CNN Anchor: ‘Our Rights Do Not Come From God’

[sealybobo]

We AGREE to rely on the founding document.

no we don't!! to hold office we take an oath to protect and defend the genius of Aristotle Cicero and Jesus precisely because we don't want to be killed by liberals like you HItler Stalin and Mao.

Notice how exactly like HItler Stalin and Mao you are a total illiterate who wants to jump up and down saying I may be an illiterate dope but I know my rights and I'm qualified to assert them just like our Founders!! Why not get an education if you can learn at all or stay out of the discussion for the good of humanity?

Keep in mind all those leaders used religion to control their very stupid and religious citizens.

Hitler may not have believed in god but the German people were catholic sheep.

ROFLMNAO!

Humanists ALL... Setting aside Histler, Stalin and Mao murdered 125 MILLION >INNOCENT< HUMAN BEINGS.

They were both ANTI-THEISTS... Humanists, if ya will, and they proved in less than 30 years, IN PEACE TIME, as the most prolific mass-murderers in human history, that the Humanism common to the Ideological Left IS THE MOST LETHAL ORGANISM ON EARTH, second only to DISEASE.

The italians and germans that murdered for Hitler and moussilini were catholic christians.

 

[Contumacious]

We've simply had this conversation before so many times. Its the same conversation: you believe in anarchy. I don't.

Why is the belief that men are endowed with Natural rights anarchism?!?!?!?!?

You: "How do we define rights, how do we protect rights."

Me: "Though our common agreement on a constitution. And through laws and our judiciary"

WHICH Constitution are you referring to?

How did "we" agree on a Constitution when we diametrically disagree what it protects and the powers that it grants?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?

 

[ogibillm]

We've simply had this conversation before so many times. Its the same conversation: you believe in anarchy. I don't.

Why is the belief that men are endowed with Natural rights anarchism?!?!?!?!?

You: "How do we define rights, how do we protect rights."

Me: "Though our common agreement on a constitution. And through laws and our judiciary"

WHICH Constitution are you referring to?

How did "we" agree on a Constitution when we diametrically disagree what it protects and the powers that it grants?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?

let's assume that he meant the constitution of the united states.

we may disagree on interpretation, but luckily there is a court system to settle those disagreements. in the meantime, we, meaning us citizens, have chosen to live under that constitution, and have thus agreed to it.

 

[Contumacious]

We've simply had this conversation before so many times. Its the same conversation: you believe in anarchy. I don't.

Why is the belief that men are endowed with Natural rights anarchism?!?!?!?!?

You: "How do we define rights, how do we protect rights."

Me: "Though our common agreement on a constitution. And through laws and our judiciary"

WHICH Constitution are you referring to?

How did "we" agree on a Constitution when we diametrically disagree what it protects and the powers that it grants?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?

let's assume that he meant the constitution of the united states.

we may disagree on interpretation, but luckily there is a court system to settle those disagreements. in the meantime, we, meaning us citizens, have chosen to live under that constitution, and have thus agreed to it.

BULLSHIT.

How can we agree that there is a "court" system to settle disagreements when we have a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state?

How can we agree that there is a "court" system to settle disagreements when the same amends and substitutes the very document which grant its authority?!?!?!?!

How can we agree that there is a "court" system to settle disagreements when the same has made itself immune from lawsuits from "WE THE PEOPLE"?

.




.

 

[ogibillm]

We've simply had this conversation before so many times. Its the same conversation: you believe in anarchy. I don't.

Why is the belief that men are endowed with Natural rights anarchism?!?!?!?!?

You: "How do we define rights, how do we protect rights."

Me: "Though our common agreement on a constitution. And through laws and our judiciary"

WHICH Constitution are you referring to?

How did "we" agree on a Constitution when we diametrically disagree what it protects and the powers that it grants?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?

let's assume that he meant the constitution of the united states.

we may disagree on interpretation, but luckily there is a court system to settle those disagreements. in the meantime, we, meaning us citizens, have chosen to live under that constitution, and have thus agreed to it.

BULLSHIT.

How can we agree that there is a "court" system to settle disagreements when we have a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state?

How can we agree that there is a "court" system to settle disagreements when the same amends and substitutes the very document which grant its authority?!?!?!?!

How can we agree that there is a "court" system to settle disagreements when the same has made itself immune from lawsuits from "WE THE PEOPLE"?


.

well, you in particular may not agree, but as a civilized nation those are the rules, and we've agreed to live under them.
and whether or not you agree with how it's run, the fact is that government exists, and that we use that government to safeguard rights that we've agreed to in this society.

 

[Contumacious]

We've simply had this conversation before so many times. Its the same conversation: you believe in anarchy. I don't.

Why is the belief that men are endowed with Natural rights anarchism?!?!?!?!?

You: "How do we define rights, how do we protect rights."

Me: "Though our common agreement on a constitution. And through laws and our judiciary"

WHICH Constitution are you referring to?

