Obama Leaves "By their Creator" Out of Declaration of Independence in Latest Speech

[FrankRep]

Obama Leaves "By their Creator" Out of Declaration of Independence at Hispanic Caucus Speech



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.

YouTube - Obama Leaves "By their Creator" Out of Declaration of Independence at Hispanic Caucus Speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR61uTGTFoM)


Obama forgets to credit Creator for our endowed rights
http://www.examiner.com/public-policy-in-louisville/obama-forgets-to-credit-creator-for-our-endowed-rights

President Obama removes 'Creator' from the preamble of the Declaration of Independence
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/09/president_obama_removes_creato_2.html

Obama drops 'Creator' from Declaration quote
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=204973

[qh4dotcom]

Was that done intentionally by whoever wrote the teleprompter's script?

[brenden.b]

Was that done intentionally by whoever wrote the teleprompter's script?

We don't want to offend anyone:rolleyes:

[Sola_Fide]

When are people going to realize that unalienable rights have their only sure foundation in God?


Where do our rights have a more sure foundation? The State? Man? It makes no sense....

[oyarde]

When are people going to realize that unalienable rights have their only sure foundation in God?


Where do our rights have a more sure foundation? The State? Man? It makes no sense....

Well it is as well . He should not talk about things he does not understand .

[FrankRep]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/bytheircreator.jpg

[QueenB4Liberty]

that doesn't make sense.

[WaltM]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/bytheircreator.jpg

Frank, I asked you about this and you've still not answered me.

What does it mean to have unalienable rights? What is the list of rights each person has?

What is the equality that Obama, communists, Jefferson, and you believe, and how are they different?

[Humanae Libertas]

Government gives us our "rights", haven't you guys received the memo yet. :rolleyes:

[oyarde]

Government gives us our "rights", haven't you guys received the memo yet. :rolleyes:

I am confused now , I thought they were the people who keep taking them away . :)

[Anti Federalist]

Government gives us our "rights", privileges, haven't you guys received the memo yet. :rolleyes:

Fixed that for you.

[WaltM]

Government gives us our "rights", haven't you guys received the memo yet. :rolleyes:

I already believe that, those who disagree haven't shown why they're right.

[WaltM]

I am confused now , I thought they were the people who keep taking them away . :)

no need to be confused that's exactly why they give them, because they can take them away.

contrast that to the useless imaginary "god" who cannot either give nor take them away, or even enforce what he allegedly gave. a losing proposition never demonstrated true.

[FrankRep]

I already believe that, those who disagree haven't shown why they're right.

You actually believe your Rights come from the Government? :rolleyes:

[Bman]

I already believe that, those who disagree haven't shown why they're right.

I think you're wrong. Rights do come from nature and it is our job to realize our rights. Whether you call it god or whatever, it is a higher power than any other man.

Another man can only take away your rights, not give them to you. Same goes for government.

[Dr.3D]

I think your wrong. Rights do come from nature and it is our job to realize our rights. Whether you call it god or whatever, it is a higher power than any other man.

Another man can only take away your rights, not give them to you. Same goes for government.
They can only violate our rights, not take them away. They can't take what they didn't give.

[Bman]

They can only violate our rights, not take them away. They can't take what they didn't give.

To me that is saying tomato to tomatoe, I'm not exactly a skilled writer. Point taken on furthering the definition I see why you don't like how I said it.

[Anti Federalist]

You actually believe your Rights come from the Government? :rolleyes:

Danke, I think, had the following in sig line:

"Walt, seriously, do they make you wear a helmet on the bus?"

[WaltM]

You actually believe your Rights come from the Government? :rolleyes:

given that they're capable of both giving and taking, compared to your imaginary God who can do neither, yes, I have more reason to believe that they come from government than your wishful thinking.

So before you mock me, show me why I am wrong and you are right (try not to cite the obvious cliche, I prefer demonstrable, testable evidence)

[WaltM]

I think you're wrong. Rights do come from nature and it is our job to realize our rights.


if it's our job to realize them, enforce them, and exercise them, why not say it's our job to grant them and recognize them?




Whether you call it god or whatever, it is a higher power than any other man.

Another man can only take away your rights, not give them to you. Same goes for government.

I disagree, a person can be granted and given privileges (by "can" I mean "physically possible" not morally right)

[Vessol]

no need to be confused that's exactly why they give them, because they can take them away.

Perhaps your rights are given to you by the State, but mine are inherent and rights I was born with as a human being.

[WaltM]

They can only violate our rights, not take them away. They can't take what they didn't give.

Ok, good.

thank you, now we're getting somewhere.

So if somebody can violate my rights, what good is saying and believe I have them?

I might as well say I own you, you just violate my property by not recognizing my rights. It's meaningless rhetoric and semantics until you can enforce and actualize these said "rights".

[WaltM]

Perhaps your rights are given to you by the State, but mine are inherent and rights I was born with as a human being.

says who? what's the list of rights you're born with?

[WaltM]

To me that is saying tomato to tomatoe, I'm not exactly a skilled writer. Point taken on furthering the definition I see why you don't like how I said it.

I dont care how a person says it, as long as they can answer my questions following. I hate playing with words, I like talking about what works, what is.

[Danke]

Danke, I think, had the following in sig line:

"Walt, seriously, do they make you wear a helmet on the bus?"
lol. He has quite a following.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2891671&postcount=96


Seriously, Walt. do they force you to wear a helmet on the bus?

wherever WaltM is, failure is sure to follow...

You're [WaltM] a troll, through and through.


wwtfmd?

If WaltM came into my place of business harassing my customers and generally pissing them all off while they were looking at and/or buying my product, I would kick his sorry ass out.

That's wwtfmd.

The guy is a useless, annoying troll, whether he realizes it or not.

[Bman]

if it's our job to realize them, enforce them, and exercise them, why not say it's our job to grant them and recognize them?

Because everyone ultimately thinks for themselves. All you can actual do is try and convince someone they don't have a right. Just because I have a right doesn't mean I'm going to use that right. It really has no bearing on the law of men. In essence decribing all actions in life. They may stop me from doing it, but they never gave me the ability to be able to do it.



