It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

EPIC FAIL!!! The Left tries to connect Private Property Rights and Climate Change

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
reply to post by mastahunta
 


Well first off, businesses have every right to own land as any person does. Sure there are different laws for them and yes, most businesses adhere to environmental laws.

Second, Businesses here in the US cannot produce its own energy because the far left environmentalists want to control our environment.


I am not sure how that works, that sounds a tad goofy.



Then they tax our energy to death and tell us we shouldn't be fighting wars in the Middle East for oil.


Private forces set the market prices, not the government. But then you are saying we should also
have to pay for the wars and the inflated price at the pump too???





You know what? You can't have it both ways. Either let us drill for oil here, or let us have wars that kill millions of people. I'd choose the oil here!

Yeah, that's right I said it. Drill Baby Drill. I don't see why that's such a bad evil phrase now.


What makes you think that oil cultivated here will lower prices? Where's you evidence? It would
be much more profitable to ship that oil across to Europe.

Does someone have a magical wand I don't know about?




posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta
No, that is hardly the whole of my argument, it is just a tiny portion of what I observe. But we can
examine industries from oil, nuclear, chemical to paper processing and see that containing costs and waste
are very costly to the bottom line and not good for profit.


Fair enough and I admit that by not narrowing my argument against you I have painted your whole of an argument in a much larger light than what was needed. I am however seeing that you have yourself narrowed it to the energy producing sector industries such as coal, oil, and nuclear. But I contend if we are going to look into the microcosm of the market, we need to include all of that type of industry such as wind, hydro, geothermic and solar; not just the industries you want to paint in a particular light.

**Please note that I did see that you expanded a bit with the "chemical and paper-processing" inclusion, but the entirety of your reply to me focused upon the energy sector.



OK, lets talk about the generation of nuclear energy... Tell me, who pays for the disease caused by the radiological discharge? Explain how the process of generating nuclear energy has changed. Or how the
lack of change has impeded the capital investment in the industry. The radiological event in Japan has
done nothing to dent futures in the industry.


Nuclear waste is of particular concern and such material, under sound and just regulation is not out of question nor do I contest the need for local and State regulation of such waste. The creation of nuclear energy and its byproduct (if we exclude the spent nuclear rods*), is the cleanest form of viable large scale energy production.

*I placed this star here because of the lull, due to US regulation strictness and cost-restrictive policies, newer nuclear plants that have more efficient and safety centered designs are overly cost prohibitive. Though fuel costs play into this with the price of uranium.

Though here we should include the other forms of energy production that the "movers and shakers" have deemed "green" or "environmentally sound" and thus, acceptable.

Hydro -- typically damning up a river, thus inhibiting the natural flow of water and possible life that resides with said river. Not to mention what the deltas of such rivers look like after we have damned them up multiple times and thus destroying the environment at that point. But hey, its green and safe.

Wind -- Who cares about the birds, bats and unsightly view of windmills of gigantic proportions. Not to mention the insane price to squeeze out a fraction of energy production.


The act of Mining, Drilling, radiological/chemical synthesis is separate from a
companies mission statement, one is a concept, while the other is a process that has naturally
occurring bi products that have nothing to do with management or policy. Can you provide
several examples where cleaning up and properly containing toxic waste is a net profit line
item?


A companies mission statement doesn't explain its processes. But you must be daft if you cannot connect the Exxon's mission statement of producing energy without knowing at least the processes involved. Playing ignorance to one is just silly.

If the byproducts are naturally occurring, why are you worried? I am slightly confused here.


I'm afraid it sounds like you have reverted to siding with private practices, evoking the same bias I was
referring to with my initial remarks. We have come full circle; unless you are saying that oil/nuclear
and petrochemical industries have a great track record of responsibly self regulating their toxic bi product
I am not sure what force will slow pollution, when that pollution is extremely expensive to counteract.


That my friend was satire, utilizing the logic that you have presented. But your over generalization of "pollution" just shows I guess that you don't like anything that man has done, nor the advancements that were borne out of said pollution (good or bad).
edit on 8-1-2012 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


Mr. Monbiot is just spewing more socialism. Man, since POTUS got in office more people have been spewing socialism more than Niagra Falls spills water.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:23 AM
link   
This sounds like Agenda 21 all the way !


(from United Nations site)

Agenda21

Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.

Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests were adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992.

The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was created in December 1992 to ensure effective follow-up of UNCED, to monitor and report on implementation of the agreements at the local, national, regional and international levels. It was agreed that a five year review of Earth Summit progress would be made in 1997 by the United Nations General Assembly meeting in special session.

