“You don’t have the right”, it’s a commonly heard phrase containing a commonly heard word. The word ‘right’ gets thrown around in such a haphazard and inconsistent way that it has almost lost all meaning.
Concern for the rights of people has only been on the plate for societies for a very small amount of time throughout history. Most of history has been dominated by rulers giving commands and decrees without regard for it’s effect on others and their rights. What makes the USA so special is that its system was created with inalienable rights. Why are they inalienable? Because they are given by “nature and nature’s God”. The fact that there are God given rights makes it impossible for government or anyone else to remove them. If rights are granted by government or a majority of people then these granted rights can be taken away. Rights coming from God also makes it impossible to add to the list of God given rights.
What has been happening for a long time to the USA is that many people have attributed the status of rights to things that are not God given rights. You are lucky because you have me to help you clarify what is a right and what is not. It is very easy and, with the exception of one case that I know of, the great principle of rights is universally applicable and clear. Here it is: A right is something that you can claim without forcing anyone else to do anything.
Let’s try it out:
Bearing arms – Do you force anyone to do anything by owning a weapon?
No, thus that is a right that you have.
Education – Do you force anyone to do anything by laying claim on a formal education system?
Yes, thus it is not a right. You force people around you to pay for the education, you force the requirement for a teacher in the school to teach you.
Information – Do you force anyone to do anything by finding available information and possibly even publishing it to others? No, thus you have that right.
Life – Do you force anyone to do anything by just living your life? No, (with one huge caveat) Thus you have the right to live and exist. The caveat is that when you are an infant you do require others to be subservient to you. The reason that this works as a right is because of another right that we all have. We have the right to make contracts or agreements with others. When two people come together and act in unity they have the right to put themselves under bondage to the terms of an agreement. Two people creating a child are performing a contract action that will bind them to the consequences of that action.
Abortion – Does killing your unborn baby force anyone to do anything? Yes, it forces the child to die. Thus you do not have that right.
Food – Does a guarantee of having food force anyone to do anything? Yes, it must be grown and distributed by someone. Thus it is not a right.
Marriage – Does marriage force anyone else to do anything? Yes, it takes two to get married and it is a contract action that must be agreed to by both parties. Thus there is no right to get married.
Health care – It should be pretty obvious that no one has a right to health care. Claiming such forces someone to be your doctor and forces someone to pay for the service. Health care is a good and a service, not a right.
Slothfulness – Do you force anyone to do anything by laying at home and wasting away? No, you can sit on your couch til you die. You have that right.
I am very much a person that enjoys freedom and not being forced to do anything. If I am to provide a good or service for others I will do it by contract action. Government granting rights is not something that should happen and it is only made worse by government becoming the provider and facilitator of those rights. The principle of free agency in the realm of rights works every time. Give it a try when someone in the media or government claims something as a right for people.
Leave your comments (seriously come on, leave some comments). What do you think? Do you disagree? Or are you an intelligent person?
I agree Dave. Kristin and I were just talking about this the other day. We came to the same conclusion. If a Government grants rights then they can take them away. That’s why the bill of rights is phrased in a way that says that the Government cannot do certain things to take rights away. The constitution doesn’t grant rights, it put a system in place to protect those that we already have. People confuse “provide”, “Promote” and “Protect” all the time.
Also commodities. Items that do not exist naturally or must be created or are in limited supply, cannot be claimed as a right as they are not available all.
How about the right to indoctrinate your kids into your religion of choice (as opposed to raising them as free-thinkers who get to choose their belief system later on in life)?
Also, you do know that “nature’s God” and “the God of Nature” are rather deistic, right? Not that it changes the point much, but pretending like the Founders and Framers were putting a Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or other “god” into the federal government established after colonial times seems a little bit silly. And though I also venerate The Declaration of Independence, I don’t think that such a document of treason or blasphemy (against the allegedly God-given right of the British Crown to rule over American colonialists) is kind of like the Articles of Faith by Joseph Smith. Excellent for study, but not proof of doctrine or belief (for Mormons re: AoF).
If we did have some invisible supernatural thing that gives us the rights that ever social animal seems to have evolved naturally, does that mean that you would be more comfortable in a theocracy?
*I do think that such a document… (not “don’t”) My bad.
