What is Religion?

Again, so what? Your argument stream seems to be a stream of consciousness.

 

yours are devoid history/etymology!

If natural rights do not exist the world obviously is wrong and you are right

If they dont exist, here in the US they have been usurped by the government!


Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789

Approved by the National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789

The representatives of the French people, organized as a National Assembly, believing that the ignorance, neglect, or contempt of the rights of man are the sole cause of public calamities and of the corruption of governments, have determined to set forth in a solemn declaration the natural, unalienable, and sacred rights of man, in order that this declaration, being constantly before all the members of the Social body, shall remind them continually of their rights and duties; in order that the acts of the legislative power, as well as those of the executive power, may be compared at any moment with the objects and purposes of all political institutions and may thus be more respected, and, lastly, in order that the grievances of the citizens, based hereafter upon simple and incontestable principles, shall tend to the maintenance of the constitution and redound to the happiness of all. Therefore the National Assembly recognizes and proclaims, in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, the following rights of man and of the citizen:

Articles:
1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.

2. The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.

3. The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation.

4. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.

5. Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law.

6. Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents.

7. No person shall be accused, arrested, or imprisoned except in the cases and according to the forms prescribed by law. Any one soliciting, transmitting, executing, or causing to be executed, any arbitrary order, shall be punished. But any citizen summoned or arrested in virtue of the law shall submit without delay, as resistance constitutes an offense.

8. The law shall provide for such punishments only as are strictly and obviously necessary, and no one shall suffer punishment except it be legally inflicted in virtue of a law passed and promulgated before the commission of the offense.

9. As all persons are held innocent until they shall have been declared guilty, if arrest shall be deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential to the securing of the prisoner's person shall be severely repressed by law.

10. No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.

11. The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.

12. The security of the rights of man and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those to whom they shall be intrusted.

13. A common contribution is essential for the maintenance of the public forces and for the cost of administration. This should be equitably distributed among all the citizens in proportion to their means.

14. All the citizens have a right to decide, either personally or by their representatives, as to the necessity of the public contribution; to grant this freely; to know to what uses it is put; and to fix the proportion, the mode of assessment and of collection and the duration of the taxes.

15. Society has the right to require of every public agent an account of his administration.

16. A society in which the observance of the law is not assured, nor the separation of powers defined, has no constitution at all.

17. Since property is an inviolable and sacred right, no one shall be deprived thereof except where public necessity, legally determined, shall clearly demand it, and then only on condition that the owner shall have been previously and equitably indemnified.

Avalon Project - Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789

Avalon Project - Hamilton's Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States : 1791

Avalon Project - Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England - Book the First : Chapter the Sixteenth : Of Parent and Child

 

Au contraire. Your the one who can't grasp that governments can and do create rights, as I think I showed in my citations.

Are they pink?

 

I have no further interest in a back and forth with you, since I think you've amply demonstrated to me it would be a waste of time. I'll just add some further thoughts in hopes that others might be interested, if there are any.

 

Like I said countless times any 'right' the government 'creates' is a privilege, what the gov createth the gov can taketh away.

Natural rights are NOT rights created by the government, they are expressed by people as the supreme law under which their chosen government is allowed to exist.

I asked you for citations otherwise so all that is on the table is evidence all the supporting evidence I posted.

Now now, naughty naughty quote mining is not nice!
Here is the rest of my post on unicorns that you omitted


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
https://www.natgeokids.com › animals › prehistoric-animals

 

well I may have more experience arguing con law than you anticipated.

So you are right about one thing, if you believe you can demonstrate your claims to be more correct than mine then yes, it will be a waste of your time.

I already told you to look up the spies case then there is also dyett and a few more

 

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 ...Jun 8, 2022

Declaration of Independence: A Transcription
https://www.archives.gov › declaration-transcript

The government exists to keep our declared rights secure, not the other way around!

All law is 'subject' first and foremost to our rights.

Our rights are 'above' any law the government can create.

If our rights are not then we have no rights! Only privileges that can be taken away at any whim!

 

...

 

your point? Link?

ARISTOTLE, ANTIGONE AND NATURAL JUSTICE on JSTOR

Rhetoric? As in philosophically supporting his arguments I presume.


What is a rhetoric in philosophy?

Article Summary. Rhetoric is the power to persuade, especially about political or public affairs.

