Yahoo political reporter: Cruz talking about God given rights is bizarre

[TheBlueVue 177]

Again, I've said this before. It says "their creator"

Not God, not a god, not gods... but creator.

And to the "I see them as God given rights, because man given rights can be taken away"

Those rights you are claiming are "God given rights" can be as well, or else there would have been no need for a revolution.

You see no connection whatsoever between God and their creator? You do realize that the original pilgrims came to the new world seeking religious freedom right? I have a hard time distinguishing one from the other as it relates to God and creator

[TheBlueVue 177]

I suppose one could argue ad infinitum about the origin of rights but the real substance of the Constitution and whether the rights conferred therein are God given is only the operating premise of that document and laid out in the Preamble. The whole point of the Constitution is to secure liberty against the oppression of tyranny.

Essentially, to argue that man's rights are conferred by men is to cosign the tyranny that would completely control the lives of every man if it could and reduce the liberties and freedoms the founding fathers secured as secondary to what the govt says. We're perilously close to being there now.

It has been discussed ad infinitum in the United States and elsewhere. For example, The EU expanding to rival the power of the United States by choosing to ignore the identifiers of each country. Many scholars have debated whether the EU, and their constituent's rights could last without an religion, nationality, etc. There is a lack of a foundation for the EU to fall back on, so the rights can easily be usurped and taken away. However, religion doesn't have to be the primary foundation for a citizen's rights. A secular government with some type of foundation, universalism, humanism, whatever, can be just as effective in protecting citizen's rights.

I suppose one could argue ad infinitum about the origin of rights but the real substance of the Constitution and whether the rights conferred therein are God given is only the operating premise of that document and laid out in the Preamble. The whole point of the Constitution is to secure liberty against the oppression of tyranny.

Essentially, to argue that man's rights are conferred by men is to cosign the tyranny that would completely control the lives of every man if it could and reduce the liberties and freedoms the founding fathers secured as secondary to what the govt says. We're perilously close to being there now.

It has been discussed ad infinitum in the United States and elsewhere. For example, The EU expanding to rival the power of the United States by choosing to ignore the identifiers of each country. Many scholars have debated whether the EU, and their constituent's rights could last without an religion, nationality, etc. There is a lack of a foundation for the EU to fall back on, so the rights can easily be usurped and taken away. However, religion doesn't have to be the primary foundation for a citizen's rights. A secular government with some type of foundation, universalism, humanism, whatever, can be just as effective in protecting citizen's rights.

Acknowledging the origin of rights is not in and of itself religious. Religion is characterized by rites and ceremonies. A simple acknowledgement hardly meets that criteria.

[cooltigger21 0]

I suppose one could argue ad infinitum about the origin of rights but the real substance of the Constitution and whether the rights conferred therein are God given is only the operating premise of that document and laid out in the Preamble. The whole point of the Constitution is to secure liberty against the oppression of tyranny.

Essentially, to argue that man's rights are conferred by men is to cosign the tyranny that would completely control the lives of every man if it could and reduce the liberties and freedoms the founding fathers secured as secondary to what the govt says. We're perilously close to being there now.

It has been discussed ad infinitum in the United States and elsewhere. For example, The EU expanding to rival the power of the United States by choosing to ignore the identifiers of each country. Many scholars have debated whether the EU, and their constituent's rights could last without an religion, nationality, etc. There is a lack of a foundation for the EU to fall back on, so the rights can easily be usurped and taken away. However, religion doesn't have to be the primary foundation for a citizen's rights. A secular government with some type of foundation, universalism, humanism, whatever, can be just as effective in protecting citizen's rights.

It can't possibly be because humanism can and does change from one place and person to another. If you believe in nothing above man then you have no rights. You only have what society at any given moment decides you can have. It can be taken away or changed st any given moment simply because someone says so. The EU is a joke and it's about to come undone. The nations of the EU share very little in common. They share a currency and that's it. The whole idea was preposterous to start with.

[Mims44 1,865]

Again, I've said this before. It says "their creator"

Not God, not a god, not gods... but creator.

And to the "I see them as God given rights, because man given rights can be taken away"

Those rights you are claiming are "God given rights" can be as well, or else there would have been no need for a revolution.

You see no connection whatsoever between God and their creator? You do realize that the original pilgrims came to the new world seeking religious freedom right? I have a hard time distinguishing one from the other as it relates to God and creator

And you do realize that lots of time passed between the original pilgrims and the American Revolution right?

