Sorry Paul Ryan, No one get's their rights from god.

"Our Rights come from Nature and God, not the government!" Paul Ryan shouted at the RNC. I hear and read this often and it certainly seems to be embraced as an idea here on ATS. It is just FACTUALLY not true.

For one thing, no one in this country anywhere has unlimited rights. No one has the right to randomly kill people or steal. No one has the right to do all kinds of evil things. Of course not, your god is a good guy afterall so he only wants to give good rights. But our rights are actually VERY limited in detail and scope. My right to sell alcohol exists but only on certain days and during certain hours. My right to bear arms is different from say the right to bear arms of those residing in NYC.

You have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you own land and want to build an addition onto your house...well your right to do that is limited in some way. Hell, your right to grow what you like on your land is even limited.

Your right to life can be taken away by any idiot with the will, weapon, luck, timing, or some combo of those.

So where does God come into any of those rights? Not only are they mostly made up by men outside the scope of any word we have from any god but they are enforced by men and we let them.

So I guess I am asking
If your god gives you these rights but they can still be taken away by humans, what good is your god or the rights you believe he gives you?

You are born sovereign. If you commit a crime, then you are held accountable for your actions. Its pretty simple. They like to convolute laws and what not, but basically you can do what you want if you don't commit a crime.

reply to post by Endorra

No one has the right to do all kinds of evil things

Well, it seems that some people do have the right to do all kinds of evil things.
I don't think the hypothetical God has much to do with it, actually. It's more about disenfranchising as many people as possible, and calling it "simple economics".

s/f

sigh

EDIT: But, here was your question:

If your god gives you these rights but they can still be taken away by humans, what good is your god or the rights you believe he gives you?

God doesn't give "rights", humans do....what good is their god? or the rights he's believed to give? ...........very good Qs

I had to turn the channel after 10 minutes.

I was literally getting sick to my stomach when he would refer to the founders, liberties, getting the government out of our lives American standing for liberty peace and freedom. All I could think about was all the CIA and mitsry coups our government has been involved in over the past 60 years, where they directly or indirectly overthrew democracies and helped prop up puppet dictators. All I could think about was the NDAA, the drones in our skies, TSA violating us because we want to travel, I thought about the BS story they have given us about 9/11.

What bothered me the most were the applauses the crowd have him and the standing Os he received, reminding me just how many people are still believing the BS lies.

The greatest gift, from our Creator, is the right to choose... Free will. We can proceed forward, back, left, right, and choose darkness, or light.

reply to post by Endorra


I feel you already know as truth what I say below as I feel it is obvious. It seems more to me that maybe you are simply blowing off steam with your post. Anyhow, just in case I am wrong about that or for others who might read this, I'd like to give you my point of view on the topic.

I feel that some people have a disconnect between "rights" and what a government allows one to do. Rights come from our humanity, governments can make laws that violate those rights but they cannot make one obey those laws, therefore those rights still exist regardless of the law.

Think about it this way, we have the right of freedom of speech. The government could make a law saying that nobody is ever allowed to say a certain word again, but they cannot make it impossible to actually say the particular word, only create consequences for doing so.

The consequences for exercising a particular right do not cancel out that right. People say their rights come from god if they believe in god, I prefer to say that my rights come from the nature of my humanity.

I have the right to freedom of thought because I have freedom of thought regardless of any man made consequences. I was born with the ability to think, therefore I have a right to think as I please. Nothing a government can do can change that, they can only make it harder/dangerous/etc... I was born with these rights and I will die with these rights. What the government decides is acceptable in the meantime means little to the rights I have. Though I agree, it would appear on the surface that the government can take these rights away though honestly, they can't. they can only make life uncomfortable for doing things they decide against.

I would have these rights with or without a government. Hope that makes sense.

For one thing, no one in this country anywhere has unlimited rights. No one has the right to randomly kill people or steal.

A person has unlimited rights up and until the point that their rights violate the rights of another. That is the civilized way to live. Though, in a uncivilized way, we certainly do have the right to do both even if it is universally understood as wrong. I mean this in the way that we physically have the ability to do both, obviously despite laws, morals, etc...

The government can't stop anybody from doing what they want, they can only provide consequences. Governments can only make it harder to exercise these rights, they can not give or take any rights away, don't fall for the illusion.

