What is Religion?

Source? Once again, you're taking Fourth of July rhetoric too literally, and terms which are important conceptually as absolutes. The notion of "inalienable rights" is certainly an important part of the American constitutional tradition, and may be part of what Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe calls "The Invisible Constitution". Inalienable rights are identical to natural rights, and provided the rationale for the American Revolution. Natural Rights were central to the social contract theories of the seventeenth century, and while they were on the wane in the eighteenth century, they were still in vogue in 1776 in frontier colonies like the United States. Thomas Jefferson obviously lifted his ideas in the Declaration of Independence from the17th century English philosopher John Locke. Jefferson said humans were endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights. (Wait a minute. Wasn't he also the one who talked about a "wall of separation" between church and state?) Anyhow, these natural rights were supposed to be identifiable through reason. Jefferson said they included the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." This was wonderful rhetoric for rallying people during the war for independence. Is it more than that? R.H. Hemholtz, Natural Law in Court , argues that the natural law tradition left a lasting inprint on our constitutional and common law: the idea that the accused deserves person should be condemned without a day in court, that penalties should be proportional to the offense, or that self-preservation confers the right to self-defense against aggressors.

But today,natural law and rights based on it play virtually no role in the U.S, legal system. See Stuart Banner,The Decline of Natural Law: How American Lawyers Once Used Natural Law and Why They Stopped. The advent of legal positivism, legal realism and sociological jurisprudence eclipsed the earlier tradition of deriving law from reason and nature, as the Enlightenment went out of style. Jeremy Bentham , the English utilitarian philosopher who was around when the Declaration of Independence was signed, declared the notion of inalienable rights "nonsense on stilts". Justice Scalia contended that the Declaration of Independence ... "is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts". I think The Declaration has significance mainly as a foundational tradition, ideals widely accepted in the thinking of the American people. Something like it also seems to be embodied in the Declaration of Human Rights in international law.to which the U.S. adheres.

But what are these rights in practice? "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are vague. What is "life"? Does it include the unborn? When does it begin and end? Is there a right to die? In practice, these things are defined by governments, primarily state governments, but until recently, the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v Wade, overturned by the Dobbs decision, and in other decisions on the right to privacy, called into question by Clarence Thomas. Liberty? Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. In practice, again, it takes legislatures or courts to give tangible meaning to the right. As for "the pursuit of happiness", forget going to court on that one. There was a guy in our town who tried defending his marijuana arrest on that basis, without success. The Constitution is even more ambivalent on the subject. The closest it comse to the language of the Declaration of Independence is in the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protecting persons from being deprived of "life, liberty and property without due process of law. Again vague, and in practice defined by innumerable court decisions. The preamble promising to “secure the Blessings of Liberty” for all Americans provides rhetorical guidance to government officials and citizens, but the details remain to be worked out by the courts. The Ninth Amendment also contains language that some have interpreted as protecting "un-enumerated rights" such as parental rights over children and the right to privacy. The latter received a setback in the recent Dobbs decision, at least where a woman's rights to terminate a pregnancy is involved. Natural law is recognized these days primarily by the Catholic church and is no longer enforceable in U.S. Courts.

The bottom line is that whether or not such rights are prior to and superior to governments and courts, they have tangible force only to the extent that the latter recognize them. Of course, the remedy recommended by Locke and seconded by Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration, was insurrection. I wouldn't advise it--particularlyif based on your own half-baked subjective notions of tyranny and your rights. .

 

Congratulations you did a wonderful job burning the Bill of rights!

 

You mean the "Bill of Privileges?" (your characterization, not mine.) Not at all. I just brought them down to earth and into the twenty-first century: from the rhetoric of Fourth of July speeches and insurrectionist slogans to the reality of tangible constitutional provisions that are as good as the elected officials and their judges who implement them and the voters who elect said officials to office. That's all they are and all they ever were and the best we'll probably ever get. Good enough for me! They exist to the extent we believe in them and are willing to take action in political and juristic arenas to protect them.
https://www.academia.edu/9184277/Human_Rights_Are_Not_Inalienable_Unless_We_Make_Them_SoDo Inalienable Rights Exist? Part 2

Rhetoric has its uses, but is only as good as the reasoning behind it and the cause it supports.

NOW WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH RELIGION?
Do you think rights are some "brooding omnipresence in the sky" (to use a colorful phrase from Justice Holmes)? Where do these rights come from? Are there any accompanying responsibilities that go along with them? if those rights are truly inalienable, and God endowed them, why does the document say that "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"?