Creator is used for god, gods, nature, biology, etc... everything has to claim a creation or else nothing would exist. They did want religious freedom, and because they were not closed minded zealots they made sure to word it in a way to be accepting of any theistic or atheistic beliefs.

[Mims44 1,865]

I suppose one could argue ad infinitum about the origin of rights but the real substance of the Constitution and whether the rights conferred therein are God given is only the operating premise of that document and laid out in the Preamble. The whole point of the Constitution is to secure liberty against the oppression of tyranny.

Essentially, to argue that man's rights are conferred by men is to cosign the tyranny that would completely control the lives of every man if it could and reduce the liberties and freedoms the founding fathers secured as secondary to what the govt says. We're perilously close to being there now.

It has been discussed ad infinitum in the United States and elsewhere. For example, The EU expanding to rival the power of the United States by choosing to ignore the identifiers of each country. Many scholars have debated whether the EU, and their constituent's rights could last without an religion, nationality, etc. There is a lack of a foundation for the EU to fall back on, so the rights can easily be usurped and taken away. However, religion doesn't have to be the primary foundation for a citizen's rights. A secular government with some type of foundation, universalism, humanism, whatever, can be just as effective in protecting citizen's rights.

It can't possibly be because humanism van and does change from one place and person to another. If you believe in nothing above man then you have no rights. You only have what society at any given moment decides you can have. It can be taken away or changed st any given moment simply because someone says so. The EU is a joke and it's about to come undone. The nations of the EU share very little in common. They share a currency and that's it. The whole idea was preposterous to start with.

I'm not sure if you did it on purpose, but thank you for proving my point CT.

If it was worded "endowed by their Christian God with certain inalienable rights" then CT would be able to treat anyone else however he saw fit. But because of the wording of the constitution we are all protected no matter our religious belief.

[cooltigger21 0]

Again, I've said this before. It says "their creator"

Not God, not a god, not gods... but creator.

And to the "I see them as God given rights, because man given rights can be taken away"

Those rights you are claiming are "God given rights" can be as well, or else there would have been no need for a revolution.

You see no connection whatsoever between God and their creator? You do realize that the original pilgrims came to the new world seeking religious freedom right? I have a hard time distinguishing one from the other as it relates to God and creator

And you do realize that lots of time passed between the original pilgrims and the American Revolution right?

Creator is used for god, gods, nature, biology, etc... everything has to claim a creation or else nothing would exist. They did want religious freedom, and because they were not closed minded zealots they made sure to word it in a way to be accepting of any theistic or atheistic beliefs.

Yes they wanted freedom of religion and to worship as you choose or not to at all. If there is no God or anything beyond ourselves then there are no rights. It would all just be subjective. Well really and truly that is what liberalism is all about anyway, that everything is subjective.

[Mims44 1,865]

Again, I've said this before. It says "their creator"

Not God, not a god, not gods... but creator.

And to the "I see them as God given rights, because man given rights can be taken away"

Those rights you are claiming are "God given rights" can be as well, or else there would have been no need for a revolution.

You see no connection whatsoever between God and their creator? You do realize that the original pilgrims came to the new world seeking religious freedom right? I have a hard time distinguishing one from the other as it relates to God and creator

And you do realize that lots of time passed between the original pilgrims and the American Revolution right?

Creator is used for god, gods, nature, biology, etc... everything has to claim a creation or else nothing would exist. They did want religious freedom, and because they were not closed minded zealots they made sure to word it in a way to be accepting of any theistic or atheistic beliefs.

Yes they wanted freedom of religion and to worship as you choose or not to at all. If there is no God or anything beyond ourselves then there are no rights. It would all just be subjective. Well really and truly that is what liberalism is all about anyway, that everything is subjective.

And you don't see that is exactly how countries are governed now?

You don't see it as the United States it's governing factions and armed forces are what gives you your rights and keeps them safe? You see it as your god(s) gave it to you and that's what keeps anyone who might do you harm away and keeps you safe at night?

[cooltigger21 0]

Again, I've said this before. It says "their creator"

Not God, not a god, not gods... but creator.

And to the "I see them as God given rights, because man given rights can be taken away"

Those rights you are claiming are "God given rights" can be as well, or else there would have been no need for a revolution.

