Do our rights come from nature and God as Paul Ryan says?

[buckeye45_73]

Paul Ryan keeps saying our rights come from nature and God not the government. Actually, they come from "we the people" and we decide the rights that government puts foward through our representatives, referendums and so forth. Nature dictates some of our limitiations only. But we have been able to overcome a lot of those. God? If you believe in him, I thought he gave us free will to decide things for ourselves?

He says that because conservatives for some inexplicable reason like to say it, and like to hear it.

The question they won't answer is which rights came from God.

you do know that is in the Declaration of Independance? let me guess all your teachers said the founders were atheists and deists?

You lack of fundamental knowledge make me LMFAO

 

[Murf76]

So these rights are something you have decided to believe in.

Fortunately for you, no. What matters is that our system is based on them being unalienable because they are issued from God.

You don't have to believe, but go out and violate your neighbors right to life with hammer and see what happens.

Of course something happens, but is that "something" due to God or because of government or "righteous" human anger?

Why would there be "righteous" human anger if no wrong had occurred. What's wrong with attacking people with hammers? If you can get a law passed that says 'all citizens may engage in hammer attacks as they please', is that an okay law? If not, why not?

 

[G.T.]

The source is Nature. And as I pointed out earlier, believers in God also believe God created Nature. So these concepts are intertwined for them. Note as well that in our Founders day, the use of such verbiage was commonplace and conventional. Atheism, while not unheard of, was not socially embraced. And yet, the freedom to practice it, along with every other belief system, was protected from the "establishment" of a national religion.

Unless you're willing to deny Nature exists, the source of Nature is immaterial.

If you want to classify man's ability to reason, as "Nature," then we don't even have a disagreement.

I'm simply arguing that rights didn't exist until men observed with their brains the best possible ways to co-exist - and to me that's ALL that rights really are, in practice.

Sacrifices to Gods and such used to be acceptable.

Through reason, we realize that this isn't a practical or ideal way to co-exist. We advance another notch.

We shouldn't be having a disagreement. As I've said repeatedly, the belief in God is not necessary to an understanding of unalienable rights, no matter what verbiage was used for the sake of posterity by our Founders. They wrote in the style of the day, but when given ample opportunity to inflict their own religious beliefs upon the nation, they stayed their hands.

Human sacrifices to the gods were once socially acceptable to certain peoples throughout history. But they were still WRONG, even as they happened. Because they abrogated the innate right of a human being to exist, unmolested by other people. As I said earlier, slavery wasn't wrong, if what it required to observe that it's wrong was to try it out first and see if it worked out or not. We can see through the rearview mirror that it was certainly wrong, but it was just as wrong when it was happening as it is through the lens of history.

We are disagreeing, though -

I posit they come from man's reason,

You posit - from Nature and man's reason only "observes" them, eventually.

I think that you believe they're there before man declares them.

I think they're not discovered, but createdby men.

 

[buckeye45_73]

There's a difference between these two. The right to life, free speech, to be free to choose your own path, to believe whatever you decide to believe, every human being should have these rights and others. These rights may be denied by a gov't, but in so doing defines itself as illegitimate. Because a govt's basic function should be to protect these rights for the people it governs.

Civil rights are those that a society determines to exist for it's citizens: voting, property, etc. These may be different from one culture to another, and I think the line gets a little blurred between the two sometimes. But I'd say that civil rights can change over time, but human rights should be constant.

BTW, neither come from gov't; human rights are yours by birth. Some say at the moment of conception. Civil rights should be decided by society, through referendums mainly.

I think you're making a distinction where none really exists. Regardless of which rights you're talking about, with no government in the picture you'd have to enforce them yourself, because God isn't going to do it.

you do understand the Christian concept of Free will?

And government does not grant rights, it may protect them, but it usually abuses them, but hey you'd have to know history to see that.

 

[SniperFire]

America was founded as a defacto theocracy based on one core principle: That we enjoy certain unalienable rights granted by God.

Nobody has to agree with that, but if you are looking for the 'source' of our unalienable rights, look no further.

 

[G.T.]

Do you know the difference between religion and philosophy?

It does not matter if people are fallible, they still have rights. It does not matter if governments go out of their way to take away people's rights, they still exist. It doesn't even matter if you believe in God, you still have rights.

According to the philosophy of our founding, is the bolded, and that is what I'm disagreeing with.(the source they proclaimed - endowed by their creator)

Except I never once said anything about a creator, did I?

If rights come from a piece of paper, or a social contract, they can be taken away by the same means. That means that, unless they are natural, coming to us because we exist, they are not real, they are artificial, and you really have no rights.

No, the Founders said something about a creator. Not you, I know that.


by doing that "if they come from a social contract they can be taken away,"

You're not using reason to discover their source, but using fear and consequence to DECLARE their source. And, that's not logical.

 

[Ravi]

Civil rights should be decided by society, through referendums mainly.