John O. Nelson (1989), "Are There Inalienable Rights?" Philosophy 64: 519-24.Are There Inalienable Rights? on JSTOR
https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/Valentini NYU Rights.pdf
Natural Rights Don't Exist | Brad Taylor
Human Rights Do Not Exist!
Natural Rights Don't Exist
James Coffin(2013). My Word: Inalieneable rights simply do not Exist" https://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/os-xpm-2013-06-26-os-ed-inalienable-rights-myword-062513-20130625-story.html
Do Inalienable Rights Exist? Part 1
Do Inalienable Rights Exist? Part 2

 

to create the worlds largest insurance company for the protection of our inalienable rights.

 

The bulk of your citations have utter nonsense buried in them.

"A duty or a right is natural if, and only if, it exists independently of
institutional or social recognition."

the conclusion if patently false.

https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/Valentini NYU Rights.pdf

 

My citations were admittedly quite bulky. Did you read them all? If so, I'd be happy to discuss each of them with you, especially the buried parts with what you think is utter nonsense. Otherwise, your assessment is simply invective, unsupported by argument. Shall we just take them off the top?

[QUOTE="Shy0ne, post: 9374253, member: 324635"]"A duty or a right is natural if, and only if, it exists independently of
institutional or social recognition."
the conclusion if patently false.[/QUOTE]What you provide is a sentence from one article. I assume this is supposed to be an illustration of patent nonsense.

https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/Valentini NYU Rights.pdf[/QUOTE]What the sentence says is that natural rights, by definition, are those which are given by nature or nature's God, not by human institutions. What's so nonsensical about that? (BTW, in my opinion, just about everything your say is utter nonsense, but I try to avoid invective if I can't back it up with evidence or argument).

 

Well, if your assessment that our government has been a tyrannical cabal of thieves and miscreants from at least 1819, they didn't do a very good job, did they. Correct me if I'd wrong, but the gist of what you've been saying about the "deep state" is that our government is illegitimate and has been so for quite some time. What's your solution? Another revolution?

 

While awaiting a reply, I thought I'd say some more about natural rights in the American political tradition. Natural rights are supposed to be "those that are not defined or dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture, tradition, rules, or government."What are Natural Rights? [2023] | Diversity & Social Impact Resources.

 

Ah, so your right to life magically turns into something other than natural once acknowledged by the gov?

Explain

 

closer to 1830 actually
over the cliff early 1900's
To the depths of hell in the 60's

 

I scanned them looking for junk arguments, if there is something you wish to put on the table feel free to do so.

Now now, I put up arguments, you dont address most of them.

Sure be my guest

Yes inalienable rights are natural rights, that preexisted any state.

Any so called right given by the state is a privilege.
The state can 'legitimately' take away any privilege, it cannot legitimately take away a natural right. We discussed this already.

 

Oh,no. That reading comprehension problem again. Read carefully. "Natural rights are supposed to be "those that are not defined or dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture, tradition, rules, or government.' Where does it say anything about life magically turning "into something other than natural once acknowledged by the goveernment".?

 

Mc Culloch v. Maryland was 1819.

 

English Bill of Rights 1689
An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown
Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster, lawfully, fully and freely representing all the estates of the people of this realm, did upon the thirteenth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-eight [old style date] present unto their Majesties, then called and known by the names and style of William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, being present in their proper persons, a certain declaration in writing made by the said Lords and Commons in the words following, viz.:

Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;

By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament;


By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed power;


By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the great seal for erecting a court called the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes;


By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative for other time and in other manner than the same was granted by Parliament;


By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law;


By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;


By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in Parliament;


By prosecutions in the Court of King's Bench for matters and causes cognizable only in Parliament, and by divers other arbitrary and illegal courses;


And whereas of late years partial corrupt and unqualified persons have been returned and served on juries in trials, and particularly divers jurors in trials for high treason which were not freeholders;

[Sounds hauntingly familiar! ]

And excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects;

And excessive fines have been imposed;

And illegal and cruel punishments inflicted;

And several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures before any conviction or judgment against the persons upon whom the same were to be levied;

All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm;

And whereas the said late King James the Second having abdicated the government and the throne being thereby vacant, his Highness the prince of Orange (whom it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from popery and arbitrary power) did (by the advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and divers principal persons of the Commons) cause letters to be written to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal being Protestants, and other letters to the several counties, cities, universities, boroughs and cinque ports, for the choosing of such persons to represent them as were of right to be sent to Parliament, to meet and sit at Westminster upon the two and twentieth day of January in this year one thousand six hundred eighty and eight [old style date], in order to such an establishment as that their religion, laws and liberties might not again be in danger of being subverted, upon which letters elections having been accordingly made;

And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare

That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;

That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;

That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;

That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;

That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;

That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;

That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;

That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;

That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;

That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;

And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.

