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 life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...

So quotes our most important founding document. Rights come from God.

Except, if you don't believe in God, where do our rights come from?

What say those that don't believe in a Creator?

Comments:


Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Dec '12
Central Scrutinizer

Might.


Joined
Apr '11
Black Prince

Well, to paraphrase Mao Zedong, "Power comes from the barrel of a gun"—I would add, "and so do our rights".  I would even go as far to say that there's no such thing as a "right" and there's certainly no such thing as an "unalienable right"...what is self-evident to one person may not be self evident to another.  If our rights really were self-evident and unalienable we wouldn't have had to fight for and defend them in so many wars.  Wikipedia says the following about rights which I agree with:

The connection between rights and struggle cannot be overstated—rights are not as much granted or endowed as they are fought for and claimed, and the essence of struggles past and ancient are encoded in the spirit of current concepts of rights and their modern formulations.

By the way, I'd really like to know where in the Bible it explicitly states that God has grated us us the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...that is, apart from the promise of eternal life.

Edited on January 29, 2013 at 4:18am
No Caesar
Joined
Feb '11
No Caesar
Central Scrutinizer: Might. · 22 minutes ago

Christopher Hitchens certainly seemed to think they came from force of one kind of another.

katievs
Joined
May '10
katievs

No Caesar

Central Scrutinizer: Might. · 22 minutes ago

Christopher Hitchens certainly seemed to think they came from force of one kind of another. · 40 minutes ago

In other words, there's no such thing as unalienable rights.  

The whole American experiment is a farce.  

Forward, comrades!


Joined
Mar '11
rosegarden sj dad

The right to life, liberty and property is the lost 11th Commandment, sadly lost in a tragic wagon accident.  The right to privacy is the 12th, but because it is private God did not share it broadly. 

Leigh
Joined
Nov '11
Leigh

Black Prince:

By the way, I'd really like to know where in the Bible it explicitlystates that God has grated us us the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...that is, apart from the promise of eternal life. · 1 hour ago

Edited 22 minutes ago

Well, the Declaration doesn't claim explicit biblical authority.

However, I'd say it is pretty explicit in the 10 Commandments.  The "right to life" is just a way of stating positively "thou shalt not kill."  And property is protected too.  Slavery isn't explicitly forbidden, but a careful reading makes it quite clear that -- like polygamy -- it goes against God's design for mankind.  There is no question that the slave and master are equal before God.

I do think the difference between the positive and negative formulations is interesting.  Rather than giving us permission to assert our own rights, the biblical phraseology commands us to respect those of others.

"Pursuit of happiness" is trickier, and in the modern use of the word "happiness" I'd argue that in fact we have no such right biblically. Jefferson didn't intend quite our meaning of the word.

Edited on January 29, 2013 at 4:52am
Mr. Bildo
Joined
May '11
Mr. Bildo

Well, I've heard of some old greek and roman guys talking about natural law, so I guess nature? 

I saw a show on History Channel that said we all come from aliens. So maybe invisible all-powerful alien onlookers weave the fabric of the universe in such a way we don't understand and that is where our rights come from--alien magic?

I'm somewhere in between Cicero and 'Alien Architects.' 

katievs
Joined
May '10
katievs
Black Prince: By the way, I'd really like to know where in the Bible itexplicitly states that God has grated us us the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...that is, apart from the promise of eternal life. 

America isn't founded on the Bible.  It's founded on natural law.  The notion of unalienable rights comes from long and deep and serious reflection on the nature and dignity of persons.  

Jeff
Joined
Apr '11
Jeff

katievs

Black Prince: By the way, I'd really like to know where in the Bible itexplicitly states that God has grated us us the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...that is, apart from the promise of eternal life. 

America isn't founded on the Bible.  It's founded on natural law.  The notion of unalienable rights comes from long and deep and serious reflection on the nature and dignity of persons.   · 13 minutes ago

Yes! In the Declaration of Independence, the phrase is "Nature and Nature's God".

Although, I might quibble a bit with the "long and deep and serious reflection" part. Yes, serious reflection is needed, but it's easy to see that statutes are not laws, that law makers don't really make laws, that rights are negative and never positive, and that rights must preexist the state.

So maybe long and deep reflection isn't necessary. Still, the rich tradition of which write is most definitely long and deep. I get what you're saying.

Neolibertarian
Joined
Apr '12
Neolibertarian

Katievs is correct, obviously. Locke, especially, was concerned with natural law.

The Tanakh (btw the Bible actually delineates 613 Commandments or Mitzvot) and the New Testament in no way define any human rights. Throughout all the books is a call to set aside your own rights and desires; to instead give away yourself and all your "rights"; to in all ways bend to the will of YHWH (HaShem; God).

The Bible, to the contrary, illustrates how people have often believed they possessed human rights. Inevitably, this belief is shown to be error.

YHWH has dominion over all rights. (John 19:11)

On the other hand, the instruction of the 613 Commandments can, in totality, begin to  yield a definition of other people's rights.

katievs
Joined
May '10
katievs

Although, I might quibble a bit with the "long and deep and serious reflection" part. Yes, serious reflection is needed, but it's easy to see that statutes are not laws, that law makers don't really make laws, that rights are negative and never positive, and that rights must preexist the state.

So maybe long and deep reflection isn't necessary. Still, the rich tradition of which write is most definitely long and deep. I get what you're saying. 