You see no connection whatsoever between God and their creator? You do realize that the original pilgrims came to the new world seeking religious freedom right? I have a hard time distinguishing one from the other as it relates to God and creator

And you do realize that lots of time passed between the original pilgrims and the American Revolution right?

Creator is used for god, gods, nature, biology, etc... everything has to claim a creation or else nothing would exist. They did want religious freedom, and because they were not closed minded zealots they made sure to word it in a way to be accepting of any theistic or atheistic beliefs.

Yes they wanted freedom of religion and to worship as you choose or not to at all. If there is no God or anything beyond ourselves then there are no rights. It would all just be subjective. Well really and truly that is what liberalism is all about anyway, that everything is subjective.

And you don't see that is exactly how countries are governed now?

You don't see it as the United States it's governing factions and armed forces are what gives you your rights and keeps them safe? You see it as your god(s) gave it to you and that's what keeps anyone who might do you harm away and keeps you safe at night?

You miss the point as usual. If we don't have God given or natural rights from our creator, if there us no creator then there is nothing to defend. What you decide or I decide is no better than what someone else decides. You can just creste a right out of thin air or just whatever suits your fancy at any given moment. don't consider it a weakness to believe in God, that there is something beyond just this mere mortal existence.

[aujeff11 6,243]

I suppose one could argue ad infinitum about the origin of rights but the real substance of the Constitution and whether the rights conferred therein are God given is only the operating premise of that document and laid out in the Preamble. The whole point of the Constitution is to secure liberty against the oppression of tyranny.

Essentially, to argue that man's rights are conferred by men is to cosign the tyranny that would completely control the lives of every man if it could and reduce the liberties and freedoms the founding fathers secured as secondary to what the govt says. We're perilously close to being there now.

It has been discussed ad infinitum in the United States and elsewhere. For example, The EU expanding to rival the power of the United States by choosing to ignore the identifiers of each country. Many scholars have debated whether the EU, and their constituent's rights could last without an religion, nationality, etc. There is a lack of a foundation for the EU to fall back on, so the rights can easily be usurped and taken away. However, religion doesn't have to be the primary foundation for a citizen's rights. A secular government with some type of foundation, universalism, humanism, whatever, can be just as effective in protecting citizen's rights.

It can't possibly be because humanism can and does change from one place and person to another. If you believe in nothing above man then you have no rights. You only have what society at any given moment decides you can have. It can be taken away or changed st any given moment simply because someone says so. The EU is a joke and it's about to come undone. The nations of the EU share very little in common. They share a currency and that's it. The whole idea was preposterous to start with.

I will kindly disagree about the above portion that I marked in red then and move on. I also disagree that the idea of the EU was a bad idea to begin with. It was formed to prevent the frequent battles and the conflicts of the European nation-states. The idea was instead of several nation states and their radical nationalistic policies that generated conflict after conflict, to form these nation states into one Europe with one heartbeat, and that is universal equality. Since the EU has been created following WWII, there have been zero major conflicts between the European countries which is quite impressive considering there were two world wars in Europe with only roughly 40 years between them.

[Mims44 1,865]

Again, I've said this before. It says "their creator"

Not God, not a god, not gods... but creator.

And to the "I see them as God given rights, because man given rights can be taken away"

Those rights you are claiming are "God given rights" can be as well, or else there would have been no need for a revolution.

You see no connection whatsoever between God and their creator? You do realize that the original pilgrims came to the new world seeking religious freedom right? I have a hard time distinguishing one from the other as it relates to God and creator

And you do realize that lots of time passed between the original pilgrims and the American Revolution right?

Creator is used for god, gods, nature, biology, etc... everything has to claim a creation or else nothing would exist. They did want religious freedom, and because they were not closed minded zealots they made sure to word it in a way to be accepting of any theistic or atheistic beliefs.

Yes they wanted freedom of religion and to worship as you choose or not to at all. If there is no God or anything beyond ourselves then there are no rights. It would all just be subjective. Well really and truly that is what liberalism is all about anyway, that everything is subjective.

And you don't see that is exactly how countries are governed now?

You don't see it as the United States it's governing factions and armed forces are what gives you your rights and keeps them safe? You see it as your god(s) gave it to you and that's what keeps anyone who might do you harm away and keeps you safe at night?

You miss the point as usual. If we don't have God given or natursl rights from our creator, if there us no creator then there is nothing to defend. What you decide or I decide is no better than what someone else decides. I don't consider it a weakness to believe in God, that there is something beyond just this mere mortal existence.

