Posted on 04/05/2005 5:21:29 PM PDT by CHARLITE
From where do your rights come? Not the right to bear arms, or freedom of the press. I’m talking about those unalienable rights our founding fathers spoke of: Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. At face value, it’s quite a simple question; who, or what, gives you these rights?
It seems to me there are two possible answers, God or government.
Though it seems like a simple question, the implications of either answer are quite severe. Either your rights come from an objective, unchangeable higher authority, or a manmade power with the potential for corruption.
The danger in assuming that rights come from government is that is that the government can take those away as they see fit. Why else would our Declaration of Independence insist that our unalienable rights come from a Creator.
Our founding fathers were forward thinking enough to realize that if they devised our government under the assumption that rights come from government and not a Creator, then those rights could eventually be taken away. Look at any communist regime in the last 100 years, where religion is considered an opiate of the masses. The government becomes god in that circumstance, and can get away with anything, including mass genocide.
The same can be true of theocracies, as in the Middle East and elsewhere. That is why America works; because it is based on religious principles, but is not run under the assumption that whatever the leaders are doing is God's will, necessarily.
If one accepts a government responsibility for doling out such rights, one will ultimately stumble into an intellectual trap. For example, if government defines rights, then why do American’s get upset about human rights abuses around the world? If it is that government’s job to determine their population’s rights, why do we care? It would be quite hypocritical to do so.
And if it is not a populace’s government which defines rights, who does? The United Nations? Would you really feel comfortable having your right to life coming from the same organization that stole billions of dollars out of the hands of Iraqi citizens? From an institution whose leaders are corrupt to the core?
Should you feel comfortable with such a situation, whose determination of rights within the UN should we live by? Perhaps Trygve Lie, the first Secretary General of the UN. Though he did oversea important events such as the creation of Israel, he was a Lenin supporter in his youth. Surely Kofi Annan should not be responsible for such decisions. Maybe the General Assembly should vote on what inherent human rights should be. Did not Lord Acton warn us, however, that “absolute power corrupts absolutely?”
If there is not a universal standard with which to live by, anything can be deemed acceptable. That is what makes America great: our founding document asserts God-given rights that no government to be established later will ever be able to take away.
It's the difference between the acknowledgement of a god, or higher moral authority, which America does, and the endorsement of a particular religion, which we do not do.
That is also the fundamental difference between a Constitutional republic, which we are, and a pure democracy, or mob rule, which we are not. Our nation was formed on laws based on the idea that a Creator gave us certain rights as humans that government cannot interfere with regardless of whether or not 51% of the population feels it should.
For that reason it is imperative that our nation acknowledge our God-given rights. For that reason, even atheists and agnostics should hope for such a government. Otherwise, God help us all.
That is from the mouth of Plato, where he said ideal forms exist purely and the physical forms are an imperfection of those ideas. This is Greek Philosophy not from God. It doesn't matter whether "rights" existed a priori or not, if they were not recognised, no-one had them!
My point is modern rights are a recent phenomena. It can be proved with facts. Jefferson said all men were equal, except his black slaves! All men are equal, except women, who had to wait until approx 80 years ago for equal "rights".
If a tree falls in a forest and there's no one there to hear the sound, it DOES make a sound.
A tree falling would certainly create vibrations in the air and ground even if there was no-one there, but there would be no sound unless an ear was there to transfer those vibrations to the brain to create "sound". :)
"Jean-Jacques Rousseau was the first person in History to talk of the modern concept of "rights" and (along with Thomas Paine) deeply influenced the American constitution and French Revolution. He was the first man in history, to dismiss the superiority of Monarchy over the individual man. There is no talk of "rights" in the Bible because the concept was not developed."
The concepts of Life being sacred, Man having the ability to choose his master, and that God wants us to be happy are MAJOR parts of the Bible.
What you refer to in these men is the first time it was addressed. It's like saying Newton invented the concept of gravity. It's always been there, just not always observed.
A revolutionary thought 5000 years ago was a caste system in India. This means before then, people didn't have a caste system. Less efficient yes, but it shows that it changed FROM total assumed equality.
"I never said one man invented freedom. He was the first to espouse the concept that we would both understand of "rights" of the common man. If you can show me any earlier discussion, feel free, but you won't."
I believe you missed the part in your own sentence where you said the concept arose from Jean-Jacques Rousseau. That is wrong. That is what I addressed. The concept has ALWAYS existed. We just then took it in that understanding.
"I don't recall Jefferson giving any "rights" to his slaves or women, which I am sure you will disagree with, so his "subjective" view of rights would be different than ours."
And I don't recall our Constitution being used to claim ANY man could "give rights"
Yes, it was wrong to have such slaves, but that does not mean that Jefferson was acting as the arbitor of freedom. He was a messenger.
And again:
Read the Bible. Look up "Life" "Choosing one's master" and "Happiness"
Inalienable. God made us to have all of those.
Who the hell ever said Man was the perfect study of God? The Word says one thing. That does not mean Man will always act according to it.
Even the Devil can quote the Bible for his own gain.
Genesis 1:27
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.