GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS? NONSENSE!

Do our legal rights ultimately come from a god -- specifically, the Christian god? No.

Guidance on apostrophe use:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/apostrophe ;-)


Link to 1tmoch's video "Relativism and Homos":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRKyTsqPClc


Intro music: "My Rights, Your Rights" by Mad Professor

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Constitution
• legal
• law
• jurisprudence
• God
• Yahweh
• Jehovah
• rights
• morality
• relativism
• homosexuality
• discrimination
• faith
• reason
• logic
• fact
• value
• Calvinism
• Christianity
• reformed
• religion
• lawgiver
• authority
• power
• Declaration
• Independence
• Jesus
• Christ
• church
• state
• government
• sovereign
• atheist
• agnostic
• skeptic
• humanist
• creator
• theist
• believer
• liberal
• conservative
• gender
• sex
• Bible
• scriptures
• marriage
• federal
• freedom
• apologetics
• amendment
• liberty
• society
• presupposition
• Obama
• yt:stretch=16:9

[shadow3772]

Further, the definition of rights which you cite to prove that there need not be a God to sustain them begs the question: if rights are inherent to have a free society, why is a free society a goal? Of course, you will answer that it is common sense: it's what we all want. But why should this matter? Why should our preferences be considered? Only if human flourishing and freedom is to be desired. But why preference these categories? Only because they are objective goods. But how so? God. (OOS)

[ProfMTH]

@shadow3772 "if rights are inherent to have a free society, why is a free society a goal? Of course, you will answer that it is common sense: it's what we all want. But why should this matter?"

It only matters because we want it to matter. Your objection is odd and unclear.

[shadow3772]

Poorly titled video. At best, this proves that our rights our not Yahweh-given. But, this video completely dodges the question as to whether there is a maximally great being who designed the world so as to allow humans to understand transcendent, universally binding morality and create laws based on that.

[continued]

[ProfMTH]

@shadow3772 "Poorly titled video. At best, this proves that our rights our not Yahweh-given. But, this video completely dodges the question as to whether there is a maximally great being who designed the world so as to allow humans to understand transcendent, universally binding morality and create laws based on that."

I was responding to a Christian. But feel free to make a case for a "maximally great being" qua source of our legal rights.

[RadarKat73080]

I agree with the late, great George Carlin: "If rights came from God, He'd make sure you had a right to some food everyday, a place to live. God would be lookin' out for you."

[MrLittletomdj]

@ProfMTH I'm out of my depth I think but, the The P'C' 1863 only adds to the fuzz in my mind. It recognizes that you can declare war against belligerents without recognizing thier sovriegnty. I don't have a problem with that in essence. I just think "times of war" would be better phrazed as "in times of an on going violent/unlawful civil uprising, billegerent or foriegn invasion" <or sommin like that! ;). The Military Com's Act 06 that undermined the right of habeas corpus pops to mind. yes/no?

[ProfMTH]

(con't) @MrLittletomdj ...without waiting for any special legislative authority" (see The Prize Cases, 1863). There is also the inherent tension between the president's unique status as commander-in-chief of the nation's military forces and Congress's unique power to declare war. I suspect that a constitutional amendment about all of this would, among other things, raise more questions than it would answer.

[ProfMTH]

@MrLittletomdj I didn't think the question was sarcastic. But, as you obviously know, it's no small question. No, I don't think a constitutional amendment is warranted. The Constitution explicitly deals with how the United States declares war. But it has also been interpreted, e.g., to include a presidential duty to "to resist force by force" when the United States is attacked; the understanding being that the president "does not initiate the war, but is bound to accept the challenge...

[ProfMTH]

@MrLittletomdj No worries.

[MrLittletomdj]

p.s. Sorry about the QUADRUPLE post!!! =/

I need to learn to proof read my posts before I press send!! =(

Ooooops x3!