You speak in circles and never actually move your point forward.

No s*** what someone decides is not universally better or worse than what someone else decides, why do you think we have wars? revolutions? The strongest sides with the most popular opinions become the order of the day.

God does not supersede man on this earth as far as right and wrong, God does not punish on this earth, man does. If I go murder a bunch of people it is not Gods sense of morality that will punish me, it is mans.

Also why there are so many different ways of being moral according to what culture/society you are from, because it does not spring from one central source. It comes from each individual.

[Weegle777 78]

Old Testament. Why do people keep bringing up an old covenant that has been done away with?

Just an honest to goodness question here as I read through this thread. If the Old Testament has been "done away with" as you say, then why bother studying it or including it in the Bible? What then becomes the point of studying those books?

Historical content of people of the past biblical accounts, to obtain wisdom, and to understand why Jesus had to come. Don't take me the wrong way, I am not saying that the old testament is evil, just that if you are a follower of Jesus, you are no longer under the old covenant. It doesn't apply to you.

Fair enough about historical context. But to answer your question as to why people are bringing up the Old Testament, it's because that portion of the Bible is a major part of understanding God himself, not just the New Testament. The Old Testament can't be brought up in some arguments when it's convenient and tossed aside in others when it isn't, as I have seen from some in the past (not accusing you, just stating a general observation) . Thus anything in the Bible becomes fair game when these types of debates happen.

I agree. The entire bible is the inspired word of God. I just live, like most true believers in Jesus, under the New Covenant. As we should.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

I suppose one could argue ad infinitum about the origin of rights but the real substance of the Constitution and whether the rights conferred therein are God given is only the operating premise of that document and laid out in the Preamble. The whole point of the Constitution is to secure liberty against the oppression of tyranny.

Essentially, to argue that man's rights are conferred by men is to cosign the tyranny that would completely control the lives of every man if it could and reduce the liberties and freedoms the founding fathers secured as secondary to what the govt says. We're perilously close to being there now.

It has been discussed ad infinitum in the United States and elsewhere. For example, The EU expanding to rival the power of the United States by choosing to ignore the identifiers of each country. Many scholars have debated whether the EU, and their constituent's rights could last without an religion, nationality, etc. There is a lack of a foundation for the EU to fall back on, so the rights can easily be usurped and taken away. However, religion doesn't have to be the primary foundation for a citizen's rights. A secular government with some type of foundation, universalism, humanism, whatever, can be just as effective in protecting citizen's rights.

It can't possibly be because humanism can and does change from one place and person to another. If you believe in nothing above man then you have no rights. You only have what society at any given moment decides you can have. It can be taken away or changed st any given moment simply because someone says so. The EU is a joke and it's about to come undone. The nations of the EU share very little in common. They share a currency and that's it. The whole idea was preposterous to start with.

I will kindly disagree about the above portion that I marked in red then and move on.

From where do your rights derive then?

[aujeff11 6,243]

Again, I've said this before. It says "their creator"

Not God, not a god, not gods... but creator.

And to the "I see them as God given rights, because man given rights can be taken away"

Those rights you are claiming are "God given rights" can be as well, or else there would have been no need for a revolution.

You see no connection whatsoever between God and their creator? You do realize that the original pilgrims came to the new world seeking religious freedom right? I have a hard time distinguishing one from the other as it relates to God and creator

And you do realize that lots of time passed between the original pilgrims and the American Revolution right?

Creator is used for god, gods, nature, biology, etc... everything has to claim a creation or else nothing would exist. They did want religious freedom, and because they were not closed minded zealots they made sure to word it in a way to be accepting of any theistic or atheistic beliefs.

Yes they wanted freedom of religion and to worship as you choose or not to at all. If there is no God or anything beyond ourselves then there are no rights. It would all just be subjective. Well really and truly that is what liberalism is all about anyway, that everything is subjective.

And you don't see that is exactly how countries are governed now?

You don't see it as the United States it's governing factions and armed forces are what gives you your rights and keeps them safe? You see it as your god(s) gave it to you and that's what keeps anyone who might do you harm away and keeps you safe at night?

You miss the point as usual. If we don't have God given or natural rights from our creator, if there us no creator then there is nothing to defend. What you decide or I decide is no better than what someone else decides. You can just creste a right out of thin air or just whatever suits your fancy at any given moment. don't consider it a weakness to believe in God, that there is something beyond just this mere mortal existence.

