• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Without God, there are no inalienable rights

American said:
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.
Click to expand...

For a true discussion of this one would have to read far more than a few books on what the founders wrote or said. A thourough understanding of what the founders were influenced by, how the founders interpreted what they were influenced by and more is the subjct of a few books worth reading. One would be 'Original Intent' by Jack Rakove.

Please do not call people out and then ask them to look into the Bible for answers to government. It's silly. If the founders wanted a theocracy they could have put it to a vote.
 
spud_meister said:
so then, how did your founding fathers know what rights God wanted for people?
Click to expand...

A very astute and deep question on many levels. Simple answers and simple slogans can not approach answering this most basic of questions.

thank you
 
American said:
So you think government is about feeding the poor. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Government is what the people say it is. Unless of course you think the government is to be obeyed over any wishes of the people?
 
American said:
So you think government is about feeding the poor. Thanks.
Click to expand...

If the government isn't about feeding the poor and helpless, it should be. We're supposed to be civilized like the other Western Countries.

"Government and cooperation are the laws of life. Anarchy and competition are the laws of death." John Ruskin

ricksfolly
 
ricksfolly said:
The only things Jesus did was feed the multitude, bless the poor, walk on water, drive money changers out of the temples, preach, stop stone throwers, and commit suicide. He could have avoided it by recanting. He didn't feed the poor, or find shelter for the homeless, just said it was wrong, or so the myth goes.

There's a mile of difference between saying (preaching) and doing.

The closest to your ideal kind of government would be the Amish, but their lives are static, and they don't seem to have much fun.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

Amish life would be more fun if they would permit electricity..
 
ricksfolly said:
If the government isn't about feeding the poor and helpless, it should be. We're supposed to be civilized like the other Western Countries.

"Government and cooperation are the laws of life. Anarchy and competition are the laws of death." John Ruskin

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

So you wouldn't help people unless you were forced to. Figures.
 
SheWolf said:
umm.. no.. I was not advocating government at all
Click to expand...

Whether you advocate government or not, it's here and we're all stuck with it.

"Government and cooperation are the laws of life. Anarchy and competition are the laws of death" John Ruskin

ricksfolly
 
ricksfolly said:
If the government isn't about feeding the poor and helpless, it should be. We're supposed to be civilized like the other Western Countries.

"Government and cooperation are the laws of life. Anarchy and competition are the laws of death." John Ruskin

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

The government shouldn't be about charity. That is what charities are for. The government should just be about doing setting the rules for civilized society and for accomplishing tasks that only government can do such as our highway system.
 
Last edited:
American said:
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.
Click to expand...
And what's wrong with that? I'd rather have the government I and my fellow citizens elected decide my rights than some small group of people from 2,000 years ago.
 
??? said:
And what's wrong with that? I'd rather have the government I and my fellow citizens elected decide my rights than some small group of people from 2,000 years ago.
Click to expand...

Except the small gorup of people didn't decide your rights and your government may not always be something controlled by citizens. Once we set rights to be a mandate of the government, then the government can (and has before) said that you may not get those rights.
 
hallam said:
Once we set rights to be a mandate of the government, then the government can (and has before) said that you may not get those rights.
Click to expand...
I don't understand. Rights have always been "a mandate of the government." And believing in God won't stop the government from taking your rights away. At least, it certainly hasn't historically.
 
American said:
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.
Click to expand...

So if we remove god from the minds of the people they will turn into heartless, immoral pushovers who will refuse to defend basic human rights? I think this is very naive. Even if the concept of god played a role in the establishment of these rights, they will not be forgotten when god inevitably fades into the history books.

I suspect the reason most people believe in and defend human rights has nothing to do with the presence of god in their minds. You can be a compassionate human being without god.
 
??? said:
I don't understand. Rights have always been "a mandate of the government." And believing in God won't stop the government from taking your rights away. At least, it certainly hasn't historically.
Click to expand...

I think that I kind of agree with you but I think that rights belong to people who are willing to defend those rights. Governments will naturally infringe on those rights if they find it useful, in their exercise of their power, to do so. It is the responsibility of the governed to protect themselves from their government. One way to do this is to have a government where the power is somewhat diffused with the main thing being to prevent having it concentrated in a single person. Things are most troublesome when there are perceived threats to national security. Adams came up with the Sedition Act, Roosevelt had internment camps, Bush had the Patriot Act. All things that took rights from citizens under the pretext of protecting the majority. The majority goes along because they are "being protected" and, next thing you know, we have no rights at all.

