You really think there are universal rights granted by God?

Absolutely, without a doubt. Don't you?

What are those rights? Who defines them?

The million dollar question. I submit that a good way to judge the worth of a government is the degree to which is correctly apprehends existing rights and then protects them.

How about the right to worship freely. Why would God bestow that right knowing full well that many or most people would worship incorrecly or worship false gods? Moreover, do you think the freedom of religion is "self-evident" to all the people of the world? I don't.

I wouldn't argue that freedom of religion is "self-evident," necessarily. I'm not even sure if you and I agree on what freedom of religion is all about, frankly. I think each person has a responsibility to seek the truth, and to that end, must retain freedom of conscience- therefore a religion can't be imposed on a person.

Or maybe you think God has given you the right to bear arms, as if Jesus would want humans to keep weapons.

I think the right to defend one's own life and the lives of one's loved ones from aggression is God-given, yes.

No, the freedoms we enjoy are defined by the popular consensus and are constantly evolving for better or for worse depending on one's point of view.

The freedoms we enjoy are defined- in this country- by popular consensus. The freedoms we're entitled to are pre-existing. Again, slavery enjoyed popular consensus for a good portion of American history. Did that mean the slaves didn't have a right to be free until after the Civil War? Or is it the case that they did have the right to be free, and that their right in that was violated?

I'd say again that the freedoms or rights come from popular consensus, and a government is oppressive when it does not reflect that consensus.

No such thing as the tyrany of the mob, huh? Are you saying that you don't think an oppressive government can enjoy a popular consensus?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

All interesting points. I'm not sure I've totally thought out my position, but here's a few responses.

Absolutely, without a doubt. Don't you?

Not sure I do.

The million dollar question.

Yep... I'm not sure I can believe that there are God-given rights if they can't be defined.

therefore a religion can't be imposed on a person

Doesn't seem consistent with religious doctrine, most of which say "follow my way or go to hell"

think the right to defend one's own life and the lives of one's loved ones from aggression is God-given,

I think Jesus would say turn the other cheek.

Again, slavery enjoyed popular consensus for a good portion of American history.

Good point - of course it didn't enjoy popular consensus among the slaves themselves. I'll have to think about this one more.

No such thing as the tyrany of the mob, huh? Are you saying that you don't think an oppressive government can enjoy a popular consensus?

What's the difference between tyranny of the mob and a mandate? Just what side you're on. I suppose American neo-Nazis, eco-terrorists, and other fringe groups could call the current state of affairs a tyranny of the mob since their views or self-professed rights aren't being respected. What about pot smokers... victims of the mob or justly incarcerated for breaking a legitimate law.

---

_______________________________________________

Doesn't seem consistent with religious doctrine, most of which say "follow my way or go to hell"

That is still a choice, as indicated by the word "or". God never changes his mind about the freedom of choice and installs "puppet strings" on each of us.

"follow my way or go to hell"

Be glad the government doesn't impose or enforce that. =)

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

I'm not sure I can believe that there are God-given rights if they can't be defined.

I'm not sure why that should be the case. We have the capacity as intelligent persons to reason out many of those rights, and so define them. If it's the case that we can't define all of them, or more precisely, agree on all of them, it doesn't invalidate the exercise. As you said, the rights we enjoy are those which we generally agree upon. It may be the case that we- for whatever reason- don't agree on other rights which do, in fact, exist, in which case those rights won't be exercised. Or it might at times be the case that we mistakenly believe something to be a right that actually isn't. It's a matter of how accurately we perceive and act on an existing reality. Simply because we might not do that perfectly doesn't mean the reality doesn't exist.

Doesn't seem consistent with religious doctrine, most of which say "follow my way or go to hell"

I think that's a mischaracterization. My religion, at least, doesn't say that in the way you imply.

I think Jesus would say turn the other cheek.

Self-defense and defense of other innocents, isn't inconsistent with Christianity. That's another long argument, though- maybe you can just take my word for it?

it didn't enjoy popular consensus among the slaves themselves.

Don't be so sure. (I'm not specifically talking about American slavery, here, as I'm not that familiar with African attitudes towards slavery in that period) Historically, slavery was considered a normal state of affairs. The actual slaves may have felt extremely unfortunate with their lot, but they didn't necessarily think that slavery itself was immoral.

