Reporter lashes out after blowback for claiming 'Christian nationalists' believe righ

[Gunny]

Fox News

Reporter lashes out after blowback for claiming 'Christian nationalists' believe rights 'come from God' (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/reporter-lashes-out-after-blowback-for-claiming-christian-nationalists-believe-rights-come-from-god/ar-BB1iMSm2?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=a8b23d14021641029a87d1322bdef590&ei=85)

[Kathianne]

Fox News

Reporter lashes out after blowback for claiming 'Christian nationalists' believe rights 'come from God' (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/reporter-lashes-out-after-blowback-for-claiming-christian-nationalists-believe-rights-come-from-god/ar-BB1iMSm2?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=a8b23d14021641029a87d1322bdef590&ei=85)
Pretty certain that natural rights theory originated from Rousseau/Locke/Jefferson.

[Gunny]

Pretty certain that natural rights theory originated from Rousseau/Locke/Jefferson.Cynical me. "Rights" are endowed by group or government that can offer and defend them. Words and/or ideas are no better than the means to defend them.

[Kathianne]

Cynical me. "Rights" are endowed by group or government that can offer and defend them. Words and/or ideas are no better than the means to defend them.

LOL! I'll agree with the philosophers, IF government gives the rights, government can take them away. Government didn't give us life, etc.

[revelarts]

Fox News

Reporter lashes out after blowback for claiming 'Christian nationalists' believe rights 'come from God' (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/reporter-lashes-out-after-blowback-for-claiming-christian-nationalists-believe-rights-come-from-god/ar-BB1iMSm2?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=a8b23d14021641029a87d1322bdef590&ei=85)


The evil horror, the idea that rights come from God and not the Supreme Court or Congress.

So that equals pure THEOCRACY right?
Even though the Declaration of Independence says ": ‘We are endowed by our CREATOR with certain inalienable rights.’"
I guess the Founders completely stop believing that when they wrote the Constitution... and the the Bill of "Rights".

certainly if anyone believes it today they are advocates of THEOCRACY... which is bad.
Except when MLK used the same Ideal and Basis to advocate for equality & civil rights. That's different, Even as a minister he wasn't really appealing to GOD, (maybe sometimes) and was NOT talking about THEOCRACY or "Christian Nationalism".
Just all men being created in the image of God deserving equal rights under the law. which "everybody knows" (except those people who didn't. the ones who sprayed protesters with hoses, blocked from schools, jobs, voting and lynched people.
and believed they were a superior race...(An Idea NOT found in the Bible BTW, but one some easily get from Darwin)).


Look again my question always comes back to the practical.
since people seem to have a hard block on the concept of a "Christian foundation" for Law in general.
What SPECIFIC "Christian" policies are being promoted that are so horrific and are going destroy the country as we know it?
the article says
"She later added, "While there are different wings of Christian Nationalism, they are bound by their belief that our rights come from God. If you are Hindu, Jewish etc, this might help you understand the next part of my point, which is they are using this for a man-made policy agenda… which distinguishes this from other Christians who leave these God-given rights at our inherent right to ‘Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ -- vs..."
OK Here we Go
"banning
abortion,
contraception
etc."


Abortion.
"God given right to LIFE" is covered there so what's the real problem?

contraception
I've heard people talk about this but I know I for 1 am not on board with banning contraception.
Not sure how fringe that idea is, I've been around the prolife movement for a long time and that's NOT something that's floated as an end goal. (expect among a few Catholics maybe)
Invitro fertilization yes, contraception no.
So that's a straw man.

Etc
What is etc?
I'll venture to hang 1 item out there as part of etc.. and that's homosexual marriage.
like Abortion the "right" to homosexual marriage was a supreme court invention. Not something "the people" or even congress ever agreed to. And, like Roe v Wade, it can be overturned by the court and sent back to the people as well.
And if more people want to be like Germany circa 1920-30 and latter Roman empire in decadence. fine.
They can vote it in, and overrule all the mean ol Theocratic Christians who want to defend marriage as it's been understood and mostly worked in the west for nearly 2000 years. And that happens to align with nature.

