PDA

View Full Version : Where do our rights come from?




DeadheadForPaul
10-04-2009, 02:09 PM
I'm really struggling with this concept...please help!

Do they come from God?

Are they "natural"?

Are they universal?

What is the justification for these rights?

Are our rights not just words on a paper that can be taken away at any time?

Thanks!

Matt Collins
10-04-2009, 02:12 PM
They are inherent in our humanity. Every individual wants to be free from artificial restraint thus freedom is part of our nature. Some people believe that this desire to be free and thus our inherent rights are placed there by God, some don't. It's not as important to know how they got here, as much as it is to know that our natural rights exist.

surf
10-04-2009, 02:18 PM
i was born with them.

erowe1
10-04-2009, 02:19 PM
The concept of rights implies concepts of right and wrong. If right and wrong exist, then they exist because an absolute moral law exists, and hence a transcendent law giver, God.

If you accept axiomatically that you have rights, then the logical conclusion is that God must exist. If you accept axiomatically that God does not exist, then the logical conclusion is that neither do any rights. Of course there are plenty of atheists who claim to believe that they have rights. I can't deny that they sincerely believe that they do have those rights (after all, even atheists are made in God's image), but that belief does not comport with their world view.

Deborah K
10-04-2009, 02:25 PM
Rights are God given but they are protected by power. Take for example having a gun to your head. You can claim all the rights you want, but if you have no way to protect your rights, then you have none. This is why it is necessary to be vigilant in their protection.

tpreitzel
10-04-2009, 02:33 PM
The concept of rights implies concepts of right and wrong. If right and wrong exist, then they exist because an absolute moral law exists, and hence a transcendent law giver, God.

If you accept axiomatically that you have rights, then the logical conclusion is that God must exist. If you accept axiomatically that God does not exist, then the logical conclusion is that neither do any rights. Of course there are plenty of atheists who claim to believe that they have rights. I can't deny that they sincerely believe that they do have those rights (after all, even atheists are made in God's image), but that belief does not comport with their world view.

Well said.

heavenlyboy34
10-04-2009, 03:07 PM
The concept of rights implies concepts of right and wrong. If right and wrong exist, then they exist because an absolute moral law exists, and hence a transcendent law giver, God.

If you accept axiomatically that you have rights, then the logical conclusion is that God must exist. If you accept axiomatically that God does not exist, then the logical conclusion is that neither do any rights. Of course there are plenty of atheists who claim to believe that they have rights. I can't deny that they sincerely believe that they do have those rights (after all, even atheists are made in God's image), but that belief does not comport with their world view.

Not necessarily. Statists believe that they have rights because they have a monopoly on the use of force. This is why those who believe in God must disbelieve in the State-the State usurps powers previously exclusive to God (viz. the right to murder and the right to take things, etc). This conflict of interest between God and the State is inherent and cannot be reconciled (unless the citizens arm themselves more heavily than the State, which would negate the need for the State anyway).

Bruno
10-04-2009, 03:09 PM
The concept of rights implies concepts of right and wrong. If right and wrong exist, then they exist because an absolute moral law exists, and hence a transcendent law giver, God.

.

They could also simply exist because of agreed upon principles of right and wrong.

Live_Free_Or_Die
10-04-2009, 03:11 PM
nt

tpreitzel
10-04-2009, 03:13 PM
Not necessarily. Statists believe that they have rights because they have a monopoly on the use of force. This is why those who believe in God must disbelieve in the State-the State usurps powers previously exclusive to God (viz. the right to murder and the right to take things, etc). This conflict of interest between God and the State is inherent and cannot be reconciled (unless the citizens arm themselves more heavily than the State, which would negate the need for the State anyway).

Some people will insist the state is an instrument of God... ;)

Personally, the state can be an instrument of God *, but normally is an instrument of evil instead. The day of anointed kings has thankfully past although some would like to resurrect one. The result won't be pretty. ;)

* For most people, the necessity of some government is obvious. The key is keeping government minimal and local.

