ARE WE ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS?

Tartarin wrote:

... Above all, it veers away from proselytizing and pride -- including the insistence on others' "need" for god for all in our public, secular institutions.

I agree with everything you wrote here in your last post except that last. I DEMAND FOR OTHERS as well as for myself THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH.

Some guy wants to put a block of granite in a courthouse entry way with a paraphrase of the ten commandments, let him. Congress is not establishing a religion thereby. Even the adamant judge is not establishing a religion thereby. Not even the poor slobs who were hired to move it there are establishing a religion. No one is dumb enough to be claiming that it's obscene are they?

If you think otherwise then consider this:

Compelling people to NOT bring religious artifacts of one kind or another onto or into public property is establishing a contrary religion, the null religion, the religion that says until you can prove God exists, God doesn't exist. Hmmmm. That religion is otherwise known as atheism. It too is "a system of beliefs based on faith".

If someone were to say that granite chunk offends them because they believe in 0 gods or they believe in more than 1 god, be aware they would offend me by making an issue over such a trivial matter. Force that more than 10 cubic feet of granite outa there and you'll also offend the poor slob who's actually got the job of removing it back outa there. Hay, as Terry suggested, "Live and let live!"

0 Replies

1. Not believing in god is NOT a religion. Obviously. If not believing in god were a religion, then anything could become a religion. Two fat people ******* ceaselessly could be declared a religion. Those Two Fatties ******* (day in and day out), that new expression of the wonder of the universe, could be on top of a marble plinth in a courthouse in Alabama and no one could have them removed, playing by your rules.

2. Doesn't matter whether you are offended. You offend me (your attitude and your way of expressing it) and I don't (don't have the right to) tell you to go away.

3. We don't put religious artifacts in public places. Period. It's the law and it's a smart law, considering there are people out here who feel so strongly about it!

0 Replies

Sofia,

I grant people the rights you asked about because it's only fair. But I do not think they are inalienable rights inherent to human existence because they are routinely denied.

ican,

Your method of pegging a right to the whole of society conflicts with what some would assert as their right. The right to have more rights than others, the right to be better.. etc.

Can you explain why you think any self-declared right automatically extends to all? Because some rights are mutually exclusive with the rights of others.

Your right to self-expression ends where my right to peaceful coexistence begins. And such.

0 Replies

truth
Sophia, of course Cephus is right regarding the use of polls to determine the truth. Remember, there was a time when ALL people believed the earth is flat.

0 Replies

You're kidding, JL. You mean it's not?

(Quick question: It appears that the Bible Belt largely consists of flat areas. Is there a connection?)

0 Replies

truth
Ican suggests, by implication, that if we could prove the existence of God then noone would want to remove the momument to his commandments. My problem with that is that imbedded in that statement is the assertion that the "proven God" would be just as Ican's religion describes Him, that Ican's church's worldview the same as that of the "proven God". This is at the philosophical heart, I surmise, of Jefferson's wall between Church and State. He was not so much concerned to keep religion out of public life as such; he was concerned that political actors not use the absolute values and rules of religion--any religion--to support their claims to power and resources. I wonder how Chrisitans would feel if a group were to insist that along side the Christian symbols placed in governmental venues they were to place images representing all religions, Buddhism, Taoisms,Hinduism, Islam, Confusianism, Native American and African religions, etc. So many, in fact, that one would have search for the Christian symbols. Legally, of course, this would still violate the constitutional ruling of the separation of Church and State.

0 Replies

truth
Ican, apologies if I read too much between your lines. I may very well have used you as a straw man in order to contextualize the points I wanted to make. Embarrassed

0 Replies

truth
Actually, Tartarin, the world IS flat phenomenologically. If I perceived it as round it would be very difficult to go to the store down the street. Fortunately, I do not perceive its roundness; I only know of it, i.e., that it is flat FOR ME at my scale of experience, but more or less round at an objective macro-scale of knowledge. I only experience "roundness" when riding over a small hill. Make sense?

0 Replies

Whoa im lost here! maybe i should wake up! By the way JLNobody point well stated! (without any hint of sarcasm)

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

Actually, Tartarin, the world IS flat phenomenologically. If I perceived it as round it would be very difficult to go to the store down the street. Fortunately, I do not perceive its roundness; I only know of it, i.e., that it is flat FOR ME at my scale of experience, but more or less round at an objective macro-scale of knowledge. I only experience "roundness" when riding over a small hill. Make sense?

Personal perceptions are utterly irrelevant to truth. Long before anyone knew the earth was round, it was. Long before anyone knew about DNA, it existed. Way back when people thought it was spirits that made you sick, disease was doing just fine.

The problem in this debate is that there are people who claim that rights have the same weight and existence as gravity, that they are inherent rather than granted by the society under which the individual lives. That rests in their hands to demonstrate and so far... it hasn't been.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Once one declares an inalienable right for himself, he declares it for everyone else also, AND cannot thereafter surrender or transfer it. The presumption will thereafter always be that he has exercised that right at least once and therefore there is no going back.
... In SECURING these rights, one must of necessity DE-SECURE the right of anyone who has deprived another of that SECURED right.

