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

[Pho_King]

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?

Dear, Paul Ryan keeps saying that because he's quoting our Founding Fathers, most notably in this case Thomas Jefferson. You might have heard of this obscure little document where he made the same assertion: The Declaration of Independence?

The entire foundation for our nation and our way of life is the idea that rights are NOT granted by "we the people", or by any other person or human institution, because if that is true, then they aren't rights at all, but privileges, dependent totally on the whims of others, the denial of which is morally neutral.

The concept of "natural rights", rights granted by the Creator or Nature or whatever you want to subscribe to that's a higher power than humanity, is that freedom and the recognition and exercise of those rights is the ideal state in which people should live, and that, while people can, through their free will, choose to block or interfere with each other's natural rights, it is wrong and evil and a perversion of the way things should be.

The whole point of this " rights are given by man, not god" argument is to undercut the founding documents. It's part of the fundamental transformation of America the OWS parasites yearn for.

 

[Murf76]

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?

We know it's wrong, because it hurts. There's no need for God to tell us that attacking each other with hammers isn't something that should be allowed in a civil society. Absent that society, what's the downside to attacking someone with a hammer, if I've got the biggest hammer?

It doesn't matter if "it hurts". We passed an imaginary law that said it was acceptable to our notion of a "civil society", so again, why would hitting people with hammers be wrong?

 

[Murf76]

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?

Dear, Paul Ryan keeps saying that because he's quoting our Founding Fathers, most notably in this case Thomas Jefferson. You might have heard of this obscure little document where he made the same assertion: The Declaration of Independence?

The entire foundation for our nation and our way of life is the idea that rights are NOT granted by "we the people", or by any other person or human institution, because if that is true, then they aren't rights at all, but privileges, dependent totally on the whims of others, the denial of which is morally neutral.

The concept of "natural rights", rights granted by the Creator or Nature or whatever you want to subscribe to that's a higher power than humanity, is that freedom and the recognition and exercise of those rights is the ideal state in which people should live, and that, while people can, through their free will, choose to block or interfere with each other's natural rights, it is wrong and evil and a perversion of the way things should be.

I'm flabbergasted that people aren't getting this.. or worse, rejecting it. I mean, what hope do we have for our country if its citizens are in such a rush to throw away their unalienable right to live as free people?

 

[JakeStarkey]

But not in our Constitution. end of story.

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.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they 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, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

Taken from the Declaration of Independence. The founders had written that certain unalienable rights were endowed by their Creator to begin with. They then continue by adding that government serves the will of the people, not the other way around as Obama and the left would suggest. Government works for the people, the people who succeed in the American dream don't pay "homage" to the government, nor do individuals who work hard to CREATE their own success, owe that success to the government.

 

[G.T.]

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?

Dear, Paul Ryan keeps saying that because he's quoting our Founding Fathers, most notably in this case Thomas Jefferson. You might have heard of this obscure little document where he made the same assertion: The Declaration of Independence?

The entire foundation for our nation and our way of life is the idea that rights are NOT granted by "we the people", or by any other person or human institution, because if that is true, then they aren't rights at all, but privileges, dependent totally on the whims of others, the denial of which is morally neutral.

The concept of "natural rights", rights granted by the Creator or Nature or whatever you want to subscribe to that's a higher power than humanity, is that freedom and the recognition and exercise of those rights is the ideal state in which people should live, and that, while people can, through their free will, choose to block or interfere with each other's natural rights, it is wrong and evil and a perversion of the way things should be.

I'm flabbergasted that people aren't getting this.. or worse, rejecting it. I mean, what hope do we have for our country if its citizens are in such a rush to throw away their unalienable right to live as free people?

Is someone in here trying to throw them away? Let alone in a rush to?

 

[there4eyeM]

"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."

Now, that's more like it!

Can you not see that rights are concepts?!?
Concepts are human creations!
The founders used the word 'creator' as a political statement to objectify as much as possible, with the language of the time, their claim to decide for themselves and against the 'divine right' of the king!
Come on! Did God create English?

 

[SniperFire]

"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."