The full implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Commitments to the Rio principles, were strongly reaffirmed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg, South Africa from 26 August to 4 September 2002.

The United Nations Agenda 21



(from opinion article)

The UN and property rights

To the framers of the U.S. Constitution, property was as sacred as life and liberty. The inalienable right to own -- and control the use of -- private property is perhaps the single most important principle responsible for the growth and prosperity of America. It is a right that is being systematically eroded.

Private ownership of land is not compatible with socialism, communism, or with global governance as described by the United Nations. Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Mao - all took steps to forcefully nationalize the land as an essential first step toward controlling their citizens. The UN, without the use of military force, is attempting to achieve the same result.

The land policy of the United Nations was first officially articulated at the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I), held in Vancouver, May 31 - June 11, 1976. Agenda Item 10 of the Conference Report sets forth the UN's official policy on land. The Preamble says:

"Land...cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable...."

The Preamble is followed by nine pages of specific policy recommendations endorsed by the participating nations, including the United states. Here are some of those recommendations:
...Read the article and "Recommendations"
The UN and property rights

With Collectivism, WHO are the Collectors?

Who gets Rooked?



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:29 AM
link   
Reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


You know, I'm getting really sick and tired of these threads that implicate "the left" in all kinds of ridiculous stories.

Isn't that ignorance? Grouping all people of a political ideology together?

That would be similar to saying that all righties are racist nazis, etc.

Deny ignorance and stop painting entire groups of people as supporters of ridculous theories, etc.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:40 AM
link   
Say I live near a nice wooded area that many enjoy to walk in and take in the beauty of the environment. Surely this is a freedom that should supersede the freedom of private developers to build on that woodland?

I mean you are free to swing your arms around, but as soon as they connect to my face you should lose that freedom.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


The question of incentive is a funny one. The need to survive, and helping others survive in turn is incentive. The only thing wages give incentives for are menial jobs that advancements of technology could easily handle.
"Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality."

That beautiful statue would not go to an official, it would go to a council where the people in your surrounding area would vote upon it. We've seen the thing you're describing before, yes.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Humans are not weeds or animals. We're different due to the conciousness we have. We are more aware of the consequences of our actions etc.

reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


You're implying a capitalistic system is a moral one, which is wrong. The capitalist system is held by exploitation, how is that moral?

reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 


How patronising. This "fairy tale" does not have to be enforced at the end of a gun. State capitalism has to be enforced at the end of a gun, not socialism.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Hawking
 


I hope you were being sarcastic. I am no fan of the democratic party anymore but your statement is a little over the top if you were being serious. Really? Thank God for Fox News and Glenn Beck? Really?



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 





You know, I'm getting really sick and tired of these threads that implicate "the left" in all kinds of ridiculous stories.


you know, i'm pretty sure if some of us from the dreaded "left" posted a similar thread, with similar incendiary rhetoric aimed at the "right" that a mod would come along and enforce the NO POLITICAL TROLLING rule. but I digress.

Anyways, just a quick question for you guys and gals.

Plenty of people have stated here that they have an inalienable right to own property. So you believe you own that property? did you pay off your mortgage? No? then it's the banks home, not yours. did pay your mortage? Think you own it? Just wait until your government decides they need a new freeway on ramp on your front lawn, guess who owns the house now.

i'm just confused. Lets say it's 2025 and all of the land and homes in your city are already owned. What about your "right" to property? Do you see where I'm going with this? I do believe everyone deserves to own a home and a piece of land, but that can't go on forever, what happens when all the land is occupied but we humans continue to breed?

the right to own property is an illusion and is used to make you complacent and it's working. Look at the US as it crumbles around you, then justify why the news is talking about the newest Ipod.

Someone said imagine a spider making it's web above your bed.

That's absurd, that spider didn't have to take out a loan from a bank (that owns your government) putting itself into debt, forcing it to take a job to waste 75% of it's life paying off the loan for it's home.

If the spider is the example, then I can just walk into your home and start living there.

edit on 9-1-2012 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 




Surely this is a freedom that should supersede the freedom of private developers to build on that woodland?


you'd think, but no, unless you have a very very full wallet of course. what's worse is that I feel I have a right to a clean healthy environment, but that corporations right to use hydrolic fracking superseeds my right, and poisons the surrounding water table, destroying the environment.

but hey, that's CAPITALISM!



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Tea4One
 





Humans are not weeds or animals. We're different due to the conciousness we have. We are more aware of the consequences of our actions etc.


All law is simple, true, universal, and absolute. It matters not if you are human, some other form of mammal or animal, vegetation, insect, virus or bacteria, if it is law it applies to all. Unalienable rights fall within law and all creatures great and small have the right to life, liberty, and property.

