We're unarmed here in Canada and do not have that fear at all. I wonder what the difference is.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
|
We're unarmed here in Canada and do not have that fear at all. I wonder what the difference is.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
The difference is your national history. YOU didn't overthrow a tyrannical ruler in order to create your nation. You didn't have to defeat the most powerful Army in the world (at that time) in order to gain your national and personal freedoms. You didn't see the effect of NOT being armed when we needed to act to overthrow Britain. We did.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
We were British citizens who were brough under tyranical rule by our government, the Parliament of England and the King of England. We experienced what can happen if a government really does decide to put it's boot down on your head. That fact became the historical background under which our nation was formed. And world history both before and since then makes the point ever more clear to us. So the Founders put the 2nd Amendment into the Constitution specifically because they feared it happening again, only this time from a government based on THIS side of the pond.
Elliot
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Let me see. You named this thread WHAT?? Bwa, ha ha ha.
I don't have to marginalize you. You do a pretty good job of it yourself.
excon
The persecution complex is strong with you my dear elliot.
When I named the thread, excon, I was referring to those who said that BUSH was a dictator, and wondering why the people who made that complaint didn't find Obama's actions equally dictatorial or worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
You'd know that if you had read the OP.
But as usual, you skip what you don't like and try to change the subject.
Elliot
No. Historical FACT is strong with me. That's why you have no leg to stand on when you argue these issue with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Elliot
Maybe it has something to do with the French heritage.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
No need to be insulting!!Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Let me see.
It must have been 3 or 4 years ago when a news article appeard about the following: (No, at this late date I can't remember the source.)
However, a printing company in Canada turned down a job from some homosexuals bucause they didn't want to do that kind of work. Well, the results were that the gays took the printer to court. The printer had to pay a judgment to the gays and give a public apology.
That doesn't sound like freedom to me.
Maybe the reason NK feels comfortable in his position is that he has never attempted to exercise his God-given rights and run afoul of a bureaucrat-------YET!
There is no god so these "rights" don't exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
It's your opinion that there is no God, but we can call it something besides "god-given" rights. Call it natural rights if it makes you feel better.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I don't know about Canada, but in OUR founding papers, God is recognized as being the giver of "inaleinable rights".Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
So there!!
Quote:
It's your opinion that there is no God, but we can call it something besides "god-given" rights. Call it natural rights if it makes you feel better.
I'm not willing to enter into an ultimately futile debate about the existence/non-existence of God, but I do think the issue of "natural rights" warrants closer investigation. What exactly do we mean by "natural rights"? Please bear in mind that I am not looking for examples, but rather a definition. To me it seems absurd to suggest that there are any rights that are "natural", as they are entirely synthetic in their conception. When observing nature I see no rights whatsoever, in fact the only rule seems to be "there are no rules". It is force that rules the day in nature, not respect for "rights".
This brings me to my next query. What exactly is it that makes ANY right meaningful? Here in Australia I enjoy certain rights, such as property, privacy, etc. These rights serve me very well. They protect me, and enable me to live in a certain amount of peace. However if I were living in, let's say Sierra Leone, I am highly dubious as to whether these rights would have any meaning at all. Is this because I would not have them in that country? Or simply that they would be no reason for others to respect them? Is there a meaningful difference?
These questions are rhetorical for the most part I must admit, I do have my own answers for them. However I would be intersted in hearing other opinions on the subject, which I feel shows great potential for reasoned a debate/disscussion.
It is a very complex discussion but I'll give a very simple answer. You may want to check out the writings of philosopher John Locke ,who identified universal natural rights not subject to surrender in the social contract or the sovereign .
Included among these were "life, liberty, and estate (property)" . It would not matter where on earth you live .The social contract could not deny the individual these rights and the individual has a right to defend them against tyranny.
These natual rights formed the basis for the English Bill of Rights,the American Declaration of Independence ,the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen ,and the first 10 amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The founding fathers of the United States were diverse in religious denominations, but all had a distinct grounding in a universal power of goodness in the cosmos from which mankind was endowed with inalienable rights.
