Discussion Can someone explain what is a god given right?

[Moonbeam]

Well, obviously. Though maybe not 'the majority', necessarily, so much as 'the group with the most power' - which is not always the same thing. I suspect different societies with different distributions of power are likely to come up with different ideas of what constitutes "rights". And in many cases will then claim they are "God given".

I think you will find that what is considered inalienable will depend on one’s personal degree of conscious evolution and for mankind generally is precious little, sadly.

 

[Moonbeam]

Unless you are just putting me on, you prove here that you are a conservative at heart. I haven't the time ATM to deconstruct the quoted material and dissect your cursed soul, you should really look inward for that. Ta ta for now.

What I prove is that where you shine a light into the true nature of our inner unconscious state you will waken the monsters hidden there and if they don’t have a means handy to do violence with, they will use words to curse you. Your fear of knowing yourself is the same fear that drives the even more extreme in that sickness to kill at the school yard.

Naturally because I am talking to you regarding this matter, you are personally offended, but what is true of you is true of all who grew up in the darkness of sleeping humanity. But what I have said is true of you is almost universal and I did not discover the truth of this by looking at you but by looking at me. What you still deny I see in myself. You waste your time cursing me. Already taken care of.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

It usually refers to Rights that pre-existed the Constitution. Basic human rights such as self defense, defense of family, freedom of speech and association.

Pre-Existing Rights

There must be any number of other things Elena Kagan has done wrong that merit criticism. Ross identifies one here, and her deference to claims of executive po

www.theamericanconservative.com

''In addition to the Declaration of Independence, which reflects the Framers’ philosophical premises but does not have the force of law, the Constitution itself repeatedly refers to pre-existing rights.
The First Amendment does not say, “The people shall have a right to freedom of speech.” It says, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” Likewise with “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” and “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
These are not rights the government creates; they are pre-existing rights the government is bound to respect. There is no other way to make sense of the Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Also remember in the United States the Articles of Confederation which the Constitution was built.

Articles of Confederation (1777)

EnlargeDownload Link Citation: Articles of Confederation; 3/1/1781; Miscellaneous Papers of the Continental Congress, 1774 - 1789; Records of the Continental and Confederation Congresses and the Constitutional Convention, Record Group 360; National Archives Building, Washington, DC. View All...

www.archives.gov

 

[Muse]

But what I have said is true of you is almost universal and I did not discover the truth of this by looking at you but by looking at me. What you still deny I see in myself.

By your own admission, you see this in yourself and conclude it's in others and me, without knowing me. Pure projection, you're a case study.

 

[Moonbeam]

By your own admission, you see this in yourself and conclude it's in others and me, without knowing me. Pure projection, you're a case study.

Except for the fact that you proved my case already by projecting onto me the same self hate I would once have projected on you. Let's not forget who wished on whom a curse. What I feel is sympathy for your condition, having seen it first in myself. Seeking to blame others is the curse.

 

[Muse]

Except for the fact that you proved my case already by projecting onto me the same self hate I would once have projected on you. Let's not forget who wished on whom a curse. What I feel is sympathy for your condition, having seen it first in myself. Seeking to blame others is the curse.

Juggle this all you want, it's a stupid conundrum.

Right now there's action at a federal level to actually implement gun control. This link will work for 14 days:

Gun Bill’s Progress Reflects Political Shift, but G.O.P. Support Is Fragile (Published 2022)

Only two of the 14 Republicans who broke ranks to support taking up gun legislation are facing voters this year, showing how difficult such deals could be in the future.

www.nytimes.com

The Senate appears poised to pass a bipartisan gun control bill.

WASHINGTON — As Senator Joni Ernst, Republican of Iowa, weighed whether she should vote to take up a bipartisan gun reform measure, the phone lines in her offices were being flooded by constituents hoping to sway her.

The calls were coming in roughly six to one, she estimated, with an urgent message: “Please do something.”