I disagree, a person can be granted and given privileges (by "can" I mean "physically possible" not morally right)

A person at anytime can refuse to agree with your so called priviledges, and declare his rights through action.

These may sound a little agressive but we can take that down to the level of two children wanting to trade toys. Someone can tell them they cannot trade the toys, but anytime they are ready they can trade the toys. Now someone can try and stop that, but they certainly didn't create the possibility that it could happen.

[WaltM]

Because everyone ultimately thinks for themselves. All you can actual do is try and convince someone they don't have a right.


just like you're trying to convince me I don't have certain rights.



Just because I have a right doesn't mean I'm going to use that right. It really has no bearing on the law of men. In essence decribing all actions in life. They may stop me from doing it, but they never gave me the ability to be able to do it.


so murdering people is a right? according to you, since you have the ability to do it.




A person at anytime can refuse to agree with your so called priviledges, and declare his rights through action.


and I can disagree with anybody's rights, and exercise my disagreements through action.



These may sound a little agressive but we can take that down to the level of two children wanting to trade toys. Someone can tell them they cannot trade the toys, but anytime they are ready they can trade the toys. Now someone can try and stop that, but they certainly didn't create the possibility that it could happen.

yes, they did, who put the 2 children together? who allowed them to talk?

[Vessol]

says who? what's the list of rights you're born with?

There is no list of rights, as a human being I am entitled to do whatever I please.

Either you have unlimited freedom or no freedom at all.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

I wish we would figure out already that the term "rights" implies a negative. It is the term given to the natural state of man in order to divide it up into sections. Much like when Ron Paul talks about Liberty being indivisible into different types of liberty. (economic, religious, freedom of speech, etc.) You can't have one without the other.

Therefore, every time we use the term "rights" delineating a certain part of human Liberty we are actually destroying the whole concept of freedom. Man is born free and learns the restrictions of society.

So when you say. "List the rights you are born with," I say, "What is it about human behavior that scares you so shitless that you have to control the whole f-ing world?"

[self-delete. i should be nicer]

[WaltM]

There is no list of rights, as a human being I am entitled to do whatever I please.

Either you have unlimited rights or no rights at all.


I think I can actually agree to that.

so you believe murdering and raping are entitled for you to do?

[WaltM]

If you wish to live in the fantasy world where you believe that the State is your daddy and he will spank you if you do something that displeases him, be my guest.

If you wish to live in fantasy land where you think you can murder, rape, molest children without being spanked, be my guest (and make sure you brag about it to me, I'll be impressed).

[WaltM]

So when you say. "List the rights you are born with," I say, "What is it about human behavior that scares you so shitless that you have to control the whole f-ing world?"

stop being such a pussy.

quite the contrary.

[Vessol]

If you wish to live in fantasy land where you think you can murder, rape, molest children without being spanked, be my guest (and make sure you brag about it to me, I'll be impressed).

I as a human being recognize these actions as immoral as well as being detrimental to my place in society.

If you wish to believe that the only reason that you do not perform these actions is because the government prohibits you, be my guest.

[forsmant]

Everyone wants freedom from negative consequences. Get over it. You can only truly control your own actions.

[Dr.3D]

There is no list of rights, as a human being I am entitled to do whatever I please.

Either you have unlimited freedom or no freedom at all.


True and as long as you exercising your freedom doesn't infringe on the freedom of others, you should be able to do as you please.

[WaltM]

I as a human being recognize these actions as immoral as well as being detrimental to my place in society.


you didn't answer me, DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT have the right to do so?

I didn't ask you if they're immoral or would you do it.




If you wish to believe that the only reason that you do not perform these actions is because the government prohibits you, be my guest.

I don't. I have a million reasons to do something, hardly because of the government. But when a gun is used on me, that's not going to be ignored (do you ignore it?)

[Vessol]

you didn't answer me, DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT have the right to do so?

I don't. I have a million reasons to do something, hardly because of the government. But when a gun is used on me, that's not going to be ignored (do you ignore it?)

As a human I have the freedom to perform any action, but I must be prepared for the consequences of my actions.

And I do not ignore when a gun is pointed at my head by the State, but I do not sit there and try to justify that gun and defend that gun as you do countlessly.

[WaltM]

True and as long as you exercising your rights doesn't infringe on the rights of others, you should be able to do as you please.

in that case, we need to list the rights each person has, so we know execrcising mine, will not infringe yours.

do I have a right to play music loud? Or do you have a right to peace and quietness?

do I have a right to practice shooting with my gun, without having to warn you? Or do you have a right to be free from unnecessary risk of my shooting (which can be avoided if you forced me to be considerate and responsible).

do i have a right to drive intoxicated, or blindfolded? or do other people have a right to be protected from this unnecessary freedom, highly risky of being fatal?

[WaltM]

As a human I have the freedom to perform any action, but I must be prepared for the consequences of my actions.

And I do not ignore when a gun is pointed at my head by the State, but I do not sit there and try to justify that gun and defend that gun as you do countlessly.

then I think we agree.

(why is it so hard for you to admit "I have a right to murder, rape, molest children"? because you know that'll be taken the wrong way, so you intentionally dodge the question to prevent your principles from looking bad)

I don't defend the state as if I morally and actively approve of them, I merely recognize their force against me and choose not to confront them unless it benefits me.

[Bman]

just like you're trying to convince me I don't have certain rights.

so murdering people is a right? according to you, since you have the ability to do it.

and I can disagree with anybody's rights, and exercise my disagreements through action.

yes, they did, who put the 2 children together? who allowed them to talk?


What gives you the ability to do any of those actions? I'm not saying whether or not an action should be legal or illegal.

[low preference guy]

people gotta learn to stop feeding the troll.

since the troll was banned and created another account, why not just ban WaltM again?

by the way, the thread has been hijacked. what do WaltM's posts have to do with what obama said in his speech?

