Sen. Rand Paul: Right to privacy comes from God, ‘precedes’ the Constitution

I disagree. If I were born on a deserted island, with no one around by my parents (who had to be there because someone would have to give birth to me!) I would not have to fight anyone for my freedom of speech, freedom to worship as I please, etc...if one of my parents tried to hurt me, I would have the right to defend myself with any weapon I could find.

So why was there a fight?

There were people who had to fight to win those rights back for us, from tyrants who tried to take them away...but we were endowed by Our Creator with those Rights upon our birth. We must be ever vigilant because there are always people trying to take them away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cajuncocoa

I disagree. If I were born on a deserted island, with no one around by my parents (who had to be there because someone would have to give birth to me!) I would not have to fight anyone for my freedom of speech, freedom to worship as I please, etc...if one of my parents tried to hurt me, I would have the right to defend myself with any weapon I could find.

So why was there a fight?

There were people who had to fight to win those rights back for us, from tyrants who tried to take them away...but we were endowed by Our Creator with those Rights upon our birth. We must be ever vigilant because there are always people trying to take them away.

---

If you were born on an island with just your parents, there would be no rights that could prevent them from abusing you. You would have to stand up for yourself and fight for your rights. God will not step in and tell your parents you have certain rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cajuncocoa

I disagree. If I were born on a deserted island, with no one around by my parents (who had to be there because someone would have to give birth to me!) I would not have to fight anyone for my freedom of speech, freedom to worship as I please, etc...if one of my parents tried to hurt me, I would have the right to defend myself with any weapon I could find.

So why was there a fight?

There were people who had to fight to win those rights back for us, from tyrants who tried to take them away...but we were endowed by Our Creator with those Rights upon our birth. We must be ever vigilant because there are always people trying to take them away.

---

If you were born on an island with just your parents, there would be no rights that could prevent them from abusing you. You would have to stand up for yourself and fight for your rights. God will not step in and tell your parents you have certain rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tttppp

If you were born on an island with just your parents, there would be no rights that could prevent them from abusing you. You would have to stand up for yourself and fight for your rights. God will not step in and tell your parents you have certain rights.

---

Whether on a deserted island or here in sunny suburbia, there is nothing to prevent someone from abusing me (other than my own ability to defend myself against them). Having rights doesn't prevent bad things from happening, but that doesn't mean I don't have those rights just the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cajuncocoa

Whether on a deserted island or here in sunny suburbia, there is nothing to prevent someone from abusing me (other than my own ability to defend myself against them). Having rights doesn't prevent bad things from happening, but that doesn't mean I don't have those rights just the same.

---

Rights are meaningless unless they are enforced. If someone was violating your rights you would contact the government to solve this problem. Praying to God is not going to restore your rights.

It's amazing how someone with 1,500 posts can be so uninformed.

Thanks Paul, but I know my rights come from force and not from some fairy tale. Human action "precedes" the bible, and I don't have much tolerance for your pandering.

I have my gripes with Rand, and the latter part was clumsily argued, but I'm not really at odds with him here. He even gave a qualifier of religion, which is more than I would have expected from him, to be honest.

I think trey4sports probably based his expectations of Rand being a skeptic on Rand's collegiate anti-Christian antics. That's hardly unreasonable of trey to assume skepticism in light of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brandon

Thanks Paul, but I know my rights come from force and not from some fairy tale. Human action "precedes" the bible, and I don't have much tolerance for your pandering.

---

You need to read it again, because you totally misunderstood what he said.

And please stop it with the "fairy tale" comments. They are insulting and really not necessary.

We were born with rights. Whether you believe they came from God or as natural rights, doesn't really matter here. Sure, you have to fight to keep them. No one is questioning that. Especially not our Founders who fought a war for theirs.

My own personal opinion is that Rand's arguments are not very good. The utilitarian arguments he uses are irrational. His moral arguments don't make sense to me either (from my Christian perspective), but I give him points for trying to articulate a moral position.