BenIsForRon
10-04-2009, 03:19 PM
Remeber when the founders said " We hold these truths to be self evident"? Our rights are one of those truths that are self evident. In other words, the didn't come from anywhere, they've always been here, and they always will be. They can be infringed, but they will never be snuffed out of existence.

Dionysus
10-04-2009, 03:23 PM
One could make a distinction between abstract rights and rights which you actually possess in concrete terms in the here and now. Those latter types of rights can be considered those things which were fought for and won. As soon as one can no longer defend their rights, they cease to become rights, and are usually revoked to somebody else's benefit. Oh, technically, you may be entitled to them, but you saw how well that theory worked on the jackboot thugs at the G-20. They weren't really interested in philosophical discussions.

heavenlyboy34
10-04-2009, 03:28 PM
Some people will insist the state is an instrument of God... ;)

Personally, the state can be an instrument of God *, but normally is an instrument of evil instead. The day of anointed kings has thankfully past although some would like to resurrect one. The result won't be pretty. ;)

* For most people, the necessity of some government is obvious. The key is keeping government minimal and local.


This strikes me as inconsistent with God's law-

From 4 Kings (KJV),

17:34 Unto this day they do after the former manners: they fear not the LORD, neither do they after their statutes, or after their ordinances, or after the law and commandment which the LORD commanded the children of Jacob, whom he named Israel; 17:35 With whom the LORD had made a covenant, and charged them, saying,Ye shall not fear other gods, nor bow yourselves to them, nor serve them, nor sacrifice to them: 17:36 But the LORD, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt with great power and a stretched out arm, him shall ye fear, and him shall ye worship, and to him shall ye do sacrifice.

(King James Bible, 4 Kings)

How can you grant such God-like power to the State and still be consistent with God's desires? :eek:

haaaylee
10-04-2009, 03:37 PM
rights don't cost money. you don't have a right to healthcare, a house, a job, etc. because they all involve money, someone's labor, someone's time, etc. it doesn't cost anyone anything to give you liberty, freedom, life, etc.

i don't believe they come from God, as i do not believe in God.
therefore i take the economic approach.

DeadheadForPaul
10-04-2009, 03:46 PM
Not necessarily. Statists believe that they have rights because they have a monopoly on the use of force. This is why those who believe in God must disbelieve in the State-the State usurps powers previously exclusive to God (viz. the right to murder and the right to take things, etc). This conflict of interest between God and the State is inherent and cannot be reconciled (unless the citizens arm themselves more heavily than the State, which would negate the need for the State anyway).

Romans 13?

heavenlyboy34
10-04-2009, 03:57 PM
Romans 13?

Romans Chapter 13 (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/baldwin1.html)

by Chuck Baldwin (chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com)

Some key quotes-
"By the same token, a civil magistrate has authority in civil matters, but his authority is limited and defined. Observe that Romans Chapter 13 clearly limits the authority of civil government by strictly defining its purpose: "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil . . . For he is the minister of God to thee for good . . . for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." Notice that civil government must not be a "terror to good works." It has no power or authority to terrorize good works or good people. God never gave it that authority. And any government that oversteps that divine boundary has no divine authority or protection."


"The problem in America today is that we have allowed our political leaders to violate their oaths of office and to ignore, and blatantly disobey, the "supreme Law of the Land," the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, if we truly believe Romans Chapter 13, we will insist and demand that our civil magistrates submit to the U.S. Constitution. Now, how many of us Christians are going to truly obey Romans Chapter 13?"

Further,

Biblical Anarchism (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/carson2.html)

Some key passages:

Reading what G-d actually says through Samuel is a sobering reminder of how deeply heretical our modern faith in the State is:
And the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do."
Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plough his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day." (I Samuel 8:7-18)
Here, the Bible makes it absolutely clear that the change from the Mosaic anarchy to what by today's standards would be a "limited government" will have terrible consequences and shows a tremendous lack of faith in G-d. This passage makes clear that the people of Israel committed a grievous sin when they rejected G-d's anarchy for a State.

