Dear Paul Ryan, human rights do not come from god

[cbayer]

http://www.chicagonow.com/an-agnostic-in-wheaton/2012/08/dear-paul-ryan-human-rights-do-not-come-from-god/


By James Kirk Wall, today at 7:28 am
Religion sometimes causes very intelligent people to say very silly things. During the Republican Presidential debates, Newt Gingrich said he couldn’t trust someone with power who didn’t pray. That’s like saying we can’t trust someone with money who doesn’t gamble. If prayer worked many more people would be winning the lotto. It’s always better to focus our resources on competency and action rather than fantasies of divine intervention. Recently Paul Ryan, the newly chosen running mate of Mitt Romney, stated that our rights come from nature and god, not government. This is blatantly not true.

Survival of the fittest in nature is not an acceptable system of morality by human standards. Nature only cares about survival and offspring. Charles Darwin never argued for the morality of evolution, he argued for the reality of evolution. What we consider to be virtues such as empathy and compassion assisted in the survival of our species. We can find comfort in that thought; however, we also need to recognize the same applies for what we consider to be unvirtuous traits such as jealously and greed.

Our rights do not come from god as no one has ever had the authority to speak for god any more than anyone else. We can’t even get people who follow the same book to agree on the interpretations and meanings. We don’t even know what god is or even if god exists at all. Someone stating, or even taking the impressive effort of writing down that they speak for god doesn’t make it true. Thomas Jefferson in mentioning a creator in the Declaration of Independence was no more a divine prophet with the authority to speak the will of god than Thomas Paine who heavily criticized religion. In reality, our rights come from mankind.

If you are caught and convicted of driving under the influence on multiple occasions, you will face jail time. Your liberty and pursuits of happiness will be taken away. A U.S citizen was executed for supporting terrorist activities. His life was taken away. Ask someone who’s in jail for smoking pot where their rights come from. Arguing that their rights come from god doesn’t remove the bars. Smoking or possessing marijuana is against the law. This law was created by mankind; not god. The laws are made by people in government and the laws are enforced by people in government. The laws of our society dictate our rights.

more at link

[SlimJimmy]

1. We probably need to change this then.

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.

[cbayer]

2. In my personal opinion, we should change it.

[SlimJimmy]

3. Something like this, maybe?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their federal, state, and local governments with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

[cbayer]

5. Or they are endowed with these rights just because they are human.

[Common Sense Party]

26. Unless certain other humans decide that some humans don't deserve some rights.

Man giveth and man taketh away.

[cleanhippie]

4. There is a very wide gulf between "...their Creator" and the christian "God".

And when someone says that something comes from "god", they mean their god and their opinion of what their god wants.

Instead of changing the Constitution, liberal and progressive believers who think that religion is and should remain a personal thing, should fight harder and louder to squash those that want to make their beliefs into law.

Non-believers and many minority religions are already making the noise and fighting for the Rights enshrined in the Constitution. And until the liberal/progressive believers get it into gear and join us in this fight, they do nothing but empower the right by legitimizing their opinions.

Arguing with non-believers about whether it was right to call for the removal of a cross on public property, or a city seal, or a forced prayer at a public meeting, or the myriad other instances where their religion has infiltrated the government and public sphere, is not going to forge any bonds. We are a secular government, and keeping ALL religion out of it is the right thing to do. Period.

[SlimJimmy]

6. I've always interpreted the phrase to mean any *God* one might worship. Not

necessarily the Christian version. For example, to the Hindus, Vishna, to Buddhists, Budda, to Muslims, Mohammed, and so forth. Personally, I don't see an issue in using that phrasing to say that our rights come from God.

[cleanhippie]

7. When Paul Ryan says that phrase, he is not referring to his god?

[SlimJimmy]

9. Sure he is. And when a Muslim says it, he is referring to Muhammed. What's your point?

[cleanhippie]

13. Since you failed to read it the first time, I will cut and paste it for you.

And when someone says that something comes from "god", they mean their god and their opinion of what their god wants.

Instead of changing the Constitution, liberal and progressive believers who think that religion is and should remain a personal thing, should fight harder and louder to squash those that want to make their beliefs into law.

Non-believers and many minority religions are already making the noise and fighting for the Rights enshrined in the Constitution. And until the liberal/progressive believers get it into gear and join us in this fight, they do nothing but empower the right by legitimizing their opinions.

Arguing with non-believers about whether it was right to call for the removal of a cross on public property, or a city seal, or a forced prayer at a public meeting, or the myriad other instances where their religion has infiltrated the government and public sphere, is not going to forge any bonds. We are a secular government, and keeping ALL religion out of it is the right thing to do. Period.

Thats my point. Did you read the article? Did you read my response the first time?