[Dr.3D]

people gotta learn to stop feeding the troll.

since the troll was banned and created another account, why not just ban WaltM again?

by the way, this is thread hijacking. what do WaltM's posts have to do with what obama said in his speech?
Not a damned thing.

[Vessol]

While I would have to accept the consequences of such actions, I have the freedom to murder, rape, and molest children. Happy now?

[WaltM]

What gives you the ability to do any of those actions? I'm not saying whether or not an action should be legal or illegal.

nature? the fact that I can?

since you're not asking the legality, I guess that includes every action physically possible.

[WaltM]

people gotta learn to stop feeding the troll.

since the troll was banned and created another account, why not just ban WaltM again?

by the way, the thread has been hijacked. what do WaltM's posts have to do with what obama said in his speech?

I was asking FrankRep how he can bash communism for their "equality" but still defend Jefferson's famous quote about "created equal", he has not answered why they are different.

[WaltM]

While I would have to accept the consequences of such actions, I have the freedom to murder, rape, and molest children. Happy now?

yes. thanks.

I can see we agree more than we disagree.

I am sorry I kept nagging you to say it, but it's so hard to get some honest people on these things.

[forsmant]

I feel ignored.

[Bman]

nature? the fact that I can?

Now you've realized what a right is.


since you're not asking the legality, I guess that includes every action physically possible.

What ever you can achieve is your right, doesn't mean there are no consequences for your actions.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

then I think we agree.

(why is it so hard for you to admit "I have a right to murder, rape, molest children"? because you know that'll be taken the wrong way, so you intentionally dodge the question to prevent your principles from looking bad)

I don't defend the state as if I morally and actively approve of them, I merely recognize their force against me and choose not to confront them unless it benefits me.

Why do you use the word "right" in pseudo-law like terms? As if you could write it all down on a sheet of paper? "Law" exists to allow those with power to exploit those without power. "Good people", being defined as individuals who hold and respect all life in the highest regard, rarely need lawyers and judges. So what you are trying to do here is to limit mankind to your narrow view of proper living, by manipulating the term "right".

[Danke]

people gotta learn to stop feeding the troll.

since the troll was banned and created another account, why not just ban WaltM again?

by the way, the thread has been hijacked. what do WaltM's posts have to do with what obama said in his speech?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=258976

[FrankRep]

I was asking FrankRep how he can bash communism for their "equality" but still defend Jefferson's famous quote about "created equal", he has not answered why they are different.

The difference: The Founding Fathers say Rights come from God; Communists say Rights come from the Government. The Communist view of "equality" (physical, economic) is different from God/Christian view of "equality" (spiritual, rights).

[WaltM]

Now you've realized what a right is.


then that certainly sounds different than what Jefferson says, or what many people here say



What ever you can achieve is your right, doesn't mean there are no consequences for your actions.

I can actually agree with that.

how then, can one say that rights are unalienable??

[WaltM]

The difference: The Founding Fathers say Rights come from God; Communists say Rights come from the Government. The Communist view of "equality" (physical, economic) is different from God/Christian view of "equality" (spiritual, rights).

do you believe people shouldn't be physically equal?

what is the "rights" that should be equal?

[Dr.3D]

LOL, I have the unalienable right to ignore WaltM. Nobody would be able to change that.

[WaltM]

Why do you use the word "right" in pseudo-law like terms? As if you could write it all down on a sheet of paper? "Law" exists to allow those with power to exploit those without power. "Good people", being defined as individuals who hold and respect all life in the highest regard, rarely need lawyers and judges. So what you are trying to do here is to limit mankind to your narrow view of proper living, by manipulating the term "right".

I only ask people to list their rights when they say they get it from God, and not the government, and I want to see where they disagree with liberals and communists, and how.

if not, I have no problem.

[FrankRep]

how then, can one say that rights are unalienable??


Unalienable (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unalienable): Not to be separated, given away, or taken away.

You can violate my rights, but you can't take them away.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

then that certainly sounds different than what Jefferson says, or what many people here say



I can actually agree with that.

how then, can one say that rights are unalienable??

because being human and having "rights" are one in the same. It's like saying, "Electricity has the unalienable right of electron-ness."

[Nate-ForLiberty]

I only ask people to list their rights when they say they get it from God, and not the government, and I want to see where they disagree with liberals and communists, and how.

if not, I have no problem.

List all the aspects of WaltM.

[Travlyr]

LOL, I have the unalienable right to ignore WaltM. Nobody would be able to change that.

Lolz... this is one of mine too! And I exercise it! :D

[WaltM]

Unalienable (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unalienable): Not to be separated, given away, or taken away.

You can violate my rights, but you can't take them away.

fair enough. as long as rights can be violated, I don't see how "separation" matters.

now, do our founding fathers believe all humans have the right to be US citizens? If not, what should the determinant be?

[WaltM]

List all the aspects of WaltM.

I dont claim to have all the aspects of me, nor do I claim they come from one place, not the other and there only.

[Sola_Fide]

WaltM sure can derail a thread....

[Dojo]

WaltM sure can derail a thread....

WaltDizzy.............Go to bed!

[Nate-ForLiberty]

I dont claim to have all the aspects of me, nor do I claim they come from one place, not the other and there only.

I really hope you expound on that so that the rest of the forum can understand wtf you mean. :)

[WaltM]

I really hope you expound on that so that the rest of the forum can understand wtf you mean. :)

uhh, here goes :

If somebody says "my rights come from God, not this, or that or that"

Then, it's still meaningless unless he can say "my rights are on this list, unlike your rights which are on that list"

BEcause, who cares where they come from as long as we agree the list is the same?

While I may disagree with others who accuse me of having the aspect of derailing or trolling, I don't claim I know all of my own aspects, so I don't think listing all I can think of would be helping any argument. I readily admit I could be wrong.

[Anti Federalist]

uhh, here goes :

If somebody says "my rights come from God, not this, or that or that"

Then, it's still meaningless unless he can say "my rights are on this list, unlike your rights which are on that list"

BEcause, who cares where they come from as long as we agree the list is the same?

