Your God Given Rights!

[calpoon]

I have been reading the thread about the second amendment to the constitution of the United States of America and people are talking about these things called "rights"?

Just what the heck are these things?

Sometimes people call them your God given rights. I looked into it, but I couldn't make much sense of that one. God gave Moses a list of commandments, but these were more like things that you aren't allowed to do. It doesn't really say much about the powers of government. In fact, it turns out that the bible was written a couple hundred years before anybody had a constitution, so God's pretty mum on the subject of your rights. Ten Commandments, ten amendments- I think that people are confusing the two, it's a simple mistake to make.

On the document it says "All men... are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." My old man never gave me a list of my rights, he didn't really say jack **** to me. How about you guys, did you ever have a ****** *** talk about your rights? is that the one after "Santa Claus" and "the birds and the bees"? I don't know, that seems like a really inconsistent way to run a country.

The guys who wrote this thing are called the Founding Fathers. Ah, I see. So maybe that's where these whole *** rights come from. But when I think about it, I assume that there were other people around at the time, so it would appear that there is a whole lot of people that aren't even related to them. And what about all the people that immigrated here?

You've heard about the people that fought for your rights. It's true, there was a war fought against England to gain independence for the US. But most of those guys are dead, they weren't around during the creation of the constitution. So who the fuck are these guys that came up with our rights? They didn't fight for them, they weren't even there!

It turns out that your rights are just some **** that a couple people made up. They don't mean anything. There are millions of people in this country today, it seems to me that their opinion is just as valid as those guys, and those guys lived 500 years ago, they don't have any idea what society is like! Why should we listen to what these guys have to say?

Oh you know what? I got it now, I finally figured out where our rights come from and what they are all about. This guy in a uniform pointed his *** at me and said, "You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used against you."

 

[maildude]

Cynic!! :crash:

 

[Spunner]

:*****::*****::*****::*****::*****:

God gives me rights? Right.

 

[Will E Worm]

"If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renounciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave." - Samuel Adams

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 whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.

The Consitution, Preamble, Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence define our rights and those documents are the Supreme laws of America.

 

[calpoon]

If they are natural rights, that is biological functions that have came about as a result of evolution (how else would you define "natural"?) then everyone in the world should have the same exact rights, but they don't.

I already talked about being given by God, He doesn't say anything about them.

or are these rights merely a legal formality on paper and have no other establishment, contradictory to the two above notions? which one is it?

If it comes "of the people to alter, or abolish, or institute" then it's just a matter of public opinion and what the constitution says is irreverent.

Or any mob could take over Washington, supplant the seat of government and then rewrite the constitution to say whatever they wanted to, and according to you this would be both within the legal bounds of the citizen and retrain the document as "supreme law." It's like that old joke, the 28 Amendment to the Constitution could be : "Ignore Amendments 1-27."

Once again, all these ideas are not consistent and they draw different conclusions. I'm not just making this up, you're the one who said it and tons of people somehow believe in it. It is utter nonsense.

 

[Will E Worm]

If it comes "of the people to alter, or abolish, or institute" then it's just a matter of public opinion and what the constitution says is irreverent.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."

That's one reason we have the right to own weapons.

To protect ourselves from a destructive and despotic government that would take away our rights and make us slaves.

 

[calpoon]

I'm serious about this. Just look at the fact that there are 27 amendments to the thing. If it is so great, then why was it wrong and needed to be revised 27 times? Because people can't even make up thier minds what the hell the thing actually says to do. There's more documents in the revision than there is in the real fucking constitution!

 

[Will E Worm]

The United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and later ratified by conventions in each U.S. state in the name of "The People"; it has since been amended twenty-seven times, the first ten amendments being known as the Bill of Rights. The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was actually the first constitution of the United States of America. The U.S. Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation as the governing document for the United States, and transformed the constitutional basis of government from confederation to federation, also making it the world's oldest federal constitution. The Constitution has a central place in United States law and political culture. The handwritten, or "engrossed", original document is on display at the National Archives and Records Administration in Washington, D.C.