How did "we" agree on a Constitution when we diametrically disagree what it protects and the powers that it grants?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?

let's assume that he meant the constitution of the united states.

we may disagree on interpretation, but luckily there is a court system to settle those disagreements. in the meantime, we, meaning us citizens, have chosen to live under that constitution, and have thus agreed to it.

BULLSHIT.

How can we agree that there is a "court" system to settle disagreements when we have a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state?

How can we agree that there is a "court" system to settle disagreements when the same amends and substitutes the very document which grant its authority?!?!?!?!

How can we agree that there is a "court" system to settle disagreements when the same has made itself immune from lawsuits from "WE THE PEOPLE"?


.

well, you in particular may not agree, but as a civilized nation those are the rules, and we've agreed to live under them.
and whether or not you agree with how it's run, the fact is that government exists, and that we use that government to safeguard rights that we've agreed to in this society.

As a civilized nation which are the rules?

Who is we?

I thought one of the rules was to have an independent , impartial uncorrupted judiciary?

.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

We AGREE to rely on the founding document.

no we don't!! to hold office we take an oath to protect and defend the genius of Aristotle Cicero and Jesus precisely because we don't want to be killed by liberals like you HItler Stalin and Mao.

Notice how exactly like HItler Stalin and Mao you are a total illiterate who wants to jump up and down saying I may be an illiterate dope but I know my rights and I'm qualified to assert them just like our Founders!! Why not get an education if you can learn at all or stay out of the discussion for the good of humanity?

Keep in mind all those leaders used religion to control their very stupid and religious citizens.

Hitler may not have believed in god but the German people were catholic sheep.

ROFLMNAO!

Humanists ALL... Setting aside Histler, Stalin and Mao murdered 125 MILLION >INNOCENT< HUMAN BEINGS.

They were both ANTI-THEISTS... Humanists, if ya will, and they proved in less than 30 years, IN PEACE TIME, as the most prolific mass-murderers in human history, that the Humanism common to the Ideological Left IS THE MOST LETHAL ORGANISM ON EARTH, second only to DISEASE.

The italians and germans that murdered for Hitler and moussilini were catholic christians.

dear, many religions were practiced by the soldiers of WW2 but it was not a religious war.

Do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

How can we agree that there is a "court" system to settle disagreements when we have a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state?
.

1) we agree that there is a court system to settle disagreements because we can see it and touch it eveyday

2) having a welfare/warfare police state is not related to the existence of a court system.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

We AGREE to rely on the founding document.

no we don't!! to hold office we take an oath to protect and defend the genius of Aristotle Cicero and Jesus precisely because we don't want to be killed by liberals like you HItler Stalin and Mao.

Notice how exactly like HItler Stalin and Mao you are a total illiterate who wants to jump up and down saying I may be an illiterate dope but I know my rights and I'm qualified to assert them just like our Founders!! Why not get an education if you can learn at all or stay out of the discussion for the good of humanity?

Keep in mind all those leaders used religion to control their very stupid and religious citizens.

Hitler may not have believed in god but the German people were catholic sheep.

ROFLMNAO!

Humanists ALL... Setting aside Histler, Stalin and Mao murdered 125 MILLION >INNOCENT< HUMAN BEINGS.

They were both ANTI-THEISTS... Humanists, if ya will, and they proved in less than 30 years, IN PEACE TIME, as the most prolific mass-murderers in human history, that the Humanism common to the Ideological Left IS THE MOST LETHAL ORGANISM ON EARTH, second only to DISEASE.

Stalin was a 'humanist'? Hitler was a 'humanist'? Mao was a 'humanist'?

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Humanist:

1: a person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity.

Humanist Define Humanist at Dictionary.com

If that's how you see Hitler and Stalin, holy shit dude.

??? liberals saw them that way, thats why they spied for them and why they gave Stalin the bomb!! what planet have you been on.

 

[Contumacious]

How can we agree that there is a "court" system to settle disagreements when we have a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state?
.

1) we agree that there is a court system to settle disagreements because we can see it and touch it eveyday

2) having a welfare/warfare police state is not related to the existence of a court system.

Bullshit,

a Kangaroo Court is not a court system

The Court system was supposed to act a a bulwark of liberty thereby protecting us from a welfare/warfare police state.

.

 

[regent]

How can we agree that there is a "court" system to settle disagreements when we have a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state?
.

1) we agree that there is a court system to settle disagreements because we can see it and touch it eveyday

2) having a welfare/warfare police state is not related to the existence of a court system.

Bullshit,

a Kangaroo Court is not a court system

The Court system was supposed to act a a bulwark of liberty thereby protecting us from a welfare/warfare police state.

.

Is that just your opinion or is that written down somewhere, maybe in the Constitution?

 

[mikegriffith1]

When someone makes that statement, you know they are ignorant of basic American history. The recognition that our rights come from God and that government's job is to protect those rights was the main thing that set America apart from previous nations in history (to a certain extent, the same was true of England).