Dionysus
10-04-2009, 03:59 PM
People/groups of people dress up the rights they've won, or that they've instituted, by ascribing them to God, or whatever. However, this is man's realm. If God wanted you to have the right to life, he wouldn't allow others to kill you. I think the basic rights of man, life, liberty, property, are just the fairest way to structure a human society. They give everyone a certain starting position, then they become their own responsibility.

If you are sympathetic to this view, it seems that you have to acknowledge that people are always in some state of war over their rights. I don't mean war war. Wars of ideas and politics are more common. Once you have a right, you can't just kick back forever. Rights have to be exercised and defended.

Deborah K
10-04-2009, 04:02 PM
People/groups of people dress up the rights they've won, or that they've instituted, by ascribing them to God, or whatever. However, this is man's realm. If God wanted you to have the right to life, he wouldn't allow others to kill you. I think the basic rights of man, life, liberty, property, are just the fairest way to structure a human society. They give everyone a certain starting position, then they become their own responsibility.

If you are sympathetic to this view, it seems that you have to acknowledge that people are always in some state of war over their rights. I don't mean war war. Wars of ideas and politics are more common. Once you have a right, you can't just kick back forever. Rights have to be exercised and defended.

Huh? Maybe if God was a puppetmaster. And if one tends to believe in God, then one also tends to believe that life doesn't end in death.

Dionysus
10-04-2009, 04:05 PM
Huh? Maybe if God was a puppetmaster. And if one tends to believe in God, then one also tends to believe that life doesn't end in death.

Right, I'm just saying, Earth is our deal. We have free will.

tremendoustie
10-04-2009, 04:05 PM
I'm really struggling with this concept...please help!

Do they come from God?

Are they "natural"?

Are they universal?

What is the justification for these rights?

Are our rights not just words on a paper that can be taken away at any time?

Thanks!

Rights are really a subset of morality. To say you have property rights, for example, is to say that it would be immoral for a person to steal from you. To say you have a right to live is to say that it would be immoral for a person to murder you.

I believe these rights, and morality, come from God. I do think there are some logical inconsistencies with the idea of fundamental rights in the absence of God, but I respect atheists who believe in natural rights far more than those who do not.

It's kind of like those who believe in the constitution, compared to those who want to use the force of government to accomplish all their goals. I think there are logical inconsistencies with the constitution as an idea, but I respect constitutionalists far more than statists -- because they have more respect for the liberty of their fellow man, and a far better sense of right and wrong.

Even if I think it may be technically be logically inconsistent at its core, an atheist with a conscience is far better than one without. Holding contradictory ideas is very much preferable to carrying out a flawed idea to its logical conclusion, and causing evil.

Matt Collins
10-04-2009, 04:37 PM
The concept of rights implies concepts of right and wrong.No it doesn't. Morality and rights have nothing to do with each other. As long as every individual respects the rights of others, that is what is important, at least as it relates to law.

Morality is relative and subjective, rights are well defined and objective.


If you accept axiomatically that you have rights, then the logical conclusion is that God must exist. If you accept axiomatically that God does not exist, then the logical conclusion is that neither do any rights. Again, this is not true. While I agree with you, a belief in a higher being does not negate or qualify one's rights.

Matt Collins
10-04-2009, 04:38 PM
From 4 Kings (KJV),
Why do people still use KJV?!?! :confused: :rolleyes:

pcosmar
10-04-2009, 04:44 PM
I believe they come from my Creator.
Ya'all can believe anything you like.

pcosmar
10-04-2009, 04:46 PM
Why do people still use KJV?!?! :confused: :rolleyes:

I have multiple translations, good for comparing side by side. I still use KJV mostly, as it is widely used and known by many.

Matt Collins
10-04-2009, 04:53 PM
I still use KJV mostly, as it is widely used and known by many.Yes but it's hard to understand, and the least accurate of the mainstream translations.

heavenlyboy34
10-04-2009, 04:59 PM
Why do people still use KJV?!?! :confused: :rolleyes:


I don't have any other version on my computer at the moment. :(

Dr.3D
10-04-2009, 04:59 PM
Why do people still use KJV?!?! :confused: :rolleyes:

Somebody told them it was the best translation and they never bothered to check for themselves.

pcosmar
10-04-2009, 04:59 PM
Yes but it's hard to understand, and the least accurate of the mainstream translations.