I'd Add the Christian Nationalist THEOCRATIC idea of there only being 2 genders. And that you're born with one or the other.
The Bible based Oppression of that concept is to much for the nation to bear.

But i guess the best thing to do is for Christians NOT too say anything about it.
Not mention God in any context.
Only mention the science, because folks will believe the science and the experts will defend nature and help folks understand why they should ignore people feelings of gender and make them abide by rules based on biology rather than their PERSONAL BELIEFS.

Christian should not mention their personal beliefs or try apply them to politics like other people.
Except MLK & the Founders "self evident" (everybody knows) "‘We are endowed by our CREATOR with certain inalienable rights.’ .. life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

[revelarts]

Cynical me. "Rights" are endowed by group or government that can offer and defend them. Words and/or ideas are no better than the means to defend them.

Right's are "Protected" by those that are able. not endowed.
If people are in fact made by God then we do have rights ,even if they are taken or ignored. Like LIFE, God given. Even if taken by state, or group or murderer.

If we're all just evolved from slime, then rights are complete & utter BS.
At best it's a fictitious (& Lofty sounding) place-holder word that's a stand in for various flexible versions of various ideas in social contracts.

[Gunny]

The evil horror, the idea that rights come from God and not the Supreme Court or Congress.

So that equals pure THEOCRACY right?
Even though the Declaration of Independence says ": ‘We are endowed by our CREATOR with certain inalienable rights.’"
I guess the Founders completely stop believing that when they wrote the Constitution... and the the Bill of "Rights".

certainly if anyone believes it today they are advocates of THEOCRACY... which is bad.
Except when MLK used the same Ideal and Basis to advocate for equality & civil rights. That's different, Even as a minister he wasn't really appealing to GOD, (maybe sometimes) and was NOT talking about THEOCRACY or "Christian Nationalism".
Just all men being created in the image of God deserving equal rights under the law. which "everybody knows" (except those people who didn't. the ones who sprayed protesters with hoses, blocked from schools, jobs, voting and lynched people.
and believed they were a superior race...(An Idea NOT found in the Bible BTW, but one some easily get from Darwin)).


Look again my question always comes back to the practical.
since people seem to have a hard block on the concept of a "Christian foundation" for Law in general.
What SPECIFIC "Christian" policies are being promoted that are so horrific and are going destroy the country as we know it?
the article says
"She later added, "While there are different wings of Christian Nationalism, they are bound by their belief that our rights come from God. If you are Hindu, Jewish etc, this might help you understand the next part of my point, which is they are using this for a man-made policy agenda… which distinguishes this from other Christians who leave these God-given rights at our inherent right to ‘Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ -- vs..."
OK Here we Go
"banning
abortion,
contraception
etc."


Abortion.
"God given right to LIFE" is covered there so what's the real problem?

contraception
I've heard people talk about this but I know I for 1 am not on board with banning contraception.
Not sure how fringe that idea is, I've been around the prolife movement for a long time and that's NOT something that's floated as an end goal. (expect among a few Catholics maybe)
Invitro fertilization yes, contraception no.
So that's a straw man.

Etc
What is etc?
I'll venture to hang 1 item out there as part of etc.. and that's homosexual marriage.
like Abortion the "right" to homosexual marriage was a supreme court invention. Not something "the people" or even congress ever agreed to. And, like Roe v Wade, it can be overturned by the court and sent back to the people as well.
And if more people want to be like Germany circa 1920-30 and latter Roman empire in decadence. fine.
They can vote it in, and overrule all the mean ol Theocratic Christians who want to defend marriage as it's been understood and mostly worked in the west for nearly 2000 years. And that happens to align with nature.

I'd Add the Christian Nationalist THEOCRATIC idea of there only being 2 genders. And that you're born with one or the other.
The Bible based Oppression of that concept is to much for the nation to bear.