Just because there are humans, such as yourself, who place their whimsical and arbitrary belief system above law, this does not vindicate you, it exposes you.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Say I live near a nice wooded area that many enjoy to walk in and take in the beauty of the environment. Surely this is a freedom that should supersede the freedom of private developers to build on that woodland?

I mean you are free to swing your arms around, but as soon as they connect to my face you should lose that freedom.


One freedom cannot "supersede" another freedom. This is not how freedom works. There is nothing wrong with setting land aside to function as public property or places. Indeed, any private ownership can be and has been donated to the public for that express purpose.

I live in Los Angeles, California, home to, among other things, one of the largest urban parks in North America. Griffith Park was originally land owned by one Colonel Griffith J Griffith who not only donated a large part of the land to be used as a public park but the money necessary to build its now famous observatory seen in movies such as Rebel Without a Cause.

Here is the interesting thing about this undeniably PUBLIC park created with the sole and express intention that you speak to; recently, due to this double dip recession and Los Angeles' own very imprudent economic policies, the homeless population keeps rising. Los Angeles also has one of the largest homeless populations in North America. Many homeless have turned to Griffith Park for refuge to sleep, but the Los Angeles Police Department (probably the largest criminal gangs in North America) has taken it upon themselves to deny and disparage these people their fundamental right to sleep, claiming they are in violation of an "illegal camping ordinance". So, while you and others pooh pooh and caw caw about the crime of private property ownership consider what is happening to the downtrodden and unfortunate in just one city in public park.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 



All law is simple, true, universal, and absolute. It matters not if you are human, some other form of mammal or animal, vegetation, insect, virus or bacteria, if it is law it applies to all. Unalienable rights fall within law and all creatures great and small have the right to life, liberty, and property.

Just because there are humans, such as yourself, who place their whimsical and arbitrary belief system above law, this does not vindicate you, it exposes you.


You just presupposed the existence of this "law".
I'm sure the protozoa appreciate their "unalienable rights" to private property.

This whole classical liberal idea of unalienable rights was derived from Natural Law Theory, which in turn had it basis in religion, to specific, Christianity. It's a silly anthropocentric concept which puts humans at the top of a hierarchy in nature.
Look at the religious connotations in the language used - "true, universal, and absolute".

Private Property is, of course, enforced by the State which is controlled by the Ruling Class. The transition from feudalism to capitalism required the State to pass laws that appropriated the commons, thereby allowing it to be privatized.

Humans have spent a great deal of their history without the existence of private property (primitive communism).
edit on 9-1-2012 by lrak2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
reply to post by Tea4One
 


And that would erase everything that Freedom stands for. This is dangerous thinking and takes away individual rights. It's basically slavery.


With freedom comes responsibility



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by lrak2
 





You just presupposed the existence of this "law". I'm sure the protozoa appreciate their "unalienable rights" to private property.


No I didn't, it is self evident, and you are just reifying. It is also interesting that you chose a parasitic entity to speak to the right to private property. While it is fairly presumed that there are no protozoa versed in Smithonian or Marxist ideology, the protozoa act much more Marxist than they do Smithonian. The protozoa, however, do have a right to life, liberty, and property just as any living entity does.

Trees do not require a Congress of trees in order to derive the right to spread their roots where they stand. Bushes do not require a decree from a king in order to derive their right to spread their roots where they stand, and the humming bird does not need permission from the state in order to build a nest on any tree. The longer trees are left to their own devices the much harder it becomes to uproot them because those trees have done what is necessary to defend their property. Bushes have their own methods of defense, and the humming bird, much like the eagle will defend their nests. This is self evidently so, not anything I presupposed.




This whole classical liberal idea of unalienable rights was derived from Natural Law Theory, which in turn had it basis in religion, to specific, Christianity. It's a silly anthropocentric concept which puts humans at the top of a hierarchy in nature.


Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics all spoke to natural law, none of them being "Christian". Cicero also spoke to natural law and he was not "Christian" either. Your profoundly gross misrepresentation of natural law (lex naturalis) is quite simply any system of law determined by nature, which quite obviously includes gravity, bodies in motion, and the speed of light, or perhaps you think those laws are Christian beliefs too. The anthropocentricism is yours alone and of course, "positive law" which is the stark contrast to natural law is undeniably anthropocentric.




Look at the religious connotations in the language used - "true, universal, and absolute".


Uh-huh. I suppose the links below are all "religious" in their nature then:

Scientific Laws, Theories, and Hypothesis

Scientific Laws, Hypothesis, and Theories (A different scientific website)

Yet another site dedicated to science titled: Theories, Laws, and Hypothesis

Gee, all this "religious language" coming from the religion of scientism.