Not in this country. No offense, but that is almost as stupid a statement as the guy made that claimed we are a theocracy.

That is exactly how they are decided in this country. They always have been, and always will be. That is what makes them civil rights.

I'm somewhat shocked that so many cons don't understand the constitution.

Civil rights are not decided be referendums. They are guaranteed to us as citizens.

 

[SniperFire]

If you want to classify man's ability to reason, as "Nature," then we don't even have a disagreement.

I'm simply arguing that rights didn't exist until men observed with their brains the best possible ways to co-exist - and to me that's ALL that rights really are, in practice.

Sacrifices to Gods and such used to be acceptable.

Through reason, we realize that this isn't a practical or ideal way to co-exist. We advance another notch.

We shouldn't be having a disagreement. As I've said repeatedly, the belief in God is not necessary to an understanding of unalienable rights, no matter what verbiage was used for the sake of posterity by our Founders. They wrote in the style of the day, but when given ample opportunity to inflict their own religious beliefs upon the nation, they stayed their hands.

Human sacrifices to the gods were once socially acceptable to certain peoples throughout history. But they were still WRONG, even as they happened. Because they abrogated the innate right of a human being to exist, unmolested by other people. As I said earlier, slavery wasn't wrong, if what it required to observe that it's wrong was to try it out first and see if it worked out or not. We can see through the rearview mirror that it was certainly wrong, but it was just as wrong when it was happening as it is through the lens of history.

We are disagreeing, though -

I posit they come from man's reason,

You posit - from Nature and man's reason only "observes" them, eventually.

I think that you believe they're there before man declares them.

I think they're not discovered, but createdby men.

Yours is the tiny minority of opinion.

 

[there4eyeM]

Every person decides what to accept as an authority. Moral responsibility. There are half-baked thinkers on here all the time trumpeting how much they believe in freedom, but when it comes down to the important things, it's suddenly up to some invisible, external source!
Personal responsibility, people. It's what it is.

 

[Ravi]

America was founded as a defacto theocracy based on one core principle: That we enjoy certain unalienable rights granted by God.

Nobody has to agree with that, but if you are looking for the 'source' of our unalienable rights, look no further.

You don't even know what a theocracy is, moron.

 

[SniperFire]

America was founded as a defacto theocracy based on one core principle: That we enjoy certain unalienable rights granted by God.

Nobody has to agree with that, but if you are looking for the 'source' of our unalienable rights, look no further.

You don't even know what a theocracy is, moron.

America was founded as a defacto theocracy.

With gifts from God.

Deal with it.

 

[G.T.]

If you believe that there are inalienable rights that come from God and Nature you will object and perhaps fight to keep the government from taking those rights away when the government should protect those rights.

If you believe that there are no inalienable rights and everything comes from the government you won't care that the government takes your rights away. They were never really yours to begin with.

Go vote on that basis. That's what it comes down to.

The source is not even relevant to whether a person does or does not consider particular rights as inalienable.

I consider the right to "Life" as inalienable, because someone is always stronger than me, or you, and I don't believe we're any longer at the point (humanity) of "survival of the fittest," due to our ability to regulate and balance resources, invent, etc......I think that "killing because you can" is BAD, for a sentient society based on that.

I used logic and reason to conclude that, and I didn't even need to bring up the source.

 

[Murf76]

If you want to classify man's ability to reason, as "Nature," then we don't even have a disagreement.

I'm simply arguing that rights didn't exist until men observed with their brains the best possible ways to co-exist - and to me that's ALL that rights really are, in practice.

Sacrifices to Gods and such used to be acceptable.

Through reason, we realize that this isn't a practical or ideal way to co-exist. We advance another notch.

We shouldn't be having a disagreement. As I've said repeatedly, the belief in God is not necessary to an understanding of unalienable rights, no matter what verbiage was used for the sake of posterity by our Founders. They wrote in the style of the day, but when given ample opportunity to inflict their own religious beliefs upon the nation, they stayed their hands.

Human sacrifices to the gods were once socially acceptable to certain peoples throughout history. But they were still WRONG, even as they happened. Because they abrogated the innate right of a human being to exist, unmolested by other people. As I said earlier, slavery wasn't wrong, if what it required to observe that it's wrong was to try it out first and see if it worked out or not. We can see through the rearview mirror that it was certainly wrong, but it was just as wrong when it was happening as it is through the lens of history.

We are disagreeing, though -

I posit they come from man's reason,

You posit - from Nature and man's reason only "observes" them, eventually.

I think that you believe they're there before man declares them.

I think they're not discovered, but createdby men.

On what basis? Gravity is there, and we still don't fully understand it, but rather "observe" it. That doesn't mean that our observation "created" it.

Writing down an "unalienable right" doesn't create it. It was already there. Murder is wrong. Slavery is wrong. We might see the wrongness of them more clearly by virtue of having observed their effects, but that doesn't make the action itself wrong even as it was committed.