Want proof? Go violate a law and see if you are capable of doing so. I assure you that you are, though you may find that in the process the government makes life hard for you for exercising that right. Their is no magical force stopping anyone from exercising any right they choose, that goes for enumerated rights or any other.

That all being said, I think Paul Ryan is a tool. Paul Ryan has no problem endorsing the government violating the rights of others when it serves his agenda.

reply to post by Endorra


In the absence of government, you would still have rights, so government isn't required at all. And were talking about basic rights, not homeowners association rules. We can tell you don't like the God thing, so just put that aside for now. The word is "Creator". The word God is only Mr. Ryans interpretation of his 'creator', which is the actual word used in the constitution. Even you have a creator.
If you believe it was you mother and father, then your rights were given to you by them. Is that simple enough?
Mr Ryan believes it was God, he has that right. Don't make fun of stuff you can't understand.

The basic idea is, the "founders" decided they didn't like the King giving out the rights. So to make sure the government was not in charge of your rights, they wrote it into the constitution. What the downside to that? Without the founders you would probably be British.

And what's the downside of a smaller, leaner government that stays out of your business? Your post seems very trollish.

Originally posted by Q33323
The greatest gift, from our Creator, is the right to choose... Free will. We can proceed forward, back, left, right, and choose darkness, or light.

Sucks for those atheists with no rights. Damn.

Originally posted by Endorra

Originally posted by Q33323
The greatest gift, from our Creator, is the right to choose... Free will. We can proceed forward, back, left, right, and choose darkness, or light.

Sucks for those atheists with no rights. Damn.

In the OP post, I believe the quote said "...from Nature, and God..." So rather than taking the blue pill and going with Nature (which was obviously included in the speech to avoid this very discussion), you latch onto the God reference to cry about how much smarter you are than those stupid jesus freaks.

Get the hell off your pity pot already. Live your life, believe what you want, quit whining about everyone else! Can't you see you are doing EXACTLY what you are complaining about? Proselytizing your beliefs but bashing the opposition!

As to the content of the quote, the (well understood) idea of inalienable rights aren't about knit-picking liquor licensing or the potential to get murdered. It's about the idea that men should be free to live life in peaceably, to pursue whatever goals and careers they desire. To reap the rewards of their choices, for good or bad.

Originally posted by calnorak
You are born sovereign. If you commit a crime, then you are held accountable for your actions. Its pretty simple. They like to convolute laws and what not, but basically you can do what you want if you don't commit a crime.

Sorry but I am not following what you are trying to offer in regards to the topic here. I do not want to just ignore and blow off your post but I have to admit I do not understand how it applies here.

Originally posted by blamethegreys
In the OP post, I believe the quote said "...from Nature, and God..." So rather than taking the blue pill and going with Nature (which was obviously included in the speech to avoid this very discussion), you latch onto the God reference to cry about how much smarter you are than those stupid jesus freaks.

Take my OP and replace god with nature every single time and then reply.
See if you can stuff your attitude while you do it.
I did not realize that I had to write my post for the intelligent impaired. I am the one that quoted him. If your nature is more powerful than someone else' god, then great. Bring it. Just being impudent because you are angry that you feel I took a shot at your imaginary friend is not forwarding the discussion.

reply to post by wildtimes


Thank you for seeing it as interesting questions.
I am certainly open to any opposing argument anyone else has to offer. Even if just a thought experiment.

Our Founding Fathers' Declaration of Independence

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.

en.wikipedia.org...

I see however that you agree with Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin and POTUS that we get our rights from the Supreme State or maybe from the Humanist Manifesto.

reply to post by Endorra

intelligent impaired

My personal opinion is that "intellectually impaired" would have been more grammatically accurate, or even "intelligence impaired". Just a thought.

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by Endorra

 

I feel you already know as truth what I say below as I feel it is obvious. It seems more to me that maybe you are simply blowing off steam with your post. Anyhow, just in case I am wrong about that or for others who might read this, I'd like to give you my point of view on the topic.

I guess that depends on your opinion of what qualifies as blowing off steam. I suppose I could have made this point at any other time and place but it has been a growing theme and then there it was on the national stage being pushed forth as both a truth and a reason apparently to vote for a particular individual over another.

I feel that some people have a disconnect between "rights" and what a government allows one to do. Rights come from our humanity, governments can make laws that violate those rights but they cannot make one obey those laws, therefore those rights still exist regardless of the law.

