What did he leave out? The most important part.

[obvious Child]

Holy ****!!

Guess what else he left out.

Practically every single word in the whole Declaration of Independence.
Clearly Obama is a Tory loyalist who sides with King George.:2mad:

Wait. Obama doesn't think the King of England isn't a poopiehead? Time for impeachment.

 

[obvious Child]

IT's possible for a government to take away the ability to exercise a right. That is certain. However, it is possible that in certain instances, the right remains even though there's no ability to exercise it.

That would actually be a state of mind. You're thinking of right to purse happiness. That's not a right. It's a state of mind. You can purse happiness anywhere, any time. Just as you can thinking about anything you want, any where any time.

 

[obvious Child]

Well, you misunderstand a vast majority of religious americans then.

Maybe they misunderstand their own beliefs. Not the first time.

It's nothing about "nature", "nature" is sort of...irrelevant and means nothing to the phrase?

Incorrect. It is all about nature. Nothing in nature abides to the notion of God given rights. Everything is enforced or taken by force.

as well as the past 3000 years. Just over 200 years ago, we still lived that kings had a "god-given right" to rule over their subjects.

To which the masses either overthrew them or forced them to abdicate. Hardly God Given. And the past 3,000 years all rights were enforced by violence.

In churches everywhere, God is taught to be eternal. His existence is eternal, his commands are eternal, etc. etc. etc. An abstract concept really. When you have a vast majority of church-going people saying rights are "god-given", they aren't saying any such right is literally given by God, but that right is eternal.

Which is just as absurd. Rights being given by God or being eternal themselves is ludicrous and not supported by anything we see today.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, what christians understand to be "god-given rights", are understood to be eternal, regardless of what anyone or any government says. This "nature of rights" or whatever the **** you call it, is meaningless to the overall point of the phrase.

Just because they are desired to be eternal does not change how they perform in reality. The functional nature of rights as shown by 3,000 years of human history have never supported the idea that they are bestowed by some higher power. You can SAY what you want to be true about rights but that does not affect their actual functionality.

Now does it make a little more sense?

You just made those people sound even more absurd. They want rights to have some higher notion to them and ignore how they functionally work. No wonder why Theocracies are so efficient at subverting freedom.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Maybe they misunderstand their own beliefs. Not the first time.



Incorrect. It is all about nature. Nothing in nature abides to the notion of God given rights. Everything is enforced or taken by force.



To which the masses either overthrew them or forced them to abdicate. Hardly God Given. And the past 3,000 years all rights were enforced by violence.

I don't know... I'm sure when the colonists heard the news they won against King George, it sure seemed like an act of God.

Which is just as absurd. Rights being given by God or being eternal themselves is ludicrous and not supported by anything we see today.

Just because they are desired to be eternal does not change how they perform in reality. The functional nature of rights as shown by 3,000 years of human history have never supported the idea that they are bestowed by some higher power. You can SAY what you want to be true about rights but that does not affect their actual functionality.

Yes, because, in reality, people do in fact elect far-left radicals, who don't share the same view about "rights" and think their government can take them and give them back at a whim. No wonder why the religious get mad when you try to take their "god-given" rights away. :roll: Yes, I am very familiar with the "reality"/

You just made those people sound even more absurd. They want rights to have some higher notion to them and ignore how they functionally work. No wonder why Theocracies are so efficient at subverting freedom.

And what you're saying is scary, if you think rights are so light and easily exchanged like little more than money, then no wonder people don't want to elect an atheist in this country.

You still miss the point, sadly. Sorry if I sound like a fool but, I think the value of rights are much more than just to be "taken" and "given" at will by some politician. Are rights really eternal? Well, when you have a country full of government-dependent fools, then you're right, I agree. God-given/eternal rights are absurd.

 

[obvious Child]

Yes, because, in reality, people do in fact elect far-left radicals, who don't share the same view about "rights" and think their government can take them and give them back at a whim. No wonder why the religious get mad when you try to take their "god-given" rights away. :roll:

I never argued that theocracies are limited to the left or the right. But you bring up a good point, if religious rights can be removed, how are they God given?

And what you're saying is scary, if you think rights are so light and easily thrown away like garbage, then no wonder don't want to elect an atheist in this country.