But i guess the best thing to do is for Christians NOT too say anything about it.
Not mention God in any context.
Only mention the science, because folks will believe the science and the experts will defend nature and help folks understand why they should ignore people feelings of gender and make them abide by rules based on biology rather than their PERSONAL BELIEFS.

Christian should not mention their personal beliefs or try apply them to politics like other people.
Except MLK & the Founders "self evident" (everybody knows) "‘We are endowed by our CREATOR with certain inalienable rights.’ .. life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

Is this the part where I point out I did not write the article? I just posted it.

God grants us life. God tells us how we should live our lives. God gives us the choice of doing so or not. Man gives Man rights.

[Kathianne]

https://www.crf-usa.org//online-lessons/foundations-of-our-constitution/natural-rights#:~:text=Locke%20wrote%20that%20all%20indivi duals,%2C%20liberty%2C%20and%20property.%22

[Kathianne]

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/natural-rights/

[revelarts]

...

God grants us life. God tells us how we should live our lives. God gives us the choice of doing so or not. Man gives Man rights.
Yes, God grants us life. God gives us just a few commands on how we should live our lives and great freedoms..rights. Play, marry, grow food, hunt, build, travel, speak, own, create, etc...

It's men that choose to TAKE other men's God given rights/freedoms/liberties.
The founders understood, that at best, the state-community protects the rights that God has already laid on human beings from the creation.

Again, unless man just made up those stories about God Creating man etc..
If that's the case then in one sense, rights are whatever someone can get away with. Not what other men or groups of men "give".

[Gunny]

Yes, God grants us life. God gives us just a few commands on how we should live our lives and great freedoms..rights. Play, marry, grow food, hunt, build, travel, speak, own, create, etc...

It's men that choose to TAKE other men's God given rights/freedoms/liberties.
The founders understood, that at best, the state-community protects the rights that God has already laid on human beings from the creation.

Again, unless man just made up those stories about God Creating man etc..
If that's the case then in one sense, rights are whatever someone can get away with. Not what other men or groups of men "give".I agree with most. However, God did not bestow "Rights" for the Founders to protect. The Founders guaranteed Rights government is supposed to protect. In language, the Founders presume to speak for God without authority.

The very foundation of Judeo-Christianity is faith and choice. Guaranteeing anything beyond the ability to choose would interfere with the basic tenets, would it not? It would certainly change the World as we know it, and affect our decision-making.

[Kathianne]

I agree with most. However, God did not bestow "Rights" for the Founders to protect. The Founders guaranteed Rights government is supposed to protect. In language, the Founders presume to speak for God without authority.

The very foundation of Judeo-Christianity is faith and choice. Guaranteeing anything beyond the ability to choose would interfere with the basic tenets, would it not? It would certainly change the World as we know it, and affect our decision-making.

I disagree that the founders were speaking for God. Rather they saw 'natural rights' as did earlier philosphers as rights all humans have, thus Jefferson's ongoing issues with slavery.

While one has no control over where or to whom one is born, all humans have these natural rights. Life being utmost. Being free to enjoy speaking, worshipping, loving, " happiness" or property ownership also included. Other rights not enumerated were also present. God given or natural rights are not given BY ma, rater TO man, by creayor.

[Gunny]

I disagree that the founders were speaking for God. Rather they saw 'natural rights' as did earlier philosphers as rights all humans have, thus Jefferson's ongoing issues with slavery.

While one has no control over where or to whom one is born, all humans have these natural rights. Life being utmost. Being free to enjoy speaking, worshipping, loving, " happiness" or property ownership also included. Other rights not enumerated were also present. God given or natural rights are not given BY ma, rater TO man, by creayor.

The Founders speak of God-given Rights, do they not? Thus, presumption. As far as "natural rights", that is also idealism presumed by the Founders. In reality, no such Rights exist. Thus, my statements over the years that we (universal) have the rights we can protect. Words written in English on paper mean nothing to the despots of the World. Our nuclear arsenal speaks to them.

That is not to say I have an issue with the idea of "natural rights". I do not.

Pragmatism vs idealism.