When someone says our rights don't come from God, they are agreeing with the likes of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Vladimir Lenin, etc., etc. That's not the kind of company I care to keep.

 

[Contumacious]

How can we agree that there is a "court" system to settle disagreements when we have a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state?
.

1) we agree that there is a court system to settle disagreements because we can see it and touch it eveyday

2) having a welfare/warfare police state is not related to the existence of a court system.

Bullshit,

a Kangaroo Court is not a court system

The Court system was supposed to act a a bulwark of liberty thereby protecting us from a welfare/warfare police state.

.

Is that just your opinion or is that written down somewhere, maybe in the Constitution?

Excuse me ignorass, why adopt a Constitution , if the motherfuckers can ignore it willy-nilly.

.


.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

How can we agree that there is a "court" system to settle disagreements when we have a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state?
.

1) we agree that there is a court system to settle disagreements because we can see it and touch it eveyday

2) having a welfare/warfare police state is not related to the existence of a court system.

Bullshit,

a Kangaroo Court is not a court system

The Court system was supposed to act a a bulwark of liberty thereby protecting us from a welfare/warfare police state.

.

Well the court was given very little power in the Constitution. Even after judical review (Marbury Madison) it did not occur to anyone for 100 years that the court should decide if a law was Constitutional. Jefferson did not want the court to decide anything even then becuase he thought it was too liberal.

The sad fact is the Constitution was too vague to prevent liberals, the very cancer they feared most.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

When someone makes that statement, you know they are ignorant of basic American history. The recognition that our rights come from God and that government's job is to protect those rights was the main thing that set America apart from previous nations in history (to a certain extent, the same was true of England).

When someone says our rights don't come from God, they are agreeing with the likes of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Vladimir Lenin, etc., etc. That's not the kind of company I care to keep.

well rights from God conflict with the rights liberals want us to have which explains why only liberals object to natural rights and basic American principles.

 

[ogibillm]

When someone makes that statement, you know they are ignorant of basic American history. The recognition that our rights come from God and that government's job is to protect those rights was the main thing that set America apart from previous nations in history (to a certain extent, the same was true of England).

When someone says our rights don't come from God, they are agreeing with the likes of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Vladimir Lenin, etc., etc. That's not the kind of company I care to keep.

that's just retarded on its face.
where did god set out these divine, natural rights? how do we know which ones are really, truly natural rights and which are just the whims of the times? why haven't these natural rights existed for most of history, and why do they change?

they're a human creation. doesn't make them any more or less important, but they're man made social contracts.

 

[guno]

When someone makes that statement, you know they are ignorant of basic American history. The recognition that our rights come from God and that government's job is to protect those rights was the main thing that set America apart from previous nations in history (to a certain extent, the same was true of England).

When someone says our rights don't come from God, they are agreeing with the likes of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Vladimir Lenin, etc., etc. That's not the kind of company I care to keep.

well rights from God conflict with the rights liberals want us to have which explains why only liberals object to natural rights and basic American principles.

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814


And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

that's just retarded on its face.
.

Dear, firstly, Aristotle, Locke and Jefferson were geniuses, not retarded at all. Are you a typical liberal illiterate? The laws of a physics, for example, came from learning to understanding what was natural and has existed forever. Human rights are very similar.

Do you understand now?

 

[guno]

John Adams. The man who followed Washington in office was a Unitarian, although he was raised a Congregationalist and never officially left that church. Adams rejected belief in the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, core concepts of Christian dogma. In his personal writings, Adams makes it clear that he considered Christian dogma to be incomprehensible.

In February 1756, Adams wrote in his diary about a discussion he had had with a man named Major Greene. Greene was a devout Christian who sought to persuade Adams to adopt conservative Christian views. The two argued over the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity. Questioned on the matter of Jesus’ divinity, Greene fell back on an old standby: some matters of theology are too complex and mysterious for we puny humans to understand.

Adams was not impressed. In his diary he wrote, “Thus mystery is made a convenient cover for absurdity.”

As president, Adams signed the famous Treaty of Tripoli, which boldly stated, “[T]he government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion….”

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

When someone makes that statement, you know they are ignorant of basic American history. The recognition that our rights come from God and that government's job is to protect those rights was the main thing that set America apart from previous nations in history (to a certain extent, the same was true of England).

When someone says our rights don't come from God, they are agreeing with the likes of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Vladimir Lenin, etc., etc. That's not the kind of company I care to keep.

well rights from God conflict with the rights liberals want us to have which explains why only liberals object to natural rights and basic American principles.

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814


And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816

Yes, Jefferson more believed in natural rights than God given rights and used the term God mostly to refer to natural rights. Edmund Burke, another founding conservative, believed rights came from traditions rather than God or nature. But that only begs the question, where did God, nature, and tradition come from.


Declaration of Independence( to show you the ambiguity in the issue from the get go):

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.