The "amendments" were to add on more rights.

 

[marquis2]

When the caution says "used against you" it doesn't mean in opposition to you, it simply means the statement is placed alongside any other evidence involving you.

 

[marquis2]

The United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and later ratified by conventions in each U.S. state in the name of "The People"; it has since been amended twenty-seven times, the first ten amendments being known as the Bill of Rights. The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was actually the first constitution of the United States of America. The U.S. Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation as the governing document for the United States, and transformed the constitutional basis of government from confederation to federation, also making it the world's oldest federal constitution. The Constitution has a central place in United States law and political culture. The handwritten, or "engrossed", original document is on display at the National Archives and Records Administration in Washington, D.C.

The "amendments" were to add on more rights.

This has to happen as the world changes and situations arise which were never envisaged at the time of writing.
Laws have to be amended or updated.As an example,until recently a cab driver in the UK was obliged to carry a bale of hay because the law was drafted in the days of ***** drawn vehicles.

 

[Will E Worm]

This has to happen as the world changes and situations arise which were never envisaged at the time of writing.
Laws have to be amended or updated.As an example,until recently a cab driver in the UK was obliged to carry a bale of hay because the law was drafted in the days of ***** drawn vehicles.

As long as they don't try to take away any rights. Only add more.

 

[Jagger69]

If they are natural rights, that is biological functions that have came about as a result of evolution (how else would you define "natural"?) then everyone in the world should have the same exact rights, but they don't.

I already talked about being given by God, He doesn't say anything about them.

or are these rights merely a legal formality on paper and have no other establishment, contradictory to the two above notions? which one is it?

Thanks for this thread, calpoon. Very thought provoking. When you think about a definition of "God-given rights", the only natural right that we actually have as humans is the right of free-will. We have the ability to choose....something that more primitive organisms don't have (as defined by instinct rather than abstract reasoning). Otherwise, there are no "God-given rights". None of us are guaranteed anything in life other than the ability to impose our free-will and to live with the ramifications.

Unfortunately, our ability to impose the natural right of free-will can be suppressed by others who, through either indoctrination or intimidation (or both) can ***** us to adopt certain behaviors (at least outwardly) that reflect a more dogmatic manifestation. The rights as defined by our founding fathers are granted to us by a document called the constitution (the first 10 amendments, also known as the Bill of Rights). These rights are man-made, not God-given, and are only valid for as long as those who are in authority allow them to be.

The Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of the Rights of Man.....these are only philosophical ideals that have been elucidated and subsequently documented by a group of like-minded men at a certain period in the history of the world. Over time, certain governmental institutions, primarily those that represent republics or constitutional monarchies, have adopted them into their civil and moral codes and laws. Aside from that, they have no relevance nor permanence as a reference to something that would possibly be described as "God-given".

Good topic.....:thumbsup:

 

[Friday on my mind]

I would like to add that this notion of the constitution being a static easy to define outline of just what exactly rights means is not really the case IMO.It's many times a balancing act of different competeting interests.It is always subject and must be to refinement and change eithier by amendment or the supreme court.Some examples of these competeting interests are.

1.Slavery ,once constitutional ****** by amendment.Blacks gained rights,whites lost some.
2.Prohibition.The advocates for it said women and ******** had a "right" not to be ****** by ***** husbands.But citizens lost right to ***** *******.Again rights changed and then again changed again by amendment.
3.Womens right to choose.Found by the supreme court in the Rowe V wade case.Many see this as ****** ,many see it as the right of women to control her own body without govt interference.Again competeing interests.

These are just a few examples of how rights are and must be constantly up for review and re-definiton to meet the standards and challenges of the current era.

