I don’t get this at all. Where do you think that the Creator or the DOI gives you this right, or that the government is unlawfully restricting it?
If you would deny the woman the right to choose to be free from forcible sex, then it would be the same as the government denying your right to all of your freedoms. And a just government is instituted to protect this woman’s right from your intrusion.
I disagree. Take God out of the equation then where do these inherent rights come from and what makes them unalienable? If they are just a social construct, something that we all think is good, then we can just unthink it when it benefits us.
If God is part of the equation, the rights are clearly not inalienable. After all, what God gives, God can take away.
Your argument almost parallels the common fundie trope that atheists must be immoral because morals come from God.
With regard to what Newt was jabbering about, Americans clearly are exceptional when it comes to God-bothering.
Just don’t eat the raw formaldehyde-pickled liver. Unless you get the money up front.
Okay, but just about every presidential candidate engages in this to some degree; it’s part of the game of getting elected.
We can look at various metrics for gauging “exceptionalism” (and question them as you will) but really, “American Exceptionalism” is just another word for pandering to the public ego. If America is exceptional in anything, it’s vanity.
Right, God can. But any government that does so is illegitimate.
And, no I don’t believe the fundamentalist line that atheists cannot be moral. It’s just that they are standing on flimsier ground when they argue what is moral:
Atheist: Killing people is immoral.
Person: So says you, I think there is nothing wrong with it. Who is right, me or you? Since there is no higher power, we are both free to believe what we want.
compared with:
Believer: Killing people is immoral.
Person: So says you, I think it is fine.
Believer: No God says it’s immoral. You say it isn’t. The Creator of the universe wins, you lose.
The OP is confusing natural rights and legal rights. The OP seems to think the government “gave” us certain rights by writing them down in a document.
The government does give us rights. No one has any rights unless they are enforced by the society he lives in.
Stand in a jungle surrounded by snakes and pumas. Tell me how your right to life goes.
Rights are things we want and agree to give each other socially.
Except that somebody has to figure out which rights are Handed Down From On High and which ones are figments of the populace’s imagination, so we’re back where we started.
The sad part is you don’t seem to realize how ridiculous that statement sounds. Stand in the middle of the interstate in our current society and tell me how your right to life goes. Government protects natural rights. See the difference?
There is no such thing as a natural right.
There are no natural rights. The whole idea is mushy-thinking. If there were natural rights, why did it take so long to uncover them? What about differences on natural rights? Who decides what they are? What are the penalties to violating a natural right? Where is the official list of them?
The very idea is nonsense.
Rights are protected by society. If society decided you didn’t have a right to live past 40, guess what, you’d die at 40 or be an outlaw.
As for the highway, you’re agreeing with me. The right to life is based on society providing reasonable attempts to ensure your freedom to live. If you jump out a window, society can’t do anything.
I thought that was Julius Ceaser who said that.
I’m curious. I realize that America-bashing is the “cool” thing to do here, but what country do you think is superior to the USA and why?
Could you list out a few “natural rights” for us, yorick? Concrete examples, please- nothing abstract like “rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable”, please.
Not thinking we’re superior to everyone else isn’t the same as thinking we’re inferior.
At what? Practically every first world democracy has a better healthcare system than us. Ditto for income disparity. Ditto for education.
We’re better than every other country in overall wealth, military power, entertainment, cheap food.
And porn! Foreign porn… eurgh. We also have a disproportionate number of The World’s Dumbest Criminals, Wildest Police Chases, and Girls Gone Wild.
Well, I’m slightly relieved that you are only doubting the existence of natural rights as opposed to having no idea what you are talking about. I think you were born in the wrong society though. Your thinking is more in line with North Korea.
You know the Nazis as a society decided that certain groups should die an untimely death.
That is what is meant by a “natural right”. That is to say, you have an inherent right to life (and liberty and property) regardless of what society’s laws state. If society decides you should have your existence terminated because you have red hair, you would be justified in becoming an outlaw or even violently defending yourself.
Where it gets complicated is when you try to figure out what is society’s responsibility in ensuring and enforcing those rights. You have a right to life, but is it society’s job to provide round the clock protection? You have the right to property, but how should you be provided with it?
I think it was George Carlin who said something along the lines of: “Saying ‘America is the best country on earth’ is like saying ‘I have the best wife ever.’”
Witness **Rand Rover’s **testimony above.