And they do claim, demand and insist upon all and singular the premises as their undoubted rights and liberties, and that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premises ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example; to which demand of their rights they are particularly encouraged by the declaration of his Highness the prince of Orange as being the only means for obtaining a full redress and remedy therein. Having therefore an entire confidence that his said Highness the prince of Orange will perfect the deliverance so far advanced by him, and will still preserve them from the violation of their rights which they have here asserted, and from all other attempts upon their religion, rights and liberties, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster do resolve that William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, be and be declared king and queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging, to hold the crown and royal dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to them, the said prince and princess, during their lives and the life of the survivor to them, and that the sole and full exercise of the regal power be only in and executed by the said prince of Orange in the names of the said prince and princess during their joint lives, and after their deceases the said crown and royal dignity of the same kingdoms and dominions to be to the heirs of the body of the said princess, and for default of such issue to the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of her body, and for default of such issue to the heirs of the body of the said prince of Orange. And the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do pray the said prince and princess to accept the same accordingly.

And that the oaths hereafter mentioned be taken by all persons of whom the oaths have allegiance and supremacy might be required by law, instead of them; and that the said oaths of allegiance and supremacy be abrogated.

I, A.B., do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary. So help me God.

I, A.B., do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure as impious and heretical this damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or any authority of the see of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatsoever. And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.

Avalon Project - English Bill of Rights 1689


Like I said you failed to adequately account for the history.

 

In your own ideology. Your definitions of right and privileges aren't generally recognized. "A legal right is a claim recognizable and enforceable at law" [In re estate of FOLWELL, 68 N.J. Eq. 728, 731 (N.J. 1905). Rights can be created by statute:a “legal right” given to someone or entity through the enactment of laws by the legislative body or government.Statutory Right (Legal Definition And How It Works) Statutory rights can be taken away by the legislature by due process. They are not privileges. They impose corresponding duties on other parties to undertake or abstain from certain actions. For example, contract rights require parties to fulfill the terms of the contract. The rights listed in the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, are constitutional rights, not natural rights. They can be amended by the process specified in the constitution. It's unlikely that will ever happen, cuz there's so much popular support for them, but it's possible.

i.e.,if natural rights exist.

 

contextonomy fallacy

they exist by definition, therefore they are real

Only if they were usurped, maybe you have citations proving that inalienable rights are not natural.

 

Like I said, you fail to present an argument. What exactly is this supposed to show? That you can copy long passages? Do you think the U.S. adopted the English Bill of Rights? At best it was influential on the Framers' thinking, especially the idea that the monarchy is subject to the elected Parliament. But it isn't our law. And BTW, it isn't natural law, and has nothing to do with natural rights. These are customary rights of Englishmen. It was imposed by Parliament on the occasion of filling a vacancy in the British monarchy after the defeat of the last of the Stuart monarchs in the Glorious Revolution--as a precondition for the succession of William and Mary. So what?

 

you need to follow the argument stream. all you need do is read back its all posted for you.
Never said it was precisely 'OUR' law, that is your extreme conclusion.
Everyone who has done any constitutional history knows that its a fact that it was the template for 'OUR' law and very nearly with very small exceptions copy paste.

 

What do you think I took out of context. I gave you legal definitions.

Unicorns exist by definiition. Do you think they're real? I don't doubt that natural rights are an important part of our legal traditions. They just aren't the metaphysical absolutes you're making them out to be.

Oh there's no disputing inalienable rights are natural. But I have citations suggesting that neither of them exist.
John O/ Nelson (1989), "Are There Inalienable Rights?" Philosophy 64: 519-24.
James Coffin(2013). My Word: Inalieneable rights simply do not Exist" Top Orlando News, Weather, Sports, Entertainment - Orlando Sentinel - Orlando Sentinel
Natural Rights Don't Exist | Brad Taylor
Natural Rights Don't Exist

 

natural/inalienable rights v state privileges.
you seem to have great difficulty with that distinction.
yeh in fact if you research it you will find unicorns are real

Seems to me that you simply want me to do all your homework for you?

Is there a real unicorn in the world?





It's true – unicorns DO exist, they're just not quite the elegant, white ponies you imagined… A ground-breaking fossil discovery could prove that the extinct 'Siberian unicorn' lived much later than previously thought – walking the Earth with humans.

'Siberian Unicorn' walked Earth with humans | National Geographic Kids
https://www.natgeokids.com › animals › prehistoric-animals