What does "God-Given Rights" mean?

[Quantum Windbag]

it should be obvious that "we the people" have created our rights through the Constitution and many processes such as the American Revolution and people giving their lives for freedom in various conflicts and struggeles in this country and elsewhere. If God is the one who gave us our rights, then I'd say the framers wanting to separate from England and the church indicates the opposite because the church told people what their rights were. Our founders did exactly the opposite, separating church from state and making our rights secular. Creator could mean many things and it doesn't automatically men God.

Countries around the world are also proof that God didn't give people rights because there is so much oppression and dictate from MEN in countries where freedoms are rare. Enlightened citizens are the ones who create the environments and the conditions conducive to our freedoms and rights and it quite obviously has been an evolutionary process over centuries--from slavery to more freedoms for all.

Preamble to the US Constitution:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Wow! Everything you type is so important it comes out bold!

It comes out bold not because it's so important but because I have a vision problem and I can read the type better. I have to enlarge other posts that aren't that way in order to read them. Jumping to erroneous conclusions about people is your forte' I suppose?

You should change the default font size in your browser.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Rights are unalienable even if God does not exist.

I agree. But if we explicitly predicate them as being God-given, then that's another story entirely.

The only person trying to do that is you. The clear intent of the founders was to point out that rights are not something the government can interfere with.

 

[there4eyeM]

What a lot of hot air about an idea being turned into an absolute in this thread.

Rights | Define Rights at Dictionary.com

I particularly like this:
a moral, ethical, or legal principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics.

Relative and subjective, as are all words.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, I get that, and I'm inclined to somewhat agree that the "source" of the rights in question is not really the meat and potatoes.

But...

My comment was directed toward the supposition of one who is looking at the source of those "inalienable" rights as being of divine origin. If THAT is to be the postulate, then the result is that we are dealing with a divine entitlement program. Now while you might be thinking I'm merely being facetious, hold on just a moment and recognize that in fact I'm opening up a whole new line of exploration.

Were our founders, in their own ways, entitlement "junkies" who were demanding that to which they were entitled by God, particularly an Abrahamic God? Is there, in fact, a nexus between the entitlement mindset and the religious mindset? Some people think that the reason Hispanics are so inclined to be Democrats is because of the immigration issue. I suggest that in fact such an explanation is superficial. Mexico is a very religious culture. Perhaps the same divinely entitled mentality translates into a worldly entitlement mentality.

The problem with your proposition is you calling it an entitlement. If God entitled us to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness He would have to enforce that entitlement somehow. I await your explanation of how God guarantees is access to these rights you want to say we are divinely entitled to.

Alternatively, you could just admit you stepped into it here, and attempt to rephrase your position in a way that doesn't end up requiring God to enforce something when you are also arguing that He does not actually exist.

My personal experience with Hispanics is that they are generally more likely to agree with Republicans about entitlement programs. They tend to vote Democratic for other reasons. Learning why they do that might teach you to think of them as individuals. That might cure you of your racism.

You're calling him a racist while forming an opinion about Latinos based on your personal experience?

No, I formed an opinion about Hispanics based on my personal experience. Not sure how that would make me a racist, since racist form opinions based on beliefs that are not based on actual experience, but thanks for proving you are even dumber than TM.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What a lot of hot air about an idea being turned into an absolute in this thread.

Rights | Define Rights at Dictionary.com

I particularly like this:
a moral, ethical, or legal principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics.

Relative and subjective, as are all words.

English is not your native tongue, is it?

 

[there4eyeM]

Does the word 'considered' challenge you?

It is similar to the sense of 'hold' in the Declaration.

Believe.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Does the word 'considered' challenge you?

Not nearly as much as it challenges you.


1. thought about or decided upon with care: a considered opinion.

2. regarded with respect or esteem:

 

[there4eyeM]

Does the word 'considered' challenge you?

Not nearly as much as it challenges you.


1. thought about or decided upon with care: a considered opinion.