Comment 1: Yes you have the right to send information forth from your mind to the minds of others. (Should we use force to stop people from teaching their children?) Although just as you can choose what to believe, your children have the same right. As long as you do not lock a child up to keep them from accessing different information you are fine. Maybe we should take this Dawkinsian talking point and apply it across the board. We will not teach children about physics or chemistry while they are under our roofs, but let them decide for themselves later if they want to believe it. It goes against good principles for people to not try to teach their children good things in all areas. (P.S. Child taught religious principles vs. free thinker = False dichotomy)
Comment 2: Maybe you missed my views on particular religions in government. http://everydaynormal.com/misattributed-washington/ . Maybe in your study of the Declaration you have found out that regarding “proof of belief” it is considered “self evident” that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”. It is this belief that set Americans free and set a spring board for the most advancement societies have ever seen. Proof in the pudding. Good fruit means good tree. The fact that so much good has come from inalienable rights given by God means it is a good and true principle. The superiority of the American system as it was established proves that the British system that they claimed was from God was a lie.
By disagreeing with humans being endowed (provided) with inalienable rights (irremovable entitlements) by their Creator, one puts one’s self in a position with the Stalins, Maos and Hitlers of the world. Rights that cannot be taken away by man are the opposite view of despots.
Where do rights come from then? Can they be removed? If not, what prevents their removal? If the thing preventing removal is just a societal honor system among humans then excuse me for not trusting it. Humans are flawed and have rights given them by their Creator that cannot be removed by others. Those are two big take-aways from the American system.
The only theocracy I will be comfortable under is under the King of Kings when he returns.
1) Difference between Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc. and religions? Evidence. Objectively observable, falsifiable evidence. Religion starts from a premise and creates the arguments to back it up (e.g. God hid fossils to test our faith! Just believe and you’ll see). Science starts from observation, creates premises, tests them, and then revises those premises based on findings (e.g. Light propagates through aether… Oops, evidence shows that it propagates without any medium. See to believe.) [Since we’re into pointing out fallacies, both my examples were straw men, but I rely on you to extrapolate to real examples.]
I agree that one should teach his or her children right from wrong and how to make decisions and think critically. Ron Reagan is a testimony to the fact that no manner of indoctrination can affect certain folks. I am a witness to the fact that anyone can de-indoctrinate themselves.
2) I suppose you are saying that somehow, religion implies moral rectitude, or perhaps that your God, or some form of god or gods imply fixed morality. For your own faith, take a stroll through the Bible to see how prophets command the wholesale pillaging, rape, and genocide of other cultures. That doesn’t strike most folks as being moral or ethical by any stretch of those terms. The false dichotomy of religion:good, nonbelief:bad needs no other witness than history (regardless of who is in power, abuses happen).
The biggest take away from the American system is that of “We the People,” not “We the Non-believing People”, and most definitely not the McCarthy-istic “We the God-fearing People”. The latter to are blasphemies to the secular nature of the Constitution.
Side note: Since you mention your ideal theocracy, which system of commerce would it use? Would it be Peter’s communalism (i.e. “the United Order”), or would it still follow Capitalism? Or would the deity just make it up on the fly to evolve with time just like every other observable social structure? Maybe even we’d stop calling money “money”, eh?
1) Missed the point entirely. POINT:–> If we can force people to not teach children one thing then why stop there? I made no reference to the scientific evidence of religions. This would therefore be a bad place to say something like, “I myself have never seen a quark but I believe the man who has.” Further into this sidetrack I must point out that, in my theology God has never revealed involved details about the creation or science. I believe D&C 101 when it says that Christ will reveal “hidden things which no man knew” and includes how the earth was made in that list.
Also sidebar:
You say that one should teach children right from wrong. How is there a right and a wrong if there is no God? Whose right and whose wrong. One will say let’s set the standard at sharia and another will fight for Amish, while still another is pulling for Hefner standards. Just as rights are set by the Creator, right and wrong are made known to us as well.
Ron Reagan is a testimony to the fact that common sense is not genetic.