It's suppose to be scary. That's the whole fricken' point. People need to realize that rights function only by government enforcement. And therefore what the goverment gives the government can take away. Thus, we need to be in control of such government, have strong oversight and transparency. The problem with the notion that rights are God given is you don't have the same mentality about government. If your rights can't be taken away by government, then why do we need to have such strict oversight of govermment and transparency?

I'd rather have an atheist who realizes this is all we got, so we better protect and ensure it (even if there is an afterlife) rather then a religious person who views this world and everything in it merely a test.

 

[obvious Child]

I don't know... I'm sure when the colonists heard the news they won against King George, it sure seemed like an act of God.

The colonists themselves hardly won the war. There were plenty of other factors that went into England deciding it was not worth it. Furthermore, they were hardly the only Monarchy that saw "Divine Right" crumble. And you are ignoring that King George himself hardly had "Divine Right."

You still miss the point, sadly.

One could say the same for you.

Sorry if I sound like a fool but, I think the value of rights are much more than just to be "taken" and "given" at will by some politician.

The value of rights and the effective functionality of right are not the same. You appear to miss this very important point. Are rights extremely valuable? Absolutely. But that does not change their functionality. Nothing you have argued refutes my argument that the functional practice of rights is based upon force. It is because I value rights so much is why I hold this opinion. Understanding that such valuable commodities can be taken away is why I believe we need a serious government overhaul. We haven't been in control for a while and look where it got us.

Are rights really eternal? Well, when you have a country full of government-dependent fools, then you're right, I agree. God-given/eternal rights are absurd.

See above. Believing that rights are God given or Government granted is completely irrelevant to your last point about dependency.

 

[DarkWizard12]

The colonists themselves hardly won the war. There were plenty of other factors that went into England deciding it was not worth it. Furthermore, they were hardly the only Monarchy that saw "Divine Right" crumble. And you are ignoring that King George himself hardly had "Divine Right."



One could say the same for you.



The value of rights and the effective functionality of right are not the same. You appear to miss this very important point. Are rights extremely valuable? Absolutely. But that does not change their functionality. Nothing you have argued refutes my argument that the functional practice of rights is based upon force. It is because I value rights so much is why I hold this opinion. Understanding that such valuable commodities can be taken away is why I believe we need a serious government overhaul. We haven't been in control for a while and look where it got us.



See above. Believing that rights are God given or Government granted is completely irrelevant to your last point about dependency.

Then it seems to me you are still debating from the viewpoint that "god-given right" literally means "a right given by God above in the sky". It's never used in that context. It just isn't. Again, I can't really debate your point(nor, would it be a good idea at this early in the morning) because there is really nothing to debate. Just look at the examples the DoI gives you, Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those rights are "God-given" as in, they are "eternal" which is just a religious way of saying, no government has an authority to take those rights away, legitimately. (Doesn't mean they won't TRY, of course).

Basically, what you have been saying this whole time, minus the government enforcement part, because you really don't need a government to say you "have" those rights, you just do whether the government likes it or not.

 

[obvious Child]

Then it seems to me you are still debating from the viewpoint that "god-given right" literally means "a right given by God above in the sky".

No, I'm debating that every notion of where rights come from other then force is completely absurd and without any evidence whatsoever. Furthermore, the stance you take is highly dangerous as it removes your duty to ensure that the government does not take rights.

It's never used in that context. It just isn't.

Because you say so? C'mon. You can do better then that.

Just look at the examples the DoI gives you, Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The DOI is nothing more then a laundry list of why we colonists hate the King. It grants absolutely nothing. It is a good piece of history and philosophy?Absolutely.
But as a right granting device, it is merely a piece of paper. You still don't understand the difference between value and functional reality. Furthermore, the pursuit of happiness is a state of mind. Can a piece of paper grant rights and insure them? Not a chance. It takes the people behind that paper with the will to enforce them to produce functionally real rights.

Those rights are "God-given" as in, they are "eternal" which is just a religious way of saying, no government has an authority to take those rights away, legitimately. (Doesn't mean they won't TRY, of course).

Alright, tell me, without violence to enforce such rights, do they exist outside of our minds and ideals? Without enforcement, can rights functionally exist? I don't care about whether or not you think they exist eternally. That doesn't mean squat to a man drowning.