[fj1200]

The Founders speak of God-given Rights, do they not? Thus, presumption. As far as "natural rights", that is also idealism presumed by the Founders. In reality, no such Rights exist. Thus, my statements over the years that we (universal) have the rights we can protect. Words written in English on paper mean nothing to the despots of the World. Our nuclear arsenal speaks to them.

That is not to say I have an issue with the idea of "natural rights". I do not.

Pragmatism vs idealism.

We have those rights. We also need to defend those rights against those who would take them.

[Kathianne]

We have those rights. We also need to defend those rights against those who would take them.

And implicit and explicit writings of Founders make it clear that the government must defend those rights or it should be overthrown.

[Kathianne]

The Founders speak of God-given Rights, do they not? Thus, presumption. As far as "natural rights", that is also idealism presumed by the Founders. In reality, no such Rights exist. Thus, my statements over the years that we (universal) have the rights we can protect. Words written in English on paper mean nothing to the despots of the World. Our nuclear arsenal speaks to them.

That is not to say I have an issue with the idea of "natural rights". I do not.

Pragmatism vs idealism.

Some do, others not. Many were nominal Christians, some Deists. Some would argue for non-religious, but that seems far fetched to me, considering the times.

[revelarts]

The Founders speak of God-given Rights, do they not? Thus, presumption. As far as "natural rights", that is also idealism presumed by the Founders. In reality, no such Rights exist. Thus, my statements over the years that we (universal) have the rights we can protect. Words written in English on paper mean nothing to the despots of the World. Our nuclear arsenal speaks to them.

That is not to say I have an issue with the idea of "natural rights". I do not.

Pragmatism vs idealism.

If God is real we have rights.
If God is PRAGMATICALLY real.

If God is just an idealistic idea people have in their heads then there are NO "rights".
Whatever anyone can get away with becomes a right.
If the gov't kills the handicapped, it's the gov'ts "right" to do so.
If a thief can steal a kids bike, it's the thief's "right" to do so.
If they have the POWER to do it, it's their right to... Pragmatically.
Words in a world without God are whatever anyone with power, (or inertia) means or what people can get away with.

I get the impression that you think it's the standing army & nuke weapons of the U.S. "creates" rights. Rather than protects.
Thing is the U.S. did not have a standing army or airforce for like the 1st hundred years and yet people had "rights". nukes only invented in the 1940s.
Slave's in the U.S. from 1619 forward had God given rights. WHILE slaves. Many understood that and ran a way to exercise their Natural God Given Rights.
From 1619 to 1850 many former slaves managed to see and exercise their rights without violence.
(Ive been told that the civil war was not fought over slavery, so other than a few slave uprisings & John Brown there was no violence to secure those rights:rolleyes:)

[revelarts]

I agree with most. However, God did not bestow "Rights" for the Founders to protect. The Founders guaranteed Rights government is supposed to protect. In language, the Founders presume to speak for God without authority.

The very foundation of Judeo-Christianity is faith and choice. Guaranteeing anything beyond the ability to choose would interfere with the basic tenets, would it not? It would certainly change the World as we know it, and affect our decision-making.

Foundational to the Faith is the choice to believe. absolutely.
Thing is Most of the Europe & the US at that time still believed in a "God" & that the basics of the bible were matters of fact... historically and morally .. practically speaking.
That God was real.
That he Created man and outlined the basics of life and morals.

An Even if the atheist, jew, muslim, deist etc didn't believe in Jesus as savior they generally had little problem with the Ideas like, 2 genders created by God, All men created by God, the 10 commandments, the rightness of monogamous marriage, and more.
the Churches created most of western culture from pre-middle ages onward.
It over threw most the old roman pagan cultural ideas.
the founders were raised in a cultural that understood the raw Judeo-Christian ideals/POV and took them FOR GRANTED as standard operating procedure. And Assumed certain features without referencing the source directly.

But at this point in time many people are so far away from that cultural milieu that they can SMELL the "religion" when someone says
"A marriage is between 1 man & 1 woman" and think it's needs to excises from "the state". (using separation of church & state which somehow they do not recognize as another Christian (protestant) ideal)

But they are correct about marriage.
It is a religious idea. There's NOTHING that says marriage should ONLY be between 1 man & 1 woman, or that marriages should be done or respected AT all.

If there is no God ANYTHING goes... it's all a matter of choice. killing babies is fine, who says it's immoral? killing immigrants.
the modern philosophers have made it clear that morals are MADE UP if there is no God.


Folks can hope that people can be convinced of things like -there only 2 genders- by "science" but i just posted a "study" that shows that WHITE men are at risk of dying if they exercise. the pandemic showed us how firm "science" is. the high priest of science will tell us what to do in the law concerning the prophesied coming Armageddon... I mean the unquestionable Climate Warming Change. Even with homosexuality, do you remember they used to say there was a "homosexual gene"? notice that they don't say that anymore. One reason is that it was false when they said it then. And now honest unintimidated scientist have been pretty much called it out as FALSE, but it's not widely talked about. However the LEGAL damage is done. Based on "science" & "love". Today "science" is backing people's "feelings" and the law is following that wing of science.
People are free to choose WHATEVER they want.... it's their gov't created right.
the Nazis were following the U.S. euthanasia policies & Darwinian science, it told them they were the superior race that was to exterminate the lesser races.
Science today says an human embryo is a human life. But somehow that hasn't stopped people from killing them under the law.
The MORAL position is clear to most Religious people who follow their religion. AND to many atheist & non-religious people who have not had their GOD GIVEN consciences burnt blind.

Even things like wars fall under God's morals... if we allow it guide us. If not, we do whatever makes us "feel safe". And ignore God to our own peril.

Bottom line without some general agreement on the where morals come from and "normative" cultural boundaries then anything goes.


I disagree that the founders were speaking for God. Rather they saw 'natural rights' as did earlier philosophers as rights all humans have, thus Jefferson's ongoing issues with slavery.

While one has no control over where or to whom one is born, all humans have these natural rights. Life being utmost. Being free to enjoy speaking, worshipping, loving, " happiness" or property ownership also included. Other rights not enumerated were also present. God given or natural rights are not given BY ma, rater TO man, by creator.
John Locke was the primary philosopher and yes he was speaking of rights coming from God. from the beginning.
He assumed God as a reality

modern philosophers do not, but some still play around with that idea of rights and morals are something that humans have inherently but many cut to the logical chase.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GCfFLr3XcAAdAbI?format=png&name=900x900



https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/52215018-8bc7-4310-b106-643b5c4c53c5/dg4frik-785c3508-142a-4f19-862b-ffba9642acb6.png/v1/fit/w_828,h_422,q_70,strp/morals_without_god_quote_richard_taylor_by_1hope_d g4frik-414w-2x.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9. eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZD QxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgy MjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7ImhlaW dodCI6Ijw9NTUwIiwicGF0aCI6IlwvZlwvNTIyMTUwMTgtOGJj Ny00MzEwLWIxMDYtNjQzYjVjNGM1M2M1XC9kZzRmcmlrLTc4NW MzNTA4LTE0MmEtNGYxOS04NjJiLWZmYmE5NjQyYWNiNi5wbmci LCJ3aWR0aCI6Ijw9MTA4MCJ9XV0sImF1ZCI6WyJ1cm46c2Vydm ljZTppbWFnZS5vcGVyYXRpb25zIl19.VOwpl8DHj2G6_CYgvjO KDYB3BgNBvpA3iH725HJTWoE

[revelarts]

And many of the founders understood this outright as well.
the ASSUMED POV... not forced or mandated POV... to build the gov't, laws and a generally FREE society was the the Judeo-Chirstain moral cultural POV.