I had to read this book when I went to school and is a very good read. Written by an Italian atheist philosopher, it explains the need for why Europe needs some kind of foundation to protect their rights. "Why We Should Call Ourselves Christians" is an example of the religious foundations that Europe left behind and why a new foundation needs to be put in place to establish an identity and bring dignity back to Europe. I'd highly recommend the book to any that are interested.

[Aufan59 52]

This is EXACTLY my point.

If God can take away our God given rights on a whim, so we can "learn the hard way", then God isn't really protecting those rights.

We have a man made constitution to protect our rights, so they can't be arbitrarily taken away.

But you forgot the small little point about living outside the LAWS of this land. Rights are taken away everyday at your local prison. You can play by the rules and your rights will be protected or the alternative.

MAN giveth and MAN taketh away

Man protecting rights is not perfect, obviously. But currently we do attempt to protect rights.

This is a stark contrast from God, who doesn't seem to protect rights at all. And when we question this, why do innocent people get their rights extremely violated, with no consequence to the violator, the only answers are evasive "well we can't understand".

I understand. It is very simple: Either God doesn't exist, or he doesn't care.

[homersapien 11,354]

This is EXACTLY my point.

If God can take away our God given rights on a whim, so we can "learn the hard way", then God isn't really protecting those rights.

We have a man made constitution to protect our rights, so they can't be arbitrarily taken away.

But you forgot the small little point about living outside the LAWS of this land. Rights are taken away everyday at your local prison. You can play by the rules and your rights will be protected or the alternative.

MAN giveth and MAN taketh away

Man protecting rights is not perfect, obviously. But currently we do attempt to protect rights.

This is a stark contrast from God, who doesn't seem to protect rights at all. And when we question this, why do innocent people get their rights extremely violated, with no consequence to the violator, the only answers are evasive "well we can't understand".

I understand. It is very simple: Either God doesn't exist, or he doesn't care.

Well, maybe we are an experiment, so He's at least interested in an objective way.

[Aufan59 52]

I suppose one could argue ad infinitum about the origin of rights but the real substance of the Constitution and whether the rights conferred therein are God given is only the operating premise of that document and laid out in the Preamble. The whole point of the Constitution is to secure liberty against the oppression of tyranny.

Essentially, to argue that man's rights are conferred by men is to cosign the tyranny that would completely control the lives of every man if it could and reduce the liberties and freedoms the founding fathers secured as secondary to what the govt says. We're perilously close to being there now.

It has been discussed ad infinitum in the United States and elsewhere. For example, The EU expanding to rival the power of the United States by choosing to ignore the identifiers of each country. Many scholars have debated whether the EU, and their constituent's rights could last without an religion, nationality, etc. There is a lack of a foundation for the EU to fall back on, so the rights can easily be usurped and taken away. However, religion doesn't have to be the primary foundation for a citizen's rights. A secular government with some type of foundation, universalism, humanism, whatever, can be just as effective in protecting citizen's rights.

It can't possibly be because humanism can and does change from one place and person to another. If you believe in nothing above man then you have no rights. You only have what society at any given moment decides you can have. It can be taken away or changed st any given moment simply because someone says so. The EU is a joke and it's about to come undone. The nations of the EU share very little in common. They share a currency and that's it. The whole idea was preposterous to start with.

I will kindly disagree about the above portion that I marked in red then and move on.

From where do your rights derive then?

The constitution and our legal system.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

I suppose one could argue ad infinitum about the origin of rights but the real substance of the Constitution and whether the rights conferred therein are God given is only the operating premise of that document and laid out in the Preamble. The whole point of the Constitution is to secure liberty against the oppression of tyranny.

Essentially, to argue that man's rights are conferred by men is to cosign the tyranny that would completely control the lives of every man if it could and reduce the liberties and freedoms the founding fathers secured as secondary to what the govt says. We're perilously close to being there now.

It has been discussed ad infinitum in the United States and elsewhere. For example, The EU expanding to rival the power of the United States by choosing to ignore the identifiers of each country. Many scholars have debated whether the EU, and their constituent's rights could last without an religion, nationality, etc. There is a lack of a foundation for the EU to fall back on, so the rights can easily be usurped and taken away. However, religion doesn't have to be the primary foundation for a citizen's rights. A secular government with some type of foundation, universalism, humanism, whatever, can be just as effective in protecting citizen's rights.