Don't let your karma run over your dogma, sport.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kafternin
The recent earthquake in Ohio was tied to fracking, a very WELL KNOWN problem because it is done on private property and then pollutes surrounding property, was done on private property.
Who is being successfully sued for the repercussions of fracking?

I know it is climate change but thanks to fracking on private land, our water catches on fire up here.
edit on 8-1-2012 by Kafternin because: (no reason given)


^Quoted for truth.

As we have only one home, why is anyone on the Right against taking proper care of it? Please don't give me the old diatribe that it will make others rich. Uhm, that is excrement because by not doing anything you're only making someone rich and allowing them to run rough shod over the only home we have while making them rich.

Is it that you don't want anyone rich? Then join OWS and shatter the Corporations.

Do you even know? Is it just a Pavlov type reaction?

I'm pretty sure you don't defecate in your bed or urinate in your water and then use those things, why are you so against making sure we are good stewards of the only home we have?

It isn't a left/right political sorta thing, it livelihood of our planet sort of thing.

I bet few know this name, Rachel Carson, but look up her contribution to the world. Even before her book, Silent Spring, was out and available to be read, TPTB were ripping her and her book to shreds. Turns out that her detractors were dead wrong and she was right. When it comes to matters of the Environment an ounce of prevention is worth tons of cure as it is VERY HARD to right it once it is out of balance.

The only right there should be in the conversation is how it is right to preserve our home and WRONG to do nothing in the name of profits for the few.

It is really that easy if you open your eyes, ears and your mind.

Derek



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 





No I didn't, it is self evident, and you are just reifying. It is also interesting that you chose a parasitic entity to speak to the right to private property. While it is fairly presumed that there are no protozoa versed in Smithonian or Marxist ideology, the protozoa act much more Marxist than they do Smithonian. The protozoa, however, do have a right to life, liberty, and property just as any living entity does.


How exactly is it self-evident?
Well, many but not all protozoa are parasitic.
Smithonian? Perhaps you mean Smithian?
Liberty is a vague human concept – how can that be applied to protozoa? Also, how exactly do protozoa utilize land and capital (since they have a right to property)?





Trees do not require a Congress of trees in order to derive the right to spread their roots where they stand. Bushes do not require a decree from a king in order to derive their right to spread their roots where they stand, and the humming bird does not need permission from the state in order to build a nest on any tree. The longer trees are left to their own devices the much harder it becomes to uproot them because those trees have done what is necessary to defend their property. Bushes have their own methods of defense, and the humming bird, much like the eagle will defend their nests. This is self evidently so, not anything I presupposed.


You keep using the words “their right”. Trees and bushes grow, spread their roots. Yes, but why use such language of “Rights” to describe this?




Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics all spoke to natural law, none of them being "Christian". Cicero also spoke to natural law and he was not "Christian" either. Your profoundly gross misrepresentation of natural law (lex naturalis) is quite simply any system of law determined by nature, which quite obviously includes gravity, bodies in motion, and the speed of light, or perhaps you think those laws are Christian beliefs too. The anthropocentricism is yours alone and of course, "positive law" which is the stark contrast to natural law is undeniably anthropocentric.


Aristotle’s Natural Law, in particular, was extremely anthropocentric.

I did not misinterpret it. I clearly mentioned that Classical Liberalism (Locke especially) was influenced by Natural Law derived from Christianity.
I noted this fact because the OP argues from a conservative viewpoint – the Declaration of Independence does state that “unalienable Rights” are granted by the “Creator”.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by lrak2
 





How exactly is it self-evident? Well, many but not all protozoa are parasitic. Smithonian? Perhaps you mean Smithian? Liberty is a vague human concept – how can that be applied to protozoa? Also, how exactly do protozoa utilize land and capital (since they have a right to property)?


If you want to see the self evident sky, you're going to have to crawl out of that cave your hiding in, sport. You cannot reduce the world to fit into your limited Marxist's views. The Marxist must necessarily declare "liberty is a vague concept" otherwise the tenets of communism are self evidently undone.

Property, outside your limited Marxist view, extends to more than just land and "capital". It is not the Capitalist who declares human resources "capital", it is the Marxist who makes this qualification and diminished view of any individuals productive contribution to humanity. The Marxist will take that contribution and reduce it to "labor" cementing that effort as nothing more than the effect of market forces.

Freedom and unalienable rights can have no credence under Marxist dogma. From a Constitutional of the United States of America perspective, Marxism is quite simply unconstitutional. It is so because it boldly and blatantly rejects the rule of law. In order to reduce the effort of any individual to nothing more than "labor", or "capital", the Marxist must be willing to deny the very existence of rights.

