Without God, there are no inalienable rights

[molten_dragon]

This is pretty much exactly how I feel about it. There are no such things as 'inalienable' rights. Rights are only meaningful when recognized by other human beings. There may be a god, but he doesn't do anything to protect or recognize your rights, so he's pretty irrelevant to the whole discussion.

 

[Manc Skipper]

I take it literally, because it bears none of the hallmarks of parable or allegory, but rather is part of a speech that seems to offer practical advice instead.

But then he decrees that two is plenty for a group of thirteen, and chews out the swordsman when he uses it.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

If God is removed from the minds of the People, then the protection of inalienable rights is also removed. For then government determines what your rights are.

I believe in God. I also state that inellable rights (natural rights) do not exist. These two things are not dependent on each other. God does not dictate what our rights are. The founders developed rights based on instinct, desires, and social mores of the time. Nothing else. Rights are a human construct.

 

[American]

The Ten Commandments? Let's look at the Ten Commandments, then.



Well. We certainly didn't get the freedom of religion from the Ten Commandments, but we can hardly expect that from a religion, now can we? We also have God punishing people for the sins of their parents-- even for their great-great-grandparents-- which is widely considered to be a violation of human rights. Our Founding Fathers certainly rejected this notion.



We didn't get the freedom of speech from the Ten Commandments. Jesus later goes on to say that what goes into our mouths does not make us unclean (contradicting Jewish dietary laws) but that what comes out of our mouths makes us unclean.



This doesn't make any mention of rights, and further states that foreigners are to be held to Jewish religious laws regardless of their own religious beliefs. Certainly, this Commandment imposes a restriction upon our actions that has nothing to do with respecting the rights of others.



Nope. Nothing about human rights here. At least this Commandment doesn't violate any.



Finally, a Commandment that might actually apply to human rights! Unfortunately, God's definition of "murder" does not include any of the war crimes he orders his worshippers to commit, from the murder of innocent civilians to the wanton destruction of property.



Funny, when I say this should be illegal I'm accused of being a bloody-minded tyrant and generally meddling with peoples' personal lives. If there's a human right in here, it's obviously not one recognized by the rest of the world.



Hey, this one could be the basis for the right to property. Except this doesn't apply to taxation or eminent domain, and Jesus exhorts us to "render unto Caesar". On the other hand, I can't really think of any other instance where God violates the right of property or commands his worshipers to.



Assuming that this is a prohibition of perjury rather than gossip, this could be construed as pertaining to the right to due process. The right to a jury trial? That's English common law. Doesn't appear anywhere in the Bible.



More support for property. Also more support for slavery.



Maybe, but there isn't a damn thing about liberty which most people believe is a prerequisite to "human rights". The ideas that you incorrectly attribute to the Bible originated thousands of years later, in the minds of secular human philosophers, and with only the loosest possible inspiration from Biblical values. Regardless of whether or not God is necessary for inalienable human rights to exist, it is clear that those human rights did not come from the God of the Bible.

This man wants us to believe that the Founders were delusional, and never said that our rights are inalienable because they come 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.

Next time you come to a debate on the Constitution or religion, Rat, make sure you don't come as a smart ass. The Creator they were talking about wasn't a pool of slush that bacteria grow in....it was God.

You shall not murder = the right to life

You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's & You shall not steal = the right to property

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me." = the right to liberty


You are really being intellectually dishonest, and disingenuous in your points. You think denigrating a religion is a good debate technique because you fear religion. Look up the words of the Founders who all believe only a religious people could have the moral backbone to maintain the kind of society we enjoy under the Constitution.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” -- John Adams

 

[LizardofOz]

Wtf are you serious? Read up on our founding fathers (specifically Washington, Jefferson, Franklin) and their views on God. Seriously before I came to this forum I thought I heard it all. I look forward to hear more from the likes of you American.

 

[Goshin]

But then he decrees that two is plenty for a group of thirteen, and chews out the swordsman when he uses it.

Not because he used it, but because he attempted to use it to prevent the Pharisees from taking Jesus away to be tried and crucified... which he had warned them would happen and must happen. He told them to be armed or self-defense, because they were going to be going out without him thereafter.

