Skip to main content

We are often told that our Constitutional rights are "God given". 

 

Really?

 

I have a question for you.  If "rights" such as life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, private property, privacy, ownership of land and other property, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, self-ownership, etc. are given by the gods, why are they not more universal?

 

Rights are, or should be, immutable.  In theory, they exist as a basis for human existence.  De facto, they are derived by people as the basic laws of a just society and must be defended constantly.  Whatever rights are, they are not given by the gods, or they would be ubiquitous, and they are not.  This speaks to either the nonexistence of the gods, the nature of rights, or both.

 

DF

Make time for great justice.  Expect us.

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:

I bring it up because before you say rights are god-given, you must demonstrate god.  You can't, so we must re-examine the notion of rights.

 

DF

************************

No no, that's my point, you can't disprove God so I don't have to reexamine

anything. I can't prove God to you so your rights are anything you want them

to be and come from where ever you like.

This is so frustrating. Df, we've had this conversation sooo many times. Faith is believing in something IN THE ABSENCE of evidence. One of my favorite songs goes a little something like this: "without seeing you we love you Without touching you we embrace Without knowing you we follow Without seeing you ...we believe" When will you understand that proof goes against the very tenet of faith?
Originally Posted by vplee123:
This is so frustrating. Df, we've had this conversation sooo many times. Faith is believing in something IN THE ABSENCE of evidence. One of my favorite songs goes a little something like this: "without seeing you we love you Without touching you we embrace Without knowing you we follow Without seeing you ...we believe" When will you understand that proof goes against the very tenet of faith?

My dear Veep, it's not only the belief in something for which there is no evidence, it is all too often the belief despite evidence to the contrary.

 

Faith is no avenue to the truth, nor is it admirable.

 

DF

Originally Posted by Crumbpicker:

I don't have to disprove the gods.  It's given.

 

Please provide proof of this statement. You started out with the notion of 'no gods'.  You threw down the gauntlet, it it up to you to disprove them.

Simple.  If one posits that the gods exist, it's up to them to demonstrate the evidence for the gods.  Same as if I posited that garden fairies existed, you'd want to see my evidence.  I am under no compulsion whatever to disprove that which has not been proven.

DF

Dammm right I started it.  I made a point.  Refute it intelligently, for a change.

 

Let's start over.  I state that "god-given" rights are a fantasy, since almost everyone on the entire freakin' planet does not have them.  This is hardly evidence for a ubiquitous, affectionate god of the American sort.

 

Tell me that most people alive enjoy "god-given" rights, and we'll discuss this farther.

 

 

DF

It is not the same discussion.  You see it as the same idea, but 80% of the world does not see the similarity. That is why having a discussion is pointless.

 

The US is not a theocracy and I see no future of it becoming one.  As has been shown on this very forum day after day, the religious cannot agree on anything, much less run a country.

 

Dictators always rule by force, religion is just a cover.

Originally Posted by Crumbpicker:

It is not the same discussion.  You see it as the same idea, but 80% of the world does not see the similarity. That is why having a discussion is pointless.

 

The US is not a theocracy and I see no future of it becoming one.  As has been shown on this very forum day after day, the religious cannot agree on anything, much less run a country.

 

Dictators always rule by force, religion is just a cover.

It's far from pointless.  Most of humanity is cursed with superstition.  The US is in eminent danger of becoming a theocracy if the Republican Party comes to power in the executive and legislative branches.  The religious don't mind a dictatorship, as long as it's a religious dictatorship.  Witness Iran.

 

I'm not being hyperbolic.  

 

DF

Originally Posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:
Originally Posted by Crumbpicker:

It is not the same discussion.  You see it as the same idea, but 80% of the world does not see the similarity. That is why having a discussion is pointless.

 

The US is not a theocracy and I see no future of it becoming one.  As has been shown on this very forum day after day, the religious cannot agree on anything, much less run a country.

 

Dictators always rule by force, religion is just a cover.

It's far from pointless.  Most of humanity is cursed with superstition.  The US is in eminent danger of becoming a theocracy if the Republican Party comes to power in the executive and legislative branches.  The religious don't mind a dictatorship, as long as it's a religious dictatorship.  Witness Iran.

 

I'm not being hyperbolic.  

 

DF

Iran worships the Ayatollah. He rules by force. The republican party will not institute a theocracy any more than the democratic party did when they elected JFK, the Catholic. The problem with Christianity as I stated, is that it has so many factions that could never be one ruling part. For all the talk of law change, nothing really happens. Obama made a big deal of giving his blessing to same sex unions BUT he did not change the law, nor is there any legislation to do so that would pass.

 

No one has changed Roe VS Wade, no one has outlawed Gay pride week, no one has forced children to read the Bible or pray to God in schools, or Allah, for that matter. The 'fear of religion' is a valuable tool for the democratic party which is ironic since Biden has to show off his 'cross' every Ash Wednesday.

 

If a professed Catholic can believe in abortion and Gay rights, I have no fear of a ruling 'religious' dictator.

Originally Posted by Winston Niles Rumfoord:
Originally Posted by INVICTUS:

I could say my right to life is God given or land could be God given

by way of the tour guide moses, he gave the Jews the land.

But you aren't going to believe that so why bring it up?

Oh, thanks for warning us with your new avatar. I'm calling the police, and homeland security.

*************

I think I'll take in a movie first.

Originally Posted by Winston Niles Rumfoord:
Originally Posted by INVICTUS:

I could say my right to life is God given or land could be God given

by way of the tour guide moses, he gave the Jews the land.

But you aren't going to believe that so why bring it up?

Oh, thanks for warning us with your new avatar. I'm calling the police, and homeland security.

W T H are you talking about?  I've had this avatar for years.

 

Df

Originally Posted by Crumbpicker:
Originally Posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:
Originally Posted by Crumbpicker:

It is not the same discussion.  You see it as the same idea, but 80% of the world does not see the similarity. That is why having a discussion is pointless.

 

The US is not a theocracy and I see no future of it becoming one.  As has been shown on this very forum day after day, the religious cannot agree on anything, much less run a country.

 

Dictators always rule by force, religion is just a cover.

It's far from pointless.  Most of humanity is cursed with superstition.  The US is in eminent danger of becoming a theocracy if the Republican Party comes to power in the executive and legislative branches.  The religious don't mind a dictatorship, as long as it's a religious dictatorship.  Witness Iran.

 

I'm not being hyperbolic.  

 

DF

Iran worships the Ayatollah. He rules by force. The republican party will not institute a theocracy any more than the democratic party did when they elected JFK, the Catholic. The problem with Christianity as I stated, is that it has so many factions that could never be one ruling part. For all the talk of law change, nothing really happens. Obama made a big deal of giving his blessing to same sex unions BUT he did not change the law, nor is there any legislation to do so that would pass.

 

No one has changed Roe VS Wade, no one has outlawed Gay pride week, no one has forced children to read the Bible or pray to God in schools, or Allah, for that matter. The 'fear of religion' is a valuable tool for the democratic party which is ironic since Biden has to show off his 'cross' every Ash Wednesday.

 

If a professed Catholic can believe in abortion and Gay rights, I have no fear of a ruling 'religious' dictator.

Crumb, I appreciate your opinion, but the Republican Party platform seeks to impose religious values onto the country at large. Witness birth control and abortion, for two. 
Witness public money for religious schools for another.  These are just two among several.

 

DF

The republican party, as I understand it, does not wish to "impose" birth control on anyone. Au contraire, the dems want everyone to contribute to health care coverage plans that INCLUDE abortion and birth control. I don't believe in either- yet my earnings will be withheld to fund it, if they had their way.
Originally Posted by vplee123:
The republican party, as I understand it, does not wish to "impose" birth control on anyone. Au contraire, the dems want everyone to contribute to health care coverage plans that INCLUDE abortion and birth control. I don't believe in either- yet my earnings will be withheld to fund it, if they had their way.