Basically, what you have been saying this whole time, minus the government enforcement part, because you really don't need a government to say you "have" those rights, you just do whether the government likes it or not.

See my post to Mpg. It sums up the notion that man effectively gives itself rights and enforces them though the social contract of government.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...out-most-important-part-4.html#post1059001548

Does the fact that nothing in nature follows your notion of rights tell you something about how factual your belief is?

A simple quote from Heinlein is sufficient to disprove the notion that rights are God Given and inalienable.

 

[UtahBill]

The govt is the supreme power, as long as you recognize that WE THE PEOPLE are the govt. Problem is, our function as supervisors of those we elect to be our leaders has been surrendered to the leaders. Sort of what happened when we let the Wall Streeters and fianciers supervise themselves.....
Pogo said it, "we have met the enemy, and he is us".

Remember to vote next month.

 

[Moot]

"...We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal......"


Apparently, the American Stinker chose to ignore those words and have taken it upon themselves to redefine, misinterpret and make up what Obama said and meant. But that is no surprise considering conservatives are attempting to redefine and alter everything this country has stood and fought for over the last 200 years. Man, they must really, really hate America.

Inalienable rights are natural rights that we all have but they can only be exercised when recognized and respected by others. The Declaration of Independance is not a declaration of God, it is a declaration of the fore fathers exercising their natural rights to independance from the tyranny of other men, namely the British.

 

[UtahBill]

"...We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal......"


Apparently, the American Stinker chose to ignore those words and have taken it upon themselves to redefine, misinterpret and make up what Obama said and meant. But that is no surprise considering conservatives are attempting to redefine and alter everything this country has stood and fought for over the last 200 years. Man, they must really, really hate America.

Inalienable rights are natural rights that we all have but they can only be exercised when recognized and respected by others. The Declaration of Independance is not a declaration of God, it is a declaration of the fore fathers exercising their natural rights to independance from the tyranny of other men, namely the British.

Now, don't be so down on the republicans. At least they have a sense of humor. Have you read their "pledge" yet?:2razz:

 

[Objective Voice]

Makes perfect sense. He thinks our rights are given by the government.

But wasn't it the government who told this great nation exactly what those "certain inalienable rights" are in the first place? Sure, there's that "endowed by our Creator" part, but until the government, i.e., First Continental Congress, told us what those rights were, we simply did not know. So, from a certain point of view, he is correct.

 

[Objective Voice]

That's not the point, rivrrat, not that you'll ever admit it.

The force that drove the Founding of the Country WAS predicated on a "Creator" a Higher moral authority then the fickle failings of man. Whatever PERSONAL beliefs you have, it's completely dishonest to deny the influence that founded the Country. Don't like that, move to CHANGE the country, but don't insult people with your arrogant insults just cause you happen to have issues.

Oh, good grief. :doh There are also those who believe that had he uttered the words, "endowed by our Creator" would amount to government imposing religion upon the listeners. You can spin this any which way you want. The point, however, isn't who gave us, i.e., American citizens, man, whomever you which to denote as "us", our basic human rights. It is the fact that we have them in the first place. Doesn't matter who he claims or fails to proclaim - pusposely or otherwise - gave us those rights or how they were attained. What's important is that we have them. And that's all the President was affirming. Nothing more.

So, you can stop over-reaching now.

 

[UtahBill]

IMO, our civil rights weren't given to us as much as we just decided to take them. We told the King of England that we don't like his idea of "god given right" to rule over us.
"We the people" means something, as long as we want it to....

 

[mertex]

As opposed to those who claim to be good Christians and followers of God and then vote for leaders that trample all over the people while rewarding the very wealthy.
That don't care that millions of people couldn't afford health care insurance, but now they will because of Obama. I guess God would be very proud of them, for saving their "money" that they "love" so much.

Wasn't that what Jesus taught? Don't care about others, just care about making money, because "the love of money is the root of all happiness" .

And when asked if he should pay taxes, didn't Jesus say "Don't give to Ceasar what we worked so hard to earn."

 

[Guy Incognito]

Wasn't that what Jesus taught? Don't care about others, just care about making money, because "the love of money is the root of all happiness" .