What's the difference between tyranny of the mob and a mandate? Just what side you're on.

Well, nope. That's the whole concept behind the American system, right? Even if the majority opinion is against you, you have certain rights that can't be violated.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

That's the whole concept behind the American system, right? Even if the majority opinion is against you, you have certain rights that can't be violated.

Well, back to where I started.... that's simply not true. There are no inalienable or absolute rights that cannot be taken away by Constitutional amendment.

I think it's a total BS exercise to talk about the Constitution in context of the Declaration (2 documents for 2 distinct purposes, conceived over a decade apart) or to try and imagine the framer's intent when the text of the Constitution spells it out very clearly.

It's possible that the framers did believe certain rights were derived from God, but the process they created allows for those rights to be changed or taken away by man.

---

_______________________________________________

There are no inalienable or absolute rights that cannot be taken away by Constitutional amendment.

OK, one step at a time.

Yes, it's true that we could amend the Constitution any way we wanted. The premise underlying the whole system, though, is that certain rights exist, everyone possesses them, and they can't be violated by the majority.

Now, let's say we decide to amend the Constitution such that it prohibited the practice of Islam. Would the right of Muslims to worship as they see fit disappear, or would still exist, just not recognized? Would we be committing an injustice against Muslims? If you say that people have no inalienable rights, I guess not.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"I think it's a total BS exercise to talk about the Constitution in context of the Declaration (2 documents for 2 distinct purposes, conceived over a decade apart) or to try and imagine the framer's intent when the text of the Constitution spells it out very clearly. "

Interpretation of the Constitution is done in the context of the Framer's intent as determined by many many contemporary documents including the Declaration, commentaries, etc.

If the Framer's intent is to be limited to what is spelled out in the document, how do you get abortion rights? Or any laws regarding gun control?

Interpretation of the Constitution is done in the context of the Framer's intent as determined by many many contemporary documents including the Declaration, commentaries, etc.

Only when the text of the Consitution itself isn't clear.

The document clearly spells out the mechanism by which a large enough majority can amend any freedom we currently enjoy. Under US law, nothing is absolute (just difficult to change)

---

_______________________________________________

"The document clearly spells out the mechanism by which a large enough majority can amend any freedom we currently enjoy. Under US law, nothing is absolute (just difficult to change) "

I am certain that you recognize the difference between can and should. I can go out and shoot someone. I should not. So the question becomes, why do you refuse to acknowledge that the fact that a right can be altered does not mean it should?

Because of the general belief in a Creator from whom all individual rights derived the Framer's did not put in any provision to protect the inalienable rights they were setting forth. Why would they?

Therefore, in the context of the Consititution, it is simply not true to say that ANY freedom can be removed, regardless of the mechanical truth of the statement.

"I think it's a total BS exercise to talk about the Constitution in context of the Declaration (2 documents for 2 distinct purposes, conceived over a decade apart)..."

So you think Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger, Frederick K. Biebel, Lindy Boggs, Herbert Brownell, Lynne V. Cheney, Philip M. Crane, Dennis DeConcini, William J. Green, Mark O. Hatfield, Edward Victor Hill, Cornelia G. Kennedy, Edward M. Kennedy, Harry McKinley Lightsey, Jr., Betty Southard Murphy, Thomas H. O'Connor, Phyllis Schlafly, Bernard H. Siegan, Obert C. Tanner, Strom Thurmond, Ronald H. Walker, Charles E. Wiggins, and Charles Alan Wright, otherwise known as the "Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution," were wrong when they published a booklet that said, "The Declaration of Independence was the promise; the Constitution was the fulfillment?"

Here is some text from a Supreme Court decision in 1897:

Gulf, C. & S. F. R. CO. v. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150 (1897)

But arbitrary selection can never be justified by calling it classification. The equal protection demanded by the fourteenth amendment forbids this. No language is more worthy of frequent and thoughtful consideration than these words of Mr. Justice Matthews, speaking for this court, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 , 6 S. Sup. Ct. 1064, 1071: "When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power." The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, [165 U.S. 150, 160] 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." While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government.

Forgive me - perhaps we are misunderstanding one another - but I think you've just proved my point: you think church and state are not and should not be separated.