 

[Manc Skipper]

I suspect the need to heal an ear suggests he did use it, and the self-defence argument is thin because none of the disciples ever used self-defence, but tolerated enormous suffering due to Jesus words in Matthew 26:52 "All who draw the sword will die by the sword."

 

[digsbe]

Many of the founders were also Christian theologians. They specifically state that it is God who gave us our rights, and those rights were derived from Christian theology and philosophy. Without God there are no inalienable rights, just things mankind deems as rights based on human ideas.

 

[Goshin]

I suspect the need to heal an ear suggests he did use it, and the self-defence argument is thin because none of the disciples ever used self-defence, but tolerated enormous suffering due to Jesus words in Matthew 26:52 "All who draw the sword will die by the sword."

Hm, I think you missed my point perhaps. Yes, he used it. I'm also pretty sure he MEANT to split that guy's skull like a melon, and the guy dodged. Yes, Jesus rebuked him, and said "Shall I not drink from the cup my father has set before me?" and "Those who LIVE by the sword will die by the sword."

Yet the practical advice in Luke 22 remains as it is: I won't be with you later, so take your coat, your money, and a sword.

We don't know every detail of everything the apostles did later. The sword was certainly not for conquest, as that isn't how Christianity is spread. Nor for defense against the authorities, who martyred most of the apostles. The pragmatic reason would have been to defend against bandits and suchlike, a common hazard on the roads in those days.

 

[TripleAgent]

My theory on rights is pretty much explained by this video:

Warning: Some Coarse Language



Relevant to my case from 4:20 to the end.

There are no such things as rights, inalienable or not. The Constitution is a piece of parchment that we irrationally revere as supernatural. We keep up the illusion of rights simply as a means of survival. As I recall, I think it's similar to the Nash Equilibrium. We establish rules, written or unwritten, to keep people from murdering each other and other nasty things, helping to ensure the survival of our species, and, historically, the survival of nationalities and races. It also keeps people happy, and happy people are more easily ruled.

 

[Orion]

The Bible can be used to justify anything. It contains verses that condone mass genocide, along with verses about sheltering and clothing the poor and orphans.

The Bible is an incompetent book for determining law, which is why we have separation of church and state. If the Bible were our only governance, then any action by authority could be justified.

I would rather have a secular government that can be overruled by some laws than a government that can commit any action with a Biblical citation, whether it be good or bad. The former is more answerable to the people, the second is only answerable to the whim of theocratic authorities.

God has no objective law here on earth that we can discern. We can only trust the free will and choices of people to determine our fate. Since the minds of people are flawed, we cannot trust them to interpret God's will for everyone.

 

[drz-400]

If God is removed from the minds of the People, then the protection of inalienable rights is also removed. For then government determines what your rights are.

Legal positivism:

There is no inherent or necessary connection between the validity conditions of law and ethics or morality.

Laws are rules made, whether deliberately or unintentionally, by human beings.

Legal positivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

This man wants us to believe that the Founders were delusional, and never said that our rights are inalienable because they come from God.

I suppose it's a little too much to expect you to understand my arguments when you struggle to understand your own. Which is it? Did I argue that the Founders were delusional or did I argue that they never said the delusional beliefs that I'm arguing against?

Next time you come to a debate on the Constitution or religion, Rat, make sure you don't come as a smart ass.

Yes, I'm sorry. I understand your jealousy and should have been more sensitive.

"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me." = the right to liberty

Yes, he freed the Jews from their slavery and then turned around and encouraged them to keep slaves of their own. His commitment to the right to liberty is obvious.

You are really being intellectually dishonest, and disingenuous in your points. You think denigrating a religion is a good debate technique because you fear religion. Look up the words of the Founders who all believe only a religious people could have the moral backbone to maintain the kind of society we enjoy under the Constitution.

You really are a tiresome little creature, American, making the same wild and baseless accusations regardless of what you're talking about and who you're talking to. I'm not denigrating your religion, I'm denigrating your mindless, senseless inability to tell the difference between your religion and your politics. And I am not denigrating our Founding Fathers-- I am merely disagreeing with them. This is, of course, something else that you can't seem to discern a difference between.

