God Given Rights

Agreed , perhaps my last post gets the issue done with according to political philosophy which PN states is the topic here.

 

The God of nature made us alive, all other rights we choose the intent to act under are lessor rights.

 

Ithe op statement was made because he didnt want to be challenged at all. His political philosophy if you can call it that is that his god gave him rights and they should not be challenged. This way of thinking is very flawed and dangerous.
Now according to him he should be able to kill people that work on sundays
sell his daughter into slavery
ect.

Those are his god given rights which he seems to think somehow can be tied to his political beliefs which he claims backing from the founding fathers.

 

Agreed again, but the product of that does nothing for the higher purposes of the natural law structure whereas my inquiry is empowering to our unity to act to uphold and defend the natural law structure.

Please respond to this PN.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=440724&page=3&p=1065758299#post1065758299

 

I think I made it pretty clear that this is a political discussion not a religious one. If you want to ask the question,
"Does God exist?" that would be a question for the religion forum.

You and many others who have chimed in still do not "get it", that the United States was formed as a result of
the political philosophies of the Enlightenment, and the Founding Fathers' established our form of government
based on that to ensure the blessing of freedom and liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

This speaks to one of the first points in the OP that ". This is a statement of fact that is not well understood by
most Americans today."

 

Once again you can argue you points but nobody is required to agree with it.

 

Another one expressing a complete lack of understanding of the basic civics, history and philosophies of
the founding of America. It's as if people are completely unaware of the phrase "God given rights". It is
not something you will find in the Bible.

Hey, try reading the OP again. Perhaps you just missed the point and got thrown off by the title of the
thread being illiterate to the political philosophies of the Founding Fathers.

 

For posterities sake whatever enables defense of unalienable rights extends that blessing. The inquiry here is all about that.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=440724&page=3&p=1065758299#post1065758299

 

A couple of points about the founders. I supposed you could say that the finders were "devoutly religious" ( I am not sure this is even true) but many were certainly not devoutly Christian.

It is recognized that many were Deists.

http://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-Deism-and-Christianity-1272214

Note that some of the Philosophers mentioned were those from which the ideas for the Declaration of Independence and the constitution were gleaned.

There is a reason why the term "Creator" rather than God is used. It is ambiguous for a reason.

It is then not really correct to use the term "God given Rights" as if this somehow refers to something Christian or a Christian God.

The Declaration of Independence clearly describes the principles for a system of Government that is to be free from the evils of fusing church and state as per the Deist belief.

 

Well, you could state that about a quarter of the United States was formed with input from the writings of the French Philosophes, the rest was formed by buying land from foreign monarchs who didn't actually own it and denying the "god given" rights of the original inhabitants.
So the whole, "statement of fact," is a pretty broad stretch of the truth - but you can pretend if it's comforting to your religious preconceptions.

 

This is yet another post which speaks to a point I made in the OP. That being that many American
don't have a basic understanding of the civic, history and philosophy of the Founding of the nation.

I am actually disappointed in the number of off topic responses in spite of the numerous times I have
expressed that this is not a religious debate.

 

Today I learned that I have no rights because I'm an atheist.

 

Imagine how disappointed the next generation will be when they figure out this one could not discern that free speech has an ultimate purpose .

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

The first inquiry is obvious, but the second requires inference and respect for the 9th amendment, but if you still fail to agree and accept that second but prime constitutional intent, you will have to provide a reasonable explanation in order to be accountable to the issue of "constitutional intent".

If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, what did they intend to serve the PURPOSE of enabling the unity required to effectively alter or abolish if it was not free speech?

 

You didn't learn that here. Under discussion are the rights you have simply because you are a human being, Nature's God protects your right to be an atheist. Just because you are an atheist, do you cease to be a human being? Of course not.

 

I have studied all of the founders works and read every note taken by Madison at the convention. There were very few things that had a consensus. It is funny because some of the things they did all agree on never made it into the constitution such as a 1, 7 year term for the president.

 

In The Soviet Union, "God given Human Rights" included a right to work, to housing, to food, to income, to medical care, to education …
For all their mistakes and faults, The Soviets had some things exactly RIGHT ...

 

Have you ever read the Russian constitution? It is quite an amazing document for what it gives the people but no government has ever actually followed it. It's more of a propaganda tool.

 

A right to work, to housing. to food, to income, education, and medical care doesn't mean that it's a promise that you'll get these things. Is it?

If so, you're a worker so work!!! (education) income is "you get a penny a day", food is "there's lots of food in the ocean, so have at it" and medical care is "so you need surgery? Here's a butter knife".

How about just staying out of my way? I'll take that over your communist ideology. Leave me alone, and you can do whatever it is you want, so long as you keep your nonsense to yourself.

 

American Guv'Mint and history also fall short of our documented ideals … It's because we're all sinful human beings, you see ...

 

LOL …
You surely are *FREE* to go off into the woods or the jungle all alone and live a hermit life with no entanglements of any society …

Go for it … Bye … !!!

 

As I understand it "God-given rights" means that those rights are inherent in our natures. Life is, because every living thing will defend its life as far as it is able to. Liberty is, because every living thing will try to do what it feels like doing (please, let's not get into a morals discussion here, I'm not talking about WHY we want to do what we want to, but only about the fact that we do want to do what we do). The "pursuit of happiness" is just part of liberty, and I never could really figure why they put it in, but it does sound good.

Just saying we have rights doesn't mean they can't be violated, but we do believe they can't be taken away, that is, you may kill me but you have only violated my right to life, you have not removed it.

Is this right?

 

There is nothing inherent in our nature......those would be instincts and science has proven that humans are completely devoid of any instinctual behavior. And humans, unlike animals, do not always do everything they can to survive. Unlike animals, humans often will accept their fate and give up and they also partake in many activities they know will harm them. Filling your veins with heroin is not an inherent quality......

 

and free to live in society...

so Hello.

 

I agree, what that was supposed to mean is the gov could not take away rights, like the right to own a gun, because they were "natural" rights

but today both sides seem to want to make some "natural" rights into privileges, that do not apply to all free Americans, only the ones they choose, the ones they "give" the privilege too

be it religion, speech, guns, marriage, whatever

.

 

I understand that, i just dont care. The founding fathers were just a bunch of men with ideas. Some of their ideas were good (like separation of church and state). But others were bad (like calling a black man 3/5 of a white man). The idea of rights is good. The idea that rights came from "god" is just bad.

You keep the good, you get rid of the bad, and you end up with a better nation.