While I may disagree with others who accuse me of having the aspect of derailing or trolling, I don't claim I know all of my own aspects, so I don't think listing all I can think of would be helping any argument. I readily admit I could be wrong.

Rights of man are too voluminous to list, that's why the Declaration of Independence lists only general Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Your pursuit of happiness is probably (scratch that, is definitely) different than what mine is.

But give it a rest, you have these rights as a human being.

To call them anything else or claim they come from anywhere else is major fail, since then they become privileges that can be taken away and not just infringed.

It's really no more complicated than that.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

But where our rights "come from" is really an argument about the sovereignty of an individual, not about a list. Therefore,

"My rights come from God." = I am the master of my own life.
"My rights come from the government." = I am not responsible for my life.

[WaltM]

But where our rights "come from" is really an argument about the sovereignty of an individual, not about a list. Therefore,

"My rights come from God." = I am the master of my own life.
"My rights come from the government." = I am not responsible for my life.

I don't see how "rights come from government" is a denial of responsibility.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

I don't see how "rights come from government" is a denial of responsibility.

it's a problem with the language. "rights come from God" is just as ambiguous.

[Sola_Fide]

Rights coming from God is a description of how a man is created: free, in the image of God (who is absolutely free).


The State did not create us. Man did not create us or endow us with a nature that is free, God did.

[WaltM]

it's a problem with the language. "rights come from God" is just as ambiguous.

which is exactly my point!! it's pointless to stress it as if it's different!

[low preference guy]

side 1: there are no rights!
side 2: right comes from god!

you guys need to read some Ayn Rand. rights come human's choice to live. once that choice is made, those things that work against human life are evil, by definition. once one recognizes that it's better to live in society, one establishes some rules, which allow humans to thrive. that rule, after a lot of reasoning, is that men should be free to act as they want and use their property as they want as long as they don't interfere with someone else's property or exert violence or fraud.

in this context, in the context of the acceptance of the choice to live and after the deduction of what are the best rules to live in society, one reaches the conclusion that it's morally wrong to use violence/fraud/violation of property against others. saying you have rights just means that no one can violate what was defined as your rights without violating the ethical code that arises from the choice to live and defining good and evil according to that.

that's all there is to it. pretty easy stuff.

[WaltM]

side 1: there are no rights!
side 2: right comes from god!

you guys need to read some Ayn Rand. rights come human's choice to live.


I think I agree with Rand on that.




once that choice is made, those things that work against human life are evil, by definition. once one recognizes that it's better to live in society, one establishes some rules, which allow humans to thrive. that rule, after a lot of reasoning, is that men should be free to act as they want and use their property as they want as long as they don't interfere with someone else's property or exert violence or fraud.


I agree completely, I just wish I could agree on where property, violence, and fraud is drawn the line at.




in this context, in the context of the acceptance of the choice to live and after the deduction of what are the best rules to live in society, one reaches the conclusion that is morally wrong to use violence/fraud/violation of property against others. saying you have rights to be freedom of speech just means that no one can violate what was defined as your rights without violating the ethical code that arises from the choice to live and defining good and evil according to that.

that's all there is to it. pretty easy stuff.

so your rights vary from society to society, time to time.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Rights coming from God is a description of how a man is created: free, in the image of God (who is absolutely free).


The State did not create us. Man did not create us or endow us with a nature that is free, God did.

Using "God" in order to negate the tyranny of human beings is like nuking the village to save the hostages. However, I don't think the human race is to the point where "I am free because I exist" will fly with the majority. So I don't mind the "Rights from God" thing for now.

[low preference guy]

so your rights vary from society to society, time to time.

no. the moral code derived form the choice to live is absolute and the same in every society. but that requires a book to explain. let me explain the main idea:

rationality is human's main tool for survival. you can use your mind only if no one is using force against you. if someone is using force against you, you can't use your mind, because whatever choice you made, you won't be able to implement it if someone is forcing you to do something else.

it's not hard to make an argument for the importance of property, and i already did that in another thread, not going to do that again.

for every human civilization, they'll succeed to the extend they use their ability to reason logically. therefore, the proper ethical code for every individual that choses his life as his ultimate goal is the same.

also, note that rights arise in the context of an ethical system. an ethical system by its very nature deals with consequences of actions in the long term, thus, when one talks about rights, the conclusions are about which rules are best in the long term.

[Danke]

no. the moral code derived form the choice to live is absolute and the same in every society. but that requires a book to explain. let me explain the main idea:

rationality is human's main tool for survival. you can use your mind only if no one is using force against you. if someone is using force against you, you can't use your mind, because whatever choice you made, you won't be able to implement it if someone is forcing you to do something else.

it's not hard to make an argument for the importance of property, and i already did that in another thread, not going to do that again.

for every human civilization, they'll succeed to the extend they use their ability to reason logically. therefore, the proper ethical code for every individual that choses his life as his ultimate goal is the same.

also, note that rights arise in the context of an ethical system. an ethical system by its very nature deals with consequences of actions in the long term, thus, when one talks about rights, the conclusions about rules about which rules are best in the long term.


people gotta learn to stop feeding the troll.


:D:p

[low preference guy]

:D:p

if you read my post, you'll see i replied at first to also address the rights-are-god-given crowd, and they have the same objections.

i posted to put some sense into an awful thread more than to convince the nihilist.

[silus]

Maybe government created god as a tool to control the "created." Who the hell cares. No one really believes god has anything to do with rights. Your rights come from your existence, and its not something you even need to intellectualize. You understand this by simply living.

[James Madison]

List all the aspects of WaltM.

Maybe we should start a waltmfacts.com :D

[crazyfacedjenkins]

Folks I hate to spoil your fun, but there's no such thing as rights. They're imaginary, we made 'em up. Rights are an idea, that's all. But if you think you do have rights, let me ask you this, where do they come from? People say, 'they come from god. They're god given rights.' Awww fuck, here we go again.

The god excuse. The last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument, 'It came from god'. Anything we can't describe must have come from god. Personally folks, if your rights came from god, he would've given you the right to some food everyday, and he would've given you the right to a roof over your head. God would have been looking out for you.