Now, that's more like it!

Can you not see that rights are concepts?!?
Concepts are human creations!
The founders used the word 'creator' as a political statement to objectify as much as possible, with the language of the time, their claim to decide for themselves and against the 'divine right' of the king!
Come on! Did God create English?

Prove it.

 

[SniperFire]

Dear, Paul Ryan keeps saying that because he's quoting our Founding Fathers, most notably in this case Thomas Jefferson. You might have heard of this obscure little document where he made the same assertion: The Declaration of Independence?

The entire foundation for our nation and our way of life is the idea that rights are NOT granted by "we the people", or by any other person or human institution, because if that is true, then they aren't rights at all, but privileges, dependent totally on the whims of others, the denial of which is morally neutral.

The concept of "natural rights", rights granted by the Creator or Nature or whatever you want to subscribe to that's a higher power than humanity, is that freedom and the recognition and exercise of those rights is the ideal state in which people should live, and that, while people can, through their free will, choose to block or interfere with each other's natural rights, it is wrong and evil and a perversion of the way things should be.

I'm flabbergasted that people aren't getting this.. or worse, rejecting it. I mean, what hope do we have for our country if its citizens are in such a rush to throw away their unalienable right to live as free people?

Is someone in here trying to throw them away? Let alone in a rush to?

Wow. Cluelessness abounds.

 

[Murf76]

Dear, Paul Ryan keeps saying that because he's quoting our Founding Fathers, most notably in this case Thomas Jefferson. You might have heard of this obscure little document where he made the same assertion: The Declaration of Independence?

The entire foundation for our nation and our way of life is the idea that rights are NOT granted by "we the people", or by any other person or human institution, because if that is true, then they aren't rights at all, but privileges, dependent totally on the whims of others, the denial of which is morally neutral.

The concept of "natural rights", rights granted by the Creator or Nature or whatever you want to subscribe to that's a higher power than humanity, is that freedom and the recognition and exercise of those rights is the ideal state in which people should live, and that, while people can, through their free will, choose to block or interfere with each other's natural rights, it is wrong and evil and a perversion of the way things should be.

I'm flabbergasted that people aren't getting this.. or worse, rejecting it. I mean, what hope do we have for our country if its citizens are in such a rush to throw away their unalienable right to live as free people?

Is someone in here trying to throw them away? Let alone in a rush to?

That depends... are you still insisting that men create rights by virtue of sentience?... or are you accepting of the existence of natural rights whether they've been codified into law or not?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Acceptance or belief in such rights has nothing to do with the Constitution, which is a secular document.

 

[Katzndogz]

That so few realize that Ryan was quoting or at least echoing the Declaration of Independence says a whole lot about our educational system. That so many disagree with the concept is downright chilling.

 

[G.T.]

I'm flabbergasted that people aren't getting this.. or worse, rejecting it. I mean, what hope do we have for our country if its citizens are in such a rush to throw away their unalienable right to live as free people?

Is someone in here trying to throw them away? Let alone in a rush to?

That depends... are you still insisting that men create rights by virtue of sentience?... or are you accepting of the existence of natural rights whether they've been codified into law or not?

It doesn't matter the source - it's irrelevant to whether or not "I'm in a rush to take them away," that's just dishonest hyperbole, all kidding aside.

And yes, I'm still of the opinion that men's sentience created said rights. That doesn't mean that I disagree with them or want to take them away, and YES I GET THAT it means "if we declare that as such, men can decide differently some other day," and that STILL DOESNT MEAN, I want to take them away, AM IN A RUSH to take them away, or THAT I DISAGREE THAT THEY SHOULD BE INALIENABLE.

That is honesty .... not projection, assumption, rudeness or anything of the like.

 

[SniperFire]

But not in our Constitution. end of story.

Hardly. Habeas corpus in not defined in the Constitution, for example.

 

[SniperFire]

That so few realize that Ryan was quoting or at least echoing the Declaration of Independence says a whole lot about our educational system. That so many disagree with the concept is downright chilling.

Mostly, it is just the doomed heathens feigning ignorance.