Rhetoric - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
https://www.rep.routledge.com › articles › thematic › rhet...

Why the underline why do you bring that up in the first place?

 

We have rights as claims which parties subject to them must honor according to the civil law; e.g., contracts, copyright, etc.Those are rights, not privileges. Civil rights are rights enforceable in court. They aren't privileges. A privilege is a special benefit or permission granted to an individual or a group based upon status, class, rank, title, or special talent. e.g, executive privilege protection Presidents from disclosure of their personal conversations with advisors, attorney-client privilege, protecting conversations between lawyers and their client,etc.

 

Because I think the rhetoric of natural rights was important in rallying the colonists in the revolution, and still plays an important role in Fourth of July speeches. That's mainly what it is.

 

I said earlier that the word is polysemous.
The discussion is however inalienable versus granted rights. I have no deviated from that.
For the umpteenth time, so called rights granted under the government are privileges, law is subject to our unalienable rights. ~sigh

 

Nope brits came over here expecting them, no rhetoric required.

 

The rhetoric was required to justify the revolution. People about to risk their lives in battle usually need something to fire them up. Your bit about the Brist expecting them makes no sense, as usual.

For the umpteenth time, they're not. You can say it until you're blue in the face, and it won't make it so.

 

you have not posted any evidence to that effect.
I gave you a couple cases to make my point, did you look at them

 

Patriots outnumbered wealthy loyalists 3:1 and they took sides.

DK History: American Revolution





Natural law refers to laws of morality ascertainable through human reason. Moral philosophers have posited that such laws are antecedent and independent of positive, man-made law. The understanding of natural law is varied and complex, dependent upon the role morality plays in determining the authority of legal norms and rules. The relationship between natural law and the First Amendment is equally complex. In general, natural law, as a “higher” law, forms the foundation on which the First Amendment rests.

Natural law is the foundation for legal traditions

The medieval philosopher Thomas Aquinas was among those who concluded that a man-made law is valid only insofar as its content conforms to the content of the natural law. An unjust law is therefore not really a law. This gives individuals who believe that laws are unjust a way to oppose them. Religious beliefs have long been cited as justification for disobeying laws. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. invoked natural law in opposing racial segregation. (Public domain)


Natural Law By Dale Mineshema-Lowe

 

Natural Rights: By natural rights we mean those rights which were enjoyed by the people
even before the origin of the state. These rights were enjoyed by the people in the state of
nature. Such as,

1. Rights of life: From the ancient age people are living as a social being. The origin of
state was not invaded then. Keep his life it is the number one right of all. Not only
human being but also all the livings have this right. We should ensure this right to all.

2. Rights to property: One can have property & he has this right to secure his property.
Ensure the security of ones property is one of the major duties of the state.

3. Rights to freedom, etc. these rights people enjoyed before the origin of state, for this
these are the natural rights.


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

 

they are 'Reserved Rights' because we said no rights no freakin constitution no gov!

Almost Fatal Mistake

The omission of a bill of rights proved to be a mistake almost fatal to the Constitution. New York and several other states agreed to ratify with the promise that the First Congress would add rights to the Constitution through the amendment process. These states might have rejected the Constitution without the promise of a future bill of rights.

Ratification of the Constitution by New York, with proposed amendments, July 26, 1788, Records of the General Government
Why a Bill of Rights?

Why a Bill of Rights?

 

Two problems I see in the way you continue to develop this thread are: (1) the fact that it seems to be about natural rights and government, and it's in a thread in the Religion forum entitled "What is Religion?" and (2) the fact that you have been unwilling or unable to formulate the thesis or position that all of your posts are supposedly related to. The first problem means that people who might want to participate in the discussion on natural rights aren't aware that it's going on, buried in a topic on religion to which it has not apparent connection. The second problem makes it difficult to have a discussion with you, because it isn't clear what the discussion is about. You can continue to download articles on this or that topic related to the constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, etc,, until hell freezes over, but until you can explain clearly how it relates to a position, it's a waste of our time. I don't know whether or not you've noticed, but I started a new thread entitled "Natural Rights: Do they exist? Where do they come from? Are they relevant today? I did this to present a coherent discussion of the topic, free of the baggage of this thread. I've already given a pretty clear exposition of my thoughts on the subject. I'd welcome yours.

 

Hey you redirected it.