[SlimJimmy]

21. Apparently you didn't read what I wrote. Your response seems to indicate that.

[dmallind]

16. No, he isn't.

Muhammed is a prophet to Muslims, not a god.

[SlimJimmy]

22. The prophet speaks for God, so I will grant that there is a difference.

But my concept stands. God is different to varying faiths.

* Edit for grammatical error.

[dmallind]

23. We are talking about a "Creator" here.

From that POV there is no difference at all between Jews, Christians or Muslims really. All of them think the same god did the creating, and there is far more overlap than exclusion in who was a prophet (Jews eschew Jesus and Mohammed, Christians only the latter. Most others are shared).

Now yes of course a Hindu for example posits a diffferent creator. However if we grant that other "Creators" are included in that statement rather than the Deist version the principle author (who was certainly no Christian as the word is normally used and as was defined by various ecumenical councils from the early church and on) doubtless had in mind, then nothing prevents that creator from being a process rather than a deity; indeed this would make a more coherent statement that links human rights to the status of being human, regardless of who or what or how is responsible for humans becoming human.

Frankly it either means the Enlightenment Deist god or anything at all that created humanity including natural processes. There is no sensible argument for expanding the definition only to deities but no further. Thus our rights, if we take the declaration to be the final word on their source (which is in itself quite a myopic view), either come from a god few do worship and none should (because such a god would not care or most likely even know), or are not tied to any god at all.

[SlimJimmy]

24. Guess what? I'm not here to have some nuts and bolts discussion concerning what

deity belongs to who and why. If you want to have a deep theological discussion, you've truly enjoined the wrong person. If I made some minor factual errors in theology, sue me. Hey, I'm sure you're very smart when it comes to such things, but to be honest, I don't really care. Several posters here understand clearly what I was saying. It was a simple statement with a simple premise ... God means different things to different groups. See how easy that was?

[LiberalFighter]

8. If it was in the Constitution. But it is not.

This is Constitution's Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[SlimJimmy]

10. I wasn't referring to the Constitution, I was referring to the Declaration of Independence.

So is any person using that line.

[cbayer]

12. I think is point may be that we can't amend the DOI, but we could the Constitution.

Anyway, your point is good.

[SlimJimmy]

18. That is exactly my point, cbayer. Thanks for getting it.

[LiberalFighter]

14. How do you change the Declaration of Independence?

(responding back to your post that I originally responded)

The Declaration did not create the framework for the country. It only provided the breakaway. The Articles of Confederation was the precursor to our government. And despite the words in the Declaration there is no mention about our rights being endowed by the Creator even in the Articles of Confederation which was in effect in 1781. The only mention of any type of creator is the typical signing off portion at the end.

[SlimJimmy]

19. You don't. The Declaration of Independence was a concept, not a framework for governing.

It is open to interpretation.

[trotsky]

11. Considering at the time, the men who wrote that...

also came to a compromise that some men were created with only 3/5ths the value of other men (to say nothing about women, which they generally did), we should probably be careful throwing that around.

[eqfan592]

15. No need to change it.

"Creator" does not have to equate to a supernatural being. I've always viewed it as all encompassing. For me personally, I'd view my creator to be the universe itself, and nature. In fact, I honestly think the man who used that word specifically to be just that open in interpretation.

And as others stated here, the Declaration of Independence is not the same as the Constitution.

[cbayer]

17. Good point as well. It is in your interpretation of the concept, which can mean many things.

[SlimJimmy]

20. Agreed. You have stated it better than I.

[Angry Dragon]

25. Nope

We exist through the forces of the universe. There is no proof that a god being exists. Until that can be proven we have to go on the asumption that we just exist and because we exist we have certain rights. We are all equal and because we are equal we have the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happyness. No more, no less than anyone else.

[humblebum]

27. Locke: The Second Treatise On Civil Government

Last edited Tue Aug 21, 2012, 01:40 AM - Edit history (1)

Chapter 2 - The State of Nature
Sec. 5. This equality of men by nature, the judicious Hooker looks upon as
so evident in itself, and beyond all question, that he makes it the
foundation of that obligation to mutual love amongst men, on which he builds
the duties they owe one another, and from whence he derives the great maxims
of justice and charity. His words are,

"The like natural inducement hath brought men to know that it is no less
their duty, to love others than themselves; for seeing those things which
are equal, must needs all have one measure; if I cannot but wish to receive
good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own
soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied,
unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire, which is undoubtedly in
other men, being of one and the same nature? To have any thing offered them
repugnant to this desire, must needs in all respects grieve them as much as
me; so that if I do harm, I must look to suffer, there being no reason that
others should shew greater measure of love to me, than they have by me
shewed unto them: my desire therefore to be loved of my equals in nature as
much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to them-
ward fully the like affection; from which relation of equality between
ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons
natural reason hath drawn, for direction of life, no man is ignorant..."

Section 6

"The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business..."