In the end you are correct in saying that any right is dependent on your ability to keep them. What the enlightenment philosophers were saying is that the 'Prince' had no inherent right to deny you your natual rights.All laws are to be judged as to their adherence to natural rights ,and any law that violates natural law is no law at all.
Boo? Obama is a Dictatorial President?
No one is turned away without treatment. There are ways to set up payment plans with hospitals. I know from working in several.[ They pay also by being degraded for having to do such a thing but that doesn't hurt your credit]. If a kid has cancer and needs treatment, it can be found. There are many foundations, start asking and get the info if it is a concern you. It is hard and stressful. Don't give up because of what an insurance company says.Quote:
Originally Posted by 450donn
The same is true with middleage people. A way can be found to take care of it. You might have to change your standard of living but you can do that in order to live or help a loved one to live. I changed my standard of living in order to afford more insurance and avoid that hassle. My choice. Your choice might be different. At least we have a choice. So far.
When did this world change from believing that people work for what they earn to people believing that someone else should give them everything for free?[/QUOTE]
I am afraid there are more people who believe that than not. They are willing to give up a perfectly good style of government that other countries admire enough to copy at least large parts of it, in exchange for handouts from the richer people who only do it because they are forced to by the government.
Thanks for replying tomder55. I have read portions of Locke's 2nd treatise, he was certainly a great mind, and there is no denying the influence he had on the founding documents of the U.S.A. I do however have a few problems with his philosophy, not least of which the rather dubious justification given for the acquisition of property, which was cited in the course of many a "land grab" worldwide. Certainly I would agree that an individual or group may be justified in rebelling in certain circumstances, but this is not the same thing as having a right to do so. Much in the same way that I feel a person may have justification for an act of theft in extreme situations, yet they have no right to commit such an act.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
It seems to me that the only reason I have any rights at all, is because they are guaranteed by the government, the "soveriegn" if you will. In this sense I see ALL rights as being "civil rights", rather than "natural", I am very much more in the Hobbes camp if you like (however I have my problems with him as well). This may seem as being neither here nor there, and of little consequence either way. After all, it doesn't matter from what source these rights are derived, the fact is we have them, and that's all that matters isn't it? For myself, I think it is significant if we are to consider what purpose these rights are to serve.
If we are to view them as "natural" or "God-given", then we have no place from which to to alter or remove these rights, irrespective of whether they have any use at all. Even if such rights had become detrimental to the well being and freedom of a society, we would have to live with them anyway. If we are to view them as completely synthetic, they may be altered to serve the necessities of a "free" society in any particular context. Of course there are those rights of which cannot I conceive being absent in ANY free society, such as property, but this does not make them "natural" in any sense of the word.
Yes Hobbes argued that rights are abstractions.
In the case of the US rebellion the sovereign proclaimed a right to tax the colonist property(and other "intollerable acts" ) and they in turn proclaimed the social contract broken because of the issue of representation. The social contract as defined by Rousseau was only valid if it was validified by the consent of the governed .
"Thus, the question of whether justice can be achieved in society may not depend on whether individuals can be forced to comply with civil authority but on whether individuals and civil authority can act in harmony with, and fulfill their moral obligations toward, each other. Moreover, there may be a moral obligation to comply with civil authority only if that authority is legitimate (i.e. if that authority is based on a fair and just agreement among the members of society).
Natural rights defined a boundary that the sovereign could not cross .
As I mentioned ;in the end it mattered not that they believed it ,as much as the fact that they took steps to defend their rights against the sovereign. So there is certainly an element of the Darwinian nature your described . But natural rights were postulated with the idea of certain moral restraints beyond the law of the jungle.(I will not go into the debate over whether these are derived from the construct of the human mind or 'God given')
Oh, good. Since there is no such thing as a god-given right, I can punch you in the nose as often as I want, since you have no god-given rights to be protected from my actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Elliot
Sure, go ahead. See you in court.