Not forced but if it's not generally agreed apon anything goes and any sets of ideas , morally & culturally can be apply in law. "liberty" & "freedom" are concepts many feel but why should the state align with those feeling?
who is a real human, like who is man or woman are not something that cultural has to agree on.
But it generally did based on the judeo-christian foundation. the Biblical view pointed to Human equality, made in the image of God there for life is scared. God made man and woman (only) in his image therefor equal and above animals... etc etc...

everybody DOES know in their hearts Humans are sacred, but logic, law, pride, twisted cultural ideas, wack(materialist/humanist/naturalist/woke) education, charismatic leaders, can lead people to deny reality and morals en masse.
been happening piecemeal in US law since the mid 1970s.
(but it seems that concept wise it really sorta got rolling during the Renaissance & hit 2nd & 3rd gears during the Enlightenment culturally and educationally.)

https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-the-hebrews-have-done-more-to-civilize-men-than-any-other-nation-the-doctrine-of-a-supreme-john-adams-130-99-87.jpg


https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-the-foundations-of-national-morality-must-be-laid-in-private-families-john-adams-47-73-25.jpg


https://www.azquotes.com/vangogh-image-quotes/0/19/Quotation-John-Adams-Our-Constitution-was-made-only-for-a-moral-and-religious-0-19-36.jpg

https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-religion-and-morality-are-the-essential-pillars-of-civil-society-george-washington-57-93-78.jpg

But do not misunderstand.
NONE of them saying that religion (Judeo-Christian) should be IMPOSED in the law.
But that if the people, culturally aren't in general alignment with those basics, the pillars, then the concepts of liberty, equality, morality etc are simply unmoored... out the window. anything goes.

[Gunny]

All that's just beautiful idealism. Meaningless words on paper, or on a good day something to strive for. It is not reality. Locke's idealism is based on Locke presuming to speak for "the Creator". The Creator does not endow these so-called rights on Man. Any rights promised and/or guaranteed by men can be taken by men; therefore, not God-given.

All Men may be created equally, but that equality of circumstance ends at birth.

[fj1200]

All that's just beautiful idealism. Meaningless words on paper, or on a good day something to strive for. It is not reality. Locke's idealism is based on Locke presuming to speak for "the Creator". The Creator does not endow these so-called rights on Man. Any rights promised and/or guaranteed by men can be taken by men; therefore, not God-given.

All Men may be created equally, but that equality of circumstance ends at birth.

As is the DoI and the Constitution but they are what we've got whether they've been "endowed" by the "Creator" or not. I'll continue to presume that we have them naturally, endowed, or otherwise with the full knowledge they are the norm in the West but rather scarce everywhere else.

/semantics :martian:

[revelarts]

All that's just beautiful idealism. Meaningless words on paper, or on a good day something to strive for. It is not reality. Locke's idealism is based on Locke presuming to speak for "the Creator". The Creator does not endow these so-called rights on Man. Any rights promised and/or guaranteed by men can be taken by men; therefore, not God-given.

All Men may be created equally, but that equality of circumstance ends at birth.
Simple strait forward question for you Gunny. I hope you don't mind answering it honestly.

Is God real?
As in the sun being real, even in a village of Blind people.
As in the ocean & whales being real, even if people who've lived all their lives in the desert have never seen them, even in photos or film.

Or is God only a belief in people's heads?

[Gunny]

As is the DoI and the Constitution but they are what we've got whether they've been "endowed" by the "Creator" or not. I'll continue to presume that we have them naturally, endowed, or otherwise with the full knowledge they are the norm in the West but rather scarce everywhere else.

/semantics :martian:

"Norm in the West but rather scarce everywhere else." The argument being that natural rights" are from nature, endowed by the Creator. Except that by your own statement, it is a societal belief rather than a universal one inherent in the species Man.

Moving right along, except for some bastardized, perverted farce, where exactly do you see Locke's philosophy playing out where boots hit the ground? Again, I have little problem with his ideals. His Treatsies do not include a disengaged society that's too lazy to educate itself or be bothered by a government that individually and collectively is in business for itself. Our legal system has reached the part of being caricature of its intent. It's a farce. The people have allowed government to own them. They have fallen down on their responsibility while government has done what government does - amass power to itself. I will forego a list of Government neglecting its duties under the law you proclaim we live by in favor of consolidating its stranglehold on the people. Not sure Jim bought enough bandwidth:rolleyes:

So, I'm not seeing where ANY of this idealism is in play anywhere. What you or I or others choose to believe is all fine and dandy. Confusing it with the reality of the situations(s) you are dealing with on the ground can get you killed. Or, in the case of our fine MSM-government industrial complex, crucified publicly by every mean of distortion and misrepresentation available, disenfranchised, then locked in a cage.