2. regarded with respect or esteem:

Again, you prove my point. Decided by whom? Considered by whom? Not a human being?
If you are referring to people, these terms are relative.

Is anyone else getting this?

 

[9thIDdoc]

The Declaration of Independence in no way establishes or seeks to establish any rights for anyone.
It is simply a declaration of revolution (a confession of treason) that provides explaination for the action.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The problem with your proposition is you calling it an entitlement. If God entitled us to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness He would have to enforce that entitlement somehow. I await your explanation of how God guarantees is access to these rights you want to say we are divinely entitled to.

How is that any different than if God gave us "rights"? He would still have to enforce that somehow.

Alternatively, you could just admit you stepped into it here, and attempt to rephrase your position in a way that doesn't end up requiring God to enforce something when you are also arguing that He does not actually exist.

I didn't "step in it." And yes, I maintain that "God" in the Abrahamic sense does not exist, because I have a different belief. But that is pretty irrelevant here. The question is no whether such God exists. The question regards the nature of rights, under the assumption that they are "God" given.

My personal experience with Hispanics is that they are generally more likely to agree with Republicans about entitlement programs. They tend to vote Democratic for other reasons. Learning why they do that might teach you to think of them as individuals. That might cure you of your racism.

Mate, you're talking to a Hispanic! Live in South Texas for a while, and see how many Hispanics are lined up at social services looking for food stamps. See how many Mexicans are coming into the US illegally because they think that the fact that they want to be here automatically entitles them to be here, to get free medical treatment at hospitals, have the entire country speak THEIR language, etc. You think the reason illegals want citizenship is because they want to actually become Americans? HAAA! It's because they want a slice of all the benefits they think they're already entitled to.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Rights are unalienable even if God does not exist.

I agree. But if we explicitly predicate them as being God-given, then that's another story entirely.

The only person trying to do that is you.

Maybe you should read the title of the thread.

Also, I've already given a thorough treatment to the fact that my position is that inalienable rights are NOT God given, and are possessed by people completely separate of divine concern.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

Jefferson was most certainly making a statement about where rights come from.

It is in plain language. It is important and critical.

'endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.'

"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies."
- Thomas Jefferson

Simple-minded Teabaggers​

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Does the word 'considered' challenge you?

Not nearly as much as it challenges you.


1. thought about or decided upon with care: a considered opinion.

2. regarded with respect or esteem:

Again, you prove my point. Decided by whom? Considered by whom? Not a human being?
If you are referring to people, these terms are relative.

Is anyone else getting this?

Is your point that you don't understand English?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How is that any different than if God gave us "rights"? He would still have to enforce that somehow.

I challenge you to explain how God is going to enforce the entitlements He gave us, and you respond that He has to enforce them. That is circular logic, and only proves you can't debate.

I didn't "step in it." And yes, I maintain that "God" in the Abrahamic sense does not exist, because I have a different belief. But that is pretty irrelevant here. The question is no whether such God exists. The question regards the nature of rights, under the assumption that they are "God" given.

I am not constrained to argue within your flawed world view. You actually have to prove that God given rights are an entitlement before I have to deal with how that works in the real world. Since that would require that you prove that God exists and that He actively interferes in the world, something you cannot do, your question is not valid.

Mate, you're talking to a Hispanic! Live in South Texas for a while, and see how many Hispanics are lined up at social services looking for food stamps. See how many Mexicans are coming into the US illegally because they think that the fact that they want to be here automatically entitles them to be here, to get free medical treatment at hospitals, have the entire country speak THEIR language, etc. You think the reason illegals want citizenship is because they want to actually become Americans? HAAA! It's because they want a slice of all the benefits they think they're already entitled to.

Your claim of being Hispanic does not automatically negate you being a racist. I personally know one black man that hates blacks because they are all drug addicts and live on welfare.

By the way, I grew up in El Paso, the largest border crossing in the country, there is nothing you can tell me about Hispanics I do not already know.You are a racist, get over it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I agree. But if we explicitly predicate them as being God-given, then that's another story entirely.

