Do you speak for all Hispanics?
Yet you posted a straw man argument on making **** up in a failed attempt to dis my post.
I'm also not a mind reader.
Nor it seems do you remember what you posted. See post 52
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do rights come from God?
- Thread starter anotherneil
- Start date
Do you speak for all Hispanics?
Yet you posted a straw man argument on making **** up in a failed attempt to dis my post.
Nor it seems do you remember what you posted. See post 52
anotherneil
Well-Known Member
Yes, of course I do - at least in this case, since you yourself set that to be the condition by saying ask any hispanic, thus implying that all hispanics could be relied upon to give the same answer. In general, no I do not speak for any hispanic other than myself.
I may have been dissin' your post, but it doesn't seem to me that you understand what a straw man argument is.
What about it?
Note that everything you posted here is about me, and none of it was directed towards the thread topic. I didn't create this thread to be about me. What do I have to do with the thread topic aside from happening to be the author?
I was replying to your post, you made it about you.
EconGuy
Active Member
Rights are codified expressions of social values, often contested and evolving, that reflect both dominant perspectives and ongoing struggles for protection and recognition. People extend rights to each other. Just, or unjust.
This concept does not come from god. For those that believe in god must know that god does not choose rights nor does a god enforce them. I think it would be fair for a theist to say that they believe that god provides the foundation of values, but that humans can choose to embrace godly values or turn away from them.
Now, being a non-theist I don't think that, but I do think that would be a more acceptable statement, even if I think the explanation is different though I find that my foundation of values isn't all that different than the intuition of most Christians, but the devil is in the details (sorry, I couldn't help myself).
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
They come from God. In other words, rights do not come from other people, societies, or governments.
Any person, society, or government is corruptible, but rights are fundamental and inviolable. Therefore, rights must come from God.
If, for example, rights come from government, then any government is fully justified in any immoral act it commits against its people.
EconGuy
Active Member
I disagree, but I'm curious, what is the method by which god confers rights? And what does it mean to say god gives rights when people take rights away from each other and god does nothing, to enforce them?
Respectfully,
E
anotherneil
Well-Known Member
How does God enforce them?
Normally, if someone finds themselves situation where their rights are being infringed or violated, they take some sort of action, such as talking to their lawyer or dialing 911; the lawyer will go to court, or law enforcement are dispatched to go after criminal suspects who violated their rights, etc. When people do this, usually their rights are protected & it's the result of government and society, not some deity.
What does a person who believes that rights come from God, rather than government or society, do? Do they get down on their knees and start praying to patch them through to God in order to do something in place of lawyers or law enforcement?
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
You asked where they were from - not how they were enforced.
The rights are self-evident. They are simply a function of being. When people are created, their rights are also created.
EconGuy
Active Member
Respectfully, that's wrong. Rights are not self-evident, values are.
Is stealing wrong?
Stealing is a very particular act, specifically taking something that belongs to another with the intention of owning that thing and all that ownership confers. To steal is to violate another persons right to private property. However, all we have to do dispel the notion that this notion is self-evident is find a situation where stealing isn't wrong.
To steal something trivial (trivial, in this context being that the loss of a thing does not put at risk the lives of others), when no other reasonable alternative exists in order to save a life, isn't wrong.
Why?
Because we value life more than property, specifically when stealing can save the life of another. We value things in a hierarchy, where as rights are simply conferred.
If I steal from you to save my life (again, where no other reasonable alternatives exist), it is not my right to life that is greater than your right to property, rather, within the boundaries of a legal and ethical framework, I did violate your rights to private property, but when evaluating the punishment for my crime, that we acknowledge the value of my life over your property and set the consequences (presumably little to none other than perhaps restitution for your lost property) accordingly.
It is value that is self-evident, not rights. Rights are attempts to codify our values into law to create social consequences for failing to adhere to established values which is why rights are different in different areas of the world, because what people value differs based mostly on culture, religion and environment.
-Cheers
Niatero
*banned*
I gave you the first "winner" (for simplicity and clarity
) that I've given since I started reading and posting here two weeks ago.
EconGuy
Active Member
Let's engage in a thought experiment.
If you were the only person, would you have rights?
Would you value things?
I hope it's obvious that the answer to the former is no and the latter is yes.
The concept of rights wouldn't occur to you because rights are a function of social interaction with others. They are an attempt to communicate to a social group based on shared values.
And we don't even need to go to that extreme. In a "wilderness" or "frontier", a place where there are no formal recognition of rights, no authority to appeal to, you have only the rights you can negotiate with others. You might point out to another person or group that they recognize the value of things and as such should agree that each party should reciprocate by acknowledging each group has the right to life, property etc. Thus, in that situation you have only the rights you can negotiate with those you come in contact with directly or indirectly. Surely you could insist that some authority, state or spiritual grants you rights, but without the capacity to enforce consequences in this life, your proclamation on it's own, carries little weight.