[fj1200]

"Norm in the West but rather scarce everywhere else." The argument being that natural rights" are from nature, endowed by the Creator. Except that by your own statement, it is a societal belief rather than a universal one inherent in the species Man.

Moving right along, except for some bastardized, perverted farce, where exactly do you see Locke's philosophy playing out where boots hit the ground? Again, I have little problem with his ideals. His Treatsies do not include a disengaged society that's too lazy to educate itself or be bothered by a government that individually and collectively is in business for itself. Our legal system has reached the part of being caricature of its intent. It's a farce. The people have allowed government to own them. They have fallen down on their responsibility while government has done what government does - amass power to itself. I will forego a list of Government neglecting its duties under the law you proclaim we live by in favor of consolidating its stranglehold on the people. Not sure Jim bought enough bandwidth:rolleyes:

So, I'm not seeing where ANY of this idealism is in play anywhere. What you or I or others choose to believe is all fine and dandy. Confusing it with the reality of the situations(s) you are dealing with on the ground can get you killed. Or, in the case of our fine MSM-government industrial complex, crucified publicly by every mean of distortion and misrepresentation available, disenfranchised, then locked in a cage.

It is a belief. It is a base premise. Nobody is making the claim that they can walk across a battlefield or wave around stacks of hundred dollar bills without being deprived of those rights. You can be murdered, falsely imprisoned, or be the victim of property crime and there will be a government-based response on your behalf. Nothing is perfect but my above statement is correct.

[revelarts]

It is a belief. It is a base premise. Nobody is making the claim that they can walk across a battlefield or wave around stacks of hundred dollar bills without being deprived of those rights. You can be murdered, falsely imprisoned, or be the victim of property crime and there will be a government-based response on your behalf. Nothing is perfect but my above statement is correct.

deprived of those rights,
As in, something you had.
the loss of hundred dollar bills, life, liberty, property, "rights".

so there's a loss of a feature, the human possessed something that was removed. An ideal word lost? or a real possession?

I've got 4 analogies for you consider then 2 quotes and I'll leave it alone.

1st a crude analogy, people have "virginity" before having sex. they are virgins.
It's feature of their existence EVEN if it's not protected and people are raped at a young age.
the fact of rape and rapist and the need for protection from rape doesn't create "virginity".
"virginity" is the natural ...& hoped for state of youth... at least youth.
The fact that it has to be protected is sadly necessary fallout of trying to maintain the desired state, not the cause.

2nd analogy is "health". It's a conceptual reality and state of being. One that must be worked at to be maintained or it's lost. And it can be taken from people if not protected. It's not just a belief.

3rd analogy, or really parallel, in the social area is family. We have father, mother, brother, sister, cousins etc...
we don't have that because the state created it or protects it. It just is. the state and family members can dissolve or renounce other family or even kill them or remove them from homes. But it doesn't really make the person NOT have parents, siblings, cousins etc.. If the state stops legally recognizing or protecting the relations that doesn't mean the relations are there "pragmatically" only if the state says so. The state can recognize, protect and honor the family. but it doesn't CREATE IT. And it's not just a belief.

I suspect there are others that are better but those came to mind

Anyway that's my take,
But...it seems folks here are satisfied with the concept of "rights" being just a nice thought that people are allowed have if the U.S. military/gov't gives it to them.
a nice idealistic thought that a few people made up one day a while back.

OK, we disagree


I do have a question though do/should animals have the same idealistic rights as people?
if so, why? If not why?

Here are 2 quotes and i'll leave it alone.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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 of 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. ...


