I've just taken a course on John Locke. I never actually took the time to figure out how it is we know that humans have rights. After reading his stuff, I have to say, I'm not convinced.

I just dont buy it. I'm afraid of myself now.

I actually fall in line more what Aristotle says, in that government exists to help people reach the good life.

But, since people live the best lives when they "have" rights, I'm willing to pretend like people really do have natural rights so that they can live better lives.

I feel so awekward.

Human Rights= a "joke". . . . .like any good socilaist or communist idiology, giving people "human rights" means you need to take away from someone else to give to the other person. . . example. . . . homos have a "right" to be treated as "equals." This of course is foreign to the Christians beliefs since homos are not allowed in to the churchs nor into the kingdom of heaven. (However, in practical application there are many "Christian" churchs that preach the opposite.. . . .deceivers according to the Scriptures.) So in order to apply the fallacy of homos as "equals" by a Christian they must COMPROMISE their religious beliefs for the sake for the "rights" of others. . . .which of course is offensive and blashpemous to real Chrstians.. .

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/726...stthem0015.jpg
http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/7...nity0018wj.jpg
http://img200.imageshack.us/my.php?i...mise0015lf.jpg
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/8...fire0009fc.jpg
http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/1...nsttares00.jpg

actually, yes and no. While gays are to be treated equally in reference to the gov., they do not have to be treated in the individual religions. According to locke (and I agree), each religion is its own little club and its members obide by the rules of that club.

equally under the law. But there is no requirement that they be treated equally by any particular religion. Which is how it should be.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

I'll agree with Stekim. There is nothing that requires you to view all people as equal, and that is exactly why we have the laws to create equal protection. That is why anarchy is not feasible and is in fact more tyrannical than some dictatorships. Government sanctioned persecution legitimizes persecution as a whole. That is why revolutions often lead to such genocide and slaughter (a bit redundant on my part, I guess).
As I believe you mentioned on another post, Printer, my right to live entails you forgoing your right to kill me. Such human contracts are necessary to the prosperity of large groups of people. If you need further proof, look to the pre-State large societies which existed in perpetual states of war and reciprocal homicide.
Don't fall into the trap as I did for a while of believing in nothing. Human rights may not be necessarily a "natural" thing, but they are worth believing in. If nothing else, note their importance to the sustainability of peace and harmony.
And once again Shamu is a subject of my pity. It's so sad that there are no Christian countries that endorse tyranny, forced religion, and violations of human rights. Too bad. It's so sad that he is the only one that understands what Christianity is all about. Everyone else must be wrong after all.
We may be simple primates when it comes down to it, Printer, wretched beasts that can be vile, selfish, and full of nastiness. But nature (God) has given us the ability to think our way beyond this and work together for solutions. If human rights are a creation, they are a creation that has led to greater prosperity for all and increased economic development.

countries that endorse higher levels of human rights are safer and more prosperous than countries that do not. Where the rights come from means little to me in the big scheme of things. So long as they exist, it matters little to me whether they are innate, granted by God or the state.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

I'll agree but elaborate.
We have indeed been granted by God or nature the unique human attributes of reason and compassion. Rights are derived from these and are standing the test of time better than such ridiculous constructions as divine right of monarchs. Since reason and innovation are what have given us evolutionary advantage, it is alright to say that the products of these things are indeed natural.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Well personally I wouldn't be to worried I don't believe in human rights from a metaphysical abstraction/ human secularist view point. Like I have stated before (BTW next three questions in my ideology debate are coming soon) I believe some rights do indeed come from God (or are Natural for you atheist) but I believe the rest are inherited rights with n o real evidence for existence except that we inherited them from are fathers and what not. AKA their a tradition. You should read some Edmund Burke.

__________________
Nobody with open eyes can any longer doubt that the danger to personal freedom comes chiefly from the left. - F.A. Hayek

Where have all the Conservatives Gone?

There is always hope, as long as one can think.

Mutual sympathy, in my opinion, through projection of the self onto others, results in the recognition of rights. I believe that such rights ultimately come from God, but that is a matter of faith rather than reason.