EconGuy
Active Member
I know this wasn't directed at me, but its apropos to what I said above with respect to the consequences of violation of a persons rights.
That is, to say someone has a "right" is to implicitly suggest that violating a right comes with consequences.
Now, you might claim that god creates the consequences in the next life, a claim made without evidence that can be as easily dismissed.
And that's fine if you believe that, but let me ask you, do you have the right of free speech? How about freedom of the press? The right to a jury trial? Do you have the right to an attorney? All rights set out in the Constitution, but to my knowledge aren't part of the teachings of Christ vis-a-vis god.
If those rights are violated and the consequences are not forthcoming to those that violated any of those rights, does god care?
Are there some commandments I missed? Is there a commandment in regards to a speedy trial or the right to a lawyer?
Apologies if that comes of as snarky, I assure you that's not my intent, but in fact, your rights don't come from god, they come from your fellow humans based on our shared cultural and social values.
-Cheers
Last edited:
That definition is a deleterious innovation, unmoored from the philosophical and historical grounding of the construct.
It also isn't the common definition, you would agree that is not the same as the UN's "rights we have simply because we exist as human beings - they are not granted by any state. These universal rights are inherent to us all" or Locke when he said "the state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone"?
That definition is from the OED, and it depends which country you live as to what rights you are allowed
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
Rights do not guarantee moral behavior. Although they may prevent some immoral behavior.
Freedom of speech does not guarantee that people will say nice things.
Property rights do not guarantee that people will not be selfish.
Freedom of religion does not guarantee that people will believe in God.
Regardless of your values. Respectfully.
You mean how would I know that I have rights?
We are created with kidneys, but how do we know that we have kidneys if we never see kidneys?
You might not know, but your lack of knowledge would not mean you don't have them.
Actually to assert a right is to assert an authority. The Declaration of Independence declares the authority of the people to alter or abolish any form of government destructive to certain ends, among those ends being the securing of certain rights.
Are such things easily dismissed from your perspective or are they something to be taken seriously?
I mean suppose there were a commandment in the Bible somewhere such as, "Thou shalt not steal." It seems like you would dismiss it as inconsequential. You might argue: Who's going to enforce it? And suppose that not everything is written in the Bible somewhere? Do you argue: Church has nothing to do with God because to my knowledge Christ never said you should worship on Sundays?
What's a little bit of murder and stealing between friends? /s
Nothing to do with God, if you can't quote it from scripture, eh? I guess we can chalk it up to Divine Oversight.
It's fine. I think my response is on point. All this talk about the shared culture and values of humans... when the culture and values out of which the Constitution emerged was Christian and they declared (in the Declaration of Independence that people are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".
The culture and values declared, for the all the world (and King George III) to see, that men are endowed by their Creator with rights. In reality, even following culture and values we end up with...
Your rights come from God - not the government - not other people - God.
McBell
Unbound
I am confused.
Are you saying that humans do not have rights or that humans do not have God Given rights or perhaps both?
McBell
Unbound
Can you give an example of a natural right?
McBell
Unbound
He then asked how they are enforced.
A question you sidestepped.
So, how are God given rights enforced?
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
As a religious person, I understand that rights come from God. and since everyone is an expression of God, all claims of rights come from God. And yes, society itself comes from God and has rights that trump the individual rights.
EconGuy
Active Member
First, thanks for taking the time to respond. I enjoy good conversation.
You seem to be taking the position that rights exist a priori. Again, I don't think there is any evidence to support that claim. I think that our experiences shape our values, and when I say values, I mean that we learn what it is we wish to avoid. Starvation, violence, sickness, suffering, pain etc. All of these are learned though experience. That not to say you have to experience all of these states personally as humans have capacities for reason and empathy not to mention a decent grasp on how the world works such that we get phrases like, I don't need to be hit by a bus to know I don't want to be hit by a bus.
So again, rights exist only at the nexus of human interacting. They arise because humans have a well developed concept of justice and fairness which in themselves are built upon our values. Now if you want to argue that humans have an innate sense of justice and fairness, that I would be willing to concede. Justice and the innate sense of fairness give rise to rights in the presence of human social interaction. Without it, there is chaos.
Now, in fairness to the Bible, a collection of subtexts written and edited over millennia or more, it deserves to be studied and understood for all of the practical knowledge it contains. I like to say, if I had thousands of years to write and edit a book, the book would likely appear, to any normal person, to have divine inspiration for all of the practical knowledge I could gather and document, and that's what I believe the Bible is, a book written over a very, very long time and collected into a single text. It's only in our modern age that editing the Bible can no longer take place because of printing and the fact that everyone has but to read the text or Google it. We can't fix it's mistakes without compromising it's power as more than just a book.
And if we can have the right to remain silent, why can't all of the other rights originate the exact same way, as an expression of a need to enforce a shared value structure in society?