 

[courseofhistory]

You can still subscribe to the Constitution and amendments, including the DofI and not believe in God. God is not a necessary component for people who don't believe and we get along fine with the same Constitution and laws as those who believe. That is why this country is great because our Constitution protects us from discrimination and frees us to believe (as in any religion) or not and doesn't insist that we all agree -- just that we allow our fellow citizens to be free and have their own opinions on religion, civil rights and so forth within the parameters of the Constitution and laws formed around it by "we the people".

 

[Murf76]

Is someone in here trying to throw them away? Let alone in a rush to?

That depends... are you still insisting that men create rights by virtue of sentience?... or are you accepting of the existence of natural rights whether they've been codified into law or not?

It doesn't matter the source - it's irrelevant to whether or not "I'm in a rush to take them away," that's just dishonest hyperbole, all kidding aside.

And yes, I'm still of the opinion that men's sentience created said rights. That doesn't mean that I disagree with them or want to take them away, and YES I GET THAT it means "if we declare that as such, men can decide differently some other day," and that STILL DOESNT MEAN, I want to take them away, AM IN A RUSH to take them away, or THAT I DISAGREE THAT THEY SHOULD BE INALIENABLE.

That is honesty .... not projection, assumption, rudeness or anything of the like.

Your view would make right and wrong entirely subjective. It would then be okay to pass such laws as imprisoning freckle-faced redheads or hitting people with hammers. There's no scientific principles which would preclude such things. Slavery would have been completely acceptable until suddenly it wasn't.

You can't remove science (or nature) from the equation and expect that Law would not become entirely arbitrary. And yet, I do believe that is EXACTLY the condition so-called "liberals" are seeking. Because it would allow them to set aside the guarantees we've placed on Individual Liberty whenever those rights conflicted with the collectivist whim of the moment.

 

[G.T.]

That depends... are you still insisting that men create rights by virtue of sentience?... or are you accepting of the existence of natural rights whether they've been codified into law or not?

It doesn't matter the source - it's irrelevant to whether or not "I'm in a rush to take them away," that's just dishonest hyperbole, all kidding aside.

And yes, I'm still of the opinion that men's sentience created said rights. That doesn't mean that I disagree with them or want to take them away, and YES I GET THAT it means "if we declare that as such, men can decide differently some other day," and that STILL DOESNT MEAN, I want to take them away, AM IN A RUSH to take them away, or THAT I DISAGREE THAT THEY SHOULD BE INALIENABLE.

That is honesty .... not projection, assumption, rudeness or anything of the like.

Your view would make right and wrong entirely subjective. It would then be okay to pass such laws as imprisoning freckle-faced redheads or hitting people with hammers. There's no scientific principles which would preclude such things. Slavery would have been completely acceptable until suddenly it wasn't.

You can't remove science (or nature) from the equation and expect that Law would not become entirely arbitrary. And yet, I do believe that is EXACTLY the condition so-called "liberals" are seeking. Because it would allow them to set aside the guarantees we've placed on Individual Liberty whenever those rights conflicted with the collectivist whim of the moment.

Right and wrong subjective? Yes.

Imprisoning freckle faces, as a Law? No, wouldn't happen unless Society somehow bumped their heads and thought "it's okay to descriminate based on looks alone." Society already discovered that that's wrong - and yes, subjectively and in my estimation - correctly. I am supremely confident that as a species - and more importantly as a society - we've moved past that.

 

[there4eyeM]

"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."

Now, that's more like it!

Can you not see that rights are concepts?!?
Concepts are human creations!
The founders used the word 'creator' as a political statement to objectify as much as possible, with the language of the time, their claim to decide for themselves and against the 'divine right' of the king!
Come on! Did God create English?

Prove it.

Easy! Read just a little bit about the nervous system and psychology!

 

[Jarhead]

if Ryan is wrong and our rights dont come from Nature and God...then exactly who are we to say people in China are not afforded their human rights?

 

[G.T.]

if Ryan is wrong and our rights dont come from Nature and God...then exactly who are we to say people in China are not afforded their human rights?

Thinking humans with an opinion.