Claiming power comes from some divine source is another way for people's rights to be eroded. Someone simply claims that some deity has imbued them with the right to take your rights. A contemporary example, the Taliban. An older one, the Catholic Church during the dark ages.

Some people think that the separation of church and state in the first amendment is to protect religion from government. It is actually there to protect government from religion. Even if a majority of people in the country share a religion, they can't impose it on me.
 
Bardo said:
I suspect the reason most people believe in and defend human rights has nothing to do with the presence of god in their minds. You can be a compassionate human being without god.
Click to expand...

People are naturally gregarious, but when they have a terrible experience it can make them defensive, cause distrust or prejudice, and lose their compassion for others.

ricksfolly
 
Very true. However, I dont believe this has anything to do with a belief in god. I've met horrible christians and extremely compassionate atheists and vice versa. I'm just trying to point out that god isnt a necessity for compassion or goodness.
 
??? said:
I don't understand. Rights have always been "a mandate of the government." And believing in God won't stop the government from taking your rights away. At least, it certainly hasn't historically.
Click to expand...

No. Historically, rights have always been endowed by our "creator". This means that the government can change the rights should they want to.
 
Bardo said:
Very true. However, I dont believe this has anything to do with a belief in god. I've met horrible christians and extremely compassionate atheists and vice versa. I'm just trying to point out that god isnt a necessity for compassion or goodness.
Click to expand...

Nor will he protect you from the opposite.

Think about the innumerable heinous acts that human beings have committed, and realize that God did not step in and intervene on any of them. It's that annoying "free will" issue. I have the free will to shoot you in the face with a shotgun, should I choose to do so. If not bullet proof or armed yourself, chances are you wont be able to stop me. God wont intervene. You know who will?

The police. Representatives of a government that was elected by the people. People are the source of rights, and are also the source of taking them away. That's literally what civilization is: a collective deciding certain behaviors are not acceptable, and taking it upon themselves to enforce it.
 
American said:
If God is removed from the minds of the People, then the protection of inalienable rights is also removed.
Click to expand...

Human rights come from human conscience and reason. Religious belief does not stop a sociopath from murdering or stealing, and lack of it does not turn an empathetic person with a strong sense of ethics into a predator. I would rather live in a society of Isaac Asimovs than Dick Cheneys, and I'm probably in the majority on that.

American said:
For then government determines what your rights are.
Click to expand...

And since, in a democracy, you determine what that government is, the true nature of rights is revealed: An agreement founded in mutual respect, strengthened by compassion, and made practical by enlightened self-interest.
 
Martin Luther King, "Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam ,"

The home that all too many Americans left was solidly structured idealistically; its pillars were solidly grounded in the insights of our Judeo-Christian heritage. All men are made in the image of God. All men are bothers. All men are created equal. Every man is an heir to a legacy of dignity and worth. Every man has rights that are neither conferred by, nor derived from the State--they are God-given. Out of one blood, God made all men to dwell upon the face of the earth. What a marvelous foundation for any home! What a glorious and healthy place to inhabit.
Click to expand...

I love this speech. I like how he uses faith and love of America as a foundation for opposing the war in Vietnam. Anti-war left of today could learn a lot from this speech.

YouTube - Martin Luther King, "Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam"
 
Last edited:
AndrewC said:
I love this speech. I like how he uses faith and love of America as a foundation for opposing the war in Vietnam. Anti-war left of today could learn a lot from this speech.

YouTube - Martin Luther King, "Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam"
Click to expand...

My observation is that the left makes all the same statements but without having to invoke God. All men are created equal, under the law (genetic differences and economic opportunity keep us from actually being equal). Every person is an heir to a legacy of dignity and worth (although, some choose to deny the worth and dignity of others). Every person has rights and is the responsibility of people to protect those rights from being denied by government powers (under the Liberal principles under which the Constitution was developed, people have rights, governments have powers). We are all of the same species and that is a wondrous thing that binds us all together.

Before anyone starts flaming me about my statement of the Constitution being developed under Liberal principles, get at least a bit of a perspective of what Liberalism meant when the Constitution was written. Here is a nice, simple summary.

Liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
What happened to natural law?

Many philosophers had no problem finding other sources for a law that's above mere positive law, than God.

Natural law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In this article, you find a short summary of different philosophical perspectives on natural law, some of which consider God the source, others finding other sources.
 
German guy said:
What happened to natural law?

Many philosophers had no problem finding other sources for a law that's above mere positive law, than God.

Natural law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In this article, you find a short summary of different philosophical perspectives on natural law, some of which consider God the source, others finding other sources.
Click to expand...

What other sources would provide humanity inalienable rights though? Can you please list a few specifics?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom