"God given right"

[nbdy]

Re: "God given right"

It's the basis of many modern political systems. Social contract theory isn't just an "American" thing and it's silly to assert otherwise. Also, believe it or not, a good portion of the people participate in social contract theory. If we didn't we wouldn't have a lot of things in government or society.

- - - Updated - - -

ADD: A great example of this in social contract theory is what rights are worth giving up. John Locke asserted in Second Treatise of Government how in order for one to join a society and participate some rights an individual would have otherwise need to be relinquished in order to receive social benefits. You actively give up many rights as we speak, it's just an issue of on what terms people give up and for what value in return.

Hon, I said nothing about any other political systems, affirmative or negative. I happen to know about this one because it is where I live. Please forgive me for not giving a shout out to all the other political systems in the world under which I have never lived, and possessing governing documents I have never read. Neither Locke nor Hobbes was American (nor Rousseau, nor Plato, for that matter) -- we cool now?

Social contract theory does not require unalienable rights, but asserting that certain rights are "God given" or "self evident" is a handy way to avoid the discussion altogether. Pretty handy if looking for a noble excuse to go to war. Funny how wars always get tied to God somehow but invariably are about money. (Now my fellow Americans will be hating on me because I think the American Revolution was about money .... but it was. *shrug* )

[Caelia]

Re: "God given right"

Which is the foundation of the U.S. political system. I appreciate your use of the word "believed;" however, I think that, like most systems, it only works when enough people, or perhaps even just the right people, "believe" it should be the case. I am very comfortable with the assertion that such rights should not be taken away, but the assertion that they cannot be taken away is falsified by any fool with a handgun.

It's the basis of many modern political systems. Social contract theory isn't just an "American" thing and it's silly to assert otherwise. Also, believe it or not, a good portion of the people participate in social contract theory. If we didn't we wouldn't have a lot of things in government or society.

- - - Updated - - -

ADD: A great example of this in social contract theory is what rights are worth giving up. John Locke asserted in Second Treatise of Government how in order for one to join a society and participate some rights an individual would have otherwise need to be relinquished in order to receive social benefits. You actively give up many rights as we speak, it's just an issue of on what terms people give up and for what value in return.

[Maria de Luna]

Re: "God given right"

Whether or not the idea of deity or god is "right" or "wrong" or "nutters," seems not to matter so much. I have to agree with masked here,

Powers provide free will, we've got the right and responsibility to use said free will. Some Powers may intend other rights but they left humanity free will and that includes the ability to **** ourselves over.

What comes after is what people do with it.

[AL!CE]

Re: "God given right"

Good luck proving me wrong.

I don't claim my faith as solid fact. There is a question, I have selected an answer, I can not be sure that answer is right.

I could be described as a soft theist (or an agnostic Pagan).

Describing a belief in a God as a logical fallacy makes you a hard atheist. I don't think people should be hard in their beliefs or lack of, without solid facts and as there are no solid facts in the field of belief... but that's just my opinion and you are entitled to yours.

[volcaniclastic]

Re: "God given right"

Good luck proving that.

Good luck proving me wrong.

[ChainLightning]

Re: "God given right"

I love this. Unalienable, God-given, protected rights are not inherent. They're given, for sure, but not by any God or gods. What it boils down to is that there's no such thing as rights until a group (society, culture, etc) creates the ideal and presents it as such.

In the US, life, liberty and the purfuit (lol) of happiness are considered base. They aren't. They were set forth by a small elite group of willfully blind men as nothing less than a dream of what the New World should be about. The truth is that all three of those things are patently impossible to maintain, let alone be born with.

[AL!CE]

Re: "God given right"

would imply that a sentient God exists. This is a fallacy.

Good luck proving that.

[nbdy]

Re: "God given right"

Depends on the philosopher. The rights are believed they can't be taken away without consent of the person. It's the basis for social contract theory.

Which is the foundation of the U.S. political system. I appreciate your use of the word "believed;" however, I think that, like most systems, it only works when enough people, or perhaps even just the right people, "believe" it should be the case. I am very comfortable with the assertion that such rights should not be taken away, but the assertion that they cannot be taken away is falsified by any fool with a handgun.

- - - Updated - - -

Coming from Jefferson, the author of The Declaration of Independence, the "creator" is more likely being used in a rhetorical sense, rather than a literal sense, to mean a rock bottom, fundamental, absolute, "as if from God," can't exist without it, right.

Your problem (IMHO) in accepting the idea is that you are confusing a legal promise from the government to the people regarding what the government can and can not do (by law) with a personal sense of something which arises within yourself (that sense of self worth). The government can't give that to anyone - and so, in that sense, the rights are a social construct.

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal promise from any government, it lays out the philosophical rationale for separating from Britain, and unalienable rights is bedrock. It asserts that by not respecting these rights -- which inhere in the individual by nature of existence in human form -- Britain violated its obligation to its American colonies.

- - - Updated - - -

I find the religious right's definition of "freedom of religion" to be odd. In my country of birth (and sort of my other country too, though separation of church and state blows in Germany), freedom of religion means that the public sector and everything it runs is religion free, and religion is for your own personal time. That means that the state will not interfere with your ability to believe whatever the hell you want, but your religion also doesn't get to interfere with the state. As I understand, this is also the case in the US.

Supposedly that is the case, but reality is more complicated. Separation of church and state continues to be a debate in the U.S.

[Willow]

Re: "God given right"

The only 'right' that really comes into play on my path is the right to fight for your own survival, whatever that may entail. If you have to take jobs that you feel are beneath you, if you have to sacrifice sleep and money in order to achieve an end that will allow you to get out of a dark patch in your life, that's all on your own shoulders and no one should be able to take that 'potential' from you.

As far as freedom of speech, religion, yadda yadda go... Some old religions survived the Christianity push, it's hard to weed out of some people. But those 'rights' when it comes to law are a pretty new phenomenon.

That being said, I'm also a bit of a dinosaur in my thought process... Just my 2 cents. ^^

[B. de Corbin]

Re: "God given right"

I actually take issue with the whole idea of unalienable rights, which is the secular way of describing "God given rights." Unalienable means they cannot be given away or taken away, and I honestly cannot think of a "right" I enjoy as a human that cannot be taken away. It is very pretty to believe that as a human I am possessed of inherent worth and dignity, but neither my life experiences nor human history support that belief. Rights are a social construct. A very good one, imo, but a construct nevertheless.

Coming from Jefferson, the author of The Declaration of Independence, the "creator" is more likely being used in a rhetorical sense, rather than a literal sense, to mean a rock bottom, fundamental, absolute, "as if from God," can't exist without it, right.

Your problem (IMHO) in accepting the idea is that you are confusing a legal promise from the government to the people regarding what the government can and can not do (by law) with a personal sense of something which arises within yourself (that sense of self worth). The government can't give that to anyone - and so, in that sense, the rights are a social construct.

[DanieMarie]

Re: "God given right"

I find the religious right's definition of "freedom of religion" to be odd. In my country of birth (and sort of my other country too, though separation of church and state blows in Germany), freedom of religion means that the public sector and everything it runs is religion free, and religion is for your own personal time. That means that the state will not interfere with your ability to believe whatever the hell you want, but your religion also doesn't get to interfere with the state. As I understand, this is also the case in the US.

[Caelia]

Re: "God given right"

I actually take issue with the whole idea of unalienable rights, which is the secular way of describing "God given rights." Unalienable means they cannot be given away or taken away, and I honestly cannot think of a "right" I enjoy as a human that cannot be taken away. It is very pretty to believe that as a human I am possessed of inherent worth and dignity, but neither my life experiences nor human history support that belief. Rights are a social construct. A very good one, imo, but a construct nevertheless.

Depends on the philosopher. The rights are believed they can't be taken away without consent of the person. It's the basis for social contract theory.

[nbdy]

Re: "God given right"

I actually take issue with the whole idea of unalienable rights, which is the secular way of describing "God given rights." Unalienable means they cannot be given away or taken away, and I honestly cannot think of a "right" I enjoy as a human that cannot be taken away. It is very pretty to believe that as a human I am possessed of inherent worth and dignity, but neither my life experiences nor human history support that belief. Rights are a social construct. A very good one, imo, but a construct nevertheless.

[MaskedOne]

Re: "God given right"

Powers provide free will, we've got the right and responsibility to use said free will. Some Powers may intend other rights but they left humanity free will and that includes the ability to **** ourselves over.

Regarding the guy you were talking to. The Declaration of Independence does discuss "inalienable rights endowed by the creator", as that line doesn't carry the force of law with it, those rights or at least specific elements of them are protected by the Constitution. The Constitution does all the visible heavy lifting on that front but one could try to make the case that the framers of the Constitution to be an inalienable right and the purpose of the First Amendment was not to grant the citizenry a right but rather to protect a right from any future tampering by government.

[volcaniclastic]

Re: "God given right"

"God given right" would imply that a sentient God exists. This is a fallacy. Our right to freedom of religion is dictated solely by our leaders throughout history. In Canada and America, and most of the western world at its present state, we have a freedom of religion, a freedom to think and believe as we wish, so long as it acts in accordance with the governing law. In past civilizations and past eras, we did not have that freedom.

The Roman's were the freest thinking civilization that I can name, insomuch that they allowed for the worship of multiple pantheons as they continued to conquer the rest of northern Africa, Byzantine, and Christendom (what we now know as Europe). But they still had very strict laws enforcing the worship of the Roman pantheon, sacrifices, and keeping with the pax deorum above all things. Worship to other gods came secondary in the eyes of the law. 14th century Christendom, on the other hand. You worshiped God, or you were excommunicated and declared anathema. Then you were usually stoned to death.

But I agree with Caelia in that some rights should be inalienable. Equal rights for men and women, suffrage, etc.