You bring up an interesting point here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokugawa
I find it interesting that the Bible, which was supposedly written by G-d (and as a religious Jew, I tend to follow that beliefe) never mentions any rights whatsoever.
What the Bible mentions is responsibilities. The responsibilities of man to his fellow, the responsibilities of man to his community and the responsibilities of man toward his G-d. Never once in the Bible is there mention of anyone's RIGHTS.
This seems to be true of the New Testament as well as the Old Testament. Based on what I have read of the Koran (I'm something of an expert in the OT having studied it intensely for over 35 years, and I have read the NT several times in order to familiarize myself with it, but I am a complete layman about the Koran) there is no mention of "rights" in the Koran either.
Can anyone tell me of any text that any religion claims was written by a god or gods or under the inspiration of a god or gods that mentions "rights"?
I find it interesting that the Founding Fathers created a document that mentions "inalienable rights" that were "endowed by their creator". And that document was NOT the US Constitution. The document that talks about inalienable rights is the Declaration of Independence. Nowhere in the Constitution will you find the term "inalienable rights".
The Declaration, however, established the concept of inalienable rights for the people of the United States, and the fact that these rights exist is not up for debate. I do not question the existence of these inalienable rights. I question the SOURCE. Are they really endowed by G-d or are they granted by man as part of the MORALITY learned from G-d and His Laws? A good lesson, to be sure, but that does not mean that rights are a direct edict from G-d.
Again, if the source of these rights was from G-d, why did he never mention them in his own texts? Yet he DOES mention responsibilities.
One of the things that often occurs to me is that my own religion, Orthodox Judaism, never mentions the concept of rights. We speak in terms of responsibility. (Although after the events of last Thursday, I question how well some of my co-religionists take care of their responsibilities.)
And in the USA, one of the main problems I see in our society is that people seem to always be claiming rights, but very few are willing to take responsibility.
The health care issue is a perfect example: many Americans see health care (or insurance) as a "right" that needs to be guaranteed by the Government. But very few people are willing to take responsibility to provide health insurance for themselves. It's their employer's responsibility, or their government's responsibility, but it is their "right".
Abortion is another issue where this applies. Women have the "right" to an abortion, but they have no responsibility to refrain from having sex to avoid getting pregnant.
Criminals have "rights", but they have no responsibility to avoid breaking the law.
Terrorists have "rights", but no responsibility to refrain from killing innocent civillians.
I could go on, but I think we get the point.
We would do better in this country to take more responsibility and worry a bit less about rights. After all, if we are following G-d's will with regard to rights, shouldn't we also follow His will with regard to taking responsibility?
Yes, we are endowed with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But with those rights, we are encumbered with certain responsibilities... to ourselves, to our neighbors, to our community and to the nation as a whole.
If all we care for are rights, and we take no responsibility, then we are taking advantage of others and we are leeches on society.
So... we THINK that our rights come from G-d. But we KNOW that our responsibilities come from G-d.
Which do you think should come first?
Elliot
What court. There are no rights. I haven't violated anything. Courts can only protect you if you have a right. You're on your own.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Well in Canada we have laws concerning assault, perhaps you don't.
My best guess then is that in Canada the government is the grantor of rights.
Yea, we try to keep religion out of politics.
What the government giveth the government can taketh away.
I guess so. We don't seem to worried. People like us are in a government, it would affect them to.
Sure we do. We are protected in our RIGHT to be free of assault on our persons. But if those rights don't exist... well, then you're SOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Ok.
[QUOTE=Tokugawa;1878880]I'm not willing to enter into an ultimately futile debate about the existence/non-existence of God, but I do think the issue of "natural rights" warrants closer investigation. What exactly do we mean by "natural rights"? Please bear in mind that I am not looking for examples, but rather a definition. To me it seems absurd to suggest that there are any rights that are "natural", as they are entirely synthetic in their conception. When observing nature I see no rights whatsoever, in fact the only rule seems to be "there are no rules". It is force that rules the day in nature, not respect for "rights".