_____________________________

 

So what? Jehovah Witnesses do not believe in blood transfusions, yet they pay into the same insurance group that their co-workers do, who get blood transfusions! The coverage is there for those that want it, but it is not forced onto those that don't. Its not like a Catholic woman who doesn't want to take BC will be forced to. Don't you see one way gives everybody a choice and the other forces their beliefs on everyone, without choice.

 

Did that make sense?

Originally Posted by vplee123:
Well...no. I don't see it that way at all. I see my tax dollars being used to fund abortion. And yes I take issue with that. As for JW, they do not accept blood transfusions. They do not consider them murderous. Honestly I find the comparison to be apples v oranges.

__________________________

 

Fair enough. You don't have to approve of it.

Originally Posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:
Originally Posted by Winston Niles Rumfoord:
Originally Posted by INVICTUS:

I could say my right to life is God given or land could be God given

by way of the tour guide moses, he gave the Jews the land.

But you aren't going to believe that so why bring it up?

Oh, thanks for warning us with your new avatar. I'm calling the police, and homeland security.

W T H are you talking about?  I've had this avatar for years.

 

Df

You need to go back and read that exchange more carefully, fat boy. 

Originally Posted by vplee123:
And quite frankly regardless of the health issue under scrutiny I do not wish for government to make decisions regarding health care. Leave that up to the doctors and insurance companies.

___________________

 

I'd like to think the people have a say in our health care issues. Since we the people are the government, the way to get our voices heard was to vote, and the majority voted for Obama in a fair election. He promised to help fix the problems with heath care and insurance companies. My only disappointment is that he didn't go far enough with it.

Originally Posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:

Crumb, I appreciate your opinion, but the Republican Party platform seeks to impose religious values onto the country at large. Witness birth control and abortion, for two. 
Witness public money for religious schools for another.  These are just two among several.

 

DF

Sorry, I agree with vplee on this one. The only point in context was wanting a religious organization to pay for birth control pills. Had the woman who started all this attended a non religious university, no one would have even cared. It's like going to a Chinese restaurant and expecting to get a T-bone steak. Want birth control? Pay for it. Want an abortion? Pay for it. Until a law is passed outlawing abortions because of religious reasons for the entire US, there is no problem and that law would never pass.

 

The republican party, as I understand it, does not wish to "impose" birth control on anyone. Au contraire, the dems want everyone to contribute to health care coverage plans that INCLUDE abortion and birth control. I don't believe in either- yet my earnings will be withheld to fund it, if they had their way.

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Originally Posted by vplee123:
And quite frankly regardless of the health issue under scrutiny I do not wish for government to make decisions regarding health care. Leave that up to the doctors and insurance companies.

___________________

 

I'd like to think the people have a say in our health care issues. Since we the people are the government, the way to get our voices heard was to vote, and the majority voted for Obama in a fair election. He promised to help fix the problems with heath care and insurance companies. My only disappointment is that he didn't go far enough with it.

And in November, we can vote him out because we the people found him to be inadequate and too much of a 'buck' passer. Blaming the previous admin for four years is really going wuss. Good thing Hillary had the balls he didn't have.

 

It was Hillary Clinton who persuaded a jittery President Obama to carry out the mission to kill terror mastermind Osama bin Laden, a new book claims.

Obama canceled three missions targeting bin Laden before Clinton finally convinced him to pull the trigger, according to the book by former Wall Street Journal reporter Richard Miniter.

“Obama feared taking responsibility for a risky raid that might go tragically wrong,” Miniter writes in “Leading From Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide For Him.”

Excerpts of the book, which is being published Tuesday, were viewed by the London Daily Mail and posted on its website Monday.

Miniter — who has also worked for the Washington Times and the Sunday Times of London — cites an unnamed source within Joint Special Operations Command as claiming previous missions to kill bin Laden were canceled by the President in January, February and March 2011.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×