Let's try an example: the US Government imposes a nationwide curfew - indoors by 6pm every evening or you're shot on sight. Let's assume it has a good or even marginal reason for this act. This is an infringement of your right to liberty, no? But you say that the right to liberty is a God given right. So as far as you're concerned, the USG has no power to impose such a curfew, and you can legitimately ignore it, relying on the higher authority of God as justifying your disobedience.

I don't think that really flies, does it?

On a more general note, I'm genuinely surprised at how many people in this thread regard America as a something that I'd classify as a religious state - like Iran - where the Government yields to the word of God. Pretty scarey, IMO.

I'm genuinely surprised at how many people in this thread regard America as a something that I'd classify as a religious state - like Iran - where the Government yields to the word of God.

Nobody has said anything of the sort.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

armytriguy said:

In Reply To:

Gregg,
Thats the point. If we allow "creator" ( whomever you choose) given rights to be taken away then the defacto grantor of those rights is the "state." The state can then decide which rights are appropriate. Ask the people of Iraq who gave then their rights for 30 years. It sure wasn't their creator. We just can not allow our country to have our rights picked apart by man.

You said

---

In Reply To

---

You really think there are universal rights granted by God?

Absolutely, without a doubt. Don't you?

What are those rights? Who defines them?

The million dollar question. I submit that a good way to judge the worth of a government is the degree to which is correctly apprehends existing rights and then protects them.

Or maybe you think God has given you the right to bear arms, as if Jesus would want humans to keep weapons.

I think the right to defend one's own life and the lives of one's loved ones from aggression is God-given, yes.[/reply]

Ok. (at least) two overstatements in my post: (i) not as many people as I'd suggested (ii) "Government yields" would be better put as "Government should yield". And I suppose it was unduly inflammatory to include a reference to Iran.

But it seems to me that the two quotes above support the view that a US Government which went against the word of God would be unworthy.

I am certain that you recognize the difference between can and should. I can go out and shoot someone.

Not legally you can't

So the question becomes, why do you refuse to acknowledge that the fact that a right can be altered does not mean it should?

Because should is a matter of opinion. Like you, I wouldn't support overturning the 1st Amendment. But I also wouldn't have supported Prohibition either - I like my right to drink but I don't think it came from God. To get back to that tired old subject, I also won't support a gay marriage ban, as I feel like it absolutely deprives a class of people the pursuit of happiness - others certainly disagree.

Because of the general belief in a Creator from whom all individual rights derived the Framer's did not put in any provision to protect the inalienable rights they were setting forth. Why would they?

Why wouldn't they. Hell, if I were writing a Consitution and wanted some rights to be unchngeable, I'd say so explicitly. I guess they (probably rightly) assumed that no one would voluntarily give up certain freedoms.

---

_______________________________________________

I've been think about this, and I think this my final post on the subject (hopefully).

Rights are a pretty subjective thing. If the majority of Americans banned Islam, would Muslims still have the right to practice their religion? I'd say so, but the majority wouldn't. What's the absolute truth? We'll, I'd say my way is.

The majority of Americans say that gays have no right to marry. I say they do. What's the absolute truth? I think the majority is wrong. Does that make it so?

I think what people tend to do is take a stand on issues they feel strongly about and say "God wants it that way". Believe me when I say that neither you, I, nor Thomas Jefferson can claim to perfectly know what God wants. We have little to go on. Jesus wasn't particularly interested in the freedoms or rights of this world. He never said that anyone had a right to be happy in this world. He said that those that suffer on Earth may be rewarded in heaven. Did he free slaves? Did he free the Jews from the Roman tyranny? No.

So what did the Framers think? Unless one takes a cynical attitude and believes that the Creator reference was only in there to give themselves legitimacy against the King, let's say they truly believed that "life, liberty, nd the pursuit of happiness" were rights granted by God. How did they know this? That's not in the Bible is it? It's basically their opnion, attriubuted to God. And the Constitution gave precise instructions on how people could add/change/remove rights in the future. If they believed that rights came from God, the guarantors of those rights were to be men. This whole thread started with the question: if we remove the Creator from the Declaration, what will happen then? I'd say nothing would change.