You some how hope to convince others that your vague perceptions of the world is how everyone should perceive the world, but you can only rely upon empty rhetoric. All you have to offer is that you think truth is too vague to be self evident ergo facts have no meaning. You seem to think that you can rely on misdirection to pull a rabbit out of your hat and that everyone will believe freedom is more mystical than actual. So, you point to protozoa, apparently in the belief this some how refutes the assertion of universal characteristics of law and that rights are law. You are indoctrinated deeply enough in your dogma that you are convinced that protozoa do not have property rights, yet protozoa the world over ignore your smug assertions and go about their business.

Perhaps you should sponsor legislation regulating protozoa too.

There is no evidence - whatsoever - to support your implications that protozoa do not have property rights. It is self evident that protozoa act contrarily to any view that property cannot be owned. Protozoa are predators, and in the end often become the prey themselves, but before this, they are world class predators who keep in check, among other threats, microfungi. Their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of property is their business not yours...unless of course, you wish to utilize our predatory nature and exploit protozoa for profit or gain by using the strengths of protozoa to supply a market demand.

If the protozoa can effectively respond to your predatory needs then there is a natural agreement between predator and prey. Arguably, if you were to use protozoa to supply market demands, you are relying on the predatory strengths of protozoa, which suggests that protozoa benefits from this agreement between two predators to supply market demands. If microfungi is a problem in some area and protozoa is a natural predator that keeps microfungi in check and you have figured out how to effectively use protozoa to respond to an area infected with microfungi and for this protozoa benefits, why shouldn't you too?

If the protozoa are not in agreement with this attempt to use them as a supply to market needs, then it is very unlikely you will be able to profit from protozoa. This may not be how you would like the world to work, but this is the way the world actually works. Domestication is an agreement that is made. Not all creatures will agree to domestication. Lions, tigers and bears generally do not agree to domestication, this is self evident. Cattle, horses and certain dogs generally do agree to domestication. Wolves and coyotes, for whatever reasons, generally do not agree to domestication. Agreement is necessary for domestication to work.

Humans, as individuals, do not have to agree to domestication. Humans have the right, just as any creature does, to life, liberty and the pursuit of property. Just as protozoa self evidently do, humans do pursue property and rightfully view their own person as their property and rightfully view their productive efforts as their property and if that effort includes utilizing land so that it benefits the individual or more then that real estate rightfully belongs to that individual who accomplished this. There is enough land on this planet for every individual, even at 7 billion, to own their own property, and the universe if plentiful, not a single pie with limited slices.




edit on 10-1-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllInMyHead
reply to post by Hawking
 


I hope you were being sarcastic. I am no fan of the democratic party anymore but your statement is a little over the top if you were being serious. Really? Thank God for Fox News and Glenn Beck? Really?



Lol yes I was being very sarcastic. The frightening thing is there are people who have thought the same thing sincerely...



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by lrak2
 





You keep using the words “their right”. Trees and bushes grow, spread their roots. Yes, but why use such language of “Rights” to describe this?


Because it is self evidently so! Indeed, humanity has evolved so much in their understanding of what is self evident that most individuals understand the necessity of tree and bushes to the survival of humanity. We do not challenge any tree or bushes right to grow we accept it and respect it. At times, there will be property disputes between trees and people, and anyone who has had to pay too much in plumbing bills only to realize the problem is the roots of the tree out back have destroyed the plumbing pipes, knows what is meant by property dispute.

Most importantly I do so to illustrate the simple, true and absolutely universal nature of the right to property.




I noted this fact because the OP argues from a conservative viewpoint – the Declaration of Independence does state that “unalienable Rights” are granted by the “Creator”.


Jefferson's letter is to the King of England, who declared his authority based upon Divine Right doctrine. When Jefferson uses the word "Creator" he is fully aware of the legal challenge he is making to the Divine Right doctrine and is making it clear that it is self evident that all People have certain unalienable rights. By declaring grant of unalienable rights as belonging in the realm of "Creator", Jefferson is insisting that no human has any lawful authority to deny and/or disparage unalienable rights. Jefferson asserted, in far less language than I am using now, that no human has the lawful authority to grant unalienable rights, People just have them.

Christianity is irrelevant to this discussion and is just more of your bad smoke and mirrors misdirection. Rights preexist Christianity. Isaac Newton was a God fearing Christian but his Christianity is wholly inappropriate when discussing Newtonian physics. It is wholly inappropriate to use Christianity to dismiss arguments of natural law. It is a fallacious argument and does nothing to further your case.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join