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

[Weegle777 78]

Pretty good point 59.

[TitanTiger 20,470]

It is might protects right, not might makes right.

It's both actually. Might makes right, then uses its power to protect said right. If might decides that something completely different is right, then it will use it's power to protect that...regardless of whether the "right" in question is right at all.

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.

So there are no inalienable, intrinsic rights as humans?

[AURaptor 1,121]

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.

Doesn't make it meaningless. Their given rights were denied them.

[Aufan59 51]

It is might protects right, not might makes right.

It's both actually. Might makes right, then uses its power to protect said right. If might decides that something completely different is right, then it will use it's power to protect that...regardless of whether the "right" in question is right at all.

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.

So there are no inalienable, intrinsic rights as humans?

Yes, humans decide what is a right. God could tell us, but he always speaks through humans and we are at square one of humans deciding what God actually intended.

Whether God gave us inalienable, intrinsic rights is irrelevant, until he starts protecting them.

[homersapien 11,353]

This idea of 'God-given rights' has an emotional component to it. A 'feel-good' quality that is related to to religiosity. Freud would probably have called it some sort of a father complex.

Or to put it another way, if you need a God, you need something for Him to do.

[TitanTiger 20,470]

Yes, humans decide what is a right. God could tell us, but he always speaks through humans and we are at square one of humans deciding what God actually intended.

Whether God gave us inalienable, intrinsic rights is irrelevant, until he starts protecting them.

Let's unpack this a little.

Moral rights and legal rights are not the same thing. So your argument regarding legal rights - that they are determined and enforced by fallible humans - while correct, doesn't get rid of the moral argument for natural (inalienable) rights. No one doubts that laws can be unjust. It's been mentioned in this thread already for instance - slavery of blacks was once the law of the land and they were deemed to have no rights.

But if you can't concede that at least some moral rights are God-given (they come from outside of humankind), then you really have no basis on which to judge legal rights as unjust or wrong.

So your argument is doubly circular. You have no basis to judge natural rights that are violated by human laws unless you concede that natural laws exist and they have some source other than humans. And you have no basis for claiming all rights are derived from humans except for a presupposition that all rights are merely products of human consensus and law. But that presupposition is the very thing you set out to prove.

[Aufan59 51]

I did not judge the justness of rights. I did not suggest all rights are merely the products of human consciousness and law.

I am saying that if God did give us rights, they are irrelevant because he doesn't protect them. Inalienable rights, rights that cannot be taken away, empirically do not exist, because government has taken them away.

If inalienable rights, rights that cannot be taken away, naturally existed, we wouldn't need government to protect those rights with the consent of the governed.

These rights need to be protected, because they can be taken away; thus they are not inalienable, by definition.

[Aufan59 51]

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.

Doesn't make it meaningless. Their given rights were denied them.

Then by definition, those rights weren't inalienable.

[TitanTiger 20,470]

I did not judge the justness of rights. I did not suggest all rights are merely the products of human consciousness and law.

I am saying that if God did give us rights, they are irrelevant because he doesn't protect them. Inalienable rights, rights that cannot be taken away, empirically do not exist, because government has taken them away.

If inalienable rights, rights that cannot be taken away, naturally existed, we wouldn't need government to protect those rights with the consent of the governed.

These rights need to be protected, because they can be taken away; thus they are not inalienable, by definition.

First, inalienable or natural rights are not rights that no one can forcibly deprive you of or make laws against. They are rights that are your rights no matter what anyone says is legal. They are rights you are born with. They are yours merely for being human.

But beyond that, I'm not quite sure what you're arguing for then. Perhaps its the definition of natural or inalienable rights that's the hold up.

[aubfaninga 16]

Here comes that bible thumping guy again. :rolleyes:/>

Let's break some of the statements down and discuss them to see what comes out. (never seen it done so I want to try) Even though it seems elementary just play along. Just 3 sentences.

We hold these truths to be self-evident

Who is "We"?

"Hold"? As in support right?

"these truths" clearly to be defined later.

"self-evident"? Stop the press!!! Please don't kill the messenger but can I not make an argument that if the authors of this were thinking of the GOD of the bible then these truths are not "self-evident"? >>>>Is this not DEISM???

[Aufan59 51]

I did not judge the justness of rights. I did not suggest all rights are merely the products of human consciousness and law.

I am saying that if God did give us rights, they are irrelevant because he doesn't protect them. Inalienable rights, rights that cannot be taken away, empirically do not exist, because government has taken them away.

If inalienable rights, rights that cannot be taken away, naturally existed, we wouldn't need government to protect those rights with the consent of the governed.

These rights need to be protected, because they can be taken away; thus they are not inalienable, by definition.

First, inalienable or natural rights are not rights that no one can forcibly deprive you of or make laws against. They are rights that are your rights no matter what anyone says is legal. They are rights you are born with. They are yours merely for being human.

But beyond that, I'm not quite sure what you're arguing for then. Perhaps its the definition of natural or inalienable rights that's the hold up.

If they can be foricbly deprived and laws can be made against them, then that they are "natural" and "inalieable" is a meaningless distinction.

God gives us all three wishes. These three wishes are natural, we are all born with them, and nobody can take them away. But God never makes these wishes come true. Are these wishes worth anything at all?

[TitanTiger 20,470]

This is the oddest argument I've seen made in a while. You've essentially staked out the position that there really is no moral law - that all our laws are simply the opinions of those who happen to be in power and can enforce them accordingly. But you don't discuss anything that way in real life. You talk and live as if there is a moral law - that things such as laws against discrimination, murder, stealing and such are "right" by nature and not merely convenient and utilitarian in nature. The law merely codifies "right."

I mean, in one fell swoop you managed to completely undermine the moral impetus for the civil rights movement, women's suffrage, the abolishment of slavery and hundreds of other things.

[Aufan59 51]

You are muddling the difference between laws and morals.

Claiming that laws are man made,which they are, does not undermine morality.

The only way it would undermine morality is is if you assume morality can only come from a higher power, in which your argument is lost on me.

[DKW 86 7,410]

DOI, Paragraph 2

We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Just sayin' Mr Jefferson, and all the Delegates, kind of knew what they were talking about.