 

[Kali]

i doubt that was literal, and anyway, he also later says "For all who draw the sword will die by the sword"

Totally offtopic but have always found it interesting that most gangsters have a "live by the sword and die by it" attitude. I think it is cause most rappers were brought up Christians.

 

[spud_meister]

Totally offtopic but have always found it interesting that most gangsters have a "live by the sword and die by it" attitude. I think it is cause most rappers were brought up Christians.

no, i doubt that, i think they do it so they can conform to the stereotype, you can't be a proper gangster without the self image of suicidal tough guy. (unless you're one of them italian gangsters)

 

[LizardofOz]

Don't feel bad American, at least you could probably get a job writing speeches for Sarah Palin or that lady from Nevada huh?

 

[reefedjib]

I believe in God. I also state that inellable rights (natural rights) do not exist. These two things are not dependent on each other. God does not dictate what our rights are. The founders developed rights based on instinct, desires, and social mores of the time. Nothing else. Rights are a human construct.

I believe in God. I also believe in natural rights. However, I observe that natural rights are a construct of man's secular rational philosophy in the 18th - 19th centuries (Hobbes, Paine, Locke, Mill). They are moral rights.

From Wikipedia:

Legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights or statutory rights) are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature (or unenumerated but implied from enumerated rights), and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs.

In contrast, natural rights (also called moral rights or unalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative.

Blurring the lines between natural and legal rights, U.S. statesman James Madison believed that some rights, such as trial by jury, are social rights, arising neither from natural law nor from positive law but from the social contract from which a government derives its authority.

I notice it doesn't say one thing about rights being derived from God. To me, certain rights are inalienable, merely due to our existence. Because we exist, we have the right to life, liberty and property.

From what I am reading in Locke, these rights are active in a state of nature, where every person is out for themselves. This makes you vulnerable to those that won't respect your own rights, only the pursuit of theirs. It looks like the deal done is to exchange the absolute claim to those rights in order to form a society with rules to protect ourselves from those who would take what is not theirs (life, liberty or property). So, you agree give up you right to life if you kill another member of society. You agree to give up your claim of liberty if you commit a crime. You can lose your property for the benefit of society (eminent domain).

I suppose the point is that these rights are inalienable by being rooted in philosophy and not civil law. They are enshrined in our DoI, not a legal document.

The rights enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights are in civil law, since those ARE legal documents, and so are not inalienable. But they do raise the issue that we the people have rights that cannot be interfered with by the government. This is especially visible with the 9th Amendment.

This is my current understanding, anyways.

 

[OldDominionWhig]

Ok, I think I know why American asked this question. This was a talking point of Newt Gingrich’s speech to the Young America’s Foundation on August 3, 2010. To provide context, the concept of “God = Your Rights” Mr. Gingrich was speaking on the concept of American exceptionalism. Mr. Gingrich quoted the Declaration of Independence, “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…”Mr. Gingrich explained his belief that rights exist without government and not at the direction of government.

In my opinion, American took the quote further than what the words mean, he imposed his belief that your rights comes from his creator. I believe this to be in direct opposition to the passage for the Declaration of Independence. There is a beauty in the words of the Declaration of independence, “…that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” This statement applies to all people, the religious and the atheists.

Those of religious persuasion (fair disclosure, I am one of them), can find their rights granted by their God. This concept applies to any religion, the monotheistic or the polytheistic, an individual can believe their rights are endowed by whomever or whatever they believe is their Creator. These people are free to challenge the government with, “Hey, my rights exist because I was placed here by my God (or Gods) and he/she did not create you [the government], you were created by mankind and only exist because I consent to your existence.” Therefore the religious person rightfully declares themself the master of the government based on their beliefs and logic.

The statement is true for the atheist as well. At the point an atheist is “created” (again based on the individual’s belief and no one else’s) they have been endowed with certain unalienable rights. These people are free to challenge the government with, “Hey, my rights exist because I exist and you [the government] only exist because I consent to your existence.” Therefore the atheist rightfully declares themself the master of the government based on their beliefs and logic.