I have not found that to be the case, and have compared several side by side. Also many of the study guides and concordances use it as a base.

DeadheadForPaul
10-04-2009, 05:06 PM
Why do people still use KJV?!?! :confused: :rolleyes:

Some people actually believe KJV is the only "legitimate" translation :rolleyes:

pcosmar
10-04-2009, 05:09 PM
I don't have any other version on my computer at the moment. :(

I have Bibletime on mine. You can download several versions/translations.
http://www.bibletime.info/
I had an 8 translation New testament at one time. Nice for study and comparison, buy a really big and clumsy book.

Akus
10-04-2009, 05:15 PM
I'm really struggling with this concept...please help!

Do they come from?God

What is the justification for these rights? See above

Matt Collins
10-04-2009, 05:22 PM
I have not found that to be the case, and have compared several side by side. Unfortunately that isn't how you tell if it's the most accurate translation.

tremendoustie
10-04-2009, 05:39 PM
I don't have any other version on my computer at the moment. :(

Just go to crosswalk.com, or the like. Pretty much every translation is online now, in searchable form.

BillyDkid
10-04-2009, 05:42 PM
Of course, this debate has gone on forever. The important thing, from my perspective, is to fight the idea that our rights come from other people giving them to us ie. government. That they are inherent wherever they come from. You can say it's from God or you can say it's from the giant sky oyster - I don't care. The important thing is that we are endowed with them by our creator - whatever that creator is.

pcosmar
10-04-2009, 05:42 PM
Unfortunately that isn't how you tell if it's the most accurate translation.

Oh well, since I am not fluent in Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew and don't have access to the original texts it is the best I can do.
Are you done derailing the thread yet?

Matt Collins
10-04-2009, 06:04 PM
Of course, this debate has gone on forever. The important thing, from my perspective, is to fight the idea that our rights come from other people giving them to us ie. government. That they are inherent wherever they come from. You can say it's from God or you can say it's from the giant sky oyster - I don't care. The important thing is that we are endowed with them by our creator - whatever that creator is.I agree; very well put!

Matt Collins
10-04-2009, 06:09 PM
Oh well, since I am not fluent in Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew and don't have access to the original texts it is the best I can do.
Are you done derailing the thread yet?No, you can read the writings of the professional translators. They will tell you that NRSV or NIV is the most accurate. Why? Because we know a lot more about the science of translating and linguistics in the 20th Century, than they did back in Shakespeare's time. Also the KJV was created for political reasons (the King of England didn't want the pope's version in his kingdom). And finally the KJV was translated from Latin to English. NRSV and NIV are translated directly from the original Greek/Hebrew texts instead.

Not trying to detail the thread, just making the facts known :)

ClayTrainor
10-04-2009, 06:13 PM
Of course, this debate has gone on forever. The important thing, from my perspective, is to fight the idea that our rights come from other people giving them to us ie. government. That they are inherent wherever they come from. You can say it's from God or you can say it's from the giant sky oyster - I don't care. The important thing is that we are endowed with them by our creator - whatever that creator is.

Well said. In other words, they are simply inherent in our nature. :)

shocker315
10-04-2009, 06:14 PM
http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/pdf/futurecalling1.pdf



RIGHTS ARE BORN ON THE BATTLEFIELD

In societies that have been sheltered for many generations from war and revolution, it is easy to forget that rights are derived from military power. That is their ultimate source.
Initially, rights must be earned on the battlefield. They may be handed to the next generationas a gift, but they always are purchased on the battlefield. The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution is a classic example. The men who drafted that document were able to do so only because they represented the colonists who defeated the armies of Great Britain.
Had they lost the War of Independence, they would have had no opportunity to write a Bill of Rights or anything else except letters of farewell before their execution.

