"Unalienable rights" Our rights Come From G-d Not Government

[Political Junky]

Murder is the killing of another human being..Is the fetus a human being?..thats the argument. Biblically abortion is not permitted in the bible unless the life of the mother is at risk ,but that's not the topic of this thread. The topic is where do we get our rights?

Give us chapter and verse from your Bible.

Why would I do that? This is not biblical based thread.

That's a none answer. You cited the Bible.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Dude...this isn't thread on religious philosophy

You are claiming something that simply is not true and I am pointing it out. You don't like it? To bad.

What's not true? we don't have natural rights? This country was founded on the that premise.

That our rights ‘come from’ a deity.

They don’t.

Again, our rights are ‘natural’ in the context of our humanity, of being self aware, and having the ability to self determine; and no one claims rights ‘come from government,’ liberals in particular.

But your effort to place our inalienable rights in some religious context simply fails.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Men didn't give us our natural rights. all the government's role should be is to keep people from infringing are the rights of others. Liberals love to infringe on people's rights. Take their money ..Take their property.. Give it to people they think deserve in more

How do you know what's a right and what isn't? When did God give you that list?

Is abortion a right?

You don't have the right to end another person life. That's the debate isn't it? is the baby a life or isn't it?

Actually not. There isn’t any ‘debate’ from a legal standpoint.

It’s long settled and accepted Constitutional jurisprudence that prior to birth, the embryo/fetus is not legally a ‘person.’

After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life."

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

One is at liberty to debate when life begins in a religious or philosophical context, but to seek to deny a woman access to abortion is a violation of her right to privacy, a fundamental right, and an inalienable right that manifests as a consequence of her humanity, that no government may seek to violate.

 

[Jroc]

How do you know what's a right and what isn't? When did God give you that list?

Is abortion a right?

You don't have the right to end another person life. That's the debate isn't it? is the baby a life or isn't it?

Actually not. There isn’t any ‘debate’ from a legal standpoint.

It’s long settled and accepted Constitutional jurisprudence that prior to birth, the embryo/fetus is not legally a ‘person.’

After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life."

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

One is at liberty to debate when life begins in a religious or philosophical context, but to seek to deny a woman access to abortion is a violation of her right to privacy, a fundamental right, and an inalienable right that manifests as a consequence of her humanity, that no government may seek to violate.

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.

The Declaration of Independence

 

[Old Rocks]

Man made Satan run Governments societies and functionaries decide what rights those under their power have.

Until Jesus returns Satan rules here.

There are no innate rights only those rights that can be protected enforced or instilled.

When Jesus wipes out Satan and his armies then God's law will apply and the rights he promises will be what we have.

"And there will be pie in the sky when you die!"

 

[Old Rocks]

You don't have the right to end another person life. That's the debate isn't it? is the baby a life or isn't it?

Actually not. There isn’t any ‘debate’ from a legal standpoint.

It’s long settled and accepted Constitutional jurisprudence that prior to birth, the embryo/fetus is not legally a ‘person.’



One is at liberty to debate when life begins in a religious or philosophical context, but to seek to deny a woman access to abortion is a violation of her right to privacy, a fundamental right, and an inalienable right that manifests as a consequence of her humanity, that no government may seek to violate.

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.

The Declaration of Independence

Looks like God was and is pretty damned careless about enforcing those laws. In fact, it took a lot of spilled blood to even have the ability to make that statement without being drawn and quartered.

 

[Fishlore]

Actually not. There isn’t any ‘debate’ from a legal standpoint.

It’s long settled and accepted Constitutional jurisprudence that prior to birth, the embryo/fetus is not legally a ‘person.’



One is at liberty to debate when life begins in a religious or philosophical context, but to seek to deny a woman access to abortion is a violation of her right to privacy, a fundamental right, and an inalienable right that manifests as a consequence of her humanity, that no government may seek to violate.

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.

The Declaration of Independence

Looks like God was and is pretty damned careless about enforcing those laws. In fact, it took a lot of spilled blood to even have the ability to make that statement without being drawn and quartered.

If God exists in the form 18th century Christians believed, then He is the creator of Nature and of Nature's Laws. And, if as 18th century Christians believed, God has also created a set of laws specifically for people, then, since God doesn't, according to 18th century Christian belief, make mistakes, the laws of Nature and the laws of God must be compatible. The laws of nature are discoverable through science. The laws of God are discoverable through Scripture. The Declaration and the Constitution were written at a time when science was just beginning to catch up with Scripture as a guide. Subsequently, science has grown at an explosive, unprecedented rate. Reconciling the laws of Nature and the laws of God has become vastly more problematic than anyone writing laws in 1776 could possibly have imagined. That doesn't seem to stop some folks from asserting that the situation now is still as it ever was.

 

[Redfish]

Men who were willing to shed their own blood for their freedom wrote those words.

Just because SOME of them believed in imaginary sky fairies does not take away from their sacrifice and courage.

Just once, THINK.

A belief in a higher power was the common belief of the founders and remains the belief of a vast majority of the people of the entire world.

You are free to be an athiest if you choose, but attempting to denigrate the majority will get you nothing.

Rights endowed by the creator sometimes have to be secured by men when other men attempt to take them away.

Using terms like "sky fairies" just confirms that you are an ignorant, intolerant, scum sucking asshole. i.e. a typical liberal.

If people are not capable of reason then they are not capable of self-government. Reason does not require instruction from a supernatural unseen being that only exists as an exercise in faith.

God has instilled in all human beings a basic sense of right and wrong. God is not a lawyer. If you believe the Bible then God set forth the basics in the ten commandments. Our statutes and those of most other countries are based on those basic precepts.