2) Another missed point. POINT:–> I have rights that cannot be taken away because they were given by God. These rights were recognized as coming from God by the founders of our nation. And guess what…among those rights is the right to not believe in God. Exercising that particular God given right can be a bit paradoxical. It also makes it easy for someone to change or remove your rights when the source of them is down at the capitol building. Having God given rights can be a bit rough when you don’t believe in him and by extension do not believe in the very rights that allow you to not believe in him. I’m gonna need a source on this one. Where do your rights come from? Were they invented by man? If so I will be over to your house shortly to step on your neck and take your property. Were they given by God as the founders of the United States believed and wrote? These rights must come from a higher power or they are meaningless. If you want the freebie answer to how you work around the God given rights thing while still maintaining those rights and a belief in them, (I am assuming you believe in the inalienable rights of man) let me know. I have the perfect answer for you. I do not want you to go all Trotsky on us. If you do want the freebie answer to my inquiry it will save us a lot of time with the whole, “But Hitchens said X and [insert chapter 3 of the God Delusion].”
I surely hope that you are not accusing me of presenting a false dichotomy of “religion:good, nonbelief:bad” as I have presented no such thing. The options I present are “inalienable rights of man” vs. “government makes the rules”. And also “religion: good, non-belief: bad” is not even a dichotomy but rather just a set of opinions.
The big take away from the American system is not “We the People”. Inclusiveness is not the big thing that makes America great. The recognition of human flaw and the protection of God given rights from such flaws is the huge, glaring take away. The Constitution, to me, is a very religious document as it sets up the best system yet for man to use the agency that God gave him. The fact that we are both free to believe as we wish is a testimony to that free agency being protected here.
I cannot speak for the King and the intricate details of his reign, but I can speak for my plans. They may be a bit rough for a non-believer because my plans revolve entirely around something that cannot be proven to actually exist. I call it Charitism and it involves doing everything that you do out of love for others. I know, no one has ever seen love and it cannot be objectively observed but I believe it is real. There will be no money under my system. I imagine my devised system is not far off from what will actually happen.
Lot’s of economists don’t even know what money is, aside from what value we associate with certain products. It is an abstraction. It’s good to see that you will be able to redefine that abstraction to not call it “money”.
Also, you re-represented your false dichotomy when you’re saying such silliness as “How is there a right and a wrong if there is no God?” I mean seriously. Argumentum ad absurdum: No God means that you’re going to go out and rape, pillage, and participate in the barbarity commanded by prophets in Old Testament times? Give me a break, man.
Charitism requires no system of exchange. When receiving groceries at the grocery store no amount of return love is required. People may simply take food. There is no expected exchange. The society under Charitism will have removed expectations of getting something for what they give. No renaming of money is in it, but rather a dropping of it.
When you say ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ apparently you mean according to a societal code of conduct that people have regarding treatment of one another. With that in mind again I ask, whose right and whose wrong is ‘right’ or correct? When I say ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ I mean the actual right and wrong that removes questions of whether sharia law is right or not. The question of how is there right and wrong if there is no God is clearly valid. A Muslim man may be very convinced that sharia is ‘right’ when in actuality other societies know that it is ‘wrong’. Oh, but how can it be wrong or right when it is simply what their society has evolved into? A system of killing those who do not follow codes of conduct is a system that can help speed up the evolutionary process by weeding out those who are unable to adapt. That sounds right when viewed from a perspective of advancement of man. So how can it be that it is viewed as wrong by so many when it seems to be right? Is it because there is a set truth and ‘right’ which leads humans to do contrary to what will most quickly remedy societal ills or problems and would be a very effective and sure solution? What makes your version of ‘right’ better than someone else’s? Without a higher power to proclaim what is ‘right’ the answer to that question is ‘nothing’. I do not say that belief in a deity is necessary for morals or a code of conduct among our species. I say the input and assurance from God is necessary to know which set of morals among the many in the world is ‘right’. To view my statements through the lens of the way most non-believers might, which is through the view that I think non-believers are all immoral, is to grossly misunderstand and twist my words. There are many different systems of moral conduct in the world, as I have pointed out, but in any given instant individuals must choose only one to live by. If there is no Authority declaring which is actually ‘right’ then what do we do? We could go for sharia law or follow eugenics, as those could be and have been deemed by some to be ‘right’.
So once again you have accused me of using a false dichotomy and you are incorrect. I asked a question with many possible responses which is not presenting any kind of dichotomy let alone a false one. If I had said, “you must choose either there is a God who has set right and wrong or you must choose nothing is right or nothing is wrong” that would be a dichotomy. Instead I asked how it could be, and perhaps foolishly, expected a relevant response explaining your views on who decides what is actual ‘right’ or actual ‘wrong’ and does so with any binding authority. Surely there is a good answer to my inquiry that could spark further discussion.