 

[G.T.]

We shouldn't be having a disagreement. As I've said repeatedly, the belief in God is not necessary to an understanding of unalienable rights, no matter what verbiage was used for the sake of posterity by our Founders. They wrote in the style of the day, but when given ample opportunity to inflict their own religious beliefs upon the nation, they stayed their hands.

Human sacrifices to the gods were once socially acceptable to certain peoples throughout history. But they were still WRONG, even as they happened. Because they abrogated the innate right of a human being to exist, unmolested by other people. As I said earlier, slavery wasn't wrong, if what it required to observe that it's wrong was to try it out first and see if it worked out or not. We can see through the rearview mirror that it was certainly wrong, but it was just as wrong when it was happening as it is through the lens of history.

We are disagreeing, though -

I posit they come from man's reason,

You posit - from Nature and man's reason only "observes" them, eventually.

I think that you believe they're there before man declares them.

I think they're not discovered, but createdby men.

Yours is the tiny minority of opinion.

So is yours re: us being a "Theocracy," dipshit.

 

[SniperFire]

If you believe that there are inalienable rights that come from God and Nature you will object and perhaps fight to keep the government from taking those rights away when the government should protect those rights.

If you believe that there are no inalienable rights and everything comes from the government you won't care that the government takes your rights away. They were never really yours to begin with.

Go vote on that basis. That's what it comes down to.

The source is not even relevant to whether a person does or does not consider particular rights as inalienable.

I consider the right to "Life" as inalienable, because someone is always stronger than me, or you, and I don't believe we're any longer at the point (humanity) of "survival of the fittest," due to our ability to regulate and balance resources, invent, etc......I think that "killing because you can" is BAD, for a sentient society based on that.

I used logic and reason to conclude that, and I didn't even need to bring up the source.

That is completely illogical.

 

[SniperFire]

We are disagreeing, though -

I posit they come from man's reason,

You posit - from Nature and man's reason only "observes" them, eventually.

I think that you believe they're there before man declares them.

I think they're not discovered, but createdby men.

Yours is the tiny minority of opinion.

So is yours re: us being a "Theocracy," dipshit.

The Declaration of Independence is a founding document.

Read it sometime.

 

[healthmyths]

This is a "natural law".. You can not stop your car fast enough if you are texting and driving 30MPH in a school zone to take your eyes off the cell phone, see the kid dart out into the street, lift your foot off gas on to brake! Even though it might be man made law not to text and drive.. the law of physics means someone loses!
So human laws attempt to prevent what natural law will execute.
If this still isn't clear.. Teaching common sense regarding the Laws of Nature if done with the same enthusiasm, evangelism of global warming would reduce the necessity of human laws!
But for some reason people WANT human laws rather then COMMON SENSE... you don't text & drive!

 

[Ravi]

America was founded as a defacto theocracy based on one core principle: That we enjoy certain unalienable rights granted by God.

Nobody has to agree with that, but if you are looking for the 'source' of our unalienable rights, look no further.

You don't even know what a theocracy is, moron.

America was founded as a defacto theocracy.

With gifts from God.

Deal with it.

The only thing I need to deal with is the realization that you are very stupid.

Ok, I'm over it.

 

[G.T.]

We shouldn't be having a disagreement. As I've said repeatedly, the belief in God is not necessary to an understanding of unalienable rights, no matter what verbiage was used for the sake of posterity by our Founders. They wrote in the style of the day, but when given ample opportunity to inflict their own religious beliefs upon the nation, they stayed their hands.

Human sacrifices to the gods were once socially acceptable to certain peoples throughout history. But they were still WRONG, even as they happened. Because they abrogated the innate right of a human being to exist, unmolested by other people. As I said earlier, slavery wasn't wrong, if what it required to observe that it's wrong was to try it out first and see if it worked out or not. We can see through the rearview mirror that it was certainly wrong, but it was just as wrong when it was happening as it is through the lens of history.

We are disagreeing, though -

I posit they come from man's reason,

You posit - from Nature and man's reason only "observes" them, eventually.

I think that you believe they're there before man declares them.

I think they're not discovered, but createdby men.

On what basis? Gravity is there, and we still don't fully understand it, but rather "observe" it. That doesn't mean that our observation "created" it.

Writing down an "unalienable right" doesn't create it. It was already there. Murder is wrong. Slavery is wrong. We might see the wrongness of them more clearly by virtue of having observed their effects, but that doesn't make the action itself wrong even as it was committed.

No, gravity wasn't "created" because gravity is not abstract. It's a physical force.

Whereas, rights are an abstract construct created in order to benefit, as cohabitative human beings.

 

[G.T.]

Yours is the tiny minority of opinion.

So is yours re: us being a "Theocracy," dipshit.

The Declaration of Independence is a founding document.

Read it sometime.

1st Amendment, idiot.


wow.