The founders believed in God, our founding documents confirm that. If you choose to live a Godless life, thats your choice. But the vast majority disagrees with you.

 

[Redfish]

Actually not. There isn’t any ‘debate’ from a legal standpoint.

It’s long settled and accepted Constitutional jurisprudence that prior to birth, the embryo/fetus is not legally a ‘person.’



One is at liberty to debate when life begins in a religious or philosophical context, but to seek to deny a woman access to abortion is a violation of her right to privacy, a fundamental right, and an inalienable right that manifests as a consequence of her humanity, that no government may seek to violate.

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.

The Declaration of Independence

Looks like God was and is pretty damned careless about enforcing those laws. In fact, it took a lot of spilled blood to even have the ability to make that statement without being drawn and quartered.

you really don't know that do you? God's enforcement could be very subtle and long term.

 

[Fishlore]

Whether or not I believe in God is unknowable to you and irrelevant to the discussion anyway. Similarly, what the authors of the Declaration and the Constitution did or did not believe is, while interesting, in no way dispositive as they are dead and cannot participate in our democracy.

The notion that our legal system is founded on the Ten Commandments is without historical evidence. While you are probably correct that most of the Founders believed in the God of the Bible and accepted the Ten Commandments as normative for individual behavior, they were too well educated in the Common Law to think that the legal system of the British Crown derived from the Old Testament.

The Founders, Whigs (i.e. Liberals) to man, subscribed to the view of Whig History. This doctrine taught that the Rights of Englishmen (the phrase they used) descended from the Saxon legal system. That system had, they believed, been undermined by the Norman Conquest of 1066, which introduced the hierarchical monarchy of the feudal system and much diminished those original rights of yeomen.

Subsequent British history, Magna Charta, the Revolution of 1688 etc., represented the struggle of liberty-loving Englishmen (i.e. Whigs) to restore those ancient, Saxon rights and limit the tyranny of the feudal monarchy. These beliefs are manifest in the writings of the Founders themselves and can be found in the works of many other American writers of the time.

 

[bripat9643]

Actually not. There isn’t any ‘debate’ from a legal standpoint.

It’s long settled and accepted Constitutional jurisprudence that prior to birth, the embryo/fetus is not legally a ‘person.’



One is at liberty to debate when life begins in a religious or philosophical context, but to seek to deny a woman access to abortion is a violation of her right to privacy, a fundamental right, and an inalienable right that manifests as a consequence of her humanity, that no government may seek to violate.

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.

The Declaration of Independence

Looks like God was and is pretty damned careless about enforcing those laws. In fact, it took a lot of spilled blood to even have the ability to make that statement without being drawn and quartered.

Get this through your head: god doesn't enforce rights. The fact that you think he should only shows that you have no conception of the meaning of the term.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

How do you know what's a right and what isn't? When did God give you that list?

Is abortion a right?

You don't have the right to end another person life. That's the debate isn't it? is the baby a life or isn't it?

Actually not. There isn’t any ‘debate’ from a legal standpoint.

It’s long settled and accepted Constitutional jurisprudence that prior to birth, the embryo/fetus is not legally a ‘person.’

After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life."

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

One is at liberty to debate when life begins in a religious or philosophical context, but to seek to deny a woman access to abortion is a violation of her right to privacy, a fundamental right, and an inalienable right that manifests as a consequence of her humanity, that no government may seek to violate.

Simply not true. The law recognizes life before birth it bars certain abortions before birth based on that. Further most States have laws that make it murder to kill an unborn child outside the setting of a legal abortion.

 

[Mustang]

My take (for whatever it's worth) is this:

I figure that anyone who substitutes the "o" in God with a dash (-)** has got to have at least one screw loose already, and I'm not inclined to take much of what they say all that seriously.

** Or is the dash supposed to be interpreted as a minus sign?

As a note, please don't bother to explain the Jewish tradition and it's history to me because I've already read about it.

I've also noted the name in Hebrew and the Israeli flag. But I figure that's all kind of negated more than a little bit by the Guns and Moses avatar.

 

[Jroc]

My take (for whatever it's worth) is this:

I figure that anyone who substitutes the "o" in God with a dash (-)** has got to have at least one screw loose already, and I'm not inclined to take much of what they say all that seriously.

** Or is the dash supposed to be interpreted as a minus sign?

As a note, please don't bother to explain the Jewish tradition and it's history to me because I've already read about it.

I've also noted the name in Hebrew and the Israeli flag. But I figure that's all kind of negated more than a little bit by the Guns and Moses avatar.

Well that was a useless post...Thanks for your contribution

 

[Intense]

This is from Richard II, by Shakespeare...

King Richard is speaking to the people who are in rebellion against him:

KING RICHARD II

"We are amazed; and thus long have we stood
To watch the fearful bending of thy knee,

Because we thought ourself thy lawful king:

And if we be, how dare thy joints forget
To pay their awful duty to our presence?

If we be not, show us the hand of God
That hath dismissed us from our stewardship..."

Richard is citing the belief in divine right, i.e., that the King had absolute power, given to him by God,

and Richard is saying if you're claiming otherwise,

show me where God said otherwise.

It's an excellent argument; unfortunately it didn't save him.

So...

I'll make the same sort of argument. If your claim is that God gave the People certain rights,

show us where, when, and how God did that.

Take Your Pick
Liberty Library of Constitutional Classics
.........
Let me help you with that.
HTML Version Text Version A Letter Concerning Toleration, John Locke (1689) — Classic statement of the case for toleration of those holding different views.
HTML Version Text Version Second Treatise on Government, John Locke (1690) — Principal proponent of the social contract theory which forms the basis for modern constitutional republican government.