 

[Andalublue]

Ok, I think I know why American asked this question. This was a talking point of Newt Gingrich’s speech to the Young America’s Foundation on August 3, 2010. To provide context, the concept of “God = Your Rights” Mr. Gingrich was speaking on the concept of American exceptionalism. Mr. Gingrich quoted the Declaration of Independence, “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…”Mr. Gingrich explained his belief that rights exist without government and not at the direction of government.

In my opinion, American took the quote further than what the words mean, he imposed his belief that your rights comes from his creator. I believe this to be in direct opposition to the passage for the Declaration of Independence. There is a beauty in the words of the Declaration of independence, “…that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” This statement applies to all people, the religious and the atheists.

Those of religious persuasion (fair disclosure, I am one of them), can find their rights granted by their God. This concept applies to any religion, the monotheistic or the polytheistic, an individual can believe their rights are endowed by whomever or whatever they believe is their Creator. These people are free to challenge the government with, “Hey, my rights exist because I was placed here by my God (or Gods) and he/she did not create you [the government], you were created by mankind and only exist because I consent to your existence.” Therefore the religious person rightfully declares themself the master of the government based on their beliefs and logic.

The statement is true for the atheist as well. At the point an atheist is “created” (again based on the individual’s belief and no one else’s) they have been endowed with certain unalienable rights. These people are free to challenge the government with, “Hey, my rights exist because I exist and you [the government] only exist because I consent to your existence.” Therefore the atheist rightfully declares themself the master of the government based on their beliefs and logic.

Nicely put. I don't agree with you, as concepts of creators and existential solipsism are as much products of man-made culture as concepts of government and authority. Nevertheless, your argument was well put and has a certain elegance.

 

[OldDominionWhig]

Thanks for the kind words, not trying to change anyone's mind.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

If God is removed from the minds of the People, then the protection of inalienable rights is also removed. For then government determines what your rights are.

This is the same thought process as: "Morality *is* Christianity (or other religion centered around a supreme being) - without said religious beliefs - you cannot be moral"

Which is a fallacy in and of itself.

It's not the *rights* that would go away or change - what might change is how we value those rights and to what extent some people are willing to protect them.

 

[American]

Ok, I think I know why American asked this question. This was a talking point of Newt Gingrich’s speech to the Young America’s Foundation on August 3, 2010. To provide context, the concept of “God = Your Rights” Mr. Gingrich was speaking on the concept of American exceptionalism. Mr. Gingrich quoted the Declaration of Independence, “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…”Mr. Gingrich explained his belief that rights exist without government and not at the direction of government.

In my opinion, American took the quote further than what the words mean, he imposed his belief that your rights comes from his creator. I believe this to be in direct opposition to the passage for the Declaration of Independence. There is a beauty in the words of the Declaration of independence, “…that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” This statement applies to all people, the religious and the atheists.

Those of religious persuasion (fair disclosure, I am one of them), can find their rights granted by their God. This concept applies to any religion, the monotheistic or the polytheistic, an individual can believe their rights are endowed by whomever or whatever they believe is their Creator. These people are free to challenge the government with, “Hey, my rights exist because I was placed here by my God (or Gods) and he/she did not create you [the government], you were created by mankind and only exist because I consent to your existence.” Therefore the religious person rightfully declares themself the master of the government based on their beliefs and logic.

The statement is true for the atheist as well. At the point an atheist is “created” (again based on the individual’s belief and no one else’s) they have been endowed with certain unalienable rights. These people are free to challenge the government with, “Hey, my rights exist because I exist and you [the government] only exist because I consent to your existence.” Therefore the atheist rightfully declares themself the master of the government based on their beliefs and logic.

I was unaware of Newt's speech. It was just something I've been thinking about. If you do not believe in God, then who is your creator? To endow with rights implies that the bestower understands what rights are and has a level of authority. The levels of authority run this way..... God > the People > Constitution > Federal govt

Therefore the fed govt cannot take away alienable rights, because the fed govt is the most subordinate of all.

 

[marduc]

It was just something I've been thinking about. If you do not believe in God, then who is your creator?

I refer to her as "Mom", there is another one that gets equal credit though, I call him "Dad"

 

[American]

I refer to her as "Mom", there is another one that gets equal credit though, I call him "Dad"

They are procreators.

 

[marduc]

They are procreators.

Their act of procreation created me.