---

_______________________________________________

The real issue is the difference between natural rights granted by God or whatever you believe in, and the legal rights granted to citizens by society. The two don't always mesh perfectly Natural rights tend to be fewer and more vague, and are subject to interpretation and to a person's belief system, but some seem fairly consistent. I have a natural right not to be killed by you. Legal rights are far more numerous and restirictive because they dictate how people will live together. The Constitution is a legal document and could be amended to restrict the legal practice of what we now consider natural rights. However, enough people would have to agree to the suspension of that natural right to allow for a law to be passed or an Amendment adopted that outlawed something like life, liberty, etc.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I suppose it was unduly inflammatory to include a reference to Iran.

I'm pretty ok with the inflammatory part; what I object to is the implication that some of us believe that the US is or should be a theocracy, because nobody's said that.

But it seems to me that the two quotes above support the view that a US Government which went against the word of God would be unworthy.

Unworthy of what? I think you're having a different conversation than I am. What I'm saying here is that if you don't think rights are God-given ( in the most general sense- Creator given, or given by some higher power, or whatever ) you very quickly find yourself defenseless against those who claim you don't have a particular right.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Rights are a pretty subjective thing. Not so much as many seem to think. Once again, I implore you to step out of the empirical box for a moment. There are other routes to knowledge. Honest.

If the majority of Americans banned Islam, would Muslims still have the right to practice their religion? Here's the answer I hope you're searching for: If Islam were outlawed, Muslims would still have a right to worship God according to the dictates of their conscience. Barring them from doing so is an unjust violation of their rights, and wrongs them. Similarly, the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent during WWII was a violation of their rights. Their right to freedom didn't evaporate into nothingness during the war, jhc- we simply denied them the ability to exercise it. Which is why the internment camps were wrong. Otherwise, if there right to be free really did disappear because of the applicable laws, there was no wrongdoing at all, and no cause for guilt or complaint from anyone involved.

I think what people tend to do is take a stand on issues they feel strongly about and say "God wants it that way". I think you're not giving us religious nutcases enough credit. It really doesn't work that way. You have it exactly backwards, in fact. What we do is say, "There's a God, and we can reason out certain truths about Him and what He wants. We feel strongly that what God wants is right."

Believe me when I say that neither you, I, nor Thomas Jefferson can claim to perfectly know what God wants. Get out! Here I've been looking all evening looking for His phone number, so I could call Him up and just ask Him. Shoot. (On the other hand, it also isn't true that we can't know what God wants at all.)

Jesus wasn't particularly interested in the freedoms or rights of this world. He never said that anyone had a right to be happy in this world. He said that those that suffer on Earth may be rewarded in heaven. Did he free slaves? Did he free the Jews from the Roman tyranny? No. First of all, I never said that rights require one to believe in Christ. My point is only that if you don't believe that they emanate from a higher source than man, you leave yourself open to being stripped of any/all of your "rights." Second, it isn't true that Jesus wasn't interested in the freedoms or rights of this world. It's certainly fair to say that He was more concerned with the next world, but taking your argument here a half-step farther, one can justify any oppression or atrocity on the grounds that happiness here doesn't matter. That isn't Christ's message.

let's say they truly believed that "life, liberty, nd the pursuit of happiness" were rights granted by God. How did they know this?

Well, I don't suppose they had any charts, statistics, or lab results for evidence, but the knew it by light of their reason. Are you really that unfamiliar with Natural Law?

if we remove the Creator from the Declaration, what will happen then? I'd say nothing would change. I'd say a lot of things are already changing, precisely because people don't believe in the Declaration's Creator anymore. "Without God, all things are permitted."

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

More proof that the Declaration and Constitution are inseparable--from the Oration of John Quincy Adams on the occasion of the Jubilee of the Constitution:

"The Constitution of the United States was the work of this
Convention. But in its construction the Convention
immediately perceived that they must retrace their steps, and
fall back from a league of friendship between sovereign States
to the constituent sovereignty of the people; from power to
right--from the irresponsible despotism of State sovereignty to
the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence. In
that instrument, the right to institute and to alter governments
among men was ascribed exclusively to the people--the ends of
government were declared to be to secure the natural rights of
man; and that when the government degenerates from the
promotion to the destruction of that end, the right and the duty
accrues to the people to dissolve this degenerate government
and to institute another. "

"And thus was consummated the work commenced by the
Declaration of Independence--a work in which the people of the
North American Union, acting under the deepest sense of
responsibility to the Supreme Ruler of the universe, had
achieved the most transcendent act of power that social man in
his mortal condition can perform--even that of dissolving the
ties of allegiance by which he is bound to his country; of
renouncing that country itself; of demolishing its government;
of instituting another government; and of making for himself
another country in its stead."

"The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States are parts of one consistent whole, founded upon one
theory of government, then new in practice, though not as a
theory, for it had been working itself into the mind of man for
many ages, and had been especially expounded in the writings
of Locke, though it had never before been adopted by a great
nation in practice."

"There are yet, even at this day, many speculative objections to
this theory. Even in our own country there are still
philosophers who deny the principles asserted in the
Declaration, as self-evident truths--who deny the natural
equality and inalienable rights of man--who deny that the
people are the only legitimate source of power--who deny that
all just powers of government are derived from the consent of
the governed. Neither your time, nor perhaps the cheerful
nature of this occasion, permit me here to enter upon the
examination of this anti-revolutionary theory, which arrays
State sovereignty against the constituent sovereignty of the
people, and distorts the Constitution of the United States into a
league of friendship between confederate corporations. I speak
to matters of fact. There is the Declaration of Independence,
and there is the Constitution of the United States--let them
speak for themselves. The grossly immoral and dishonest
doctrine of despotic State sovereignty, the exclusive judge of its
own obligations, and responsible to no power on earth or in
heaven, for the violation of them, is not there. The Declaration
says, it is not in me. The Constitution says, it is not in me."

Pretty heady stuff.

OK, you got me. I know people link the Declaration and the Consitution, and perhaps in my rehetoric I've overstepped the facts.



My real point in all of this is that even though the Declaration mentions a Creator, that religion should be separate from the workings of government.



This discussion of the existence of inalienable rights and their origin is interesting, but it might be a little beyond the scope of what I was getting at. Plus it's been quite a while since I've read Aquinas, Hobbes, and all those other philosophers.

I did like where JQA says that the American revolution was undertaken with ther "deepest sense of responsibility to the Supreme Ruler of the universe" - just a tad presumptious perhaps.

---

_______________________________________________

"...religion should be separate from the workings of government."

I don't disagree with that, just where some people think the line should be drawn.. I don't think having "In God We Trust" on our currency or saying "One Nation Under God" in the pledge is what was meant by "Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion." I also don't think that legislators should try to divorce any and all religious or moral aspects of law. To paraphrase Adams, the government serves the people, and the people are, for the most part, religious. Others may want to draw the line closer than that, and that is what elections and the Supreme Court are all about.


"I did like where JQA says that the American revolution was undertaken with ther "deepest sense of responsibility to the Supreme Ruler of the universe" - just a tad presumptious perhaps. "

Maybe presumptious, but from my understanding totally sincere.

So what if it's a different conversation; it's the same point. The corrollary of your position (as expressed here) is that of you think certain rights are Creator-given, then you have some sort of defence to their removal by "those" (read: the state). So either those rights can't be removed (because the power of "those" yields to the Creator) or if "those" purport to remove them, they act against the intent of the Creator. Either way you slice it, it seems to me that the consequence is to hand ultimate political power to your Creator.

The corrollary of your position (as expressed here) is that of you think certain rights are Creator-given, then you have some sort of defence to their removal by "those" (read: the state). So either those rights can't be removed (because the power of "those" yields to the Creator) or if "those" purport to remove them, they act against the intent of the Creator.

Exactly. Why you think this is a bad thing mystifies me. What it means is that the power of the state is not absolute, and that the state cannot justly deprive its citizens of certain rights.

The alternative is to believe that the state has total, unchecked authority. Totalitarian states really are scary.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Vitus, since this is just you & me now, I'll keep this short. You position simply has a different body with unchecked authority. "Unchecked" is an ironic choice, since most states have checks and balances in place which limit their ability to abuse power. Once you subscribe to the idea that there is a Higher Authority, then you lose those checks and balances, and the next thing to go is the rule of law: people start picking and choosing what laws to follow according to whether they think those laws accord with the ideals of the Higher Authority. It's a situation with the capacity to tend to disarray, or to attract order through religious authority figures giving "guidance" as to the laws to follow.