Your natural rights are the ones that say someone else does not have the right to cause you physical harm or pain.Just because those rights are not respected, does not mean they are no longer your rights, It just means Someone else does not respect your rights. There are such creatures in the human race and in the animal "kingdom",(for want of a better word) that have no respect for others. They cause pain, they kill, they have no respect for others. But in order for the life to continue, we have to have some love and respect. Without that, the off-spring would be children of rape, hate and discontent. Propagation of the race would eventually disappear and the planet would revert to the state it was in the beginning. Even the disrespectors have rights. We have to have balance. And the wheel turns.
I think, in this context, rights and responsibilities are interchangeable in meaning.
No, they're not. Not even close. Please see the examples I give in post #301:Quote:
Originally Posted by lshadylady
There is clearly a difference, in context, between "rights" and "responsibilities" in the American lexicon. We all seem to have rights, but nobody seems to have any responsibilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Elliot
I agree that responsibility is a neglected concept in our society.
But I DO think that while the Bible does not say anything about rights, that they are IMPLIED.
An example is "Thou shalt not kill." While nothing is said about the victim's rights in the matter, it is unlawful to violate that victim's (implied) right to life.
The enforcement from God's side is placed on the perpetrator by imposing responsibility.
That is reinforced by the command to treat others as you want to be treated.
My mind assumes that the "others" have rights that I must respect.
This is something that I believe in and so does a great deal of humanity since it's a tenet of social living, but it isn't solely a Christian command by a long shot:Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
Versions of the Golden Rule in 21 world religions
Of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
But most of the non- Christian versions are like this. "Don't treat others in a way you don't want to be treated".
That may seem like a minor difference, but the Christian command tells us to do something POSITIVE, while the others tell us not to do something NEGATIVE.
You do see the difference, don't you?
Logically they are the same. But I like the non-christian ones better, for instance if a christian was an alcoholic then he would have no problem leading one into alcoholism.
NK, that makes as much sense as a screen door on a submarine.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
To ET Wolf
I am going by how I believe, not quoting from the Bible, Koran, any literary giants etc. Independent of all that, I take responsibility for my own actions and therefore hold myself accountable to try very hard to respect others "rights". That means to "Cause no Harm", Do not hurt another person physically and as far as possible not hurt anyone mentally either. There I said no quotes and used a generally accepted one, I guess by the Good Greenwitch. As far as God is concerned, I respect peoples right to believe or disbelieve. That is their right. I believe there is more than one God. The God almighty and many lesser Gods of mother nature. That is my right. I have a right not to be harmed by other humans of malcontent. I have a right to seek happiness. I have lots of rights but to balance that, I have responsibilities. It does not need to be a Bible quote to make it right or wrong . Maybe rights and responsibilities got mixed up in the translation. Have you read the new bible chapters? I haven't,
One more thing, men and women have a responsibility to abstain to avoid pregnancy. It takes two.+
You haven't convinced me that we have no rights or responsibility. SS
ISH,Quote:
Originally Posted by lshadylady
I think you are misunderstanding what I have said. I haven't said that we have no rights. I am saying that we have BOTH rights and responsibilities, but the majority of our citizens forget the responsibility part and concentrate ONLY on the rights. They claim that these rights are divine, as in coming directly from G-d. However, while rights are not specifically listed in G-d's written works, the responsibilities ARE listed there, and should coinsequently be even MORE important than the rights. Yet the responsibilities are the first thing ignored.
Do you understand my point now? I am not arguing that there are no rights or that they don't come from G-d. I am simply pointing out that there are responsibilities as well.
OK now I understand. I guess it is obvious what I thought you meant. We are in agreement,Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Totally on that one.
Except for the pregnancy and sex and I guess you meant both should abstain if they really want to be sure of no babies. It has been the woman's responsibility for making babies for too long. A man's world as they say and it is good to see them step up to the plate and share the burden as it should be.
I am glad we agree. SS
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:12 PM. |