INTRODUCTION OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE ACT (Duncan Hunter 2007)

Let me start by telling you that our differences are epistemological in nature. I was hoping that wouldn’t be an issue but with me it frequently is. I’m as hardcore of an atheist as they come; if you know what objectivism is that would explain it but if you don’t lets just say I hold the rights of the individual in the highest esteem and that is the source of my morality.

Ahhh..., I see. Well, I had to do just a little bit of looking up of terms and information to even converse at all. First of all, just from a quick and cursory look around, it seems that while you say you are an atheist, by mentioning "objectivism" it apparently brings in several things to understand (for whatever that may be worth, and I really don't know for sure).

It would seem that your understanding (related to objectivism) is not an understanding that a lot of atheists like to claim for themselves (at least from what I read initially). It almost makes your understanding, in terms of objectivism, to be a much smaller position inside of atheism than even the Christian right is within the general population as a whole. Maybe that's not saying too much, as the Christian right does come from a well-acknowledged background in the formation of this country.

And further (again for whatever it's worth), it appears that this objectivism is something that follows Ayn Rand's ideas. Now, I'm not sure if any of this has anything to do with a conversation here, but sometimes it's just good to know a few things.

Having said all that, I do find it extremely peculiar that an atheist could make any kind of argument "for" such a thing as "unalienable rights granted by a Creator God" -- unless one wants to redefine the entire English language "wholesale" and all its understanding that has even brought about this country in the first place.

You seem to be more like a passenger who has hitched a ride on a ship full of passengers who all uniformly speak another language, different than you. And now, you wish to engage those same passengers and tell them what their words mean (from their own original language,, no less). I'm not sure if that is such a valuable exercise...

Alright, so you say some rights are granted by government and you offer the 2nd amendment as an example. The latter part of the amendment states:
“the right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

I'm not sure where to break in here for this comment. The Declaration of Independence gives the people (of this country) the basis for forming a Constitution. As far as I can see, the only rights which are unalienable, are those which the Declaration of Independence says are from the Creator God. Whatever is in the Constitution can be changed at any time and by the will of the people. By that, I'm not saying that judges have the responsibility or the power to change the Constitution by some novel reading of it, which never existed in the first place, but rather that the people can change it through the established method that it gives. And the entire Constitution is open for change that way. That goes without saying, since the method is included in the Constitution, itself. There is no "off limits" section to the Constitution. Nothing is off-limits for change in the Constitution, if the people desire it to be so. So, there are no unalienable rights in the Constitution, other than what people themselves want to agree to.

There are unalienable rights, which are only so, by the express virtue that they come from a being, which is referred to as the Creator (i.e., the Creator God, of the universe and everything that is and exists, outside of Himself). All the rest, after the Declaration of Independence, is simply the outworking of how to govern oneselves and to then "protect" that which is stated an an unalienable right. If people decide to -- at a later time -- to change the methodology of how them want to implement government and thus change the Constitution, they are free to do so, and they are free to rewrite the entire Constitution all over again, if they want. We can call a Constitutional Convention, if we want to. That should be clear to everyone.

However, no matter what you do to the Constitution, you cannot change the unalienable rights (of the Declaration), basically because those particularly stated rights were granted by the Creator God. The rest of it in the Constitution was not stated as unalienable rights given by the Creator God, but by only a group of men (representing the country) to put together a form of government that they thought was the best.

If people today think there is a better form of government and if they wish to scrap the Constitution, they can very well do so. The mechanisms are there to do it.

Now, you and others may not think it is wise to scrap the Constitution or amend-out any of the Bill of Rights or have Constitutional Convention for rewriting the Constitution from the ground up -- but whatever you think is wise or not -- does not take away from the fact that it can very well be done -- if the people choose to do so.

So, while the people have the ability to "write-out" any part of the Constitution, they have no ability to write-out any one of the stated unalienable rights, which had nothing to do with the Constitution, but only with the fact that our Creator God granted them.

So how can a government possibly infringe on a right the people already have? Nowhere in the Constitution are rights granted, the Founders recognized that they did not have the power or authority to do such a thing, only to protect the right everyone was born with.

No one was born with the right to bear arms. Our Creator God did not grant that as an unalienable right. It simply did not come from God. Nowhere in the Bible can you ever make that argument. The reason why the recognition of those particular unalienable rights were given in the Declaration of Independence is because those were what those founders of our country and system of government saw and recognized as coming from our Creator God.