Reflection certainly isn't necessary in order to have rights.  Those we have by virtue of what we are, not by virtue of anything we do or accomplish.

Also, one doesn't need to be an scholar or intellectual to recognize right.  

I meant rather to express that its articulation and codification in law was the fruit of long, communal reflection on human experience.

Edited on January 29, 2013 at 5:48am

Joined
Apr '11
Black Prince

katievs

Black Prince: By the way, I'd really like to know where in the Bible itexplicitly states that God has grated us us the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...that is, apart from the promise of eternal life. 

America isn't founded on the Bible.  It's founded on natural law.  The notion of unalienable rights comes from long and deep and serious reflection on the nature and dignity of persons.

My question about the Bible was somewhat rhetorical.  I suppose that "natural law" is as good a foundation as any, but I think it's weak (maybe it's as good as it gets).  And the notion that rights are unalienable is misleading at best. 

Edited on January 29, 2013 at 5:59am
katievs
Joined
May '10
katievs

Black Prince

katievs

Black Prince: By the way, I'd really like to know where in the Bible itexplicitly states that God has grated us us the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...that is, apart from the promise of eternal life. 

America isn't founded on the Bible.  It's founded on natural law.  The notion of unalienable rights comes from long and deep and serious reflection on the nature and dignity of persons.

My question about the Bible was rhetorical. · 1 minute ago

Sorry for being obtuse, BP.  I still don't quite get it, I'm afraid.

Zafar
Joined
Aug '12
Zafar

Why do they have to come from anywhere but how human beings agree to deal with each other?


Joined
Apr '11
Black Prince

katievs

Black Prince

katievs

Black Prince: By the way, I'd really like to know where in the Bible itexplicitly states that God has grated us us the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...that is, apart from the promise of eternal life. 

America isn't founded on the Bible.  It's founded on natural law.  The notion of unalienable rights comes from long and deep and serious reflection on the nature and dignity of persons.

My question about the Bible was rhetorical. · 1 minute ago

Sorry for being obtuse, BP.  I still don't quite get it, I'm afraid. · 0 minutes ago

No, you weren't being obtuse...I was being obscure...I changed my post to say "somewhat rhetorical"...although, it is true that I already knew the answer to my question (that there is no explicit Biblical basis).  I think your clarification about America being founded on natural law was very helpful and appropriate.  Thanks! =)

Edited on January 29, 2013 at 6:49am
katievs
Joined
May '10
katievs
Zafar: Why do they have to come from anywhere but how human beings agree to deal with each other? · 6 minutes ago

Because then they're not unalienable.  Humans can agree to oppress or even obliterate a minority.


Joined
Apr '11
Black Prince

katievs

Zafar: Why do they have to come from anywhere but how human beings agree to deal with each other? · 6 minutes ago

Because then they're not unalienable.  Humans can agree to oppress or even obliterate a minority. · 1 minute ago

I am no expert, but it seems that the idea of "natural law" is kind of circular in the sense that it (natural law) depends on the perception (i.e. self-evidence) of humans.  So, in a way, even "nature's law" is open to human interpretation.

...natural law is a view that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature...

Edited on January 29, 2013 at 6:10am
katievs
Joined
May '10
katievs

Black Prince

I am no expert, but it seems that the idea of "natural law" is kind of circular in the sense that it (natural law) depends on the perception (i.e. self-evidence) of humans.  So, in away, even "nature's law" is human based.

...natural law is a view that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature...

Perception is different from creation, no?

Among all creatures, only men (i.e., persons) can perceive that the earth is round and that it revolves around the sun.

That doesn't suggest that human beings made it so.  We found it so, using the intelligence with which our Creator endowed us.

Edited on January 29, 2013 at 6:10am

Joined
Apr '11
Black Prince

katievs

Black Prince

I am no expert, but it seems that the idea of "natural law" is kind of circular in the sense that it (natural law) depends on the perception (i.e. self-evidence) of humans.  So, in away, even "nature's law" is human based.

Perception is different from creation, no?

Among all creatures, only men (i.e., persons) can perceive that the earth is round and that it revolves around the sun.

That doesn't suggest that human beings made it so.  We found it so, using the intelligence with which our Creator endowed us.

You make a good point...and I do believe in objective truth.  But for most of human history we didn't know that the earth was round or that it revolved around the sun (and depending on your frame of reference, the sun does revolve around the earth!).  Human perception is imperfect and incomplete and therefore open to interpretation/debate and subject to change.  That's why I said that what is self-evident for one person may not be self-evident for another.

Edited on January 29, 2013 at 6:24am
Scott Reusser
Joined
May '10
Scott Reusser
Black Prince:  If our rights really were self-evident and unalienable we wouldn't have had to fight for and defend them in so many wars.  

The need to be vigilant in defending rights in no way contradicts the Founders.

Jefferson said "WE hold these truths to be self-evident", with the understanding that many wrong-headed, mighty people don't and won't -- hence the Declaration and hence wars to defend rights.

Similarly, "unalienable" means "not to be given away or taken away"; it does not imply that it's somehow impossible to take rights away. Of course it's possible.  Again, hence the Declaration and wars. And the Constitution.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading

Start your shopping here!

Help support Ricochet by making your purchases through our Amazon links.

Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In