Stop Using God Given Rights -- Use Unalienable Rights!

page: 2
22
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 11:01 PM
link   
I've never personally met a god or an alien. To quote a great hero and philosophical genius, Popeye the sailor, "I yam what I yam, and that's all what I yam."




posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: skunkape23
hey...wait a minute...

did Olive oil have any kids?
she got her name from being cold pressed extra VIRGIN...maybe Popeye was more then he thought?
church wouldn't be so bad if it was more like the sunday morning cartoons



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower



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.


Stop lying heathen!

I actually agree with your point. I think I somewhat misinterpreted what you were going for. There really isn't anything wrong with using either in my opinion, as long as you believe everyone to posses the same rights regardless of religion or lack thereof.

Someone brought up people of different faiths. That's a huge issue, and I think more in line with what you were saying. It shouldn't be the dominant religion that dictates a persons rights. Saying God given can in some cases (and certainly has been in the past) be used to say "Under my God, your lack of belief means you are not an equal, so I can rape and pillage away" instead of "Everyone is equal in the eyes of God, and since that is true we are all to be treated a certain way".

I suppose it depends on how tolerant your religion is, and your particular sect, and you as a person. So maybe you're right. At the same time I was trying to say that I don't think we should discount people who include everyone when they say God given right, because to them, it's even more of a testament to their desire to see people treated well.

I think Bassago may have the best answer here. Natural rights. People that are religious believe God created what is natural, and people who aren't still believe people are granted natural rights.

Either way it's an interesting thread and I'm actually going to put some more thought into it which is obviously pretty rare.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 06:11 AM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Smart, Tenth. I think this gets right down to the meat of the matter. Are the peasants really smart enough to know that they have power? With God out of the picture, what keeps the Monarchs and Nobles from doing whatever they want?

What about with Citizens United and similar rulings that really do leave people massively powerless? Or the hijacking of religion by the wealthy "Nobles" and rewriting by them to make religion in their image so that they can harass peasants?

Someone would have to write a pretty good philosophical argument involving natural law, more than likely, to get power back to the people. The wealth gap is getting massively ridiculous compared to even the Middle Ages.

Although that is a great idea. I spend a lot of time on these forums trying to wrap my head around that kind of thing.

(I always argue as if God doesn't exist, but is still an important part of policy and a real part of society.)
edit on 23amWed, 23 Apr 2014 06:15:34 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)
edit on 23amWed, 23 Apr 2014 06:16:56 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)
edit on 23amWed, 23 Apr 2014 06:17:41 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 06:31 AM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

If you are familiar with Ron Paul, he will almost always say God given or "naturally occurring" rights.

It was my feeling that he did this to make a point to those that may not believe in "God".

That everyone has rights which supersede any State or government.

1. Rights belong to individuals, not groups; they derive from our nature and can neither be granted nor taken away by government.

edit on 23-4-2014 by gladtobehere because: wording



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Quote from 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 to 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


I don't see God mentioned in those passages, I see Creator. We have unalienable rights endowed by our Creator, whatever that creator is.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 07:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
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.



Just a more advanced version of what this man was trying to achieve :
John Lilburne
Link

I was planning on making a thread about him since he was most likely born in my hometown.

I prefer Freeborn Rights to Unalienable Rights, just slips off the tongue better.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


The Founders simplified that hierarchy and changed it.

1. God
2. People
3. Government - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Not exactly. It was:

1. Reason
2. People
3. Government.

Not all of them agreed that there was a "Creator."



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower


That's fine and dandy and all but a lot of people who do believe in God have zero respect for anyone that doesn't, this includes the framers of the constitution. So who's giving you the authority to keep your rights from being taken by those people, yourselves? That's stupid and pointless.

That's the flaw in your thread you o-agent.
edit on 23-4-2014 by On7a7higher7plane because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: On7a7higher7plane

Most of the founding fathers weren't overtly religious. Read some of their books and you'll see they had not too kind words to say.

IMO it's far better to hold ourselves accountable for our own rights, instead of some imaginary man in the sky.

~Tenth



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower




Most of the founding fathers weren't overtly religious. Read some of their books and you'll see they had not too kind words to say.


For those interested in being intellectually honest and balanced in their views about whether or not the U.S was founded as a Christian nation and the thoughts of the founding fathers on religion, this is a relatively short & painless start. Mind you, just a start.

Was America Founded As a Christian Nation?

For Christians:



By transforming our Forefathers into faithful servants of Christ the Religious Right risks compromising the biblical message. Baptist theologian Al Mohler warns advocates of Christian America have “confused their cultural heritage with biblical Christianity.” While Believers must exercise their views, cheapening what constitutes Christianity for political gain profanes the Gospel.


For Secularists:



The most vocal proponents of Christian America and their counterparts advocating a completely secular state necessarily cherry-pick data to prove exaggerations while discarding inconvenient details


For an example of a truly anti-religious revolution you'll have to look to the French Revolution rather than the American:



Johnson continued, “The American Revolution in its origins, was a religious event, whereas the French Revolution was an anti-religious event



The terms "Christian" & "Deist" are probably too facile to get at the truth of the matter:



Dr. Frazier suggests designations of Deist or Christian are too simple. He describes the primary beliefs of core Founders as “theistic rationalism.” Frazier notes, “They took elements of Christianity and elements of natural religion and then, using rationalism, they kept what they thought was reasonable, was rational, and rejected what they considered to be irrational.”