I guess my basic point here is that you can't take a document or set of basic values and principals from the late 18th century and think it can be static and unchanging.What was maybe acceptable in 1780s as reasonable may seem totally out of date and beyond the pale in modern times.It would be unfair to judge the founders by modern defintions of what is moral but it would also be wrong IMO to try to not see that in many things what they found acceptable is now seen as reprehensible.Just look at how anyone but white land owning men were treated at the founding.Slavery and racism even more so were seen as acceptable and rights for women were also fairly non-existent.The founders for their time were decent men but lets not act as though we have not moved on from what they knew and accepted as being a right.

 

[D-rock]

Otherwise, there are no "God-given rights". None of us are guaranteed anything in life other than the ability to impose our free-will and to live with the ramifications.

Just to play devils advocate here, I would say if you really believe that, then prove it. In that respect people that think there is a religious basis to rights can be no less wrong than you, unless you can show either there is no God, or if there is that he didn't give people any rights just because of the fact they exist. While I'll admit that my beliefs of certain unalienable rights come from my religious beliefs I can see it for that. I'll also admit that I believe in things like universal truths about existence and I see good and evil as actually ****** in the universe. That's why people believe in them, not because some long dead person said so, or it's on a aging piece of paper, but because they think the rights are a very part of existence since it‘s begging. That's why it's unchanging and static. I keep using this as an example, but if slavery once again comes about in a hundred years or so and most people think it's alright for some reason does that suddenly make it ok? I have a hard time believe most people would think that, even non-religious ones. Hasn’t slavery been wrong since the begging in of time? To the people that believe in that as a self-evident truth it has been. It’s similar to the rights they feel exist that allow free speech and religion and to allow self adequate defense of yourself against others and against concepts like tyranny. Of course people could just say that I just choose what I think is right and assume it to be true, but I'm not really unlike any other person in the world when it comes to that. I recognize that, and I also know I can't prove it either. Then again I guess that's where the whole self-evident reasoning comes from. The "truths" are self-evident to people, so they believe it doesn't need any explanation.


Also I find most people that don't believe in any "God-given rights" (or rights bestowed by nature if they don't believe in God) in the strictest sense to most of the time believe in them in a de facto, sometimes almost hypocritical way anyhow. Most of them are quick to argue in favor of unalienable rights that sometimes don't come from any codified human source when it suits them, but when asked why they believe that when they have no religious basis like others do there answers basically come down to "ummm...errr...just because" or "it's the right thing to do" even though the right thing to do is basically when it comes down to it just a religious answer in disguise (a universal truth if you will). For people that believe in some sort of right and wrong, which is pretty much everybody outsides of true sociopaths, there has to be some reason they believe that. At least people like me can explain why they think so.

 

[Facetious]

To Calps - What Do You Want From Life ? :1orglaugh

As long as they don't try to take away any rights. Only add more.

God Bless your Heart, Young Man ! :bowdown: :thumbsup: :laugh:

 

[ChefChiTown]

As long as they don't try to take away any rights. Only add more.

If rights should be added, then they should just as easily be taken away. To tie that into the whole "God given right" theme of this thread...

"The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away..."

The problem with relying on documents that were created over 200+ years ago to tell us how we can live our lives today, is that they were created over 200+ years ago!

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are nothing more than a foundation. Foundations are created to help support any further additions and are used as a shoulder to lean on for stability. Foundations aren't indestructible though. Foundations can only support so many additions before they begin to weaken themselves, and once that happens, the whole entire foundation will have to be ripped up and completely re-done.

I'm not saying that we're at that point with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but the foundation was built over 200+ years ago, and it's going to have to be replaced sooner than later or everything this nation has built on top of it is going to crumble.

:2 cents:

 

[Facetious]

^ Correction - The Lord giveth, the gumment taketh away.

Tremendous point about the "foundation" BTW, cheffers.
There's all too much of this literal interpretation going on. :hatsoff: !

hold on loosely, if you cling too tightly, you're gonna lose control''.

 

[Torre82]

If rights should be added, then they should just as easily be taken away. To tie that into the whole "God given right" theme of this thread...