But let's say it's true, let's say that god gave us these rights. Why would he give us a certain number of rights? The Bill of Rights of this country (USA) has 10 stipulations. Okay, 10 rights. And apparently god was doing sloppy work that week because we've had to amend the bill of rights an additional 17 times. So god forgot a couple of things, like... SLAVERY! Just fuckin' slipped his mind.

But let's say, god gave us the original 10. He gave the British 13. The British bill of rights has 13 stipulations. The Germans have 29, the Belgians have 25, the Swedish have only 6, and some people in the world have NO RIGHTS AT ALL. What type of a fuckin' god damn god given deal is that? NO RIGHTS AT ALL? Why would god give different people, in different countries, different numbers of different rights? Boredom? Amusement? Bad arithmetic? Doesn't sound like divine planning to me. Sounds more like human planning. Sounds more like one group trying to control another group. In other words, business as usual in America.

YouTube - George Carlin - Rights (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F1Lq1uFcAE)

[osan]

Was that done intentionally by whoever wrote the teleprompter's script?

Is this question even remotely serious?

Nothing is left unmanaged. NOTHING.

[newyearsrevolution08]

Is this question even remotely serious?

Nothing is left unmanaged. NOTHING.

they couldn't stop that black lady from calling him on his shit during that open q&a so there is always room for error.

[libertarian4321]

Soooo, Obama is an atheist Muslim who has was in an extremist Christian congregation?

Fuck me, it's hard to keep up with this!

Let me know when you guys get this nailed down.

[newyearsrevolution08]

Soooo, Obama is an atheist Muslim who has was in an extremist Christian congregation?

Fuck me, it's hard to keep up with this!

Let me know when you guys get this nailed down.

Right lol

I could give two shits what his religious background is

has zero to do with getting back to the constitution

[torchbearer]

Frank, I asked you about this and you've still not answered me.

What does it mean to have unalienable rights? What is the list of rights each person has?

What is the equality that Obama, communists, Jefferson, and you believe, and how are they different?

the right you have is the ownership of your body, if you don't own your body, then you are a slave.
are you born a slave or a free human?
I say you are born a free human and are made a slave through force. that force is required to take away a real ownership, a real right. a self-evident unalienable right of self-ownership.
this is the first principle by which all other natural laws are derived.
you don't need a list of laws or rights, only respect the first principle, then all others fall into place.

[osan]

When are people going to realize that unalienable rights have their only sure foundation in God?

You appear to be intelligent, but here you walk your face into a wall. I don't know how many times this can be repeated: "God" need have NOTHING to do with the argument. Your assertion is wrong on so many levels, but let us examine one - the actual concept underlying the term "God". Gather 100 people together in a room and I absolutely guarantee you that you will have, at the very least, 101 definitions of "God". Were we to sound the more profound depths of this particular element of the issue at hand, we could uncover a basis in extensive hubris for the sort of assertion you have made. This is not to say that you are wrong, but that you are not demonstrably right, either. If you feel you have your head wrapped around "God", that's great. If you can prove to me that it is so, I will follow you as a disciple. Until then you are, perhaps innocently, full of shit - and I am not being mean here, but such issues really do need to me addressed in a very direct fashion so that intelligent people walking a path of error may correct themselves. So please take all this as my attempt to help you out of what seems to me to be a very profound misapprehension.

I will repeat my beliefs on this very topic so you understand how we differ. First, I believe in "God", but I have absolutely NO concept of what that is. I am, thus far in my life, only able to see manifestations that comprise but the smallest subset of that which I believe to be "out there" (galaxies are large and plentiful, it would seem). I do not have God tied to my sleeve as so many others seem to think they do. If so, I am happy for them, and if they can show me how to have it, I will be happy for me, too. Until then, they wield opinions of questionable authority.

That said, "God", whatever that is, appears to have provided us with the tools by which people of widely differing minds may see common truths. One of the most powerful tools is reason. With reason, the moral basis for the equal and inalienable rights of all persons may be constructed with unbreakable solidity. This is a demonstrable fact. I've done it here before and in other places. Others have done the same.

The reason I take such issue with your post is precisely that people are of widely varying minds on issues of a metaphysical nature. Anything on that plane may be argued, including the most insanely, inanely, ridiculous propositions. Such argumentation becomes far and away more difficult, however, when we confine ourselves to those things that are readily observable or otherwise demonstrable in the "real" world.

If you can get an opponent to accept a single premise, the right premise, you can apodictically demonstrate to them the moral basis and substance of natural human rights in such a way that any refusal to accept them after that point would prove openly and obviously the product of some disturbing insufficiency of intellect, or pure dishonesty.

Most of your so-called "liberals" or "progressives" appear to be well married to an atheistic bent. How, precisely, do you suppose to bring them to the "light", so to speak, by arguing with them in terms of God? It is ridiculous on its face because all that is necessary for them to destroy your efforts most convincingly is to reject the premise that rights derive from "God". You cannot materially demonstrate this, though if you find a way you need to bottle it and get it to market ASAP - you'd make billions in just a few short days. Such people need a more tangible basis for being swayed, assuming they are otherwise honest people and open to truth.



Where do our rights have a more sure foundation? The State? Man? It makes no sense....Reason. Look to your God and be thankful for the tools with which you have been provided and don't take yourself for a fool. One size does NOT fit all - ALWAYS keep that in the forefront of your thoughts when dealing with people. It helps one maintain the right perspective, which in turn keeps us better inclined to show the appropriate respect for others.

I would also go out on a limb here and suggest you not assume too much about God and its nature. Recall the old joke about the great flood. As the waters were rising around the house of a very pious man, a truck came by and the people offered him a lift out. "No thanks, God will come to my aid." Later, as the waters were now several feet deep, a boat came by and the people offered him a ride out. His response was the same. Later still, as the waters were above 20' deep and he is huddling on his roof, a helicopter spotted him and they offered to rescue him. His response was the same. A few hours later the waters rose still and the man drowned. After entering the pearly gates he God "Why didn't you help me? I waited and waited, and here I am." To that God said, "what do you mean why didn't I help? I sent a truck, a boat, and a helicopter. What more do you want?"