Rand would do much better to study Ron's Faith and Freedom Speech from this year. I don't think I've heard a better concise manifesto of Christian libertarianism than that in a long time.

It's one thing to hold our candidates accountable for their votes. It's another to rip them when they are not the epitomy of perfection in everything that they say or do.

I don't mean to be offensive. Using religion to justify your politics just seems a bit.... of a cop out? Natural rights are a joke.

I'd like an answer to this:

If our rights come from our creator and are inalienable, then how do we continually lose them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brandon

I don't mean to be offensive. Using religion to justify your politics just seems a bit.... of a cop out? Natural rights are a joke.

I'd like an answer to this:

If our rights come from our creator and are inalienable, then how do we continually lose them?

---

We don't, they're infringed upon.

It's important, Brandon, because a lot of people believe that government grants our rights. This, in fact, is one of the major differences between the U.S. Constitution and the U.N. Charter. If government grants rights, then they can also change their mind and revoke them. That is why it is important that people understand that we own our rights. They did not come from government at all.

I'm not sure how well I said this, but I hope it helps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brandon

I don't mean to be offensive. Using religion to justify your politics just seems a bit.... of a cop out? Natural rights are a joke.

I'd like an answer to this:

If our rights come from our creator and are inalienable, then how do we continually lose them?

---

That is an argument against natural rights which is a legitimate one. I agree with that critique of natural rights (there are others). The Biblical position doesn't suffer from the logical fallacies of natural rights arguments. The argument for natural rights isn't one I would use as a Christian. I mean, Ayn Rand used a natural rights argument....it is full of errors from my point of view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bastiat's The Law

You want to hear something totally ironic coming from an unabashed atheist. One of my favorite speeches by Ron Paul is the religious speech he gave in Iowa. Of course he was asked to speak on religious matters, because its not really Ron Paul's nature to do so otherwise; he tends to believe religion is a private matter and doesn't wear his religiosity on his sleeve. It was absolutely brilliant how he tied the Bible and the allegory of Jesus and the money changers with the government debasing the currency in today's world. He then went on to compare Israel’s desire for a king with the encroaching power of the Federal government saying that we as a culture have made the Government our king. He also addressed the notion of war and peace. "The Bible doesn't say blessed are the war makers" was a phrase he used. The religious right desperately needs to hear this message, and it coming from religious people like Ron Paul and Thomas Woods, preaching peace is beautiful and very appropriate.

Anyway, here's the speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pOncFuDIKM

---

Just want to point out that Ron opposed standing armies in this speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bastiat's The Law

You want to hear something totally ironic coming from an unabashed atheist. One of my favorite speeches by Ron Paul is the religious speech he gave in Iowa. Of course he was asked to speak on religious matters, because its not really Ron Paul's nature to do so otherwise; he tends to believe religion is a private matter and doesn't wear his religiosity on his sleeve. It was absolutely brilliant how he tied the Bible and the allegory of Jesus and the money changers with the government debasing the currency in today's world. He then went on to compare Israel’s desire for a king with the encroaching power of the Federal government saying that we as a culture have made the Government our king. He also addressed the notion of war and peace. "The Bible doesn't say blessed are the war makers" was a phrase he used. The religious right desperately needs to hear this message, and it coming from religious people like Ron Paul and Thomas Woods, preaching peace is beautiful and very appropriate.

Anyway, here's the speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pOncFuDIKM

---

Thanks for posting. That is one of my favorite Ron Paul speeches. When people ask me what Christian libertarianism is, I point them to speeches like this one and the Faith and Freedom one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by showpan

Oh no...not another "God right"

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If they knew we were going to have phones and internet and automobiles, etc, I'm willing to bet they would have included them in that list or worded it differently. Their intent is still clearly recognized as our right to unreasonable search. Spying would definitely fall under unreasonable search. Just because the corporate supreme court says otherwise. Who actually thinks our forefathers would be content with having our personal conversations recorded and our movements tracked?

---

God right = Natural right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PierzStyx

God right = Natural right.