No, the Constitution was created by people who were largely Christian, but to say it was because they were Christian ignores Centuries of evidence to the contrary.
It seems the Founders wrote the Constitution in spite of their Christian heritage, not in support of it.
I'm reminded of a quote attributed to Madison: "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."
Now, I don't know if he really said that, but regardless it's 100% correct.
Christianity has no special claim to cultural morality than any other religion.
In so far as "unalienable rights". That's a great quote and I hope that people believe it. But I find when people believe without knowledge of their beliefs, they are free to be persuaded to believe anything, be it the death of a race of people like the jews under Hitler, or the conquering of the middle east during the Crusades.
Respectfully,
EG
Quite right, I hope I didn't give the impression that they did, though I should point out, on the prevention side that rights and the punishments for violating them are a big part of prevention.
Again, quite right, but I'm not certain why you decided to point this out?
No, that's not what I mean at all. If you were alone and there were no other people, the idea of rights would no sooner occur to you any more than the concept of marriage or words like team.
You seem to be taking the position that rights exist a priori. Again, I don't think there is any evidence to support that claim. I think that our experiences shape our values, and when I say values, I mean that we learn what it is we wish to avoid. Starvation, violence, sickness, suffering, pain etc. All of these are learned though experience. That not to say you have to experience all of these states personally as humans have capacities for reason and empathy not to mention a decent grasp on how the world works such that we get phrases like, I don't need to be hit by a bus to know I don't want to be hit by a bus.
Again, quite right, but rights are conceptual abstract concepts and kidneys are organs with a specific and well understood purpose, not to mention that kidneys are real physical objects and rights are not. Respectfully, it's intellectually dishonest trying to compare the two, on purpose or by accident, attempt to make connections where none exist.
So again, rights exist only at the nexus of human interacting. They arise because humans have a well developed concept of justice and fairness which in themselves are built upon our values. Now if you want to argue that humans have an innate sense of justice and fairness, that I would be willing to concede. Justice and the innate sense of fairness give rise to rights in the presence of human social interaction. Without it, there is chaos.
It is and I concede that asserting there exists an unseen authority is very cleaver. I myself as a child often thought that my misfortune was caused by my misdeeds. It has the benefit of self-reinforcement. However, I don't believe that as an adult and I wouldn't want to live in a world where the only meaningful constraint on peoples behavior was fear of punishment after death.
Agreed, but it only works when people can convince others it's an idea that has value. Otherwise, their just words.
I take things seriously that are supported by the preponderance of the evidence. Those things that can be said to be true because they are the best explanation at the time, at least until a better explanation comes forth. Now, how I act on my beliefs of the truth of a claim are in line with the consequences of that belief.
The proposition that a person should or should not do something (like stealing) has no more or less weight to me because it's in the Bible. I would evaluate the statement on it's own merits.
Now, in fairness to the Bible, a collection of subtexts written and edited over millennia or more, it deserves to be studied and understood for all of the practical knowledge it contains. I like to say, if I had thousands of years to write and edit a book, the book would likely appear, to any normal person, to have divine inspiration for all of the practical knowledge I could gather and document, and that's what I believe the Bible is, a book written over a very, very long time and collected into a single text. It's only in our modern age that editing the Bible can no longer take place because of printing and the fact that everyone has but to read the text or Google it. We can't fix it's mistakes without compromising it's power as more than just a book.
That's easy, the people of a society that see value in living together where stealing is considered to be wrong. Violation of that rule results in some sort of punishment.
I'd argue that Church is nothing more than a community of people who congregate to share their faith and community. When it becomes more than that, I think it runs contrary to to the teachings of Christianity.
I hope this is just an attempt at sarcasm or levity.
Not at all, the point is that you are forced to admit, from your perspective, that there are a plethora of rights that do not come from god. They are created, from my perspective, just like every other right. As a social contract between the majority of people (in a free society).
And if we can have the right to remain silent, why can't all of the other rights originate the exact same way, as an expression of a need to enforce a shared value structure in society?
And yet most of the Christians in the world at the time the Constitution was created lived under oppressive theocracies or monarchies.
No, the Constitution was created by people who were largely Christian, but to say it was because they were Christian ignores Centuries of evidence to the contrary.
Yes, and I find it somewhat ironic that you can read past the glaring omission of that statement. It says "creator", not god. In fact, the word God, a being central to Christian faith, does not appear ONCE in the Constitution.
It seems the Founders wrote the Constitution in spite of their Christian heritage, not in support of it.
I'm reminded of a quote attributed to Madison: "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."
Now, I don't know if he really said that, but regardless it's 100% correct.
Christianity has no special claim to cultural morality than any other religion.
In so far as "unalienable rights". That's a great quote and I hope that people believe it. But I find when people believe without knowledge of their beliefs, they are free to be persuaded to believe anything, be it the death of a race of people like the jews under Hitler, or the conquering of the middle east during the Crusades.
Respectfully,
EG