They saw no such right from our Creator God in the right to bear arms. But, they did recognize (as founders of this country) that indeed, being able to bear arms was what enabled them to be able to fight for their freedom, and as it was in existence at that time, they did not want it to be infringed upon, as that "already existing right" in operation before the founding of the country.

However, that right was not in existence, by virtue of our Creator God having granted it as an unalienable right. It was in existence as a matter of history and as a matter of how people decided to live with one another and how they would be able to protect themselves. In that manner, they did not want this new form of government to infringe upon what had already existed before that new form of government came into existence. It's an argument from existence and history and common agreement -- and not -- from unalienable rights granted from our Creator God.

And as such, if the people decide to amend the Constitution in that area, they have the mechanism stated as far as how they can do it, and if they succeed, it would be removed from the Constitution, by the will of the people. That is a distinct possibility as there are some who would like to change that Amendment to the Constitution and amend it out, at this present time.

However if someone violated the rights of others, the state has the responsibility to suppress their rights in return. The Founders recognized this; you used the 2nd amendment as an example so let me use the 9th:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
They admit they’re not listing everything, they can’t and they shouldn’t. In fact several delegates were against the Bill of Rights until this was included. I would have been too.

Basically, they're saying (using some loose language, if you will) that "We've listed some rights here that we really want to pay attention to, but that doesn't mean that these are all the rights that the people have, and so we want to make sure that you know that this doesn't give everything else not mentioned here into the power of the Federal Government."

That's what I understand it to be.

As for amending the Constitution to add ‘rights’, you can call a duck a swan but it’s still going to be a duck. You have to realize that the Constitution should be at the end of a discussion on rights, not the beginning. It was the document written up after years of debate, it most certainly is not a ‘source’ of rights.

Well, words and terminology have a commonly understood and accepted meaning. That's how everyone is able to understand what the other person is talking about. If that commonly understood and accepted meaning changes (which it always has, over a period of years), then at some point in time, a "duck" may end up being a "swan" -- indeed.

One may use language as commonly agreed upon by the group. And likewise, the Constitution may end up being changed and reconstructed according to whatever is commonly agreed upon, by the people. It's a document that was recognized to be able to be changed and it has changed over a period of time. There are certain parts that people don't think should be touched and other parts that they have deemed necessary to change. But, there is nothing in the Constitution that establishes that a certain part of it cannot be changed, or even should not be changed. Thus, nothing is off-limits for changing the Constitution, and that would include the Bill of Rights.

This document is only a social contract that was agreed upon by a group of people who decided to live that way. If this document contained universal principles for all people, then we should insist that the entire world adopt the very Constitution that we have. But, obviously we agree, as a people, that this document only applies to us -- by agreement among ourselves and is not even valid just a mere few feet beyond our border (or, as the application may be, beyond the citizen of this country). Thus, there is nothing universal about that Constitution that applies to some "right" granted to all people.

The Declaration of Independence on the other hand does contain universal and unalienable rights granted to all people in all nations, specifically because what the Creator God grants, He grants to all, as human beings, not as inhabitants of a particular tribe or nation or race.

The Constitution is only by common agreement among the people, while the unalienable rights granted by the Creator God has nothing to do with people's agreement. The Constitution only works as far as you get the population to agree to live under it, while the unalienable rights granted to human beings by our Creator God -- are granted in all nations and at all times. So, that's the difference, in that in those stated rights granted by God, they are universal, applying to all human beings, while the Constitution only applies to those people who agree to live under it, in this country and by common agreement. There is no higher authority in the Constitution, other than the people agreeing to abide by it. There is an higher authority in those unalienable rights.

The reason I’m pushing so hard on the issue of what is a right really is against the reasons you like to make popular. The easy explanation is so wrong that I believe it will hurt us more in the long run. If people start to thinking that their rights come from an amendable piece of paper…for me at least all hope is lost. If eventually liberals make it so that a ‘right’ to healthcare makes it’s way in the Constitution, people really will believe it’s a right. So I can’t stress enough how dangerous that line of thinking is, both to conservative types like yourself and libertarian types like me.