The only person trying to do that is you.

Maybe you should read the title of the thread.

Also, I've already given a thorough treatment to the fact that my position is that inalienable rights are NOT God given, and are possessed by people completely separate of divine concern.

Maybe you should read the OP.

 

[beretta304]

Anyone else sick of this thread?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

One must assume Jefferson was referring to ‘government’ in a comprehensive context, to also include the judiciary, as it is otherwise not government’s place to ‘secure’ or ‘protect’ innate freedoms. The executive, judicial, and legislative are subject to the Constitution and its case law, and are bound to function only within the limits set by legal precedent. Indeed, it is the nature of government to always probe those limits, forever searching for some weakness to exploit, in an effort to gain, retain, and expand control over the state.

It could be argued that one’s innate rights and government are fundamentally at odds.

But it is inane to debate the supremacy of God versus the supremacy of government, as one’s inalienable rights exist whether a god exists or not.

No one gives up their citizen rights when they're hired for a government job. People STILL have the right to free speech and to worship as they please.

And no one ever said they couldn’t.

But the doctrine of separation of church and state is in the Constitution, as part of its case law, and the Constitution exists only in the context of that case law. The individual has always been free to express himself, both with regard to speech and religion; that’s not the case for the state, however, where certain circumstances and conditions prohibit conjoining religion and government.

 

[Murf76]

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.

One must assume Jefferson was referring to ‘government’ in a comprehensive context, to also include the judiciary, as it is otherwise not government’s place to ‘secure’ or ‘protect’ innate freedoms. The executive, judicial, and legislative are subject to the Constitution and its case law, and are bound to function only within the limits set by legal precedent. Indeed, it is the nature of government to always probe those limits, forever searching for some weakness to exploit, in an effort to gain, retain, and expand control over the state.

It could be argued that one’s innate rights and government are fundamentally at odds.

But it is inane to debate the supremacy of God versus the supremacy of government, as one’s inalienable rights exist whether a god exists or not.

No one gives up their citizen rights when they're hired for a government job. People STILL have the right to free speech and to worship as they please.

And no one ever said they couldn’t.

But the doctrine of separation of church and state is in the Constitution, as part of its case law, and the Constitution exists only in the context of that case law. The individual has always been free to express himself, both with regard to speech and religion; that’s not the case for the state, however, where certain circumstances and conditions prohibit conjoining religion and government.

'The Constitution exists only in the context of case law'??? Seriously?
Tell me then... when did the several States ratify all this "case law"? Point out to us EXACTLY where the doctrine of separation of church and state exists within the U.S. Constitution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton:


'The fundamental source of all your errors, sophisms, and false reasonings, is a total ignorance of the natural rights of mankind. Were you once to become acquainted with these, you could never entertain a thought, that all men are not, by nature, entitled to a parity of privileges.

You would be convinced, that natural liberty is a gift of the beneficent Creator, to the whole human race; and that civil liberty is founded in that; and cannot be wrested from any people, without the most manifest violation of justice.'


There is and was no ambiguity as to the source of our rights, and to what makes them unalienable above the whims of man.

The opinion of Alexander Hamilton is no more important than yours or mine.

The argument for equal rights is an argument best supported, as are all arguments, by reason and logic, not by the invented dictates of some imaginary being endowed by Man with special privileges, power, and wisdom.

Again, you are welcome to your opinion.

What you are not welcome to is pretending our rights are 'unalienable' if they were just dreamed up by mankind in the first place.

That is illogical and stupid on its face.

Of course rights were 'dreamed up'. Even the supposed word of God in the Bible doesn't establish a set of rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That is not the issue. The issue is that it is stupid on its face, and absurdly illogical, to pretend that 'unalienable' rights exist if man came up with them using his fertile imagination.

It is illogical to summarily dismiss the possibility that the Founders were simply WRONG on where rights come from.

Thank you for agreeing with my critique of the OP. There is no ambiguity as to what the FF intended.

Slaveowners arguing for the unalienable rights of Men are profoundly ambiguous.