This hybrid, unlike Deism, per Frazier, developed a benevolent god who heard and answered prayers to impart justice. All thought Jesus a great moral philosopher, but many important Revolutionary leaders denied his De


And as to whether "most" of the Founding Fathers were something other than Christians, I'm not at all sure that holds water:



Yet, Christians were well represented. Patrick Henry was Virginia ’s governor, the largest, most important state when most political authority resided in the states. He was also instrumental behind the Bill of Rights. John Jay became our first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Roger Sherman helped draft the Declaration, led the pivotal compromise at the Constitutional Convention and was the only man to sign all four founding documents. John Hancock, John Witherspoon, Samuel Adams and other Christians played prominently.

Representing the rest as staunch secularists is clearly absurd



And the article highlights one of the pitfalls of trying to assign a belief system to historical figures based on their writings:



All the Forefathers matured through phases where their beliefs changed. John Adams and James Madison both appeared devout as young men, but may have backslid into Unitarianism. Alexander Hamilton reputedly converted to Christ later in life.


Not to mention the fact that, as I pointed out in another thread, there are a large number of quotes attributable to historical figures for which their just isn't any evidence they actually said or wrote them. (Both sides trot them out on a regular basis)

It's an excellent article, one of the more balanced approaches I've seen, and I encourage everyone to read it. It's a corrective to the overstatement, over generalization, and just plain false thinking on both sides of the debate about the founding of this country and it's founding fathers.
















edit on 24-4-2014 by imwilliam because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-4-2014 by imwilliam because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 04:44 PM
link   
I'll use the term that i've always used "Natural birth rights" you have the rights to freedom, liberty, self defence, justice (if someone has wronged you), individual sovereignty (the right to own yourself), etc etc.
still to the OP not a bad usage for terminology.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Your point is moot I made no mention of religion.



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: On7a7higher7plane
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Your point is moot I made no mention of religion.


What are you talking about. Your quote as listed above is:


That's fine and dandy and all but a lot of people who do believe in God have zero respect for anyone that doesn't, this includes the framers of the constitution.


You implied the founding fathers believed in God, ergo religious. Or did I misread?

~Tenth



posted on Apr, 24 2014 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: tothetenthpower

originally posted by: On7a7higher7plane
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Your point is moot I made no mention of religion.


What are you talking about. Your quote as listed above is:


That's fine and dandy and all but a lot of people who do believe in God have zero respect for anyone that doesn't, this includes the framers of the constitution.


You implied the founding fathers believed in God, ergo religious. Or did I misread?

~Tenth


You see me mention religion? I mentioned no religion, not Christianity, not Judiasm.

You think that's fun?



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: tothetenthpower


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.

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

I disagree.
Taking the word God out, changing it to the monarch/oligarchy as the highest authority would not change "that people to interpret your rights as less than their own."
People imagine things and give themselves all sorts of "rights".

That some people go without food, water and shelter, and the fact that people still willfully harm each other is an issue of man's selfishness and ignorance- its not about wording of who has authority over you.
The ideas about what "rights" you think you have will be different person to person .

Some will think they are the highest authority, higher than God .
The word 'inalienable' in place of ' God' will not stop the tyranny of the egoic mind nor will it serve to enforce/protect man's self given inalienable rights.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 06:22 PM
link   
I prefer "In Jah we trust" …

the "god" on the dollar bill is probably not Jah, but satan…

-------------------

A Trip into the Supernatural - Roger Morneau FULL MOVIE 1
youtu.be...



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

very well put.

words may seem petty. like "to-may-toe"-"to-mah-toe". But that isn't the truth of the matter. Because words, when spoken, create visual images, which provides context for processing. This connection is critical in how people think. The more abstract the capability in this regard, the stronger the ability to process information, especially in new/novel ways.

Truly the stuff of genius. And it can be altered by changing the words, or the meanings of the words, used. Its been played to death, but the word "gay" is a good example. The mental imagery related to the word "gay" has certainly changed drastically over the last 100 years.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
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


It is way worse then this. In the sixties MLK and a few more dupes fought for "civil" rights for all. Civil? Why didn't they fight for "natural" rights. Fine, we will assume he was ignorant of the whole human thing, so why didn't he fight for "Constitutional" rights at least? Instead of demanding that all people get to exhibit their Natural Right of Human Freewill, he an so many dogooders demanded all people be seen by "civil law," law made by idiots and nutcases, equally. This effort was to help everyone to give up their "godly" truth of Freewill in favor of being one of those counted by man made law.

A Human is a Freewill being. If you do not understand this, or accept it, it is due to the fact that you have been brainwashed into thinking that a few fat white men "give" you rights through their laws. The truth is that a few fat white men TAKE AWAY your Freewill through their laws by defining your actions as something they control because they have defined them. Millions and Millions of laws are all about subjugating your Freewill in favor of such trivial notions as "civil" rights or "equal protection under the law." A true Human, a Freewill Human, does not need "equal protection" from anything at all - slaves do.

Your Freewill is all you want, the rest is all about helping you construct the prison bars to your cell. .



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Since we failed in the "inalienable" man made rights arena maybe its high time we start using God given right- the right to cross over the ocean of unconsciousness. To recognize the gift life is to enjoy this breath.

Many in the world do not have food, water and shelter why do you seek to increase your man made "rights" instead of helping them with their needs?

This is not the first thread, why is there a movement to remove the word "God"'?
In this case it is so you can say you are the highest authority, the unimaginable power and intelligence that moves the universe is lower than man?





new topics
top topics
 
22
<< 1   >>

log in

join