Now, while I may not want certain things in the Constitution, that doesn't mean that I can't be overridden in my sentiments on the matter. In fact -- it's absolutely certain that I can be overridden, simply by the people of this country following the Constitutional Amendment process and voting for something that I don't like. In that case, I'm simply out of luck -- period. And it can happen. It doesn't pay to argue around the fact that it can't happen. It can very well happen, just like that. The Constitution, itself, makes it very possible to happen. It provides the express way to do it.

Finally on Israel, looks like we both support it but for entirely different reasons. Even among conservatives your argument is pretty rare.

Well, among the Christian right, that's the basis for the support of Israel. There really is no other valid basis (not for the Christian right, at least). They may add a few more things to the list to "spice it up" for making a case for Israel's support, but those other things are of no consequence in the reality of what God has said. They mean nothing. So, why bother with it, other than to try and persuade those who care nothing about God -- which I suppose that's what people are trying to do. But, for me, it makes no difference what else you want to add to the list of reasons. All the other reasons are of no consequence at all. The only one that counts is the one that the Bible has given us.

But first…as a nation, I like Israel as much as say, France which means not very much. They’re a bunch of socialists who pay as much attention to property rights as a bum does to his smell. They also practice slavery by forcing people into servitude against their will. However they are under attack by barbarians for possessing land that is rightfully theirs. They are also the first line of defense Western Civilization has against the Islamist threat. I don’t think we should be giving them aid however, if they can afford a socialist state then they can afford to put more money in their military.

Well..., "national Israel" is something that God granted (just like He granted all people in the world, their unalienable rights, as we recognized in our Declaration of Independence). However, God also took away Israel's national sovereignty for a time, as He said he would. And He stated that there was to be a time when it would be regathered once again, for purposes of re-establishing it's national identity once again, and for re-establishing its divinely-granted sovereignty, which comes only from God, in the case of Israel. God said in the Bible that this would be a process of "coming together" and that it would, in the end, result in God restoring its national and divinely-granted sovereignty.

It does not have that "divinely-granted sovereignty" yet. It does have a secular sovereignty that was established in 1948. That was the beginning of the process, which is still happening now. And it is still, yet in the future, for that time when it's divinely-granted sovereignty will be re-established. So, we're talking about a process here, which is still far from completed at this time. So, whatever Israel is, at this present time, it is not where it is supposed to be yet. But, it will be, because God says that He is the One who will bring them there, whether they want to go there or not.

But on my original point, again states do not have rights. What makes something a right is its relationship to an individual; without a stem, there will be no flower and without the individual, there is no right. Now people can act in concert for their own benefit, that’s why they form states in the first place. But states do not exist independent of the people.

In this case of Israel, the state, which was divinely instituted by the Creator God (again, the same Creator God who grants these unalienable rights that we're talking about), this "state" was given the Throne of David, as an overt and potent symbol of this national identity and government of Israel. This governing "Throne of David" is something that God stated would continue to exist, even into the Millennial Reign of Jesus, the Messiah of Israel, and on into the future, after that time, never ending at any time.

So, this is one state ("national Israel") which does have a right to exist -- simply on the basis of a "pronouncement" by that same Creator God of the Declaration of Independence, and the fact that He is the One and only pre-eminent authority in the universe, no one being outside of His authority and His word on any matter. I know of no other instance, of any other country or nation, in which this is so. Therefore Israel is unique on the matter.

However, it's kind of difficult to talk about a Creator God (as I said in the beginning) whom someone doesn't believe in, in the first place. So, that's why it's mighty peculiar for anyone to accept "unalienable rights granted from our Creator God" -- when that person denies that this Creator God exists in the first place.

Now, I'm not saying that the Creator God only exists because you believe He exists. No, that's not true. He exists no matter what someone thinks about Him or how they disbelieve. I'm only saying that for a purposes of a discussion of rights that only come from this Creator God, it's a mighty peculiar discussion to have it with someone who doesn't believe the origin of the rights, but wants to maintain that they are unalieanble.

That part is simply too puzzling for me, unless one simply wants to say that the Declaration of Independence was wrong in what it said and this person wants to redefine what the words meant (and of course, that would not have been what the writers of the original Declaration would have wanted or meant). So, I have absolutely no idea what this disbeliever of the Creator God would appeal to as to the guarantee for these unalienable rights, since they believe the Declaration of Independence is lying to us.

Regards,
Star Traveler

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.