Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Stop Using God Given Rights -- Use Unalienable Rights!

page: 1
22
<<   2 >>

log in

join
+2 more 
posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 09:00 PM
link   
So this is copy/pasted from the following thread.

I'm reposting this as a new thread, because I think it's amazing that we haven't caught on to this particular piece of knowledge. Only recently was this shown to me.

 


I wish people realized the only reason that God is in ANY kind of lawful document is that it was the ONLY way to keep monarchs from deciding they could take your rights.

Here's how that worked for hiearchy.

1.God
2. Church
3. Monarchs
4. Nobles
5. Peasents

The only way to convince the 4 above the 5th that they weren't entitled to controlling people, was to all agree that the rights provided by those legal documents were give, by the HIGHEST AUTHORITY KNOWN TO MAN ( at the time), which was God.

So that's why it's written that way.

We of course know that we ourselves, are the highest authority and that a magical man in the sky didn't give me the right to not be imprisoned at somebody else's whim, we decided that, as humans.
 


With the above being said, the proper term in today's 21st century world is UNALIENABLE. Because at this point, the argument could be made that God doesn't' exist. And if he doesn't, then on whose authority do you have those rights?

Nobody, that's who.

As society changes, we must change the language we use to describe our current circumstances. Back then we had God, because everybody believed in it and what it stood for. Today all we have is ourselves, because of a variety of reasons.

If you'd like to keep your rights, and the conversation about rights, away from one that would end up taking them from you, I suggest we start referring to ourselves as our highest authority.

Otherwise, people might 'interpret' your rights as less than their own.

~Tenth




posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Unalienable is a term that matters, and should be used.

It really means everyone, that by our very nature of existing, deserve these bare minimum thing.

but I think that would change the narrative too much, suddenly people may begin to question the nature of some things.

Things like where and how we apply the constitution.

Foreign Policy, etc.

Change it to God, than maybe its okay that a drone strike hits some innocents if they don't happen to believe in the same god.
edit on 22-4-2014 by benrl because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 09:09 PM
link   
If we're going to get that specific, then I suggest that instead of the phrase "inalienable rights", we use the phrase "uncertain privileges".

It's high time we brought this outdated terminology into the 21st century!



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: benrl

That's exactly what I was thinking when it was explained to me.

EVERYBODY.

Not just those who like the same 'God' you do.

~Tenth



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Meh. Use whichever means more to you. If I believe my rights are granted by God, then that's what I'll say. You know what I mean and I know what you mean.

You make the point that we should hold ourselves as the highest power, but that's blasphemy to the billions of religious people in the world.

Also unalienable sounds clunky. Go for inalienable. Same thing.



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 09:19 PM
link   
"Unalienable" is six syllables...

Some people have difficulty using multi-syllable words in their everyday vocabulary.

Lazy speech enunciation. Which is probably why acronyms are so widely used these days.

LOL
(pun intended)



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: CranialSponge


Oooooops
edit on 2220140420141 by Domo1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 09:32 PM
link   
"As society changes, we must change the language we use to describe our current circumstances."

So kind of like the cow becoming holy so the masses of India would stop eating the only tractor they had at the time.



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 09:33 PM
link   
but the document i think you are referring to does say that. the first three sentences in the second paragraph, of the 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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.


many people forget this document when they start talking and it is a very important part of the view the founders had and that they were way ahead of their time.



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 09:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
"Unalienable" is six syllables...

Some people have difficulty using multi-syllable words in their everyday vocabulary.

Lazy speech enunciation. Which is probably why acronyms are so widely used these days.

LOL
(pun intended)


lol

That's what I was thinking. I don't think a lot of people in the country can either spell nor pronounce unalienable correctly. But just about anyone can spell and speak "God Given".



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

That's the ONLY document that has it well written IMO.

~Tenth



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Domo1




It's five syllables.


It's six.

If you enunciate it correctly.

Doesn't matter how Webster's breaks it down. In speech, it's six.

... and I'm talking about speech, as per the overall context of my post, not spelling breakdown.

/end semantics



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: CranialSponge

Aren't you a sly boots! I thought I edited it in time. Thought you used inalienable, but I think the dictionary is wrong about that too.



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower


Here's how that worked for hiearchy. 1.God 2. Church 3. Monarchs 4. Nobles 5. Peasents


The Founders simplified that hierarchy and changed it.

1. God
2. People
3. Government

Btw, the idea of unalienable rights derived from a power higher than any agency of mankind goes back at least as far as back Cicero of Rome who reasoned that there are some things human beings hold that cannot be taken away by other humans, only oppressed.

This is partially why they are referred to as God given, and I like thinking of them that way because if you think of them as sacred and believe that they are, then you are less likely to fall for the idea that government has any right to actually take them from you. Which is the most important part of this discussion.

If you believe that man gives, then man can also take away. And if man can take away, then our unalienable rights are no more special than any of our civil privileges.

I don't believe my right to life, liberty, property, self defense, etc., are things any agency of mankind has any business taking from me. Those things are mine, intrinsic to me. Yes, they are God given for lack of better terminology. Sacred.

And to lose site of that belief is to start thinking maybe government is the highest power with the right to take them or abridge them. Kiss your freedoms good-bye when the majority of people opt for that line of reasoning because they'll vote themselves into the cage and the elite will slam shut the door.



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Domo1

I think we both got "lost in translation".




posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Dang. That was a fantastic argument.



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I agree somewhat, and as Domo said, whatever works best for you. I was trying to show people the actual reasoning behind using the term God.

But it was never meant to imply religion or that the US was a Christian Nation, or anything of the sort.

It was a means to an end.

~Tenth



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 09:47 PM
link   
sandf Tenth
its like putting "in god we trust" on money that's worth just about nothing
not to mention full of occult symbols

eta
so what happens when the word "God" turns out to be just a contraction of the word "Goth"
as is illustrataed by research linked to in my siggy thread?
a term refering to men
edit on Tuepm4b20144America/Chicago14 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Personally I prefer natural rights. As in it's natural for me to breath or defend myself so regardless of who tries to prevent those things there's going to be a fight. Also I see the current numerical list a bit differently:
    1. The .01% elites
    2. Trans national corporations
    3. Sovereign governments
    4. Petty political bureaucrats (national & local)
    4.5 Thug enforcers (local PD, etc.)
    5. Pheasants (or citizens)

Of course natural rights are unalienable, just seems more... natural to call them natural.
edit on 181pm1111pm102014 by Bassago because: typo



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Well, I'm in a bit of a mood. Pardon me. I've been driving in a car that's literally falling apart because we can't get the rest of our down payment together to replace it, and we've been waiting for that money for almost two months.

And every day is another drive where my clutch could just die on me leaving me stranded, but ... that's a rant not for here.






new topics

top topics



 
22
<<   2 >>

log in

join