Gee, a tyrant... how positively unique...

I don't think you'll want me anywhere near your salt mine... I will pursue the rightful fulfillment of my human right to life... Period and without regard to your power...

If, due to your sufficient power, that pursuit is limited to working towards my freedom, then, for what ever period your power holds out, so be it... but every moment of my life during that period will be invested in ridding myself of the yoke of your tryanny which you've set upon me.

Nahhh... you wouldn't want me anywhere NEAR your salt mine. I'm an American sport... we make REALLY bad slaves.

I think that great American poet Tobias Keith said it best when he said, of another tyrant who sought to tyrannize Americans... "We'll put a boot in your *bleep*, it's the American way..." ROFL... I don't think you'd want me in your salt mine.

Where he ends up is in your salt mine... having accepted the rules and the modern reasoning that his rights are passe and gone for good... "OH WELL! It was a nice ride and while the idea seemed like a good one, there's a new reality now and MAN THAT'S ONE HELLUVA LOT OF SALT!"

The man that understands that God gave him his life, thus his rights and that no man has a right to the product of his labor without his good consent... THAT man will not be enslaved ... PERIOD. While you may have sufficient power at one point to cuff him, the instant he has a chance to destroy you; you will be destroyed.

You may retain one right when you're in my salt mine (or Comrade Stalin's gulag) - the right to kill yourself. The only way out is feet first. (Actually not even that - we just grind you up with some sawdust, bake in a pan at 350 for 75 minutes, and call it meatloaf. It's a treat for the other inmates.)

~~~~~~~~~~~

BTW, I'm not denying the concept of rights - that would be silly, plus it's a useful, extremely valuable concept. Where it is honored human well being and fulfillment are infinitely greater than where it is not. But it's still just a concept, not a concrete thing you can hang a sign on.

Um, where did I ever say that I gave up my rights and ended up in the salt mine? In fact, I said just the opposite, only with a different reasoning than divine rights given from god. Oddly enough, even if you reduce my argument to saying there are no rights, then that precludes a slave owner from having any right over me. We end up right back again to the point where no man has a right to the product of my labor without my good consent.

The man that understand that god gave him his life, and thus his rights understands his rights are "god given rights", not "human rights". "Human rights" have to come from something related to the nature of humanity, not outwardly imposed on us from god. "Human Rights" from god is a contradiction.

There are certainly plenty of view points ranging from Kant theory to the Social Contract theory that establishes rights even in the absence of God. Perhaps you disagree with these theories (and I don't blame you), but they are as strong in foundation as any foundation for god given rights. How can we be sure we have ever figured out what these god given rights are? Religions have been as fickle with their understanding of rights and morality as the secular. Point in case let's look at the rich history of slavery in Christianity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_slavery

__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.

So, only Judeo-Christians have rights then? That makes sense.

There is no right to end one's life... You've an obligation, a duty... s sacred duty to protect and defend that life; which in this case translates into the duty to destroy... to kill he that usurps the means to exercise my right; which in short means my right is to kill YOU (rhetorically speaking, for the purposes of this scenario).

If you take my life, then I depart this earth as I came; with my rights intact, whole and by the looks of things, right on time... which while that's good news for me, you've got new problems; in that while in bondage I taught many of your slaves of their divine inalienable rights; I taught them that in enslaving them, that you have forfeited your rights and that it is their sacred duty to kill you and those that represent you.

Enjoy...

No one has a right to enslave you... What they have is power... Power which they use absent valid moral justification to enslave you. You're God given human right to life and the pursuit of fulfillment of that life, comes with the sacred duty to defend that life or die trying. The authority is that of highest order; thus those who usurp your means to exercise your rightful pursuit of fulfillment, by in this instance enslaving you, have, by virtue of their having violated their OWN responsibility to not exercise their rights to the detriment of another's right, FORFEITED their own right; you are duty bound to destroy them...

God gave you, a human; life. Thus the rights endowed from God are God given human rights...



False... God gave you, a human; life. Thus the rights endowed from God are God given human rights...

.

All rights established by the social order are nothing more then privileges sponsored by the culture, protected by the power of Government.

For instance, many people are under the mistaken impression that the USC grants rights; that the Bill of Rights, establishes a freedom of speech, a right to own and use a firearm, a right to be secure in ones property and effects... etc; in fact it does not... The Bill O'Rights merely enumerates rights which are inherent in the pursuit of one’s RIGHT: One's life and the fulfillment thereof... This misunderstanding was hotly debated as the Bill was being advanced; with those against the bill noting that should it be ratified, future generations may mis-infer the bill, as you seem to be doing and is now, in fact a commonly accepted truth, that the Bill O'Rights grants people these rights and that they are the breadth and width of human rights... Again... they are not.

If the SCOTUS determined TODAY that the 2nd amendment, in contrast the the balance of the amendments in that bill which spoke to an individual right and in direct conflict with the understanding of the Framers that Government does not possess "rights," that what government possesses is POWER... IF the SCOTUS determined that the 2nd amendment spoke to the right of the government to keep and bear arms; this would have absolutely ZERO Effect on my right to defend my life through the ownership and use of a firearm; what it WOULD have an effect on is the present government protections which up until that decision protected me from government sanction, for having exercised that PRE-EXISTING, ETERNAL Right... I would continue to own firearms; I would continue to carry a firearm... I would simply face, government prosecution for doing so which would make at that point the government, the oppressor of my rights, thus establishing such as that which needs to be destroyed.