We have been given the tools by which we may navigate the lives of men. They are good tools. We ought to use them wisely. Just my opinion. Do as you wish, of course.

[osan]

they couldn't stop that black lady from calling him on his shit during that open q&a so there is always room for error.

I meant on THEIR side of things. They don't have copy problems.

[libertarian4321]

Reason.

Wait.

Are you saying we don't need to rely on an ancient tome and mysticism to be good, decent people?

Shocking!

I must light some incense sticks, spin my prayer wheel, kneel on my prayer mat while facing Mecca, chant over my rosary beads, and sacrifice a goat while I contemplate this...

[Romulus]

He also said it was 'not about birth'. Hmmmm... I wonder why he feels that way - cause he was not BORN HERE?

[Razmear]

Why do Christians always assume the term "their Creator" refers only to the Christian god?
It seems to me the phrase was specifically chosen for it's ambiguity and simply means that you are born with these rights.
To associate the words "their Creator" with the Christian god gives Christians the power to deny those rights to those who do not follow their belief system.

eb

[FrankRep]

Why do Christians always assume the term "their Creator" refers only to the Christian god?

Because the founding fathers of America were Christians.

[Deborah K]

says who? what's the list of rights you're born with?

...among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are among our DECLARED RIGHTS! And the right to keep and bear arms, and form a militia- when put into practice- helps to protect and defend those rights. When we let the government take them away, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

[fedup100]

...among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are among our DECLARED RIGHTS! And the right to keep and bear arms, and form a militia- when put into practice- helps to protect and defend those rights. When we let the government take them away, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

What about the right to food and water, seems without both of those things you will have none of the other rights for a man will give up everything to feed his family, just ask the christian Russians.

Zero also left out the the founders instructions and demands that the citizens take her back when a usurper marxist thug drags his sorry ass into the white house illegally and punches through a tyrannical state.

[Deborah K]

I don't see how "rights come from government" is a denial of responsibility.

It's a denial in the sense that you have no control over your life.

[Justinjj1]

Because the founding fathers of America were Christians.

Jefferson wasn't.

[Deborah K]

What about the right to food and water, seems without both of those things you will have none of the other rights for a man will give up everything to feed his family, just ask the christian Russians.

Zero also left out the the founders instructions and demands that the citizens take her back when a usurper marxist thug drags his sorry ass into the white house illegally and punches through a tyrannical state.

Man has a right to provide food and water for himself and his family, through his honest labor. He doesn't have a right to expect the gov't or his community to provide it for him. I don't get your point.

[Deborah K]

Jefferson wasn't.

Maybe not per se, but he believed in religious freedom, was raised a protestant, and thought Christ's teachings contain the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man."

[FrankRep]

Jefferson wasn't.

Thomas Jefferson believed in Christian Morality.


The Jefferson Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible), or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was Thomas Jefferson's effort to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by the Four Evangelists.

[fedup100]

Man has a right to provide food and water for himself and his family, through his honest labor. He doesn't have a right to expect the gov't or his community to provide it for him. I don't get your point.

My point is that everyone is up in arms if they try to pass gun control when they do not understand that bills like S510 that will prevent a person from feeding his family IS a taking of your guns.

I promise you they will sew up all the food and water and all of you will do as your told and march your guns and turn them in to get food and water. They are sewing it up as we speak, where 's the outrage?

[ClayTrainor]

When we let the government take them away, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Do you blame victims of the mafia for not standing up to the mafia, or do you blame the mafia for the crimes they commit against people? I think it's wrong to blame yourself or your apathetic neighbors. The "people" are just confused victims, many of whom are suffering from stockholme syndrome.

If we must point fingers and play the blame game, than We should point them at the aggressors, not the victims.

[Deborah K]

My point is that everyone is up in arms if they try to pass gun control when they do not understand that bills like S510 that will prevent a person from feeding his family IS a taking of your guns.

I promise you they will sew up all the food and water and all of you will do as your told and march your guns and turn them in to get food and water. They are sewing it up as we speak, where 's the outrage?

I am well beyond outrage now. We have been preparing for the worst for 3 years now. That includes networking with my community, becoming a HAM radio operator, joining the local gun club, and putting various bug-out plans in place. My town has an unbelievably awesome Tea Party and we have geared up. They will never be able to keep us from growing our own food. Most of us with land are doing it now and we have a first rate farmers' market every Saturday.

I'm still an activist, I'm still willing to organize events, and help with campaigns, but I know what is ahead, and I and my family and community are preparing for it.

[Deborah K]

Do you blame victims of the mafia for not standing up to the mafia, or do you blame the mafia for the crimes they commit against people? I think it's wrong to blame yourself or your apathetic neighbors. The "people" are just confused victims, many of whom are suffering from stockholme syndrome.

We've been duped because of 100 years of indoctrination into group-think. But we have been complacent, we all could have done a much better job at holding our representatives' feet to the fire.

[WaltM]

It's a denial in the sense that you have no control over your life.

whether or not I have control over my life, has nothing to do with WHY I believe I do or don't, and HOW I come to the conclusion.

I can demonstrate how I can control my life and body (as well as demonstrate in some cases where I can control and force others).

[WaltM]

Thomas Jefferson believed in Christian Morality.


The Jefferson Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible), or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was Thomas Jefferson's effort to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by the Four Evangelists.

Don't dodge the point, Jefferson wasn't a Christian, so to say he was referring to Jahweh as "their Creator" is not entirely accurate.

It was Jefferson who penned the Declaration, even if he didn't author it directly. Sure, Jefferson believed in Christian morality, that's different than...as you admit, believing in the Christian God Jahweh & miracles in the Bible.

It's funny that Jefferson is a "good guy" and "on your side" when you quote him for things you like, if a communist quotes Jefferson to support their views, you'll either have to say Jefferson wasn't perfect, or that their interpretation is wrong.