Unfortunately, Mao Zedong was right when he said that political power grows from the barrel of a gun. He could just as well have said rights. A man may declare that he has a right to do such and such derived from law or from a constitution or even from God; but, in the presence of an enemy or a criminal or a tyrant with a gun to his head, he has no power to exercise his proclaimed right. Rights are always based on power. If we lose our ability or willingness to physically defend our rights, we will lose them.

Now we come to the chasm between collectivists and individualists. If rights are earned on the battlefield, we may assume they belong to the winners, but who are they? Do governments win wars or do the people?

If governments win wars and people merely serve them as in medieval times, then governments hold the rights and are entitled to grant or deny them to the people. On the other hand, if people win wars and governments merely serve them in this matter, then the people hold rights and are entitled to grant or deny them to governments. If our task is to define rights as we think they should be in a free society, we must choose between these two concepts.

Individualists choose the concept that rights come from the people and governments are the servants. Collectivists choose the concept that rights come from governments and people are the servants. Individualists are nervous about that assumption because, if the state has the power to grant rights, it also has the power to take them away, and that concept is incompatible with personal liberty.

The view of individualism was expressed clearly in the United States Declaration of Independence, which says:

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….

Nothing could be clearer than that. The dictionary tells us that inalienable (spelled differently in colonial times) means “not to be transferred to another.” The assumption is that rights are the innate possession of the people. The purpose of government is, not to grant rights, but to secure them and protect them.

By contrast, all collectivist political systems embrace the opposite view that rights are granted by the state. That includes the Nazis, Fascists, and Communists. It is also a tenet of the United Nations. Article Four of the UN Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights says:

The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment of those rights provided by the State … the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law.

I repeat: If we accept that the state has the power to grant rights, then we must also agree it has the power to take them away. Notice the wording of the UN Covenant. After proclaiming that rights are provided by the state, it then says that those rights may be subject to limitations “as are determined by law.” In other words, the collectivists at the UN presume to grant us our rights and, when they are ready to take them away, all they have to do is pass a law authorizing it.

Compare that with the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution. It says Congress shall make no law restricting the rights of freedom of speech, or religion, peaceful assembly, the right to bear arms, and so forth – not except as determined by law, but no law.

The Constitution embodies the ethic of individualism. The UN embodies the ethic of collectivism, and what a difference that makes.

Matt Collins
10-04-2009, 06:15 PM
Well said. In other words, they are simply inherent in our nature. :)See post #2 in this thread :cool:

youngbuck
10-04-2009, 06:24 PM
Rights are granted to us by our creator, God. Thus, they are both natural, and universal.

The justification for these rights is that God is a loving God, and he does not desire us to be in bonds or slavery.

These rights are not just things on a piece of paper, ready to vanish by any stroke of a pen. Only if we submit that our rights are not from God can our rights be revoked by the state.

DeadheadForPaul
10-04-2009, 06:49 PM
Lots of very interesting answers

This whole thing came up because I've been having a spiritual/theological crisis and cannot decide whether I am a Christian, believe in any God at all (Deism), or believe in no God.

First, without God, how do we explain where our rights come from?

Second, with God, how do you know what are rights are - given that God forbids many things. And didn't we have to wrestle for some rights about theocracies? Doesn't religion oppose many of the rights we take for granted today?

Third, ultimately, whether you think rights come from God or from another source, aren't those philosophical concepts worthless unless you have firepower (2nd amendment) to protect it?

pcosmar
10-04-2009, 07:03 PM
Lots of very interesting answers



Third, ultimately, whether you think rights come from God or from another source, aren't those philosophical concepts worthless unless you have firepower (2nd amendment) to protect it?

BINGO
Your bottom line IS the bottom line.

ClayTrainor
10-04-2009, 07:05 PM
Lots of very interesting answers

This whole thing came up because I've been having a spiritual/theological crisis and cannot decide whether I am a Christian, believe in any God at all (Deism), or believe in no God.


For this, i have an honest personal recomendation.

Eat magic mushrooms, and look through a telescope for a couple hours. You will gain perspective.

YouTube - Mushrooms and Spirituality (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT-M5Iu5FpY)