The words right and wrong as I understand and use them mean the actual ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, as I believe no right or wrong can be declared without someone who has actually authoritatively affixed a correct or incorrect status to a behavior. Without a Creator as a source of such, then the highest power is chaos which by definition would not declare anything let alone a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ behavior. This would obviously mean that there is no correct or incorrect besides what men invent to themselves which makes it unclear as to who is ‘right’.
Also I must point out something wrong in your ad absurdum statement, “No God means that you’re going to go out and rape, pillage, and participate in the barbarity commanded by prophets in Old Testament times?” How would “no God” mean following his prophet? It was reductio ad absurdum until you threw in the part about following God’s prophet, then it became just absurdum. You were no longer taking the argument that you thought I was making (which I was not) and demonstrating its ridiculous nature after the second comma.
Your obsessive hatred of God has created a huge sidetrack here. The main point was to emphasize that government does not create rights and that a right can only be defined as such when it forces no one else into something. I guess you were not interested in the freebie answer for how to get your arch nemesis “God” out of the equation even though the founders put him right square at the top of it. I still want an answer for where you believe rights come from. So please, give me a break, man, or rather give it a break. And I would like to add the extra question to my list of inquiries for you, “Who decides what is actual ‘right’ or actual ‘wrong’ and does so with any binding authority?”
Or you could just come back with another argument against an argument that I was not making.
Two things: 1) It is not possible to hate something one thinks is, has been, and always will be a fantasy. I hate that people use such a concept as a cudgel, and I hate that people worry about a life to come when there’s a life right now that needs living to the best of one’s abilities. 2) I have already answered who decides right and wrong. People do. Perhaps it’s not as black and white as you would prefer it to be, but in reality no one follows any kind of right XOR wrong morality. Just as with your heaven, there are degrees of right and wrong on any number of infinite situations any given set of humans might find themselves in. I hope we could agree to that.
The issue about going back to Old Testament times is completely relevant. If God has to exist to make some kind of arbitrary human ethical code, then his nonexistence would imply your chaos. That seems to be your point. Yet we can observe in everything from crystals to the very eyes you read this text with that order does indeed come from chaos. Natural selection, survival of the fittest, and the evolution of human civilization from the barbarity of Moses, David, Caesar, Hitler, and etc. to a more “perfect union”.
Evolution, contrary to right-wing (and/or) religious propaganda is quite orderly and very, very capable of managing reasonable systems of human conduct. As sentient beings, we have the added ability to choose to go above and beyond the character of mere apes. But even if we act as mere apes, we would still have a mostly pleasant society.
So your nutshell answer is: Evolution. If you understood it as well as you understand your belief system, you also know that there is no apparent need for any kind of Creator to step in and fix the process (indeed, we can see where said Creator has NOT stepped in to do anything in the process–the formation of the retina being a prime example).
That being said, I think it’s fine that you think there needs to be a Creator to have morality and there needs to be such a thing to help evolution along. That’s great. I think it devalues what it means to be human, making us fallen angels instead of risen apes, but that is a choice you have made. It reflects your reality and it fits your worldview.
1) Wrong, I hate unicorns and I don’t believe in them.
1 b) When the life to come and the life now are connected there is no problem in living the now and thinking of the future. Your hatred of thoughts of afterlife seems misguided and based on a fundamental misunderstanding.
2) People do. Oh that is very clear. Who is right and why? Plainly you can see what I have said over and over that people have come up with more than one set of morals. Which set is right? And what makes your set more ‘right’ than other peoples?
Things are very black and white. Should I kill someone? No, clear as day. Each scenario has a subset with an equally black and white correct answer. Can I kill someone who is attacking me relentlessly? Yes, plain as the nose on my face. Every generic situation and its more specific subsets has a correct answer.
3) You seem to still vastly misunderstand what I have said about moral codes and the necessity of a God in creating them. I have said over and over that humans have made up their own systems and not that “there needs to be a Creator to have morality”. The Creator or Authority Figure is needed to have one system of morality be declared ‘right’ since man made systems do not match. If there is no Authority then none of them are ‘right’ and none of them are ‘wrong’ they just ‘are’. Again I will state that a higher authority is needed to declare one set superior or more ‘right’ than the others. If authority does not exist then chaos rules and chaos is, of course, chaotic.