[Deborah K]

whether or not I have control over my life, has nothing to do with WHY I believe I do or don't, and HOW I come to the conclusion.

I can demonstrate how I can control my life and body (as well as demonstrate in some cases where I can control and force others).

Now you're changing the subject. You asked:


I don't see how "rights come from government" is a denial of responsibility.

And I answered:


It's a denial in the sense that you have no control over your life.

In other words, if the gov't gives and takes away your rights, then you have no true responsibility.

[WaltM]

Now you're changing the subject. You asked:

And I answered:

In other words, if the gov't gives and takes away your rights, then you have no true responsibility.

To that, I admit you are right.

And the government CAN & DOES take away my rights, and gives some, I have little control over everything the government tries to do, that's not to say I don't have SOME reponsibility as to the things I'm left TO & CAN do.

[Razmear]

Why do Christians always assume the term "their Creator" refers only to the Christian god?
Because the founding fathers of America were Christians.

Then why wouldn't they write "..endowed by Our Creator"?

[Deborah K]

Then why wouldn't they write "..endowed by Our Creator"?

Because it was common place to refer to God as your Maker or Creator.

[robert68]

Because the founding fathers of America were Christians.

From the website "Our Founding Fathers were not Christians". (http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html#washington)


Historian Barry Schwartz writes: "George Washington's practice of Christianity was limited and superficial because he was not himself a Christian... He repeatedly declined the church's sacraments. Never did he take communion, and when his wife, Martha, did, he waited for her outside the sanctuary... Even on his deathbed, Washington asked for no ritual, uttered no prayer to Christ, and expressed no wish to be attended by His representative." [New York Press, 1987, pp. 174-175]

Paul F. Boller states in is anthology on Washington: "There is no mention of Jesus Christ anywhere in his extensive correspondence." [Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, pp. 14-15]

[ClayTrainor]

We've been duped because of 100 years of indoctrination into group-think..

I think that's been happening to various degrees throughout the entirety of human history, not just the last 100 years.



But we have been complacent, we all could have done a much better job at holding our representatives' feet to the fire.

How? Democracy? Consider your first sentence than ask yourself, Who is this "we" you are referring to. ;)

It seems to me that these "Representatives" you want to hold accountable are just spokespeople for the mob. They don't represent the individual in any way. It's just An elaborate democratic scheme to give you the illusion of choice. Real choice exists in the free-market, not democracy.

[jkr]

soooo he is either evil or incompotent or BOTH, either way-FUCK YOU baRRy

[FrankRep]

From the website "Our Founding Fathers were not Christians". (http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html#washington)



"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."
--The Writings of Washington, pp. 342-343. | George Washington


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


"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."
--The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.


The War on Religion (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html)

Rep. Ron Paul, MD
December 30, 2003



The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

[FrankRep]

Don't dodge the point, Jefferson wasn't a Christian, so to say he was referring to Jahweh as "their Creator" is not entirely accurate.

Thomas Jefferson disagrees with you.

"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."
--The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.

[silentshout]

I honestly do not care that he left it out. Frankly, I am tired of the uber-in-your-face-religiousness in our government. And yes, it was a deist statement to begin with.

[WaltM]

Then why wouldn't they write "..endowed by Our Creator"?

because of context.

"WE (founders, Americans) hold these truths that ALL men (even non-founders, non-colonists, not sure if this included blacks and women) are created equal" and "THEY are endowed by THEIR (belonging to both them and us) creator"

Saying "They are endowed by OUR creator", may be more specific, but slightly awkward. I do agree Jefferson wasn't referring to Jahweh, but saying "our creator" wouldn't change that either.

[FrankRep]

And yes, it was a deist statement to begin with.

Ron Paul (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html): "The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance."

[WaltM]

Thomas Jefferson disagrees with you.

"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."
--The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.

I know he said that, probably meaning people like you who believes in miracles and the world being 6000 years old are not "real Christians" like him. Why am I continually disappointed that you're only capable of quoting repeat predictable cliche in hopes I've never heard it?

[WaltM]

Ron Paul (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html): "The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance."

and he didn't say "each and all" (oh just because it was a deist statement doesn't mean much, so why are you so desperate to reply in attempt to discredit him on one point?)

By the way, I believe I've asked you about this before too.

How to be robustly Christian and religiously tolerant. Maybe I should search if you ever answered me. It's very tiring when you post the same things and not answer what's asked about it.

[WaltM]

"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."
--The Writings of Washington, pp. 342-343. | George Washington


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


"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."
--The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.


you forgot Terrible Tommy

[Deborah K]

.

I think that's been happening to various degrees throughout the entirety of human history, not just the last 100 years.



How? Democracy? Consider your first sentence than ask yourself, Who is this "we" you are referring to. ;)

It seems to me that these "Representatives" you want to hold accountable are just spokespeople for the mob. They don't represent the individual in any way. It's just An elaborate democratic scheme to give you the illusion of choice. Real choice exists in the free-market, not democracy.

The free market isn't the end-all-be-all, Clay. It doesn't respond to the protection of people's rights. We need laws for that. That is what the function of gov't is supposed to be. That it isn't this way is due to our complacency. It' s like having a business and letting your employees run amok. This is where you and I part ways. I don't see the point in going in circles with you about it.

[Sola_Fide]

The War on Religion (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html)

Rep. Ron Paul, MD
December 30, 2003



The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government.This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.



1000000000000% correct. The good doctor calls it perfectly again.

Christian churches are a threat to the State because they preach that the State is NOT god...but that the State is subservient to the God of heaven and earth; the State is not the final authority and law, but God is.

[FrankRep]

“Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.”

- Thomas Jefferson

[WaltM]

The free market isn't the end-all-be-all, Clay. It doesn't respond to the protection of people's rights.


tell that to the ancaps for me.




We need laws for that. That is what the function of gov't is supposed to be.


I agree, in fact, I'll be willing to put it this way, some things are not up for choice, freedom or market, and should be forced on people who disagree.



That it isn't this way is due to our complacency. It' s like having a business and letting your employees run amok. This is where you and I part ways. I don't see the point in going in circles with you about it.

glad we agree.