Then the Founding Fathers were hypocrites. The Constitution specifically declares that all men are NOT equal, there is no inherent right to liberty, and those who have deprived others of their rights are secure in their right to do so.

Section 2 of Article I states that apart from free persons "all other persons," meaning slaves, are each to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for the purpose of apportioning congressional representatives on the basis of population. Section 9 of Article I states that the importation of "such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit," meaning slaves, would be permitted until 1808. And Section 2 of Article IV directs that persons "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another," meaning fugitive slaves, were to be returned to their owners.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

Repeatedly on this thread the "inherent rights by their God" side has alluded to that because their god grants rights to humans and since we are human we have rights. ... Now, what is that property found in God's image that deserves rights (especially that right not to be eaten by other humans?).

Kuvasz, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Bible is the Word of God, or that the morality reflected in the Torah is anything other than the barbaric mentality of ancient Israelites.

Can anyone honestly argue that the God of the Bible values human life when he allegedly drowned millions of men, women and children, slew the first born of every Egyptian (including prisoners who were in no way responsible for the Pharaoh's decisions), ordered the wholesale slaughter of men, women and children so that the Israelites could steal their land, and commanded that unruly children, witches, blasphemers, and anyone who engaged in unsanctioned sex be stoned to death?

0 Replies

Terry you should know me well enough by now that my exposition on the Torah and kosher dietary laws as derived from the Word of God was merely stating a premise connected to the religionist side in this debate. I did not endorse the concept.

In fact, if one had truly read my post which contained the Torah reference, one could see clearly that I was using a basic premise of the Judeo- Christian belief system to show its inconsistency and dichotomy when relating rights to living creatures. My intent has been to force those on the religious side of the divide to explain what makes humans deserving of rights above other animals.

I do not, nor have I ever stated that any text is the word of God (with the possible exception of "Go Dog, Go!" which my dogs insist IS a sacred text.).

I am neither a deist nor dogmatist. I am, however a dogist.

continually on this thread i have sought to have each side explain simply what it is on a fundamental level about humans that yields a concept of rights.

i am still waiting for someone besides chicago joe to open that box of corn flakes.

it is quite funny that the religioists do not understand that their religions are themselves are wholly based upon social convention, not divine revelation.

this is the point i made earlier, viz., that the basic premise of "rights" expounded in arguments here by both the religionists and the secularists are derived from the same source, yet neither side is willing to delve deeper than their convenient rhetoric to see it.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

i am still waiting for someone besides chicago joe to open that box of corn flakes.

it is quite funny that the religioists do not understand that their religions are themselves are wholly based upon social convention, not divine revelation.

this is the point i made earlier, viz., that the basic premise of "rights" expounded in arguments here by both the religionists and the secularists are derived from the same source, yet neither side is willing to delve deeper than their convenient rhetoric to see it.

I have written that I see no reason to assume any rights are unalienable.

I have written that I see no reason to assume any rights are derived by endowment from any supernatural source.

I have written that I see rights as being the result of demands of people on society -- on government -- that freedom not be unnecessarily curtailed. (I recognize that society and its governments can consider some behavior and speech to be detrimental to the proper function of society and can restrict it. "RIGHTS" in my opinion are those freedoms that remain after necessary restrictions are imposed.

(This is a Readers Digest version, buty I think it encapsulates the essence of my considerations on this. I acknowledge that I may be wrong on every part of my suppositions. There may be a God and that God may have intended to endow us with certain rights -- and that God may consider those rights to be inalienable -- but I see absolutely no reason to suppose that to be the case.

Not sure what you meant by that...

Quote:

this is the point i made earlier, viz., that the basic premise of "rights" expounded in arguments here by both the religionists and the secularists are derived from the same source, yet neither side is willing to delve deeper than their convenient rhetoric to see it.

...

...but as far as I am concerned, I have delved deep and I am willing to discuss any aspect of my considerations on this issue.

What specifically do you see wrong with my take on this thing -- and what areas of that do you want to discuss?

0 Replies

'rights' it seems are a funny thing;

half of you here seem to be totally ignoring the fact that you have no 'right' to make the statements you are making; and the other half, i guess,
are 'right'!

and i didn't mean that lightly;
where is this arguement going?

is there anything to 'prove' (and gain from philosophically or literally)?

could we not all agree to personally grant the fairly well defined 'rights', being discussed here, to everyone, and move on.
[it will have no effect on the functioning of the planet, but must surely provide some comfort, from having taken a stand on a subject collectively]

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

1. Not believing in god is NOT a religion. Obviously.

Yes it is! Obviously.

Theism consists of diverse systems of belief based on faith that God exists.

Atheism consists of diverse systems of belief based on faith that God does not exist.

Radical Agnosticism consists of diverse systems of belief based on faith that we probably cannot know whether or not God exists.