Government privilege is fine... I have no beef with it, except where such undermines, clouds of otherwise obfuscates the validity and final authority of God given human rights...


You have one right... The right to your life and the responsibility to not use that life to the detriment of another's life, nor his or her rights. How hard is that to understand? Don't you see that simplicity as the first clue of its divine origins? It's a very simple but immutable species of reasoning...

Religions are choked with human beings friend and as you likely know where you have human beings you have evil... The suggestion that Christianity is synonymous with Slavery is absurd on its face. Christ spent his life speaking and teaching of the equality of man; they crucified him, as he knew they would, for his demand that women, the poor, sick and infirmed by provided access to the high temple. Which at that time, in the context of the Jewish culture was the highest element of government; with the Roman government being a false government, to be endured... valid only unto itself but otherwise, absent its power to destroy served no other purpose, useful or otherwise. SO in effect, Christ brought to the world, knowing full well the price he would pay for doing so; unspeakable pain and torture and in a wholly separate context than that which the left is presently prostrating itself over... the concept of EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS; FOUNDED DIRECTLY UPON THE AUTHORITY OF GOD HIMSELF.

Surely it matters which brand of God you're talking about, if it's God that gives all rights. Especially because some religions have multiple gods, or no gods, and because Western concepts of "human rights" are not widely accepted around the world, despite religion being everywhere.

No, I don't. I have advanced an absolute truth: Humans can determine what they think "human rights" are. The idea of "inherent rights" does not require a God. It might be political or polemically useful to say the rights are "God given", but that does not mean it is necessary. One can reach the same place through reason.

That is simply your opinion. It is not a truth.

Well then, how can one say human rights come from God, if God never even mentions the subject?

To say "gravity comes from God", one must first accept that God as you describe him exists.

So all you're doing is framing a simple tautology that assumes God exists and is the creator of all things:

1. Human rights exist.

2. God created all existence.

3. Therefore, human rights come from God.

All well and good. Except not everyone accepts #2, and as has been pointed out, the idea of human rights can be achieved through reason, without reference to God.

Nothing you write here actually refutes what I said. Jefferson used "endowed by the Creator" to make the point that all men are born equal and, by virtue of being born, should enjoy certain inherent rights. But that concept of "inherent rights" does not require God -- one can make the same argument employing only reason. And in any case, the specific rights that Jefferson enumerated came from human minds, not God.

__________________
Man up.

Proof?

These are opinions/beliefs, not facts.

__________________
I'll get nicer when you get smarter.

Thank you for reasserting the same premise once again. I understood your position the first 20 times. What I lack is an understanding of why your premise is the correct premise.

I disagree that the power to create equals the power to dictate the rights of your creation. All you did was create something. So just as the slave owner has no right to confine you to slavery in a salt mine, neither does god. All there is is fear and control, a tactic used heavely by the Christian church to enforce their rules on the people. "Do this or you may go to hell" is not a rights theory, it's a control theory.

Agreed, I'm quite familiar with the process and arguments that we went through in the creation of the constitution and bill of rights. They feared "innumerating" them would give the illusion that these were the only rights. That's why they added the 10th ammendment.

In any event, I'm not arguing that any government or law is the foundation of civil rights I'm talking about. Government and law are mearly attempts to enforce and uphold the greater purpose of society... a means to an end, not an end in itself. Governments and laws can most certainly be wrong and against this purpose, and just as a slave has the right to destroy the slave owner, the society has the right to destroy (or change) the government and its laws in the name of the social contract that the government is supposed to enforce. "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" was the reason we declaired independance from England, and does a pretty good job summing up the purpose of our society and government.


You may have an eternal right to protect your life. In addition you have a civil right in Social Contract theory to protect your life. In either of these cases, I agree, you can carry a gun to protect your life. Government can only legitimatly step in when they believe people holding guns is a greater danger to everyone than if nobody did. the problem is the government simply doesnt have the power to prevent everyone from having a gun, so because some have gones, there is a good argument that everyone should have a gun to even the playing field EVEN IF the government says you can't.




Or in my case, government privilage is fine, I have no beef iwth it, except where such undermines, clouds of otherwise obfuscates the validity and final authority of my Civil Rights for which the government was formed to protect.


Social Contract theory is pretty simple too, and comes to the same conclusion. Shortly put, live and let live. Do whatever you want so long as it doen't infringe on my rights.

Exactly my point. Religions are choked with human beings. Humans mess things up You are a human being. You are not pure of the imperfections that lead our ancestors to their false conclusions. We could still have things wrong. Even if god is, in theory, the end of human rights and morality, practical application of these god given rights is still subjective and mucked up by the humans that try to interpreter them.

Thus the concept of god given rights is confused not only by varying interpretations under a single religion, but by the fact that your one religion just one among thousands.

__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.