... And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creeps upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so...

[fj1200]

But...it seems folks here are satisfied with the concept of "rights" being just a nice thought that people are allowed have if the U.S. military/gov't gives it to them.
a nice idealistic thought that a few people made up one day a while back.

OK, we disagree

I'm sorry, what? Point out which people here agree with that.

[Gunny]

It is a belief. It is a base premise. Nobody is making the claim that they can walk across a battlefield or wave around stacks of hundred dollar bills without being deprived of those rights. You can be murdered, falsely imprisoned, or be the victim of property crime and there will be a government-based response on your behalf. Nothing is perfect but my above statement is correct.

As you just said ... you have those "Rights" you can defend, or you're just dead. The dead do not give one rickety rat's ass about any government response or not on your behalf. They are still dead and have been deprived of life by those who do not respect ideology, written or not.

[Gunny]

I'm sorry, what? Point out which people here agree with that.

The Continental Congress appealed with idealism to a completely understanding King George III who just let the Colonies go their own way because after all, they were right:rolleyes: A whole lot of forgetting where we came from here.

Those ideals would be nothing but in the heads of wishful thinkers had not people put everything they had on the line, and fought a war to make them matter. Those ideas were put in place, were and are enforced at the point of a gun. Not words. Action. They can be taken the same way.

[fj1200]

As you just said ... you have those "Rights" you can defend, or you're just dead. The dead do not give one rickety rat's ass about any government response or not on your behalf. They are still dead and have been deprived of life by those who do not respect ideology, written or not.


The Continental Congress appealed with idealism to a completely understanding King George III who just let the Colonies go their own way because after all, they were right:rolleyes: A whole lot of forgetting where we came from here.

Those ideals would be nothing but in the heads of wishful thinkers had not people put everything they had on the line, and fought a war to make them matter. Those ideas were put in place, were and are enforced at the point of a gun. Not words. Action. They can be taken the same way.

Where have I ever disagreed? Everyone in this country (for example) has those rights for all intents and purposes, and almost everyone has zero ability to defend them (as you say), and are walking around alive and freely doing as they please with most of them not infringing on those rights of others.

[Gunny]

Where have I ever disagreed? Everyone in this country (for example) has those rights for all intents and purposes, and almost everyone has zero ability to defend them (as you say), and are walking around alive and freely doing as they please with most of them not infringing on those rights of others.

Let's reset: The statement is that man has inalienable rights endowed by the Creator. My stance is such "natural rights" do not exist except as political/philosophical ideals. Man endowed Man with those "rights" and anything man gives can be taken away by man; therefore, not inalienable. Nor natural, meaning "of nature". The "natural right", if you want to call it that, in nature is survival of the fittest.

We DO possess the ability to defend our survival.

Man's laws are constructs of his societies and not of nature. Man has to defend those societies or they die along with their ideals, regardless how noble.

I am not arguing that societies cannot have their own laws based on whatever they choose or is forced upon them. I'm arguing that if those laws/ideas are not defended, they won't exist.

[fj1200]

Let's reset: The statement is that man has inalienable rights endowed by the Creator. My stance is such "natural rights" do not exist except as political/philosophical ideals. ...

Let's. First; Man has Natural Rights,Creator or not is unimportant IMO but I won't argue the Creator part. Second; I'm not sure anyone disagreed. Back to the first; I want the basis for how I move forward as an individual and how we move forward as a society to recognize that anyone has inalienable Natural Rights. God and man deserve no less.

[Gunny]

Let's. First; Man has Natural Rights,Creator or not is unimportant IMO but I won't argue the Creator part. Second; I'm not sure anyone disagreed. Back to the first; I want the basis for how I move forward as an individual and how we move forward as a society to recognize that anyone has inalienable Natural Rights. God and man deserve no less.

A nuance that changes the topic from what is to idealism. I stated early on I have no problem with the idea of human rights.

I DO think it important to note that said rights are NOT from the "the/a Creator". There is a HUGE difference in my book at least between a divine right and rights granted by Man/government.