"The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away..."

The problem with relying on documents that were created over 200+ years ago to tell us how we can live our lives today, is that they were created over 200+ years ago!

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are nothing more than a foundation. Foundations are created to help support any further additions and are used as a shoulder to lean on for stability. Foundations aren't indestructible though. Foundations can only support so many additions before they begin to weaken themselves, and once that happens, the whole entire foundation will have to be ripped up and completely re-done.

I'm not saying that we're at that point with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but the foundation was built over 200+ years ago, and it's going to have to be replaced sooner than later or everything this nation has built on top of it is going to crumble.

:2 cents:

<board.freeones.com>

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ChefChiTown again.

If I had a dollar for every time I couldnt rep somebody..

The beauty of something that is open to revision is that the founding fathers openly admitted nothing is perfect, nothing is permanent. Changes will have to be made.

The truth that chef threw out there is evident and wise: A document that is hundreds of years old becomes less relevant with each passing year. My fear is that the document would be too politically correct.. too far-reaching in it's attempt to cover all the bases and would be 200 pages long as some legal.. precautionary maneuver. Thus useless.

The term 'epic fail' comes to mind at the thought of a modern day revision of those founding documents. lolol

 

[D-rock]

If people think the document is that out of date. What parts of it do you think has problems, really? About the only thing a large number of people don't like is the 2nd Amendment and most of them are short sighted fools that if they had their way would lead to our destruction and the destruction of every other right we have to be honest. Not counting the prohibition stuff that was quickly repealed it has stood up well (besides people in government trying to skip around parts they don't like) and I don't see really anything wrong with it. I think the reason that is are the rights they do give us are so universal and true. I think the only flaw it has would be it that it falls short on recognizing ENOUGH rights either then or now because of course the government pretty much restricted everything it possibly could that it allowed it to and then more. If they gave us more earlier then maybe civil rights would have come earlier for everybody or even something like gay marriage wouldn't be an issue now. If anything it has withstood the test of time unbelievably well for well over two centuries. If you don't count the Bill of Rights which was basically almost a part of the original document, and the technical stuff from amendments about how elections are held and the line of succession to the presidency there has only been a handful of changes that needed to be made in the last couple of centuries, and all of them game more freedoms to people not less. In a modern demoncracy or replublic that is probably unheard of besides that. People complain about following somebody that lived a long time ago, but they fail to explain what the actual flaws of what they created that they don't like are. It will be sad when we finally enact a change to it that actually starts taking rights back away from people. When that happens it will be the begging of the end, and we won’t be going to something better.

 

[Will E Worm]

The Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of the Rights of Man.....these are only philosophical ideals that have been elucidated and subsequently documented by a group of like-minded men at a certain period in the history of the world. Over time, certain governmental institutions, primarily those that represent republics or constitutional monarchies, have adopted them into their civil and moral codes and laws. Aside from that, they have no relevance nor permanence as a reference to something that would possibly be described as "God-given".

Good topic.....:thumbsup:

You're so far off. I think I'll laugh. :1orglaugh

Sheeple, stop listening to Socialists. :tongue:

If people think the document is that out of date. What parts of it do you think has problems, really? About the only thing a large number of people don't like is the 2nd Amendment and most of them are short sighted fools that if they had their way would lead to our destruction and the destruction of every other right we have to be honest.

The people who believe any of our documents that are the Supreme Laws of this land, are out of date. I'd like to say they can move to Canada or Europe. Anywhere, just leave.

You're correct they are short sighted fools, spinning around in their own ignorance.

Remember it was the "intellectuals" that elected Hitler.

Because they loved "policies".

Since most here don't believe in God or a "god". they do not know what they are talking about.God wouldn't take our rights away, just to let a despot rule over us like he was God. The Bible says God is a jealous God and he would send people to destroy anyone that would call themselves a "god".

Luke 22:36
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no *****, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Luke 11:21
When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: