What does "God-Given Rights" mean?

[Dick Tuck]

"Thou shalt nots" aren't rights, when the punishment is community rock throwing, until you kill someone who told his dad he's full of shit.

 

[FA_Q2]

My 'argument' is not whether or not God created us.

I am pointing out the absurdity and logical fail of any claim that our rights are 'unalienable' if they are just an abstract construct of the fertile imagination of mankind.

That argument is stupid on its face.

You're right. That is an absurd and illogical argument. But its only you who is making it. The rest of us are saying that unalienable freedom is the default state of any being with volition. It's not a 'construct', it's the nature of the existence of a conscious mind.

If you believe that God created us, and the world we live in - then it makes sense for you to believe he is the source of that state of freedom. But even if you don't, freedom is still the default state of being. The question of god, or natural vs. supernatural is utterly irrelevant to that observation.

That is ridiculous.

Explain to me how carbon atoms have such a 'default state of being. '

I will wait.

I’ll help your insanity here, read the rest of the statement (large font just for you…)

To the religious ones here that are fighting dblacks original post so hard, what is so unacceptable about this stance?

You mean what is unacceptable about his ignoring the most important and central concept of the foundation of America - that of supernatural unalienable rights?

Tell us what the functional difference is in recognizing that rights are given by God vs right being the natural state of being?


Oh wait… I forgot…

 

[antagon]

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...

Self-determination is not removable from a person, inherently. The unalienable construct refers to this.

Jefferson says this is from our creator, pointing out that it is part of the human condition, and goes on to describe how government is given mandate by the governed to standardize and sort out rights.

 

[Murf76]

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.

For our purposes though, and in the context of creating a harmonious society... your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. We can't look at unalienable rights and the government's responsibility to secure them without thinking about what it is that we're trying to accomplish. If we were all alone on a desert island with no other nose in proximity of our fist, then yeah.. our rights are unlimited, swing away. But that's not the reality of the situation. The reality of the situation is that we ALL are possessed of the same rights, but in the context of civil society, we can't exercise them at the expense of another. Hence the limits.

So yeah, the guy who is slandered does have a right to be left alone, just as the guy who does the slandering has the right to free speech. But it's the aggressor who actively abrogates the rights of another who gets into trouble when the rights of two people come into conflict. The slanderer's swing has met with someone else's nose.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

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.

Unalienable: Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable.

Nope, no mention of god in there. You see, I can flap my gums all day long whether I believe in god or not. There is nothing, short of killing me, that can stop me from exercising my unalienable right to speech.

Quick question though. If tomorrow you found that god doesn't exist, would you stop exercising your freedom of speech because there's no one to grant it to you anymore?

 

[FA_Q2]

For our purposes though, and in the context of creating a harmonious society... your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. We can't look at unalienable rights and the government's responsibility to secure them without thinking about what it is that we're trying to accomplish. If we were all alone on a desert island with no other nose in proximity of our fist, then yeah.. our rights are unlimited, swing away. But that's not the reality of the situation. The reality of the situation is that we ALL are possessed of the same rights, but in the context of civil society, we can't exercise them at the expense of another. Hence the limits.

So yeah, the guy who is slandered does have a right to be left alone, just as the guy who does the slandering has the right to free speech. But it's the aggressor who actively abrogates the rights of another who gets into trouble when the rights of two people come into conflict. The slanderer's swing has met with someone else's nose.

Well, yes of course but I don’t think you have to view it in the resect that you have a right to not be bothered because then the list of rights that you have would be never ending. Do I also have a right to not have a plane land on my head? How about a right to not have your dog defecates on my lawn? Sure, these are things that I should not be subject to but not because I have a RIGHT for those things to not happen. In the context of unalienable rights, the entire concept is lost as unalienable rights are a construct of the individual alone without a second party. Essentally, I am saying that you do NOT have a right to not be slanders but another also does not have the right to use their right to speech to harm you.

Put another way, I can, in fact, legally slander you as long as it causes no harm (apart from the semantics argument). For instance, I can call you a moronic sycophant that likes to eat small children for breakfast. None of it is true but none of that actually causes you harm. You have no right to not be slandered. What I lack is the right to harm you with my rights a la the fist and nose analogy that you used.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rights are unalienable even if God does not exist.

You should read the definition of unalienable sometime.

Unalienable: Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable.

Nope, no mention of god in there. You see, I can flap my gums all day long whether I believe in god or not. There is nothing, short of killing me, that can stop me from exercising my unalienable right to speech.

Quick question though. If tomorrow you found that god doesn't exist, would you stop exercising your freedom of speech because there's no one to grant it to you anymore?

At the roots of human existence, at its most primitive state, if we believe our fellow primates are any indication,

then government such as it was was never naturally determined democratically. The dominant male would command obedience and deference by virtue of his power to do so; the lesser males had fewer rights and privileges. THAT was the NATURAL order of things.

 

[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'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.

But there is no 'everyone left you alone'.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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...

Self-determination is not removable from a person, inherently. The unalienable construct refers to this.

Jefferson says this is from our creator, pointing out that it is part of the human condition, and goes on to describe how government is given mandate by the governed to standardize and sort out rights.

Using wiki for an apt description:

"The divine right of kings, or divine-right theory of kingship, is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people...."

So what made the believers of that religious source of right(s) wrong?

Where in the Bible, if we use the Bible as a reference source of what we are led to believe God believes,

does God favor the democratic over the autocratic? Where does God endorse the Bill of Rights, or any such equivalent or similarity?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

You don't, which probably explains why you can safely argue that the Founders were not Christians. Please, keep thinking you know what you are talking about and making stupid posts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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...

What is the divine right of kings? Do you even know what that means? What, exactly, makes that right unalienable?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I need to grow up? Why? Because I confuse you?

 

[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?

You don't, which probably explains why you can safely argue that the Founders were not Christians. Please, keep thinking you know what you are talking about and making stupid posts.

Did you just get off the truck? Do you really think childish attempts at insults have any impact on me?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

I need to grow up? Why? Because I confuse you?

No, because presumably you have reached the age where at least acting like a grown up would be age appropriate.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

For our purposes though, and in the context of creating a harmonious society... your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. We can't look at unalienable rights and the government's responsibility to secure them without thinking about what it is that we're trying to accomplish. If we were all alone on a desert island with no other nose in proximity of our fist, then yeah.. our rights are unlimited, swing away. But that's not the reality of the situation. The reality of the situation is that we ALL are possessed of the same rights, but in the context of civil society, we can't exercise them at the expense of another. Hence the limits.

So yeah, the guy who is slandered does have a right to be left alone, just as the guy who does the slandering has the right to free speech. But it's the aggressor who actively abrogates the rights of another who gets into trouble when the rights of two people come into conflict. The slanderer's swing has met with someone else's nose.

Why do people think that legal rights and natural rights are the same fracking thing?

Slander is a legal concept, not a natural one. It involves one person saying something that the legal system says is unlawful. That cannot happen outside of a society that has a government structure that makes slander actionable.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Self-determination is not removable from a person, inherently. The unalienable construct refers to this.

Jefferson says this is from our creator, pointing out that it is part of the human condition, and goes on to describe how government is given mandate by the governed to standardize and sort out rights.

Using wiki for an apt description:

"The divine right of kings, or divine-right theory of kingship, is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people...."

So what made the believers of that religious source of right(s) wrong?

Where in the Bible, if we use the Bible as a reference source of what we are led to believe God believes,

does God favor the democratic over the autocratic? Where does God endorse the Bill of Rights, or any such equivalent or similarity?

No, because no one is saying religion is a source of rights. What we are saying is that government is not the source of rights. That, as usual, makes you wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

You don't, which probably explains why you can safely argue that the Founders were not Christians. Please, keep thinking you know what you are talking about and making stupid posts.

Did you just get off the truck? Do you really think childish attempts at insults have any impact on me?

Get off what truck?

I don't think anything will impact you, including reality. I think you are flat out to stupid to let anything, including the truth, change your mind. I just happen to enjoy insulting people so I throw them in whenever I feel lie it.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Self-determination is not removable from a person, inherently. The unalienable construct refers to this.

Jefferson says this is from our creator, pointing out that it is part of the human condition, and goes on to describe how government is given mandate by the governed to standardize and sort out rights.

Using wiki for an apt description:

"The divine right of kings, or divine-right theory of kingship, is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people...."

So what made the believers of that religious source of right(s) wrong?

Where in the Bible, if we use the Bible as a reference source of what we are led to believe God believes,

does God favor the democratic over the autocratic? Where does God endorse the Bill of Rights, or any such equivalent or similarity?

No, because no one is saying religion is a source of rights. What we are saying is that government is not the source of rights. That, as usual, makes you wrong.

Our rights are those that we give ourselves, through our government and our conscience. Our basic civil rights are those given by our constitution and laws. Those rights deprived are those limited by law.

Religion has nothing to do with it, in a secular society. Our rights are greater, since we rid ourselves of religions deciding them for us.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Using wiki for an apt description:

"The divine right of kings, or divine-right theory of kingship, is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people...."

So what made the believers of that religious source of right(s) wrong?

Where in the Bible, if we use the Bible as a reference source of what we are led to believe God believes,

does God favor the democratic over the autocratic? Where does God endorse the Bill of Rights, or any such equivalent or similarity?

No, because no one is saying religion is a source of rights. What we are saying is that government is not the source of rights. That, as usual, makes you wrong.

Our rights are those that we give ourselves, through our government and our conscience. Our basic civil rights are those given by our constitution and laws. Those rights deprived are those limited by law.

Religion has nothing to do with it, in a secular society. Our rights are greater, since we rid ourselves of religions deciding them for us.

Wrong again.

Tell me something, if rights are something we give ourselves why do other primates have an innate sense of fair play, of right and wrong? I really don't want to rehash the same arguments again, so I will just point you to the thread where I already showed that right and wrong are not something we made up.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...me-from-nature-and-god-as-paul-ryan-says.html

 

[Dick Tuck]

No, because no one is saying religion is a source of rights. What we are saying is that government is not the source of rights. That, as usual, makes you wrong.

Our rights are those that we give ourselves, through our government and our conscience. Our basic civil rights are those given by our constitution and laws. Those rights deprived are those limited by law.

Religion has nothing to do with it, in a secular society. Our rights are greater, since we rid ourselves of religions deciding them for us.

Wrong again.

Tell me something, if rights are something we give ourselves why do other primates have an innate sense of fair play, of right and wrong? I really don't want to rehash the same arguments again, so I will just point you to the thread where I already showed that right and wrong are not something we made up.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...me-from-nature-and-god-as-paul-ryan-says.html

Primates have a sense of fair play? You're an idiot. Rights are certainly manufactured, hopefully using logic and secular ethics. They're not something that God gave us. If I believe the bible thumpers, God takes away rights, and has done so since Adam and Eve sought out knowledge.