It can't possibly be because humanism can and does change from one place and person to another. If you believe in nothing above man then you have no rights. You only have what society at any given moment decides you can have. It can be taken away or changed st any given moment simply because someone says so. The EU is a joke and it's about to come undone. The nations of the EU share very little in common. They share a currency and that's it. The whole idea was preposterous to start with.

I will kindly disagree about the above portion that I marked in red then and move on.

From where do your rights derive then?

The constitution and our legal system.

From where does the Constitution and legal system derive your rights?

[Aufan59 52]

I suppose one could argue ad infinitum about the origin of rights but the real substance of the Constitution and whether the rights conferred therein are God given is only the operating premise of that document and laid out in the Preamble. The whole point of the Constitution is to secure liberty against the oppression of tyranny.

Essentially, to argue that man's rights are conferred by men is to cosign the tyranny that would completely control the lives of every man if it could and reduce the liberties and freedoms the founding fathers secured as secondary to what the govt says. We're perilously close to being there now.

It has been discussed ad infinitum in the United States and elsewhere. For example, The EU expanding to rival the power of the United States by choosing to ignore the identifiers of each country. Many scholars have debated whether the EU, and their constituent's rights could last without an religion, nationality, etc. There is a lack of a foundation for the EU to fall back on, so the rights can easily be usurped and taken away. However, religion doesn't have to be the primary foundation for a citizen's rights. A secular government with some type of foundation, universalism, humanism, whatever, can be just as effective in protecting citizen's rights.

It can't possibly be because humanism can and does change from one place and person to another. If you believe in nothing above man then you have no rights. You only have what society at any given moment decides you can have. It can be taken away or changed st any given moment simply because someone says so. The EU is a joke and it's about to come undone. The nations of the EU share very little in common. They share a currency and that's it. The whole idea was preposterous to start with.

I will kindly disagree about the above portion that I marked in red then and move on.

From where do your rights derive then?

The constitution and our legal system.

From where does the Constitution and legal system derive your rights?

Mutual agreement that people should have certain basic rights, ala the Bill of Rights...

[TitanTiger 20,471]

I suppose one could argue ad infinitum about the origin of rights but the real substance of the Constitution and whether the rights conferred therein are God given is only the operating premise of that document and laid out in the Preamble. The whole point of the Constitution is to secure liberty against the oppression of tyranny.

Essentially, to argue that man's rights are conferred by men is to cosign the tyranny that would completely control the lives of every man if it could and reduce the liberties and freedoms the founding fathers secured as secondary to what the govt says. We're perilously close to being there now.

It has been discussed ad infinitum in the United States and elsewhere. For example, The EU expanding to rival the power of the United States by choosing to ignore the identifiers of each country. Many scholars have debated whether the EU, and their constituent's rights could last without an religion, nationality, etc. There is a lack of a foundation for the EU to fall back on, so the rights can easily be usurped and taken away. However, religion doesn't have to be the primary foundation for a citizen's rights. A secular government with some type of foundation, universalism, humanism, whatever, can be just as effective in protecting citizen's rights.

It can't possibly be because humanism can and does change from one place and person to another. If you believe in nothing above man then you have no rights. You only have what society at any given moment decides you can have. It can be taken away or changed st any given moment simply because someone says so. The EU is a joke and it's about to come undone. The nations of the EU share very little in common. They share a currency and that's it. The whole idea was preposterous to start with.

I will kindly disagree about the above portion that I marked in red then and move on.

From where do your rights derive then?

The constitution and our legal system.

From where does the Constitution and legal system derive your rights?

Mutual agreement that people should have certain basic rights, ala the Bill of Rights...

So these rights derive from the opinions of those with the power to enforce them?

[cooltigger21 0]

I suppose one could argue ad infinitum about the origin of rights but the real substance of the Constitution and whether the rights conferred therein are God given is only the operating premise of that document and laid out in the Preamble. The whole point of the Constitution is to secure liberty against the oppression of tyranny.

Essentially, to argue that man's rights are conferred by men is to cosign the tyranny that would completely control the lives of every man if it could and reduce the liberties and freedoms the founding fathers secured as secondary to what the govt says. We're perilously close to being there now.

It has been discussed ad infinitum in the United States and elsewhere. For example, The EU expanding to rival the power of the United States by choosing to ignore the identifiers of each country. Many scholars have debated whether the EU, and their constituent's rights could last without an religion, nationality, etc. There is a lack of a foundation for the EU to fall back on, so the rights can easily be usurped and taken away. However, religion doesn't have to be the primary foundation for a citizen's rights. A secular government with some type of foundation, universalism, humanism, whatever, can be just as effective in protecting citizen's rights.

It can't possibly be because humanism can and does change from one place and person to another. If you believe in nothing above man then you have no rights. You only have what society at any given moment decides you can have. It can be taken away or changed st any given moment simply because someone says so. The EU is a joke and it's about to come undone. The nations of the EU share very little in common. They share a currency and that's it. The whole idea was preposterous to start with.

I will kindly disagree about the above portion that I marked in red then and move on.

From where do your rights derive then?

The constitution and our legal system.

Which does not make them unalienable but rather up to the whims of the legal system and subject to change at any time. That is the same idea as the living constitution. Rather than a firm ground or roots if you will it just changes as our society changes. It essentially renders it meaningless.

[Aufan59 52]

I suppose one could argue ad infinitum about the origin of rights but the real substance of the Constitution and whether the rights conferred therein are God given is only the operating premise of that document and laid out in the Preamble. The whole point of the Constitution is to secure liberty against the oppression of tyranny.

Essentially, to argue that man's rights are conferred by men is to cosign the tyranny that would completely control the lives of every man if it could and reduce the liberties and freedoms the founding fathers secured as secondary to what the govt says. We're perilously close to being there now.

It has been discussed ad infinitum in the United States and elsewhere. For example, The EU expanding to rival the power of the United States by choosing to ignore the identifiers of each country. Many scholars have debated whether the EU, and their constituent's rights could last without an religion, nationality, etc. There is a lack of a foundation for the EU to fall back on, so the rights can easily be usurped and taken away. However, religion doesn't have to be the primary foundation for a citizen's rights. A secular government with some type of foundation, universalism, humanism, whatever, can be just as effective in protecting citizen's rights.

It can't possibly be because humanism can and does change from one place and person to another. If you believe in nothing above man then you have no rights. You only have what society at any given moment decides you can have. It can be taken away or changed st any given moment simply because someone says so. The EU is a joke and it's about to come undone. The nations of the EU share very little in common. They share a currency and that's it. The whole idea was preposterous to start with.

I will kindly disagree about the above portion that I marked in red then and move on.

From where do your rights derive then?

The constitution and our legal system.

From where does the Constitution and legal system derive your rights?

Mutual agreement that people should have certain basic rights, ala the Bill of Rights...

So these rights derive from the opinions of those with the power to enforce them?

That is how it has worked for the history of humanity.

Even if you attach some super natural qualification to it, like "God given rights", it is still opinion based.

[Aufan59 52]

I suppose one could argue ad infinitum about the origin of rights but the real substance of the Constitution and whether the rights conferred therein are God given is only the operating premise of that document and laid out in the Preamble. The whole point of the Constitution is to secure liberty against the oppression of tyranny.

Essentially, to argue that man's rights are conferred by men is to cosign the tyranny that would completely control the lives of every man if it could and reduce the liberties and freedoms the founding fathers secured as secondary to what the govt says. We're perilously close to being there now.

It has been discussed ad infinitum in the United States and elsewhere. For example, The EU expanding to rival the power of the United States by choosing to ignore the identifiers of each country. Many scholars have debated whether the EU, and their constituent's rights could last without an religion, nationality, etc. There is a lack of a foundation for the EU to fall back on, so the rights can easily be usurped and taken away. However, religion doesn't have to be the primary foundation for a citizen's rights. A secular government with some type of foundation, universalism, humanism, whatever, can be just as effective in protecting citizen's rights.

It can't possibly be because humanism can and does change from one place and person to another. If you believe in nothing above man then you have no rights. You only have what society at any given moment decides you can have. It can be taken away or changed st any given moment simply because someone says so. The EU is a joke and it's about to come undone. The nations of the EU share very little in common. They share a currency and that's it. The whole idea was preposterous to start with.

I will kindly disagree about the above portion that I marked in red then and move on.

From where do your rights derive then?

The constitution and our legal system.

Which does not make them unalienable but rather up to the whims of the legal system and subject to change at any time. That is the same idea as the living constitution. Rather than a firm ground or roots if you will it just changes as our society changes. It essentially renders it meaningless.

Claiming rights to be derived from God does not make them inalienable, as history has proven. Rights can be, and have been arbitrarily stripped away on a whim. God doesn't protect these rights, so who cares if he grants them?

The best we've done as people is agree on which rights should be inalienable, and how they should be protected.

[homersapien 11,354]

I suppose one could argue ad infinitum about the origin of rights but the real substance of the Constitution and whether the rights conferred therein are God given is only the operating premise of that document and laid out in the Preamble. The whole point of the Constitution is to secure liberty against the oppression of tyranny.

Essentially, to argue that man's rights are conferred by men is to cosign the tyranny that would completely control the lives of every man if it could and reduce the liberties and freedoms the founding fathers secured as secondary to what the govt says. We're perilously close to being there now.

It has been discussed ad infinitum in the United States and elsewhere. For example, The EU expanding to rival the power of the United States by choosing to ignore the identifiers of each country. Many scholars have debated whether the EU, and their constituent's rights could last without an religion, nationality, etc. There is a lack of a foundation for the EU to fall back on, so the rights can easily be usurped and taken away. However, religion doesn't have to be the primary foundation for a citizen's rights. A secular government with some type of foundation, universalism, humanism, whatever, can be just as effective in protecting citizen's rights.

It can't possibly be because humanism can and does change from one place and person to another. If you believe in nothing above man then you have no rights. You only have what society at any given moment decides you can have. It can be taken away or changed st any given moment simply because someone says so. The EU is a joke and it's about to come undone. The nations of the EU share very little in common. They share a currency and that's it. The whole idea was preposterous to start with.

I will kindly disagree about the above portion that I marked in red then and move on.

From where do your rights derive then?

The constitution and our legal system.

From where does the Constitution and legal system derive your rights?

Mutual agreement that people should have certain basic rights, ala the Bill of Rights...

So these rights derive from the opinions of those with the power to enforce them?

That is how it has worked for the history of humanity.

Even if you attach some super natural qualification to it, like "God given rights", it is still opinion based.

Funny, I was about to post the same thing.

In a democracy, that 'power to enforce' ultimately resides with the people, at least in principle.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

I suppose one could argue ad infinitum about the origin of rights but the real substance of the Constitution and whether the rights conferred therein are God given is only the operating premise of that document and laid out in the Preamble. The whole point of the Constitution is to secure liberty against the oppression of tyranny.

Essentially, to argue that man's rights are conferred by men is to cosign the tyranny that would completely control the lives of every man if it could and reduce the liberties and freedoms the founding fathers secured as secondary to what the govt says. We're perilously close to being there now.

It has been discussed ad infinitum in the United States and elsewhere. For example, The EU expanding to rival the power of the United States by choosing to ignore the identifiers of each country. Many scholars have debated whether the EU, and their constituent's rights could last without an religion, nationality, etc. There is a lack of a foundation for the EU to fall back on, so the rights can easily be usurped and taken away. However, religion doesn't have to be the primary foundation for a citizen's rights. A secular government with some type of foundation, universalism, humanism, whatever, can be just as effective in protecting citizen's rights.

It can't possibly be because humanism can and does change from one place and person to another. If you believe in nothing above man then you have no rights. You only have what society at any given moment decides you can have. It can be taken away or changed st any given moment simply because someone says so. The EU is a joke and it's about to come undone. The nations of the EU share very little in common. They share a currency and that's it. The whole idea was preposterous to start with.

I will kindly disagree about the above portion that I marked in red then and move on.

From where do your rights derive then?

The constitution and our legal system.

From where does the Constitution and legal system derive your rights?

Mutual agreement that people should have certain basic rights, ala the Bill of Rights...

So these rights derive from the opinions of those with the power to enforce them?

That is how it has worked for the history of humanity.

Even if you attach some super natural qualification to it, like "God given rights", it is still opinion based.

So, they aren't really your "rights" per se. They aren't intrinsic to who you are as a human being.

How is this different from "might makes right?"

[Aufan59 52]

It is might protects right, not might makes right.

Claiming that rights are intrinsic, God given, inalienable, etc. is meaningless if they can be taken away. Blacks had inalienable God given rights, intrinsic to who they were as humans. That was 100% irrelevant until the people with power agreed that they had these rights.