[ETWolverine]

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 defintion. 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.

You bring up an interesting point here.

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

[ETWolverine]

Sure, go ahead. See you in court.

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.

[NeedKarma]

Well in Canada we have laws concerning assault, perhaps you don't.

[tomder55]

My best guess then is that in Canada the government is the grantor of rights.

[NeedKarma]

Yea, we try to keep religion out of politics.

[tomder55]

What the government giveth the government can taketh away.

[NeedKarma]

I guess so. We don't seem to worried. People like us are in a government, it would affect them to.

[ETWolverine]

Well in Canada we have laws concerning assault, perhaps you don't.

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.

[NeedKarma]

Ok.

[lshadylady]

[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.

[lshadylady]

I think, in this context, rights and responsibilities are interchangeable in meaning.

[ETWolverine]

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:

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.

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.

Elliot

[galveston]

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.

[NeedKarma]

That is reinforced by the command to treat others as you want to be treated.

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:

Versions of the Golden Rule in 21 world religions

[galveston]

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:

Versions of the Golden Rule in 21 world religions

Of course.

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?

[NeedKarma]

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.

[galveston]

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.:D

[lshadylady]

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

[ETWolverine]

To ET Wolf
I am going by how I believe, not quoting from the Bible, Koran, any literary giants etc. Independant 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 their 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,

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.

[lshadylady]

ISH,

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,
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