What good is my right to eat when I hungry if I get arrested whenever I steal food? Humanity gives me sexual urges at what may be inappropriate times and places. This does not always include a partner that is aware of my urges or even existence. Are you telling me I have a right to act on those urges anyway? Even if I get arrested for it, it is still a right?

What rights are these?

Think about it this way, we have the right of freedom of speech. The government could make a law saying that nobody is ever allowed to say a certain word again, but they cannot make it impossible to actually say the particular word, only create consequences for doing so.

That has nothing to do with free speech. Free speech specifically applies to government intervention.
So are you telling me that mutes have fewer rights than you?
But ok. Because of god or nature or because you are human, you have the right to say words. OK, I am listening. That is pretty solid.
But again, what good is that right if you get punished for exercising it?

The consequences for exercising a particular right do not cancel out that right. People say their rights come from god if they believe in god, I prefer to say that my rights come from the nature of my humanity.

Do you have the right to kill people?
Are you rights limited in any way?

I have the right to freedom of thought because I have freedom of thought regardless of any man made consequences. I was born with the ability to think, therefore I have a right to think as I please. Nothing a government can do can change that, they can only make it harder/dangerous/etc... I was born with these rights and I will die with these rights. What the government decides is acceptable in the meantime means little to the rights I have. Though I agree, it would appear on the surface that the government can take these rights away though honestly, they can't. they can only make life uncomfortable for doing things they decide against.

At least you have your thoughts. At least you have your thoughts. At least you have your thoughts. You kind of sound like someone who has spent a lot of time with very few rights.

I would have these rights with or without a government. Hope that makes sense.

To say words and to think things. Got you so far.

A person has unlimited rights up and until the point that their rights violate the rights of another.

That is actually pretty damn limited in the world we live in today, you know?

That is the civilized way to live. Though, in a uncivilized way, we certainly do have the right to do both even if it is universally understood as wrong. I mean this in the way that we physically have the ability to do both, obviously despite laws, morals, etc...

Even in an uncivilized world someone can deny you the right to kill. It does not take society to keep you from being the king of assassins. Men can still imprison you. So all your rights, other than your ability to express a word and have a thought.

So what good is that humanity that gives you those rights that can all be so easily taken away from you by any asshat on the street?

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
The government can't stop anybody from doing what they want, they can only provide consequences. Governments can only make it harder to exercise these rights, they can not give or take any rights away, don't fall for the illusion.

Sure they can. They can take all kinds of rights away. Just ask anyone in a prison. Ask anyone who died at the other end of a US soldiers gun. Ask Pat Tilman or Bradly Manning. The US government takes rights away all the time.

Want proof? Go violate a law and see if you are capable of doing so. I assure you that you are, though you may find that in the process the government makes life hard for you for exercising that right. Their is no magical force stopping anyone from exercising any right they choose, that goes for enumerated rights or any other.

You do realize that people in prison have very few rights? Right? Please tell me we are both of an understanding here.

That all being said, I think Paul Ryan is a tool. Paul Ryan has no problem endorsing the government violating the rights of others when it serves his agenda.

edit on 30-8-2012 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Endorra

 

intelligent impaired

My personal opinion is that "intellectually impaired" would have been more grammatically accurate, or even "intelligence impaired". Just a thought.

edit on 31-8-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Wow you sure got me on my grammar.
AWESOME JOB!!!!!!

reply to post by Endorra


Our Founding Fathers never suggested we have "unlimited rights", but "certain unalienable rights".

Originally posted by Endorra

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Endorra

 

intelligent impaired

My personal opinion is that "intellectually impaired" would have been more grammatically accurate, or even "intelligence impaired". Just a thought.

edit on 31-8-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Wow you sure got me on my grammar.
AWESOME JOB!!!!!!

I just felt that my version was more grammatically eloquent. We do live in a diverse world, however.

Originally posted by Endorra
So I guess I am asking
If your god gives you these rights but they can still be taken away by humans, what good is your god or the rights you believe he gives you?

Implying that those people were not working as an extension of god's will; that it all is in fact free will, rather than predetermined; that's another debate however.


You're missing the point of what he's saying by focusing on the word god. He's saying that the government doesn't grant us the rights outlined in the constitution but that we always have them, that we're born with them. (not that anyone in the federal government actually stands by this notion anymore)