And when asked if he should pay taxes, didn't Jesus say "Don't give to Ceasar what we worked so hard to earn."

I think that's from the Conservapedia version of the Bible.

 

[UtahBill]

As opposed to those who claim to be good Christians and followers of God and then vote for leaders that trample all over the people while rewarding the very wealthy.
That don't care that millions of people couldn't afford health care insurance, but now they will because of Obama. I guess God would be very proud of them, for saving their "money" that they "love" so much.

Wasn't that what Jesus taught? Don't care about others, just care about making money, because "the love of money is the root of all happiness" .

And when asked if he should pay taxes, didn't Jesus say "Don't give to Ceasar what we worked so hard to earn."

You really should turn on the sarcasm alarm, some here might take you literally....

 

[mertex]

You really should turn on the sarcasm alarm, some here might take you literally....

Like who? The conservatives? They probably will, fits right in with their way of thinking. They'll be so happy they didn't even have to look it up in the Bible, it turned out to be just what they believed anyway! Ha,ha!

 

[Objective Voice]

You're both wrong. The people grant themselves the rights, not a god, not the government.

The People elect representatives to government to write, approve and enact legislation. So, the people may in most cases speak in a loud voice what we want our government, if not, our very nation to "look" like from a legal, ethical and moral point of view, but we expect the government to enforce the very rights we claim deserve to be preserved and protected. So, in that sense, government on all levels informs us or reaffirms to us what is acceptable (lawful = right) and what is not acceptable (unlawful = wrong). Only God tells us what is the responsible thing to do towards our fellow man, i.e., to treat one to the other with love, kindness, respect, compassion, fairness and honor. The rest...sorry to burst your bubble...all man.

 

[UtahBill]

The People elect representatives to government to write, approve and enact legislation. So, the people may in most cases speak in a loud voice what we want our government, if not, our very nation to "look" like from a legal, ethical and moral point of view, but we expect the government to enforce the very rights we claim deserve to be preserved and protected. So, in that sense, government on all levels informs us or reaffirms to us what is acceptable (lawful = right) and what is not acceptable (unlawful = wrong). Only God tells us what is the responsible thing to do towards our fellow man, i.e., to treat one to the other with love, kindness, respect, compassion, fairness and honor. The rest...sorry to burst your bubble...all man.

Good thing we have the courts to keep the rest of the govt. on the right track....too many of us tend to think we deserve more rights than others.

 

[Objective Voice]

Good thing we have the courts to keep the rest of the govt. on the right track....too many of us tend to think we deserve more rights than others.

To that, our Founding Fathers were smart to develope our three branches of government. Otherwise, one side would decide all, two sides would just bicker back and forth with each other (oh, wait...that is happening right now, isn't it? My bad!) and at those times when one side does dominate either for brief or extended periods and it appears the law has been skirted or subverted, we have the Supreme Court to (hopefully) sort it all out.

 

[Crunch]

Precisely.


Really? You don't think the govt can take rights away? :lol:

You missed this part of the quote.....

OK............. 80,000,000 gun owner help a bit.

So no, government can't take rights away..... all that can happen is that we don't have the guts to keep them.

 

[obvious Child]

You missed this part of the quote.....

So no, government can't take rights away..... all that can happen is that we don't have the guts to keep them.

Wow. That's a new level of fail here. Rivrrat has repeatedly argued and agreed that rights are enforced only by violence and threats of violence. Force is the factor behind rights. So for you to argue that government can't take rights away because of gun owners and saying she missed the argument is pretty hilarious. You just agreed and then disagreed with the same argument she's been making the whole time.

Reading comprehension for the win.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

The force that drove the Founding of the Country WAS predicated on a "Creator" a Higher moral authority then the fickle failings of man.

So what? A lot of things have changed since then, which would tend to suggest that nothing (especially not an idea) is worth its weight in gold simply because it was there at the beginning.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

The govt grants the rights, so leaving some fairy tale "creator" out of his speech was spot on. It should have been left out of the DOI too.

While I'm with you on the deity thing, I have to disagree with you on the bolded portion.

Our most important rights are defined in the document which defined the government. As such, it's not so much that the rights in question come from the government as it is that the design of the government is intended to protect those rights.