On Tuesday, Ms. Ernst became one of 14 Republicans to break with her party to support moving ahead with the legislation, propelling it past a Republican blockade that has thwarted years of efforts to overhaul the nation’s gun laws. The vote was an indication of how lawmakers in both political parties have been galvanized to action by the horror of back-to-back mass shootings, including a racist massacre that killed 10 Black people in Buffalo and a rampage at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, that killed 19 children and two teachers.

“I’ve talked to even Republican lawmakers in the state of Iowa, and they’re like, ‘We’re hearing from our constituents too, about this issue,’” Ms. Ernst, the No. 5 Republican, said, adding, “So I think people recognize something needs to be done.”

 

[Jaskalas]

“I’ve talked to even Republican lawmakers in the state of Iowa, and they’re like, ‘We’re hearing from our constituents too, about this issue,’” Ms. Ernst, the No. 5 Republican, said, adding, “So I think people recognize something needs to be done.”

Pretty sure they're talking watered down half measures there.
When they are done "fixing" it, mass shootings will most certainly still be an American thing.

 

[Bitek]

Use whatever synonym you want, but the point is that the right is NOT a privilege granted by the govt.

God given/ inherent /universal/ natural/ human/ etc rights are owned by you by the virtue of you being a human, and more fortunately being American. They are above the power govt. They are to protect you from the abuse of govt, or the abuse from others.

The BOR lays recognizes these rights, their position, and proscribes the relationship of the individual to the govt.

God given is a useful conceptual term, even for atheists, because it contrasts the source of those rights.

Govt gives you the privilege to drive a car or drink a beer, but "GOD" gave you those essential rights, and govt cannot take away what God gave you, so says the Constitution.

Now, just saying the govt can't abuse you doesn't mean it automatically happens. As a citizen, you have to use your rights to defend all of them. Your right to speak, your right to vote, your right to just application of the law..

But when govt or the majority continues to violate your rights, then you have a right to preserve your liberty through violent means.

 

[MrSquished]

Juggle this all you want, it's a stupid conundrum.

Right now there's action at a federal level to actually implement gun control. This link will work for 14 days:

Gun Bill’s Progress Reflects Political Shift, but G.O.P. Support Is Fragile (Published 2022)

Only two of the 14 Republicans who broke ranks to support taking up gun legislation are facing voters this year, showing how difficult such deals could be in the future.

www.nytimes.com

WASHINGTON — As Senator Joni Ernst, Republican of Iowa, weighed whether she should vote to take up a bipartisan gun reform measure, the phone lines in her offices were being flooded by constituents hoping to sway her.

The calls were coming in roughly six to one, she estimated, with an urgent message: “Please do something.”

On Tuesday, Ms. Ernst became one of 14 Republicans to break with her party to support moving ahead with the legislation, propelling it past a Republican blockade that has thwarted years of efforts to overhaul the nation’s gun laws. The vote was an indication of how lawmakers in both political parties have been galvanized to action by the horror of back-to-back mass shootings, including a racist massacre that killed 10 Black people in Buffalo and a rampage at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, that killed 19 children and two teachers.

“I’ve talked to even Republican lawmakers in the state of Iowa, and they’re like, ‘We’re hearing from our constituents too, about this issue,’” Ms. Ernst, the No. 5 Republican, said, adding, “So I think people recognize something needs to be done.”

And the funny thing is the thing they might pass is mostly useless. It's something, but it's a breadcrumb to a problem that needs a giant french bakery of baguettes to solve.

 

[Muse]

Pretty sure they're talking watered down half measures there.
When they are done "fixing" it, mass shootings will most certainly still be an American thing.

If so, it will be widely seen and known that what they did wasn't what's needed and hopefully something better is in the offing. I had the same feeling about the ACA. We need genuine effective and universal health care in America. I figured the ACA was just the first step. Big pharma and entrenched selfish interests have stood in the way from the start and aren't easily moved. Gun control is a whole other thing. Plenty of inertia in both realms. But big movement is needed.

 

[Moonbeam]

If so, it will be widely seen and known that what they did wasn't what's needed and hopefully something better is in the offing. I had the same feeling about the ACA. We need genuine effective and universal health care in America. I figured the ACA was just the first step. Big pharma and entrenched selfish interests have stood in the way from the start and aren't easily moved. Gun control is a whole other thing. Plenty of inertia in both realms. But big movement is needed.

