"God given right"

[Caelia]

Re: "God given right"

Let's start here: inalienable=unable to take away/surrender/give up, unassailable

What is a right that cannot and hasn't been taken away at some point in human history?

That is the ever elusive inalienable right. There are lots of rights that SHOULD be inalienable, but pragmatically speaking, in practice, at least off the top of my head, I don't know of any that haven't been taken away by someone, in some culture, at some point in history.

Or maybe what's seen as a right has changed. For example, some wouldn't believe marriage is a right. It's why the question was brought up as to what is a right. That's why I brought up Locke as groundwork for inalienable rights.

[DashREM]

Re: "God given right"

My opinion: You were born, therefor you have the "right" to do whatever you want. You may even be able to avoid consequences... so long as you are alive.

Edit: I decided to quote right because I believe we are using the word out of definition. I'm not sure what the right word to use here is, to be honest.

[AzazelEblis]

Re: "God given right"

The difference between believing in (literally) inherent, inborn rights and believing that rights have to obtained is the difference between being active and being passive. People who believe rights have to be obtained make it part of their self imposed obligation to take an active part in making sure those rights are given, and not taken away. People who believe that rights are inborn look around at all the people lacking in real, physical rights, and say "They deserve better. Somebody ought to do something."

I've tried to be somewhat subtle about it, but I guess that doesn't work.

How many of y'all recognize that the Rights of one person are Obligations on their neighbor?

Inborn or not, this demands that rights be met. This is an idea that I think we've forgotten too readily in our country.

You have a right to live? I have an obligation to not kill you. Or, if it is a Positive Right, to help keep you alive.

You have a right to an education? I have an obligation to not impede that process. Or, if that is part of the primary and secondary education that we consider a positive right, I have an obligation to help fund it (property taxes, ftw!)

Or, to look at our own forum's history and rules, the Moderation Staff here has a history of trying to protect participants' Right to Free Speech and Freedom of Religious Beliefs. I wonder what obligations these entail?

Inborn or not, there is an Obligation for every Right we may discuss. There is no excuse for passivity. This is the point of the Social Contract.

So yes, I believe that every human being deserves the dignity of "Rights," as being inborn. They limit a few for the ability to maximize the gains on what remains - that whole "Social Contract" thing, which brings on those Obligations and all.

[westwoden]

Re: "God given right"

'God given right' = EGO.

that's all it is.

a way of trying to make ourselves seem more important.

No one has a God given right to anything.

[AzazelEblis]

Re: "God given right"

'God given right' = EGO.

that's all it is.

a way of trying to make ourselves seem more important.

No one has a God given right to anything.

I've noticed quite a lot of what "ego" brings, here and elsewhere. On the internet, a lot of it involves calling into question those ideas which people hold dear - be they religious, philosophical, folk-historical, and so forth.

I propose that, if "human rights" are not intrinsic to the universe or self-evident in the existence of people, that they are instead the foundation of society. I've already established how rights imply obligations, but I will go further and say that obligations are the product of the rights of others. That's right, I'm bringing up obligations - even Debts - once again. Few things deflate ego quite like owing a debt.

For example, if a fetus has a right to life, we have an obligation not to abort it. Otherwise, the mother has free license to abort that fetus. Plain as day.

Lets start examining how rights and obligations are inherently human with the history of money.

No, barter wasn't ever much of an economy, except among people who could not trust one another. In his book "Debt: the first Thousand Years," David Graeber details the full summation of evidence for barter economy, which displays the limited use. The rest of his book instead displays how most of the evidence points to a "Gift" Economy, perpetuated by the participants shared feelings of debt to one another at various times. Currency itself descends from an effort to tabulate this debt - early money was quite literally a tangible form of "I-O-Us", according to Graeber.

According to the contracts, people had a *right* to enjoy some pay off for the fruits of their labor, being given some token which could then be exchanged for the fruits of the labor of another; like when the grain and grape harvests are at different times of the year, and people trade those goods, with an intermediary good which stores easier to hold the time. Only later did people begin to trade these markers of debt among those who were not a part of the original lending. In this theory, currency evolved first as a piece denoting debt, which transitions nicely to a store of value, and only after then taking on the role of a widely used medium of exchange.

Quite literally, money itself, much less modern-day Economics, is built upon obligations.

How about community? Since we're supposed to be big on supporting a Neopagan Community, what is it that makes such a thing function?
This one neopagan blogger has this idea that it's an "open source" religion - free to use, and open to modification.

Here's the thing - No christian sect has been around, in its modern form, for more than 500 years. Even the Orthodox and Catholic groups have evolved from that day. Protestantism is a perfect example of how "Open Source" Christianity is. Sure, there's conventions for different sects, but no Pastor is legally obligated to be loyal to such.

So it boils down to this - Paganism is "free", according to this blogger. We've got our own threads here on the subject, such as a recent one about "Is it right to charge for services?"

Where has this attitude gotten us? Well, that same blogger, the second paragraph of this blog complains about how few pagans contribute towards the community.

If we want nice things, we have to build them. Quite literally, if you pull from this community, it is incumbent upon you to offer what you can in service to it - money, time, effort, in whatever combination you can afford. If that isn't much, keep that in mind for later contributions - you owe a debt.

This attitude is what holds churches, open-source programming groups, activism groups, and community groups of all kinds together - and our society is increasingly discarding it in favor of the "virtues" of Radical Individualism, while we all still simultaneously draw from these communities and community-drven institutions. Even Anarchists know what to call someone who refuses to give back - a leech.

Might internet piracy websites, such as ThePirateBay be composed of such leeches? No, they actually spend more than non-pirates, on average. In fact, in an effort to support the artists they love most, internet pirates often consider their illegal downloads to be a form of Debt, more than free stuff. And that obligation has translated to higher sales!

Did anyone hold a gun to the pirates' heads to make them do this? No, they continue to steal content - the only guns held to their heads are about this fact. The difference is, a growing number of them like to actually go pay for worthwhile content even after downloading it illegally, for free. You know, to keep that content coming.

Maybe we need more internet pirates in the pagan "community".