to certain kinds of "rights" - those that are unalienable.

'Unalieanable' means they can't be taken away. It doesn't mean the shouldn't be taken away. It doesn't mean they can't be violated. It means that they are innate to a person's existence, and that, even if you were left on a desert island by yourself, you'd still have them.

So, the key thing here is that he's describing a particular kind of right. Some rights are unalieanable, some aren't. Keep in mind, this isn't by decree - it's just inherent in the nature of the right in question. If the right can't be taken away, if you'd have the freedom to exercise it regardless of whether anyone "gave" it to you or not, then it is, by definition, an unalieanable right.

Freedom of speech, for example, is an unalienable right. It's a freedom that you can exercise without anyone's permission or cooperation. You'd have it whether government existed or not. It's a right that can be violated, to be sure. Someone can pin you down and put their hand over your mouth. But as soon as they leave, you have that right again. It's a freedom of action that doesn't require a grant from anyone, or anything, else.

Contractual rights are not unalienable. They require the active participation of other people or institutions to exist. Many have proposed that government recognize a "right to health care". While we could create this "right" and establish it as an entitlement, it wouldn't be an unalienable right. It depends on the active cooperation of other people. Again, it's not a matter of declaring it to be unalienable, or not. It's inherent in the nature of the right being discussed.

Jefferson wasn't making a statement about where rights come from. He was making a statement about the kinds of rights government should secure. He wanted a government that protected our innate freedoms, not one that granted privilege. Unfortunately, that point seems to get lost as people get preoccupied with debating the supremacy of God vs the supremacy of government.

Ok...so you answered your own question.
End of thread.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Another take on this is that all of these freedoms boil down to one freedom. The freedom of thought. In other words "Free will". Before any action we take we think and decide on a path to take and then we take it. If there is a law against speaking on street corner, then we have a choice to either speak or not speak. If we speak we may go to jail but we have that option. This is what unalienable means in practical terms. It does not mean that there won't be repercussions for exercising that right. Government can never take away that freedom of choice no matter what laws they enact. Even the most oppressive regimes have political dissidents that are willing to lay down their lives for liberty. One could argue that free will comes from God but in the end it doesn't matter because it is a fact that we have it. You can either agree with me or disagree with me but the fact is that either way you are making a choice and I can't stop you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Fundamental rights are consequently the cornerstone of the doctrine of the rule of law; since they are given by no government or man and can be taken by neither, they are not subject to majority rule, popular vote, or referendum. The state is thus prohibited from preempting these rights absent a compelling interest, and laws seeking restriction are subject to the highest level of judicial review.

 

[dblack]

Another take on this is that all of these freedoms boil down to one freedom. The freedom of thought. In other words "Free will". Before any action we take we think and decide on a path to take and then we take it. If there is a law against speaking on street corner, then we have a choice to either speak or not speak. If we speak we may go to jail but we have that option. This is what unalienable means in practical terms. It does not mean that there won't be repercussions for exercising that right. Government can never take away that freedom of choice no matter what laws they enact. Even the most oppressive regimes have political dissidents that are willing to lay down their lives for liberty. One could argue that free will comes from God but in the end it doesn't matter because it is a fact that we have it. You can either agree with me or disagree with me but the fact is that either way you are making a choice and I can't stop you.

I really like that way of looking at it. Clarifies a lot of the issues with a somewhat different perspective. Thanks!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rights are unalienable even if God does not exist.

You should read the definition of unalienable sometime.

Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor: "inalienable human rights".

Yep, that proves that you definitely need God to have them.

That means there's no such thing.

If your gun rights can't be taken away from you, why are gun nuts always crying about how Obama is going to take your gun rights away?

 

[FA_Q2]

Slander comes to mind. I was just making the more general point that saying government is created to protect unalienable rights doesn't mean it can, or should, protect all of them.

Poor example.....and hardly germane.

I'm certain that you wouldn't attempt to make the argument that one has the unalienable right not to be slandered.


Need we reprise your definition of a right?

Why wouldn't a person have a right not to be slandered? Certainly, if he's just minding his own business, and someone comes along and tells lies about him, hurting him in such a way that damages can be proved, he'll be able sue that person and win in civil court. If we imagine our unalienable rights as a bubble encircling each person, his bubble-space has been violated. He's pursuing his own happiness, not interfering with anyone else's bubble... doesn't he have a "right" to go in peace, unmolested?