To be embedded in a system of thinking, the capitalist system, is to unknowingly be blind to the fact that solutions for problems within that system will never discover those solutions are the system itself. Americans will do nothing about violence against other people because it is by blindness to violence that people progress in the system. To be a successful proper well respected American requires that you be mentally ill. Nobody is going to do a thing about the causes of mental illness. Lets shoot for BIG Solutions because real ones are taboo.

 

[Jaskalas]

Use whatever synonym you want, but the point is that the right is NOT a privilege granted by the govt.

God given/ inherent /universal/ natural/ human/ etc rights are owned by you by the virtue of you being a human, and more fortunately being American. They are above the power govt. They are to protect you from the abuse of govt, or the abuse from others.

The BOR lays recognizes these rights, their position, and proscribes the relationship of the individual to the govt.

Protections granted to you by the Government. In other words, by man. Man made and not god given. Neither inherent or inalienable, otherwise they wouldn't need us to choose to uphold them.

 

[Moonbeam]

Protections granted to you by the Government. In other words, by man. Man made and not god given. Neither inherent or inalienable, otherwise they wouldn't need us to choose to uphold them.

They don’t need us to uphold them. They are self evident, but you have to know yourself to know who you are. All the effort to uphold them, all the rage they are violated comes from doubt they actually exist. They do.

 

[Muse]

To be embedded in a system of thinking, the capitalist system, is to unknowingly be blind to the fact that solutions for problems within that system will never discover those solutions are the system itself. Americans will do nothing about violence against other people because it is by blindness to violence that people progress in the system. To be a successful proper well respected American requires that you be mentally ill. Nobody is going to do a thing about the causes of mental illness. Lets shoot for BIG Solutions because real ones are taboo.

This is an interesting perspective. I guess I've never been an ultimately respectable person on every level. Some ways, of course. I'm not a criminal. Well, everyone's a criminal if you nitpick it. I think of Alan Watts here, he made these points, everyone being a criminal (including the judge, and therefore he/she should have a sense of humor about it all), and everyone, when you look at them with a penetrating lens, has their not so presentable side. This is the Alan Watts explaining this is wonderful detail:

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Protections granted to you by the Government. In other words, by man. Man made and not god given. Neither inherent or inalienable, otherwise they wouldn't need us to choose to uphold them.

No... inherent/god-given rights aren't 'granted' by the government. We, as a people, defined them as being inherent, and outside the scope of the government to have a say over. It's like the basis of our government.

 

[MrSquished]

No... inherent/god-given rights aren't 'granted' by the government. We, as a people, defined them as being inherent, and outside the scope of the government to have a say over. It's like the basis of our government.

The US Constitution contains no mention of God.

And the more you believe what you are saying, the bigger part of the problem that is.

God is a man-made creation. Humans can get together and create laws, rules, and morals. That's how this all actually works. You can have what we consider human rights that we believe all humans deserve, there does not have to be any God involved. Just saying that is nonsensical

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The US Constitution contains no mention of God.

And the more you believe what you are saying, the bigger part of the problem that is.

God is a man-made creation. Humans can get together and create laws, rules, and morals. That's how this all actually works. You can have what we consider human rights that we believe all humans deserve, there does not have to be any God involved. Just saying that is nonsensical

Yeah I know that, I was just using the language that some people seem hung up on. I'm very much an athiest and I think the notion of tethering inherent rights to a bearded dude in the sky is idiotic, but here we are. If it makes you feel better I'll put quotes around it.

Regardless, my point was for @Jaskalas specifically mentioning that those inherent rights are granted by the govt, which is wrong.

 

[MrSquished]

Yeah I know that, I was just using the language that some people seem hung up on. I'm very much an athiest and I think the notion of tethering inherent rights to a bearded dude in the sky is idiotic, but here we are. If it makes you feel better I'll put quotes around it.

Regardless, my point was for @Jaskalas specifically mentioning that those inherent rights are granted by the govt, which is wrong.

Ahh gotcha

Yes, I'm agnostic, so to me there may be a God or some spiritual being. But yeah, all the gods we have here are man-made

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Ahh gotcha

Yes, I'm agnostic, so to me there may be a God or some spiritual being. But yeah, all the gods we have here are man-made

I've grown to accept the probability of us existing in a simulation, but it certainly doesn't necessitate me accepting a creator, beyond an algorithm anyhow. At that point it's probably closer to paganism or wiccan than anything else lol.

 

[nickqt]

The only right you have is the right you are willing to defend to your death.

Every other "right" is an abstract term that will be granted or taken away depending on who is in power and whether you'll literally fight to the death for it.

 

[Muse]

The only right you have is the right you are willing to defend to your death.

Every other "right" is an abstract term that will be granted or taken away depending on who is in power and whether you'll literally fight to the death for it.

Rights? Don't make me laugh...

 

[MrSquished]

I've grown to accept the probability of us existing in a simulation, but it certainly doesn't necessitate me accepting a creator, beyond an algorithm anyhow. At that point it's probably closer to paganism or wiccan than anything else lol.

My working theory on that is that the aliens started this simulation for fun, but forgot about it, and it needs a reboot

 

[pmv]

But when govt or the majority continues to violate your rights, then you have a right to preserve your liberty through violent means.

Honestly, what does it _mean_ to say "you have a right to preserve your liberty through violent means"? I'm not sure it actually means anything at all. You can violently fight against a government you perceive as oppressive, or you might choose not to, but what difference does it make whether you have a "right" to or not?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Honestly, what does it _mean_ to say "you have a right to preserve your liberty through violent means"? I'm not sure it actually means anything at all. You can violently fight against a government you perceive as oppressive, or you might choose not to, but what difference does it make whether you have a "right" to or not?

It's sort of a morality issue. In other places and in other times, one wouldn't have had the 'right' to defend themselves at all, much less from a government. Think China for instance, China's government simply is right. If the govt says the sky is green, it simply is green. American's govt was formed through violence in essence, and so we've maintained that we have an inalienable right to do so again, if necessary. Framed in that context, we can make decisions at the governmental level that ensure it doesn't come to that again, or at least that's the idea. Some people have forgotten that though, or they've never been punched in the face... one of the two.

 

[pmv]

It's sort of a morality issue. In other places and in other times, one wouldn't have had the 'right' to defend themselves at all, much less from a government. Think China for instance, China's government simply is right. If the govt says the sky is green, it simply is green. American's govt was formed through violence in essence, and so we've maintained that we have an inalienable right to do so again, if necessary. Framed in that context, we can make decisions at the governmental level that ensure it doesn't come to that again, or at least that's the idea. Some people have forgotten that though, or they've never been punched in the face... one of the two.

Funny thing about China - apparently, from what I've read, their idea about the legitimacy of rebellion comes from Confucianism. In that code, rebellion against the 'legitimate authority' is considered morally unacceptable. Except, if you successfully rebel, and become the new authority, that itself demonstrates the previous regime wasn't legitimate after all. Hence rebellion is morally acceptable _if it succeeds_. As long as you successfully overthrow the state and take over, then your actions are retrospectively legitimized.

Certainly, ideas about "rights" haven't deterred revolutions and changes of regime in China, historically.

I don't think the US is as 'exceptional' as you think. People revolt when they feel desperate enough to do so, ideas of 'rights' don't really enter into it.

Still seems to me that "Rights" are mostly just a product of power. Things get declared to be "rights" if they suit the interests (or, at least, don't particularly conflict with the interests) of whoever has power in a given society. They are largely just a rhetorical ploy to justify whatever is the status quo.

Hence black people did not get the right to freedom under the US Constitution as originally written.

Hence, more trivially, my "right" to free movement is constrained by cars being in the way wherever I want to go, (threatening to kill me if I don't defer to them) and my "right" to breathe clean air is over-ridden by motorists' "right" to pump vast amounts of crap into it.