It is also my contention that we cannot observe “that order does indeed come from chaos” because chaos and randomness do not exist. The eye that you are reading with was formed from elements that seem chaotic to us but in reality are very much not. Everything that exists physically was given laws to follow and to be constrained by. The higher the ability to disobey such laws the higher the reward for still following them anyway. Whatever system used to bring things into physical existence be it evolution or MaryPoppinsolution, it has order and laws given.
It seems you still misunderstand right and left wings. You may have meant creationists, which in my view are separate from intelligent design people. Regardless of that I have never seen any propaganda that says that evolution is disorganized.
Also if you understood evolution as well as you think you did you would know that we are not risen apes as apes and humans have common ancestry under evolution, and do not share a common line beyond that previously existing species. Evolution does not hold that man came from apes.
I prefer the term ‘baby gods’ to ‘fallen angels’ since technically the fallen angels are the other 1/3 who didn’t make the same choice you did. ‘Risen apes’ makes it all worthless and ignores my future as a being beyond the dimensions that we currently understand.
I guess you have decided that your rights are not inalienable as they can be changed or removed by people (unless you only meant they decide right and wrong and not ‘rights’). I prefer to go with the founders and believe that I and my progeny have the same rights that can never be taken away.
Freebie: Cicero
I hate your response because it makes all Mormons look ignorant and silly! How’s that for some “hate”, LOL.
Seriously though. It is astounding that you consider your counter-argument to be reasonable. I’m not an anti-theist any more than you are an atheist. Non-belief, doubts, and skepticism are not “hate”. That fact that you perceive them as such exposes a supreme emotional flaw in your attachment to these dogmatic ideas you embrace.
Just remember: Atheism is to religion what non-stamp collecting is to a hobby, or what a shaved head is to hair coloring.
As far as your other arguments, I appreciate the time you spent thinking about them and writing them, but that’s as it goes.
Regarding black-or-white thinking, freebie: Borderline personality disorder. (Which makes me wonder if there’s a brand of that psychological theory that applies specifically to politics and/or religion.)
It really is like you only read one word from anything I say and disregard or don’t comprehend the most important parts.
Non-belief, doubts, and skepticism are not “hate” but they also do not equal derision of other’s central beliefs. The sidetracks, biased words and even the projection of phantom arguments into mine where they did not exist, very much indicate that you have at least a dislike for God and religion. Pardon me if I used the word “hate” to describe your disdain, dislike, umbrage at mentions, aversion, disparagement …..(oops dropped my thesaurus) of that which I hold in the highest regard. When I teach my children you call it indoctrinating. When I pray to the God who created science you say I am being mystical and superstitious. When I follow a prophet you link it to rape and pillaging. You also imply that religious people are not free thinkers.
I find it astounding that you do not see how unreasonable your arguments are. Is it unclear to you how many times you have used language, in your arguments above, that is derisive to my core beliefs versus how I have not attacked your core beliefs but rather asked questions about them, wanting to know how you reconcile inalienable rights without a belief in God? I myself as a non free thinker already know how I would say that I had inalienable rights even if I had no belief in God. I wanted to know if you had thought about it, and if not, triggering thought is always nice. Do you not see that I made a post saying that there are set inalienable rights that cannot be changed and I set forth a good way to test what is a right and your reply was to say that parents can either indoctrinate children with religion or let them be free thinkers? Do you not see how it is unrelated to the topic and how it seems to have been injected by “a supreme emotional flaw in your attachment to these dogmatic ideas you embrace”? You then implied that I was advocating theocracy. Then you stated that my core beliefs have nothing to back them up when in fact they do but they are things that you personally don’t care about. You then injected the strange notion that I said that non-believers are all immoral, rapist cannibals. Then “ignorant and silly” even though it had an LOL it was still said and is still a form of ad hominem even if you laugh out loud. Then we can go to the improper diagnosis of borderline personality disorder which is much more extreme than just believing in right and wrong. Using your application we can say that a mathematician who is sure of his answers has it. How can you not see whose arguments have been more reasonable and free of logical fallacies?
I might go with the original hypothesis that you only see single words that I have written.
Gustav, you are in pain, and you blame God. Prove me wrong by letting it go.
That is too good for a comment. This is becoming a blog and I am grateful with every fiber of my being that you made that comment Fallen Angel. Kudos and my deepest gratitude.
See: http://gusonthought.blogspot.com/2010/03/non-believers-blame-god.html (I intend to have it finished shortly, since it’s a simple copy, paste, and edit of what I *was* going to post here.)