But (as I see it) you are both looking at this backward. It has nothing do with the ‘right to not be slandered’ at all. It has to do with your right to free speech. You have that right, it is inherent and it can’t be taken away but it CAN, and in fact is, limited when you use that right in such a way as it harms others. I think that was the point. Speech is an unalienable right yet is limited anyway and there is little to no opposition to this. Whether or not you are from the ‘god’ camp or not.

 

[FA_Q2]

You should read the definition of unalienable sometime.

Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor: "inalienable human rights".

Yep, that proves that you definitely need God to have them.

That means there's no such thing.

If your gun rights can't be taken away from you, why are gun nuts always crying about how Obama is going to take your gun rights away?

You know the answer to this. The inherent right CANNOT be taken away. It CAN be infringed. That is the core to the idea that there are rights that are inalienable.

 

[Cowman]

I'm sure god was far too busy to worry about giving us rights, and instead delegated it to some lesser being. After all, if an infallible being gave us those rights, which are supposedly not able to be repudiated, it's a piss poor job. People invalidate the rights of others all the time.

Maybe they're Satan given rights... to instill in you a belief that god truly loves you and has given you all these wonderful rights, but does nothing to enforce them, leaving them to man instead to enforce(and further define) them. What better way to instill a distrust in god than that?

God-given rights are obviously useless. They're just a placard you can hang on you wall and say, "Hey look what god gave me!".

I'd rather have God-enforced rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor: "inalienable human rights".

Yep, that proves that you definitely need God to have them.

That means there's no such thing.

If your gun rights can't be taken away from you, why are gun nuts always crying about how Obama is going to take your gun rights away?

You know the answer to this. The inherent right CANNOT be taken away. It CAN be infringed. That is the core to the idea that there are rights that are inalienable.

So the right to an abortion, or same sex marriage can't be taken away? They can only be infringed upon?

So why do all those rightwing founding father inalienable rights types want to infringe on those rights?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You should read the definition of unalienable sometime.

Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor: "inalienable human rights".

Yep, that proves that you definitely need God to have them.

That means there's no such thing.

If your gun rights can't be taken away from you, why are gun nuts always crying about how Obama is going to take your gun rights away?

There is a difference between an unalienable right and a legal right. The fact that I actually have to state this fundamental truth at all shows how difficult it would be for me to explain the entire concept to someone of your limited education and intellectual capacity.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The use of God - given Rights was a good counterpoint to the other God given Right argument of those times and times past...

...the Divine Right of Kings.

...which leads to the question, if Kings have a divine right to rule, and the subjects have a divine right not to be ruled...

...how do you settle that argument? I mean intellectually how do you settle it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor: "inalienable human rights".

Yep, that proves that you definitely need God to have them.

That means there's no such thing.

If your gun rights can't be taken away from you, why are gun nuts always crying about how Obama is going to take your gun rights away?

There is a difference between an unalienable right and a legal right. The fact that I actually have to state this fundamental truth at all shows how difficult it would be for me to explain the entire concept to someone of your limited education and intellectual capacity.

Was the divine right of kings an inalienable right? It came from God...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor: "inalienable human rights".

Yep, that proves that you definitely need God to have them.

That means there's no such thing.

If your gun rights can't be taken away from you, why are gun nuts always crying about how Obama is going to take your gun rights away?

There is a difference between an unalienable right and a legal right. The fact that I actually have to state this fundamental truth at all shows how difficult it would be for me to explain the entire concept to someone of your limited education and intellectual capacity.

You really need to grow up.

 

[dblack]

You should read the definition of unalienable sometime.

Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor: "inalienable human rights".

Yep, that proves that you definitely need God to have them.

That means there's no such thing.

If your gun rights can't be taken away from you, why are gun nuts always crying about how Obama is going to take your gun rights away?

You're talking about government no longer protecting a right, or even violating it. Usually when we're discussing "rights" in the political context, your perspective is what we mean. We're interested in coming to consensus on which rights will be protected and which won't.

But the "unalienable rights" concept is something different. It's saying the main purpose of government is to protect the basic rights we start out with before government even enters the picture. And, as C_Clayton points out the state needs to show some compelling reason before they can violate or disregard these rights.

Again, "unalienable" doesn't mean that a right can't be violated - it means that it doesn't have to be granted. Think of it this way: any right that you would have if everyone just left you alone would be considered unalienable. It doesn't require that anyone do anything for you for it to exist.