How about the rebuttal: "Can't prove a negative". That of course is rubbish. Scientists have and do prove negatives as a matter of course. They prove various theories are false that way. Sometimes they prove a positive by showing its negative implies a contradiction. Sometimes they prove a negative by showing its positive implies a contradiction.

Tartarin wrote:

If not believing in god were a religion, then anything could become a religion.

Yes, anything that constitutes a system of beliefs based on faith.

Tartarin wrote:

Two fat people ******* ceaselessly could be declared a religion. Those Two Fatties ******* (day in and day out), that new expression of the wonder of the universe, could be on top of a marble plinth in a courthouse in Alabama and no one could have them removed, playing by your rules.

What fat people copulating is declared is irrelevant. All that's relevant is whether or not fat people copulating constitutes a system of beliefs based on faith. A granite block depicting fat people copulating is by and of itself merely sculture. If folks consider such sculture obscene then that is sufficient reason for throwing a canvas over it. But if they consider it the practice of a religion, then perhaps they need pass a course in logic.

Tartarin wrote:

2. Doesn't matter whether you are offended. You offend me (your attitude and your way of expressing it) and I don't (don't have the right to) tell you to go away.

EXCELLENT POINT! So don't tell that Alabama Judge he must make go away from his courthouse that block of granite on which is sculpted a paraphrase of the ten commandments.

Tartarin wrote:

3. We don't put religious artifacts in public places. Period. It's the law and it's a smart law, considering there are people out here who feel so strongly about it!

OH

Check the front facade of the Supreme Court of the United States next time you vist D.C. Check the money (front or back) you see in/on publically owned property. You will undoubtedly be surprised what you find there too. Oh, one more Shocked

minor

example. Visit the National Archives Building in D.C. too. You will no doubt see among other documents the original Declaration of Independence as published July 4, 1776 which is alleged to possess a few references to a deity.

Our Constitution As Amended is the "supreme Law of the Land". Check its Article VI, 2nd paragraph to verify that.

Check Ammendment I, too, while you're at it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press,
or the right of the people to peaceably assemble,
and to petition the Government for redress of grievances.

ONE MORE TIME
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...

By what logic does that imply "We don't put religious artifacts in public places. Period. It's the law and it's a smart law, considering there are people out here who feel so strongly about it!"

ALTERNATE ACTION
Perhaps you might better consider overcoming the failures of those YOU AND/OR OTHERS paid to educate you.

0 Replies

Your silliness betrays you, Ican.

0 Replies

truth
Ican, can you give an example of "proving a negative"? Scientific use of the "null hypothesis" is used, as far as I understand/remember, to disprove a positive. A model for denying the abililty to prove a negative is the assertion that there are no unicorns anywhere on earth. Logically there is no way of knowing WITH CERTAINTY that none will be found tomorrow. That would imply future knowledge, not present knowledge.

0 Replies

that's easy frankapisa.

no one has answered what the purpose of rights is, how rights apply not merely to actions but also to human consciousness, and for what reason individual rights derived from social convention even exist.

if all rights arise from social aspects, what is the purpose of rights for the individual?

for the individual, what do rights do?

why is it important to humans for them to have rights?

how does one arrive at the values humans place upon rights?

what are the basic premises made about humans that they deem it important to have rights?

no one has mentioned the fundamental premises society makes about humans from which even social conventions admit human rights.

the reason why rights change with social changes is that new paradigms are presented as to what a human is.

so, again, what is it about a human that rights arise, even those produced by social convention?

from what basic premise does society indicate that its members have value above that of purely a utilitarian nature. upon what is that premise based? what do humans see in each other than in aggregate as a group?

we are talking about our "common humanity," which as i stated above changes with societies, but there is a fundamental aspect or method employed by each society as it weighs what rights are.

it is how humans themselves are defined, and what is it that society defines a human such that the human is afforded rights not granted any other animal?

after all, even human society has enacted laws and taboos against cruelty to animals, so there must be a common denominator that human society uses to state that cruelty to animals and to humans arise from the same premise. but since society affords humans more rights than other animals, what is the difference between man and beast and whence it arises?

why do dogs not have the same rights as humans? what is inherent in the human that is not inherent in the dog that society tells us that dogs have the right only to be treated humanly?

if a dog could talk should it be afforded human rights? if so, why so?

see what i am getting at? it is not merely that we, as humans have rights, even by your presumption that rights are afforded by society. it is that there is a necessary set of properties humans have that dogs or other animals are not recognized to have that society denies the latter rights.

what is the quantum difference human society recognizes that separates man from beast?

tell me this and you have told me from where rights come.

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

Then the Founding Fathers were hypocrites.

Yes, some were hypoctites! But Some were pragmatists who thought it more practical to form a flawed but viable government to secure the rights of some. Then commence the process of evolving a less flawed constitution that secured the rights of all. IT WORKED Exclamation

Thank God (you should pardon the expression) that some were pragmatists. We are all better off it. Don't you agree?

0 Replies

ARE WE ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know