[Deborah K]

I agree, in fact, I'll be willing to put it this way, some things are not up for choice, freedom or market, and should be forced on people who disagree.


Huh???? What???? How do you FORCE freedom on someone? :confused:

[FrankRep]

Huh???? What???? How do you FORCE freedom on someone? :confused:

WaltM is just trolling you like he's trolling all of us.

[ClayTrainor]

The free market isn't the end-all-be-all, Clay. It doesn't respond to the protection of people's rights.

It absolutely does, far better than any government in history, in fact.

I.e. The market feeds people better than the state. The market provides more guns to militias and private individuals than the state. The market educates kids better than the state. The market is more tolerant of free speech than the state. Etc.



We need laws for that.

A free-market is not lawlessness. It is the logical conclusion of natural law with respect to the NAP.


That is what the function of gov't is supposed to be.

"supposed to" is irrelevant. It is what it is. No collective entity on this planet, historical or current, has violated more natural laws than the state. It's not even a competition. The state is murderous, thieving entity that grows regardless of constitutions and democracy. It is a criminal gang, always has been.



That it isn't this way is due to our complacency.

So you're saying it has Nothing to do with the empirical nature of coercion/taxation?



It' s like having a business and letting your employees run amok.

When a business does that, it goes out of business. When a government does that, it just increases the amount of coercion against you (taxes) to cover the losses and continue on it's destructive path.

It's a very key difference. The state collects money through extortion, just like the mafia. It's nothing like a legitimate business.



This is where you and I part ways.

It shouldn't be. I'm merely defending the NAP with respect to natural law.


I don't see the point in going in circles with you about it.

You don't have to.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Do you blame victims of the mafia for not standing up to the mafia, or do you blame the mafia for the crimes they commit against people? I think it's wrong to blame yourself or your apathetic neighbors. The "people" are just confused victims, many of whom are suffering from stockholme syndrome.

If we must point fingers and play the blame game, than We should point them at the aggressors, not the victims.

Surely we bare some of the blame. They wouldn't have been able to do everything they've done over night. It's a failure of intellect on our part, but they've only been able to take so much because over time we've let them.

[ClayTrainor]

Surely we bare some of the blame.

If you've been advocating the growth of government for any reason, than I suppose you could argue that you do hold a semblance of responsibility. Statists are 100% responsible for the growth of the state.



They wouldn't have been able to do everything they've done over night. It's a failure of intellect on our part, but they've only been able to take so much because over time we've let them.

I respectfully disagree that the average person has "let" them grow. The average person doesn't understand politics, and is indoctrinated at a young age. They are victims, IMO.

Personally, I pay the government for the same reasons I'd pay the mafia what they demand. I don't let them take anything, they take it by coercive force, against my will. I do not accept responsibility for their actions, nor do i blame the average Joe. We are being robbed en masse, by gangs that claimed ownership over us the day we were born. I lay 100% of the blame on the empirical nature of the state.

[QueenB4Liberty]

So how to do we stop them, if we aren't to blame, and the average Joe that is capable of researching the truth on their own, just chooses not to. I'd say ignorance doesn't really excuse someone.

[ClayTrainor]

So how to do we stop them, if we aren't to blame, and the average Joe that is capable of researching the truth on their own, just chooses not to.

The average Joe is interested in the truth. We all are. The thing is, we have all been so heavily indoctrinated by public schools and other statist propaganda throughout our entire lives. I think the quote in my signature really outlines what I'm trying to say.

The fight for liberty is an endless intellectual battle for the human mind, no doubt about it.



I'd say ignorance doesn't really excuse someone.

It's not an excuse. I'm just saying that ignorance and apathy doesn't automatically = responsibility

I.e. If youre ignorant about the mafia, it doesn't mean you are responsible for the actions of the mafia.

To me it seems like its the goal of the state tries to get us to blame each other for their crimes.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

this thread is so far off track it is no longer a train, but some kind of automobile/pedestrian badoozle. heh :)

[torchbearer]

this thread is so far off track it is no longer a train, but some kind of automobile/pedestrian badoozle. heh :)

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a65/chevelle91/KeyboardCat.jpg
play it again sammy!

[clarity]

I think everyone here needs to read Lex Rex (http://www.portagepub.com/products/caa/sr-lexrex17.html) by Samuel Rutherford if they really want to know what our government is based off of.

[Daamien]

When are people going to realize that unalienable rights have their only sure foundation in God?


Where do our rights have a more sure foundation? The State? Man? It makes no sense....

Our rights come from our humanity, not from some non-descript mystical deity. However, I'll let you believe whatever you want as long as I'm not forced to believe in a God or that my rights came from one. I frankly don't care if you believe Thomas Jefferson would disagree with me.

[clarity]

Our rights come from our humanity, not from some non-descript mystical deity. However, I'll let you believe whatever you want as long as I'm not forced to believe in a God or that my rights came from one. I frankly don't care if you believe Thomas Jefferson would disagree with me.

What is this "humanity"?

[Philhelm]

I haven't read every post on this thread, but can't we just agree that our rights don't come from the government? Maybe rights come from God, Natural Law, humanity, social contract theory, garden gnomes, huge purple dildos, or the shit I took this morning. All that matters is that our rights don't come from government, and its actions only serve to impede upon our rights.

[Daamien]

What is this "humanity"?

More precisely, our human condition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_condition). The context of our unique yet shared self-consciousness as humans is where we derive our rights, freedoms, and rationality. That, or giant purple dildos sounds just as compelling.

[clarity]

More precisely, our human condition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_condition). The context of our unique yet shared self-consciousness as humans is where we derive our rights, freedoms, and rationality. That, or giant purple dildos sounds just as compelling.

How does this condition give us rights?

[Daamien]

How does this condition give us rights?

You aren't "given" rights, they are inate to being sentient and self-conscious. Like I said, they are derived from our humanity rather than granted by something you have to believe in. How could you even believe or disbelieve in something (or someone like God) if you lack self-awareness?