There is no reason to think that any gods exist. Imaginary friends are pointless. Try again.
...and somebody could come along and kill you and take all that away.Is it? Did man think up the ability to breathe? To think? To hope? To aspire? To defend oneself and/or survive? To do what makes us happy or grateful or satisfied? Or are we born with such traits/ability as human beings without anybody willing that it be so?
i have stated a higher power, which is what founders wanted to convey, because they removed the direct idea of religion in the document by removing the word "sacred", leaving the document more subjective.
We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;
the government of the u.s. is not religious at all, as one of the most religious men of the founders tells us, john adams in the Treaty of Tripoli
the nation as a whole was built for a religious and moral people.
you completely miss the point. the issue is not whether natural rights exist-in the same manner that a tree or a car exists-but why natural rights are such an important part of our legal fabric
look, i get your almost fanatical hatred of religion and your attempts to obliterate religion from your world. but that is not relevant here.
Read once again what I wrote. Only the grantor of a right can alienate it. If rights are "God given" and God can't take back something he gave then he's really not God, is he?
translation-you don't like the correct interpretation of the Bill of rights
why not just come out and say it?
I would feel more comfortable if we called them "ideals". More accurate, IMO.Perhaps. Yet without ideals or goals, we are nothing more than savages are we not?
...and somebody could come along and kill you and take all that away.
Not at all. Most people who believe what God gives, God can take away. If He chooses not to do so, that makes him no less God. Since nobody is wise enough to know all that God is, such things are unknowable. If we could so neatly specify what God is or what God does, then He would not be much of a God.
"God given" is the term used by the Founders to express their understanding of why the rights we are born with are unalienable as well as to honor the One from whom they believed all morality and ethics comes. Other philosophers before them from Socrates to Plato to Cicero to Otis to Hobbes to Locke et al used different terms to describe the concept. The most common is translated 'natural rights' in English. But the concept is the same. Natural or unalienable or God given rights are incorporated into the natural state of man. To have and exercise them requires participation or contribution by no other person and they cannot be sold or bartered or given away to anybody.
Nope. They can only prevent me from exercising it. They cannot take my life and then have a life they can use. They cannot take away my ability to think and then have an extra ability to use. They cannot take away my capacity to pursue happiness and have more happiness themselves. Nor can I sell or give any of those things to anybody else. The purpose of the U.S. Constitution was to recognize and protect the unalienable rights of the people so that they, for the first time in the history of the world, would be able to live in liberty and exercise those rights without interference.
To me that is such a simple concept. But for so many, it seems to be almost impossible to understand and appreciate.
Yes, I think I see your point. "God" in one sense is a constant. The point I'm trying to make to Jerry is a human can't alienate a right he didn't grant.
You blew your whole argument right there. That's exactly the point myself and others are making, and you essentially just confirmed it, though you don't want to. If someone takes your life they can and have taken every single thing you claim they cannot take. You are no longer able to do any of them. You want simple? That's simple.
You blew your whole argument right there. That's exactly the point myself and others are making, and you essentially just confirmed it, though you don't want to. If someone takes your life they can and have taken every single thing you claim they cannot take. You are no longer able to do any of them. You want simple? That's simple.
I would feel more comfortable if we called them "ideals". More accurate, IMO.
And yes, of course we should have them, but to me calling them "rights" is euphemistically misleading.
"God" is to anybody what a person believes. I'm sure some of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence probably translated "God given rights" to "natural rights" in their understanding and didn't quibble over it. And maybe you will be more successful convincing Jerry that there is a difference between 'alienating a right' and denying a person ability to exercise a right. I haven't been successful in that.
You blew your whole argument right there. That's exactly the point myself and others are making, and you essentially just confirmed it, though you don't want to. If someone takes your life they can and have taken every single thing you claim they cannot take. You are no longer able to do any of them. You want simple? That's simple.
It's difficult for others because it's utterly illogical.Sorry but the way I define words, destroying something or denying a person ability to do something is not the same thing as taking something. As I said, that concept is so simple to me. And it seems so difficult for others.
Bad analogy.:doh Okay, let's try to make this really simple. If I'm sitting in class and I steal five cents from my neighbor's lunch money, is the nickel "mine"? I'm guessing your answer is "Yes"?
Fair point, and yeah, they probably would. Though the way it is now they throw out phrases like "compelling interest" to deny rights. Same end result.To me, calling them "ideals" makes it too easy for politicians to say 'oh we fell a bit short on respecting this limitation but hey, it's an ideal and we all fall short of those don't we... "
Apparently, he's not the only one who needs convincing, but the other day 36% of respondents professed a belief in natural rights. It's gone up three points to 39%. Whee!
But if we make them sound absolute, then go on to do end runs around them anyway, it cheapens the base concept.Recognizing that someone's rights can be abused or repressed does not make them any less a right, and doesn't make the usurpation of it "right" either.
I don't particularly care what we call them, as along as we call them something that sounds absolute and not-to-be-infringed-upon. "Rights" worked for the Founders. We could also call them "Liberties the Oppression of Which Justify Instantly Killing Your Ass" and I'd be fine with that too, though it is a bit cumbersome.
But if we make them sound absolute, then go on to do end runs around them anyway, it cheapens the base concept.
you completely miss the point. the issue is not whether natural rights exist-in the same manner that a tree or a car exists-but why natural rights are such an important part of our legal fabric
look, i get your almost fanatical hatred of religion and your attempts to obliterate religion from your world. but that is not relevant here.
There are plenty of reasons, including reason. I certainly don't take as "fact" something that hasn't been proven.
Natural Rights can't be given by the state, so if the state gave you a given right, that right is not a Natural Right. More likely it's a Civil Right.Well, no. As I said, only the grantor of a right can "take it away," if by "take it away" we're referring to "alienate" as it's understood by pretty much everyone with one possible exception. If the state grants you a right to be repaid for a debt but then I renege on repaying you, according to you I've "taken away" your right to be repaid. Honestly, that's one right I'd call pretty much worthless. The people who founded this country happened to believe that natural rights aren't granted be men, so no man can "take them away" as you apparently maintain. Now, if you're going to maintain that there are no natural rights, then proceed with your proof, please.
Right.Anyway, in a state of nature, there is no civil law. That's a societal invention.
So you're just going to ignore the crime of murder and keep living in fantasy land.But nobody can take away your right to live, to breathe, to hope, to aspire, to seek your own comfort or happiness, to believe what you believe, to worship as you choose, to think, to speak what you think, to create, to rejoice, to grieve, to inspire, to explore, to wonder, to choose to defend or protect yourself or what you love or what you have.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?