---

I definitely disagree. As a Biblical Christian, I believe in revealed law, not natural law. It's certainly not a Biblical argument to argue that a source of law exists apart from the Lawgiver Himself. Many people get confused when they read the Founders writings, because they frequently used the term "natural" to refer to law, but they meant it within the framework of a (sometimes consistent and sometimes inconsistent) Calvinistic worldview....where "nature and nature's God" meant the Biblical description of the Sovereign Lord who governs the universe in physical and moral matters.

One of the principles of Biblical Christianity is Sola Scriptura, or "scripture alone". The principles of Scripture should be the basis for law in a Christian culture, not anything else.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.n...98651766_n.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sola_Fide

I definitely disagree. As a Biblical Christian, I believe in revealed law, not natural law. It's certainly not a Biblical argument to argue that a source of law exists apart from the Lawgiver Himself. Many people get confused when they read the Founders writings, because they frequently used the term "natural" to refer to law, but they meant it within the framework of a (sometimes consistent and sometimes inconsistent) Calvinistic worldview....where "nature and nature's God" meant the Biblical description of the Sovereign Lord who governs the universe in physical and moral matters.

One of the principles of Biblical Christianity is Sola Scriptura, or "scripture alone". The principles of Scripture should be the basis for law in a Christian culture, not anything else.

---

Natural law is God's law. They are the laws God put into place to order His creation. They come from Him and exist because of Him, not divorced from Him. Liberty is just such a natural law and it is no more wrong to say that it is God's law than to say gravity is God's law. Both laws exist, both come from God's decree. They are both His. Not every natural law is a moral commandment per se (such as gravity) but if your understanding of Creation and eternity is really that shallow I'm sorry. Explaining liberty as a natural law just makes it easier to build bridges with those not of your faith giving you both something you can agree on.

As for Sola Scriptura, I agree with one modifier. The revelations of God, past, present, and future are the basis of Christianity. God's works and words are eternal and never ending. And that the God who is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow works the same today as He did 5,000 years ago, through His prophets. Pharisaical Bible worship leaves many blind to much of God's word when He has so much to give.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sola_Fide

Thanks for posting. That is one of my favorite Ron Paul speeches. When people ask me what Christian libertarianism is, I point them to speeches like this one and the Faith and Freedom one.

---

If more Christians spoke like this instead of the Santorum holier than thou variety we could build a strong coalition of believers and non-believers under a huge tent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tttppp

Rights are meaningless unless they are enforced. If someone was violating your rights you would contact the government to solve this problem. Praying to God is not going to restore your rights.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brandon

Thanks Paul, but I know my rights come from force and not from some fairy tale. Human action "precedes" the bible, and I don't have much tolerance for your pandering.

---

I think you guys are confusing "Rights" with law enforcement.

And I agree with LE, the fairy tale comments are insulting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cajuncocoa

I think you guys are confusing "Rights" with law enforcement.

---

Yeah.

I think Rand's argument is ok. It boils it down in a really simple way, so a wide variety of people can understand, and that's what we need someone to do. Too many people have the attitude it's the govt's job to grant all of our rights, and if they take away rights or violate them, oh well, that's the law. We saw this with the TSA, the Obamacare ruling, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cajuncocoa

I think you guys are confusing "Rights" with law enforcement.

And I agree with LE, the fairy tale comments are insulting.

---

Rights are nothing unless you enforce them.In the real world its survival of the fitest. There are no such things as rights. That was made up by men who decided to give and enforce rights.

I could also say rights don't come from God because God does not exist. I'm just keeping this simple. Its pretty obvous rights don't come from him.

Good grief.

I like how Ron Paul, Judge Napolitano, etc. say literally the same thing. But when Rand says it a few people get upset? I don't know, I guess some people here think rights come from government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PierzStyx

God right = Natural right.

---

What rights does your bible say I have?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by showpan

What rights does your bible say I have?

---

Thats a good point. Out of all those pages in the bible, I have never heard of any of them listing rights we have received from God.